I have heard that argument before but it is not the view point i am coming from. On this issue im coming from the view point that under no circumstance is it ok to treat another person as property and i cant see why a god would be ok with that as exodus 21 seems to imply. If i were looking for every person to be coddled then a religion with an afterlife is exactly what i would turn to. What better way to coddle people than by saying that this life is just a start and if you follow the rules you will live forever? Sorry if that reads as argumentative but i tried to reword it twice and would rather be blunt and clear than wishywashy.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Civil Religious Discussions : all things Christianity II
- Thread starter churchmouse
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I have heard that argument before but it is not the view point i am coming from. On this issue im coming from the view point that under no circumstance is it ok to treat another person as property and i cant see why a god would be ok with that as exodus 21 seems to imply. If i were looking for every person to be coddled then a religion with an afterlife is exactly what i would turn to. What better way to coddle people than by saying that this life is just a start and if you follow the rules you will live forever? Sorry if that reads as argumentative but i tried to reword it twice and would rather be blunt and clear than wishywashy.
I'll throw my 2 cents in on slavery in the OT. A lot, LOT, of the OT is about knowing that people are awful and mitigating that behavior. Most of the slavery passages, in context, show that you are to treat your slaves humanly and then release them at a certain time (50 years max). This was a COMPLETE difference from slavery in the times and contexts. Also, if one were to follow the law correctly, they would realize that it isn't very good to have slaves. They aren't worth the hassle.
Why not?
Do you not have some property that you take very good care of? Car or firearms or classic comic book collection?
[Caveat: of course I'm not condoning slavery, but offering a framework to test the statement.]
In those times of antiquity, slaves were often (if not always) from the population of a conquered people. In that context, one could either die in battle or be taken as a slave. Are you taking the position that the former would be better?
To quote St. Bob of Duluth, "You're gonna serve somebody" whether you like it or not.
You have no say in the matter except in some choice of master(s).
We, you and me, are each of us enslaved.
Our masters take our time, our sweat, our hearts and if we are not very careful, our souls.
Aldous Huxley was absolutely correct when he said that we would come to love our slavery.
You have no say in the matter except in some choice of master(s).
We, you and me, are each of us enslaved.
Our masters take our time, our sweat, our hearts and if we are not very careful, our souls.
Aldous Huxley was absolutely correct when he said that we would come to love our slavery.
Yes, between the two i would say dying in battle would be a better option than slavery. I do admit the with morals being subjective that is a debatable subject as well. Are there not other options that we have developed for this problem in modern times for prisoners of war and how to settle conflict between nations? I believe both options are wrong and as humans we have bettered our selves as a spieces by finding ways to deal with these conflicts and that we will continue to grow.
Sure - that's another attribute of human nature.
Death before dishonor and all that. But, I think it is also reasonable for someone to reach a different conclusion on that question. 
Yes. The modern morals are different. There has been an evolution.
Since the time of the Romans, would you concede an evolution toward something closer to "treat your neighbor as yourself"? We treat enemy POWs the way we would want our POWs treated. That kind of thing.
Have you read The Origins of Virtue? I'm not sure if it is still in print, but it is a good read.
I would say that morals have definitely evovled to something along those lines yes. I do see the conection you are making. Is that instruction not contradicting the slavery issue in exodus 21? I think i know the answer. That is the old covenant and with the sacrifice of jesus the new covenant brought new rules and a new promise.
From my current view the change in moral is from people as a whole making slow progress throughout history by trial and error and learning from past mistakes. It seems to account for the change without bringing in the supernatural.
No i have not read that book. I will add it to the list to look for.
From my current view the change in moral is from people as a whole making slow progress throughout history by trial and error and learning from past mistakes. It seems to account for the change without bringing in the supernatural.
No i have not read that book. I will add it to the list to look for.
I'm going to throw in a few more cents here, which may or may not be relevant to the topic at hand. Also, if anyone found my previous post to be dismissive, I ask for your forgiveness. It was made at the end of a long day.
We seem to be in agreement that morals have evolved from more ancient times. There are some who would state that the Judeo-Christian ethic of each individual as an image of God, is that basis or our current valuation of individual rights. Jordan Peterson makes that case in his series of lectures in which he approaches the Bible in terms of its psychological effects rather than from the perspective of a believer. I've seen the old testament described as narrative on the spiritual development of the people of Israel. I understand the question being posed, If God opposes slavery then when He was laying down the law then why didn't He say "Don't have slaves" instead of "Don't beat your slaves so hard that they die."
It's a legitimate question on the surface, when asked by a person who has lived in a society based on the principle of civil liberty. But in a society where slavery was common one has to wonder how the "Don't have Slaves" message would have been accepted. The people that these laws were being given to had only recently been freed from their own slavery. The Israelites lived for generations as slaves of the Egyptians. More than once in the book of Exodus, they state that they would have been better off staying slaves in Egypt rather than dying in the wilderness.
