Satanic after school clubs?

[Josh Blade]

Just a point of clarification: quite a lot of what you've mentioned here is derived from the law given to the Israelites and not the instructions given to the Christian church. They are two separate things, and that is a common point of misunderstanding. As a Christian, I'm not under Jewish law, which is why I'm free to eat shellfish and wear clothing of mixed fibers, among other things.  :)

 

The 10 commandments are also from the old testament. I guess we don't need to worry about those any more either. Why are so many Christians (even in this thread), so concerned about having them displayed in government buildings then...? 

 

17 â€œDo not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.a 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.b 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commandsc and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

I'm sure you can come back with another piece of scripture that shows exactly why we can ignore the old testament laws (although many still pick and choose what they want to follow), but that again just goes to show how contradictory the bible is and you can use it support whatever viewpoint you find fits your world view. People have used the bible to support views for and against slavery, for and against women's equality, for and against war. It's almost like people have a way of determining right and wrong independent of a several thousand year old collection of books. 

[TranquilMind]

If I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that you feel that homosexuality is a sin (presumably because the bible says so). Do you not see the bigotry in your position? You are basically stating to all gay people that you think that a major part of their personhood is bad/wrong/sinful/immoral. I know I would not want to associate with someone who thought that my sexual preferences, which I had no control over, made me immoral. It's a hurtful position to have about someone. I'm sure once upon a time, people also held the same position on 'witches', people who wear polyester, and fig lovers, but we've moved beyond that due to empathy, reason, and philosophy.

 

I'm not sure how do have multiple quotes in a post (maybe someone could pm me), but in response to women being equal to men in the bible, that is laughable. I've heard the apologetic lines before about toil vs pain in childbirth, but then why do all of our translations read pain? It's obvious that most translators feel that is the appropriate translation. You can dress it up anyway that you'd like to make yourself feel better, but even with modern medicine, childbirth is still painful. 

 

The 1 Corinthians 14:36 line that you included is up for debate whether or not it is even to be read as you are wanting it interpreted (IE him reading/quoting someone else and then responding aghast), but even giving you the charitable reading, that just shows that women were allowed to prophesize with Paul.

 

Also in  1 Corinthians, how about :

 

11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Also the whole bit in 1 Corinthians 11 about it being a dishonor for men to cover their heads while praying, but women MUST have a covering their heads (long hair or an actual cover) followed by this golden bit of equality:

11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of man.

 

or how about Collossian 3:18?

18 Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

 

You also neglected the most infamous 1 Timothy 2

11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

That last line pretty much summarizes woman's role in the bible - make babies. 

 

The fact that you may be able to tease out something that looks like equality for women in some specific situations of the bible only goes to show that if you try hard enough, you can make the bible say anything you want it to. 

You do not seem to see that *I* am not stating anything; God says it in His Word, multiple times, New Testament and Old.  Take it up with Him, or simply ignore it, as so many do.  But I'm not free to amend it for you. I either believe what He says, or I do not.  I'm not free to simply amend sexual proscriptions, not for you, and not for me either.  Now I'm not going to walk up to you somewhere and tell you what you should be doing. That is between you and God and your conscience.  But we are on a message board discussing things, so I'm not going to pretend I don't believe what God says about sexual things (Even if I ever violated them, which I did, when I was young - I still knew it was sin though, which is why I told my kids that when you are born again, you can sin, but you will never enjoy it.).

 

You are simply assuming it is some integral part of you that is set in stone, but we know that it doesn't work this way.  You have people moving in and out of that sort of activity all the time for various reasons. 

 

I have been in faith for over 30 years and have studied the Bible a fair amount.   Jesus was actually the ultimate feminist.  You can interpret it another way if you like.    How do you see women prophesying and praying in church while remaining silent?  Was it sign language or what?  I don't think so. 

 

Paul was mocking that idea; he worked with Priscilla and Aquilla - in that order -  because they taught him "a more excellent way". In scripture, they are always mentioned together, and, significantly, in four instances, Priscilla’s name is mentioned first. This unconventional order of the wife’s name before her husband’s indicates Priscilla’s ministry ability was likely more prominent than Aquila’s. They even traveled with him, and she also taught not only Paul but Apollo, a man (in Acts). Paul left them in Ephesus to run a church, them, not him.   Ephesians says "submitting yourselves, one to another".  You can't merely excise that because another book doesn't word it the same way, any more than you can disregard another gospel because it states things from another person's different perspective.    All scripture is profitable for teaching, rebuke, reproof. 

 

Galations 3:28   There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

About the hierarchy, God, Jesus, Husband, Wife, Children....it is only a means of honor and protection (and somewhat of cultural property laws in those days, not applicable today), not servitude and imprisonment to those above you, any more than Jesus grudgingly serves the Father.    Some people got it even then, like Priscilla and Aquilla. 

 

That last line is rendered "saved through the bearing of the child" not "saved through childbearing", in the original language.  Jesus turned it all around to the way it was supposed to be.

Edited August 8, 2016 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

The 10 commandments are also from the old testament. I guess we don't need to worry about those any more either. Why are so many Christians (even in this thread), so concerned about having them displayed in government buildings then...? 

 

17 â€œDo not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.a 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.b 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commandsc and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

I'm sure you can come back with another piece of scripture that shows exactly why we can ignore the old testament laws (although many still pick and choose what they want to follow), but that again just goes to show how contradictory the bible is and you can use it support whatever viewpoint you find fits your world view. People have used the bible to support views for and against slavery, for and against women's equality, for and against war. It's almost like people have a way of determining right and wrong independent of a several thousand year old collection of books. 

 

We don't ignore the Ten Commandments at all.  Jesus said they were all subsumed into the new Covenant law - Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength and Love your neighbor as yourself.

 

The standard is higher now for those in the New covenant, not lower. 

 

[TranquilMind]

I am mulling over the thought that MercyA's sentence above seems to be an example of what Mr. Savage is saying in the quote above.

