|
Post by Isapop on Feb 23, 2023 20:14:41 GMT
Are you really challenging him to bring evidence that the Bible gives advice on how to treat slaves? I’m challenging him to bring evidence that the bible endorses the kind of slavery he thinks if does. From the thread, he appears to refer to the "kind of slavery" where a person is owned as property by another. Was there something else he said in his reference to slavery?
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 23, 2023 20:31:26 GMT
Yes, *IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE!!!* Ditto for the Greeks as well. But, not for the Jews. That is why when St. Paul was admonishing the newly formed churches throughout the Greek & Roman world he addressed the issue of homosexual acts (as well as other types of fornications). Which according to his religion is a grave sin just like eating pork is a grave sin. And the sin is not homosexuality per se, but using sex for recreational pleasure. This is why any fornication including sex using birth control is a grave still on the books, if not practiced much today. However, there is only one-size-fits all punishment. We all fall short of the grace of God. There is probably far more “grave sin” going on unchecked in your life you don’t even realize you engage in. If anything, you might think you are being kind to gay people when you withhold your charity in loving thy neighbor unconditionally. That is the Narrow Gate and few can pass through it. I daresay Paul knew all about homosexuality. Not that he was necessarily gay himself, but he was half Greek and not raised in Jerusalem, but the very cosmopolitan Tarsus in the Greco-Roman world. He was very well educated for a man of his time and in the leather and tent making trade. He would have intimately known pagans homosexuals and otherwise, and probably did lots of business with them. That was his gateway into their world to spread his message from Jesus himself. He had totally new ideas, was well spoken, and people found what he said as positive and hopeful for a new world. He never admonished his friends in the churches to persecute gay people or said they were inherently evil, he simply told them cut out the pagan rituals, which were not sexual but often used transgendered shamans, together with the Jesus’ Resurrection commemoration meals. He told them to stick to the plan of going as righteous as possible; go celibate if necessary, just like him, because the Lord Jesus was returning soon before the last of them would die. He told straight people to do the same. He refers to his “thorn in his side,” which means whatever Paul struggled with in failing righteous himself, it was his problem, not anyone else’s. Paul was not self-righteous, which is what the Church Universal became once it went political. The Church needs to heal itself. That said, not all Romans were citified hedonists, the old conservative tribal cultures still held sway in the countryside among the heaths and the educated classes, the Atheists, who sneered at magical paganism, were not all bread, circuses, and whorehouses. They thought a lot on their philosophy and their learning would come to elevate the Church as centers for positive outcomes of universal peace and love, rather than torture chambers of body, mind, and soul they general are when politicized. And this is not 1st century Rome, but the 21st and we are not bound by the superstitions that keeps religion in business. There is no rational ethical guidance coming from any of the churches now. It’s all noise for self-preservation with no signal. If it works for you fine, but there is good reason for me to not follow your advice on the subject at this time. If the churches clean up their acts and actually decide to follow Jesus into the Narrow Gate, let me know. I ain’t holding my breath. Correct. Not homosexuality itself. It is the very acts, & ditto for when straight people fornicate as well (ie: "but using sex for recreational pleasure."). Correct. Which is why I try to go to confession whenever I can. Also, in what way have I withheld charity in loving my neighbour unconditionally? I never said I hated gay or lesbian people. Perhaps it is you & people like you who engage in "there is only one-size-fits all punishment," when you equate people who still hold to traditional views of sexuality, with people who actually attack & even kill people simply because they are gay or lesbian. Yes, which was probably why St. Paul addressed the issue of homosexual acts in his epistles. As a Jew, he would not have engaged in those acts himself, but, until he became an Apostle, he probably never discussed with the Greek pagans their sexual acts. Only when he converted the Greeks to Christianity. That's correct Never once did he admonish Christians to persecute gay people or even non-christians themselves. Just to remain virtuous. BTW, in regards to St. Paul's "thorn in his flesh;" there are some who theorize he may have had Stigmata, because of this & a few other things he said about himself in his Epistles. Could St. Paul Have Had Stigmata?
