Eating Pork is a Sin

[teacher]

Pork chops, bacon, tenderloin, sausage (patties and links), Canadian bacon, hot-n-spicy pork rinds, ham, pork hot dogs, the list is large. How could such a thing be a sin? MMMMMM...........Maybe it was a typo, you know, saddle not the pig, I see lots of people eating pork, no one riding them, maybe they got pig mixed up with horse, yes see, that makes much more sense.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Pork chops, bacon, tenderloin, sausage (patties and links), Canadian bacon, hot-n-spicy pork rinds, ham, pork hot dogs, the list is large. How could such a thing be a sin? MMMMMM...........Maybe it was a typo, you know, saddle not the pig, I see lots of people eating pork, no one riding them, maybe they got pig mixed up with horse, yes see, that makes much more sense.

Okay... except you don't see too many 15th century monks banging things out on Word...

 

[Montalban]

Okay... except you don't see too many 15th century monks banging things out on Word...

They use Apple?

Apple sauce, yes, with the pork

 

[teacher]

Pork chops, bacon, tenderloin, sausage (patties and links), Canadian bacon, hot-n-spicy pork rinds, ham, pork hot dogs, the list is large. How could such a thing be a sin? MMMMMM...........Maybe it was a typo, you know, saddle not the pig, I see lots of people eating pork, no one riding them, maybe they got pig mixed up with horse, yes see, that makes much more sense.

And tenderloin, and ribs, with BBQ sauce,

 

[teacher]

pig in a blanket, sweet and sour pork.......

 

[Soviet_Guy]

that's pretty good, funny thing, my Biology class was disecting fetile pigs today, they came from North Carolina, lol, I live in Canada by the way, so yeaaaaaaaah...................................................... :mrgreen:

 

[Binary_Digit]

By the way, have you noticed how willing I've been to recognize the good points you guys have made? Any chance I could get the same respect? I can't help but notice how the Cainan argument somehow got swept under the rug.

Sadly, your silence to these questions is the 'no' answer I was expecting. You're willing to twist facts, distort reality, and rewrite history. You're more interested in winning the argument than learning the truth. For that, you're in defiance of your own God, and I pity you. You make your religion look bad. Like so many other "Christians."

 

[Rev.]

Sadly, your silence to these questions is the 'no' answer I was expecting. You're willing to twist facts, distort reality, and rewrite history. You're more interested in winning the argument than learning the truth. For that, you're in defiance of your own God, and I pity you. You make your religion look bad. Like so many other "Christians."

Binary, I have responsibilities I have to meet. This board is what I do for fun in my "free" time. I can spend my free time researching OR posting the reply.

Sebastian made excellent points that were addressed to questions you had. Other points you have accussed me of ignoring I did in fact address. I also told you I would look into it further, which I am doing.

 

[Montalban]

Binary, I have responsibilities I have to meet. This board is what I do for fun in my "free" time. I can spend my free time researching OR posting the reply.

Sebastian made excellent points that were addressed to questions you had. Other points you have accussed me of ignoring I did in fact address. I also told you I would look into it further, which I am doing.

Rev you're very patient with that poster, who has done nothing here (last post written) but to attempt to flame.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Sadly, your silence to these questions is the 'no' answer I was expecting.

I have replied. I am willing to further debate with you on these matters.

You're willing to twist facts, distort reality, and rewrite history.

What facts have I twisted? What reality did I distort? You are comparing apples to oranges, you are attempting to prove the Bible irrelevent and uncohesive based on ignorant claims, and you have thus far shown yourself unwilling to reply to my latest post on this matter.

You're more interested in winning the argument than learning the truth. For that, you're in defiance of your own God, and I pity you. You make your religion look bad. Like so many other "Christians."

You must understand, it is not that I do not have a desire to know the truth. It is that your argument is nothing new to me. Do you really believe you are the first person that has brought up the issue of slavery to me in my time as a Christian? I have looked into it before, and come to the conclusions that I am putting before you. Your unwillingness to separate your agenda (proving the Bible incoherent) is blinding you from seeking to see the actual intentions of the writers, and the context in which these verses are found. I am not in defiance of God by attempting to show you the reliability of His words to us. And I am not giving Christianity a bad name. I am simply debating you on an issue that you feel was worthy of debate. And now you seem backed into a corner and that you are coming out swinging with ad hominem attacks.

