MacB- you're falling off your game, that post was way to short a response. 1) So you're saying that even though I did all that agreeing with you on knowing the history, you will continue to say that I'm saying the Bible is only about interpretation. MacB. Come on now, I'm not seperating intepretation out of it or saying its the be all end all. All I'm saying is that both of our credentials don't qualify us to be Biblical scholars, simple point, I was a bit harsh in making it, but you need to know it, because as much as you want to dismiss the priests explantion of turn the other cheek, seeing as he has had over 10 years Latin, 10 years Greek, and 10 years of Hebrew, studies the Bible everyday in its correct historical perspective, knows much more about it than you or I (I know this is a total ad hominem but at this point, I think that is the point), he's able to do things that you and I can't. Sorry, thats all I was trying to say. 2) Covered in one 3) to which I'm not disagreeing with you on, just saying that that is not an advocacy of slavery, and at the same time it is saying something different about what slavery and servitude is (see your sig) 3.2) I'm not doing this, sorry. Homosexuality and slavery are not advocated in the Bible. Well, the last part is how maybe just maybe, premarital sex isn't the best thing to be doing, and you might want to stop that. That was the main one, or your advocacy of p*rn. Sex is never an ugly thing. Even when not under the sacrament of marriage, it is still the lovely and creative act, even when stopped short by contraception or the like. But still, premarital sex isn't what should be done. You have the smarts to know that, and that was the amending of one's lifestyle I spoke of. I'm not trying to throw the first stones either. I have the same troubles with those things.
why do you love posting things like this?? you become so Trader_Jorge esque when you do...but it comes off so much worse because we all know there's a part of TJ that's merely kidding. we all know you're intelligent. you don't have to keep telling us about it. i'd be far more impressed with a sense of humility, frankly. you're disappointed because i read the scriptures differently than you do...you're disappointed because i do not see the pat on the back for slavery that you see in those passages. great. i do understand that the Bible was used for that purpose at one time...i also understand the Bible was used by abolitionists to drive their point home, as well. but i don't think that means you have to ignore the tons of other passages, including the words of Christ, about how you treat your fellow man. i don't pick out a sentence at a time from the Bible to undermine the entirety of it.
People keep mentioning these allusions I make to my intelligence. I have yet to ever make one, except in joke insults at my own expense. This is one of those things that gets said enough that it becomes accepted as fact without having substance. As for the Bibilical debate, I have sited direct affirmations of slavery, and you have repsonded with your interpretation of what the overall picture means, and how it should have translated to slavery. Abolitionists used these overall Biblical moraility arguments to help fight down slavery, yes, but only when contemporary morality altered so that it fell in line. Before that, when slavery wasn't considered immoral by the populace at large the only Biblical references to slavery in terms of nay or yay were those I mentioned...for over 1, 500 years.
i know...and you're disappointed in me...oh, and i don't vote democrat, either, so i'm not "true to myself" or something...and...whatever. you cite what you believe to be direct affirmations. i disagree that they're direct affirmations. i've told you i believe them to be instruction to slaves who converted to Christianity about how to conduct themselves to best serve the Lord and their earthly master....that God even loves the slave's master...and that the slave can best communicate that to him by acting as such. it's not a confrontation of a social reality...it's a believer acting in accordance with God's will, even to those who mistreat them. that's all over the New Testament. and it is no less applicable today. the crazy thing about this whole Jesus deal is that God shows he still loves slave masters and pedophiles and murderers...he just doesn't like what they do. but He ultimately has pity. but i'd like to think we're done here. i don't know how many times we can go round and round with me avoiding what is so "clear" annd you being so right all the time.
Ephesians 6;5-8 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bound or free with fear and trembling Ok, Max...last try. You feel it's urging slaves to be christian towards their masters as they should to all men, I'm saying it's telling them to obey them as their masters. How do you reconcile the bold text with your version? And my expressions of dissapointment and confusion were not meant to be the insults you so obviously took them to be, what with your response in kind. Had that been my desire I would have pointed out the incompatibility with this statement: "i'd be far more impressed with a sense of humility, frankly." ...and your initial absolute declaration about what the Bible says or 'makes clear' about homosexuality. Can you see that that might come off as judgmental and arrogant to some people? My original intent re: the slavery ( and astronomy, and pre-marital sex) reference was to show that we don't interpret the Bible as hard line basis for legality on other issues, why would we do so regarding homosexuality?