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Feb 23, 2023 21:20:11 GMT
Which according to his religion is a grave sin just like eating pork is a grave sin. And the sin is not homosexuality per se, but using sex for recreational pleasure. This is why any fornication including sex using birth control is a grave still on the books, if not practiced much today. However, there is only one-size-fits all punishment. We all fall short of the grace of God. There is probably far more “grave sin” going on unchecked in your life you don’t even realize you engage in. If anything, you might think you are being kind to gay people when you withhold your charity in loving thy neighbor unconditionally. That is the Narrow Gate and few can pass through it. I daresay Paul knew all about homosexuality. Not that he was necessarily gay himself, but he was half Greek and not raised in Jerusalem, but the very cosmopolitan Tarsus in the Greco-Roman world. He was very well educated for a man of his time and in the leather and tent making trade. He would have intimately known pagans homosexuals and otherwise, and probably did lots of business with them. That was his gateway into their world to spread his message from Jesus himself. He had totally new ideas, was well spoken, and people found what he said as positive and hopeful for a new world. He never admonished his friends in the churches to persecute gay people or said they were inherently evil, he simply told them cut out the pagan rituals, which were not sexual but often used transgendered shamans, together with the Jesus’ Resurrection commemoration meals. He told them to stick to the plan of going as righteous as possible; go celibate if necessary, just like him, because the Lord Jesus was returning soon before the last of them would die. He told straight people to do the same. He refers to his “thorn in his side,” which means whatever Paul struggled with in failing righteous himself, it was his problem, not anyone else’s. Paul was not self-righteous, which is what the Church Universal became once it went political. The Church needs to heal itself. That said, not all Romans were citified hedonists, the old conservative tribal cultures still held sway in the countryside among the heaths and the educated classes, the Atheists, who sneered at magical paganism, were not all bread, circuses, and whorehouses. They thought a lot on their philosophy and their learning would come to elevate the Church as centers for positive outcomes of universal peace and love, rather than torture chambers of body, mind, and soul they general are when politicized. And this is not 1st century Rome, but the 21st and we are not bound by the superstitions that keeps religion in business. There is no rational ethical guidance coming from any of the churches now. It’s all noise for self-preservation with no signal. If it works for you fine, but there is good reason for me to not follow your advice on the subject at this time. If the churches clean up their acts and actually decide to follow Jesus into the Narrow Gate, let me know. I ain’t holding my breath. Correct. Not homosexuality itself. It is the very acts, & ditto for when straight people fornicate as well (ie: "but using sex for recreational pleasure."). Correct. Which is why I try to go to confession whenever I can. Also, in what way have I withheld charity in loving my neighbour unconditionally? I never said I hated gay or lesbian people. Perhaps it is you & people like you who engage in "there is only one-size-fits all punishment," when you equate people who still hold to traditional views of sexuality, with people who actually attack & even kill people simply because they are gay or lesbian. Yes, which was probably why St. Paul addressed the issue of homosexual acts in his epistles. As a Jew, he would not have engaged in those acts himself, but, until he became an Apostle, he probably never discussed with the Greek pagans their sexual acts. Only when he converted the Greeks to Christianity. That's correct Never once did he admonish Christians to persecute gay people or even non-christians themselves. Just to remain virtuous. BTW, in regards to St. Paul's "thorn in his flesh;" there are some who theorize he may have had Stigmata, because of this & a few other things he said about himself in his Epistles. Could St. Paul Have Had Stigmata?
