No Christianity Isn’t Dying But It Is Under Attack

[This_person]

Here is an explicit fact for you

Which is not explicitly condoning slavery

 

[TheLibertonian]

This is beginning to sound like an exercise in Presentism.

You, I like.

 

[This_person]

So one important question remains. Is it a sin to own a slave?

As always, there's no explicit answer. However, I would infer that it is very difficult to love your neighbor as Jesus loves you if your neighbor is in your bondage.

 

[Midnightrider]

This is beginning to sound like an exercise in Presentism.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

As always, there's no explicit answer. However, I would infer that it is very difficult to love your neighbor as Jesus loves you if your neighbor is in your bondage.

How does an omnipotent, omniscient god miss that one?

Enslaving one's fellow man is one of the most heinous things one human being can do to another. Yet, the god who defines human morality (your belief not mine) fails to condemn it.

 

[Midnightrider]

How does an omnipotent, omniscient god miss that one?

Enslaving one's fellow man is one of the most heinous things one human being can do to another. Yet, the god who defines human morality (your belief not mine) fails to condemn it.

He doesn't just fail to condemn it, he writes a host of rules for it in the OT. Then when he comes to earth he tells slaves that honoring their master in every way honors god.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

He doesn't just fail to condemn it, he writes a host of rules for it in the OT. Then when he comes to earth he tells slaves that honoring their master in every way honors god.

Agreed

Any christian who professes as person does, that the god of christianity has laid out a perfect blueprint for morality...is either intellectually dishonest or a deluded moron.

 

[This_person]

Agreed

Any christian who professes as person does, that the god of christianity has laid out a perfect blueprint for morality...is either intellectually dishonest or a deluded moron.

You two seem to be having a great mutual masturbation session, but you're both wrong.

As I said, my God explained how I should treat my fellow human and trusts me to figure it out.

Only a truly weak individual needs every single detail explicitly defined. And, if He did define it, some smart ass would STILL find some self-identified loop hole. See George Carlin as an example.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

You two seem to be having a great mutual masturbation session, but you're both wrong.

As I said, my God explained how I should treat my fellow human and trusts me to figure it out.

Only a truly weak individual needs every single detail explicitly defined. And, if He did define it, some smart ass would STILL find some self-identified loop hole. See George Carlin as an example.

Please, you have lost this argument. Unless you support slavery, you do not take the entirety of your morality from the bible.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it's not shear ignorance or stupidity that is driving you, but a prideful ignorance that informs your reasoning that is typical of people like you.

 

[Midnightrider]

You two seem to be having a great mutual masturbation session, but you're both wrong.

As I said, my God explained how I should treat my fellow human and trusts me to figure it out.
Only a truly weak individual needs every single detail explicitly defined. And, if He did define it, some smart ass would STILL find some self-identified loop hole. See George Carlin as an example.

He spelled this part out.
More than once. This is a second passage from the NT.

Ephesians:

1Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2“Honor your father and mother”—which is the first commandment with a promise— 3“so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.”a

4Fathers,b do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.

5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

9And 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.

You are the one working the selfcreated loophole.

 

[This_person]

Please, you have lost this argument. Unless you support slavery, you do not take the entirety of your morality from the bible.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it's not shear ignorance or stupidity that is driving you, but a prideful ignorance that informs your reasoning that is typical of people like you.

I haven't lost anything. You have an opinion based on your interpretation of a few passages that never explicitly condone slavery, I have my opinion from passages regarding a disciple who asks a man to free slaves in the name of Christianity and Christ telling me how I should treat my fellow human. MR is using a bunch of "render unto Cesar" types of passages as if they are explicitly condoning. They're not.

It's ok to have different opinions based on different interpretations of different passages. You are not going to convince me I am wrong by playing gotcha questions, and I am not going to convince you that you are wrong with non-explicit passages. Hell, I have been unsuccessful with using EXPLICIT passages with people who have convinced themselves of a position because their position fits their narrative.

I know slavery existed then, and Jesus never explicitly condoned nor explicitly condemned it. Anything else is reading into the Word what you believe in your heart, it's perspective, it's a mirror to your own disposition. That's all there is to it.

 

[Bird Dog]

An interesting read on this subject......

https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM

 

[ProximaCentauri]

I haven't lost anything. You have an opinion based on your interpretation of a few passages that never explicitly condone slavery

Again, nowhere in the bible does god, jesus, or paul indicate that to enslave others is a sin. On the contrary,
the god of the bible instructs his people to take slaves, beat slaves, and sell one's daughters into what amounts to sexual slavery. There is only the point, albeit a weak one, that when jesus comes along, he does not explicitly condone slavery but he tacitly condones slavery. This fact resulted in Americans (southerners) enslaving and brutalizing generations of African Americans.

