Posted on 10/01/2007 1:00:06 PM PDT by SmithL
I disagree that the Bible speaks out against slavery. I have never seen any scriptures that specifically condemn slavery as an institution. I don’t read Galatians 3:28 as a condemnation of slavery; I read that verse to mean that God doesn’t care about your role on Earth, for we are all saved through Christ.
There are plenty of verses that accept slavery, explaining how slaves and masters are to treat each other (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 4:1; I Timothy 6:1; Titus 2:9-10.) Even Jesus said, “And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.” Luke 12:47.
The Bible doesn’t condone slavery in the sense that it tells us we need to go out and enslave each other in order to be righteous. It does, however, fail to condemn the practice of owning another human being and depriving them of their own freedom and autonomy, a practice I view as unquestionably wrong.
Finally, a minor point of language. When you say, “’THE Christians’ (as opposed to simply ‘Christians’) freed the slaves,” it impliedly suggests that all Christians banded together in opposition to slavery, while slavery proponents were non-Christian. That’s just not true. Most slave owners in the US were also Christians, claiming that slavery was divinely created and sanctioned. I just don’t think abolition was due to some fundamental tenet of Christian theology, so much as it was an inevitable result of the 18th century Enlightenment.
I think this is because the Bible (the New Testament at least) is concerned with the individual, not the institution. Institutions come and go (think about how we accept lending and borrowing at interest, which is plainly condemned by Scripture) but even the Roman Empire is a blink of the eye compared with the immortal soul.
And I was not specific enough - it was the evangelical branch of Christianity, particularly the Methodists in England, that started the abolitionist movement, and it was definitely Bible-based. ("Am I not a man and a brother?") I don't see Wilberforce as a product of the Enlightenment, particularly -- more of a reaction to it (like Methodism in general).
What an amazing photo. Definitely a keeper!
Ah. That's partly my fault as I had a slavery example in the first paragraph but took it out for a different reason, and then forgot to address the issue later.
Here's a couple of historical analyses from a Catholic perspective:
But just to summarize from what the second article said, slavery as an institution was not condemned per se, (partly for Biblical reasons and partly because of a very libertarian argument that people should be allowed to sell themselves into slavery to ameliorate their economic situation). But regardless of the *institution* of slavery, the slave was always regarded a child of God who deserved to be treated as such. And under this regime, note that actual slavery had all but disappeared in Europe the Middle Ages, and several religious orders were founded specifically with the goal of ransoming slaves from captivity (e.g. the Mercedarians)
As far as modern slavery based on race, the article says "It is unnecessary to observe that the practice of capturing savages or barbarians for the purpose of making slaves of them has always been condemned as a heinous offence against justice, and no just title could be created by this procedure."
Which is why Pope Paul III in Sublimus Dei forbade enslaving the Indians as early as 1537. Later bulls excommunicated people involved the slave trade (e.g. In Supremo, in 1839)
Nicely done.
ROFL!!!!!!!!!
Whew!
ROFL!!!!!!!!!
Wow ... in a normal, sane forum you'd be right.
But what have normalcy and sanity to do with the FR Religion Forum? Here, thread hijacking is SOP.
But it does change. There were many gospels and then the got whittled down to 4. They got translated and changed many times. Very different views crop up based on different translations. There is overlap but the diffrences and outcomes and beliefs are enormous.
Look at my post again and examine some of the beliefs that take a 180 over time. My point is that beliefs on the homosexual issue will also change. Beliefs about stoning, slavery, divorce, pork, women, drinking, etc... changed.
Finally, are the heracies of the year 200 the same as the heracies of the 1800s? What is the proper punishment for adultry or idol worship today? Is divorce heracy? See what I'm getting at?
ANalogReingns,
I think your answers to my post prove my point that the religion has evolved and that each successive generation (which, by definition is further removed from Jesus in time) believes they know the rules better than the one before.
One era Kosher law is good, over time, no big deal. Early on most churches preached that women were subserviant or didn’t allow them to preach, later they changed their mind. No where in the bible does it condemn slavery or rape or stoning explicitely and it implicitly supports these things in places. Regardless, each generation thinks they’ve figured it out better than the last and then they get mad when the younger generation starts changing what they just stated as true. Every generation does this.