No, he did not. You keep confusing your superstitions with what Paul wrote. He plainly says what he means, if he had stigmata, a Medieval phenomenon, he would have said it. Jesus worshipped as a crucified or executed god was a common pagan motif and not incorporated until much later in Christianity’s development.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 23, 2023 21:30:51 GMT
Correct. Not homosexuality itself. It is the very acts, & ditto for when straight people fornicate as well (ie: "but using sex for recreational pleasure."). Correct. Which is why I try to go to confession whenever I can. Also, in what way have I withheld charity in loving my neighbour unconditionally? I never said I hated gay or lesbian people. Perhaps it is you & people like you who engage in "there is only one-size-fits all punishment," when you equate people who still hold to traditional views of sexuality, with people who actually attack & even kill people simply because they are gay or lesbian. Yes, which was probably why St. Paul addressed the issue of homosexual acts in his epistles. As a Jew, he would not have engaged in those acts himself, but, until he became an Apostle, he probably never discussed with the Greek pagans their sexual acts. Only when he converted the Greeks to Christianity. That's correct Never once did he admonish Christians to persecute gay people or even non-christians themselves. Just to remain virtuous. BTW, in regards to St. Paul's "thorn in his flesh;" there are some who theorize he may have had Stigmata, because of this & a few other things he said about himself in his Epistles. Could St. Paul Have Had Stigmata?
No, he did not. You keep confusing your superstitions with what Paul wrote. He plainly says what he means, if he had stigmata, a Medieval phenomenon, he would have said it. Jesus worshipped as a crucified or executed god was a common pagan motif and not incorporated until much later in Christianity’s development. How could he have said it, when the word was not as yet, coined?
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Feb 23, 2023 21:40:39 GMT
Bring your evidence in regards to slavery, sir. "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." Took me 3 seconds of work. OK. Do you know what the Hebrew word translated as slave there is? The answer is “Ebed”, the meaning of which is “worker” or “servant”. It’s a neutral word which literally denotes a relationship based on dependency. The word wasn’t inherently negative. It’s actually used in positive ways in many other passages, even used as a word of honour, in the bible. In the OT there are 3 main categories that servants/slaves would fall under. 1. The Hebrews - These were servants who were voluntarily working to pay off debt or to acquire land. 2. The Foreigners - These guys also voluntarily entered into work for the same reasons. 3. Prisoners of War - These were the bad guys. The soldiers that were captured from other armies. Obviously there were going to be slightly different rules for these people as they were more of a threat. They’d be working harder and would be on a tighter watch. But they were more prisoners than slaves. Overall the people that you’re considering as “slaves” were simply people working to pay off debts, trying to acquire land or looking for a new place to live. So nothing like the chattel slavery, as in involuntary forced labour, like the American and Arab/Islamic slave trades, that most people think of. To recap A) It was consensual and B) it mutually benefited both parties involved. This is why God regulated it, as opposed to flat out abolishing it. C) The purpose of servitude in the bible was a system designed to help the poor survive. Now let’s break down the passage you cited. Leviticus 25:44-46. Let’s unpack it. In the Hebrew the people referred to in the passage are the “Toshab” sojourners, and the “Ger” ie foreigners. These are people who come from another land, who wanted to find refuge in Israel, for various reasons. This could be from political reasons, economic, or religious such as they embraced Yahweh. Or perhaps they ran away from or were exiled from their nations of origin. I understand this as these people sold themselves into servitude, they were not kidnapped against their will. Nor were they commanded to stay for life, instead it was a permission. In context I interpret the word “property” as a neutral description. If you go back of few chapters before, regarding the same people we read. ““When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.”Leviticus 19:33-34 Let’s try other books: ““You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.”Exodus 23:9 ““You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.”Exodus 22:21 ““‘Cursed be anyone who perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’”Deuteronomy 27:19 m So where are these verses that say you can treat these foreigners like a piece of furniture? If we carry on the preceding verse(47) we read… ““If a stranger or sojourner with you becomes rich, and your brother beside him becomes poor and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner with you or to a member of the stranger’s clan,”Leviticus 25:47 So let’s get this straight. These foreigners were to be “loved, “not to be oppressed” or “mistreated”, not to be “withheld justice” and these foreigners had the potential to become “rich” and they could also “have servants themselves”. These people sure don’t sound like they were property in the way you probably understand it to mean. And it sure as hell doesn’t sound like the kind of slavery you’re thinking of.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Feb 23, 2023 22:54:10 GMT
