Agreeing to Disagree

[matt770]

Is it unclean for me to know a chicken in the biblical sense?

[Furd]

Why didn't Jesus write anything? Why didn't the apostles or anyone else write anything during his life or even shortly after his death?

 

It seems a little silly to me to place stock in books of dubious origin that appear to have been composed decades after Jesus's death and that have been revised many times in the centuries since then by people with various agendas.

 

I get the god thing. I don't get the bible thing.

[Azazello1313]

Here's some New Testament stuff:

 

again, presupposing slavery as a current social institution, giving people guidance for how to follow Jesus within those confines. but the new testament has a lot more to say about slavery.

 

The New Testament presupposes a fundamental equality because all humans are created in God’s image (James 3:9). Yet, an even deeper unity in Christ transcends human boundaries and social structures: no Jew or Greek, slave or free, no male and female, as all believers are all “one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28; cp. Colossians 3:11).

 

Some critics claim, “Jesus never said anything about the wrongness of slavery.” Not so. He explicitly opposed every form of oppression in His mission “to proclaim release to the captives … to set free those who are oppressed” (Luke 4:18 NASB¹; cp. Isaiah 61:1). While Jesus did not press for some economic reform plan in Israel, He did address attitudes such as greed, materialism, contentment, and generosity.

 

New Testament writers addressed underlying attitudes regarding slavery: Christian masters called Christian slaves “brothers” or “sisters.” The New Testament commanded masters to show compassion, justice, and patience. Their position as master meant responsibility and service, not oppression and privilege. Thus, the worm was already in the wood for altering social structures.

 

New Testament writers, like Jesus their Master, opposed the dehumanization and oppression of others. In fact, Paul gave household rules in Ephesians 6 and Colossians 4 not only for Christian slaves but for Christian masters as well. Slaves are ultimately responsible to God, their heavenly Master. But masters are to “treat your slaves in the same way” — namely, as persons governed by a heavenly Master (Ephesians 6:9). Commentator P.T. O’Brien points out that “Paul’s cryptic exhortation is outrageous” for his day.2

 

Given the spiritual equality of slave and free, slaves even took on leadership positions in churches. Paul’s ministry illustrates how in Christ there is neither slave nor free, when he greeted people by name in his epistles. Some of these people had commonly used slave and freedman names. For example, in Romans 16:7,9, he refers to slaves such as Andronicus and Urbanus (common slave names) as “kinsman,” “fellow prisoner,” and “fellow worker” (NASB). The New Testament’s approach to slavery is contrary to aristocrats and philosophers such as Aristotle, who held that certain humans were slaves by nature (Politics I.13).

 

Paul reminded Christian masters that they, with their slaves, were fellow-slaves of the same impartial Master. Thus, they were not to mistreat them but rather deal with them as brothers and sisters in Christ. Paul called on human masters to grant “justice and fairness” to their slaves (Colossians 4:1, NASB). In unprecedented fashion, Paul treated slaves as morally responsible persons (Colossians 3:22–25) who, like their Christian masters, are “brothers” and part of Christ’s body (1 Timothy 6:2).3 Christians — slave and master alike — belong to Christ (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11). Spiritual status is more fundamental and freeing than social status.

 

Though critics claim New Testament writers keep quiet about slavery, we see a subtle opposition to it in various ways. We can confidently say that Paul would have considered antebellum slavery with its slave trade to be an abomination — an utter violation of human dignity and an act of human theft. In Paul’s vice list in 1 Timothy 1:9,10, he expounds on the fifth through the ninth commandments (Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5). There Paul condemns “slave traders” who steal what is not rightfully theirs.4

 

Critics wonder why Paul or New Testament writers (cp. 1 Peter 2:18–20) did not condemn slavery and tell masters to release their slaves. We need to first separate this question from other considerations. New Testament writers’ position on the negative status of slavery was clear on various points: (a) they repudiated slave trading; ( they affirmed the full human dignity and equal spiritual status of slaves; © they encouraged slaves to acquire their freedom whenever possible (1 Corinthians 7:20–22); (d) their revolutionary Christian affirmations, if taken seriously, would help tear apart the fabric of the institution of slavery, which is what took full effect several centuries later — in the eventual eradication of slavery in Europe; and (e) in Revelation 18:11–13, doomed Babylon (the world of God-opposers) stands condemned because she had treated humans as “cargo,” having trafficked in “slaves [literally ‘bodies’] and human lives” (verse 13, NASB). This repudiation of treating humans as cargo assumes the doctrine of the image of God in all human beings.

