|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 24, 2019 20:23:18 GMT
I responded to your arguments, I did not ignore them. I think you did. But let’s just test that. Respond to this: Leviticus 25:44-46“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.Is ^this one of God’s commandments, and does it say that the Hebrews are allowed to own people as property? Those are both yes or no questions. Exodus 21:20-21“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.Is ^this a commandment from God, and does it instruct the Hebrews that they are allowed to beat their slaves without punishment if the slave doesn’t die as a result? Again, it’s a yes or no question. Leviticus 20:13“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.Is ^this a commandment from God, and does it instruct the Hebrews to kill male homosexuals? Yes or no? Deuteronomy 22:28-29If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.Finally, is the above passage an instruction from God to his chosen people that if a man rapes a virgin, he is not to be punished at all, but rather has to pay the father and force his victim into a marriage? Yes or no? I don’t want to hear any excuses for why you think this is acceptable, fair, just, or moral.I only want to know if that’s what the scripture actually says. I already addressed you on God "allowing" the Hebrews to own slaves; The rules for them were far more lenient than they were by other nations, such as the Babylonians, etc. Yes, the killing of those caught in homosexual relations is commanded here, just as those caught committing adultery. Let us not forget the fact that the Children of Israel were wandering around in the desert for 4 decades. There were no prisons, institutions, etc., while out on their lonesome, hence the permitting of Capital Punishment, for such offences. Marrying the rape victim abhors us today, but, back when Deuteronomy was written, it was a vindication FOR HER to have her rapist marry her. He stole her dignity from her, therefore, he has to take responsibility for her. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 25, 2019 1:36:42 GMT
I think you did. But let’s just test that. Respond to this: Leviticus 25:44-46“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.Is ^this one of God’s commandments, and does it say that the Hebrews are allowed to own people as property? Those are both yes or no questions. Exodus 21:20-21“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.Is ^this a commandment from God, and does it instruct the Hebrews that they are allowed to beat their slaves without punishment if the slave doesn’t die as a result? Again, it’s a yes or no question. Leviticus 20:13“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.Is ^this a commandment from God, and does it instruct the Hebrews to kill male homosexuals? Yes or no? Deuteronomy 22:28-29If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.Finally, is the above passage an instruction from God to his chosen people that if a man rapes a virgin, he is not to be punished at all, but rather has to pay the father and force his victim into a marriage? Yes or no? I don’t want to hear any excuses for why you think this is acceptable, fair, just, or moral.I only want to know if that’s what the scripture actually says. I already addressed you on God "allowing" the Hebrews to own slaves; The rules for them were far more lenient than they were by other nations, such as the Babylonians, etc. Why do you think this matters? You are essentially saying that it's morally okay to own another human being as property and beat them if they're your property! What the fuck kind of "morals" are those? How can you possibly sit here and say that it's moral to own another human being as property for life and to beat them? Yes, the killing of those caught in homosexual relations is commanded here, just as those caught committing adultery. Let us not forget the fact that the Children of Israel were wandering around in the desert for 4 decades. Well I do forget it because that never actually happened. It's a complete fiction as there is no archeological evidence to support this whatsoever. But that aside, I don't see how it relates to the morality of God commanding that homosexuals be killed. The fact that you defend this as "moral" is equally disgusting to me. There were no prisons, institutions, etc., while out on their lonesome, hence the permitting of Capital Punishment, for such offences. Why is two men having sex an "offense" at all, much less one that warrants the death penalty? What is the moral argument for that? Marrying the rape victim abhors us today, but, back when Deuteronomy was written, it was a vindication FOR HER... Oh my God...I can't with this bullshit! Yeah, I'm sure she enjoyed having to live the rest of her life with the man who sexually violated her in the worst possible way. Because, you know "society" (God's society) was so morally bankrupt that this was the only way for her to be vindicated!  You are precisely the reason why Christianity is an INSANE religion! You just defended slavery, execution for homosexuals, and punishing rape victims instead of the rapist. Your religion demands the suspension of morality and absurd apologetics to try to make the immoral MONSTER known as "God" into a moral being, and that's just fucking sad! |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 25, 2019 4:52:51 GMT
