Zombrex wrote: » I did. You seem to be suggesting Paul saying to masters treat your slaves well some how means something significant to the point at hand. It doesn't, and I suspect you actually know it doesn't.
Zombrex wrote: » The point at hand is the sanction of slavery, and the encouragement of slaves to happy submit to their own slavery by Paul. This comes from the part where Paul instructs slaves to be good little slaves and happy obey their masters because that is the order of things as God intended.
Zombrex wrote: » The bit about masters treating their slaves well is as morally irrelevant as saying when you are raping someone try and use polite words. Slavery itself is a crime, slavery itself is a form of abuse. This concept is totally alien to Paul, but it isn't alien to you. So stop pretending otherwise simply to stall the conversation.
Zombrex wrote: » I "intentionally ignored" verse 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 as well. I also didn't quote 1 to 4 either. Because they aren't about sanctioning slavery.
Zombrex wrote: » Stop stalling.
Zombrex wrote: » You think they deserve to be slaves? Why exactly?
Titus 2:9-10 wrote: Bondservants are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour.
Zombrex wrote: » Yes it is fascinating. It shows how totally ordinary slavery was to Paul, how the idea that slavery itself is immoral was unknown to him. He is not in anyway distressed or outraged by it. It is just the way things are. Which is odd if he is imparting the morality of God, who apparently is anti-slavery. :rolleyes:
Zombrex wrote: » The piece is saying both be a good slave and a good slave master, without any recognition of the contradiction inherent in such a statement., that it is impossible to be both "good" while practising slavery. It is a complete explicate and implicate (as Jimi would say) acceptance of slavery.
Zombrex wrote: » So again, do you believe, as Paul clearly does, that slavery is normal, acceptable, moral and sanctioned by God?
Zombrex wrote: » I'm sorry, are you a slave? Otherwise how you "serve" your "boss" is utterly irrelevant.
Zombrex wrote: » And I've told you, it is normalising slavery. You seem to be persistently ignoring that point, instead talking about how good it is that the masters are told to threat their slaves well while ignoring that they shouldn't have slaves in the first place. And then you talk about your boss at work. Stop stalling, you know what the issue here is you just don't want to face it.
Zombrex wrote: » Yes because Paul does not consider slavery itself an abuse. That is the whole point, slavery is normal and right to Paul. He is saying in the context of normal slavery don't abuse your slaves. The idea that slavery itself is a form of abuse hasn't even occurred to him. You know this, stop stalling.
Zombrex wrote: » By owning slaves! By partaking in the act of slavery! Do you agree with that? Do you believe slaves should happy submit to their masters? Do you agree with the concept of slavery itself?
Zombrex wrote: » I didn't ask you that. Stop stalling. Do you believe slavery is acceptable and moral?
Zombrex wrote: » Yes I know, because according to Paul Christianity has no problem with slavery, slavery is normal and moral according to Paul and in fact slaves should wilfully submit and partake in their own bondage.
Zombrex wrote: » You are also the one trying really really really hard to avoid answer the question put to you.
Zombrex wrote: » Again this is why I knew such a discussion would be rather pointless. You are just stalling, you are refusing to comment on the actual morality of slavery itself. Because we know you don't think slavery is moral. But you have to marry that with what you believe is the gospel of God.
Zombrex wrote: » This is no different to Christians who know loving homosexual unions are not immoral, and try to marry that with the gospel of God.
Zombrex wrote: » You are all doing the same thing because none of you can actually follow the Bible as it is written. This rather pointless exercise has simply highlighted what I already said on the other thread.
pauldla wrote: » :eek: Did I just read that? A comparison between a contemporary workplace and 1st Century slavery in the Roman Empire?
pauldla wrote: » You must have an awful job, philo.
pauldla wrote: » To be a slave is to be abused and dehumanised; a gilded cage is still a cage.
philologos wrote: » There is a difference for sure. Slavery as it was commonly practiced in the Roman Empire (as opposed to the Christian model that Paul presents for it in 6:5-9) is certainly much worse than the situation I'm in at present. However, if the situation is better, how much more am I meant to work as I'm working for Christ?
philologos wrote: » Thankfully I don't, but I am aware of what responsibilities I have as a Christian in the workplace.
philologos wrote: » Like Zombrex you're applying assumptions to the passage that just aren't there. Paul is saying that masters shouldn't mistreat their slaves and should treat them as Jesus would.
pauldla wrote: » A Christian model for slavery (!) is still slavery. Does any more need to be said on that point?
pauldla wrote: » You have responsibilities as a contracted employee.
pauldla wrote: » Yes Phil, I get that. Paul is telling slaveowners to be nice to their slaves, and is telling slaves to work well for their masters. This is hardly radical stuff, is it? Wasn't Seneca writing similiar earlier in the century? And didn't Cato eat with his slaves? Indeed, a good slave was considered valuable property, and hard to replace. The only new element that Paul is adding to this is the concept of Christ (not, tellingly, Jesus, but Christ). BTW, would Jesus have kept slaves?