Regarding the Paulian passage, some liberties of interpretation are obviously taken, but ask yourself...why didn't Paul just simply say that to enslave others was against god's will and a sin? Ironically the Paulian passages were used by southerners to justify slavery all the more.

African-American theologian Howard Thurman recalled how his illiterate formerly enslaved grandmother would not allow him to read Paul to her. Slave owners, she said, constantly employed Paul's letters to promote docility among the slaves.

I know slavery existed then, and Jesus never explicitly condoned nor explicitly condemned it. Anything else is reading into the Word what you believe in your heart, it's perspective, it's a mirror to your own disposition. That's all there is to it.

So, you are left with personal interpretations that differ greatly than the Southerners in the civil war who used the bible repeatedly to justify slavery and were on firm ground theologically in doing so.

If had you been into the slave holding states of the south, what would have been your Christian beliefs on slavery? You would have justified slavery based on the bible.

It's obvious, that in the final analysis, you do indeed get some of your moral beliefs from 21st century civilized secular society.

 

[This_person]

Again, nowhere in the bible does god, jesus, or paul indicate that to enslave others is a sin. On the contrary,
the god of the bible instructs his people to take slaves, beat slaves, and sell one's daughters into what amounts to sexual slavery. There is only the point, albeit a weak one, that when jesus comes along, he does not explicitly condone slavery but he tacitly condones slavery. This fact resulted in Americans (southerners) enslaving and brutalizing generations of African Americans.

Regarding the Paulian passage, some liberties of interpretation are obviously taken, but ask yourself...why didn't Paul just simply say that to enslave others was against god's will and a sin? Ironically the Paulian passages were used by southerners to justify slavery all the more.

African-American theologian Howard Thurman recalled how his illiterate formerly enslaved grandmother would not allow him to read Paul to her. Slave owners, she said, constantly employed Paul's letters to promote docility among the slaves.



So, you are left with personal interpretations that differ greatly than the Southerners in the civil war who used the bible repeatedly to justify slavery and were on firm ground theologically in doing so.

If had you been into the slave holding states of the south, what would have been your Christian beliefs on slavery? You would have justified slavery based on the bible.

It's obvious, that in the final analysis, you do indeed get some of your moral beliefs from 21st century civilized secular society.

You're repeating a lot of interpretation and inference.

I laugh that you answer your question to me about how I would have reacted, but I tend to make my own decisions based on my own reading, and I just don't interpret as you do or a few of them did.

Again, a huge part of the argument AGAINST slavery came from Christianity, too.

So, we're still at you and I interpreting different passages based on our own perspectives. I appreciate your position as you've clearly considered it and came to your conclusion. But, it doesn't make your point of view conclusive or definitive.

 

[Bird Dog]

Again, nowhere in the bible does god, jesus, or paul indicate that to enslave others is a sin. On the contrary,
the god of the bible instructs his people to take slaves, beat slaves, and sell one's daughters into what amounts to sexual slavery. There is only the point, albeit a weak one, that when jesus comes along, he does not explicitly condone slavery but he tacitly condones slavery. This fact resulted in Americans (southerners) enslaving and brutalizing generations of African Americans.

Regarding the Paulian passage, some liberties of interpretation are obviously taken, but ask yourself...why didn't Paul just simply say that to enslave others was against god's will and a sin? Ironically the Paulian passages were used by southerners to justify slavery all the more.

African-American theologian Howard Thurman recalled how his illiterate formerly enslaved grandmother would not allow him to read Paul to her. Slave owners, she said, constantly employed Paul's letters to promote docility among the slaves.

You are totally missing Jesus' purpose here on earth. Life expectancy during his time was 30..35 years, he was talking about eternity.
You're circular logic tries to pin slavery on Jesus. Humanity had slaves before Jesus, we have slaves today, sex slaves, human bondage, etc. Not so much here in the USA, except for sex trafficking.
You're beating a dead horse.

Did you read my link on Rome's view of slavery back to the 1400's?

 

[Midnightrider]

You are totally missing Jesus' purpose here on earth. Life expectancy during his time was 30..35 years, he was talking about eternity.
You're circular logic tries to pin slavery on Jesus. Humanity had slaves before Jesus, we have slaves today, sex slaves, human bondage, etc. Not so much here in the USA, except for sex trafficking.
You're beating a dead horse.

Did you read my link on Rome's view of slavery back to the 1400's?

Nobody is 'pinning' slavery on Jesus. If you believe, it is a fact that God laid out the rules for slavery in the OT. It is also fact, according to the NT, that Jesus did not change these laws. Further he told slaves to be obedient and masters to be just. That is just the way it is according to the book. The idea that Jesus was somehow against slavery is not supported by scripture.

I did read the link that you posted. It shows that the catholic church had a gradual reversal of position on slavery, but that did not happen until about 1500 AD if you believe the author at his word.

