|
Until you sign up you can't do much. Yes, it's free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 | / / / Viewing Topic
|  |
| Choice |
Votes |
Percent |
|
| Yes |
9 |
23% |
|
| No |
9 |
23% |
|
| Not a Christian |
21 |
53% |
|
| Vote Now! |
39 Votes Cast |
|
|
|
matto
Visionary
 Ad Free
Tech Support Leader
|
     
Quote: from HarrySunderland at 10:39 am on July 16, 2008
 Quote: from matto at 10:37 am on July 16, 2008
Did God sin when he freed the hebrews free from egypt? 
Christians don't allow god to be able to sin.
Did Moses sin when he assisted God in freeing the hebrews from Egypt? Not that that really matters. I believe, as both a religious and nonreligious Jew, as I seem to be going back and forth all the time now, that it really has no significance what so ever whether or not what the slaves did can be considered a sin by those obscure little sentences in some book. Even the old testament, my torah, has a lot of shit that isn't valid any more. Wake up, sheeple. They're fucking slaves, trying to be free, there's nothing wrong with that and if you're taught to believe otherwise then you're being taught true blasphemy.
-------
I REP THE BAY AREA
where real hip hop lyricism is real music.
|
10:42 am on July 16, 2008 | Joined Aug. 2007 | 233 Days Active
Join to learn more about matto California, United States | Straight Male | 4213 Posts | 8312 Points
|
|
| |
|
|
( Prince o palities )
Get back in my pocket.
 Patron
Support Leader
|
Why? Because it offends your modern sensibilities? Those "obscure sentences" are taken from multiple authors, multiple books, representing multiple periods of authorship. They represent a consistency of teaching that is absent in more fundamental and controversial doctrines than this.
-------
"It is the wrong question to ask, and therefore, as one might expect, has
no right answer." - Hans von Campenhausen
This is the philosophy of my life.
|
|
|
|
|
Forever Angel
Sweet Dreams
 Sustainer
|
Isn't there a slight difference between 'slave' in the biblical sense and 'slave' as it was used in early American culture? Based on my believing there is a difference, I'd go with 'no' they weren't sinning.
-------
"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God does play dice" - Stephen Hawking
|
|
|
|
|
matto
Visionary
Ad Free
Tech Support Leader
|
Firstly, it doesn't matter that god makes pharoah free them first. IMO, he's just teaching pharoah a bit of a lesson, which he still never learns, and isn't trying to go about some unspoken (at the time, at least) rule that slaves seeking freedom represents some kind of sin. Indeed, slave owners who keep slaves longer than 7 years (or whatever the time period is, maybe 6 years, 7th year they're freed?) are sinning, and the slaves who free themselves after such a period are assisting their owners in no longer sinning. I don't measure the quality of teaching based on consistency. That just teaches you to accept, not to question. There are a lot of portions of the bible with good teaching, but a lot is also either no longer applicable to our current world, or straight up not in line with currently established justice/freedom/fairness that did not used to exist.
-------
I REP THE BAY AREA
where real hip hop lyricism is real music.
|
10:52 am on July 16, 2008 | Joined Aug. 2007 | 233 Days Active
Join to learn more about matto California, United States | Straight Male | 4213 Posts | 8312 Points
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
matto
Visionary
Ad Free
Tech Support Leader
|
Quote: from Prince o palities at 10:51 am on July 16, 2008
but if you look at the passage in 1 Peter quoted lastly in my list, it is explicit that even harsh masters are to be obeyed.
But why? What purpose would there be for humanity behaving in such a fashion? It doesn't make sense! wow there's so much to respond to lmao Quote: from Prince o palities at 10:53 am on July 16, 2008
Quote: from Forever Angel at 12:51 pm on July 16, 2008
Isn't there a slight difference between 'slave' in the biblical sense and 'slave' as it was used in early American culture? Based on my believing there is a difference, I'd go with 'no' they weren't sinning.
That's fair. Just explain what difference between the two specifically made it wrong for Bible-slaves to actively resist their masters but not US-slaves.
For one thing, like I mentioned in my previous post, biblical slaves as per the old testament were freed after a time of 6 or 7 years, unless something else was arranged or the slave in question had commited some sort of crime. Post edited at 10:55 am on July 16, 2008 by matto
-------
I REP THE BAY AREA
where real hip hop lyricism is real music.
|
10:53 am on July 16, 2008 | Joined Aug. 2007 | 233 Days Active
Join to learn more about matto California, United States | Straight Male | 4213 Posts | 8312 Points
|
|
| |
|
|
Soren Kierkegaard
Wealthy Hobo
Patron
|
Quote: from Prince o palities at 10:40 am on July 16, 2008
Quote: from Soren Kierkegaard at 12:35 pm on July 16, 2008
No, because New Testament scripture routinely states that we are to submit before the established authority and be willing to die for the core of our beliefs. However, in the book Philemon, Paul sent a previously escaped slave back to his master not to resume his duties as a First-Century slave, but as an equal brother-in-Christ.
