Slavery

[Gob]

The "morality" of slavery is entirely context-specific.

Funny how the "omnipotent being" didn't see fit to add clarification that to the book of bigotry, instruction, confusion, rules of ways to live your life, interpret as you wish, Bible.

[Scooter]

Funny that the morality of slavery can be claimed to be context-specific, while the morality of same-sex relationships is claimed to be absolute. Amazing how those making those distinctions appear to have a window into the mind of God, in order to know which was which.

[Gob]

[MajGenl.Meade]

So Meade, is it your argument that god (since I believe that you have opined on more than one occassion that every word in the bible is god's)....

Is that true? That doesn't sound to me like something Meade would say or believe. But I don't usually read all of the God talk that is posted here, so I would very likely have missed it if he had written it.

Big RR is not exactly correct. I have always (I believe) tried to express that every word in the Bible is there because God wanted it there - whether it reflects poorly or well on whatever was happening - it says and tells what He wanted said and told. It's not dictation - every book has its own style which depended upon the author. The Bible is inerrant and infallible in the original autograph - which rather inconveniently no one has.

Time and copyists have wrought various imperfections not one of which has altered any sensible understanding of the words. Those who reject the Bible are fond of claiming huge inaccuracies - and equally fond of citing none of them.

I think there should be for example no reasonable doubt that in some old manuscripts of Mark an additional explanation was added by a copyist who thought the story should be completed rather than left as Mark did - everyone pissed off home was a bit of a letdown. Hence we have Mark 16:9-20 which does not appear in the best manuscripts (ie oldest and most reliable) and is so noted in modern Bibles. But that passage changes nothing.

Having said that, Sue's posts are as always a model of careful consideration. I would do well to pay attention to the example

Whatever else may be said - the Biblical fact is this. Slavery is not once stated to be a sin. Homosexuality is, more than once. Therefore to say that society has changed its habits regarding slavery has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not God's word has been 'altered'. It has not. What people do has altered but that was never subject to disagreement

One does not need a window (mockingly suggested) to read the plain word of God - the eyes do a good job. It is one thing to argue that there is no God - it is quite futile to argue that the Bible does not condemn what it does condemn and that it should condemn something that it does not. If there is no God, then the Bible is not relevant at all to either condition

Meade

[Scooter]

So we have Dave claiming that the morality of slavery is context-specific, and we have Meade saying God doesn't condemn slavery at all.

And both of them wonder why their respective beliefs are mocked.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Not so - we know why they are mocked - the Bible explains that.

Jude 16-18 (NLT):

These people are grumblers and complainers, living only to satisfy their desires. They brag loudly about themselves, and they flatter others to get what they want. But you, my dear friends, must remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ said. They told you that in the last times there would be scoffers whose purpose in life is to satisfy their ungodly desires.

I said nothing about God's beliefs about slavery - I'm not aware of His being in favour of it. Rather the reverse I suspect since the trend of the NT is toward the equality of all believers. What I stated was that the Bible does not condemn slavery as a sin (in the society that existed) but it does condemn homosexuality as a sin. That's not a belief - that's what it says.

Congratulations on spotting the "context" argument which had already been pre-empted and declared invalid before it was made. Sue U made exactly the same point, more elegantly and accurately, and drew no mocking. Rightly so, of course.

Meade

[Scooter]

What I stated was that the Bible does not condemn slavery as a sin

Does the Bible condemn slavery as anything else? Then how is what I stated anything but accurate?

[Sean]

I'm curious... Is the Bible composed of the thoughts, ideas and of men (context specific) or God (omnipotent and therefore not context specific) today?

I can never keep up... It keeps changing!

[Scooter]

It depends on which direction the apologist needs to slither in order to make his/her argument.

[MajGenl.Meade]

What I stated was that the Bible does not condemn slavery as a sin

Does the Bible condemn slavery as anything else? Then how is what I stated anything but accurate?

First sentence: without any real informational value. Second sentence: I don't know how but you manage it . Read your own posts Scooter. You said "God"; I said "Bible" - sounds like a song. As to slithering, I imagine you could crawl under a rattlesnake while wearing a top hat but I wouldn't care to say so. (I add this aggressive-aggressive comment just to make you happy)

I'm curious too Sean. Why is that a given situation (which I think is what is meant by "context specific" but I could be wrong on that) can only identified as a product of the thoughts and ideas of men?

What reason is there to suppose that an omnipotent* being cannot recognise, comment upon, argue for or against, ignore, mitigate, allow for a time, for a long time, for a very long time etc etc a "context specific" fact of reality?