These people sure don’t sound like they were property in the way you probably understand it to mean. And it sure as hell doesn’t sound like the kind of slavery you’re thinking of. I don't give a flying fuck that ownership of other humans beings has come in many shapes and sizes. They are all evil, and your sick holy book supports versions of it. Case closed.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 23, 2023 23:36:26 GMT
"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." Took me 3 seconds of work. OK. Do you know what the Hebrew word translated as slave there is? The answer is “Ebed”, the meaning of which is “worker” or “servant”. It’s a neutral word which literally denotes a relationship based on dependency. The word wasn’t inherently negative. It’s actually used in positive ways in many other passages, even used as a word of honour, in the bible. In the OT there are 3 main categories that servants/slaves would fall under. 1. The Hebrews - These were servants who were voluntarily working to pay off debt or to acquire land. 2. The Foreigners - These guys also voluntarily entered into work for the same reasons. 3. Prisoners of War - These were the bad guys. The soldiers that were captured from other armies. Obviously there were going to be slightly different rules for these people as they were more of a threat. They’d be working harder and would be on a tighter watch. But they were more prisoners than slaves. Overall the people that you’re considering as “slaves” were simply people working to pay off debts, trying to acquire land or looking for a new place to live. So nothing like the chattel slavery, as in involuntary forced labour, like the American and Arab/Islamic slave trades, that most people think of. To recap A) It was consensual and B) it mutually benefited both parties involved. This is why God regulated it, as opposed to flat out abolishing it. C) The purpose of servitude in the bible was a system designed to help the poor survive. Now let’s break down the passage you cited. Leviticus 25:44-46. Let’s unpack it. In the Hebrew the people referred to in the passage are the “Toshab” sojourners, and the “Ger” ie foreigners. These are people who come from another land, who wanted to find refuge in Israel, for various reasons. This could be from political reasons, economic, or religious such as they embraced Yahweh. Or perhaps they ran away from or were exiled from their nations of origin. I understand this as these people sold themselves into servitude, they were not kidnapped against their will. Nor were they commanded to stay for life, instead it was a permission. In context I interpret the word “property” as a neutral description. If you go back of few chapters before, regarding the same people we read. ““When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.”Leviticus 19:33-34 Let’s try other books: ““You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.”Exodus 23:9 ““You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.”Exodus 22:21 ““‘Cursed be anyone who perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’”Deuteronomy 27:19 m So where are these verses that say you can treat these foreigners like a piece of furniture? If we carry on the preceding verse(47) we read… ““If a stranger or sojourner with you becomes rich, and your brother beside him becomes poor and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner with you or to a member of the stranger’s clan,”Leviticus 25:47 So let’s get this straight. These foreigners were to be “loved, “not to be oppressed” or “mistreated”, not to be “withheld justice” and these foreigners had the potential to become “rich” and they could also “have servants themselves”. These people sure don’t sound like they were property in the way you probably understand it to mean. And it sure as hell doesn’t sound like the kind of slavery you’re thinking of. So the correct translation is important when it comes to slavery but not when it comes to sexuality. Buddy you are 100% a hypocrite and cherry picking to serve your own bigoted heart. I am sad we share the same name for our religion.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Feb 24, 2023 0:11:13 GMT
I guess that means Donald Trump is heading to hellfire too. Anyone living in sin, who does not repent will not inherit the kingdom of God. That includes the idiot Trump. If you're genuine concern is to save souls (as you have stated), why are you singling out homosexuality and not also divorce? There are more divorcees in the US than there are gays.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Feb 24, 2023 0:15:22 GMT