 

What is Mercy saying that is wrong?  She is right! 

 

In those days some were held slaves (such as have many been in various periods of time through history, unfortunately), and they should be freed/try to get free where they could.  That's just true.  

 

Dan Savage twists that to say that scripture promotes slavery not simply acknowledges it as reality at the time. 

[TranquilMind]

this is by no means universal and hasn't been historically.  And even if it did exist in some little pockets of community, we NOW live in a pluralistic multicultural society. 

 

There are atheists and people who believe in different gods and different principles. The 10 commandments mean nothing to many people.  

 

I think it's a good thing but even if you don't think it's a good thing, people need to accept this is reality.  

 

This is really what this thread is about.  There's this group of people who refuse to accept that their judeo christian view of the world is not the only one & doesn't deserve any special protections. 

Well, they should mean something to people. 

 

They are general principles that are the basis of our legal system. 

 

John Adams:

“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.â€

 

John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

 

Benjamin Franklin:

“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel†–Constitutional Convention of 1787

 

John Jay:

“ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.†Source: October 12, 1816. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p. 393.

 

James McHenry – Signer of the Constitution

Public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.

Edited August 8, 2016 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

Respectfully, those who are not christians (myself included) do not see any reason to take any arguments using scripture seriously. The Bible has no authority for them. In fact the use of scriptures in an apologist's argument is more likely to confirm their disregard for the Bible's relevance. The things that non-believers see in those scriptures are things that are obviously not apparent to many believers.

 

Plus, the daughters of Zehelophad were the exception, because of a lack of male relatives, not the rule.

 

Well, then, they are welcome to create their own moral law then.   Unfortunately, that creates lots of division in society when everyone is his own God. 

 

They were an exception that changed the law. 

 

[Josh Blade]

You do not seem to see that *I* am not stating anything; God says it in His Word, multiple times, New Testament and Old.  Take it up with Him, or simply ignore it, as so many do.  But I'm not free to amend it for you. I either believe what He says, or I do not.  I'm not free to simply amend sexual proscriptions, not for you, and not for me either.  Now I'm not going to walk up to you somewhere and tell you what you should be doing. That is between you and God and your conscience.  But we are on a message board discussing things, so I'm not going to pretend I don't believe what God says about sexual things (Even if I ever violated them, which I did, when I was young - I still knew it was sin though, which is why I told my kids that when you are born again, you can sin, but you will never enjoy it.).

 

You are simply assuming it is some integral part of you that is set in stone, but we know that it doesn't work this way.  You have people moving in and out of that sort of activity all the time for various reasons. 

 

I have been in faith for over 30 years and have studied the Bible a fair amount.   Jesus was actually the ultimate feminist.  You can interpret it another way if you like.    How do you see women prophesying and praying in church while remaining silent?  Was it sign language or what?  I don't think so. 

 

Paul was mocking that idea; he worked with Priscilla and Aquilla - in that order -  because they taught him "a more excellent way". In scripture, they are always mentioned together, and, significantly, in four instances, Priscilla’s name is mentioned first. This unconventional order of the wife’s name before her husband’s indicates Priscilla’s ministry ability was likely more prominent than Aquila’s. They even traveled with him, and she also taught not only Paul but Apollo, a man (in Acts). Paul left them in Ephesus to run a church, them, not him.   Ephesians says "submitting yourselves, one to another".  You can't merely excise that because another book doesn't word it the same way, any more than you can disregard another gospel because it states things from another person's different perspective.    All scripture is profitable for teaching, rebuke, reproof. 

 

Galations 3:28   There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

About the hierarchy, God, Jesus, Husband, Wife, Children....it is only a means of honor and protection (and somewhat of cultural property laws in those days, not applicable today), not servitude and imprisonment to those above you, any more than Jesus grudgingly serves the Father.    Some people got it even then, like Priscilla and Aquilla. 

 

That last line is rendered "saved through the bearing of the child" not "saved through childbearing", in the original language.  Jesus turned it all around to the way it was supposed to be.

 

Got it. You are also then fine with owning another person as you property, selling your daughters, and stoning people to death for adultery (too bad those pesky secular laws get in the way of this)? 

 

Also, you are trying to tell me that being gay is a choice? I'm sure the people that end up committing suicide over it or have been relentless bullied, tortured, or killed for being gay should have just chosen not to change their sexual preferences...? Do you even realize how absurd you sound when you say something like that? I assume you are a mostly good person and a great mother(?) - after all you are here on this forum presumably to help provide a great and loving education for you child(ren) - and it's depressing to see the blind bigotry that can be expressed by an otherwise nice and normal person. 

 

The Collossian line I quoted about wives submit to your husbands was followed by husbands love your wives - a completely different meaning - where as it seems you would have me believe both should submit to each other. Again, you can make the bible say whatever you want it to say as is evidenced by our back and forth here. 

Edited August 8, 2016 by joshblade

[justasque]

What is Mercy saying that is wrong?  She is right! 

 

In those days some were held slaves (such as have many been in various periods of time through history, unfortunately), and they should be freed/try to get free where they could.  That's just true.  

 

Dan Savage twists that to say that scripture promotes slavery not simply acknowledges it as reality at the time. 

 

There is only one way to treat a slave justly and fairly, and that is to give them their freedom.  

 

[hornblower]

TM, we don't live in a theocracy. Saying "we should" isn't going to make it so. 

[TranquilMind]

Got it. You are also then fine with owning another person as you property, selling your daughters, and stoning people to death for adultery (too bad those pesky secular laws get in the way of this)? 

 

Also, you are trying to tell me that being gay is a choice? I'm sure the people that end up committing suicide over it or have been relentless bullied, tortured, or killed for being gay should have just chosen not to change their sexual preferences...? Do you even realize how absurd you sound when you say something like that? I assume you are a mostly good person and a great mother(?) - after all you are here on this forum presumably to help provide a great and loving education for you child(ren) - and it's depressing to see the blind bigotry that can be expressed by an otherwise nice and normal person. 

