Slavery, The Bible, and Infidelism

I can't see where the bible condemns burning people alive, or torture in general, but I do find that morally offensive.

 

>>>>>>CONCLUSION: Just because you or I or some group finds something "morally offensive", if it doesn't have a base in the Bible, we are on thin ice.<<<<<<<

You would have to agree, wouldn't you, that not all questions involving a moral dimension are discussed in the bible. What is to be done in those cases? Even on issues that are discussed in the bible, there is often substantial ambiguity on what the bible intends. Wouldn't you have to agree with that?

 

Since burning people alive is for the purpose of killing them, we might try Exodus 20:13 as Bible condemnation.

What could be considered torture might take several forms - punishment, coercion, and even sadistic pleasure. Inflicting physical pain, even intense physical pain, has been and sometimes still is used as a form of corporal punishment. Though we might find it offensive, God prescribed it under the law (stoning, scourging, Deut. 25:1-3; Prov. 26:3, et.al), and hell's punishment is and the lake of fire will be torment (Luke 16:23; Rev. 14:10,11, et al). It was used not only as punishment, but also to coerce to action (Matt. 18:34) or confession (Acts 22:24). Torture performed for pleasure, would be sinful and devilish in nature (Mark 5:2-5; Luke 9:39, et al).

[ September 14, 2003, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

I know you're addressing Dr. Bob, but I'm wondering if you would clarify your statement that "not all questions involving a moral dimension are discussed in the ible," perhaps giving an example. I'm thinking you mean things like the fact that the Bible doesn't specifically mention to not take LSD, etc. Thanks.

 

>>>>I know you're addressing Dr. Bob, but I'm wondering if you would clarify your statement that "not all questions involving a moral dimension are discussed in the ible," perhaps giving an example.<<<<<<

I will give an example that even Dr. Bob can understand. There were no movies in biblical times, therefore any discussion of movies in the bible obviously does not exist. Christians are often faced with the question of whether to see movies containing certain material. It seems to me that one's own judgment must come into play here. Or, consider the question of theatre. A couple of hundred years ago, some pastors thought that attending plays was wrong. Today, not many would think that way, but the point remains that the bible does not provide any guidance on that. If you say that there is enough general guidance in the bible from which to form a judgment, I would maintain that the same applies to slavery, specifically the golden rule. So Dr. Bob's requirement that the bible must speak on a subject does not seem to me to be broadly valid.

 

</font>

1. "II Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." That a man of God is not complete is not sufficient argument that the Bible does not provide what is necessary for him to be complete. That someone can raise a question a Christian cannot answer is not sufficient proof that the Bible does not have the answer.</font>
2. Nevertheless, I would maintain that Biblical principles exist to guide decisions concerning going to movies and which ones to see, BUT if I were to agree that the "ible does not provide any guidance on that," your illustration is not parallel to slavery and therefore not applicable, because the Bible does discuss and "give guidance" on this issue of slavery.</font>[*]The golden rule cannot be made to walk on all fours. Should a masochist say "do to others what you would have them do to you," then he might try to inflict bodily pain and suffering on others, since he enjoys pain and suffering. The golden rule must work within Biblical parameters. I would contend that Paul's instructions to masters illustrate the proper Biblical application of the golden rule and slavery.</font>[*]Those who hold the Bible as an all sufficient rule of faith and practice, and those who believe the bible may not be authoritative for all people in all times and that it doesn't provide guidance for many (most?) issues facing the present-day Christian have little in common to Biblically discuss slavery or any other issue.</font>

 

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Those who hold the Bible as an all sufficient rule of faith and practice, and those who believe the bible may not be authoritative for all people in all times and that it doesn't provide guidance for many (most?) issues facing the present-day Christian have little in common to Biblically discuss slavery or any other issue.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can you contend that the bible must be used to decide every issue? When you cook your eggs in the morning, do you consult the bible on how to do it? When you repair your car, do you try to find out how Jesus would have handled a bad water pump?

 

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;because the Bible does discuss and "give guidance" on this issue of slavery.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

History shows that the bible has been used to support anti-slavery theology as well as pro-slavery theology. So when you say that the bible gives guidance on the issue, I say that the bible is not so clear on the issue as to preclude arguments over its interpretation. You know that such arguments existed, I hope.

 

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;The golden rule must work within Biblical parameters. I would contend that Paul's instructions to masters illustrate the proper Biblical application of the golden rule and slavery.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

So you seem to be contending that the Golden Rule applies to everyone EXCEPT slave owners, because it is a good assumption that slave owners would not want to be slaves themselves. You show me a person who claims to want to be a slave and I will show you a liar.