 

[Binary_Digit]

And now you seem backed into a corner and that you are coming out swinging with ad hominem attacks.

Actually, it wasn't an ad hominem. It was an appeal to unacceptable consequence. Funny you should bring up logical fallacies though...

Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
Example 1: claiming you replied to the Cainan argument when you never did.
Example 2: "I'd also like you to address the many humerous errors you made with regard the US Civil War and slavery." But they were never addressed.

Equivocation: the same term is used with two different meanings.
Example: arguing as if slavery and endentured servitude are the same.

Amphiboly: the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations.
Example: "St. Paul says that in reality there are no slaves or free."

Inconsistency: asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true.
Example 1a: "To the contrary, the Bible NEVER tells a master to whip his slave (or servant) into submission."
Example 1b: "And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few."
Example 2a: "By definition slavery was a brutal, violent and dehumanising institution, where slaves were seen as akin to animals."
Example 2b: "It was not 'inherrently' brutal; though brutality happened."

False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar.
Example 1: the statement "will recieve many lashes" specifically condones oppressive slavery, but the statement "give unto Caesar" does not specifically condone Roman oppression.
Example 2: "Rev cited several biblical injunctions curbing that brutality." When those "injunctions" didn't curb that brutality at all.
Example 3: "Sebastian made excellent points that were addressed to questions you had." Is flat untrue. He basically said I have no evidence of beatings being common after I just posted evidence (another fallocy of exclusion), then he said beating slaves was ok because I'm ignoring the audience. These are not excellent points, they're just more logical fallacies.

And the most popular logical fallacy in this thread is:

Slothful Induction: the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary.
Examples galore over the last 8 pages.

I was happy to stick with attacking your arguments and not your persons. But you've shown such a blatent disregard for the obvious, and such a willingness to disregard facts in lieu of your opinions, that I have to wonder if your arguments are the only fallacious entity at work here.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Okay, now you have one incredible flaw in your argument. You are assuming that we are all speaking from the same person. We are seperate people arguing with you seperately. You cannot hold me accountable for the words of the others. Nor should you hold them accountable for my words.
As far as ignoring mounding evidence, your bonkers! You haven't made a forward step in your argument since it's beginning.

You have failed to show us that the slavery that is discussed in the OT is the same slavery as is discussed in the NT. You have failed to comment on your misunderstanding of Luke 12:47-48. You have failed to show that God ever intended for His people not to treat each other in love as equals in His eyes. And further more, your failure to prove that slavery was "encouraged" by the Bible, also results in failure for you to show that the message of the Bible is flawed.

 

[Montalban]

You have failed to show us that the slavery that is discussed in the OT is the same slavery as is discussed in the NT. You have failed to comment on your misunderstanding of Luke 12:47-48. You have failed to show that God ever intended for His people not to treat each other in love as equals in His eyes. And further more, your failure to prove that slavery was "encouraged" by the Bible, also results in failure for you to show that the message of the Bible is flawed.

Also statements were made by BDigit to the point that slavery was some sort of throw-away policy of Abe Lincoln's (against my asserition (backed with citations) that Christians were at the forefront of abolition)

I asked for proof of this and was given a generalist civil war site reference which meant searching through pages of material in order to find the evidence that 'proove' BDigit's statement.

When pressed for a more approprite reference BDigit ignored the posts.

 

[teacher]

Honey baked ham with raisin sauce.

 

[Rev.]

Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
Example 1: claiming you replied to the Cainan argument when you never did.

Page 5, post #49.

Equivocation: the same term is used with two different meanings.
Example: arguing as if slavery and endentured servitude are the same.

When there are more possible understandings of a word, one may introduce alternate definitions with documentation, which has been done here. You want to paint slavery with a very broad brush and paint it all "Ancient Rome" But "Ancient Hebrew" slavery is another color completely, a fact you refuse to acknowledge. Furthermore, since the Bible (except for select Epistles) was for the Jewish reader, the idea that it should address the issue of slave conditions in Ancient Rome is ludicrous.

Inconsistency: asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true.
Example 1a: "To the contrary, the Bible NEVER tells a master to whip his slave (or servant) into submission."
Example 1b: "And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few."

The difference between "will" and "shall" is the difference between a prediction and a command. There is NO command. Jesus is not saying "A master must beat his slave." He is simply saying what will happen. To rephrase in contemporary language: "An employee who knew his job description and did not follow it will be fired." There is no command there.