Maybe not "advocated" per se but this is a pretty gay story: 1.Samuel.18 (KJV) [1] And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. [2] And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. [3] Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. [4] And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. 1 Samuel 19 [1] And Saul spake to Jonathan his son, and to all his servants, that they should kill David. [2] But Jonathan Saul's son delighted much in David: and Jonathan told David, saying, Saul my father seeketh to kill thee: now therefore, I pray thee, take heed to thyself until the morning, and abide in a secret place, and hide thyself: 1 Samuel 20 [1] And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan, What have I done? what is mine iniquity? and what is my sin before thy father, that he seeketh my life? [2] And he said unto him, God forbid; thou shalt not die: behold, my father will do nothing either great or small, but that he will shew it me: and why should my father hide this thing from me? it is not so. [3] And David sware moreover, and said, Thy father certainly knoweth that I have found grace in thine eyes; and he saith, Let not Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved: but truly as the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, there is but a step between me and death. [4] Then said Jonathan unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee [16] So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, Let the LORD even require it at the hand of David's enemies. [17] And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul. [30] Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness? [41] And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded. [42] And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.
MacB -- maybe I'm missing your point...because what you quote there is basically what I just said...serve men as you serve God..with fear and trembling..with humility...that's God's gift is to you whether you're free or trapped in slavery (or presumably, bound any other way). again...this is about service...it's about putting God and others before your own will. this time it's particuarly addressed to believers who happen to be slaves. this is, in some ways, a precursor to the non-violence of MLK..from a God who talks about heaping burning coals over your oppressor by showing them kindness when they least expect it. the Bible comes out and flatly says homosexuality is something to avoid. i mean, it just says it. it's a direct statement. the bible does not say, "slavery is good. god likes slavery." it does say laying down with someone of your same gender is wrong...and it's not something god looks favorably upon. you and i can debate if god really means it or not...or if it meant something else by that remark...but ultimately, it's much more direct than what you're talking about here with slavery. much more. is it arrogant for me to point that out?? i don't know. is it? if i just quoted you the verses, would that be arrogant??
perhaps i should've included an emoticon so you could catch the irony/sarcasm in my post. yeas, i know about his education, rhodes scholar, etc. doesn't mean he's smart or cabable of nuanced thought in a political sense. all it means is he's educated. smarts and education do not necessarily go hand in hand- see jack welch's comments on emotional intelligence above. and spare me the obligatory "W proves the point" comment...
First off I took off your bolds because the fear spoken of here does not have the same meaning as it does today. You probably knew that though MacB because you are soooo smart. . Just kidding anyway, look what I bolded and I'll give the non-King James version from my Catholic Bible for extra emphasis..."willingly serving the lord and not human beings" He's emphasizing the serving of the lord here I think, perhaps it maybe so, but of course you never know. So I'm really having a hard time buying your point at this juncture in what once resembled an argument
Actually there is much to debate here about the interpretation. The bible has long used both by those who supported slavery and abolotionists. MacBeth is correct in saying the passage is equating servitude with slavery, but I disagree that this means that Slavery was A-OK with Jesus. I don't know how many people know who Howard Thurman was or if they've read anything by Howard Thurman. I am by no means on expert, but I'll try and relate my own laymen's experience of the matter. Howard Thurman was a pastor who wrote the book 'Jesus and the Disinherited' This book goes in depth in the issues we are discussing here. Thurman was the man who MLK turned to for spiritual advice. He was the father of the civil rights movement, and met with Ghandi in 1936. It was Thurman who passed along Ghandi's message and methods to Martin Luther King. Thurman also wrote something about peace and being a racial minority also in the 30's. Thurman was a graduate of Colgate-Rochester Theological seminary. He founded the first fully inter-racial Church. It was called the 'Church for the Fellowship of All Peoples.' He was the Dean of Howard University, and was the first black Dean of Boston University. Anyway his idea was that slaves and the disinherited be able to change from within in order to empower them to face oppression. People can sort through the bible and fight each other verse by verse in order to support both sides. But the purpose of the bible is not to battle verse by verse. Looking at the whole of Jesus' life and message is something different. When one bible verse seems to fight another the best method I can think is to look at the general message. Max made a good point with the message of love counteracting slavery. And it was dismissed too quickly by MacBeth because he knew of other verses which mentioned slavery without apparently decrying it as an evil. When these situations occcure I believe that it's necessary and say why would Jesus who preaches love at one point seemingly give the ok to slavery. There are a couple of answers to this. One would be that Jesus had other fish to fry and trusted that his message would spread to the point where slavery would be over turned eventually anyway and he had other corruptions to take on more immediately. Thurman's view is an interpretation that maintain's Jesus' overall message Anyway the idea is that Jesus' main idea was to change the disinherited which certainly would include slaves from within, so they could survive oppression. It's well thought out, and makes sense with points brought up by MacBeth, And MadMax. I think both answers aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Anyway here are some websites that are by no mean's a substitute for reading Thurman's books(I've only read one myself, but I've read bits of his other writings.). http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/civilrights/f2.htm http://www.howardthurmanbooks.org/ http://www.pbs.org/thisfarbyfaith/people/howard_thurman.html http://www.africanpubs.com/Apps/bios/1090ThurmanHoward.asp?pic=none