OK. Do you know what the Hebrew word translated as slave there is? The answer is “Ebed”, the meaning of which is “worker” or “servant”. It’s a neutral word which literally denotes a relationship based on dependency. The word wasn’t inherently negative. It’s actually used in positive ways in many other passages, even used as a word of honour, in the bible. In the OT there are 3 main categories that servants/slaves would fall under. 1. The Hebrews - These were servants who were voluntarily working to pay off debt or to acquire land. 2. The Foreigners - These guys also voluntarily entered into work for the same reasons. 3. Prisoners of War - These were the bad guys. The soldiers that were captured from other armies. Obviously there were going to be slightly different rules for these people as they were more of a threat. They’d be working harder and would be on a tighter watch. But they were more prisoners than slaves. Overall the people that you’re considering as “slaves” were simply people working to pay off debts, trying to acquire land or looking for a new place to live. So nothing like the chattel slavery, as in involuntary forced labour, like the American and Arab/Islamic slave trades, that most people think of. To recap A) It was consensual and B) it mutually benefited both parties involved. This is why God regulated it, as opposed to flat out abolishing it. C) The purpose of servitude in the bible was a system designed to help the poor survive. Now let’s break down the passage you cited. Leviticus 25:44-46. Let’s unpack it. In the Hebrew the people referred to in the passage are the “Toshab” sojourners, and the “Ger” ie foreigners. These are people who come from another land, who wanted to find refuge in Israel, for various reasons. This could be from political reasons, economic, or religious such as they embraced Yahweh. Or perhaps they ran away from or were exiled from their nations of origin. I understand this as these people sold themselves into servitude, they were not kidnapped against their will. Nor were they commanded to stay for life, instead it was a permission. In context I interpret the word “property” as a neutral description. If you go back of few chapters before, regarding the same people we read. ““When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.”Leviticus 19:33-34 Let’s try other books: ““You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.”Exodus 23:9 ““You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.”Exodus 22:21 ““‘Cursed be anyone who perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’”Deuteronomy 27:19 m So where are these verses that say you can treat these foreigners like a piece of furniture? If we carry on the preceding verse(47) we read… ““If a stranger or sojourner with you becomes rich, and your brother beside him becomes poor and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner with you or to a member of the stranger’s clan,”Leviticus 25:47 So let’s get this straight. These foreigners were to be “loved, “not to be oppressed” or “mistreated”, not to be “withheld justice” and these foreigners had the potential to become “rich” and they could also “have servants themselves”. These people sure don’t sound like they were property in the way you probably understand it to mean. And it sure as hell doesn’t sound like the kind of slavery you’re thinking of. So the correct translation is important when it comes to slavery but not when it comes to sexuality. Buddy you are 100% a hypocrite and cherry picking to serve your own bigoted heart. I am sad we share the same name for our religion. Brother, you need to stop this. “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”1 Corinthians 6:9-10 The original koine Greek word there translated homosexuality is “arsenokoites”, which literally means “a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity”.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 24, 2023 0:45:11 GMT
So the correct translation is important when it comes to slavery but not when it comes to sexuality. Buddy you are 100% a hypocrite and cherry picking to serve your own bigoted heart. I am sad we share the same name for our religion. Brother, you need to stop this. “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”1 Corinthians 6:9-10 The original koine Greek word there translated homosexuality is “arsenokoites”, which literally means “a male engaging in same-gender sexual activity”. www.bibleandhomosexuality.org/tag/arsenokoites/
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 24, 2023 1:14:28 GMT
Bring your evidence in regards to slavery, sir. Will you be my sex slave? Okay.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 24, 2023 1:15:54 GMT