You're being inconsistent within yourself. You admit that the slaves should have submitted, but that they didn't sin because Paul once strongly suggested to a Christian brother that he accept his runaway back as more than a slave. How do you reconcile what you have presented as being inconsistent?
The same inconsistency where Jesus both advocates we should bear our cross before following him and through the act of spirit, inspired Paul to write Romans 13:1-7. It isn't a contradiction, because we are required to be living examples as followers of Christ to an unbelieving world, which scripture routinely advocates acceptance in preparation of the Second Coming. This is not easily reconcilable apart from Christianity seeking neutrality by choosing not to interfere while openly professing the inevitable end of humanity hopefully by their own lifetime. If Onesimus had actually sinned being an escaped slave, himself, why would Paul not only name him an equal with his former master, but offer to pay any previous transgressions, as well? Paul could have told Onesimus that he'd sinned and should be willing to repay any debt to Philemon by assuming his previous position as slave, which would have been legally permissible (according to Roman Law). However, I'd go on a limb and state that there was a far cry between First-Century examples of slavery and the ideologies that justified cruel treatment toward those unfortunate enough to be forcibly taken as unpaid workers with menial rations and absolutely no human rights to speak of.
-------
What are your Top 10 Favorite Movies?
Goofy rocks my face off!
|
|
|
( Prince o palities )
Get back in my pocket.
Patron
Support Leader
|
Quote: from matto at 12:53 pm on July 16, 2008
Quote: from Prince o palities at 10:51 am on July 16, 2008
but if you look at the passage in 1 Peter quoted lastly in my list, it is explicit that even harsh masters are to be obeyed.
But why? What purpose would there be for humanity behaving in such a fashion? It doesn't make sense!
Peter explains it in that very passage. Christ acts as a type for Christians on how to treat those who persecute you. The example he sets is one of quiet acceptance with a view to future vindication.
To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.
-------
"It is the wrong question to ask, and therefore, as one might expect, has
no right answer." - Hans von Campenhausen
This is the philosophy of my life.
|
|
|
2kewl4u2know
Soothsayer
Sustainer
|
I must say, you strive a hard argument. I would have to ask someone more studied in the Bible before I could come to my own conclusion about the subject. And Forever Angel, you are right, in some senses "slave" is used differently, but the in that times there was slavery as such was in the Antebellum period of America. In that time, slavery was an accepted social standard. In both the new and old testament. As I said before, the Bible does not specifically condone slavery, but it does not damn it either. God gave his own people, the Isrealites, into slavery as a punishment for their sins. Slavery has not always been considered such a blemish upon society. Same goes for issues such as polygamy, which, even some of the most noted men of the Bible had more than one wife, but none were condemned for this. As I said before, it's a hard situation to think on. Social standards have long since changed. I'm not sure, I would have to ask someone like my pastor before I could give my answer.
-------
"Energizer Bunny arrested, charged with battery."
|
|
|
Forever Angel
Sweet Dreams
Sustainer
|
I don't know the passages off hand, I'm sure you do, though. Doesn't it say somewhere about slaves being offered their freedom after a certain amount of time? That opportunity was not an option for the American slaves. And from something I read somewhere I got the impression that biblical 'slaves' were much more like indentured servants than what we consider 'slaves' now.
-------
"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God does play dice" - Stephen Hawking
|
|
|
( Prince o palities )
Get back in my pocket.
Patron
Support Leader
|
Quote: from 2kewl4u2know at 1:01 pm on July 16, 2008
I must say, you strive a hard argument. I would have to ask someone more studied in the Bible before I could come to my own conclusion about the subject. And Forever Angel, you are right, in some senses "slave" is used differently, but the in that times there was slavery as such was in the Antebellum period of America. In that time, slavery was an accepted social standard. In both the new and old testament. As I said before, the Bible does not specifically condone slavery, but it does not damn it either. God gave his own people, the Isrealites, into slavery as a punishment for their sins. Slavery has not always been considered such a blemish upon society. Same goes for issues such as polygamy, which, even some of the most noted men of the Bible had more than one wife, but none were condemned for this. As I said before, it's a hard situation to think on. Social standards have long since changed. I'm not sure, I would have to ask someone like my pastor before I could give my answer.
That's at least a mature treatment of it.
-------
"It is the wrong question to ask, and therefore, as one might expect, has
no right answer." - Hans von Campenhausen
This is the philosophy of my life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Looking for something else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| / / / Viewing Topic | |
|
381 users online 
179205 members 
You have 1 new message.