False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar.
...
Example 2: "Rev cited several biblical injunctions curbing that brutality." When those "injunctions" didn't curb that brutality at all.

When the governement makes laws against drunk driving, and people still drive drunk, you can't use that to support an arguement that our government legalizes (and more than that...COMMANDS!) drunk driving. When God makes laws regarding humane treatment of slaves, and people act brutally toward them, you can't use that as an arguement that God legalizes (and more than that...COMMANDS!) brutality toward slaves.

And the most popular logical fallacy in this thread is:

Slothful Induction: the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary.
Examples galore over the last 8 pages.

You do not have a stong arguement when you make accusations about what the Bible says and then support your arguement using facts about Ancient Roman culture. You do not have a strong argument when you make statements based on unorthodox interpretations of scripture. You do not have a strong arguement when your response to a well-researched rebuttal is "Yeah? well what about this....!" and send the thread off in a whole different direction.

I was happy to stick with attacking your arguments and not your persons. But you've shown such a blatent disregard for the obvious, and such a willingness to disregard facts in lieu of your opinions, that I have to wonder if your arguments are the only fallacious entity at work here.

The biggest problem with the facts you've presented is that they do not apply. I have addressed the issue...and you don't like it.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Okay, now you have one incredible flaw in your argument. You are assuming that we are all speaking from the same person. We are seperate people arguing with you seperately. You cannot hold me accountable for the words of the others. Nor should you hold them accountable for my words.

Do you disagree with anything Rev or Montalban said? You're all arguing the same thing. No, I don't hold their words against you or vise versa. My responses to them don't apply to you, unless you agree with them.

You have failed to show us that the slavery that is discussed in the OT is the same slavery as is discussed in the NT.

What's that got to do with anything? I've been quoting the NT as it pertains to slavery. Rev is the one quoting the OT, not me:

Exodus 21:20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished" (this was described by Rev as curbing brutality)

Exodus 21:26 "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye." (this was described by Rev as curbing brutality)

Exodus 22:21 "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt." (this isn't about slavery anyway, it's about foreigners)

Lev 25:39 " 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave." (this isn't about slavery, it's about endentured servitude)

And my response to this remains unanswered. I thought the OT laws don't apply anymore, so which is it? Do they still apply or don't they?

You have failed to comment on your misunderstanding of Luke 12:47-48. You have failed to show that God ever intended for His people not to treat each other in love as equals in His eyes. And further more, your failure to prove that slavery was "encouraged" by the Bible

The difference between "will" and "shall" is the difference between a prediction and a command. There is NO command. Jesus is not saying "A master must beat his slave." He is simply saying what will happen. To rephrase in contemporary language: "An employee who knew his job description and did not follow it will be fired." There is no command there.

These go together, so I'll address them together.

First, I asked why there are so many Biblical laws condemning this or that, but NO BIBLICAL LAWS CONDEMN SLAVERY.

Second, the contemporary phrase "An employee who knew his job description and did not follow it will be fired." encourages firing employees. Just like "will recieve many/few lashes" encourages corporal punishment of slaves. It's that simple.

Also statements were made by BDigit to the point that slavery was some sort of throw-away policy of Abe Lincoln's

When did I ever say it was a throw-away policy? I plainly stated that Lincoln was against slavery long before he was elected President. You asked why he seemingly decided on a whim to end slavery in the middle of the war, and I answered that he wanted more support from the American public. That's not a throw-away policy, it was his agenda all along.

I asked for proof of this and was given a generalist civil war site reference which meant searching through pages of material in order to find the evidence that 'proove' BDigit's statement. When pressed for a more approprite reference BDigit ignored the posts.

If you bothered to click "Causes of the Civil War" like I asked, not only would you find expert testimony supporting every word I said, but you would notice that THE URL DOES NOT CHANGE FROM THE MAIN PAGE LINK. It wasn't possible to link the exact sub-page, because the pages turn via JavaScript. See page 7 post 61 for the part you ignored.

Page 5, post #49.

And my unanswered reply is on page 5, post 50.

"But that is not the Biblical context in which the people are mentioned. They are quite clearly listed as grandfather -> father -> son. They are not listed as grandfather -> father and then later on grandfather -> son. Here's another way to look at it:

Luke says this:
a - b - c - d - e

Genesis and Chronicles say this:
a - b - d - e

Now, if b was the biological father of d, and was also the adoptive father of c, that would mean d is either the son of c, or d is the son of b, but not both. It cannot be both, because the context is a begat b, b begat c, c begat d, etc."