*I am unsure what "unlimited power" has to do with it

Meade

[Grim Reaper]

I said nothing about God's beliefs about slavery - I'm not aware of His being in favour of it.

He was trigger happy enough with the things that did displease Him. You would think that if there was any displeasure over the idea of slavery that the Almighty would have said something about it.

[Gob]

So then if homosexuality is a sin, which Bible passages condemn it as such. Please, not Leviticus.

[MajGenl.Meade]

That's an interesting concept - that the Bible is an exhaustive list of all the things that displease God. I must admit that it would be very handy indeed but of course none of the nay-sayers would accept that either. But to throw another slave on the barbie:

The Bible contains warnings about the practice of slavery. The prophet Amos spoke woe to Gaza and Tyre for their practices of slave-trading entire populations (Amos 1:6–9). The Book of Revelation declares that disaster awaits those who sell slaves (Rev.18:13). As for Christians, the apostle Paul advised slaves to obey their masters (Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22; Titus 2:9). Paul appealed to Philemon to receive back Onesimus, a runaway slave who was now a Christian and therefore a brother (Philem. 1:16). Elsewhere Paul counseled believing slaves to seek freedom if they could (1 Cor. 7:21). Since slave practices were part of the culture in biblical times, the Bible contains no direct call to abolish slavery. But the implications of the gospel, especially the ethic of love, stand in opposition to slavery.

Both slave and free are called upon to receive the gospel of Jesus Christ. In Christ, social distinctions such as slavery no longer apply (Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11); in Christ all are brothers and sisters. The excitement of such new relationships is expressed by Paul: “Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ” (Gal. 4:7).

In a spiritual sense, people apart from Christ are slaves to sin. To commit sin is to demonstrate that sin has control of one’s life (John 8:34). Christ can set us free from this kind of slavery (John 8:36)—to be obedient to Christ and to do righteousness (Rom. 6:16–18).

Paul spoke of himself as a “servant,” a word sometimes rendered as “bondservant” but frequently also as “slave” (Rom. 1:1; Titus 1:1). Christians, especially ministers, are not hired servants but slaves committed to service to Jesus. Slaves do not manage their own lives. People who call themselves slaves of Christ acknowledge that the Savior has power over them.

Youngblood, R. F., Bruce, F. F., Harrison, R. K., & Thomas Nelson Publishers. (1995). Nelson's new illustrated Bible dictionary. Rev. ed. of: Nelson's illustrated Bible dictionary.; Includes index. Nashville: T. Nelson.

[Scooter]

First sentence: without any real informational value.

Because it is a question, not a statement. You purport to make some distinction between "condemning something" and "condemning something as sin" I am asking if slavery was condemned in some other way other than being labelled a sin. Should be easy to answer, yes?

You said "God"; I said "Bible"

And what other source do we have as a means of determining what God did or did not condemn? And then you wonder why you are accused of debating dishonestly, when you play games like this to avoid the implications of what you say.

Once again, thanks for proving my point.

[MajGenl.Meade]

So then if homosexuality is a sin, which Bible passages condemn it as such. Please, not Leviticus.

It's a good start when a guy quotes the OT to prove a point and bars someone else from citing the OT to provide a point... but you know... I'll play

1 Cor. 6:9 and Rom. 1:26–27 (and Gen. 19:4–5 seems relevant but it's OT - sorry.

Now what did I step into?

Meade

Scooter: I am asking if slavery was condemned in some other way other than being labelled a sin. Yes - you asked after I answered that to GR.

I haven't been accused of debating dishonestly. Go ahead. Here's a fact: You claimed that I said "God doesn't condemn slavery at all". What I said was that "the Bible does not condemn slavery as sin". If you are unable to read the difference between your statement that God doesn't do something "at all" and mine, then you need remedial English lessons. And I may have been wrong in saying that the Bible does not condemn slavery as sin - rather depends how one reads the more recently given cites

[Gob]

So then if homosexuality is a sin, which Bible passages condemn it as such. Please, not Leviticus.

It's a good start when a guy quotes the OT to prove a point and bars someone else from citing the OT to provide a point... but you know... I'll play

No, the reason I asked for quotes from outside of Leviticus is that we all know that Leviticus forbids a whole bunch of stuff which it is now ok to do.

[Sue U]

No, the reason I asked for quotes from outside of Leviticus is that we all know that Leviticus forbids a whole bunch of stuff which it is now ok to do.

According to whom?

[Crackpot]

I think he's referring to a lot of the health and cleanliness rules

[Scooter]

Wearing mixed fiber clothing, planting more than one type of plant in a field, etc.

[Gob]

Shape of beards...