Civil Religious Discussions : all things Christianity II

[historian]

I asked before, and forgive me, but I didn't get a straight answer - what is it that you say they did?


As far as "I technically created it", well there's no way you can ascribe the authorship of any laws that precedes my birth. Nor, do I feel responsible for any laws authored by the senator from CA, or even the senator from IN. We're not a true democracy. And if we were, Would I not still be obligated to abide by a law even if I voted nay?

I'm still not seeing an "out" just because the form of government is different.

They purposely violated laws. That was, literally, what their movement was based on. Was that right?

 

[JettaKnight]

They purposely violated laws. That was, literally, what their movement was based on. Was that right?

Yes, but how? What was done that violated laws?


I'm a white guy, in the Midwest, under 50; that's why I ask.

 

[2A_Tom]

Under 50! You in your short pants need to be listening while the adults talk!

















Apply purple if needed.

 

[indiucky]

Father forgive me because I laughed way too hard at this.......

 

[JettaKnight]

Father forgive me because I laughed way too hard at this.......

So did I!

Under 50! You in your short pants need to be listening while the adults talk!

Yup - going bald, yet hoping to grow in facial hair.

 

[HoughMade]

They purposely violated laws. That was, literally, what their movement was based on. Was that right?

The movement was aimed at getting laws changed. They did a lot more than violate laws to get that done. In fact, very little of what they did was violate laws.

...but regardless, that people do things that are illegal and eventually attain a laudable goal does not make everything they did "right".

 

[foszoe]

Father forgive me because I laughed way too hard at this.......

We have a Sunday dedicated to the Myrrhbearers. At some point you will hear the priest bring up that when the going got tough, the women went to the tomb while the men ran and hid.

 

[JettaKnight]

We have a Sunday dedicated to the Myrrhbearers. At some point you will hear the priest bring up that when the going got tough, the women went to the tomb while the men ran and hid.

What? Mythbuster? COOL!


Not really for the "What are you listening to?" thread, but, it's this. I don't often (never?) listen to Lutherans, but Rosebrough's pretty insightful. If you're into YouTube talking heads analyzing other videos, he does a lot of fun ones picking apart the holy-rollers, phoney-baloney prophets and fake healer. (e.g. Benny Hinn)

[video=youtube_share;hvJ4UOH5qcU]http://youtu.be/hvJ4UOH5qcU[/video]
FYI, he used to be in Indy, now he's out on the MN plains.

 

[foszoe]

What? Mythbuster? COOL!


Not really for the "What are you listening to?" thread, but, it's this. I don't often (never?) listen to Lutherans, but Rosebrough's pretty insightful. If you're into YouTube talking heads analyzing other videos, he does a lot of fun ones picking apart the holy-rollers, phoney-baloney prophets and fake healer. (e.g. Benny Hinn)

[video=youtube_share;hvJ4UOH5qcU]http://youtu.be/hvJ4UOH5qcU[/video]
FYI, he used to be in Indy, now he's out on the MN plains.

Is that nonobaddog?

 

[Ndavid45]

I posted in the athiest/secular thread and was encouraged to come here and ask questions that in the past i have asked and were not welcome (not here, growning up) and that ultimately drove me away from faith in a god. Ill start with one question. If god/jesus is completely pure, our moral standard to continually strive to meet, then why is slavery ok according to exodus 21? Rules are laid out quite specifically for how to treat slaves in that chapter. When rules are given for owning another person and treating them like property in any situation it seems to conflict with the idea of a moral god.

 

[HoughMade]

I posted in the athiest/secular thread and was encouraged to come here and ask questions that in the past i have asked and were not welcome (not here, growning up) and that ultimately drove me away from faith in a god. Ill start with one question. If god/jesus is completely pure, our moral standard to continually strive to meet, then why is slavery ok according to exodus 21? Rules are laid out quite specifically for how to treat slaves in that chapter. When rules are given for owning another person and treating them like property in any situation it seems to conflict with the idea of a moral god.