Again, because contemporary morality was not the accepted morailty of the time. Owning slaves was the equivalent of owning pets; there were a few people who argued that it was immoral, even more who advocated the humane treatment of same, but to the vast majority of society slavery was an accepted and unquestioned part of life, as it had been since recorded history began. In the history of manking, the time spent without slavery being omnipresent is the blink of an eye. One of the most common misconceptions of history people make is that they always assume that, whatever the action, the underlying morality behind society has always been the same. Not true. In fact the reaction to those few who argued against slavery at the time of Jesus was not that they were more moral, but that they were corrupt. You can make the following series of assumptions; A) Slavery is wrong. B) People inherently know slavery is wrong. C) As such, slavery is contrary to the other teachings of the Bible which advocate love and respect. But this would be a fallous construct. B was simply not true of their time. Even in our own time, when slavery was a lot more questioned than at the time of Jesus, when it was the norm, slavery was unquestioned within the societies that practiced it. Samuel Clemens, who later became a huge advocate for abolition says that growing up it never even entered his mind that there could be anything wrong with slavery. His parents didn;t question it, his friends, his friends parents, his teachers, his preachers...all that was ever said about it was that these were the designated roles for each. As he tried to demonstrate in Huck Finn, to question slavery was to question accepted morality...and Twain himself says he would have never concluded to go to hell had he not been exposed to alternatives. In Jesus time there were no alternatives. There were no significant societies which did not practice slavery...and another misconception we currently have is that slavery was always racial in nature, which seems to us to underline the obvious immoraility, but in former times slavery could be the result of many circumstances,; crime, poverty, defeat in war, etc. and were thought to be as much an accepted role as we currently assume that children born into wealth should inherit their parents wealth, not a conception universal to human experience. So to equate the Biblical preachings of love as saying they MUST have been objecting to slavery, in the face of direct passages which admonish slaves to obey their masters is to assume that contemporary morals were in place at the time. We would like this to be the case, and it is incredibly difficult to initially seperate that which we accept as self-evident from that which people in other cultures or ages would have seen as being self-evident. You can also suppose that God being omniscient, and our current morality being the epitome of what is right and wrong, the Bible was written knowing what men then could not see. Unfortunately I would then have 2 furhter responses: 1) Men have always thought that they were at the pinnacle of moral development, and have always post applied it to the past, but it is no more true now than it was 500 years ago. If in 1000 years owning animals is thought to be morally wrong, the equivalent of Chrsitians then will assume that God and Jesus knew this when the Bible was written. 2) If the Bible was indeed written with the prescience supposed in this assumption, then you also have to assume that it was written knowing how it would be 'mis'interpreted and used for almost two millenia. An uncomfortable thought.
I do agree that I believe that Slavery was wrong, but I wasn't trying to argue that at the time of Jesus, Slavery was considered wrong. I do believe that Slaves were disinherited and that Jesus' teachings and philosophy had special meaning for them, and that it was intentional. The structure of the temple, wasn't seen as bad either at that time, and in fact the Roman governors accepted and worked with that structured heiarchy. Jesus despite the common acceptance of many of those practices was vehemently against them. I think that and not slavery was the main focus of his attacks, but I do believe that he felt his message was applicable as well to slaves.
But to accept that he was attacking the temple system doesn't take assumption, interpretation and refutation of direct passages. In fact, the reverse.
Do you think if Kerry grew a beard he could pass for Jesus? Would it helped him out in the Democratic primary?
I agree but it shouldn't be only limited to what is directly there. It should be applied wherever it can. If we look at the stories of Robin Hood it only directly says that he robbed certain people aligned with the Sherrif, Prince John, etc. But we are able to apply the message to mean that fighting against greed, power hungry oppressors, and injustice wherever we find it. It's only because the lessons from Jesus or Robin Hood or wherever can be applied to other situations than those directly mentioned are why those tales live on with us. I also freely admit that because it wasn't directly stated that it will always be a point of debate, and thus you have abolitionists, pro slavery crowds, civil right's activists, and segregationists all using the bible to claim their side is right.
