Bookmark and Share

Viewed 1907 times

Would the world be a better place without Atheism/Religious-ism?

    M NomadSoul posted Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:46:00 GMT(8/13/2010)

    Post 108 of 1663
    Joined 2/7/2005

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU

    ZeusRocks posted Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:50:00 GMT(8/13/2010)

    Post 81 of 203
    Joined 7/16/2010

    I do see what you're saying PS. Although I'm not talking about slaves of the romans. I'm talking about followers of jesus and the people he preached to. He didn't preach to the romans. The point is though, that even among the jews it wasn't mandatory to own an slave. In the bible, neither Jesus nor any of the apostles would have been going against any law in teaching their followers that it is not right to own another human being, especially a fellow believer.

    The apostles I can understand in a respect as they were raised in that environment where owning slaves was the norm, but Jesus had no such excuse. Depending on someone's belief, he was either god or the son of god and as such would have known that it is wrong to own another person, yet never said a word to even his closest companions. Jesus supposed knowledge wasn't constrained to the times he was in, if he was who people said he was, yet his sense of of what was morally correct wasn't much different to anyone else at the time.

    PSacramento posted Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:01:00 GMT(8/13/2010)

    Post 4987 of 10925
    Joined 6/22/2009

    You have a point Zeus, indeed Jesus could have made a more clearer statement then just love your enemies, oen that made it clear that slavery was bad, instead we got "render to Caesar the thinsg that are his", basically a condoning of taxes and established laws that did NOT go against the teachings of God.

    He made a statement on divorce because he was asked, but no statement on slavery, that we know of.

    A mistake on his part? and omission from the Gospels? or Jesus didn't think it was important enough at the time?

    I don't know.

    tec posted Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:24:00 GMT(8/13/2010)

    Post 1629 of 12939
    Joined 3/5/2010

    I don't think one's lot in life was/is more important than what you DO with it and how you treat others. That may have been the point. That's what I think, anyway.

    Tammy

    whereami posted Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:02:00 GMT(8/13/2010)

    Post 391 of 1297
    Joined 3/3/2007

    ZeusRocks!!!! Thanks for clearly demonstrating what Atheism means. I find the vast majority of religious people are really misinformed on the subject. Here's a clear explanation for those that like videos:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-hVOltksic

    M BurnTheShips posted Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:14:00 GMT(8/13/2010)

    Post 16542 of 17945
    Joined 8/28/2006

    Zeus, none of your quotes advocate slavery. They deal with how to behave as Christians within that institution, which was universal and ancient.

    BTS

    M BurnTheShips posted Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:30:00 GMT(8/13/2010)

    Post 16543 of 17945
    Joined 8/28/2006

    By the way, Zeus, you omit some NT passages regarding slavery:

    1 Corinthians 7:21-23 (New International Version)

    Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.

    1 Timothy 1:8-10 (New International Version)

    We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

    BTS

    ZeusRocks posted Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:41:00 GMT(8/13/2010)

    Post 83 of 203
    Joined 7/16/2010

    Keep telling yourself that. If you know something is wrong, yet still encourage your followers to continue in that behaviour, you are infact immoral. Jesus was supposed to be superior in his wisdom and morality, yet never denounced slavery considering it was so widespread within the jewish community. There is absolutely no excuse for that. If he really came to teach truth, he missed a really big one. He obviously didn't consider it important to let people know that it is inhumane to own another person as property. His knowledge supposedly wasn't confined to what was known by mankind kind at that time, yet he displayed very little if any extra knowledge than what was known and believed by people at that time.

    There is absolutely no justification for remaining silent on slavery if you know it is wrong. And if he was god or the son of god he would have known better. There is no excuse.

    ZeusRocks posted Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:44:00 GMT(8/13/2010)

    Post 84 of 203
    Joined 7/16/2010

    Neither of those scriptures speak out against owning a slave.

    M BurnTheShips posted Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:49:00 GMT(8/13/2010)

    Post 16545 of 17945
    Joined 8/28/2006
    Keep telling yourself that.

    Is that all you've got?

    Your post is anachronistic.

    Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

    The purpose that animated the first generation of Christians was to spread the Gospel, not to change the social order.

    Christianity was called a "religion of slaves" in that place and time.

    BTS

    PSacramento posted Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:57:00 GMT(8/13/2010)

    Post 4991 of 10925
    Joined 6/22/2009

    Zeus,

    I really think that it wasn't a question of condoning slavery, it was more the knowledge that true salvation comes from being free INSIDE first and then free outside, Jesus focused on THAT message and he also KNEW, like we know, that IF he went against slavery and condemed it that it would either cuase a serious problem, ending in lots of deaths, OR it would have been ignored by the Jews, like his view on Divorce.

    I think that Jesus didn't adress slavery simply because it was not something who's time had come, it would have been counter-productive.

    If even NOW ( as in20th-21st century times) with our superiour morality there are still slaves in soem parts and not too long ago, still "slavery" in the states, how well do you think a DIRECT conflict with the institution of slavery would have ended?

    Jesus's teachings of do unto others and love your neighbour and love your enemy as yourself, shoudl have been enough of a "broad brush stroke" to understand his views on how to treat your fellow man, friend or foe.

    ZeusRocks posted Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:11:00 GMT(8/13/2010)

    Post 85 of 203
    Joined 7/16/2010

    The purpose that animated the first generation of Christians was to spread the Gospel, not to change the social order.

    Why don't you just ignore the christians for a minute. The biblical jesus as either god or the son of god would have known it was immoral for a person to own another person as property. He taught many many things that was different to the social and cultural order of things, yet he didn't say anything about owning another person as property in order to correct wrong thinking in regards to fellow human beings.

    I really don't care how you want to justify it in your own head, but the reality it, there is no justification in not speaking against slavery if you know better, even in your closest circle of followers to help them understand why it is wrong to own another human being.

    It's about doing what is right, not what is comfortable. Even us mere mortals understand that.

    M BurnTheShips posted Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:14:00 GMT(8/13/2010)

    Post 16550 of 17945
    Joined 8/28/2006

    Jesus came with a specific purpose, and his ministry was 3 1/2 years long. His work was to save souls, not effect a political revolution.

    BTS

    PSacramento posted Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:18:00 GMT(8/13/2010)

    Post 4995 of 10925
    Joined 6/22/2009

    Zeus,

    No one can speak WHY Jesus did or didn't do this or that, we are just voicing our views.

    We don't know if he DID speak about it to his closest friends, we just know it wasn't mentioned in the NT.

    I really think it was a case of his knowing the ramifications of such, hey, if they were persecuting his followers because they preached his ressurection and killing them for it, imagine if they were going around saying, "free the slaves and work for yourselves !!, forgive their debts ( some slaves were such because of debts), etc".

    F AGuest posted Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:39:00 GMT(8/13/2010)

    Post 4391 of 9474
    Joined 3/26/2001

    Be right back...

    F AGuest posted Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:45:00 GMT(8/13/2010)

    Post 4392 of 9474
    Joined 3/26/2001

    I'm a bit confused over the "slavery" debate here (may you all have peace!). Are you saying that it is immoral for a christian to have a slave? If so, I have to disagree... and clarify:

    What some of you refer to here as "slaves" had two connotations during that time, one which could raise questions/concerns (if the "owner" was a christian), and one that did not. The instance that did not raise questions/concerns was merely when there was an employer/employee relationship. However, the word "slave" is entirely inaccurate in and of itself. The etymology of the word is:

    "Middle English sclave, from Anglo-French or Medieval Latin; Anglo-French esclave, from Medieval Latin sclavus, from Sclavus Slavic; from the frequent enslavement of Slavs in central Europe during the early Middle Ages. Date: 14th century. Meaning: 1: a person held in servitude as the chattel of another 2: one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence."

    Since the word didn't even originate until the 14th century, however, after occurrences that didn't even occur until that time... the word in the Bible is INACCURATE. Indeed, a proper search will show that it didn't even occur in the earlier versions, in either the OT... OR the NT.