Yes, *IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE!!!* Ditto for the Greeks as well. But, not for the Jews. That is why when St. Paul was admonishing the newly formed churches throughout the Greek & Roman world he addressed the issue of homosexual acts (as well as other types of fornications). Are you obsessed with sex? What would Freud say? No, I'm obsessed with other stuff though.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Feb 24, 2023 1:24:12 GMT
Are you really challenging him to bring evidence that the Bible gives advice on how to treat slaves? I’m challenging him to bring evidence that the bible endorses the kind of slavery he thinks if does. You don't need any more challenges than the ones you're already saddled with.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 24, 2023 1:49:23 GMT
Let me know when he labels your link another ultra left-wing propaganda piece from a woke website masquerading as a religious blog and trying to pass it off as an objective scholarly argument.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 24, 2023 2:04:12 GMT
Disclaimer: I appreciate YOU (as a person) for what you’re trying to do. But I don’t appreciate what you actually do! I don’t agree with your religion (or the reasonableness of your acceptance of this religion), but I can certainly recognize your attempt to represent your faith in a positive way that doesn’t malign that character of the god you believe. And the reason I can appreciate that is because this is the type of Christian I strived to be back when I was a believer. Having said that, I generally prefer to argue with the conservative, fundamentalist, homophobic Christians because it’s so much easier to show why Christianity is a failed religion using them as a perfect example. When the loudest representatives of Christ are essentially “the scum of the Earth”, the selfish, ignorant, cherry-picking, self-righteous people who have so little regard for humanity that they delight in this notion that people will burn in hell - that paints the religion in the perfect light necessary for a rational mind to reject it. All they need to witness are the mad ravings of Christians like djorno to know that this is not only a false belief system, but a harmful and dangerous one. Forgive me, but I sincerely hope that you’re not going to fall back on the tired trope of evoking the “No True Scotsman” fallacy to dismiss your fellow Christian here. As much as you might like to “disown” this kind of thinking, he is in fact a product of your religious system, based on your religious Holy Book. If he is “wrong” and you are “right”, how is an atheist like me supposed to know the difference? What standard should I be using to judge which of you is the “true Christian”? And if both of you are true, then do you not see the problem of internal inconsistency you have to overcome with your own religious system? Please don’t take this personally, but the reason I don’t like liberal Christians or those who might be LGBTQ affirming is because you’re just as guilty as cherry picking and ignoring the inconvenient passages (including the ones from the NEW testament) as people like clusium and djorno. The two of you existing in the same space is only ammunition for me to show just how contradictory the Bible is. Liberal Christians try to repaint this ugly religion into something benign and tolerable to make more attractive than it is. The Bible is a homophobic book, with homophobic teachings (in BOTH testaments). It’s easy for you to say that you don’t judge gay people and think they are okay, but that’s not what the Bible says about gay people. You claim to be a Bible believer, which means you still need to explain away the homophobic parts. You can’t just deny them as if they don’t exist because you’d rather focus on the so-called love of Jesus. That’s dishonest! If you truly believe that Jesus is God, then you ought to have an explanation for why Jesus ever ordered that gays be executed in the first place. That’s a commandment in scripture, and the New Testament never overturns this. Liberal Christianity (IMO) is a form of cognitive dissonance whereby a Christian is trying to reconcile the teachings of the Bible with their own conflicting moral standard. People who intuitively understand that things like slavery, and genocide, and misogyny, and homophobia are wrong…but still want to believe in the Bible anyway despite the fact that it literally sanctions all of these things. Wow, that was quite a speech there, Captain.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 24, 2023 14:04:42 GMT
No, I'm obsessed with other stuff though. You mean like leather and spanking? Nope. Italian food.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Feb 24, 2023 15:26:53 GMT