When there are more possible understandings of a word, one may introduce alternate definitions with documentation, which has been done here. You want to paint slavery with a very broad brush and paint it all "Ancient Rome" But "Ancient Hebrew" slavery is another color completely, a fact you refuse to acknowledge. Furthermore, since the Bible (except for select Epistles) was for the Jewish reader, the idea that it should address the issue of slave conditions in Ancient Rome is ludicrous.

Ignoring the fact that your endentured servitude examples come from the OT, and OT laws don't apply anymore, you're the one inappropriately painting slavery with a wide brush by assuming that slavery was humane since people sold themselves into and out of it. You're the one ignoring expert testimony that contradicts your vision of brutality in Roman slavery being the exception and not the rule:

"Owners thought of their slaves as enemies. By definition slavery was a brutal, violent and dehumanising institution, where slaves were seen as akin to animals."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancien...lavery_02.shtml

You do not have a stong arguement when you make accusations about what the Bible says and then support your arguement using facts about Ancient Roman culture.

I used facts about Ancient Rome to refute your idea that slave brutality was rare. It was not to support what the Bible says, it's painfully obvious what the Bible says without that support.

You do not have a strong argument when you make statements based on unorthodox interpretations of scripture.

You call it "unorthodox" because you can't accept the implications of the most obvious interpretation.

You do not have a strong arguement when your response to a well-researched rebuttal is "Yeah? well what about this....!" and send the thread off in a hole different direction.

Where did I do that?

The biggest problem with the facts you've presented is that they do not apply. I have addressed the issue...and you don't like it.

You have inadequately addressed the issue, so no, of course I don't like it.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Do you disagree with anything Rev or Montalban said? You're all arguing the same thing. No, I don't hold their words against you or vise versa. My responses to them don't apply to you, unless you agree with them.

Yes and no. We are basically all arguing th same thing. But I cannot be asked to respond to their points, even if I do agree with them, because I wasn't the one that came up with them.

What's that got to do with anything? I've been quoting the NT as it pertains to slavery. Rev is the one quoting the OT, not me:

If in fact you are only quoting the NT, then there is a good reason your argument holds no water. I'll get to that in a moment.

And my response to this remains unanswered. I thought the OT laws don't apply anymore, so which is it? Do they still apply or don't they?

To the Jews, they still apply. To me, they do not. But then again, I don't own a slave, so it is a non-issue isn't it?

These go together, so I'll address them together.

First, I asked why there are so many Biblical laws condemning this or that, but NO BIBLICAL LAWS CONDEMN SLAVERY.

You never asked this question. Your berade began by accusing the Bible of being in support of slavery, not that it never condemned it. BUT, there is a very logical explanation as to why the Bible never condemns slavery. Because the slavery in the OT was arguably nothing at all like slavery that involves mistreatment of the workers. And the slavery in the OT was performed by the Romans who were wealthy and powerful enough to own slaves. But no where in the Bible is anyone speaking to slave owning Romans. It would be a very odd thing for Jesus to one day turn to his fisher-men and tax collector apostles and say "Thou shalt not own slaves," cause they would have looked at each other and said "Who can afford that?" Furthermore, when the apostles are writing to Churches, notice that it is always that they are talking not to slave owners, but to slaves. It would be radically pointless for Paul to have said to a slave that he should not own slaves... He would have looked at Paul and said "No kidding!" If the Bible had ever addressed the wealthy slave owners, it might have spoken against slavery, but turns out most of them didn't really care to take part in the Christian message, so it just went without being addressed. That certainly does mean that it is condoned. Only that it is pointless to tell someone who can't do something not to do that thing.

Second, the contemporary phrase "An employee who knew his job description and did not follow it will be fired." encourages firing employees. Just like "will recieve many/few lashes" encourages corporal punishment of slaves. It's that simple.

No. It is simply stating what WILL happen. Not what should happen. It is speaking the obvious. It is making an example of what is unaviodable in the Roman style of slavery. Does it condone that thorugh that verse? Not at all. It is simply stating what will happen. But, it seems we have a difference in understanding this verse. Why don't you show us another couple of verses where Jesus tells a slave owner it is okay for him to beat his slaves?

 

[Binary_Digit]

You never asked this question.