 

The Collossian line I quoted about wives submit to your husbands was followed by husbands love your wives - a completely different meaning - where as it seems you would have me believe both should submit to each other. Again, you can make the bible say whatever you want it to say as is evidenced by our back and forth here. 

No.   I don't live in the middle east thousands of years before Christ.  Our culture and laws condemn such practices but they were widespread then. 

 

You are making an unsupportable leap here.   Had either of us lived long ago and been in the wrong place at the wrong time, we could have been slaves, if for no more reason than we are women who could have been carried off by warring factions. 

 

I'm telling you that engaging in sexual activity is a choice.  That's it.  That is the limit of my assertion, except to say that I personally will limit my engagements to  scriptural parameters because God's Word is important to me, and I can't simply disregard that and be happy.  Others can do what they like and are limited by their own morals and consciences. 

 

Unless you are being attacked, of course, and cannot consent,  you decide what you do and so do I. 

 

Yes, both husband and wife must "Submit themselves, one to another", scripturally. 

[TranquilMind]

TM, we don't live in a theocracy. Saying "we should" isn't going to make it so. 

 

Yeah, no kidding.  They meant something to the Founders.  Today, it's a free-for-all, anything goes, and not for the better. 

 

[Josh Blade]

No.   I don't live in the middle east thousands of years before Christ.  Our culture and laws condemn such practices but they were widespread then. 

 

You are making an unsupportable leap here.   Had either of us lived long ago and been in the wrong place at the wrong time, we could have been slaves, if for no more reason than we are women who could have been carried off by warring factions. 

 

I'm telling you that engaging in sexual activity is a choice.  That's it.  That is the limit of my assertion, except to say that I personally will limit my engagements to  scriptural parameters because God's Word is important to me, and I can't simply disregard that and be happy.  Others can do what they like and are limited by their own morals and consciences. 

 

Unless you are being attacked, of course, and cannot consent,  you decide what you do and so do I. 

 

Yes, both husband and wife must "Submit themselves, one to another", scripturally. 

 

Old testament god who was chummy with all sorts of people and regularly talked to / intefered with daily life or Jesus could have come out and said "Owning another person is wrong". Instead what we get is a list of things you are allowed to do with your slaves including beating them (as long as they recover after a day or two) and loopholes around the 7 year/jubilee freedom (exodus 21 for both of those) and told that slaves must obey masters and masters should treat slaves justly (new testament). I don't think there is a fair and just way to treat a slave. 

 

Who are you to say that prescriptions of slavery were just a product of their time, but sinful sexual acts are not? Maybe God was just telling us that being gay is bad because intolerant people will make your life miserable. Who are you to pick and choose which things are okay? You seem to condemn slavery even though God is A Okay with it. God tells us exactly what to do with Adulterers (kill them) and you don't seem to condone that either. 

Edited August 8, 2016 by joshblade

[TranquilMind]

Old testament god who was chummy with all sorts of people and regularly talked to / intefered with daily life or Jesus could have come out and said "Owning another person is wrong". Instead what we get is a list of things you are allowed to do with your slaves including beating them (as long as they recover after a day or two) and loopholes around the 7 year/jubilee freedom (exodus 21 for both of those) and told that slaves must obey masters and masters should treat slaves justly (new testament). I don't think there is a fair and just way to treat a slave. 

 

Who are you to say that prescriptions of slavery were just a product of their time, but sinful sexual acts are not? Maybe God was just telling us that being gay is bad because intolerant people will make your life miserable. Who are you to pick and choose which things are okay? You seem to condemn slavery even though God is A Okay with it. God tells us exactly what to do with Adulterers (kill them) and you don't seem to condone that either. 

I agree with you completely,  but we are products of our times, not those times.  I'd set my "slaves" free immediately.  Even in scripture is the idea of Jubilee, where all is restored to as it should be. 

 

Slavery kind of demonstrates how bad man can be. Nowhere does God endorse slavery nor homosexuality.   The Bible simply doesn't support a view that sexual relationships were culturally bound in those days, but wide open today to do whatever you want. You can see that clearly in cases of incest, bestiality, and adultery - wrong then, wrong now.  For some reason, some are excluding same-sex behavior from those proscriptions without basis other than they want to do it.

 

God never commands slavery. NOWHERE does it say God is A-OK with it.  There are simply regulations imposed on a longstanding practice (that is going down, in the long view). Jesus even preaches on how He has come to preach freedom for the oppressed (Luke 4:18  “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed).  Paul frees a slave, Jesus preaches that He has come to preach freedom. The groundwork is laid.

By contrast,  scripture forbids same sex intimacy (as well as those other sexual sins listed above) establishing only marriage as valid from the very beginning to the present day.  God establishes the meaning of marriage right at the beginning and biology supports that fully - one man and one woman who become one flesh and then become fruitful and multiply.  Jesus simply reiterates it in the New Testament as do all others who mention intimate relationships in scripture. 

 

ETA:  Boy, this thread has veered  far from satan clubs in name only, as in the original post. 

 

Edited August 8, 2016 by TranquilMind

[luuknam]

Well, then, they are welcome to create their own moral law then.   Unfortunately, that creates lots of division in society when everyone is his own God.

 

You really don't need atheists (or other religions) to create division in society - christians seem to be able to do that just fine on their own.

[Joules]

Yeah, no kidding.  They meant something to the Founders.  Today, it's a free-for-all, anything goes, and not for the better. 

 

 

I think that some people would say that it is MUCH for the better now, particularly those of minority groups.  You don't really find many African-Americans longing for the days of the Founders.    

Edited August 8, 2016 by Joules

[justasque]

... The Bible simply doesn't support a view that sexual relationships were culturally bound in those days, but wide open today to do whatever you want. You can see that clearly in cases of incest, bestiality, and adultery - wrong then, wrong now.  For some reason, some are excluding same-sex behavior from those proscriptions without basis other than they want to do it.

