Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Hakons]

I did not know that was the source of "Battle Hymn of the Republic". Thank you! We learn something new everyday.

On a note straight from the Bible, if you read through the entire text, from start to finish, you see that God is slowly moving His people away from slavery. Heck, if you get all the way to Philemon, you see St. Paul asking for a slave-master to see his slave no longer as a slave, but as a brother, an equal. Christianity was revolutionary in that it called for people to see slaves as people who were equals, not as slaves who were inferior.

If you couldn't notice, I'm really interested in that time period. It was really the golden age of mainline Protestantism. Also Methodism was a major force in abolitionism and the underground railroad.

Except the biblical god DID SUPPORT SLAVERY, bible even came with instructions on how you should treat your slaves, hell, Jesus himself supports severely beating up a slave should they be disobedient to their master. As written in the New Testament. (So much for god-given free will huh?)

I think you're talking about a parable, but care to cite evidence in your argument for slavery?

Except the biblical god DID SUPPORT SLAVERY, bible even came with instructions on how you should treat your slaves, hell, Jesus himself supports severely beating up a slave should they be disobedient to their master. As written in the New Testament. (So much for god-given free will huh?)

Maybe slavery is a kind of love?

I don't think so, but you're building up a strawman here. Any Christian who loves his neighbor, since we know that is the greatest commandment, will never enslave his neighbor.

[Pasong Tirad]

I'm loving the dynamic in here even more. It used to be an issue of Catholics vs. Orthodox and the Protestants attempting to shout through the rafters. Now, it seems, it's believers vs. nonbelievers. Makes for interesting discourse.

[Pasong Tirad]

Except the biblical god DID SUPPORT SLAVERY, bible even came with instructions on how you should treat your slaves, hell, Jesus himself supports severely beating up a slave should they be disobedient to their master. As written in the New Testament. (So much for god-given free will huh?)

Kind of weird, then, that the society of the Israelites was created in such a way as to make sure people would never be slaves ever again.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm loving the dynamic in here even more. It used to be an issue of Catholics vs. Orthodox and the Protestants attempting to shout through the rafters. Now, it seems, it's believers vs. nonbelievers. Makes for interesting discourse.

I mean, I don't feel I've ever had to shout through the rafters to be heard in this thread.

The topics here are just more along Catholic/Orthodox discourse rather than Protestant discourse.

Mostly because Protestantism who are sola-scripturists also have a hard time arguing without falling into sola scriptura, which is not really accepted by either Orthodox, Catholics, or non sola-scriptura Protestants.

[Pasong Tirad]

I'm loving the dynamic in here even more. It used to be an issue of Catholics vs. Orthodox and the Protestants attempting to shout through the rafters. Now, it seems, it's believers vs. nonbelievers. Makes for interesting discourse.

I mean, I don't feel I've ever had to shout through the rafters to be heard in this thread.

The topics here are just more along Catholic/Orthodox discourse rather than Protestant discourse.

Mostly because Protestantism who are sola-scripturists also have a hard time arguing without falling into sola scriptura, which is not really accepted by either Orthodox, Catholics, or non sola-scriptura Protestants.

And I guess it does speak more to the simple fact that there are a lot of Catholics and Orthodox. Probably says more about us than of Protestants.

What I haven't heard in this thread are the restorationists and nontrinitarians, though. I'd love to see their side of things.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I mean, I don't feel I've ever had to shout through the rafters to be heard in this thread.

The topics here are just more along Catholic/Orthodox discourse rather than Protestant discourse.

Mostly because Protestantism who are sola-scripturists also have a hard time arguing without falling into sola scriptura, which is not really accepted by either Orthodox, Catholics, or non sola-scriptura Protestants.

And I guess it does speak more to the simple fact that there are a lot of Catholics and Orthodox. Probably says more about us than of Protestants.

What I haven't heard in this thread are the restorationists and nontrinitarians, though. I'd love to see their side of things.

I'm what you might call a non-denominational Protestant since I don't subscribe to just one denomination's school of thought.

I see the merits behind the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant's positions. I just don't really mind discussing them and coming to my own conclusions about my own faith from all three.

