Jesus Would Approve of Same-Sex Marriage

[B-Ball-fan]

^^^Thanks Manitoudan for spending the time and making great effort to elaborate on what draws you to your belief in the Bible. I find all that you said extremely interesting and worthy of examination. It all certainly can make one think about its depth and validity. Pretty interesting stuff for sure.

[PP1]

^^^Thanks Manitoudan for spending the time and making great effort to elaborate on what draws you to your belief in the Bible. I find all that you said extremely interesting and worthy of examination. It all certainly can make one think about its depth and validity. Pretty interesting stuff for sure.

 

I wanted to respond too but I would just have rehashed some of the stuff others have written. I do however recognize that there are things about the Bible that we do not know. There are about five stories/verses in the Bible that simply appeared out of nowhere around probably the 11-14th centuries. Meaning they just started showing up in copies of but are not found in the earliest manuscripts we have. There are also some words that we have no idea what they mean.

[dd734]

Here's my .02 on the Biblical slavery debate.

My understanding of slavery, at least much of the slavery in the Bible. It's different than the slavery we had here in America, and other places.

 

The term slave in the Bible was used many times to describe a person, or persons in need or having hard times. When a person of means would help these people so they had a means of living. The needy person, (slave) would work for their room and board, or to repay the debt that had been paid for them. Many times a father would give his child to a person to whom he owed, for a period of time, to work so to repay him. I know there are many different references in the Bible, but being a slave owner in Biblical times wasn't always just a rich mean guy with money forcing persons to work for him, for his own personal profit. Much of the time it was repaying his kindness for helping them.

[Hatz]

Here's my .02 on the Biblical slavery debate.

My understanding of slavery, at least much of the slavery in the Bible. It's different than the slavery we had here in America, and other places.

 

The term slave in the Bible was used many times to describe a person, or persons in need or having hard times. When a person of means would help these people so they had a means of living. The needy person, (slave) would work for their room and board, or to repay the debt that had been paid for them. Many times a father would give his child to a person to whom he owed, for a period of time, to work so to repay him. I know there are many different references in the Bible, but being a slave owner in Biblical times wasn't always just a rich mean guy with money forcing persons to work for him, for his own personal profit. Much of the time it was repaying his kindness for helping them.

 

Ever heard of Spartacus?

 

Onesimus being sent back to Philemon?

 

Slaves were considered property under Roman law and had no legal personhood. Unlike Roman citizens, they could be subjected to corporal punishment, sexual exploitation (prostitutes were often slaves), torture, and summary execution. The testimony of a slave could not be accepted in a court of law unless the slave was tortured—a practice based on the belief that slaves in a position to be privy to their masters' affairs would be too virtuously loyal to reveal damaging evidence unless coerced.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome

 

The article mentions some of what you did but I would wager the vast number of slaves in that caste of Rome were indentured for life and lived at the pleasure of his/her owner.

[dd734]

Ever heard of Spartacus?

 

Onesimus being sent back to Philemon?

 

Slaves were considered property under Roman law and had no legal personhood. Unlike Roman citizens, they could be subjected to corporal punishment, sexual exploitation (prostitutes were often slaves), torture, and summary execution. The testimony of a slave could not be accepted in a court of law unless the slave was tortured—a practice based on the belief that slaves in a position to be privy to their masters' affairs would be too virtuously loyal to reveal damaging evidence unless coerced.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome

 

The article mentions some of what you did but I would wager the vast number of slaves in that caste of Rome were indentured for life and lived at the pleasure of his/her owner.

 

That's why I said, "much" and "many" and not all. Just as, not indentured servants were indentured for life.

Edited October 6, 2015 by dd734

[Hatz]

That's why I said, "much" and "many" and not all. Just as, not indentured servants were indentured for life.

 

"Much" implies a majority. I would not think it was close to a majority that you described.

[dd734]

"Much" implies a majority. I would not think it was close to a majority that you described.

Thanks for straightening me out........