you present the idea that the Bible presents slavery as a sin. Absolutely not. The Law clearly allows for and even prescribes slavery. And the Bible also prophecies that in the Kingdom slavery will again be re-instituted. And if all slavery were a sin, why doesn't the New Testament tell all slave owners to free their slaves?

 

The above passage was from one of the comments appended to the article that rockmom recently cited in one of the "flag flap threads".

 

Anyone?

Reading the Bible and critiquing it is like reading a rocket science study and critiquing it.

 

Churches (obviously in my biased opinion the Catholic Church), who are run by studied and qualified professors and are inspired by the Holy Spirit, have the authority. The Church has spent thousands of years and has determined, with the help of the Holy Spirit, what is fact, fiction and symbolism in the Bible.

 

_______________________________________

 

Now regarding the slavery issue, I look at it like this:

 

Morality has not changed, knowledge has. People used to think that different races, social classes, etc. were the criteria for determining who should be in charge. We have learned today that obviously the races are equal - and should be treated as such (whether we do treat them equally or not is obviously debatable). IMO it is just like witchcraft. We used to kill people we thought were witches. Was it immoral? no, because we just did not know any better. If we did that today, in an advanced era where we know witches don't exist, it would be immoral and sinful. Now, we used to enslave those we deemed "inferior" to us. Was it immoral? No, because we just did not know any better. If we hired people to work for us today [enslaved], it would be sinful because we know that we are all equal humans.

you present the idea that the Bible presents slavery as a sin. Absolutely not. The Law clearly allows for and even prescribes slavery. And the Bible also prophecies that in the Kingdom slavery will again be re-instituted. And if all slavery were a sin, why doesn't the New Testament tell all slave owners to free their slaves?

The above passage was from one of the comments appended to the article that rockmom recently cited in one of the "flag flap threads".

 

Anyone?

 

If it means that I can marry lots of hot young women as I build my wealth and they all have to be subservient to me, then I guess I can roll with it Just kidding, anyone who rationalizes the flag w/ Hebrew Mythology isn't paying attention.

Anyone who justifies slavery with biblical references is missing the overarching message of the New Testament.

The slavery that I pay attention to in the Bible is not "slavery as a sin" but "slavery to sin". We all guilty of this (Romans 3:23). Paul also says that we are all slaves in one way or another. We are either slaves to sin which leads to death or slaves to obedience which leads to righteousness (Romans 3:16). Jesus Christ gave us His version of the Emancipation Proclamation by freeing us from our sins by suffering and dying on the cross for us. Now we can present ourselves as slaves to God which means freedom, sanctification, and eternal life for us (Romans 3:22).

The Bible does not promote or condone slavery. The bible just tells slaves who are Christians to be good Christians during their life as a slave.

 

I recently preached a sermon on this issue. Philemon 2

 

http://www.Lystracoc.sermon.net

Slavery was a fact of life at that time. You could also become someone's "slave"...if I remember correctly, under the law, if you owed someone money and couldn't pay it, damaged their property, etc. I also think the term "slave" was used loosely...what we would call indentured servitude today was called "slavery" at that time I do believe.

 

Anyway, the bible, when talking about slaves, references that even if that is your lot in life at the time, you should be a good Christian and do well at everything you do, including serving the master. And the master also has requirements of treating his slaves well and proper too.

Anyone who justifies slavery with biblical references is missing the overarching message of the New Testament.

 

We agree on something.

 

Sent you a PM relating to something similar.

The Bible does not promote or condone slavery. The bible just tells slaves who are Christians to be good Christians during their life as a slave.

 

I recently preached a sermon on this issue. Philemon 2

 

http://www.Lystracoc.sermon.net

 

Makes perfect sense...

Maybe the Bible doesn't "condone slavery", but it doesn't un-condone it either. It was an acceptable way of life and part of the culture in the period of time that men wrote the letters and works that were later chosen to be in the Bible.

 

Also, the reason women don't have an abundance of rights and privileges in the Bible----men did all the writing and rules making.

If it means that I can marry lots of hot young women as I build my wealth and they all have to be subservient to me, then I guess I can roll with it Just kidding, anyone who rationalizes the flag w/ Hebrew Mythology isn't paying attention.

 

Pretty soon Mex, you'll be able to marry your coffee table.

If it means that I can marry lots of hot young women as I build my wealth and they all have to be subservient to me, then I guess I can roll with it Just kidding, anyone who rationalizes the flag w/ Hebrew Mythology isn't paying attention.

 

As a happily married man with ONE wife, why in the world would anyone want more than one wife?!?!?!?

Religious books in general that were written that long ago will be misinterpreted and taken within the context the individual reader sees it.

Trying to rationalize slavery due to any verse in the bible is no different than Islamic State rationalizing jihad based on their religious book.

The Constitution has Amendments based on society evolving. All personal interpretation is full of human error or can just a reason to perform the acts evoked by them.

Reading the Bible and critiquing it is like reading a rocket science study and critiquing it.

 

There are simple concepts and difficult concepts. As a whole, it is not that difficult to read and understand. I would be surprised if it was beyond a 12th grade reading level. The problem is people focus on the complicated parts only. I promise that you could read the entire NEw Testament and not feel like you are reading a rocket science book until you get to the second half of the last book, and even then, you could read and comprehend the information even if the meaning is confusing.

Slavery existed in all cultures before the Christian era and prior to the establishment of Israel. The Bible must be understood within its cultural-societal milieu. What the Bible did at every stage is lessen the injustice of slavery. The laws enacted in what we know as the Law--1st five Books of the Hebrew Bible--were more lenient towards slaves than that of the surrounding cultures.

 

When it comes to the New Testament, its authors are writing to a very small minority within the Roman Empire with absolutely no power to change any of the society's more's by fiat. However, what the New Testament said about slaves would be the impetus that would one day end slavery. There were some 60 million slaves in the Empire at that time. Christians gave them more status than any other group in that day. Paul gave them equal status to every other person within the church. The same is true of women.

 

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:28, 29) That's a pretty amazing statement considering the surrounding culture in the Roman Empire.

 

In Philemon, the Apostle Paul seeks to persuade a Christian slave owner to receive a runaway slave and not punish him because he became a Christian believer while meeting up with Paul. Paul admonishes the slave owner to receive the runaway slave, not as a slave, but as a brother because he was now a brother in Christ. Taking Paul's reasoning to its logical conclusion, one would see that being a slaveholder was not consistent with the Christian ethic.

 

You have to take into account how deeply entrenched slavery was in the culture and how little power the Christian church had. Rather than start a movement to end slavery, they started a movement to change people's hearts and out of a changed heart would come the ethic that would end slavery and a host of other societal evils.

 

The same kind of argument may be made about whether the Bible supported polygamy or not. The Patriarchs had multiple wives. But again, one must realize that this was the norm for their society. What the Bible does is tell stories about these families and from the stories you can see that bad consequences came from having multiple wives and the kinds of jealousies and rivalries this inevitably caused. While the Hebrew Scriptures do not outright outlaw it, the point being made by the narrative is that it is not conducive for families and the community as a whole.

 

When it comes to the New Testament, Jesus said marriage was to be between one man and one woman. He saw this as the original intention of God at creation. Later, the Apostles would say that any one considered for church leadership must be the husband of one wife. In other words, pagans who had multiple wives, upon conversion to Christianity were welcomed into the church but they were not to be appointed to leadership because their family structure did not represent God's intention for marriage. To tell these converted pagans to separate from their multiple wives would have been disastrous for the women. Best thing to do was to keep polygamists from leadership and Christians would realize polygamy was not right and it would die out among Christians.