...

 

I think, if you listen carefully to the discussion that's been going on in Christian churches for a good forty years or more, you will find many Christians exclude same-sex behavior from the proscriptions regarding incest, bestiality, and adultery for reasons significantly more substantial, thoughtful, and Bible-based than simply "they want to do it". 

 

You may or many not agree with their interpretation of Scripture, but please don't disrespect or trivialize the thoughtfulness, prayer, research, and study that has led them to their beliefs.  Indeed, for some, the differences between a loving same-sex relationship vs. incest, bestiality, and adultery are starkly clear.   Having discussed this subject with Christian board members many times in the past, including those with LGBT+ children, you should be well aware of the various Christian perspectives on this issue.  

 

 

For some, the differences between a loving same-sex relationship vs. incest, bestiality, and adultery are starkly clear.   

[TranquilMind]

I think, if you listen carefully to the discussion that's been going on in Christian churches for a good forty years or more, you will find many Christians exclude same-sex behavior from the proscriptions regarding incest, bestiality, and adultery for reasons significantly more substantial, thoughtful, and Bible-based than simply "they want to do it". 

 

You may or many not agree with their interpretation of Scripture, but please don't disrespect or trivialize the thoughtfulness, prayer, research, and study that has led them to their beliefs.  Indeed, for some, the differences between a loving same-sex relationship vs. incest, bestiality, and adultery are starkly clear.   Having discussed this subject with Christian board members many times in the past, including those with LGBT+ children, you should be well aware of the various Christian perspectives on this issue.  

 

 

For some, the differences between a loving same-sex relationship vs. incest, bestiality, and adultery are starkly clear.   

 

There are indeed various perspectives on this issue, but it is a matter of interpretation whether they are Christian perspectives if they deviate from scriptural commands. 

I guess we will all find out eventually.  God has the final call on this one. 

 

[MercyA]

The 10 commandments are also from the old testament. I guess we don't need to worry about those any more either. Why are so many Christians (even in this thread), so concerned about having them displayed in government buildings then...? 

 

17 â€œDo not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.a 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.b 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commandsc and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

I'm sure you can come back with another piece of scripture that shows exactly why we can ignore the old testament laws (although many still pick and choose what they want to follow), but that again just goes to show how contradictory the bible is and you can use it support whatever viewpoint you find fits your world view. People have used the bible to support views for and against slavery, for and against women's equality, for and against war. It's almost like people have a way of determining right and wrong independent of a several thousand year old collection of books. 

 

Thanks for your comments, joshblade. It's an interesting topic, for sure.

 

I did not say that we are free to disregard the commandments from the Old Testament that are repeated in the New Testament, as 9 of the 10 Commandments are. I've wondered myself why some Christians seem rather obsessed with the 10 Commandments, so I can't explain their concerns to you. I don't think we're a Christian nation and it matters not at all to me whether the Commandments are displayed in public buildings or not.

 

The Law and the Prophets have not been abolished, but Christians are not under the law. As the Scripture you quoted says, Christ is the fulfillment of the law:

 

"Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Romans 10:4

 

"Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:24-26

 

By way of analogy: I once lived on the West Coast. They had different traffic laws there. When I moved to the Midwest, those West Coast laws didn't cease to exist, but I was no longer under them.

 

I absolutely share your concern about Christians who pick and choose what portions of the New Testament to follow. I strive to avoid that.

 

I agree that people can "cherry pick" Scripture to support particular points of view, but if they do that while deliberately ignoring context, plain meaning, and Scripture as a whole, they are in the wrong. We're told to "accurately [handle] the word of truth." People twist the meaning of all kinds of documents to suit themselves. People also can and do decide what they believe to be right and wrong based on their preferences and personal values. That doesn't mean that objective truth doesn't exist apart from their opinions.

 

Have a good night!

 

ETA: I posted this before reading the rest of the thread. How to put this politely?  :) You seem to be openly and vehemently hostile to conservative Christianity. That's your right, of course, but given your apparently unmovable position, I don't see how further discussion will be very productive.

Edited August 8, 2016 by MercyA

[hornblower]

There are indeed various perspectives on this issue, but it is a matter of interpretation whether they are Christian perspectives if they deviate from scriptural commands. 

I guess we will all find out eventually.  God has the final call on this one. 

 

I'm not quite sure if you understand how um, rude statements like that sound when you KNOW there are atheists and people of other faiths reading. 

 

it's one thing to say "I believe god has the final call on this one" but these endless declarative sentences as if you have the one true knowledge are offputting. 

 

Frankly, my inclination was to respond "There is no god." but I want to be kind & polite to people whose friendship I cherish in spite of our difference of belief. 

Edited August 8, 2016 by hornblower

[Tanaqui]

Yeah, no kidding.  They meant something to the Founders.  Today, it's a free-for-all, anything goes, and not for the better.

 

We don't have slavery, and most of the Founders owned slaves. That's "for the better". We don't have "coverture" laws where women lose all legal identity upon marriage, giving up the right to control their own property and incomes. That's "for the better". We don't allow spousal beating or child abuse. That's "for the better". We don't restrict voting rights only to white male property owners. That's "for the better". We don't - or at least, we're not supposed to - imprison people for debt. That's "for the better". We don't picnic with our families where some guy was lynched. That's "for the better".

 

I could go on.

 

God never commands slavery. NOWHERE does it say God is A-OK with it.

 

If God isn't a-okay with it, why does the NT tell slaves to obey their masters?

 

it's one thing to say "I believe god has the final call on this one" but these endless declarative sentences as if you have the one true knowledge are offputting.

 

One of these days, TM is going to have to look around and realize that she does not, in fact, know everything.

 

[TranquilMind]

I'm not quite sure if you understand how um, rude statements like that sound when you KNOW there are atheists and people of other faiths reading. 

