-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
-
Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.
Eating Pork is a Sin
- Thread starter Binary_Digit
- Start date
- Joined
- May 21, 2005
- Messages
- 9,153
- Reaction score
- 9,270
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Quertol said:
^^ what Quertol said.
Telling slaves to be obedient to their masters is like telling women to be submissive for their rapist. It encourages wrongdoing by encouraging the victims to be victims.
Taxes to Caesar went toward public good too, not just toward funding oppression. Keeping the streets clean, maintaining the infrastructure, public safety, etc.
- Joined
- May 21, 2005
- Messages
- 9,153
- Reaction score
- 9,270
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
One point you made that I kindof missed, Sebastian:
I indirectly addressed this in part with my other post, that Jesus was talking to the crowd of thousands. Verse 15 says "then He said to THEM: ", and Jesus keeps talking until Peter asks the question in your quote above. Which, by the way, Jesus didn't answer. He kept talking to THEM.
- Joined
- May 21, 2005
- Messages
- 9,153
- Reaction score
- 9,270
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
"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;" (NAS)Quertol said:
"Servants, be obedient unto them that according to the flesh are your masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; " (ASV)
"Servants, do what is ordered by those who are your natural masters, having respect and fear for them, with all your heart, as to Christ;" (BEB)
"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;" (KJV)
It tells slaves to be obedient to their masters.
- Joined
- May 21, 2005
- Messages
- 9,153
- Reaction score
- 9,270
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Sorry, I thought you said, "It only tells the slave not to be rebellious..." in response to my, "Telling slaves to be obedient to their masters...". What did you mean by, "It only tells the slave not to be rebellious..." then?Quertol said:
Stop looking through the stained glass of conservatism. Are you gonna call me "poopy pants" too? But thanks, I needed the laugh! :lol:
Last edited:
Aleem
Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 112
- Reaction score
- 7
- Location
- Egypt
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Qur'an says in Surah(Chapter) of Al-Anaam(The Cattle) : Verse 145 :
"Say: "I find not in the message received by me by inspiration any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine,- for it is an abomination - or, what is impious, (meat) on which a name has been invoked, other than Allah.s". But (even so), if a person is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- thy Lord is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."
...
"Say: "I find not in the message received by me by inspiration any (meat) forbidden to be eaten by one who wishes to eat it, unless it be dead meat, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine,- for it is an abomination - or, what is impious, (meat) on which a name has been invoked, other than Allah.s". But (even so), if a person is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- thy Lord is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."
...
S
sebastiansdreams
Firstly, I wanna say sorry this reply took so long. I have been very busy this weekend and wanted to give this the attention it deserved. Now, that being said... here we go:
After re-reading it, it seems this way. I think in the verses we are looking at, it would appear that Christ is directing this at Peter directally, and the other eleven disciples indirectly. The reason I say this is in verse 22 it mentions He says "this" to his disciples. Then, in verse 41 Peter asks if He is saying this to the crowd (body A) or "us" (body B). Now, I think we can assume that body B is the disciples (since in verse 22 it seperates disciples from crowd). It seems that the versed directly after 41 are an indirect response to Peter's inquiry. Furthermore, in verse 54 it says that He "also says to the crowd." Which I think implies that He is now addresing the crowd as He was earlier.
I know this is all very ambigious. But as an English major looking at various other texts both in the Bible and some other sorts of literature that are similar to this, that is how I would best guess this piece to be looked at.
Now, as for the crowd having any Roman slave owners: I would be absolutely amazed if it did. Firstly, we have to look at the social structure of the places Christ is traveling. These are towns around Judea. There is no reason for Roman citizens to be living in or around Judea. Furthermore, the crowds of people that followed Christ were not the rich slave owning type. Look at his messages and the people they always tend to direct. Not only that, but look at the countless people that we are told come to Christ. In all of these cases, I can only think of one case in which a rich person ever came to Christ, and Christ told Him to sell all His possesions.
While I suppose anything is possible. The likelihood of their being a Roman slave owner in a crowd following Christ is about the likelihood of an African American being at a KKK meeting.
But the key is that everytime He was speaking for change, it was always directed at those who had the power to make that change. He overturned the temple in front of the ones corrupting it. He told the rich to sell what they had. He told the Phariseese that they were obsessed with the law to the point of not being able to see God's will. He was always about change in the name of the Father. But, He was not just an idealist. He did not speak of what ought to be as though it were to the void, rather He directly told His audience, whoever they were, what to change. And I think that if He were to confront a Roman slave owner, He probably would have said something to the affect of let them free. But, as far as we are told, He never confronted a Roman slave owner in His life. Also, we can not assume that every word that Jesus ever spoke is in the Bible. It is possible that He did say it, and that the message was not written down because there was never an audience for it during the lives of those writing the gospels.