It's not like the Israelites were good at following the law. Commandment #1: No other gods but ME. Among other things, the old testament is a chronicle of the people of Israel, from the wisest king on down, of failing this Commandment over and over again. So I'm not sure how it a blanket prohibition on slavery would landed. But we do see that evolution of attitude toward slavery. Christ healed everyone, slaves and free. I remember other scriptures: MT 20: 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.
Or Paul's appeal for the runaway slave Onesimus in Philemon: 15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.
It may have taken the Israelites centuries for them to learn the worth of their fellow human beings. But I have no problem with the concept of an eternal God playing the long game with the human race.
We seem to be in agreement that morals have evolved from more ancient times. There are some who would state that the Judeo-Christian ethic of each individual as an image of God, is that basis or our current valuation of individual rights. Jordan Peterson makes that case in his series of lectures in which he approaches the Bible in terms of its psychological effects rather than from the perspective of a believer. I've seen the old testament described as narrative on the spiritual development of the people of Israel. I understand the question being posed, If God opposes slavery then when He was laying down the law then why didn't He say "Don't have slaves" instead of "Don't beat your slaves so hard that they die."
It's a legitimate question on the surface, when asked by a person who has lived in a society based on the principle of civil liberty. But in a society where slavery was common one has to wonder how the "Don't have Slaves" message would have been accepted. The people that these laws were being given to had only recently been freed from their own slavery. The Israelites lived for generations as slaves of the Egyptians. More than once in the book of Exodus, they state that they would have been better off staying slaves in Egypt rather than dying in the wilderness.
It's not like the Israelites were good at following the law. Commandment #1: No other gods but ME. Among other things, the old testament is a chronicle of the people of Israel, from the wisest king on down, of failing this Commandment over and over again. So I'm not sure how it a blanket prohibition on slavery would landed. But we do see that evolution of attitude toward slavery. Christ healed everyone, slaves and free. I remember other scriptures: MT 20: 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.
Or Paul's appeal for the runaway slave Onesimus in Philemon: 15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.
It may have taken the Israelites centuries for them to learn the worth of their fellow human beings. But I have no problem with the concept of an eternal God playing the long game with the human race.
On another discussion board, I see several variations on the same theme: Why would a just and loving God allow bad things to happen - whether it's natural cataclysm or mankind's malignancy? Of course Christianity teaches that God created humans and the the world to be in perfect harmony with Himself. It was Adam's choice to follow his own path, his determination of good and evil rather than God's, and that choice brought sin and death into the world. Ah, but couldn't have God have made it so that Adam couldn't sin, couldn't divide himself from God and doom the human race to suffering?
But the Spirit teaches us that God is love and we were created to bear that image. When the bible talks about love, it's not just a feeling, it's a choice. Take away that choice, create a universe that its impossible to do anything but love God - is that not slavery? When people talk about God creating a world where sin is impossible, it reminds me of the hosts on Westworld. Robots with no agency, running the program that we were given because they don't know how to do anything different.
That may be completely irrelevant to the question asked but it's where my brain always goes when slavery is brought up in the context of Christianity.
But the Spirit teaches us that God is love and we were created to bear that image. When the bible talks about love, it's not just a feeling, it's a choice. Take away that choice, create a universe that its impossible to do anything but love God - is that not slavery? When people talk about God creating a world where sin is impossible, it reminds me of the hosts on Westworld. Robots with no agency, running the program that we were given because they don't know how to do anything different.
That may be completely irrelevant to the question asked but it's where my brain always goes when slavery is brought up in the context of Christianity.
Respectfully, the New Testament has no mandate against slavery as a societal institution and in several places gives instruction that maintains that bond of servitude.
"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; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him." Ephesians 6:5-9.
The issue is how slavery is perceived in Scripture vs how we today perceive it. God does not look down on a slave as a lesser men, nor does He permit a master to do so and demands they be treated well. We generally consider slavery to be an automatic smack against the dignity of the enslaved individual.
That said, I do not believe a largely Christian society would permit slavery on any grounds save those related to government penalty, owing to 1 Corinthians 7:21-23, "Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called." If I am a Christian, how can I justify taking a formerly free man and enslaving him in light of this command? I can't see the way. If I already had slaves, and both I and my slave were saved (as in the verse above) I could see not releasing him owing to the lack of necessity. I will treat him as my broher regardless, and if there is some legal issue or cost associated with freeing a slave then why risk the issue?
If they learned that, then perhaps they can help us gentiles learn it.
Just a post-margarita thought (which is often better than pre-coffee) - our disgust at slavery is tow-fold (A) the horrible things done in the colonies and US and (B) it so counters our extreme freedoms we have.
We can go anywhere, marry anyone, say anything, work anywhere, worship any god, choose any gender...