The development of this teaching over the span of nearly five centuries was occasioned by the unique and illicit form of servitude that accompanied the Age of Discovery. The just titles to servitude were not rejected by the Church, but rather were tolerated for many reasons.

The author goes on to make a very progressive interpretation of some writings from various popes, but he admits that the pertinent ones were not interpreted that way by any bishops at the time. That was probably for good reason. That whole idea of 'just titles'. American slave owners held just titles to their slaves.

However, it is clear that Gregory wrote <In Supremo> to condemn precisely what was occurring in the United States, namely the enslavement of blacks:

"We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare to bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery (<in servitutem redigere>) Indians, Blacks or other such peoples."

The above passage from the article also shows why the author and the bishops disagree on the interpretation. The bishops understood that to mean no new blacks or Indians should be reduced to slavery. I think that is pretty clear, and any inference that this was an order to release slaves is just that.

 

[Bird Dog]

Nobody is 'pinning' slavery on Jesus. If you believe, it is a fact that God laid out the rules for slavery in the OT. It is also fact, according to the NT, that Jesus did not change these laws. Further he told slaves to be obedient and masters to be just. That is just the way it is according to the book. The idea that Jesus was somehow against slavery is not supported by scripture.

I did read the link that you posted. It shows that the catholic church had a gradual reversal of position on slavery, but that did not happen until about 1500 AD if you believe the author at his word.


The author goes on to make a very progressive interpretation of some writings from various popes, but he admits that the pertinent ones were not interpreted that way by any bishops at the time. That was probably for good reason. That whole idea of 'just titles'. American slave owners held just titles to their slaves.


The above passage from the article also shows why the author and the bishops disagree on the interpretation. The bishops understood that to mean no new blacks or Indians should be reduced to slavery. I think that is pretty clear, and any inference that this was an order to release slaves is just that.

Thank you for reading the article. Your comments are greatly respected.....
...but I think Christianity in general was more responsible for the end of slavery in the USA than for the continuance of it....

 

[ProximaCentauri]

You are totally missing Jesus' purpose here on earth. Life expectancy during his time was 30..35 years, he was talking about eternity.
You're circular logic tries to pin slavery on Jesus. Humanity had slaves before Jesus, we have slaves today, sex slaves, human bondage, etc. Not so much here in the USA, except for sex trafficking.
You're beating a dead horse.

No, because you're so deeply invested in your worldview, you completely miss what I was hoping to get you to think about.

As you mentioned, slavery is a normal social condition, before, during, and after jesus's time. The men who wrote the books that became the bible, well after his death, undoubtedly could not imagine a non-slavery world. This is why it was not condemned in the bible.

It is patently obvious that an all wise, all knowing, god of the universe would have condemned slavery for the human atrocity it is. And this is just one more indication the bible is the work of simple men, and not god inspired.

Did you read my link on Rome's view of slavery back to the 1400's?

Yes I did. But if you do additional research you'll find that U.S. Catholic clergy, up to and including the civil war, sometimes willfully misrepresented Papal pronouncements in defense of pro-slavery positions.

And the European movement to abolish slavery took hold in the early 1800s and was spearheaded by some famous protestant activists. It wasn't Catholic-centric led movement.

 

[ProximaCentauri]

...but I think Christianity in general was more responsible for the end of slavery in the USA than for the continuance of it....

Obviously, the US a Christian nation. But Christians should have known better than to enslave others in the first place, no?

It was the abolitionist movement in both Europe and the Northern US states, initially very small groups of very brave - some died because of their activism - and very committed people who drove the effort. These people were compelled by their basic humanism. And, wherever they could, they would draw on their faith, but, eventually have to fight the bloodiest war in the nation's history against christians who were drawing on theirs.

 

[This_person]

No, because you're so deeply invested in your worldview, you completely miss what I was hoping to get you to think about.

As you mentioned, slavery is a normal social condition, before, during, and after jesus's time. The men who wrote the books that became the bible, well after his death, undoubtedly could not imagine a non-slavery world. This is why it was not condemned in the bible.

It is patently obvious that an all wise, all knowing, god of the universe would have condemned slavery for the human atrocity it is. And this is just one more indication the bible is the work of simple men, and not god inspired.



Yes I did. But if you do additional research you'll find that U.S. Catholic clergy, up to and including the civil war, sometimes willfully misrepresented Papal pronouncements in defense of pro-slavery positions.

And the European movement to abolish slavery took hold in the early 1800s and was spearheaded by some famous protestant activists. It wasn't Catholic-centric led movement.

What you find patently obvious is a judgment based on an opinion of an inference. I find it patently obvious that the Jesus who told me to love my fellow human as He loves me and inspired his disciples to violate OT law in favor of asking for a slave's freedom puts the responsibility on me and all of mankind to do the right thing BECAUSE it is the right thing. What I find patently obvious is based on opinion, just like you. I am merely aware and honest enough to admit it.