Because regardless of slavery's past, we do not know what Hebrew slavery was like. In fact, most translations of the Bible don't refer to them as slaves or slave owners, but rather masters and servants. There is a possibility that this is a completely different form of "servitude." I mean, lets face it, we still have forms of slavery now. We call it minimum wage. Granted, the person isn't owned, per se, but there are contracts and contractors. There are people working in production under a company owner. The boardering rules have changed a bit, but the functions are the same. The problem with slavery is that it got to a point where it was assumed that the slave was a lesser person, and that abuse was necessary. That was the reasons for our ending slavery. However, if those two factors where not present in this type of slavery, and we have no way of knowing one way or another, then slavery, in and of itself (without these factors) is no more a negative establishment than free market with minimum wage.
Not necessarly. I do not think it would have been a mixed message to His audience, because again, the condemning of slavery would have been a "no duh" issue for most of them.
This is where you and I will have to dissagree. I simply am not under the impression that just because you do not preach against something to people that have no influence over that establishment, does not mean that you are agreeing to it. You must remember, Christ was expected to lead a physical revolution against Rome. He is being followed by people who are just waiting for Him to give the word to begin the war revolution to overturn Roman occupancy in Judea. But Christ was not concerned with the physical overturning of Rome. He did not concentrate on the social ills of the world as much as you suggest. Rather, He concentrated on the ills of the soul. He was in the process of beginning a revolution. But not one against Roman occupancy, rather, against the a life of hopelessness and an eternity apart from God.
These people needed nothing more than to be told to rise up against Rome for them to jump into action. To which they would have been slaughtered. Jesus was aware of this. Rather, He taught them to be obidient in a time of opression, but to be joyfull, and content in your heart. Kill them with kindness you might say.
Certainly not. He was writing this to Timothy and the the Church. At this point, again we have no reason in the world to believe that church would include Roman slave owners. But even still, the letter was to Timothy and it would be Timothy that led the church in this direction. I doubt Paul ever believed anyone would again see it, and never in his wildest dreams would people 2000 years later be reading it for guidance in their own life. And while yes, we can use these letters to understand and further our knowledge in the will of God, we still must be aware of the fact that in the end, this is nothing more than one letter from one man to another. It was not meant to be anything more than that. God used it for that purpose, but when speaking of the audience Paul intended, the audience was Timothy and Timothy alone.
Binary_Digit said:
After re-reading it, it seems this way. I think in the verses we are looking at, it would appear that Christ is directing this at Peter directally, and the other eleven disciples indirectly. The reason I say this is in verse 22 it mentions He says "this" to his disciples. Then, in verse 41 Peter asks if He is saying this to the crowd (body A) or "us" (body B). Now, I think we can assume that body B is the disciples (since in verse 22 it seperates disciples from crowd). It seems that the versed directly after 41 are an indirect response to Peter's inquiry. Furthermore, in verse 54 it says that He "also says to the crowd." Which I think implies that He is now addresing the crowd as He was earlier.
I know this is all very ambigious. But as an English major looking at various other texts both in the Bible and some other sorts of literature that are similar to this, that is how I would best guess this piece to be looked at.
Now, as for the crowd having any Roman slave owners: I would be absolutely amazed if it did. Firstly, we have to look at the social structure of the places Christ is traveling. These are towns around Judea. There is no reason for Roman citizens to be living in or around Judea. Furthermore, the crowds of people that followed Christ were not the rich slave owning type. Look at his messages and the people they always tend to direct. Not only that, but look at the countless people that we are told come to Christ. In all of these cases, I can only think of one case in which a rich person ever came to Christ, and Christ told Him to sell all His possesions.
While I suppose anything is possible. The likelihood of their being a Roman slave owner in a crowd following Christ is about the likelihood of an African American being at a KKK meeting.
But the key is that everytime He was speaking for change, it was always directed at those who had the power to make that change. He overturned the temple in front of the ones corrupting it. He told the rich to sell what they had. He told the Phariseese that they were obsessed with the law to the point of not being able to see God's will. He was always about change in the name of the Father. But, He was not just an idealist. He did not speak of what ought to be as though it were to the void, rather He directly told His audience, whoever they were, what to change. And I think that if He were to confront a Roman slave owner, He probably would have said something to the affect of let them free. But, as far as we are told, He never confronted a Roman slave owner in His life. Also, we can not assume that every word that Jesus ever spoke is in the Bible. It is possible that He did say it, and that the message was not written down because there was never an audience for it during the lives of those writing the gospels.
