The Christian Message - Once for all

[techboy]

How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?

You're locked into your thinking as a 21st century westerner, and not thinking about this in the appropriate cultural or time context.

Let's say you're a poor Jew that has a daughter he can't afford to support. Is it more moral to turn her out on the streets to starve to death or, if she's lucky, eke out a living as a prostitute (until her looks fade)?

Keep in mind that you're not living in Chicago. She has no real education. She can't get a job. There's no welfare or social services.

In those days, a woman needed to be under the protection of a man, whether it was her father, her husband, or yes, her owner.

What's more, as you have rightly pointed out (though i think you missed the significance of it), all of the passages in the Bible place restrictions on slavery, which was a brutal practice in this time period. Yes, you can have slaves, but they must be treated in a certain manner. You can't just do whatever you want.

A prime example of this is in the passage you yourself quoted, where it says that if a master marrys that female slave, and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her quality of life. She is protected, something I guarantee did not happen in the wider world at that time.

Does God approve of slavery? Does He think it is good? There's nothing in the Bible to say so, and I suspect there's a parallel here to divorce.

In the book of Malachi, God says He hates divorce. And yet, there are rules for that too (again, they protect the woman). When Jesus is asked about it in the New Testament, he answers that God doesn't like divorce, but He allowed it because of the hardness of hearts of the people.

[Stadium-Armory]

You're locked into your thinking as a 21st century westerner, and not thinking about this in the appropriate cultural or time context.

Are you saying that the bible should should be interpreted through the lens of ones current context, and not taken literally?

Not that this applies to you (since I don't know your position here), but I find it odd the way some can rationalize a flexible application of biblical teachings, but not apply the same flexibility to the constitution and laws. </tangent>

[techboy]

Are you saying that the bible should should be interpreted through the lens of ones current context, and not taken literally?

No, I'm saying that the Bible needs to be read within the context of time, location, and culture of the writers, which is pretty much the opposite of this (using one's current context).

[Stadium-Armory]

No, I'm saying that the Bible needs to be read within the context of time, location, and culture of the writers, which is pretty much the opposite of this (using one's current context).

Ahh, I see, so right and wrong can fluctuate over time depending on what's fashionable.

[chipwhich]

You're locked into your thinking as a 21st century westerner, and not thinking about this in the appropriate cultural or time context.

And not thinking in terms of 2/3 of the world isn't Christian.

Hogwash.

The bible was written by peoples in the moment just like Jim Jones.

Because why would "GOD" write something otherwise.

Or the Book of Mormon.

If 2/3rds of the world doesn't follow the christian doctrine, why should you?

[techboy]

Ahh, I see, so right and wrong can fluctuate over time depending on what's fashionable.

No.

In point of fact, it is your position that is untenable. By announcing "slavery is wrong" (which is the basis of your objection), you are effectively saying "I'd turn the daughter I could not afford to support out on the street to starve".

Very moral of you. :doh:

If 2/3rds of the world doesn't follow the christian doctrine, why should you?

Because it's true.

[chipwhich]

Because it's true.

Well there you have it, 2/3rds of the WORLD disagree but you say so. :cool:

[techboy]

Well there you have it, 2/3rds of the WORLD disagree but you say so. :cool:

Truth is not determined by vote.

Besides, whatever it is that you believe, I guarantee you can't muster a majority in the world. Therefore, by your own argument, you are wrong. Your position is self-defeating.

[Stadium-Armory]

No.

In point of fact, it is your position that is untenable. By announcing "slavery is wrong" (which is the basis of your objection), you are effectively saying "I'd turn the daughter I could not afford to support out on the street to starve".

Very moral of you. :doh:

Huh? I'm saying slavery is wrong and God should say so. But rather chooses to perpetuate it.

He says other things are wrong, so why not slavery?

But yes, to your point, I would definately turn my daughter to the streets to live (or die) free, rather than sell her in to a life of rape as a slave. (And the head slapping icon doesn't make your support of slave rape tenable).

[chipwhich]

Truth is not determined by vote.

Is it determined by a doctrine that only 1/3rd of the world believes in?

[techboy]

I'm saying slavery is wrong and God should say so.

That's the problem with your argument. Slavery is not always wrong.

