Posted on 02/06/2006 11:02:06 AM PST by neverdem
I think it is important to remember that the Bible authors and original audience had a very different perspective to slavery than we do today. We think of it as close to the ultimate evil. (I agree.)
In ancient times it was a fact of life, not an evil system to be destroyed. Jesus routinely used slaves in his parables without implying that there was anything immoral about their condition. The Mosaic Law had many ordinances regulating slavery, none abolishing it or implying that the institution was wrong. Paul instructed an escaped slave, Onesimus, who had converted to Christianity to voluntarily return to his master, who had also converted since he had fled.
Christians are supposed to be willing slaves like Onesimus, not rebellious or resistant ones. The history of ancient times makes it clear that many slaves were truly devoted to their masters, sometimes dying in their defense or to avoid betraying them. This seems extremely odd to us, who assume that slaves have always been resentful and on the edge of rebellion. But that isn't the way slavery has always been viewed.
You are correct that context is important.
As Verginius Rufus, obviously much more of a Bible scholar than I, points out, there are many references where Bible writers refer to themselves and others as slaves of God or of Christ.
As I have pointed out in another post, Bible writers had a very different perspective on slavery than we do. Context, in its broader sense, includes the entire document as well as information about the perspective the writers and original readers would have brought to the work.
Islam, at least originally, had a system of slavery that was much more like that of the Bible than like that of early America. There was little or no racial or ethnic component to the institution.
Slaves often became respected, powerful and wealthy. For instance, Ali became Mohammed's son-in-law, and eventually himself caliph. His assassination led to the blood feud in Islam that still divides Sunni from Shia.
The New Testament proposes the novel suggestion that God Himself became a slave and died for other slaves in order to free them from the consequences of Adam's sin.
Then say I, Allahu fubar!
just for laughs, you should some time visit Libertyforum and read the crap going on there.....
Time to rock is soon......
Maybe I'll check it out.
Strong's Greek:
1401 doulos {doo'-los}
from 1210; TDNT - 2:261,182; adj
AV - servant 118, bond 6, bondman 1; 125
1) a slave, bondman, man of servile condition
1a) a slave
1b) metaph., one who gives himself up to another's will
those whose service is used by Christ in extending and
advancing His cause among men
1c) devoted to another to the disregard of one's own interests
2) a servant, attendant
Could somebody more knowledgable clarify something here?
By reading the link, I now have the impression that the 12 cartoons were a running theme in the particular editorial cartoonist's commentary over several weeks. If this is true, then I view the commentator not as simply an alternate view of Islam, nor a Judeo-Christian man of faith, but rather a carnal unbeliever seeking to foment political unrest relentlessly.
My previous impression was an ultra-sensitive group of Muslim cultured warmongers ceased upon a particular political cartoon as a public justification for lawlessness and rebllion to legitimate authority as a guise to promote an Islamic overturn of western politic.
This later article though, implies a relentless egging of Islamic believers so as to promote conflict.
Which position is more accurate? Or are they both true and feeding one another?
apologies,..'ceased' should have been written 'siezed'.
I rejoice in being a servant and even having the opportunity to be a slave for my Kinsman Redeemder, Christ Jesus.
Attribution
Brian Fairrington, Cagle Cartoons
they aren't even worth responding too. Just for reading. It appears if you answer you are swarmed upon by the posters. They try intimdation, insults and really screwed logic. My ratings are in the toliet as some "friendly" posters have told me. I was recently asked to write to the moderators and request a reversal as to my current ratings. They idea was that I was being stalked to receive poor ratings. I just add my opinion, based on fact and people hate that....:))))
My understanding is that the 12 original cartoons were published back in September. An author complained that he couldn't get anyone to illustrate his children's book on the life of Mohammed. This Danish magazine contacted a couple dozen artists to produce illustrations of Mohammed and "break the taboo." About half refused to participate, and several of those who did produced illustrations that were not in any way political or critical.
Danish Muslims took the cartoons, altered some to make them more offensive and added some new cartoons that were really offensive, even obscene, then took the collection back to the Middle East and peddled it around as an example of the oppression of Muslims in Denmark.
The uproar we see gradually developed out of an intentional provocation by Danish Muslims who intentionally exaggerated and inflamed the issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.