I already addressed you on God "allowing" the Hebrews to own slaves; The rules for them were far more lenient than they were by other nations, such as the Babylonians, etc. Why do you think this matters? You are essentially saying that it's morally okay to own another human being as property and beat them if they're your property! What the fuck kind of "morals" are those? How can you possibly sit here and say that it's moral to own another human being as property for life and to beat them? Yes, the killing of those caught in homosexual relations is commanded here, just as those caught committing adultery. Let us not forget the fact that the Children of Israel were wandering around in the desert for 4 decades. Well I do forget it because that never actually happened. It's a complete fiction as there is no archeological evidence to support this whatsoever. But that aside, I don't see how it relates to the morality of God commanding that homosexuals be killed. The fact that you defend this as "moral" is equally disgusting to me. There were no prisons, institutions, etc., while out on their lonesome, hence the permitting of Capital Punishment, for such offences. Why is two men having sex an "offense" at all, much less one that warrants the death penalty? What is the moral argument for that? Marrying the rape victim abhors us today, but, back when Deuteronomy was written, it was a vindication FOR HER... Oh my God...I can't with this bullshit! Yeah, I'm sure she enjoyed having to live the rest of her life with the man who sexually violated her in the worst possible way. Because, you know "society" (God's society) was so morally bankrupt that this was the only way for her to be vindicated! You are precisely the reason why Christianity is an INSANE religion! You just defended slavery, execution for homosexuals, and punishing rape victims instead of the rapist. Your religion demands the suspension of morality and absurd apologetics to try to make the immoral MONSTER known as "God" into a moral being, and that's just fucking sad! It matters because it was never God's Will for people to be given into slavery. Yet, He Knew that humanity were too stubborn to treat one another another equally & fairly. So, He PERMITTED it, but, Gave Laws that they should be treated humanely. Then in the New Testament, St. Paul urges Philemon to receive back a runaway slave as a friend, & not as a slave, because he knows that God Does not Will for there to be slaves. The purpose of sexual intercourse is for procreation. Therefore, it is for (married) men and women to partake in. Not for 2 males and 2 females. Most people (that are pro Capital Punishment) would not want it for homosexual relations today, or even imprisonment. Yes, the woman was vindicated when the man who raped her married her. Yes, she felt that way, back in thousands of years ago. Referring back to the example of Amnon raping Tamar: If you read the story itself in 2 Samuel, chapter 13, after the rape was committed, Amnon turned against her, and threw her out of his apartment. She begged him not to, because to do so would have been an even greater crime against her than the original one (the rape itself). I did not defend slavery, execution (I'm anti-Death Penalty, precisely because I believe in the 10 Commandments), nor punishing rape victims. You continue to misinterpret what the Holy Bible teaches, & I correct you. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 25, 2019 5:14:05 GMT
Why do you think this matters? You are essentially saying that it's morally okay to own another human being as property and beat them if they're your property! What the fuck kind of "morals" are those? How can you possibly sit here and say that it's moral to own another human being as property for life and to beat them? Well I do forget it because that never actually happened. It's a complete fiction as there is no archeological evidence to support this whatsoever. But that aside, I don't see how it relates to the morality of God commanding that homosexuals be killed. The fact that you defend this as "moral" is equally disgusting to me. Why is two men having sex an "offense" at all, much less one that warrants the death penalty? What is the moral argument for that? Oh my God...I can't with this bullshit! Yeah, I'm sure she enjoyed having to live the rest of her life with the man who sexually violated her in the worst possible way. Because, you know "society" (God's society) was so morally bankrupt that this was the only way for her to be vindicated! You are precisely the reason why Christianity is an INSANE religion! You just defended slavery, execution for homosexuals, and punishing rape victims instead of the rapist. Your religion demands the suspension of morality and absurd apologetics to try to make the immoral MONSTER known as "God" into a moral being, and that's just fucking sad! It matters because it was never God's Will for people to be given into slavery. Yet, He