See, this is what I'm talking about. You're obviously just skimming over my posts without actually considering what I'm saying. This is like the fourth time one of you has claimed I (or the Bible) never said this or that, when it's right there staring you in the face.

Here's where I asked that question in post 53:

"There are hundreds of laws in the Bible prohibiting this and that behavior. But the only guidance the Bible has to offer regarding slavery doesn't prohibit it, instead it says things like this:

"And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few." - Luke 12:47-48

This is God's will?"

Here's where I asked the question AGAIN in post 57:

"Hundreds, if not thousands, of laws and teachings that supposedly express God's will. A good number of human behaviors are prohibited throughout the Bible. Why not slavery?"

Yeah, I never asked that question. What BS! And you guys wonder why I question your motives. Well there you go.

Yes and no. We are basically all arguing th same thing. But I cannot be asked to respond to their points, even if I do agree with them, because I wasn't the one that came up with them.

Like I said, my responses to them don't apply to you, unless you agree with them. So if you didn't say what I'm responding to, then you don't have to answer my response.

To the Jews, they still apply. To me, they do not. But then again, I don't own a slave, so it is a non-issue isn't it?

It's not a non-issue because Rev brought it up as a weak defense of Roman slavery. I guess consider this a question that doesn't apply to you, because Rev is the one who made the assertion.

But no where in the Bible is anyone speaking to slave owning Romans.

Then WHO is Jesus speaking to in Luke 12? The tooth fairy?

It would be a very odd thing for Jesus to one day turn to his fisher-men and tax collector apostles and say "Thou shalt not own slaves," cause they would have looked at each other and said "Who can afford that?"

What a copout. You are suggesting that God's humanitarian laws are dictated by man's convenience.

Furthermore, when the apostles are writing to Churches, notice that it is always that they are talking not to slave owners, but to slaves.

Are you high? Is Luke 12 telling SLAVES how many lashes other SLAVES should recieve? No, it's speaking directly to slave owners. Yet again you conveniently forget certain facts.

If the Bible had ever addressed the wealthy slave owners, it might have spoken against slavery, but turns out most of them didn't really care to take part in the Christian message, so it just went without being addressed.

This has to be the most ridiculous assertion yet. It wasn't addressed because they weren't going to follow it anyway? Are you seriously saying this?

No. It is simply stating what WILL happen. Not what should happen. It is speaking the obvious. It is making an example of what is unaviodable in the Roman style of slavery.

So I guess when Jesus says "do unto others" he's actually saying what WILL happen and not what SHOULD happen? Give me a break.

Why don't you show us another couple of verses where Jesus tells a slave owner it is okay for him to beat his slaves?

I shouldn't have to. Luke 12 is still on the table, and your red herring is inappropriate.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Okay, let's try to look at Biblical slavery once more. The main question seems to be whether it is condoned or just simply acknowledged as part of reality. It's the difference between "will" (a prediction) and "shall" (a commandment).

_____________________________________________________________
On Luke 12

These statements:

"And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few." - Luke 12:47-48

are taken as what will happen, but not necessarily what SHOULD happen. Actually, it's assumed that Jesus did not mean it should happen. Based on his other teachings, this seems like a reasonable assumption.

But the only way to be sure of that is to compare with the other things Jesus was saying at the same time:

"But there is nothing covered up that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known." - Luke 12:2

"Accordingly, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in the inner rooms will be proclaimed upon the housetops." - Luke 12:3

"And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will confess him also before the angels of God; but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him." - Luke 12:8-10

So the question is, are all of these predictions of what WILL happen, or what SHOULD happen? Is Jesus simply acknowleging the fact that everything is known to God, or is he encouraging the idea at the same time? Is he simply acknowleging the fact that blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is wrong, or is he encouraging the idea at the same time? The context of his preceding words gives every indication that he condones these ideas, he's not just acknowleging what IS in spite of what SHOULD BE. So in this way, Jesus is condoning slavery just as he condones these other things.

_____________________________________________________________
On Ephisians

These statements:

"Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ;" - Ephesians 6:5

are taken as acknowlegment of what IS, but not necessarily what SHOULD BE. The only way to know for sure is to look at the surrounding verses and consider the context.