Who's standard or morality?

Have you researched and determined whether there has ever been an instance where all of the standards in Scripture for owning slaves was met?

How did people become slaves in the times covered by the biblical period?

This isn't a simple issue with the exception of the part that our thoughts on morality are irrelevant as to whether God is moral.

 

[Ndavid45]

My definition of morality (subjective) would be what is best for humanity. Im taking the stance that owning another person as property is not moral in any situation and never has been.

 

[2A_Tom]

I did not know that anyone posted in that thread after the OP.

I'll have to look.

 

[T.Lex]

My definition of morality (subjective) would be what is best for humanity. Im taking the stance that owning another person as property is not moral in any situation and never has been.

Then that position is contrary to actual history. Modern western values are just that - modern and western.

But, perhaps more to your point, what does the Old Testament say about how to treat slaves?

 

[Ndavid45]

Whether or not the standards for slavery have been met, to me, is irrelevant to the fact that god put an ok on owning other people as property.
The situation in which people became slaves was different depending on if they were jews or not. Non jewish slaves were from surrounding nations and sort of like prisoners of war forced into slavery. Jewish slaves, in my understanding, were more like indentured servants and received better treatment than foreign slaves.

If one person owning another as property is moral to god, if a god exists and that god is the biblical god, then that god would be an antihuman thug that created us to be incapable of understanding his plan yet punishes us for not following blindly because of a lack of understanding and punished lots of people throughout history just for being of the wrong race.

 

[NKBJ]

It was, in some (many?) ways worse. Slavery in the NT literally meant that you did not exist legally. It was all the horrors of American slavery without any mitigating effects of Christianity. It was beyond the pale of horror.

Safe in presuming you mean under Rome?

 

[2A_Tom]

Looking atExodus 21, I do not see your point.

The KJV, DV, AND Wycliffe all use the word servant and follow the Sabatic rules.

I think I've heard that the newer interpretations use the word slave, but they have a lot of other mistakes too.

Here is a link to a Jewish site and as you will see they use the word servant too.

https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0221.htm

 

[Ndavid45]

Then that position is contrary to actual history. Modern western values are just that - modern and western.

But, perhaps more to your point, what does the Old Testament say about how to treat slaves?

20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

It seems to say that you can beat a slave as long as you don't kill them because the slaves is his property.

 

[JettaKnight]

It's easy to point to laws given to people in a totally different age and totally different society and say, "See! God is immoral because of slavery!"

But, you need to look at it through the lens of cultural context. Even Paul in the 1st century speaks about slavery, but he does so in a way that's counter-cultural. He speaks of compassion and empathy which would be utterly laughable in that society. Christianity, for the most part, been on the vanguard of being anti-slavery; there's always been a progressive move.


There was the acceptance that this is what was going on in the society around us, but a call for Christians to rise above.




One need only look back within the past fifty years to see that societal defined morality is shifting sand. Heck, don't change the time, just change the place.

 

[T.Lex]

Whether or not the standards for slavery have been met, to me, is irrelevant to the fact that god put an ok on owning other people as property.
The situation in which people became slaves was different depending on if they were jews or not. Non jewish slaves were from surrounding nations and sort of like prisoners of war forced into slavery. Jewish slaves, in my understanding, were more like indentured servants and received better treatment than foreign slaves.

If one person owning another as property is moral to god, if a god exists and that god is the biblical god, then that god would be an antihuman thug that created us to be incapable of understanding his plan yet punishes us for not following blindly because of a lack of understanding and punished lots of people throughout history just for being of the wrong race.

Lots to unpack there.

Although others might also chime in, let's be clear - there's no intent to "gang up" on you or anything. We are all just sharing our own perspectives, which will generally align differently than yours. So, thank you for sharing yours.

But, are you open to receiving new information that might reveal problems with your position? I'm thinking specifically of how slavery worked in the OT. Your statements reveal a certain unfamiliarity with history. That might be an issue.

So, are you up for some fair challenges to your statements that are mistaken?