Because regardless of slavery's past, we do not know what Hebrew slavery was like. In fact, most translations of the Bible don't refer to them as slaves or slave owners, but rather masters and servants. There is a possibility that this is a completely different form of "servitude." I mean, lets face it, we still have forms of slavery now. We call it minimum wage. Granted, the person isn't owned, per se, but there are contracts and contractors. There are people working in production under a company owner. The boardering rules have changed a bit, but the functions are the same. The problem with slavery is that it got to a point where it was assumed that the slave was a lesser person, and that abuse was necessary. That was the reasons for our ending slavery. However, if those two factors where not present in this type of slavery, and we have no way of knowing one way or another, then slavery, in and of itself (without these factors) is no more a negative establishment than free market with minimum wage.
Not necessarly. I do not think it would have been a mixed message to His audience, because again, the condemning of slavery would have been a "no duh" issue for most of them.
This is where you and I will have to dissagree. I simply am not under the impression that just because you do not preach against something to people that have no influence over that establishment, does not mean that you are agreeing to it. You must remember, Christ was expected to lead a physical revolution against Rome. He is being followed by people who are just waiting for Him to give the word to begin the war revolution to overturn Roman occupancy in Judea. But Christ was not concerned with the physical overturning of Rome. He did not concentrate on the social ills of the world as much as you suggest. Rather, He concentrated on the ills of the soul. He was in the process of beginning a revolution. But not one against Roman occupancy, rather, against the a life of hopelessness and an eternity apart from God.
These people needed nothing more than to be told to rise up against Rome for them to jump into action. To which they would have been slaughtered. Jesus was aware of this. Rather, He taught them to be obidient in a time of opression, but to be joyfull, and content in your heart. Kill them with kindness you might say.
Certainly not. He was writing this to Timothy and the the Church. At this point, again we have no reason in the world to believe that church would include Roman slave owners. But even still, the letter was to Timothy and it would be Timothy that led the church in this direction. I doubt Paul ever believed anyone would again see it, and never in his wildest dreams would people 2000 years later be reading it for guidance in their own life. And while yes, we can use these letters to understand and further our knowledge in the will of God, we still must be aware of the fact that in the end, this is nothing more than one letter from one man to another. It was not meant to be anything more than that. God used it for that purpose, but when speaking of the audience Paul intended, the audience was Timothy and Timothy alone.
Rev.
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 530
- Reaction score
- 55
- Location
- New England
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Binary_Digit said:
How convenient of you to leave out the NT verse I quoted.
"And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him." Eph 6:9
If you really want more NT scripture, read Philemon. It was written by Paul to Philemon, the owner of Onesimus, a run-away slave. In the letter, Paul tells Philemon to welcome Onesimus. Later, Onesimus became a Bishop of the Early Church (which I am confidant Montalban can tell us more about.)
You said the Bible commanded slave owners to beat their slaves. I showed you that it clearly does NOT, from BOTH the old and new testament. The Bible paints a completely different picture of slavery than what you are saying. The OT DID apply to those who were living during the NT times, but it ONLY applied to the Jews.
As I see it, YOU were the one who made the charge that the Bible commanded brutality toward slaves. I made my rebuttal from the Bible. If you continue to disagree, your proper response at this point would be to show me from the Bible where oppression is commanded. Diverting the thread to some discussion about what slavery was like in Ancient Rome does not properly respond to the question "Does the Bible command slavery or brutality toward slaves?"
Here is another verse I just found that says "NO":
"If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you." Deut 24:7
I call it "unorthodox" because I don't know of any Christian who has interpreted these verses the way you have.
Rev.
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 530
- Reaction score
- 55
- Location
- New England
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Binary_Digit said:
I never ever once defended Roman slavery. Show me where I did!
Luke 12 is told in the 3rd person. You can never take a 3rd person account as a command addressed to the 2nd person.
Rev.
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 530
- Reaction score
- 55
- Location
- New England
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Binary_Digit said:
How does handing out condoms to teens acknowledge teen sex but not condone it?
The bottom line is, you continue to read 21st century moral standards into Ancient Culture. Slavery was their economic system...and it was a system that had potential for abuse. We have a Capitalist economic system...which has PLENTY of potential for abuse. It would be interesting to know what the Ancients would think of OUR way of doing things.
asmith555
New member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
GetVictd said:
I guess you have to decide for yourself. I can tell you a way that is safe. Take a conservative approach. If your not sure then don't do it. God will surely not fault you for not eating unclean foods.