Children are just commodities in the liberal culture.

[Abigail]

Sure, and those exact those same verses about love and that both male and female are one in Christ, can be applied to homosexuality in exactly the same way.

The problem with this argument is that when Paul speaks of order in the church with respect to married couples, he uses male and female categories in a concrete physical sense. So it seems to me that pre final resurrection we do still have to work with our physical bodies as male or female.

[Abigail]

Let's be perfectly clear though - it's not merely the OT:
"Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters" (Eph 6:5, Col 3:22, 1 Pet 2:18)
And when Jesus heals the slave of the Roman centurion, there's zero statement made along the lines of condemning slavery, and Jesus has nothing but praise for the slave-owner.

To extract an anti-slavery interpretation from the bible, you've got to read between the lines, and ask yourself what the logical outworking of the biblical teachings are. Because nowhere in the bible - not in the Old Testament, and not in the New Testament - is there any clear teaching that the political institution of slavery should be entirely abolished. The OT explicitly depicts slavery being instituted by God in the levitical law. Anyone who actually goes by the "clear face value" of biblical passages has to arrive at a pro-slavery view, and it's only by using quite a liberal interpretive hermeneutic that an anti-slavery overall reading flies. I see a clear parallel with the modern situation about gay rights and the bible: Those using a "clear face value" reading tend to be more anti-gay-rights, while those using more liberal hermeneutics tend to be more pro-gay-rights.

There is a difference between saying slavery is OK and acknowledging it happens. The very fact that the Bible says 'thou shalt not kill', implies that we are to value the lives of others as our own. Slavery is a result of sin. Yes there are innocent people who are enslaved but if you follow the trail then you will come to the sinner. People are also enslaved because of their own actions ie attacking others through war and then being defeated. So to me slavery is a consequence of sin - one's own or someone elses and so it makes no sense to outlaw slavery when the real sin precedes this.

The Hebrews had a ready interpretive for their behaviour. God, through the prophets and teachers, always referred back to their time in Egypt as slaves and how God brought them out of the land and helped them to settle in Canaan. The whole story not only encompassed them but also their servants and visitors and anyone who wished to go out with them. So in that alone, a saga which was the core of their nation, they could understand that heavy slavery was no fun and further they could map all the different groups who went out with them under God's care to contemporary people in Israel. Servants (who might like freedom or may want nothing more than to stay with their master's household), sojourners people who wanted to join up (proselytes).

So, yes I have heard pro slavery arguments from the Bible but contrary to what you say, that the 'clear face value' is pro slavery it isn't. One of the most quoted pro-slavery passages in the Bible (Genesis 9) implies that slavery is a bad thing as are those who increase slavery. In the passage from Genesis 9 it is significant that Gen 9:21 is the very first mention of wine (something we know causes slavery - it is called being an alcoholic) in the Bible and Noah gets drunk. Ham seeing his father's nakedness does not act like a son and cover him but rather goes out and tells his brothers. What is not a son must be a servant. His brothers then have to do the job their brother should have done and go and cover their father. Knowing of his nakedness, not facing their father like sons but to spare his honor coming in backwards. What is not a son must be a servant. Who is the one who by his behaviour has worked for the increase of servants ie the servant of servants but Ham

[lilpixieofterror]

That's not what I said.

Yeah, that is precisely what you said. You're just back peddling because it makes you look rather bad.

That wasn't what I was attempting to do.

Yeah it was. You're trying to say that your modern opponents are, in some way, just like the pro slavery movement of old. Rather this be though practice or the fact that they are fighting a losing battle and will soon be 'relics of the past'. Either way, you're trying to project your opponents as being somehow backwards and impeding progress vs addressing a single argument they actually made. What is it called when you don't address the arguments your opponents make and instead choose to paint them in the worst light you can think of?

So even though I've repeatedly stated that I'm not trying to evoke a particular negative image, you keep insisting that that's what I'm trying to do.