"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right." - Ephesians 6:1

"HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER (which is the first commandment with a promise), SO THAT IT MAY BE WELL WITH YOU, AND THAT YOU MAY LIVE LONG ON THE EARTH." - Ephesians 6:2-3

"Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." - Ephesians 6:4

"Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might." - Ephesians 6:10

The commandment to slaves, to be obedient to their masters, is smack in the middle of these other moral guidelines. To say this only acknowledges slavery, but does not condone it, is to say this only acknowledges having strength in the Lord, BUT DOES NOT CONDONE IT.

_____________________________________________________
On 1 Timothy 6

These statements:

"All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against." - 1 Timothy 6:1

are taken as acknowlegment of what IS, but not necessarily what SHOULD BE. Honestly, how this interpretation could be realized escapes me. This is plainly stating what should be, that slaves SHOULD BE OBEDIENT. In my wildest dreams, I can't understand how this is NOT condoning slavery.




So, just focusing on this premise, how does the Bible only acknowledge slavery, and doesn't condone it in any way? This is the argument that keeps coming up, so let's try to concentrate on this one premise for now. Without ignoring the verses above, how does the Bible only acknowledge slavery and not condone it?

 

[sebastiansdreams]

See, this is what I'm talking about. You're obviously just skimming over my posts without actually considering what I'm saying. This is like the fourth time one of you has claimed I (or the Bible) never said this or that, when it's right there staring you in the face.

Here's where I asked that question in post 53:

"There are hundreds of laws in the Bible prohibiting this and that behavior. But the only guidance the Bible has to offer regarding slavery doesn't prohibit it, instead it says things like this:

"And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few." - Luke 12:47-48

This is God's will?"

Here's where I asked the question AGAIN in post 57:

"Hundreds, if not thousands, of laws and teachings that supposedly express God's will. A good number of human behaviors are prohibited throughout the Bible. Why not slavery?"

Yeah, I never asked that question. What BS! And you guys wonder why I question your motives. Well there you go.

Okay, these questions appeared while I was away (notice in that period that I went a long while without posting). However, what you stated is that FIRST you asked that... And that is now how you started your argument. You began the argument by saying that the Bible condones slavery. And that is not a question, but a statement. To seperate issues.

Like I said, my responses to them don't apply to you, unless you agree with them. So if you didn't say what I'm responding to, then you don't have to answer my response.

Fair enough, I'll leave it to them to discuss.

It's not a non-issue because Rev brought it up as a weak defense of Roman slavery. I guess consider this a question that doesn't apply to you, because Rev is the one who made the assertion.

I could be incorrect, but I don't think she had made the seperation between Roman slavery and Hebrew slavery either.

Then WHO is Jesus speaking to in Luke 12? The tooth fairy?

Well, if you would simply read the entire passage you would have known this. He is talking to Peter, a fisherman who certainly would not have owned slaves at this time.

What a copout. You are suggesting that God's humanitarian laws are dictated by man's convenience.

No. I'm simply stating that Jesus didn't say what He said to the void. If Jesus was speaking, He was addressing His audience. In this case, the audience was Peter the fisherman and apostle. There is absolutely no reason to believe that he ever owned a slave. Remember who he was preaching to. Jesus never spoke directly to Roman slave onwers. After all, he was a man from Nazareth, what would a Roman with property be doing talking to a man from Nazareth? Jesus when going through "humanitarian laws" did not speak of things that his audience had no ability to do. Rather, He simply spoke directly to them. And we learn God's will from what He spoke directly to these people. But remember, He was not speaking to us, He was speaking to them. However, the Holy Spirit now speaks to us.

Are you high? Is Luke 12 telling SLAVES how many lashes other SLAVES should recieve? No, it's speaking directly to slave owners. Yet again you conveniently forget certain facts.

Where do you see Roman slave owners listening to Christ?

41 "Lord," Peter asked, "are You telling this parable to us or to everyone?" 42 The Lord said: "Who then is the faithful and sensible manager whom his master will put in charge of his household servants to give them their allotted food at the proper time?

You see? He is speaking to Peter, not slave owners.

This has to be the most ridiculous assertion yet. It wasn't addressed because they weren't going to follow it anyway? Are you seriously saying this?

No, no that's not what I was saying at all. I was showing you that Jesus is always speaking to an audience, and the Roman slave owners where never His audience. Too many people have this idea that the Bible was written as a message to all the world for all generations. But it was not. For the most part, it was written to a specific people at a specific point in time. We can look back on it now and see God's will, because God's will is made evident through these correspondances, BUT, that does not mean that every word that was spoken in the Bible is spoken to everyone in the world for all times. It is a message to those being addressed.