 

it's one thing to say "I believe god has the final call on this one" but these endless declarative sentences as if you have the one true knowledge are offputting. 

 

Frankly, my inclination was to respond "There is no god." but I want to be kind & polite to people whose friendship I cherish in spite of our difference of belief. 

I don't mind if you say that there is no God all day long.  That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion and I don't need you to phrase it carefully for me.  In fact, if you think I have a silly fantasy belief, I'm not even sure why it matters enough to point it out.  But that's ok. I know what I know; you know what you know. 

 

I don't consider it rude if you wish to point out your opposing belief.  Neither of us is being rude in a discussion to do so.  Now if we called each other names or ridiculed each other (something I never do, and I don't remember you doing it either), then that would be rude.    No one is doing that.  

 

But we will all find out whether we were right or not, that's for sure. 

[MercyA]

I am mulling over the thought that MercyA's sentence above seems to be an example of what Mr. Savage is saying in the quote above.

 

I understand why you might mull over that; however, I disagree that the New Testament is "radically pro-slavery." It clearly says slaves should try to gain their freedom if possible. Paul speaks on behalf of a slave when he says, "For perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord."

There is only one way to treat a slave justly and fairly, and that is to give them their freedom.  

 

I agree; however, in many cases you would also need to be prepared and able to take care of their debt and provide for their family, as many at that time sold themselves into slavery.

[Amy in NH]

SNIP

 

 

One of these days, TM is going to have to look around and realize that she does not, in fact, know everything.

 

Or not.  I read an article just yesterday written by a neuroscientist about how some people do not have the mental capacity to develop self-awareness about their own biases and ignorance.  I won't link it because there was political content involved.

 

While I realize that the debate provides another perspective for silent lurkers, we just keep going around and around these same arguments ad nauseam.  The provocative thinking happened earlier in the thread and now we've come to the inevitable infinite irrationality, as always.  I honestly don't know why you all continue to feed the troll.

[TranquilMind]

Or not.  I read an article just yesterday written by a neuroscientist about how some people do not have the mental capacity to develop self-awareness about their own biases and ignorance.  I won't link it because there was political content involved.

 

While I realize that the debate provides another perspective for silent lurkers, we just keep going around and around these same arguments ad nauseam.  The provocative thinking happened earlier in the thread and now we've come to the inevitable infinite irrationality, as always.  I honestly don't know why you all continue to feed the troll.

 

Tanaqui, on 08 Aug 2016 - 6:44 PM, said:

SNIP

 

 

 

One of these days, TM is going to have to look around and realize that she does not, in fact, know everything.

 

Ok, here is a perfect example of the kind of ad hominem attack that is unwarranted and inappropriate, unlike what hornblower was saying, about believing there is no God, which is a perfectly respectable counterpoint to someone else's view.  Tanaqui makes a snarky remark and then you state this disparaging remark and call me a name.

Inappropriate

 

Back on point.  We are discussing a topic.  Feel free to state your views on the topic, as did many people here.

 

You are not free to suggest impairment of my mental capacity,  bias, or any other topic about which you are patently unqualified to judge. 

 

That is a violation of the terms of service, in my understanding. 

 

Back to the topic:  What are your views on the topic at hand and why?   If you don't have anything to add but an ad hominem attack, then kindly move on.

 

Edited August 8, 2016 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

 

 

One of these days, TM is going to have to look around and realize that she does not, in fact, know everything.

 

Quoting your words, a courtesy you refuse to extend for some inexplicable reason:

 

I have never stated that I "know everything".  Not once.  Not anywhere.  I do not,  in fact,  know everything.  I stipulate that here and now, because apparently, that must be necessary for some reason. 

I know what I do know, and that's it. 

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

I'm not quite sure if you understand how um, rude statements like that sound when you KNOW there are atheists and people of other faiths reading.

 

it's one thing to say "I believe god has the final call on this one" but these endless declarative sentences as if you have the one true knowledge are offputting.

 

Frankly, my inclination was to respond "There is no god." but I want to be kind & polite to people whose friendship I cherish in spite of our difference of belief.

 

I agree, although I think the poster knows the effect of such posts by now.

[Josh Blade]

"Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For

ETA: I posted this before reading the rest of the thread. How to put this politely? :) You seem to be openly and vehemently hostile to conservative Christianity. That's your right, of course, but given your apparently unmovable position, I don't see how further discussion will be very productive.

I'm sorry if I have come off hostile to you.I didn't mean to. Debates with apologists are somewhat of a past time of mine and I'm sorry if I've been carried away (I regularly participate in a couple of religous debate forums). Have a great night and it's been a pleasure talking with you and TM even if we feel each other is misguided.

[Tanaqui]

Actions speak louder than words, Tranquilmind. In your case, they speak positive volumes.

Edited August 8, 2016 by Tanaqui

[Onceuponatime]

Well, then, they are welcome to create their own moral law then. Unfortunately, that creates lots of division in society when everyone is his own God.

 

They were an exception that changed the law.

 

Divisions in society are created when religions claim they have been given the one and only set of moral laws that are not open to question and are forced upon others who do not agree. Gods are not necessary for the establishment of moral codes. People are quite capable of deciding what actions do the most good or the most harm for society by the evidence of the natural consequences of those actions. Being able to eliminate laws that cause harm and to adapt old laws using new information about how the world works is a good thing.

 

The change in the inheritance law in favor of daughters was only if there were no male heirs. Otherwise daughters, and other women, recieved no inheritance. Plus there was a catch to that revision, Zelophehad's daughters were required to marry within their own tribe or they got nothing. That is not equality.

Edited August 8, 2016 by Onceuponatime

[fraidycat]

I understand why you might mull over that; however, I disagree that the New Testament is "radically pro-slavery." It clearly says slaves should try to gain their freedom if possible. Paul speaks on behalf of a slave when he says, "For perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord."