 

Paul, along with Peter, did not call for an uprising to overthrow slavery in Rome. On the one hand, they did not want people to perceive the Christian faith as opposed to social order and harmony. Hence, New Testament writers told Christian slaves to do what is right. Even if they were mistreated, their conscience would be clear (1 Peter 2:18–20). Yes, obligations fell to these slaves without their prior agreement. So the path for early Christians to take was tricky — very much unlike the situation of voluntary servitude in Mosaic Law.

A slave uprising would do the gospel a disservice — and prove a direct threat to an oppressive Roman establishment (e.g., “Masters, release your slaves”; or, “Slaves, throw off your chains.”). Rome would quash flagrant opposition with speedy, lethal force. So Peter’s admonition to unjustly treated slaves implies a suffering endured without retaliation. Suffering in itself is not good; but the right response in the midst of suffering is commendable.

 

Early Christians undermined slavery indirectly, rejecting many common Greco-Roman assumptions about it (e.g., Aristotle’s) and acknowledging the intrinsic, equal worth of slaves. Since the New Testament leveled all distinctions at the foot of the cross, the Christian faith — being countercultural, revolutionary, and anti-status quo — was particularly attractive to slaves and lower classes. Thus, like yeast, Christlike living can have a gradual leavening effect on society so oppressive institutions such as slavery could finally fall away. This is, in fact, what took place throughout Europe: Slavery fizzled since “Christianized” Europeans clearly saw that owning another human being was contrary to creation and the new creation in Christ.

 

[Hugh B Tool]

Where's the old testament? Not applicable or editable enough? Which one of God's doctrines should we follow blindly? And which denominations version of said doctrines is actually the right one?

[Scooby]

Here's some New Testament stuff:

 

 

I think many Christians back in that time were indeed slaves. I don't believe that God condoned slavery at all. I think Paul was trying to explain to Timothy that no matter what cards your are dealt in life, foster a spirit of love, acceptance, and peace. Instead of insubordination towards that "master" show him you can take his mistreatment and not be hardened by it. You become an example to God's grace and spirit. Ideally the master (after seeing that his mistreatment hadn't for 1 single second made his slaves revolt and spew hate would be for that "master" to turn from his evil ways and devote his life to God).

p.s. I dont belive that gay/lesbian'bisexual people are going to Hell. My late sister was lesbian, Born That Way (thank you Lady Gaga) lol! God created each and every one of us. We are too simple to know the vastness of his love and mercy for mankind. Take care all:))))

[godtomsatan]

Where's the old testament? Not applicable or editable enough? Which one of God's doctrines should we follow blindly? And which denominations version of said doctrines is actually the right one?

 

 

Whichever one feels convenient at any given time, duh.

[detlef]

I'm not great at articulating the biblical literalist viewpoint, because it's not one I adhere to. but even the staunchest fundamentalist holds that biblical "instructions" change over time depending on context, etc. and that the nature of God's revelation becomes more complete over time. the dietary laws of leviticus are one clear example, the sabbath, and so forth. according to that view, the bible certainly recognizes that things like slavery and polygamy existed in ancient societies, and makes prescriptions for people in that time and place that take those things for granted. by the time the new testament rolls around, and all those old laws are reinterpreted in the light of Jesus (read Romans, for example), we have a more complete picture.

 

When you say you're not a biblical literalist, does that mean that you feel the bible is the construct of men and not actually the word of god? Just trying to get a clear definition.

 

And, for the record, I'm not saying the bible is a horrible thing. People evolve and the bible was written during a different time. We have the luxury of centuries and centuries of perspective, so it would be a bit harsh to condemn what men were doing back then. Well, some of that stuff is pretty freaking awful, but regardless. Again, our own Constitution, a document often heralded for its timeless excellence missed on a few things as well. Things that we were able to change because we didn't need to pretend that it was the gospel. That document was openly the construct of a bunch of men getting together and hashing it out. So if we came behind and fixed it later, it's OK.

 

So, I get it. The bible speaks on how to own slaves because, well, people owned slaves back then. But that sort of reinforces my belief that it was written by men. I would think god would construct something that was a bit more timeless.