Although, personally, I am inclining towards a Catholic or Lutheran baptism. But that's out of preference, and not because I consider other Protestant or Orthodox baptism less valid.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I mean, I don't feel I've ever had to shout through the rafters to be heard in this thread.

The topics here are just more along Catholic/Orthodox discourse rather than Protestant discourse.

Mostly because Protestantism who are sola-scripturists also have a hard time arguing without falling into sola scriptura, which is not really accepted by either Orthodox, Catholics, or non sola-scriptura Protestants.

And I guess it does speak more to the simple fact that there are a lot of Catholics and Orthodox. Probably says more about us than of Protestants.

What I haven't heard in this thread are the restorationists and nontrinitarians, though. I'd love to see their side of things.

Nontrinitarian positions are hard to argue in a way. I used to try and explain to myself non-Trinitarianism at one point and man, it is hard to find a consistent answer to other points of dogma if Jesus is less than God. Mostly because the Bible is compiled as a Trinitarian book, and not as a non-Trinitarian book.

Restorationism is also hard to argue from a historical perspective, because they're trying to get back to the original early church's roots. And as far as I know there's not much exactitude of details about the early church in the first century to begin with other than what is told to us through the Acts and the letters to the churches.

[Xianan]

Except the biblical god DID SUPPORT SLAVERY, bible even came with instructions on how you should treat your slaves, hell, Jesus himself supports severely beating up a slave should they be disobedient to their master. As written in the New Testament. (So much for god-given free will huh?)

Maybe slavery is a kind of love?

ironic how there is indeed even instructions on what to do when you want to marry your slave so... maybe?

[Xianan]

Except the biblical god DID SUPPORT SLAVERY, bible even came with instructions on how you should treat your slaves, hell, Jesus himself supports severely beating up a slave should they be disobedient to their master. As written in the New Testament. (So much for god-given free will huh?)

I think you're talking about a parable, but care to cite evidence in your argument for slavery?

For the specific verses on how Jesus instructed such, Luke 12:35~48 for the entire story, for straight cut to the part mentioned, just 47 and 48 will do, its Jesus teaching about how a slave/servant should wait on his master(term dependent on version), from the style of writing, I would say the former half of the verses would be parable, latter half would be the instructions.

[Germanic Templars]

Here is a picture of Jesus with soldiers.

Point of picture? Nothing really. Just wanna share it and see what people think.

[Czervenika]

Look who hasn't peeked in for awhile .

[Germanic Templars]

Look who hasn't peeked in for awhile .

*New flag*

*Looks at sig*

Oh hoi welcome bach *hugs*

[Constantinopolis]

It's real simple: if Christianity cannot subsist on its own merits, and must sustain itself through tyranny and force of law, then it is not the Truth of the Living God.

Oh, Christianity can certainly subsist on its own merits. Thriving and expanding, however, is a trickier proposition.

In ancient times, Christianity endured and continued to exist throughout the centuries of Roman persecution, but it only became a major world religion because the Roman state got converted and began to actively promote the Christian faith.

Likewise, every major conversion of large numbers of people to Christianity happened thanks to state support. I don't mean every mass conversion was forced - in fact, most of them weren't - but rather that every mass conversion had at least a government paying for it, if nothing else. "State support" is often monetary: governments paying for Christian missionary activities.

I don't see how you, as a Catholic, can oppose the marriage of Church and State. This marriage has been an integral part of Christian history. Those Christians who deny their own history and traditions (you know who they are) can say that the marriage of Church and State is a bad thing, but you and I are not among them.

I think a segue question would be: Should we, as Christians, be authoritarian, or even totalitarian, for the sake of our religion?

In my opinion, yes.

That has been the historical stance of most branches of Christianity (including the major Protestant churches, in case anyone is keeping score) until at least the 1700s. All this "muh individual freedom" stuff is, compared to the age of Christianity, a very recent invention.

Of course, Christianity doesn't mandate religious authoritarianism. We don't have to be authoritarians. But most Christians throughout history have been authoritarians (by modern standards), and I think Christians today could desperately use a higher dose of authoritarianism.

The biggest reason why Christianity has declined so much in the Western world over the past two centuries is because Christians have allowed their religion to be turned into a private matter instead of being a key element of public life.

[Czervenika]

Look who hasn't peeked in for awhile .