If my choice is to sell my daughter into slavery or to turn her out onto the street to starve, I'm going to sell her into slavery.

[techboy]

Is it determined by a doctrine that only 1/3rd of the world believes in?

No, it is determined by correspondence with reality. As it happens, Christianity is the belief system which has the greatest correspondence with reality.

[techboy]

But yes, to your point, I would definately turn my daughter to the streets to live (or die) free, rather than sell her in to a life of rape as a slave.

I didn't see the edit at first, but this is where you are again thinking like a 21st century westerner.

Make no mistake about it, in that part of the world at that time, there's no "live free" for a woman. She either dies of starvation, or becomes a prostitue (true sex slavery, unlike the passge you cited which says nothing about sex slavery at all), until her looks fade (and so this route only delays the inevitable).

In that situation, the moral choice is slavery.

[Stadium-Armory]

I didn't see the edit at first, but this is where you are again thinking like a 21st century westerner.

.

Definitely. As should everyone reading the bible, view it through the same western 21st century lens of individual liberty and freedom of thought.

But I think we got derailed (just as much my fault). The original intent here was to ascertain what the Christian position on slavery was, in the context of some of the bible quotes that mention it (take for arguments sake only the "bad slavery" examples). I *think* I'm hearing you say that while the book appears to suggest some level of acceptance of slavery, its a function of the time the book was written, and shouldn't be taken today as guidance. Is that close?

[JimboDaMan]

No, it is determined by correspondence with reality. As it happens, Christianity is the belief system which has the greatest correspondence with reality.

Sez, of course, Christians and Christians only.

[CrypticVillain]

Well there you have it, 2/3rds of the WORLD disagree but you say so. :cool:

And not thinking in terms of 2/3 of the world isn't Christian.

Hogwash.

The bible was written by peoples in the moment just like Jim Jones.

Because why would "GOD" write something otherwise.

Or the Book of Mormon.

If 2/3rds of the world doesn't follow the christian doctrine, why should you?

Chip, I see you are standing firm on your "2/3" argument. You are worrying about the rest of the World and I like that. But are you willing to put your life on the line because 2/3 of the World hasn't heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If I told you that 2/3 of the World hasn't breathed for nine days, will you try to hold your breath. If I told you 2/3 of the World didn't watch football (which may be more than true), would you stop watching it.

What I am trying to say is it's good to worry about other people. But you have to take care of yourself too. If you are believing in the stuff that is being said, but you can't approve of it because most of the World doesn't even know about it, you should start telling them. Those type of people do exist.

[techboy]

I *think* I'm hearing you say that while the book appears to suggest some level of acceptance of slavery, its a function of the time the book was written, and shouldn't be taken today as guidance. Is that close?

Those passages shouldn't be taken as guidance today because they are laws created for the Biblical state of Israel thousands of years ago, and we aren't living there (or then), and they're no more applicable than the laws of the British Crown are to residents of Virginia (unless we're talking 500 years ago). I won't be sending any grain to the Temple, either.

But yes, it would make sense to think that the situation that existed thousands of years ago that might make it moral to have laws which allowed but heavily restricted slavery no longer exists, which might well be the reason that such laws were allowed to pass away.

If you're asking what the modern Christian position on slavery should be, I'd be inclined to go with the views of the abolitionists (mostly Christians): "slavery bad". See, for example, William Wiblerforce.

Sez, of course, Christians and Christians only.

This seems like a reasonable objection until you think about and answer this question:

What do we call people that believe Christianity is true?

Then it becomes a simple tautology.

[Stadium-Armory]

Those passages shouldn't be taken as guidance today because they are laws created for the Biblical state of Israel thousands of years ago, and we aren't living there (or then), and they're no more applicable than the laws of the British Crown are to residents of Virginia (unless we're talking 500 years ago). I won't be sending any grain to the Temple, either.

Well good, I'm glad we can agree that the bible is as relevant to today's experience, as the laws of Britain are to the residents of Virginia.

Seriously though, I appreciate your comments, they have helped me understand how Christians might reconcile these points.

[rd421]

As someone who has been in full time ministry since I was 15, graduated from seminary(bible college whatever you want to call it), and has been an Associate Pastor, Youth Pastor, and Worship Leader at my church for the last 5 years here is my position on the Christian Message.

