Belief...believe it or not!

I know you won't understand this, but I tell you honestly with all my heart that coming from you that is a complement!

I was like you about twenty years ago. There isn't one word that you speak, one thought that you have, that I haven't been through a thousand times.

The difference between you and I as it relates to this journey is that you don't know how to differentiate between the hippy jippy stuff that you suggest I am guilty of here, from the true mystical experiences that a person can have.

I believe that 99.9999999999999999% of all phenomena can be explained through scientific means. But I realized long ago that machinistic type thinking will never reach even a fraction of that knowledge in my lifetime only through scientific knowledge. It is a realization that I came through scientific understanding! In particular Godels theorem and Penrose's and other scientists interpretation of those theories and others. That is the beauty of the human mind though, it can jump to conclusions and see truths without going through each intermediate step like a machine - which is what you have reduced yourself to, but console and comfort yourself in the name of being an "intellectual."

But at a deeper level, you are a man of your time - stuck in the jail of the knowledge he achives by sticking his nose to the grind stone of reductionism, not just in your trading, but in your life. As I have told you elsewhere, I left that jail long ago....

nitro

 

I agree with you. Fancy that.

However, Aapex in the beginning of his discussions of the Bible stated unequivocally that he could only discuss the Bible by reference to the Bible. Then, as soon as I challenge the text of his Bible, Aapex suddenly resorts to extrinsic evidence to support it (e.g., "ancient biblical customs").

So, if he can use extrinsic evidence to try to rationalize his Bible as the literal and revealed truth of the Almighty, then I should be entitled to demonstrate a rather distinct problem with the Almighty's revealed truth -- which is, that according to the Bible, God condones and permits slavery.

Note, I am not taking a position that slavery is bad or good. I am simply demonstrating that the Bible has no problem with it.

Thus, being a Christian means one must accept slavery as moral under God's laws, or one must determine that the Bible is allegorical in nature, rather than literal.

 

As someone who has read some of your philosophical posts and is familiar with your antics from the time I used to frequent the chat room, please let me assure you that you are fairly full of shit. You don't even have a fraction of the humility that accompanies the kind of enlightenment that you speak of. Just a thought: embracing hypocrisy is probably not the key to spiritual enlightenment, no matter how cool the diatribes may sound. You and people like you, notably Z10, seem to go out of your way to demonstrate how far you have progressed along life's journey in a manner that, more than anything else, boils down to self-aggrandizement: "Look at me! I'm better!" In contrast, my role is to simply recognize shit when I encounter it.

 

In the parlance of young Coolweb, "Nitro is so owned.".

 

I have nothing against Aapex's faith, or yours, etc.

However, I believe he is proselytizing his faith, nothing more.

There really is no ground for much discussion, but you and I know that from our own dances.

To each their own, live and let live...shame that so many people can't see that overwhelmingly important message in their respective scriptures.

My arguments are not really about religion itself, but the way in which people approach their own faith, and then tend to evaluate their faith in the same way a person on the produce aisle evaluates one apple versus another apple when buying them.

This objectification of personal faith, seen through comparison and evaluation with other faiths, in my opinion, is fruitless.
(Get it? Buying apples, fruitless )

My observation is that the atheists compare faiths, and want to show the theist where their faith in intellect and senses is superior to the faith of the heart and spirituality....the theists want to prove their faith is the right one to adopt for others....but who really is in a position to judge? Christian dogma on one hand denounces judgment of others, but what about in practice? It really is funny.....

The real problem of course, as is nearly always the problem, is the dispensation of power by governments or others in telling the people what faith to embrace, or how to live their lives.....then it becomes political, and eventually we start arguing about politics...

 

It is easy to see why you have such issues with the so called "hypocrisy" of others....especially in an all important life defining message board forum.

This is typically a stage of youth who has tended to idealize authority figures, then upon realizing how messy life actually is, feel greatly disappointed and express their disappointment at others for not living up to their expectations and ideals.

Best of luck in your "perfect" world of zero personal hypocrisy....

LOL...

 

No argument. I agree that atheism is a faith as much as theism, because God cannot be proven or disproven by any natural methodology. The more intellectually honest approach is that one either believes whatever they choose on their "faith," or they are agnostic and try to remain open minded.

If Aapex wants to spread the Gospel for whatever reason, he is free to do so. However, as soon as he claims that his Gospel is the literal, revealed one truth of Almighty God, rather than merely an allegorical text, then it is reasonable to ask him to explain Exodus 21, which is styled therein as the Lord's "judgments" concerning the maintenance and transfer of slaves as the personal property of others...

...and which, by the way, is preceded immediately by what is arguably the most well-respected section of the entire compendium of scriptures: Exodus 20 -- or more commonly, "The Ten Commandments."

 

Well....

