|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 14, 2019 17:51:42 GMT
Regarding Mal 3:6 ("For I, the LORD, do not change" ) that wasnt meant to be taken literally. People speak in universalisations like that all the time when they dont literally mean it. Example = "You lie all the time". I see, and so (assuming you are one of those thinking JC was God on earth of course) then Heb 13:8's "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." should just be taken as a figure of speech too? Or, when we read Isiah 40:8'S notion that "the word of God will stand forever" then that's not really the case and of course it will fluctuate after all? Or, is James 1:17's the "Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change." just so much optimism about an entity in reality liable to be as wobbly as a weathercock? Hey, I think I have it now! lol Special pleading flagged again. This may be the case but a reading of Paul's notorious words about slavery shows they are more than just a acknowledgement of the institution of slavery. It is advice of how to best to make it work smoothly. Yes, as I have acknowledged, Paul is more negative about slave owners elsewhere. But the mere fact that his words have been used both to argue that the Bible supposedly supports, and then also condemns, slavery would indicate that there is no clear cut moral judgement to be had. As I said elsewhere, some things are crystal clear through proscription in scripture, such as divorce or approaching the altar with damaged gonads etc. There is no such clarity in regards to slavery, despite the optimistic claims of apologists or for one thing we would not be here disputing it. And yet - he still sends the slave back. Would you send a battered wife back to an abusive husband and still claim the moral high ground? |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 14, 2019 18:11:07 GMT
You are moving the goalposts, something you already objected to elsewhere on this thread, since your question referred to 'when did the Bible' not 'where in the NT'. And as I have already observed, we see Paul in the NT giving infamous advice on the best way to run slaves ("Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior." etc). If advice had been offered instead, say. on the most recommended, or acceptable, way to work a murder, could that ever be taken as a 'condemnation of homicide' - even though, yes. Paul is more negative about slave traders elsewhere? The impression is that neither JC nor Paul were, existing in the culture that they did, very exercised about the issue of slavery per se, at least not enough to condemn it - with the same clear emphasis that is found when discussing divorce for instance. If the new testament (the new teaching) contradicts the old teaching (the old testament) then the teaching of god is what is in the new testament. The Bible documents gods changing. If I say "I used to be a x but now I am y", does that mean I am condoning x? Of course not. Same goes for the bible. Regarding Paul telling slaves to obey their masters is not the same as condoning it. If I say "obey the law" I am not condoning the law. Unless you also condemn it, then you are condoning it. You may argue that the law should be changed through the proper channels, but if all you are saying is simply "obey the law", then you are giving it your endorsement. He does no such thing. He begs for the freedom for one specific slave, who happens to be his close friend, someone who is like a son to him. He does not ask for the freedom of any other slaves. That would be a dire misinterpretation of the text, and indeed no one ever interpreted the text that way until the abolitionist movement - that ought to tell you something. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Feb 14, 2019 19:46:46 GMT
This thread has shown off such such amazing contortionist skill from the apologists, surely to rival the best found in any circus.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 14, 2019 21:46:25 GMT
This thread has shown off such such amazing contortionist skill from the apologists, surely to rival the best found in any circus. I highlighted this is my post about evolutionary anthropological development of 'morality'! Such an excellent example. |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 14, 2019 21:52:02 GMT
To take a slightly different tack on this, I suppose it's good that Christians are jumping through hoops to say the Bible doesn't endorse slavery. It suggests that they find slavery abhorrent and are making the Bible fit that ethic rather than taking their morals unquestioningly from the Bible.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 14, 2019 21:57:20 GMT
To take a slightly different tack on this, I suppose it's good that Christians are jumping through hoops to say the Bible doesn't endorse slavery. It suggests that they find slavery abhorrent and are making the Bible fit that ethic. Agreed, however it logically makes their other assertion that an absolute objective morality was God given….more than a bit dodgy! Cognitive dissonance fully at play, here. |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 14, 2019 22:28:43 GMT
Cognitive dissonance fully at play, here. Probably but at least it's a positive cognitive dissonance. Give me that over the all too common example of a millionaire evangelist who champions the passages that condemn homosexuality while conveniently explaining away those that condemn wealth any day of the week. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 14, 2019 22:33:43 GMT
To take a slightly different tack on this, I suppose it's good that Christians are jumping through hoops to say the Bible doesn't endorse slavery. It suggests that they find slavery abhorrent and are making the Bible fit that ethic rather than taking their morals unquestioningly from the Bible. Certainly - but it goes to show what I have maintained all along, that man made God in his image - not the other way around. |
|
|
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 14, 2019 22:49:45 GMT
Certainly - but it goes to show what I have maintained all along, that man made God in his image - not the other way around. One could look at it a slightly different way - that the Bible (and indeed all holy books of various religions) are an attempt to explain the transcendent. But being written by humans, they often project their own ethics, biases and justifications upon the transcendent. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Feb 14, 2019 23:08:09 GMT
Certainly - but it goes to show what I have maintained all along, that man made God in his image - not the other way around. One could look at it a slightly different way - that the Bible (and indeed all holy books of various religions) are an attempt to explain the transcendent. But being written by humans, they often project their own ethics, biases and justifications upon the transcendent. That may not be that different than the atheist view, just replace "often" with "always". |
|