So I guess when Jesus says "do unto others" he's actually saying what WILL happen and not what SHOULD happen? Give me a break.

Of course not. He is telling people that they should do unto others as they would have others do unto them... what is your point?

I shouldn't have to. Luke 12 is still on the table, and your red herring is inappropriate.

Due to your own slothful induction of this passage, I was going to allow you to revive your case.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

So the question is, are all of these predictions of what WILL happen, or what SHOULD happen? Is Jesus simply acknowleging the fact that everything is known to God, or is he encouraging the idea at the same time? Is he simply acknowleging the fact that blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is wrong, or is he encouraging the idea at the same time? The context of his preceding words gives every indication that he condones these ideas, he's not just acknowleging what IS in spite of what SHOULD BE. So in this way, Jesus is condoning slavery just as he condones these other things.

The problem with this argument is that you are trying to make rules out of semantics. Just because something applies some of the time, does not mean that it must apply all of the time. Yes, you can learn from past examples, but you must realize they are past examples, and that this is a new statement. In other words, sometimes I make a statement of things that will be that also suggest what should be. And sometimes I make statements of what will be, whether I agree with the outcome or not. For instance, if I had said that Micheal Jackson will get off, that does not necesarlly mean I condone him getting off. Only that it will happen. But if I say that child molester will go to jail. I am not stating only what will happen, but what should happen. We speak in variation. And you cannot make a law from semantics in that instance.

"Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ;" - Ephesians 6:5

The commandment to slaves, to be obedient to their masters, is smack in the middle of these other moral guidelines. To say this only acknowledges slavery, but does not condone it, is to say this only acknowledges having strength in the Lord, BUT DOES NOT CONDONE IT.

This commandment to slaves does not condone slavery. This is similar to saying that because he offers that children should obey their parents that it is encouraging parents to have children. While He may encourage parents to have children, that is certainly not arrived at in this context. Furthmore, it is no surprise that He preaches submissive behavior. Look at the life of this man. He was beaten and hung on a cross for a crime He did not commit. Do you think that He approved of the actions of the Jewish leaders and the Roman soldiers? But He never lifted a hand to stop them. This man tought submissive behavior, even in the face of cruel tyrany. Just because He is commanding that slaves be submissive does not mean that He approves of slavery, just as I am sure that He did not approve of the cruel punishment He endured and submitted to. The same goes for Peter and Paul, as they were both inprisioned for preaching the gospel. They did not approve of the Romans imprisioning them for spreading the word, but they submitted to it none the less.

On 1 Timothy 6

"All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against." - 1 Timothy 6:1

are taken as acknowlegment of what IS, but not necessarily what SHOULD BE. Honestly, how this interpretation could be realized escapes me. This is plainly stating what should be, that slaves SHOULD BE OBEDIENT. In my wildest dreams, I can't understand how this is NOT condoning slavery.

CONSIDER THE AUDIENCE! He is not speaking to the owners of slaves, but rather the slaves. To tell the slaves here that slavery should not be, would be absolutely ridiculous. They all know at this point that Roman slavery is cruel and should not be happening. But instead of commanding them to violently rise up and attempt to overthrow their masters through aggression, it tells them to be good servants. To show love, even to those that would treat them cruelty. Kill them with kindness. Do not show your anger or hatred towards owners, as they too are God's creation. But rather, love them, inspite of what they put you through. Obey them, and do not get yourself beaten or killed. This is your place in life for now, find joy in your heart, and you will be fulfilled, and blessed when this life is over. Again, if the author were writing to the Roman slave owners, the tune would have be considerbly different. But it seems it is the slaves that were listening to him, so he addressed them.

So, just focusing on this premise, how does the Bible only acknowledge slavery, and doesn't condone it in any way? This is the argument that keeps coming up, so let's try to concentrate on this one premise for now. Without ignoring the verses above, how does the Bible only acknowledge slavery and not condone it?

Because there is no references made to slave owners. Telling a group of people that do not have slaves, or that are slaves, that slavery is wrong, is absolutely pointless. It's like telling me that having a mansion is wrong. I would simply shrug and say "heh, not a problem."

 

[Binary_Digit]

Thank you Sebastiandreams. Your last 2 posts clear up a lot of things, I was really confused about the arguments you guys are making. I still don't agree yet, but now your positions make a LOT more sense.