Knew that humanity were too stubborn to treat one another another equally & fairly. So, He PERMITTED it, but, Gave Laws that they should be treated humanely. Then in the New Testament, St. Paul urges Philemon to receive back a runaway slave as a friend, & not as a slave, because he knows that God Does not Will for there to be slaves. The purpose of sexual intercourse is for procreation. Therefore, it is for (married) men and women to partake in. Not for 2 males and 2 females. Most people (that are pro Capital Punishment) would not want it for homosexual relations today, or even imprisonment. Yes, the woman was vindicated when the man who raped her married her. Yes, she felt that way, back in thousands of years ago. Referring back to the example of Amnon raping Tamar: If you read the story itself in 2 Samuel, chapter 13, after the rape was committed, Amnon turned against her, and threw her out of his apartment. She begged him not to, because to do so would have been an even greater crime against her than the original one (the rape itself). I did not defend slavery, execution (I'm anti-Death Penalty, precisely because I believe in the 10 Commandments), nor punishing rape victims. You continue to misinterpret what the Holy Bible teaches, & I correct you. You know all this how? ...if it is not clear in the Bible to ALL? Answer: Interpretation by the Catholic Church over centuries in a self serving justification of its own existence. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 25, 2019 7:04:54 GMT
It matters because it was never God's Will for people to be given into slavery. Yet, He Knew that humanity were too stubborn to treat one another another equally & fairly. So, He PERMITTED it, but, Gave Laws that they should be treated humanely. Then in the New Testament, St. Paul urges Philemon to receive back a runaway slave as a friend, & not as a slave, because he knows that God Does not Will for there to be slaves.This is not written in the epistle to Philemon. It is purely a fantasy of Christian apologists. The purpose of sexual intercourse is for procreation. Says who? Not the 10 Commandments. You continue to misinterpret what the Holy Bible teaches, & I correct you. Correction: You continue to interpret the Bible as an apologist. The fact that the Bible can be interpreted differently shows that it's a questionable foundation for ethics. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 25, 2019 10:18:05 GMT
It matters because it was never God's Will for people to be given into slavery. Yet, He Knew that humanity were too stubborn to treat one another another equally & fairly. So, He PERMITTED it, but, Gave Laws that they should be treated humanely. Then in the New Testament, St. Paul urges Philemon to receive back a runaway slave as a friend, & not as a slave, because he knows that God Does not Will for there to be slaves. The purpose of sexual intercourse is for procreation. Therefore, it is for (married) men and women to partake in. Not for 2 males and 2 females. Most people (that are pro Capital Punishment) would not want it for homosexual relations today, or even imprisonment. Yes, the woman was vindicated when the man who raped her married her. Yes, she felt that way, back in thousands of years ago. Referring back to the example of Amnon raping Tamar: If you read the story itself in 2 Samuel, chapter 13, after the rape was committed, Amnon turned against her, and threw her out of his apartment. She begged him not to, because to do so would have been an even greater crime against her than the original one (the rape itself). I did not defend slavery, execution (I'm anti-Death Penalty, precisely because I believe in the 10 Commandments), nor punishing rape victims. You continue to misinterpret what the Holy Bible teaches, & I correct you. You know all this how? ...if it is not clear in the Bible to ALL? Answer: Interpretation by the Catholic Church over centuries in a self serving justification of its own existence. I know that some people like being slaves for various reasons. In ancient times there was nowhere else to go for many people but into slavery. The economy was extremely different. There was no "industry" that needed a large labor pool. In modern times some people like being slaves because they don't like making decisions or taking blame for their decisions. They prefer to just do what they are told and avoid blame as much as possible. These days there are people who want the government to make every little decision for them. That way when their aunt dies it is no way their fault, or so they prefer to believe. Mentally retarded atheists, and most of them are, can only comprehend the term "slavery" as largely practiced in the southern United States before the Civil War. That was a very different thing that it can be argued involved racist ideas. Other slavery did not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2019 13:33:21 GMT
It genuinely baffles me that there are christians who think the fact that the slavery endorsed in the bible wasn't quite as bad as slavery as practiced in some other places means that the bible doesn't endorse slavery. Or that it does, but that's not a bad thing.