 

 

I agree; however, in many cases you would also need to be prepared and able to take care of their debt and provide for their family, as many at that time sold themselves into slavery.

Seriously? You typed that as an argument FOR the bible and kept a straight face?

 

Slaves should TRY to gain freedom, if possible.

 

Slaves should try.

 

Nothing about fellow humans should try not to be arseholes and "own" people to begin with.

 

Slaves should try.

 

If possible.

 

I just can't even find words now. Ridiculous.

 

SMH

[MercyA]

Seriously? You typed that as an argument FOR the bible and kept a straight face?

 

Slaves should TRY to gain freedom, if possible.

 

Slaves should try.

 

Nothing about fellow humans should try not to be arseholes and "own" people to begin with.

 

Slaves should try.

 

If possible.

 

I just can't even find words now. Ridiculous.

 

SMH

 

Taking myself outside of my worldview, I can understand your reaction.

 

I don't feel the need to argue for the Bible. I was simply stating that I don't believe the New Testament to be a "radically pro-slavery" document.

 

You do know that some people in that culture sold themselves into slavery to pay their debts, right? It was sometimes (but obviously not always) an economic arrangement, somewhat like indentured servitude. Even people whom we would consider white collar professionals today did it as a means of providing for themselves and their families. If someone entered into such a contract, they might have to try to get themselves out of it. Obviously one would hope that Christians would set their slaves free as well, as Paul encouraged Philemon to do. 

Edited August 9, 2016 by MercyA

[MercyA]

 It's not quite a full blooded rejection of slavery from on high, is it ? :)

 

Never said it was.  ;)

[MercyA]

I'm sorry if I have come off hostile to you.I didn't mean to. Debates with apologists are somewhat of a past time of mine and I'm sorry if I've been carried away (I regularly participate in a couple of religous debate forums). Have a great night and it's been a pleasure talking with you and TM even if we feel each other is misguided.

 

I appreciate that! It's fine. I don't consider myself an apologist by any means, but I'm sure the internet is rife with other willing debate partners.  :) 

 

Welcome to the forum.

[MercyA]

I read an article just yesterday written by a neuroscientist about how some people do not have the mental capacity to develop self-awareness about their own biases and ignorance.  

 

:ohmy: So not cool. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

Taking myself outside of my worldview, I can understand your reaction.

 

I don't feel the need to argue for the Bible. I was simply stating that I don't believe the New Testament to be a "radically pro-slavery" document.

 

You do know that some people in that culture sold themselves into slavery to pay their debts, right? It was sometimes (but obviously not always) an economic arrangement, somewhat like indentured servitude. Even people whom we would consider white collar professionals today did it as a means of providing for themselves and their families. So, yes, if someone entered into a contract, they might have to try to get themselves out of it. I don't find that too shocking, given the culture. Obviously one would hope that Christians would set their slaves free as well, as Paul encouraged Philemon to do. 

 

 

And the vast majority of slaves did not enter into a "voluntary" contract by any means. And in reality it could be argued many of those who entered into those contracts did so via coercion due to their lands being conquered by outside forces leading to conditions that limited options.

 

The fact you can't see the absurdity in "hoping" Christians would do the right thing is why you can't see why the pro-slavery bias in the Bible.

[MercyA]

And the vast majority of slaves did not enter into a "voluntary" contract by any means. And in reality it could be argued many of those who entered into those contracts did so via coercion due to their lands being conquered by outside forces leading to conditions that limited options.

 

The fact you can't see the absurdity in "hoping" Christians would do the right thing is why you can't see why the pro-slavery bias in the Bible.

 

I have not argued and would not argue that the New Testament is specifically or strongly anti-slavery. However, please note that capturing slaves is put in the same category as murder:

 

"The law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for mans layers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine." 1 Timothy 1:10

Edited August 9, 2016 by MercyA

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That may very well be so. However, I think it's reasonable to assume that contractual slavery is what is generally being referred to in the New Testament, since capturing slaves is put in the same category as murder:

 

"The law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for mans layers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine." 1 Timothy 1:10

 

I have not argued and would not argue that the New Testament is specifically or strongly anti-slavery.

 

I have never seen any evidence that the New Testament is only referring to contract slaves.  As the dominant cultures of the area did frequently engage in forced slavery, I find it extremely unlikely that is the case.  Interesting how you want to read things in context of the culture until you want remove them from the context of the culture.

Edited August 9, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[MercyA]

I have never seen any evidence that the New Testament is only referring to contract slaves.  As the dominant cultures of the area did frequently engage in forced slavery, I find it extremely unlikely that is the case.  Interesting how you want to read things in context of the culture until you want remove them from the context of the culture.

 

I think that's a fair criticism, and I will edit my previous posts.

Edited August 9, 2016 by MercyA

[LucyStoner]

Mercy, You may not WANT to believe that people use the Bible to rationalize their sins but quite a lot of people do just that.

 

My brother, who you probably recall me mentioning before and who is a trans gay man, has suffered at the hands of such people. So have a great many of my friends. The intricacies my gay great aunt went to to keep safe are beyond what anyone should have to do. Especially when the largest risk to her safety were her Christian relatives.

 

My grandmother used the Bible to justify abuse that left my mother disabled...including trying to "treat" my mom's epilepsy with exorcisms. Because asking the demons to leave would be more effective than anticonvulsants? Yes, that's correct. My grandmother's proof for demons was that rather than having epilepsy from too many blows to the head, my mother was possessed.

 

Please stop pretending that it is simply beyond the realm of understanding that all Christians are not in fact kind or loving people. My grandmother was a Chrsitian. She hadn't a kind bone in her body. Abuse in the name of religion is a fairly well documented phenomena. No amount of denying that abusive acts could ever be committed by some using the Bible as their basis for their actions makes it so. It is quite simply, wishful thinking.

[8circles]

Mercy, You may not WANT to believe that people use the Bible to rationalize their sins but quite a lot of people do just that.