*New flag*

*Looks at sig*

Oh hoi welcome bach *hugs*

For now, yes. It's temporary until I can get a better one.

[Luminesa]

Maybe slavery is a kind of love?

ironic how there is indeed even instructions on what to do when you want to marry your slave so... maybe?

You could always go back and...read my post on how slavery is related to the progress of divine law in the Bible. Over six thousand years it went from something implicitly accepted by the culture to something that is implicitly denied by the culture. Read in the context of the entire book.

[Pasong Tirad]

ironic how there is indeed even instructions on what to do when you want to marry your slave so... maybe?

You could always go back and...read my post on how slavery is related to the progress of divine law in the Bible. Over six thousand years it went from something implicitly accepted by the culture to something that is implicitly denied by the culture. Read in the context of the entire book.

And, you know, God delivered the Israelites from slavery...

[Luminesa]

You could always go back and...read my post on how slavery is related to the progress of divine law in the Bible. Over six thousand years it went from something implicitly accepted by the culture to something that is implicitly denied by the culture. Read in the context of the entire book.

And, you know, God delivered the Israelites from slavery...

BAM.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

You could always go back and...read my post on how slavery is related to the progress of divine law in the Bible. Over six thousand years it went from something implicitly accepted by the culture to something that is implicitly denied by the culture. Read in the context of the entire book.

And, you know, God delivered the Israelites from slavery...

So that they could themselves take slaves in accordance with his instructions. That's not abolitionism, that's just racial favouritism. If I don't beat up my best friend, it doesn't mean I'm a pacifist, just that I don't hit my friends. If I'm known for (and have gone on recording advocating) violence against others, it would be laughable to claim that I am a pacifist. If I tell victims of others' violence that they should quit whining and accept their beatings, I am not a pacifist.

[Pasong Tirad]

And, you know, God delivered the Israelites from slavery...

So that they could themselves take slaves in accordance with his instructions. That's not abolitionism, that's just racial favouritism. If I don't beat up my best friend, it doesn't mean I'm a pacifist, just that I don't hit my friends. If I'm known for (and have gone on recording advocating) violence against others, it would be laughable to claim that I am a pacifist. If I tell victims of others' violence that they should quit whining and accept their beatings, I am not a pacifist.

You, uh, wanna back that claim up?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

So that they could themselves take slaves in accordance with his instructions. That's not abolitionism, that's just racial favouritism. If I don't beat up my best friend, it doesn't mean I'm a pacifist, just that I don't hit my friends. If I'm known for (and have gone on recording advocating) violence against others, it would be laughable to claim that I am a pacifist. If I tell victims of others' violence that they should quit whining and accept their beatings, I am not a pacifist.

You, uh, wanna back that claim up?

Are you really going to pretend that the Israelites didn't keep slaves?

[Pasong Tirad]

You, uh, wanna back that claim up?

Are you really going to pretend that the Israelites didn't keep slaves?

Of course not. However you seem to be insinuating that slavery under the Israelites was no different from slavery elsewhere - which, of course, is far from the truth.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Are you really going to pretend that the Israelites didn't keep slaves?

Of course not. However you seem to be insinuating that slavery under the Israelites was no different from slavery elsewhere - which, of course, is far from the truth.

Are you of the opinion that God would be fine with us bringing back that kind of slavery, then (perhaps even angry it was abolished)? Is sexual slavery, for instance, perfectly acceptable?

Your God is not an abolitionist. Stop pretending he is.

[Pasong Tirad]

Nobody befote the coming of Christ was an abolitionist.

FTFY

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Nobody befote the coming of Christ was an abolitionist.

FTFY

God could have been. He is supposedly omnibenevolent and eternal. If selling your daughter to be raped was objectively wrong, he would have forbidden it ages ago. He did not; instead he endorsed it. Unless you believe that he sometimes commands things that he secretly believes are evil (which would blow a great big hole in the already leaky boat of Christian morality), Luminesa's original claim, that abolishing slavery was inherently "GOOD", is false. Slavery is, at worst, a morally neutral activity, and possibly even good.

[Lady Scylla]

Nobody befote the coming of Christ was an abolitionist.

FTFY

You need to leave the previous post intact, and show your changes clearly -- else it's malicious quote editing.