philologos wrote: » Nothing more needs to be said, you just need to actually read what's being said
philologos wrote: » I believe that slavery if it was practiced as Paul describes in verses 5-9 isn't problematic. Where it becomes problematic is where there is inherent abuse involved.
philologos wrote: » Paul or Peter aren't adding anything to Christ. What they are saying is we are Christians, this is what Jesus has done for us, how does this apply to the world around us. They aren't instituting slavery, rather all they are saying is that it is a reality in the world around them that needs to be engaged with as a Christian. Paul's statement precludes an abusive relationship between masters and slaves in verse 9.
philologos wrote: » There is a difference for sure. Slavery as it was commonly practiced in the Roman Empire (as opposed to the Christian model that Paul presents for it in 6:5-9) is certainly much worse than the situation I'm in at present. However, if the situation is better, how much more am I meant to work as I'm working for Christ? Thankfully I don't, but I am aware of what responsibilities I have as a Christian in the workplace. Like Zombrex you're applying assumptions to the passage that just aren't there. Paul is saying that masters shouldn't mistreat their slaves and should treat them as Jesus would.
pauldla wrote: » This is what I read. I read this as meaning that you, an educated citizen of the 21st Century, have no problem with slavery if master and slave both follow Ephesians 6:5-9. Have I got it right?
pauldla wrote: » 'Be nice to your slaves' was not exactly a radical idea for the 1st Century. A Roman slaveowner regarded a slave as valuable property, and capable of great mischief if abused, especially for domestic or household slaves (not so for the poor creatures down the mines, however). All Paul is doing is adding 'because, Christ' (if you'll pardon the brevity). Now, I notice you didn't answer my hypothetical question about Jesus keeping slaves; and, as I noted, Paul is talking about Christ, not Jesus. But that's a conversation for another time, perhaps.
MrPudding wrote: » You are continuing to ignore / miss the main point here. What Zombrex is saying, and what most people would agree with, is that slavery, in and of itself, however "well" the slaves are treated, is wrong. Slavery restricts several rights that we consider to be very important, freedom of movement, freedom of association freedom to choose work, etc. So, even if we ignore abuse, and assume that the slaves were treated well, if they still had restrictions imposed on them, as I mention above, then it was still wrong.
MrPudding wrote: » Now, unless you are suggesting that the slaves did not have any of these restrictions imposed on them, in which case they were not slaves, then, irrespective of any other physical abuse they, they were mistreated. So, please answer this question, which is the same as Zombrex's, though a little more detailed...
MrPudding wrote: » Do you agree that it is acceptable, both morally and socially, to "own" another human being and, irrespective of how you physically treat them, have total control over what they can do with respect to their freedom of movement, freedom of association and freedom to work as they choose. MrP
philologos wrote: » It depends what influences your understanding of the word. Paul's definition seems to be radically different from the assumptions that you are applying to it.
philologos wrote: » It's an anachronism to apply a colonial slavery based view to what Paul said long before. What we need to do is listen to what Paul says about it, and what logical implications that has.
philologos wrote: » The reality is that if Paul is saying that masters should treat their slaves as Jesus did that mistreatment of the kind you are thinking of is precluded.
philologos wrote: » I've answered the question in that I believe that you're applying an anachronism to Scripture.
philologos wrote: » For the umpteenth time, I have no issue whatsoever with Ephesians 6:5-9 and I think it could teach us much today in respect to employment.
MrPudding wrote: » Perhaps you could define what, exactly, a slave was in this time, in contrast to a free person. This does not require a scriptural interpretation, I simply want to know what a “slave” was in those days.
MrPudding wrote: » No. Were they slaves not? In simple terms, irrespective of how Paul told them to behave or how Paul told the master to treat them, were they owned by another person and did they have basic human rights restricted or removed.
MrPudding wrote: » What mistreatment am I talking about? A slave treated with respect is still a slave.
MrPudding wrote: » I don’t think so, unless we are talking about some kind of slave that is not actually a slave.
MrPudding wrote: » So, just to confirm, you have no issue with one human being owning another human being, controlling what they do for a living, controlling who they associate with and not allowing them to go wherever they please?
MrPudding wrote: » Additionally, no comparison can be drawn between a person in the 21st century with a contract of service, protection of the law and the right to leave a job, move and associate with whomsoever one pleases and a slave in Roman times.