Now it’s your turn to poo-poo the past errors, rules, beliefs, interpretations, of all the generations that came before you and while also poo-pooing the changes being made by the next generation.
If you go back and read your responses, you should see how they are all arguable (and are argued by many denominations). So, its not surprising that christians will now become more accepting of homosexuality until it goes the way of slavery and supression of women.
They’ve been confronted multiple times, given plenty of chances to turn from their sin. It is time for the church to put these unrepentent sinners out and let satan have them.
If you haven't read the bible, then no wonder you are confused between what man wants and what God expects.
Yes I see. Your thesis is: so many things have changed before, so why not homosexuality?
But the premise is bad--so many things you think have changed actually have not. In fact, none of the things you mentioned: "stoning, slavery, divorce, pork, women, drinking" changed whatsoever in the universal Church. They *were* changed however, by heretics! Heretics said their form of slavery was moral. Heretics said divorce was ok. Heretics said pork was bad, women could be priests, and no one could drink.
You can't look at the Church and heretics together and say "you've been inconsistent". Of course heretics have been inconsistent! That's why they are condemned by the Church! What you have to do is look for consistency only within the Church itself.
Very different views crop up based on different translations
First of all, Christians should base theological discussion on the scriptures as given in the original texts, not upon modern translations. It is legitimate to discuss the meaning of the original Greek or Hebrew text. It is not legitimate to base discussion on differences between the Douay Rheims and the TNIV, except as to the fidelity of the translation.
That brings up point two - Modern translations such as TNIV don't inform theology, but rather are based on faulty theology. The TNIV scholars knew that they were not properly translating some of the words of the scripture, but mistranslated so that the scriptures would conform to their world view.
There were many gospels and then the got whittled down to 4.
No, there weren't.
The canon of the Gospels was set as early as 130 A.D. http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon3.html
You have probably run across a set of the Gnostic Gospels at some point (such as 'The Lost Books of the Bible'), and haven't understood that they were never in the Canon of Scripture.
Beliefs about stoning, slavery, divorce, pork, women, drinking, etc... changed.
No, they haven't. And a good education would disabuse you of that notion.
Finally, are the heracies of the year 200 the same as the heracies of the 1800s?
Well, you probably need to come up a little more recently than 200, but the general answer to your question is 'yes'. Your basic problem here is that you haven't sorted out the results that flowed from the heresy from the heresy itself. For example, the issue isn't homosexuality, or the ordination of women. Those are mere symptoms of the true error, which is a devaluation of scripture. (Theologically liberal mainliners won't say that the Bible is the word of God, at most they will say that it contains the Word of God. They then reinterpret it at they see fit.) In extreme forms, they will deny the divinity and resurrection of Christ, thus invoking one of several historic heresies.
So you can look at the Mainline Protestants, and find Socinianism, Adoptionism, Arianism, Gnosticism, and Pelagianism.
I will say this though Dave, that your observation is astute in this sense: Christianity, sadly, has become riddled with denominations who think that they have the right to reinterpret what has always been taught in the Church. That's why you're seeing this group teach this, that other group teach that.
The Catholic position dovetails nicely with your own. Namely, that no generation of Christians has any right to decide for itself on morals, doctrine, or Scriptural interpretation. Those things are defined not by the individual but *by the Church as a whole*, taking into account every single generation from Peter and the Apostles to our own, and never contradicting what went before.
Without getting into the substance of the issue, folks pointing out issues in our lives should be grounds for some introspection and prayer as to whether there is some merit to the comment.
That being said, church splits do provide fertile grounds for uncharitable comments.
Pssst....Meet me around back. I have a bridge to sell you.
I believe Jesus said divorce on grounds of adultery is acceptable.
No. Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, has no value to society, and leads to an early, painful death of communicable disease. It is NOT a beautiful thing. You get more of what you approve of, so the “churches” approving the disordered lifestyle are creating a suction that will wind up with more shattered lives and miserable deaths.
Quarantine would be a more humane solution.
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.