[Yukon Cornelius]

the huddle in the off season is fun!!

[SEC=UGA]

Is it unclean for me to know a chicken in the biblical sense?

 

 

Is the chicken alive or has it been killed, defeathered, and neck and innards removed?

[Caveman_Nick]

Big Bang Theory..........

 

 

Also known as the God Shart theory.

[Avernus]

I think many Christians back in that time were indeed slaves. I don't believe that God condoned slavery at all. I think Paul was trying to explain to Timothy that no matter what cards your are dealt in life, foster a spirit of love, acceptance, and peace. Instead of insubordination towards that "master" show him you can take his mistreatment and not be hardened by it. You become an example to God's grace and spirit. Ideally the master (after seeing that his mistreatment hadn't for 1 single second made his slaves revolt and spew hate would be for that "master" to turn from his evil ways and devote his life to God).

p.s. I dont belive that gay/lesbian'bisexual people are going to Hell. My late sister was lesbian, Born That Way (thank you Lady Gaga) lol! God created each and every one of us. We are too simple to know the vastness of his love and mercy for mankind. Take care all:))))

 

 

I think this falls under the one quote in the bible where it is to forgive your brother (or man..or something) for he knows not what he does...

[stevegrab]

When you say you're not a biblical literalist, does that mean that you feel the bible is the construct of men and not actually the word of god? Just trying to get a clear definition.

 

And, for the record, I'm not saying the bible is a horrible thing. People evolve and the bible was written during a different time. We have the luxury of centuries and centuries of perspective, so it would be a bit harsh to condemn what men were doing back then. Well, some of that stuff is pretty freaking awful, but regardless. Again, our own Constitution, a document often heralded for its timeless excellence missed on a few things as well. Things that we were able to change because we didn't need to pretend that it was the gospel. That document was openly the construct of a bunch of men getting together and hashing it out. So if we came behind and fixed it later, it's OK.

 

So, I get it. The bible speaks on how to own slaves because, well, people owned slaves back then. But that sort of reinforces my belief that it was written by men. I would think god would construct something that was a bit more timeless.

 

 

Who is disputing that? Because people refer to it as "the word of God"? As I posted before, anybody who thinks men did not write the bible is being silly. They were influenced by God. Some of them lived through the days of Christ and gave their accounts of what happened.

 

What I find amusing is your belief that you have a better vision of God because you don't believe he would condone all that "nasty stuff" in the bible. Several people here who apparently believe in the bible more and are church going Christians have explained why they don't believe God condones slavery just because it is in the bible. They don't have any different view of God in that regard than you do. Nobody that I know who is a Christian is saying "Wow, God sure was a terrible being, the way he condoned slavery, rape and all that other nasty stuff."

 

There are multiple ways to look at things. Those on the extreme fundamentalist far right of Christians who want to label homosexuals as evil because it says so in the bible are but one small (but vocal group). Many more people who are Christians and believe in the bible do not feel that way.

[detlef]

Who is disputing that? Because people refer to it as "the word of God"? As I posted before, anybody who thinks men did not write the bible is being silly. They were influenced by God. Some of them lived through the days of Christ and gave their accounts of what happened.

 

What I find amusing is your belief that you have a better vision of God because you don't believe he would condone all that "nasty stuff" in the bible. Several people here who apparently believe in the bible more and are church going Christians have explained why they don't believe God condones slavery just because it is in the bible. They don't have any different view of God in that regard than you do. Nobody that I know who is a Christian is saying "Wow, God sure was a terrible being, the way he condoned slavery, rape and all that other nasty stuff."

 

There are multiple ways to look at things. Those on the extreme fundamentalist far right of Christians who want to label homosexuals as evil because it says so in the bible are but one small (but vocal group). Many more people who are Christians and believe in the bible do not feel that way.

 

Well, yes. Obviously people realize that men wrote it, but many, it seems believe that those who wrote it had a significant enough connection to god. Enough so that they now assume that these men were speaking on god's behalf. Why else would we give it any credence in the matter? If these are not the words of god, as written by men qualified to say so, what good is it?

 

And, by the way, I'll give that people have done a fine job of explaining the bits in the New Testament and how those don't condone slavery, but rather councel slaves in how to still find god and live in god's light even while in the binds of slavery.