 

Tanker, whether or not your point about cooking eggs has any bearing on this issue, it does not negate the fact that the Bible DOES discuss the issue of slavery. You are comparing apples and oranges. Do you think slavery is the moral & religious equivalent of rebuilding a water pump?

The golden rule applies to EVERYONE - but not just any way we want to bend it. It operates according to Bible principles. What about the masochist and the golden rule?

Is God a liar? God implies that someone could choose it. Cf. Exodus 21:1-6 & Deut. 15:16,17.

 

Interesting discussion and some somewhat remarkable viewpoints, to say the least.

It is interesting to me that Philemon has been mentioned numerous times and all anyone seems to be concentrating on is Paul's commendation of his Christian character. It appears that while some are focussing strongly on verses 4-7, they are missing the point of the Letter in its entirity.

Paul is deliberately not speaking as an Apostle in this Letter, but as a "brother," a fellow Christian.

What is required for what? He just commended Philemon lavishly on how he refreshed the hearts of the saints. There was a requirement that Philemon would have to come to grips with for himself.

Paul recognized and was adamant throughout his Epistles that true social change did not come from mandates and obligatory laws, it came from WITHIN the believer and had it's roots in Christ.

Paul commends Philemon in 4-7 because he is about to draw on those qualities in his coming request. The Letter climaxes at verse 17:

If Philemon did this it would "Refresh [his] heart in Christ." This is the literary balance to verse 7. The theme of the Letter is not what a great guy Philemon was because he was a slave owner, it was about how a great Christian would find it in himself to "do more than Paul had asked (verse 21)." He had already asked that Onesimus be forgiven, his debts transferred and that he be sent back to Paul. Therefore, the "more" strongly implies emancipation.

Also in that verse, Paul says that he knows that Philemoin will be obedient. Obedient to what? Paul had given no commands. Obviously he expected Philemon to obey the love of Christ.

In verse 17 Paul gave Onesimus, a runaway slave in the Graeco-Roman world, the one thing he truly lacked -- dignity.

Philemon is only 25 verses. To shorten it to a mere four is to really do it an injustice.

BTW, Karen, your citation and interpretation of 1Timothy 1:9-10 is confirmed by the simple use of a lexicon. I'll add one more verse to the discussion as well:

[ October 15, 2003, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

What is required for what? He just commended Philemon lavishly on how he refreshed the hearts of the saints. There was a requirement that Philemon would have to come to grips with for himself.

Paul recognized and was adamant throughout his Epistles that true social change did not come from mandates and obligatory laws, it came from WITHIN the believer and had it's roots in Christ.

Paul commends Philemon in 4-7 because he is about to draw on those qualities in his coming request. The Letter climaxes at verse 17:

If Philemon did this it would "Refresh [his] heart in Christ." This is the literary balance to verse 7. The theme of the Letter is not what a great guy Philemon was because he was a slave owner, it was about how a great Christian would find it in himself to "do more than Paul had asked (verse 21)." He had already asked that Onesimus be forgiven, his debts transferred and that he be sent back to Paul. Therefore, the "more" strongly implies emancipation.

Also in that verse, Paul says that he knows that Philemoin will be obedient. Obedient to what? Paul had given no commands. Obviously he expected Philemon to obey the love of Christ.

In verse 17 Paul gave Onesimus, a runaway slave in the Graeco-Roman world, the one thing he truly lacked -- dignity.

Philemon is only 25 verses. To shorten it to a mere four is to really do it an injustice.

BTW, Karen, your citation and interpretation of 1Timothy 1:9-10 is confirmed by the simple use of a lexicon. I'll add one more verse to the discussion as well:

</font>[/QUOTE]That was a very insightful and thought-provoking review of Paul's writings about Philemon.

In order for Paul's words to have any effect, the apostle Paul had to (as Clint Kritzer pointed out) humble himself and speak only as a Christian brother. Paul couldn't rely on pulling rank and saying "because I'm the apostle, you should do such-and-such". Paul knew better than to try that, because love doesn't respond to authority. (Indeed Christ was the Son of God; yet he never used his authority, except when commanding demons or commanding the elements - wind, storm, etc.)

Also notice how by focusing on the law of love (which we might think is easier than the law), Paul has actually focused on what is *harder* than the law: the spirit of love. And it is that spirit of love for our brother - the essence of Christianity - that calls us to a higher standard of behavior than the mere Law could *ever* do.

That's also why I think of Mother Teresa, when I try to resolve questions of love vs. the law. When you consider her example, then the path is clear: love *looks* easier, but in practice, it is far more difficult.

Sorry if I rambled - but I read your post and it struck a chord with me.