Religion III

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Mr. Thask, I resurrected an old post that deals with the slavery question you raised. CH broached the same subject on a Religion thread back in 2016. So, here's the copy of the entire post.

Just remember that slavery back in ancient civilizations had an entirely different connotation to it than slavery did (or even has) in modern times. We must not forget that Back Then...there were no social welfare programs in place to support the poor or the unskilled. Slavery, for the most part, served a good social purpose in the ancient world. Anyway...here's the post, again.



This has been discussed often -- going as far back as 2012. But again...slavery was indigenous to _all_ the ancient NE cultures -- even in Jesus' day. It is noteworthy that Jesus himself never brought up slavery as a moral issue because his mission in the world was not to change politics or cultures, but to save individual sinners. This doesn't mean, however, that the bible is silent on the issue. Under the Old and New Covenants, humane treatment of slaves is mandated. But in this New Covenant dispensation, slaves are encouraged to seek their freedom (1Cor 7:21). So, during first century Christianity, the apostle Paul, under divine revelation, wrote that God preferred freedom over slavery. After all, Christians are already in "bondage" to God, for he redeemed (bought!) them for a very high price when his Son atoned for their sins by shedding his blood on the Cross.

I have also discussed in the past that the alternatives to slavery in those ancient cultures weren't so great. Captives in wars were carried away to be sold as slaves. Also, in most cases as civilizations advanced, owners of slaves discovered a fundamental truth: It was better to treat their "property" with care than not! Why go out and spend good money on slaves only to toss your money away by beating your property to death!? Or abusing them so badly that they can't earn their keep? I suspect that most slave owners treated their slaves with a measure of respect and dignity. Certainly that appeared to be the case with the Roman centurion who sought Jesus out in order to entreat him to heal his slave (Lk 7:2ff.)

Slavery was simply a fact of life in virtually all, if indeed not all, ancient civilizations. After God mandated human government, it was sinful man who ordained slavery, not God. Perhaps the oldest sinful institution known to man is not prostitution but slavery! Slave ownership, with that one NT exception, was not a spiritual/moral issue in the bible, per se. But treatment of slaves was.

==========================

So, basically,what I was getting at in the above post was that the gospel of the kingdom is designed to change one heart at a time, so that over time the redeemed of God would collectively carry out their mission in this world to be "salt" and "light" in order to influence their cultures and societies for the good. Even in Western Civilization, it was Christians who largely influenced the politics of countries to eventually and officially end slavery! Do we not see the very same thing right now going on with abortion? Isn't this one of the big reasons Christians are hated by unbelievers?

Excuses...excuses.

If the biblical God cared enough about warning us against coveting our neighbor's property...he could just as easily have directed us to free our slaves. This "change one heart at a time, over time" argument of yours is just your latest lame excuse. God never mentions slavery as a "sin" in the bible because it wasn't a sin to him. And it wasn't a sin to him because the author of the bible wasn't "God". End of story.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Excuses...excuses.

If the biblical God cared enough about warning us against coveting our neighbor's property...he could just as easily have directed us to free our slaves. This "change one heart at a time, over time" argument of yours is just your latest lame excuse. God never mentions slavery as a "sin" in the bible because it wasn't a sin to him. And it wasn't a sin to him because the author of the bible wasn't "God". End of story.

Nah...I think God just wisely waited until civilizations politically matured to the point where they had social welfare programs in place to care for the poor. In your world, it would have been better for the ancient civilizations to have allowed all the poor people to starve to death or to be eaten by wild animals, instead of having a roof over their heads, clothes on their backs, full tummies and to some extent given productive and meaningful lives.

You're a typical liberal who fully embraces the Culture of Death, no matter what.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

In your world, it would have been better for the ancient civilizations to have allowed all the poor people to starve to death or to be eaten by wild animals, ...

Ancient civilizations did exactly that.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Ancient civilizations did exactly that.

And they also did what I described.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And they also did what I described.

You've described quite a lot. I assume your "also" claim refers to "God just wisely waited until civilizations politically matured to the point where they had social welfare programs in place to care for the poor." Can you point out any civilization that "had social welfare programs in place to care for the poor."

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You've described quite a lot. I assume your "also" claim refers to "God just wisely waited until civilizations politically matured to the point where they had social welfare programs in place to care for the poor." Can you point out any civilization that "had social welfare programs in place to care for the poor."

Ancient or modern?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Ancient or modern?

Whatever floats your boat.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Whatever floats your boat.

Shirley, your ambiguity doesn't.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Shirley, your ambiguity doesn't.

Do you know what "whatever floats your boat" means? Do I need to define it for you?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Ancient or modern?

Let's go with ancient since that seems to be what you were addressing in post #8867.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Let's go with ancient since that seems to be what you were addressing in post #8867.

For my own understanding, apart from Judeo-Christian influence, I began with the Classical Greeks, since Aristotle stated that a thing ought to be treated according to it's nature (secular morality).

Sure enough, the Greek city-states, whatever their motivations, made limited but significant societal contributions to social welfare, while the Romans also, but less so...

http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?...estic%20slaves.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Let's go with ancient since that seems to be what you were addressing in post #8867.

Let's go with this instead: You should go out and play in rush hour traffic by yourself.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Let's go with this instead: You should go out and play in rush hour traffic by yourself.

Is that what Jesus would do? I mean, would he make the same recommendation?

Jesus said that anyone who looked at a woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart. If you want someone to do something dangerous that is likely to get him killed then you have already committed murder in your heart. Would Jesus want you to commit murder?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Let's go with this instead: You should go out and play in rush hour traffic by yourself.

That's an oxymoron. If it's rush hour then I'm not by myself. If I am by myself then it's not rush hour.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

That's an oxymoron. If it's rush hour then I'm not by myself. If I am by myself then it's not rush hour.

No...what I meant was don't take along any playmates with you. Go solo through the traffic.