He can make claims, but his are claims of faith not empiricism, and you are demanding proof by non faith methods.

Doesn't seem to me that there is going to be any middle ground here.....

I am not saying his read of the Bible is wrong, or that yours is right...or vice versa.

You are not looking at the situation from the same point of view, so it is no wonder there is no common ground.

I think you would agree that a condition of religious faith does produce a faith based reality, and a condition of empiracle faith produces a different reality.

I just don't see the value in an empiricist trying to get the faithful to fit in the box of empiricism, nor for the faithful to expect the empiricist to see things from their perspective.

As long as it is logically possible that pure faith produces a vision that extends beyond the limits of physical senses and relativistic logic, I see the round and round forever with this deal.

You want to hold him to your rules, he wants to hold you to his....when God is not of this world, so why should God be limited to the rules of this world?

In addition, since it is also logically possible that all that really matters in the final analysis to have faith in God and or the scriptures of God, the arguments you have which are a secular view of religious belief seem forever without the possible of anything but a self declared victory.

On a purely practical mundane worldly level though, I do tend to favor the rational and common sense as applies to living in the world, as it tends to be a common ground for the majority to find some place of agreement from which to build consensus.

Many, many years ago, when RFK was assassinated, Sirhan Sirhan claimed that God told him to kill Kennedy.

At the time I thought the man was crazy, and from a worldly perspective, that point of view continues, but none of us really know.

So while I can say unequivocally that I don't know if God told him to kill RFK, I can still support the need 100% for society to apply secular laws in the process of justice.

 

SLAVERY

When confronted with the issue of slavery, First and foremost, it should be noted that the Bible does not commend slavery; rather, it recognizes the reality of slavery. In the ancient world where slavery flourished, the Mosaic Law thus stipulated stringent guidelines such as a year of Jubilee in which slaves were released (Lev. 25:40). In fact, it was the application of biblical principles that ultimately led to the overthrow of slavery, both in ancient Israel and in the United States of America. Israel’s liberation from slavery in Egypt became the model for the liberation of slaves in general. In America, many are beginning to wake up to the liberating biblical truth that all people are created innately equal (see Gen. 1:27; Acts 17:26–28; see also Gal. 3:28).

Furthermore, slavery within an Old Testament context was sanctioned due to economic realities rather than racial or sexual prejudices.5 Because bankruptcy laws did not exist, people would voluntarily sell themselves into slavery. A craftsman could, thus, use his skills in servitude to discharge a debt. Even a convicted thief could make restitution by serving as a slave (Exod. 23:3).

Finally, we should note that far from extolling the virtues of slavery, the Bible denounces slavery as sin. The apostle Paul goes so far as to put slave traders in the same category as murderers, adulterers, perverts, and liars (1 Tim.1:10). Indeed, slavery is so abhorrent to God that in the final book of the Bible, He condemns the evil systems that perpetuate it.6


Question: "Does the Bible condone slavery?”



Answer: The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw the practice altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many people don’t understand is that slavery in the Bible times is completely different from the slavery that was practiced in the United States in the 1700’s and 1800’s. The slavery in the Bible was not based on race at all. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more of a social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their family. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, even politicians were slaves of someone else for one reason or another. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their master.



The slavery of the 1700’s and 1800’s was based on skin color. Black people were considered slaves because of their nationality – most slave owners truly believed black people to be “inferior human beings” to white people. This is similar to the slavery the Jews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Jews were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Jews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condone slavery. However, the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

 

The Custom of Ancient Slavery

“Can you explain Leviticus 25:44-45? This passage seems to indicate that the Jews were allowed to buy slaves?”

The issue of slavery in the ancient world is a complex one, and practices/regulations regarding this long-standing institution must be viewed in light of the rather unrefined ages in which the relationship of owner/slave prevailed.

It may be stated with absolute confidence that it was never the ideal will of God that one man should own another - as a piece of property. The fact that each human being is in the “image of God” (Gen. 1:26-27; 9:6) militates against the concept that slavery is a divinely designed relationship.

But the antique world was one of slavery; in Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Rome, etc., the practice of owning slaves was common. Aristotle taught that it was in the natural order of things that some men should “own” others so that the “higher classes” could flourish. (Does that not have an “evolutionary” flavor to it?) In most of those cultures the practice was barbarous. Slaves were not “people”; they were mere “things” - pieces of property, to be used, abused, or even disposed of - at the whim of the master. Slaves could be tortured or murdered at the owner’s bidding. Such cruelty obviously was not consistent with the will of God.

The Mosaic regime was born into a world in which slavery was a thriving enterprise already. Within the Hebrew culture a level of servitude was both acknowledged and regulated.