The bible endorses the owning of another human being as property. It's very clear on the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 25, 2019 15:04:37 GMT
It matters because it was never God's Will for people to be given into slavery. Yet, He Knew that humanity were too stubborn to treat one another another equally & fairly. So, He PERMITTED it, but, Gave Laws that they should be treated humanely. Then in the New Testament, St. Paul urges Philemon to receive back a runaway slave as a friend, & not as a slave, because he knows that God Does not Will for there to be slaves.This is not written in the epistle to Philemon. It is purely a fantasy of Christian apologists. The purpose of sexual intercourse is for procreation. Says who? Not the 10 Commandments. You continue to misinterpret what the Holy Bible teaches, & I correct you. Correction: You continue to interpret the Bible as an apologist. The fact that the Bible can be interpreted differently shows that it's a questionable foundation for ethics. St. Paul urges Philemon to take Onesimus to receive him back as a friend & not a slave. Hence, slavery is wrong, according to the overall message of the Holy Bible. God Says so in Genesis chapter 9, verse 7. It is only questionable for ethics for those who have very poor ethics. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jan 25, 2019 15:34:25 GMT
This is not written in the epistle to Philemon. It is purely a fantasy of Christian apologists. Says who? Not the 10 Commandments. Correction: You continue to interpret the Bible as an apologist. The fact that the Bible can be interpreted differently shows that it's a questionable foundation for ethics. St. Paul urges Philemon to take Onesimus to receive him back as a friend & not a slave. Hence, slavery is wrong, according to the overall message of the Holy Bible. That's one individual case, where Paul begged for his own son to be freed. And pretty much completely refuted by... why, it's Paul again, who repeatedly tells slaves to obey their masters, even if their masters are cruel. "Yes, have many children and repopulate the earth and subdue it." I'm sorry, I... don't see it. In fact, if you read further in that same chapter, you see Noah curse one of his sons: “A curse upon the Canaanites,” he swore.
“May they be the lowest of slaves
To the descendants of Shem and Japheth.”
Then he said,
“God bless Shem,
And may Canaan be his slave.
God bless Japheth,
And let him share the prosperity of Shem,
And let Canaan be his slave.”www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+9&version=TLBThose are the only references to slavery in that chapter. And God had no problem with this, because apparently he made it so. On the contrary, it is questionable ethics for all who have modern ethics. So those who defend the Bible in terms of slavery, are - practically by definition - the ones with very poor ethics. God is explicit about things he does not want you to do. He tells you explicitly not to steal, not to murder, not to wear clothes made for the opposite sex etc. But at no point does he instruct us not to have slaves. He had every opportunity to do so (or rather, the Bible authors did), but there was never any condemnation, any kind of condemnation, of slavery. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 25, 2019 18:34:38 GMT
St. Paul urges Philemon to take Onesimus to receive him back as a friend & not a slave. Hence, slavery is wrong, according to the overall message of the Holy Bible. Very poor reasoning. In the John Gospel, Jesus lets an adulteress walk free, saying "I don't condemn you". Does this mean that adultery is ok according to the Bible? God Says so in Genesis chapter 9, verse 7. As Karl Aksel already pointed out: No, He didn't. God just says to procreate, not that sexual intercourse should be used only for procreation. It is only questionable for ethics for those who have very poor ethics. Actually, it is questionable for ethics for those who can read and think. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 25, 2019 23:04:54 GMT
St. Paul urges Philemon to take Onesimus to receive him back as a friend & not a slave. Hence, slavery is wrong, according to the overall message of the Holy Bible. That's one individual case, where Paul begged for his own son to be freed. And pretty much completely refuted by... why, it's Paul again, who repeatedly tells slaves to obey their masters, even if their masters are cruel. "Yes, have many children and repopulate the earth and subdue it." I'm sorry, I... don't see it. In fact, if you read further in that same chapter, you see Noah curse one of his sons: “A curse upon the Canaanites,” he swore.
“May they be the lowest of slaves
To the descendants of Shem and Japheth.”
Then he said,
“God bless Shem,
And may Canaan be his slave.