Okay, these questions appeared while I was away (notice in that period that I went a long while without posting).

I can see how that was an honest mistake. No harm, no foul.

However, what you stated is that FIRST you asked that... And that is now how you started your argument. You began the argument by saying that the Bible condones slavery. And that is not a question, but a statement. To seperate issues.

Ya, I raised the question after saying that in a previous post, kindof as a suppliment to my point.

I could be incorrect, but I don't think she had made the seperation between Roman slavery and Hebrew slavery either.

The separation happened when she listed OT scriptures curbing slave brutality, when we were talking about slavery in the NT. (and after she asserted that OT laws had expired after Paul wrote Galations)

Well, if you would simply read the entire passage you would have known this. He is talking to Peter, a fisherman who certainly would not have owned slaves at this time.

Hmm...I gathered that Jesus was talking to a crowd of thousands. First he started out talking to his disciples:

"Under these circumstances, after so many thousands of people had gathered together that they were stepping on one another, He began saying to His disciples first of all, " Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy." - Luke 12:1

But he was talking to the crowd after this verse:
"Then He said to them, "Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions."" - Luke 12:15

I guess I'm assuming there were slave owners in that crowd. Is there any reason to believe there weren't? I guess that's an important thing to establish as it directly relates to considering the audience. You say Roman slave owners were never Jesus' audience, are we sure that's true?

No. It is simply stating what WILL happen. Not what should happen. It is speaking the obvious. It is making an example of what is unaviodable in the Roman style of slavery.

So I guess when Jesus says "do unto others" he's actually saying what WILL happen and not what SHOULD happen?

Of course not. He is telling people that they should do unto others as they would have others do unto them... what is your point?

Well, I guess I'm having a hard time accepting the idea that the Roman style of slavery was "unavoidable", when Jesus rarely held back when it came to promoting social change. That's why they killed him, he was a threat to the government because of his growing popular support (correct me if I'm wrong, I believe that was Pilate's main motive). He condemned so many other things, right down to promoting the death penalty for calling someone a fool (Matt. 5:22). Yet he never took the opportunity to say that slavery is wrong. Or if he did, it's not in the Bible. I can't make sense of that.

Too many people have this idea that the Bible was written as a message to all the world for all generations.

That's a good point. But it brings up the same dilema - the Bible teaches against so many other things, how could slavery be "ok" for some people at certain times? Whether it involves regular beatings or not, would YOU want to be a slave in ancient Roman or Hebrew times? I sure as heck wouldn't. What kind of being do we have to imagine God is, in order for it to make sense that slavery was ever ok in His eyes?

In other words, sometimes I make a statement of things that will be that also suggest what should be. And sometimes I make statements of what will be, whether I agree with the outcome or not. For instance, if I had said that Micheal Jackson will get off, that does not necesarlly mean I condone him getting off. Only that it will happen.

Okay, I can see how that relates to Luke 12. But if you make that prediction in the midst of several other predictions which you DO support, like Jesus did here, doesn't that imply something you didn't mean to imply? Maybe that's the wrong message I'm getting...

"Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ;" - Ephesians 6:5

This commandment to slaves does not condone slavery. This is similar to saying that because he offers that children should obey their parents that it is encouraging parents to have children.

Good analogy. But consider it the other way: by telling children to obey their parents, Jesus is not condemning having children. So in that way it is indirectly supported.

"All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against." - 1 Timothy 6:1

CONSIDER THE AUDIENCE! He is not speaking to the owners of slaves, but rather the slaves. To tell the slaves here that slavery should not be, would be absolutely ridiculous.

True, Paul is speaking directly to the slaves in that verse. Actually, he is speaking directly to Timothy in the whole book. But isn't it reasonable to believe slave owners would someday read it? And when they do, how do you think they would interpret it? Is it their fault for reading something that wasn't intended for them, and then drawing the most logical conclusion from it?

 

[Soviet_Guy]

Uhh.....you people need a more fulfilling life.
BACON!

 

[Binary_Digit]

You mean one like yours? :2wave: :rofl

 

[Montalban]

Uhh.....you people need a more fulfilling life.

This is one instance I agree with BDigit. If you don't want to debate, then go play billiards, or something.

As ti BDigit, I would still like you to tell me why you think one set of statements about slavery are 'condoning' it, but a statement from Jesus about supporting the state that makes slavery law, is not condoning it, or any other brutal aspect of the state.