Pretty much all those things weren't a freedom in the society of the Israelites. Ergo, slavery, while not a good condition, was not as far from a non-slave in that culture as it is in our eyes.
God's ethic was "even those in a lower, class are still to be treated humanely, regardless of economics."
We can go anywhere, marry anyone, say anything, work anywhere, worship any god, choose any gender...
Pretty much all those things weren't a freedom in the society of the Israelites. Ergo, slavery, while not a good condition, was not as far from a non-slave in that culture as it is in our eyes.
God's ethic was "even those in a lower, class are still to be treated humanely, regardless of economics."
I thankyou all for giving your perspective on this. Ill be honest the idea of a god that is so specific with many other commandments but that wont outright say "do not take others as property" or something to that effect is hard to wrap my head around and accept as a god, let alone a loving god. I am going to spend some more time researching the references suggested to try to come to a better understanding.
St. Joseph against Socialism: 100 Years of Bonum Sane
"And now with the same motive, that is to remember the duty to the men on our side who earn their bread with labor, however many and wherever they are, to keep them immune from the contagion of socialism, the bitter enemy of Christian principles, We with great solicitude offer them in a particular way St. Joseph—that they might follow him as their special guide and honor him as their heavenly Patron."
"And now with the same motive, that is to remember the duty to the men on our side who earn their bread with labor, however many and wherever they are, to keep them immune from the contagion of socialism, the bitter enemy of Christian principles, We with great solicitude offer them in a particular way St. Joseph—that they might follow him as their special guide and honor him as their heavenly Patron."
SCOTUS continues to disappoint.
https://nypost.com/2020/07/24/supreme-court-denies-nevada-churchs-appeal-of-covid-19-rule/
"RENO, Nev. (AP) — A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court denied a rural Nevada church’s request late Friday to strike down as unconstitutional a 50-person cap on worship services as part of the state’s ongoing response to the coronavirus.
In a 5-4 decision, the high court refused to grant the request from the Christian church east of Reno to be subjected to the same COVID-19 restrictions in Nevada that allow casinos, restaurants and other businesses to operate at 50% of capacity with proper social distancing.
Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley argued that the hard cap on religious gatherings was an unconstitutional violation of its parishioners’ First Amendment rights to express and exercise their beliefs.
Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal majority in denying the request without explanation.
..."
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/07/...ver-nevada-covid-19-restrictions/#more-295461
"In late May, the Supreme Court – with Roberts again joining the four more liberal justices – rejected a request by a church in southern California for an order that would have allowed it to hold services. The church in that case, South Bay United Pentecostal Church, argued that state and county shutdown orders discriminated against houses of worship by requiring them to remain closed while allowing retail stores, offices, restaurants and schools to remain open. Kavanaugh dissented from that order..."
https://nypost.com/2020/07/24/supreme-court-denies-nevada-churchs-appeal-of-covid-19-rule/
"RENO, Nev. (AP) — A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court denied a rural Nevada church’s request late Friday to strike down as unconstitutional a 50-person cap on worship services as part of the state’s ongoing response to the coronavirus.
In a 5-4 decision, the high court refused to grant the request from the Christian church east of Reno to be subjected to the same COVID-19 restrictions in Nevada that allow casinos, restaurants and other businesses to operate at 50% of capacity with proper social distancing.
Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley argued that the hard cap on religious gatherings was an unconstitutional violation of its parishioners’ First Amendment rights to express and exercise their beliefs.
Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal majority in denying the request without explanation.
..."
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/07/...ver-nevada-covid-19-restrictions/#more-295461
"In late May, the Supreme Court – with Roberts again joining the four more liberal justices – rejected a request by a church in southern California for an order that would have allowed it to hold services. The church in that case, South Bay United Pentecostal Church, argued that state and county shutdown orders discriminated against houses of worship by requiring them to remain closed while allowing retail stores, offices, restaurants and schools to remain open. Kavanaugh dissented from that order..."
ChristianPatriot
Grandmaster
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
mom45Momerator
Members online
- model1994
- tom1025
- ljjhw
- Plumbous
- TheGrumpyGuy
- Blazer90
- bwframe
- 45sRfun
- wesleyoliver95
- Demoderb1989
- erasure
- AKALLDAY
- Donnie317
- Charlie3p0
- Firehawk
- Creedmoor
- cobber
- Myrradah
- miguel
- buckwacker
- Six Forty-Two
- jmil
- Limpy88
- jbm1521
- jamil
- printcraft
- X3r0h0uR
- holret
- Willie
- Snapdragon
- brchixwing
- hoglegs
- jdadkins87
- wagyu52
- Glocktard
- Iurobz
- stale_ranch
- Got SIG?
- BigMoose
- morve80
- Doc1980
- darkkevin
- mom45
- BrentG
- barber613
- Jmoody27
- rvb
- Flash-hider
- Principal Skinr
- chewylax8