 

But I'm hardly impressed with the degree to which the instructions to slave owners has been covered and found your bit about it simply being a story to be particularly weak. What is the point of including a story with very specific directions about how slaves should be dealt with other than to, well, offer instruction on how slaves are to be dealt with? And, again, if this is actually the word of god, even if the pen is in the hand of a man, why is god commenting on that?

 

The bit about stoning non-virgin brides. That isn't presented as "this man found out that his bride was not a virgin and then stoned her", rather it includes the following:

 

If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and then spurns her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings an evil name upon her, saying, `I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her the tokens of virginity,' then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the tokens of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate; and the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, `I gave my daughter to this man to wife, and he spurns her; and lo, he has made shameful charges against her, saying, "I did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity." And yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him; and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. But if the thing is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you.

 

Is there a part right before, or right after this bit where god (throught the human entrusted to speak on his behalf) says, "if you punish someone like this, you're a bad person?" Or does "god" just sort of leave it out there for us to decide for ourselves? Like, "right now, as long as you're backwards a-holes who think this should be the case and it's OK to own people, this is the official word on dealing with non-virgin brides. However, someday people will realize how effed up this is, and then you can just go ahead and ignore this part. But because I'm such a jokester, I'm just going to litter this book with all sorts of judgements and rules that may apply forever and may only apply to now while everyone is a cuffed in the head, thereby ensuring that this book can be used for both good and evil for the rest of time."

 

ETA: I'm going to take back one part. The part in the first paragraph where I ask what good is it if it's not god's word. Actually, like other documents through history, it can be good for many things and, like I said in my first post, I'm sure it can still remain a valuable resource for life lessons. Provided, of course, that one realizes that's a really, really old book written by men, and thus should have limitations in terms of what specific things we pull from it.

Edited May 11, 2012 by detlef

[WashingtonD]

wait...I could have stoned my ex-wife! That would have been cheaper than divorce

[detlef]

wait...I could have stoned my ex-wife! That would have been cheaper than divorce

 

It's sort of a risk though. If she can produce a bloody sheet, then you've got to pay her dad and be her husband for the rest of your life. Just take that under advisement.

[SEC=UGA]

I'm all for stoning harlots.

 

Actually, "stoning harlots" would be a good band name...

[Square]

Actually, "stoning harlots" would be a good band name...

I'm actually kind of scared now because that was the first thing that popped into my head after reading it.

[rajncajn]

Enjoy hell.

 

They will continuously make you serve toast and ask "is it hot enough for you"

 

 

John 8:7 or Mathew 7:1, take your pick.

[whomper]

Does any of this remove the stank that is on NC right now ?

[Yukon Cornelius]

Does any of this remove the stank that is on NC right now ?

 

we need Sherman back to burn the smell out.

[matt770]

 

 

Is the chicken alive or has it been killed, defeathered, and neck and innards removed?

 

Not sure. Am I drinking beer or margaritas?

[delusions of grandeur]

There is only one Christian doctrine that I unequivocally subscribe too, and really the only one that's applicable to the whole same sex marriage deal, and that's the Golden Rule, "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you" (no ghey pun intended).

 

I cannot accept anything that contradicts this simple principle, and it's truly a shame that so many don't feel this way, and use other justifications to not treat people like they'd like to be treated themselves, if the shoe were on the other foot.

[matt770]

There is only one Christian doctrine that I unequivocally subscribe too, and really the only one that's applicable to the whole same sex marriage deal, and that's the Golden Rule, "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you" (no ghey pun intended).

 

I cannot accept anything that contradicts this simple principle, and it's truly a shame that so many don't feel this way, and use other justifications to not treat people like they'd like to be treated themselves, if the shoe were on the other foot.

 

If I were gay, there is no way in hell I'd ever get married. They're all whores. I could stock up on strange cack every night of the week if I so desired. Why buy the bull when you can get the tube steak for free?

[delusions of grandeur]

If I were gay, there is no way in hell I'd ever get married. They're all whores. I could stock up on strange cack every night of the week if I so desired. Why buy the bull when you can get the tube steak for free?

 

You make a compelling point... Maybe "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" means that we should save them from making the same horrible decision that many a straight man has made.

 

Makes me think how much I wish someone had said "you can't marry this chick" when me and my ex-girlfriend started getting serious.

[detlef]

Does any of this remove the stank that is on NC right now ?

 

Not sure what point you're trying to make.