"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." Took me 3 seconds of work. OK. Do you know what the Hebrew word translated as slave there is? The answer is “Ebed”, the meaning of which is “worker” or “servant”. It’s a neutral word which literally denotes a relationship based on dependency. The word wasn’t inherently negative. It’s actually used in positive ways in many other passages, even used as a word of honour, in the bible. In the OT there are 3 main categories that servants/slaves would fall under. 1. The Hebrews - These were servants who were voluntarily working to pay off debt or to acquire land. 2. The Foreigners - These guys also voluntarily entered into work for the same reasons. 3. Prisoners of War - These were the bad guys. The soldiers that were captured from other armies. Obviously there were going to be slightly different rules for these people as they were more of a threat. They’d be working harder and would be on a tighter watch. But they were more prisoners than slaves. Overall the people that you’re considering as “slaves” were simply people working to pay off debts, trying to acquire land or looking for a new place to live. So nothing like the chattel slavery, as in involuntary forced labour, like the American and Arab/Islamic slave trades, that most people think of. To recap A) It was consensual and B) it mutually benefited both parties involved. This is why God regulated it, as opposed to flat out abolishing it. C) The purpose of servitude in the bible was a system designed to help the poor survive. Now let’s break down the passage you cited. Leviticus 25:44-46. Let’s unpack it. In the Hebrew the people referred to in the passage are the “Toshab” sojourners, and the “Ger” ie foreigners. These are people who come from another land, who wanted to find refuge in Israel, for various reasons. This could be from political reasons, economic, or religious such as they embraced Yahweh. Or perhaps they ran away from or were exiled from their nations of origin. I understand this as these people sold themselves into servitude, they were not kidnapped against their will. Nor were they commanded to stay for life, instead it was a permission. In context I interpret the word “property” as a neutral description. If you go back of few chapters before, regarding the same people we read. ““When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.”Leviticus 19:33-34 Let’s try other books: ““You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.”Exodus 23:9 ““You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.”Exodus 22:21 ““‘Cursed be anyone who perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’”Deuteronomy 27:19 m So where are these verses that say you can treat these foreigners like a piece of furniture? If we carry on the preceding verse(47) we read… ““If a stranger or sojourner with you becomes rich, and your brother beside him becomes poor and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner with you or to a member of the stranger’s clan,”Leviticus 25:47 So let’s get this straight. These foreigners were to be “loved, “not to be oppressed” or “mistreated”, not to be “withheld justice” and these foreigners had the potential to become “rich” and they could also “have servants themselves”. These people sure don’t sound like they were property in the way you probably understand it to mean. And it sure as hell doesn’t sound like the kind of slavery you’re thinking of. Yeah if your sons can inherit people as property as the Bible verse describes, it's not really neutral but just confirmation that the Bible endorses chattel slavery. Also the idea of prisoners of war being slaves doesn't make it better.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Feb 24, 2023 17:50:41 GMT
Are you obsessed with sex? What would Freud say? No, I'm obsessed with other stuff though. Freud would say your pious monologues against grave sexual sin to the exclusion of other equally grave sins, may indicate you have an unconscious and suppressed erotic desire to fulfill non-normative sensuality within yourself. That is by discussing the topic, you are able to fantasize without feeling guilty.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 24, 2023 19:10:08 GMT
No, I'm obsessed with other stuff though. Freud would say your pious monologues against grave sexual sin to the exclusion of other equally grave sins, may indicate you have an unconscious and suppressed erotic desire to fulfill non-normative sensuality within yourself. That is by discussing the topic, you are able to fantasize without feeling guilty. I actually probably would not have participated at all in this discussion, except for the fact that somebody involved me by tagging me & posting to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2023 19:54:35 GMT
Freud would say your pious monologues against grave sexual sin to the exclusion of other equally grave sins, may indicate you have an unconscious and suppressed erotic desire to fulfill non-normative sensuality within yourself. That is by discussing the topic, you are able to fantasize without feeling guilty. I actually probably would not have participated at all in this discussion, except for the fact that somebody involved me by tagging me & posting to me. But you did participate. You agree with the OP that LGBT people are 'broken'. Too late to row back and pretend to be reasonable now. You've made your bed, lie in it. Own your prejudice. It's on display in this thread for everyone to see.
|
|