God bless Japheth,
And let him share the prosperity of Shem,
And let Canaan be his slave.”www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+9&version=TLBThose are the only references to slavery in that chapter. And God had no problem with this, because apparently he made it so. On the contrary, it is questionable ethics for all who have modern ethics. So those who defend the Bible in terms of slavery, are - practically by definition - the ones with very poor ethics. God is explicit about things he does not want you to do. He tells you explicitly not to steal, not to murder, not to wear clothes made for the opposite sex etc. But at no point does he instruct us not to have slaves. He had every opportunity to do so (or rather, the Bible authors did), but there was never any condemnation, any kind of condemnation, of slavery. St. Paul's admonishment to slaves to obey their masters in no way refutes the fact that he told a Christian slave master to receive back a former slave as a friend. Unlike Moses, St. Paul was not a rebel leader. Only a travelling missionary, going out into the world to preach the Gospel. Back during the first 300 or 400 years of Christianity, a great many of the converts to the religion came from the lower classes of people, including slaves, the disabled, the poor, etc. This is because the Gospel taught that God Had a Special Love for the poor & downtrodden, and encouraged humility over pride. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 25, 2019 23:13:22 GMT
St. Paul urges Philemon to take Onesimus to receive him back as a friend & not a slave. Hence, slavery is wrong, according to the overall message of the Holy Bible.. Very poor reasoning. In the John Gospel, Jesus lets an adulteress walk free, saying "I don't condemn you". Does this mean that adultery is ok according to the Bible? God Says so in Genesis chapter 9, verse 7. As Karl Aksel already pointed out: No, He didn't. God just says to procreate, not that sexual intercourse should be used only for procreation. It is only questionable for ethics for those who have very poor ethics. Actually, it is questionable for ethics for those who can read and think. I fail to see how the story about the woman that was caught in adultery has anything to do with Philemon & Onesimus. Moreover, you left out a Statement from Our Lord: "SIN NO MORE." So obviously, adultery is not okay. Rather, the story of the woman caught in adultery, clearly showed the hypocrisy of all her accusers. Eg: Where was the man whom she was caught committing adultery with? God Says to procreate, hence that is what sexual intercourse is for. Those who can read & think, know that ethics are very high in the Holy Bible. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jan 25, 2019 23:16:19 GMT
Very poor reasoning. In the John Gospel, Jesus lets an adulteress walk free, saying "I don't condemn you". Does this mean that adultery is ok according to the Bible? As Karl Aksel already pointed out: No, He didn't. God just says to procreate, not that sexual intercourse should be used only for procreation. Actually, it is questionable for ethics for those who can read and think. I fail to see how the story about the woman that was caught in adultery has anything to do with Philemon & Onesimus. Moreover, you left out a Statement from Our Lord: "SIN NO MORE." So obviously, adultery is not okay. Rather, the story of the woman caught in adultery, clearly showed the hypocrisy of all her accusers. Eg: Where was the man whom she was caught committing adultery with? God Says to procreate, hence that is what sexual intercourse is for. Those who can read & think, know that ethics are very high in the Holy Bible. So is it wrong or against God's will for a husband and wife to make love if say one of them are infertile or she's past menopause? |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 25, 2019 23:22:58 GMT
I fail to see how the story about the woman that was caught in adultery has anything to do with Philemon & Onesimus. Moreover, you left out a Statement from Our Lord: "SIN NO MORE." So obviously, adultery is not okay. Rather, the story of the woman caught in adultery, clearly showed the hypocrisy of all her accusers. Eg: Where was the man whom she was caught committing adultery with? God Says to procreate, hence that is what sexual intercourse is for. Those who can read & think, know that ethics are very high in the Holy Bible. So is it wrong or against God's will for a husband and wife to make love if say one of them are infertile or she's past menopause? No. They're married. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jan 25, 2019 23:25:36 GMT
So is it wrong or against God's will for a husband and wife to make love if say one of them are infertile or she's past menopause? No. They're married. I'm confused. I thought you implied sex is only for procreation. I think God also gave it to us as a gift to bond with our spouses and bring each other pleasure. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 25, 2019 23:31:27 GMT
I'm confused. I thought you implied sex is only for procreation. I think God also gave it to us as a gift to bond with our spouses and bring each other pleasure. Yes, & what is marriage for...it is for couples to procreate & bring spouses together. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 25, 2019 23:32:35 GMT
I fail to see how the story about the woman that was caught in adultery has anything to do with Philemon & Onesimus. Moreover, you left out a Statement from Our Lord: "SIN NO MORE."First, he's not my lord; second, he just said: Sin no more. Not that adultery is a sin. But from someone who believes this: God Says to procreate, hence that is what sexual intercourse is for. I am not surprised. A complete non sequitur. Sexual intercourse isn't even mentioned in that chapter. Those who can read & think, know that ethics are very high in the Holy Bible. And as shown again and again and again, on this thread: No, they are not. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jan 25, 2019 23:37:31 GMT
That's one individual case, where Paul begged for his own son to be freed. And pretty much completely refuted by... why, it's Paul again, who repeatedly tells slaves to obey their masters, even if their masters are cruel. "Yes, have many children and repopulate the earth and subdue it." I'm sorry, I... don't see it. In fact, if you read further in that same chapter, you see Noah curse one of his sons: “A curse upon the Canaanites,” he swore.