 

My brother, who you probably recall me mentioning before and who is a trans gay man, has suffered at the hands of such people. So have a great many of my friends. The intricacies my gay great aunt went to to keep safe are beyond what anyone should have to do. Especially when the largest risk to her safety were her Christian relatives.

 

My grandmother used the Bible to justify abuse that left my mother disabled...including trying to "treat" my mom's epilepsy with exorcisms. Because asking the demons to leave would be more effective than anticonvulsants? Yes, that's correct. My grandmother's proof for demons was that rather than having epilepsy from too many blows to the head, my mother was possessed.

 

Please stop pretending that it is simply beyond the realm of understanding that all Christians are not in fact kind or loving people. My grandmother was a Chrsitian. She hadn't a kind bone in her body. Abuse in the name of religion is a fairly well documented phenomena. No amount of denying that abusive acts could ever be committed by some using the Bible as their basis for their actions makes it so. It is quite simply, wishful thinking.

As a Xian, I couldn't agree with you more.

[MercyA]

Mercy, You may not WANT to believe that people use the Bible to rationalize their sins but quite a lot of people do just that.

 

My brother, who you probably recall me mentioning before and who is a trans gay man, has suffered at the hands of such people. So have a great many of my friends. The intricacies my gay great aunt went to to keep safe are beyond what anyone should have to do. Especially when the largest risk to her safety were her Christian relatives.

 

My grandmother used the Bible to justify abuse that left my mother disabled...including trying to "treat" my mom's epilepsy with exorcisms. Because asking the demons to leave would be more effective than anticonvulsants? Yes, that's correct. My grandmother's proof for demons was that rather than having epilepsy from too many blows to the head, my mother was possessed.

 

Please stop pretending that it is simply beyond the realm of understanding that all Christians are not in fact kind or loving people. My grandmother was a Chrsitian. She hadn't a kind bone in her body. Abuse in the name of religion is a fairly well documented phenomena. No amount of denying that abusive acts could ever be committed by some using the Bible as their basis for their actions makes it so. It is quite simply, wishful thinking.

 

Katie, I'm so sorry if that's what you have taken from what I've said in this thread. You've misunderstood me. Absolutely people can and do rationalize their sins using the Bible, just as they rationalize it by other means. That doesn't make the Bible itself wrong. 

 

I'm very sorry for what your mother endured. As you know, I believe demons are most assuredly real, but I certainly don't believe they cause all physical and mental ailments. 

 

Yes, there are professing Christians who are not kind or loving. I would never argue otherwise. The Bible has plenty to say about them:

 

"The one who says, 'I have come to know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." 1 John 2:4

 

"By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother." 1 John 3:10

 

"Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." 1 John 3:15

 

You may accuse me of using the "No true Scotsman" argument here, but it is a basic Christian teaching that hypocrites exist and are condemned, unless they repent. The stories I've heard here on the forum reinforce the lasting damage hypocrisy can do. God save me from it.

Edited August 9, 2016 by MercyA

[LucyStoner]

Mercy, apologizing with a "if you took my words the wrong way" twist is actually not an apology at all.

 

You basic argument seems to boil down to that all sins committed by Christians must not be really serious. At least you acknowledge all are sinners but when a serious act of violence, bullying or abuse takes place you jump immediately to your favorite fall back phrase. "Professing Christians". Apparently only "professing (fake) Christians" commit acts of bullying or violence. That's not just wishful thinking. It's hogwash.

 

Being a Christian does not prevent one from all sorts sinful acts. What sins do you thing "true" Christians commit? Giving someone a prideful look or not praying enough? Christian people also rape, murder, bully, commit adultery, larceny and fraud etc. Pretending it ain't so doesn't make that fact less real. Finding a wholly unhypocritical person, Christian or not, is more or less a snipe hunt.

 

I don't care if the Bible is right or wrong. It is not, and should never be, the law of the land.

Edited August 9, 2016 by LucyStoner

[MercyA]

Mercy, apologizing with a "if you took my words the wrong way" twist is actually not an apology at all.

 

You basic argument seems to boil down to that all sins committed by Christians must not be really serious. At least you acknowledge all are sinners but when a serious act of violence, bullying or abuse takes place you jump immediately to your favorite fall back phrase. "Professing Christians". Apparently only "professing (fake) Christians" commit acts of bullying or violence. That's not just wishful thinking. It's hogwash.

 

Being a Christian does not prevent one from all sorts sinful acts. What sins do you thing "true" Christians commit? Giving someone a prideful look or not praying enough? Christian people also rape, murder, bully, commit adultery, larceny and fraud etc. Pretending it ain't so doesn't make that fact less real. Finding a wholly unhypocritical person, Christian or not, is more or less a snipe hunt.

 

I don't care if the Bible is right or wrong. It is not, and should never be, the law of the land.

 

I don't know if we're just talking past each other or what, but you are still misunderstanding me. What exactly would you like me to apologize for? I am sorry you misunderstood me. I am sorry I didn't express myself well. I don't know how to say it differently. If there's something else you think I need to apologize for, please let me know (I'm quite serious, no snark). 

 

What is a hypocrite if not a person who professes to be a certain thing and isn't? What would you call a person who says they are honest but who continually lies? They only profess to be honest; their actions don't back it up. They are not actually honest.

 

The Bible makes a distinction between true and false Christians, over and over again, but you expect me, as a Bible-believing Christian, not to do so? Merely calling oneself a Christian means nothing. "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him."

 

A Christian will not habitually and without repentance continue in sin. If they do, they prove their profession is false. Read 1 John 3.

 

When have I ever argued on this forum that the Bible should be the law of the land? I have no interest in politics and do not participate in the political process. 

 

ETA: It occurred to me that we probably will not agree on what makes someone a Christian, so I don't know that more discussion will be fruitful. I'll think about what you said; I don't know what else I can do. Have a good night.