Both the Stoics and some early Christians opposed the ill-treatment of slaves, rather than slavery itself. Advocates of these philosophies saw them as ways to live within human societies as they were, rather than to overthrow entrenched institutions. In the Christian scriptures equal pay and fair treatment of slaves was enjoined upon slave masters, and slaves were advised to obey their earthly masters and lawfully obtain freedom if possible
MrPudding wrote: » Of course, one should work hard and loyally for one’s boss, and a boss should be respectful to his or her employees, but really, do we need a biblical passage about the proper treatment of slaves to tell us how we should behave in a modern workplace? MrP
Zombrex wrote: » Wow, this thread took a some what unexpected turn. I expected to post the slavery issue and for Phil to come up with some rather convoluted explanation as to why Paul is not actually supporting slavery, and then I would compare this to the convoluted explanations for why Paul is not actually condemning loving homosexual unions. I genuinely never expected for a second that Phil would actually start arguing that slavery is fine and good if done properly, if slave masters don't "abuse" their slaves.Their slaves!. Even a description of slavery demonstrates the inherent immorality of slavery. In 2013 I'm having a discussion with someone about the right way to operate slavery. Let me just say that again, the right way to operate slavery. The "not problematic" way to own people. It has been a while since I've genuinely be flabbergasted by this forum. Religion posions everything, and Phil you are a walking example of that. What the hell happened to you? :mad: Welcome to my ignore list.
tommy2bad wrote: » No phil he is seeing exactly what Paul is saying, so are you as it happens so I don't get the disagreement. Paul says that slavery is fine if we do it in a way that reflects Christ. Zombrex is making the point that for Paul the concept of slavery was so ingrained that he couldn't see slavery as a wrong in and of itself, only in how it was operated. If Paul was writing now do you think he would say the same thing? or would he just say slavery is wrong because it cannot be done in a way that reflects Christ. Once you go down the road of apologetics for the evil that slavery is, you're screwed with any argument you present. Doesn't matter if you revise slavery into indentured servitude or long term contract i.e. till death or fire sale do them part, it is wrong by nature. The fact that Paul couldn't see this show that while his instinct was correct his historical context prevented him from going as far as he should.If he was inspired by God then the prevailing mind set shouldn't be such an overriding factor in getting how wrong slavery is. Not that I'm saying that Gods view wasn't what Paul was writing but that Paul saw that view through a glass darkly.
tommy2bad wrote: » Doesn't matter if you revise slavery into indentured servitude or long term contract i.e. till death or fire sale do them part, it is wrong by nature.
1 Samuel 8 wrote: When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as Israel’s leaders.[a] 2 The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. 3 But his sons did not follow his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice. 4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.” 6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.” 10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.” 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.” 21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. 22 The Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.” Then Samuel said to the Israelites, “Everyone go back to your own town.”
Matthew 19 wrote: Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2 And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. 3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”[a] 10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
1 Corinthians 7 wrote: 17 Only let each person lead the life[c] that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. 18 Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. 19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. 20 Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. 21 Were you a bondservant[d] when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) 22 For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants[e] of men. 24 So, brothers,[f] in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God.
Ephesians 5 wrote: 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love I]To get an idea of the concept of Love Paul refers to, please see the Corinthians verses below this Ephesians quote[/I your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
1 Corinthians 13 wrote: Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
JimiTime wrote: » The outrage doesn't suit you.
JimiTime wrote: » I know you have more to you than the post above, and that a thoughtful poster like yourself would recognise that a poster like Phil deserves the opposite of being ignored.
JimiTime wrote: » I also think of all those people who get outraged about this stuff, I hope you are not wearing Nike, Levis, GAP etc.
JimiTime wrote: » Below is from the book of 1 Samuel. It details how the circumstance with which God allowed Israel have a King. Notice that it is not what God actually wants, but rather he allows it, and in turn legislates for it.
JimiTime wrote: » As we seen from Jesus however, he told us what Gods will was on the matter, and that was for one man and one woman in lifelong union. 'One flesh' as he called it. When we then consider Christs words about 'Do unto others...' etc, I do think it becomes clear that something like slavery is not compatible with Christianity, and its something Christians sought to outlaw based on Christian teaching. Paul never said, 'You should keep slaves', but rather Paul told slaves and masters of the time, their responsibilities as followers of Christ. No such thing could be said of the both implicit, AND explicit condemnation of sexual sin.
philologos wrote: » I'm not saying anything remarkable other than if masters treated their slaves like Jesus treated us there would be no problem worth discussing. I thought it would be very simple to grasp and relatively uncontroversial but boy was I wrong :pac:
koth wrote: » condoning slavery in 2013 would be considered controversial by most people.
philologos wrote: » The thing is Jesus does make a difference. Refusing to acknowledge that is refusing to listen to what Paul says. It makes a huge huge difference, a radical difference to the Roman society. Ephesians as a whole is radical to even today's age. The problem is that you're adding things which Paul hasn't said in this passage to the text.
philologos wrote: » I'm not saying anything remarkable other than if masters treated their slaves like Jesus treated us there would be no problem worth discussing.
J C wrote: » Its like saying that you have the freedom to accept God ... ... and you have the freedom to reject Him.