Slaves might be obtained in a variety of ways. Generally they were acquired as prisoners of war, as a result of the various conquests that Israel was authorized to wage (cf. Num. 31:7-9). In an Israelite home, servitude could be an advantage over death, because servants were to be viewed as household members. Sometimes servants were obtained as gifts (Gen. 29:24), or through purchase (Lev. 25:44). The offspring of slaves automatically belonged to the same owner (Ex. 21:4). A robber might be enslaved if he could not repay the value of the “loot” he had stolen (Ex. 22:2-3). Too, one could sell his self into an indentured relationship (Ex. 21:6) - either temporarily (there were time limitations protecting him – Ex. 21:2ff), or for life, if he loved his master and chose life-long security. Such was not uncommon in the harsh world of the ancients.

But Hebrew law was far superior to the codes of the pagan nations with reference to slaves. For example, there are some glaring contrasts between the law of Moses, and the code of Hammurabi (a Babylonian ruler), with reference to slaves. Under the Babylonian regime, harboring a runaway slave incurred the death penalty. Under the Hebrew system, a runaway slave seeking refuge could not be returned to his master (Dt. 23:15). A Hebrew-owned slave could bind himself to his master for life, the agreement being ratified by the piercing of his ear (Ex. 21:6; Dt. 15:17). In Babylon, a slave who said to his master, “You don’t own me!” could have his ear cut off! Under the Mosaic system, robbery required restitution - either in actual payment or service (Ex. 22:3). Babylonian law made robbery a capital offence.

The Roman writer Pliny tells of a case where a slave accidentally dropped and broke a crystal goblet. His owner immediately threw him into a courtyard fishpond where he was torn apart by savage lampreys. Under the law of Moses, to kill a slave was a crime that carried punishment (Ex. 21:20). While the law allowed the physical punishment of one’s slave, the Jew was not permitted to kill his servant. This protection was unprecedented in the ancient world. One scholar has noted that the Jews’ treatment of Gentile slaves was “a great deal more humane than elsewhere in the ancient world” (Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, London: SCM Press, 1969, p.348).

No, slavery was not consistent with the most exalted level of Christian doctrine - which contained the moral seeds that eventually would abolish the institution in the hearts of those influenced by the gracious teaching of Jesus Christ (cf. Mt. 7:12).

Hebrew law was not designed to violently disrupt the owner/servant relationship of the ancient world in an abbreviated period of time. That regime did embrace certain restraining measures that gradually would bring the institution into disrepute - especially with the coming of Christianity. As William Barclay once observed, “There are some things which cannot be suddenly achieved, and for which the world must wait, until the leaven works.”

In this connection the New Testament book of Philemon ought to be carefully studied. It concerns the case of a runaway slaved named Onesimus. Onesimus had fled from his master, Philemon, who lived in the city of Colossae. The refugee had made his way to Rome where he came in contact with the apostle Paul. Paul led him to the truth of the gospel of Christ. Onesimus became an asset to the apostle, who was a prisoner in chains, awaiting the disposition of his fate before Caesar. Paul had been falsely charged by the Jews in Palestine, and so appealed his case to Rome.

In view of the social and political circumstances of the day, Paul determined that the proper thing for Onesimus to do would be to return to his master. Onesimus obviously conceded to the plan and, in the company of Tychicus (cf. Col. 4:9), the two embarked upon the journey back to Asia. They took with them a short letter written by Paul (Philemon - the briefest of all the apostle’s writings), which was a commendation of Onesimus, and an appeal to Philemon to receive the fugitive back, viewing him “no longer as a slave, but more than a slave.” The petition suggested that it would be ideal if Philemon would embrace him as a “beloved brother, especially to me, but now much more to you” (v. 16). Paul does not command, “free him,” but that hint saturates the disposition of the request.

There probably has been no single document in the history of humanity that has done more to pave the way for the abolition of human enslavement that Paul’s letter to Philemon. D. Edmond Hiebert has summarized the matter beautifully.


“This epistle has exerted a profound impact upon the movement of the amelioration of social conditions. Dealing with a problem arising out of the institution of slavery, it has figured prominently in the controversy about slavery.The manner in which Paul treats the problem of Onesimus indicates the way in which Christianity grappled with the evils of human society. To have directly antagonized the institution of human slavery, inwrought as it was in the very warp and woof of the Roman Empire, would have stigmatized Christianity as being anti-social, and would have turned all the powers of the Empire against it in an effort to crush such teachings. In stead of making a frontal attack upon the institution of slavery, Christianity inculcated a spirit of love and consideration which ultimately meant the death-knell of that institution” (An Introduction to the New Testament – The Pauline Epistles, Chicago: Moody Press, 1977, pp. 248-249).
No one, who considers all the evidence, and puts the matter into a proper historical perspective, can legitimately fault the biblical record with reference to the issue of human bondage.