    The Hebrew words were "ebed" (meaning "servant", yes, but primarily "bondsman")... and "sakiyr" (meaning "hired" servant). In the first instance, the person took out a BOND against themselves...and thus literally "sold" themselves into service... TO PAY OFF A DEBT. This did NOT necessarily mean that the one he/she was serving was owed the debt. Often, the debts of others were paid off by the Householder, who had the money to do it. In exchange, the person served the Householder and his household. In the second instance, the person was merely an employee... and thus PAID (i.e., "hired").

    The Greek word was "doulos" and meant the same thing: bondsman, even attendant.

    The conundrum this might have caused for christians is that they were to FORGIVE the debts of others... and so taking someone in service for "bond" would have been a problem. UNLESS... the one who OWED the debt refused to be LET LOOSE of the debt but INSISTED on paying it. In which case, LOVE... would prompt the one OWED... to allow the debtor to repay... that the debtor's conscience was "clean."

    It is earthling man... the false "scribes"... who mistransliterated the word... to his own will (primarily to JUSTIFY "slavery" as WE have come to know it, starting with the Slavs in the 14th century)... and something that the accounts do not intend at all.

    It is unlawful, both under the Law Covenant (which was given AFTER Israel left Egypt)... AND under the NEW Covenant... to literally "own" another man... or woman... as a piece of property. It is NOT unlawful, under either, however, for a man to work off his debt by being another's exclusive servant, to work for his room and board, to work as another's employee... or to employee another, so long as the wage is fair and just. WHEN someone "sold" themselves into slavery, room and board was given but NOT CHARGED AGAINST THE DEBT. And... such bondsmen had to be "freed" every 7 years - they could not "sell" themselves... or be taken into service... for more than 7 years at a time.

    That is why U.S. Bankruptcy laws... which follow English common law... allow for discharge of debts. And it used to be that (1) it stayed on the credit report for 7 years (it is now approx. 10; however, foreclosures are still 7), and (2) one could file for it every 7 years (it is now every 6).

    I hope this clarifies (especially because I really do want a part-time housekeeper one day and I would hate to think that some here think me a "slave owner").

    Peace to you all!

    M OnTheWayOut posted Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:54:00 GMT(8/13/2010)

    Post 11559 of 18155
    Joined 9/8/2006

    It is unlawful, both under the Law Covenant (which was given AFTER Israel left Egypt)... AND under the NEW Covenant... to literally "own" another man... or woman... as a piece of property. It is NOT unlawful, under either, however, for a man to work off his debt by being another's exclusive servant, to work for his room and board, to work as another's employee... or to employee another, so long as the wage is fair and just. WHEN someone "sold" themselves into slavery, room and board was given but NOT CHARGED AGAINST THE DEBT. And... such bondsmen had to be "freed" every 7 years - they could not "sell" themselves... or be taken into service... for more than 7 years at a time.

    There is so much wrong with that statement. I won't even bother.

    F AGuest posted Fri, 13 Aug 2010 22:30:00 GMT(8/13/2010)

    Post 4399 of 9474
    Joined 3/26/2001

    No, please, dear OTWO (peace to you!)... bother. Please. I'd like to know what YOU see as "wrong." Truly.

    A slave of Christ,

    SA

    M OnTheWayOut posted Fri, 13 Aug 2010 22:47:00 GMT(8/13/2010)

    Post 11562 of 18155
    Joined 9/8/2006

    I will just address one single issue since you insist.

    It is unlawful, both under the Law Covenant (which was given AFTER Israel left Egypt)... AND under the NEW Covenant... to literally "own" another man... or woman... as a piece of property.

    Leviticus 25:45-46 (New International Version)

    45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

    Leviticus 25:45-46 (English Standard Version)

    45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. 46You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israelyou shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

    Leviticus 25:45-46 (King James Version)

    45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy , and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

    M AK - Jeff posted Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:12:00 GMT(8/13/2010)

    Post 10536 of 10727
    Joined 11/19/2004

    Don't you hate it when you have to thump the Bible in order to make the Bible-thumpers pay attention? LOL

    Jeff

      Close

      Confirm ...