“May they be the lowest of slaves
To the descendants of Shem and Japheth.”
Then he said,
“God bless Shem,
And may Canaan be his slave.
God bless Japheth,
And let him share the prosperity of Shem,
And let Canaan be his slave.”www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+9&version=TLBThose are the only references to slavery in that chapter. And God had no problem with this, because apparently he made it so. On the contrary, it is questionable ethics for all who have modern ethics. So those who defend the Bible in terms of slavery, are - practically by definition - the ones with very poor ethics. God is explicit about things he does not want you to do. He tells you explicitly not to steal, not to murder, not to wear clothes made for the opposite sex etc. But at no point does he instruct us not to have slaves. He had every opportunity to do so (or rather, the Bible authors did), but there was never any condemnation, any kind of condemnation, of slavery. St. Paul's admonishment to slaves to obey their masters in no way refutes the fact that he told a Christian slave master to receive back a former slave as a friend. First of all, it wasn't "a former slave" - it was his own son. Not by blood, but by love. Second, he didn't tell the slave master to receive him as friend rather than slave, he beseeched him to. Third, you are placing the cart before the horse. This is the correct way to look at it: Paul's request to have Onesimus freed in no way contradicts his position that slaves should be diligent to their masters. Throughout the history of slavery we have slave owners granting freedom to slaves, or people asking for individuals to be freed, who were not opposed to the institution of slavery. There is no contradiction, as there is no overlap. Just because you want something to happen to one specific individual, does not mean you want the same to happen to all individuals of the same demographic. Yes, indeed - specifically, even if they were not rewarded in this life, they'd be rewarded all the more in the next. And slave owners didn't mind this at all, because here was a religion which told slaves to be content to be slaves! So there was incentive both from below and above to encourage Christianity, which is a major reason why it spread so fast. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 26, 2019 0:29:28 GMT
I fail to see how the story about the woman that was caught in adultery has anything to do with Philemon & Onesimus. Moreover, you left out a Statement from Our Lord: "SIN NO MORE."First, he's not my lord; second, he just said: Sin no more. Not that adultery is a sin. But from someone who believes this: God Says to procreate, hence that is what sexual intercourse is for. I am not surprised. A complete non sequitur. Sexual intercourse isn't even mentioned in that chapter. Those who can read & think, know that ethics are very high in the Holy Bible. And as shown again and again and again, on this thread: No, they are not. First, He may not be YOUR Lord, but, He Is Mine, as well as millions of other people around the world (there are even people who have given up their lives for Him), so, I hope you don't mind, but, I will still refer to Him as "Our Lord," thank you very much. Second, taking into consideration that she was caught committing adultery, what other sin could Our Lord possibly be Referring to, here? How else do people procreate? Wrong. None of the examples given by you guys proved your case. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 26, 2019 0:37:34 GMT
St. Paul's admonishment to slaves to obey their masters in no way refutes the fact that he told a Christian slave master to receive back a former slave as a friend. First of all, it wasn't "a former slave" - it was his own son. Not by blood, but by love. Second, he didn't tell the slave master to receive him as friend rather than slave, he beseeched him to. Third, you are placing the cart before the horse. This is the correct way to look at it: Paul's request to have Onesimus freed in no way contradicts his position that slaves should be diligent to their masters. Throughout the history of slavery we have slave owners granting freedom to slaves, or people asking for individuals to be freed, who were not opposed to the institution of slavery. There is no contradiction, as there is no overlap. Just because you want something to happen to one specific individual, does not mean you want the same to happen to all individuals of the same demographic. Yes, indeed - specifically, even if they were not rewarded in this life, they'd be rewarded all the more in the next. And slave owners didn't mind this at all, because here was a religion which told slaves to be content to be slaves! So there was incentive both from below and above to encourage Christianity, which is a major reason why it spread so fast. As already mentioned, St. Paul was not a rebel leader; just a missionary. Hence, he did not encourage rebellion from the people that were slaves, who were Christians. That's right. People awaited being awarded in the next life. Hence, they humbly lived their lives as slaves, and other low-class positions, because their Lord too, had Suffered in this life, and is now the King of Heaven. The pagan Roman masters/mistresses of the Christian slaves worshipped Mars, the god of war & bloodshed, as well as other gods, and enjoyed hedonistic lifestyle in the PRESENT life. |
|