That is because you're incapable of admitting to error and are trying a desperate gambit to avoid admitting to what you clearly implied. There's several groups of example you could have picked. You choose a group that has a very negative image attached to it. Clearly, you view your opponents in that same negative image. Like I said, words do matter and I do know what connotations are. The pro slavery movement has connotations attached to it. Beyond slave beating, you have rights denial, backwards, inept, dust bin of history, etc. Your chose of imagery reveals precisely your thoughts on your opponents, so stop playing stupid and pretending otherwise. It is clear what you think of your opponents and how you are trying to link them to pro slavery groups of old.

I'm not going to bother discussing this tangent anymore.

Of course not, you got to puff up your chest, proclaim victory, and ignore what you are clearly trying to imply or are you really this ignorant and have no clue what you are saying?

[lilpixieofterror]

Let's be perfectly clear though - it's not merely the OT:
"Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters" (Eph 6:5, Col 3:22, 1 Pet 2:18)
And when Jesus heals the slave of the Roman centurion, there's zero statement made along the lines of condemning slavery, and Jesus has nothing but praise for the slave-owner.

To extract an anti-slavery interpretation from the bible, you've got to read between the lines, and ask yourself what the logical outworking of the biblical teachings are. Because nowhere in the bible - not in the Old Testament, and not in the New Testament - is there any clear teaching that the political institution of slavery should be entirely abolished. The OT explicitly depicts slavery being instituted by God in the levitical law. Anyone who actually goes by the "clear face value" of biblical passages has to arrive at a pro-slavery view, and it's only by using quite a liberal interpretive hermeneutic that an anti-slavery overall reading flies. I see a clear parallel with the modern situation about gay rights and the bible: Those using a "clear face value" reading tend to be more anti-gay-rights, while those using more liberal hermeneutics tend to be more pro-gay-rights.

Too bad that the anti slavery side were some of the most religious people of the era. Keep saying stupid things dimbulb and exposing your knowledge of history is lacking.

[RumTumTugger]

Too bad that the anti slavery side were some of the most religious people of the era. Keep saying stupid things dimbulb and exposing your knowledge of history is lacking.

As well as making sure they understood the bible in it's complete and true context as those of of us starlight is arguing with in this board do. not in a wooden literal modern day sense of the english language as starlight and his ilk are prone to do.

[JimL]

As well as making sure they understood the bible in it's complete and true context as those of of us starlight is arguing with in this board do. not in a wooden literal modern day sense of the english language as starlight and his ilk are prone to do.

No, what you and your ilk do is to rationalize the bibles early take on slavery in order to fit it to the more contemporary and adverse view of the immoral nature of it. The contemporary view of slavery is that it is an immoral practice period, regardless of times and conditions.

[Spartacus]

No, what you and your ilk do is to rationalize the bibles early take on slavery in order to fit it to the more contemporary and adverse view of the immoral nature of it. The contemporary view of slavery is that it is an immoral practice period, regardless of times and conditions.

Unless they're making your iPad. Or picking your lettuce. Or providing sex to tourists.

[JimL]

Unless they're making your iPad. Or picking your lettuce. Or providing sex to tourists.

No, I didn't say that there are not people who are willing to take advantage of the poor and treat them as slaves in so far as they can get away with it, but unlike in the ANE, the general consensus today is that slavery is immoral. I'm not a greedy conservative businessman who values personal wealth over human dignity, i'm for pay equity.

[Abigail]

No, I didn't say that there are not people who are willing to take advantage of the poor and treat them as slaves in so far as they can get away with it, but unlike in the ANE, the general consensus today is that slavery is immoral. I'm not a greedy conservative businessman who values personal wealth over human dignity, i'm for pay equity.

If it walks like a duck... If somebody is treated like a slave then they are a slave, so to compartment off the ANE as the big bad wolf seems a tad legalistic to me. If you had to go back and ask any ANE slaver if he would want his family to be a slave I do not think you would find many who would say 'yes' IOW there was likely also a 'consensus' back then.