Edited August 9, 2016 by MercyA

[MercyA]

No, but it does seem like clutching at straws in order to explain why one 'sin' is clung onto whilst others are dispensed with in accordance with the times.

 

It's just an unconvincing argument, is all. 

 

My opinion is that the entire thing is an artefact of its times, and that as we know better, we do better, even if that means ditching the relevant parts of the text.

 

It seems people are happy to do so for some issues but not others - cherry picking..

 

No need to reply :) You know what I think and I know what you think!

 

In case you missed it, I already admitted I was wrong in at least one statement I made about the slavery issue. However, if you think I've been inconsistent regarding any other issue, please let me know. What New Testament sins have I dispensed with? Where else am I guilty of cherry picking with the New Testament text? I'm open to correction if it is fair. Consistency is important to me.  

 

I have no interest in arguing with you regarding the truth of the Bible itself.  :)

Edited August 9, 2016 by MercyA

[LucyStoner]

Mercy, I don't think you have anything to apologize to me for at all. But you said you were sorry and I pointed out that it wasn't really an apology- it was nothing but fake nice. I'm not misunderstanding your words. You apparently think that Christians can't commit most sins. Because if they do murder or hate or bully or abuse, they aren't Christians.

 

Does it matter much to those abused in the name of the bible what kind of Christian you think their abusers are? No, it doesn't. And to me at least, people who are abused, excluded or discriminated against in the name of the bible aren't doing anything wrong when they take that person on in their interpretation of the bible. It is not hateful or anti-Christian to point out the inconsistencies, translation issues and other problems with the bible. It's not hard to find them. Add in the inconsistencies with how so many different people apply biblical laws and one literally doesn't have time to address them all over the course of a lifetime. Maybe if the OT doesn't matter, perhaps people could stop quoting it so often when arguing for stripping gay families like my brothers of their civil rights? Everything in Leviticus is apparently irrelevant except for the stuff that makes it ok to hate on gay people? How very convenient for people who like to wear cotton linen blends to church.

Edited August 9, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Anacharsis]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but slaves are commanded to love their masters as they love Christ in the NT, aren't they ? Paul also sent a slave back to his owner. So it's not just an OT value.

 

I sometimes wonder if this is due to a different conception of slavery, or if the word in the original language of the Bible has a slightly different meaning -- in Corinthians, for instance, Christians are called Christ's slaves.

Edited August 9, 2016 by Anacharsis

[MercyA]

Mercy, I don't think you have anything to apologize to me for at all. But you said you were sorry and I pointed out that it wasn't really an apology- it was nothing but fake nice. I'm not misunderstanding your words. You apparently think that Christians can't commit most sins. Because if they do murder or hate or bully or abuse, they aren't Christians.

 

Does it matter much to those abused in the name of the bible what kind of Christian you think their abusers are? No, it doesn't. And to me at least, people who are abused, excluded or discriminated against in the name of the bible aren't doing anything wrong when they take that person on in their interpretation of the bible. It is not hateful or anti-Christian to point out the inconsistencies, translation issues and other problems with the bible. It's not hard to find them. Add in the inconsistencies with how so many different people apply biblical laws and one literally doesn't have time to address them all over the course of a lifetime. Maybe if the OT doesn't matter, perhaps people could stop quoting it so often when arguing for stripping gay families like my brothers of their civil rights? Everything in Leviticus is apparently irrelevant except for the stuff that makes it ok to hate on gay people? How very convenient for people who like to wear cotton linen blends to church.

 

So I'm being "fake nice," because I was genuinely sorry you took from my words something I never said or believed? Wow. If you think I'm being false in some way, I suppose there's nothing I can do to convince you otherwise, but I meant exactly what I said in all sincerity. I'm actually really hurt that you think that of me.

 

No, I suppose it doesn't matter to those who are being abused whether the people doing the abusing are actually Christians or not. 

 

I have no problem with respectful discourse on ANY subject, including the Bible. 

 

People quoting the Levitical law as if it applies to the Christian church is a personal pet peeve of mine. You don't have to convince me that it is wrong. 

[MercyA]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but slaves are commanded to love their masters as they love Christ in the NT, aren't they ?

 

They are told to serve them as they serve Christ, and masters are instructed to do exactly the same to slaves:

 

"Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him." Ephesians 5:6-9

 

Actually, the same goes for all Christians, whatever work they are doing:

 

"Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve." Colossians 3:23-24

 

Paul also sent a slave back to his owner. So it's not just an OT value.

 

Yes, with instructions that he no longer be a slave:

 

"For perhaps he was for this reason separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord." Philemon 1:15-16

 

His former owner is to treat Onesimus as he would treat Paul himself:

 

"If then you regard me a partner, accept him as you would me. But if he has wronged you in any way or owes you anything, charge that to my account." Philemon 1:17-18

 

I would certainly expect anyone arguing biblical prohibition of male homosexuality to be arguing from the NT only. 

 

I whole-heartedly agree.

[TranquilMind]

Ah, yes, historical and linguistic nuance! Yes, although if you're going to apply it to slaves, you might also have to apply it to other bits of the bible.

 

I have never seen such abuse of a passage of scripture, such twisting into an amazingly unrecognizable meaning, as I just did with the small passage entitled, "Leviticus" when I clicked on your link.

 

So I didn't read the rest. 

 

 

[TranquilMind]

I'm sorry if I have come off hostile to you.I didn't mean to. Debates with apologists are somewhat of a past time of mine and I'm sorry if I've been carried away (I regularly participate in a couple of religous debate forums). Have a great night and it's been a pleasure talking with you and TM even if we feel each other is misguided.

 

I saw this, so even though you were addressing Mercy, I wanted to say that I appreciated our rational interactions.  It's great to speak with someone who is able to actually stay on topic, instead of descend into ad hominem attacks.   Goodness.  We are (mostly) middle-aged women; this should be par for the course. 

 

Class act.  I hope we speak again.  A pleasure talking to you as well.