11 Mar 05
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI think a slave who was a slave because of racism and was horribly treated should have tried to escape, yes. You have to read these letters in light of the situation of the day. Slaves of war were common. And if it was a Christian master, he would either treat his slaves as family, or not have any soon enough. If a non-Christian master, the Christian slave would set an admirable example for both his master and other slaves to come to Christ.
That point is irrelevant. The verse says a slave should please his master in everything. Do you think a slave should try to escape from his master? Was the 'civil rights' movement wrong?
THAT is the goal. Not anything on this earth. But after it.
11 Mar 05
This is what the Bible has to say about how to treat your slaves. Beat them hard but not hard enough to kill!
Exodus 21:20-21 (New International Version)
20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,
21 But he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
11 Mar 05
Originally posted by MaustrauserYes, that is how the Jews were to treat prisoners of war 3500 years ago. You're right on the money with that one.
This is what the Bible has to say about how to treat your slaves. Beat them hard but not hard enough to kill!
Exodus 21:20-21 (New International Version)
20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,
21 But he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
11 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusIf the goal isn't anything on this earth, then the bible sure wastes a lot of time talking about it.
I think a slave who was a slave because of racism and was horribly treated should have tried to escape, yes. You have to read these letters in light of the situation of the day. Slaves of war were common. And if it was a Christian master, he would either treat his slaves as family, or not have any soon enough. If a non-Christian master, the Christian sla ...[text shortened]... her slaves to come to Christ.
THAT is the goal. Not anything on this earth. But after it.
There are already commandments to turn the other cheek, and to do good to those who spitefully use you. Why is it necessary to have a special command just to make sure that slaves always please their masters? Is it not a violation of that command for a slave to run away? Call me crazy, but I doubt the master would be pleased to find that his slave skipped town.
11 Mar 05
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemYes, how to behave on earth to reach the goal.
If the goal isn't anything on this earth, then the bible sure wastes a lot of time talking about it.
There are already commandments to turn the other cheek, and to do good to those who spitefully use you. Why is it necessary to have a special command just to make sure that slaves always please their masters? Is it not a violation of that command f ...[text shortened]... way? Call me crazy, but I doubt the master would be pleased to find that his slave skipped town.
You have to realize that some of the Scriptures are letters. Letters to people living in the 1st century AD. Some of the things within those letters will not and can not pertain to modern day. Slaves who were slaves because of racism did not have an obligation morally or Scripturally to stay.
11 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusAre you saying that these letters are not the words of god, but instead the words of man ?
Yes, how to behave on earth to reach the goal.
You have to realize that some of the Scriptures are letters. Letters to people living in the 1st century AD. Some of the things within those letters will not and can not pertain to modern day. Slaves who were slaves because of racism did not have an obligation morally or Scripturally to stay.
11 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusThe century makes no difference. The verse in Titus does not allow for an exception based on a racist master.
Yes, how to behave on earth to reach the goal.
You have to realize that some of the Scriptures are letters. Letters to people living in the 1st century AD. Some of the things within those letters will not and can not pertain to modern day. Slaves who were slaves because of racism did not have an obligation morally or Scripturally to stay.
11 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusI thought the Word of God was eternal and unchanging.
You have to realize that some of the Scriptures are letters. Letters to people living in the 1st century AD. Some of the things within those letters will not and can not pertain to modern day.
Watch:
1. In the beginning was the Word (St John 1:1a)
2. And the Word became flesh (St John 14a)
3. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8)
So, if the Bible is the Word of God, and the Word was made flesh
in Jesus, and Jesus never changes:
Then a literalist must hold that Bible never changes and, as such,
those things (like not braiding your hair and slaves) must continue to
hold.
QED
Nemesio
11 Mar 05
Originally posted by NemesioExactly. I agree.
I thought the Word of God was eternal and unchanging.
Watch:
1. In the beginning was the Word (St John 1:1a)
2. And the Word became flesh (St John 14a)
3. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8)
So, if the Bible is the Word of God, and the Word was made flesh
in Jesus, and Jesus never changes:
Then a literalist ...[text shortened]... ,
those things (like not braiding your hair and slaves) must continue to
hold.
QED
Nemesio
Now I'd like to see where Paul endorses slavery. Not where he tells slaves of the day how to behave, but where he says there should be slaves.
Please.
12 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusIf Scripture informs us how we ought to treat our slaves and how
Exactly. I agree.
Now I'd like to see where Paul endorses slavery. Not where he tells slaves of the day how to behave, but where he says there should be slaves.
Please.
slaves ought to act, then that is an endorsement. If Scripture were
opposed to the idea, then it would say, 'Slavery is wrong.'
You were the one who said 'Some of the things within those letters
will not and can not pertain to modern day;' that is heresy for literalists.
Nemesio
12 Mar 05
Originally posted by NemesioIt is heresy for moral absolutists.
If Scripture informs us how we ought to treat our slaves and how
slaves ought to act, then that is an endorsement. If Scripture were
opposed to the idea, then it would say, 'Slavery is wrong.'
You were the one who said 'Some of the things within those letters
will not and can not pertain to modern day;' that is heresy for literalists.
Nemesio