God Loves you, no matter what and he wants to be there for you like a father. He doesn't care about our theology because theology is man made. Faith in something we cannot see is the foundation of our Christian relationship, not our "spiritual/religious IQ"

The basis of the entire Gospel is this God loves you so much that he was willing to watch his son die as a sacrifice for our screw ups.

Im not trying to derail this thread as tho conversation has been very interesting and Im def not trying to troll so if you feel like you dont like my post thats cool just disregard and move on, just wanted to thow my $.02 in....

[JimboDaMan]

That's the problem with your argument. Slavery is not always wrong.

If my choice is to sell my daughter into slavery or to turn her out onto the street to starve, I'm going to sell her into slavery.

I happen to agree with you.

However, when I say such things I'm called a pointy-headed liberal and believer in situational ethics.

[CrabR]

That's the problem with your argument. Slavery is not always wrong.

If my choice is to sell my daughter into slavery or to turn her out onto the street to starve, I'm going to sell her into slavery.

You have been drinking to much kool aid

:doh:

maybe the blood thirsty bible God should have mandated his people just feed the starving instead of letting them sold into slavery. Or maybe the starving could have just have eaten some of pork and shrimp that were admonitions to the bible God/ N o the Gold of love would ratehrte them starve first

Those are no laws maybe by a invisible man the clouds. Mans made laws for mans culture

[Tweedr01]

You have been drinking to much kool aid

:doh:

maybe the blood thirsty bible God should have mandated his people just feed the starving instead of letting them sold into slavery. Or maybe the starving could have just have eaten some of pork and shrimp that were admonitions to the bible God/ N o the Gold of love would ratehrte them starve first

Those are no laws maybe by a invisible man the clouds. Mans made laws for mans culture

Wow you typed this gem this morning? You sir have it all figured out! Do you know all this because you are old enough to have been alive when 'the blood thirsty bible God' was hucking down lightning bolts? I'm sure your simple, but completely stupid, solutions were thought up by the village idiot of that time.

[rdsknbill]

IS there a reason that the OP felt he had to "resurrect" a thread that was started 4 friggin years ago? I think most opinions were covered back then, or did you feel that you had to beat our newer members over the head with your message?

I understand that you are religious, and I respect that. I personally believe in God and Jesus Christ.

My problem is with organized religion. The kind of religion that preaches that if you don't give us at least 10% of your money, you will go to hell. The kind of religion that breeds the type of people that feel that because they spend an hour every Sunday in church, they have the right to impose their beliefs and opinions on others. Or breeds the most unbelievably judgmental friggin people that walk the planet.

Question for you. Do you support the Westboro Baptist Church? Simple answer, yes or no?

[Tweedr01]

IS there a reason that the OP felt he had to "resurrect" a thread that was started 4 friggin years ago? I think most opinions were covered back then, or did you feel that you had to beat our newer members over the head with your message?

I understand that you are religious, and I respect that. I personally believe in God and Jesus Christ.

My problem is with organized religion. The kind of religion that preaches that if you don't give us at least 10% of your money, you will go to hell. The kind of religion that breeds the type of people that feel that because they spend an hour every Sunday in church, they have the right to impose their beliefs and opinions on others. Or breeds the most unbelievably judgmental friggin people that walk the planet.

Question for you. Do you support the Westboro Baptist Church? Simple answer, yes or no?

:doh:

No

Question for you. Do you support the Taliban? Simple answer, yes or no?

Question for you. How do you believe in God and Jesus Christ if you do not support spreading His Word, supporting the church to spread His Word, and mocking those that try to spread His Word?

[rdsknbill]

:doh:

No

Question for you. Do you support the Taliban? Simple answer, yes or no?

Question for you. How do you believe in God and Jesus Christ if you do not support spreading His Word, supporting the church to spread His Word, and mocking those that try to spread His Word?

What the hell does the Taliban have to do in this conversation? And to answer your unbelievably stupid question. NO.

I believe in my beliefs. It is not my place to shove religion down someone's throat.

My point is that the "servants of God" that run many of the non denominational churches live in mansions and drive cars that no one in their congregation would ever be able to afford.

Is that spreading the word of the Bible, or is it "God for profit"?