lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (03/05/91)
In article <Feb.27.00.25.02.1991.8893@athos.rutgers.edu> sc1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Chan) writes: >mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes: > Homosexuality, in orthodox jewish teaching, is wrong. It >is also wrong in traditional Christian morality. If you're trying to >argue that homosexuality is not a sin (in the context of >Christianity), then you'll have to overturn not only 2000 years of >Christian teaching, but also another ~2000 years of Hebrew teaching too. This caught my attention and sparked a thought about just what was and was not acceptable in traditional Hebrew and Christian teaching. Specificialy, if you're going to base your agument on the "traditional" acceptablity/unacceptability of a set of beliefs then how would you handle the situation if Michael, say, owned slaves? I'm curious to know because not only was it traditionaly acceptable to own slaves (and concubines) in the Old Testament, it was actualy condoned by GOD Himself in the laws passed from His mouth to Moses in Exodus (if God did not approve slavery He would not have created laws concerning their treatment or maltreatment and the sale of them etc...). Futher Paul states simply that you are to treat your slaves well. He does not disapprove of the idea of one human being 'owned' by another. Obviously this is an accademic question, but on what biblical grounds would you base your assumption that a slave owner was "living in sin"? Is it somehow more reprehesible to be homosexual than to own slaves? This must be the case because the bible goes through the trouble of condoning one and condeming the other... This is curious to me because homosexuality between conscenting adults harms no one. Yes slavery is, as I'm sure you'd agree, a terrible thing for those on the wrong end of it... >>How to you reply to my >>assertion that being gay is an inalterable fact of personality? Your >>statements offer no alternative but celibacy. Is that your true >>belief, or do you contest (with no experience upon which to do so) >>that sexuality cannot be changed? > Personality is not inalterable. Many people, including myself, would contest that homosexuality cannot be simply altered by, say, exercising more or doing more "manly" things (as I was told by my father once). If this were true I could tell you that you could become homosexual if you tried hard enough... obviously not true. > Unfortunately, for many people, this seems to be the case. > >>Ah, I don't blame you. I merely ask that you give me due credit. > > You have a right to your opinion. But the weight of tradition > and experience makes your protests seem very hollow. Again, tradition is not always right... see above. Jeff Lindborg
sacg1198@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Cattanach) (03/07/91)
lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: > I'm curious to know because not only was it traditionaly acceptable >to own slaves (and concubines) in the Old Testament, it was actualy >condoned by GOD Himself in the laws passed from His mouth to Moses in >Exodus (if God did not approve slavery He would not have created laws >concerning their treatment or maltreatment and the sale of them etc...). >Futher Paul states simply that you are to treat your slaves well. He does >not disapprove of the idea of one human being 'owned' by another. The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity points out when discussing slavery and early Christianity that the difference between slaves and "free" people was more a matter of degree than of kind at that time. Paul's letters told slave owners to treat "their" slaves as brothers. IMHO, this is asking more than simply the negative action of "freeing" them as they had no possessions, probably no means of support, and not a whole lot more rights than before. -- -catt (Scott Cattanach - catt@uiuc.edu) "I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two become a law firm, and that three or more become a congress!"
rjb@akgua.att.com (Robert J Brown) (03/08/91)
In article <Mar.4.21.51.23.1991.26083@athos.rutgers.edu>, lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: > Futher Paul states simply that you are to treat your slaves well. He does > not disapprove of the idea of one human being 'owned' by another. > Obviously this is an accademic question, but on what biblical grounds > > Jeff Lindborg I apologize that I can't find my reference right now, but Paul clearly stated the things you said but he also said that if, as a slave, you could obtain/buy your freedom legally then do so. He held that being free was a better state than slavery because it would give you more flexibility to serve God. Bob akgua!rjb
cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (03/08/91)
In article <Mar.4.21.51.23.1991.26083@athos.rutgers.edu>, lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: [snip] > Specificialy, if you're going to base your agument on the "traditional" > acceptablity/unacceptability of a set of beliefs then how would you > handle the situation if Michael, say, owned slaves? > I'm curious to know because not only was it traditionaly acceptable > to own slaves (and concubines) in the Old Testament, it was actualy > condoned by GOD Himself in the laws passed from His mouth to Moses in > Exodus (if God did not approve slavery He would not have created laws > concerning their treatment or maltreatment and the sale of them etc...). > Futher Paul states simply that you are to treat your slaves well. He does > not disapprove of the idea of one human being 'owned' by another. [snip] > > Jeff Lindborg Well rather than state my opinion I thought I would let you read Abraham Lincoln's thoughts on the subject. What follows is his second inaugural address. The question of owning slaves and God's opinion of this is dealt with. This was scanned in and so many contain a few errors but should be quite readable. Although the address was short it is said that a lot of the audience needed to wipe the tears out of their eyes at the end of the speech. Happy reading. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to he pursued, seemed fiting and proper. Now at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorps the attention, and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured. On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil-war. All dreaded it - all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war - seeking to dissolve the union, and divide its effects, by negotiation. Bath parties deprecated war; but one of then would make war rather than let the nation surive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came. One eighth of the whole popultion were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the union, but located in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not he answered that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. ''Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the provdence of God, must needs come but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein an departure from those divine attribute which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him ? Fondly do we hope - fervently do we pray - that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether" With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan - to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bill Rea -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Bill Rea, University of Canterbury, | E-Mail b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz | | Christchurch, New Zealand | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) (03/09/91)
In article <Mar.7.03.36.37.1991.21802@athos.rutgers.edu>, sacg1198@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Cattanach) writes: > The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity points out when discussing > slavery and early Christianity that the difference between slaves and > "free" people was more a matter of degree than of kind at that time. Well, the Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity is wrong. There was, indeed, a range of possibilities including relatively good treatement of slaves as fully integrated family memebers. But Roman latifundias, which were a major part of the slave population, were much the same as plantations in the American South. And some kinds of slave usage, as in the Athenian silver mines, were as abominable as any mistreatment ever meted out by man against man. The only dimension in which ancient slavery tended to be much different from our own past experience was that it did not involve the utter degradation of a racist categorization of the slave as subhuman -- but the Greek view of some men as "by nature" slaves was not all THAT much better than American racism. -- Michael L. Siemon "O stand, stand at the window, m.siemon@ATT.COM As the tears scald and start; ...!att!attunix!mls You shall love your crooked neighbor standard disclaimer With your crooked heart."
djohnson@ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson) (03/09/91)
>> I'm curious to know because not only was it traditionaly acceptable >> to own slaves (and concubines) in the Old Testament, it was actualy >> condoned by GOD Himself in the laws passed from His mouth to Moses in >> Exodus (if God did not approve slavery He would not have created laws >> concerning their treatment or maltreatment and the sale of them etc...). >> Futher Paul states simply that you are to treat your slaves well. He does >> not disapprove of the idea of one human being 'owned' by another. Well, logically I don't see the conclusion that God and Paul did not disapprove of slavery... Being told to treat one's slaves well, does not imply that owning slaves is ok. In the ancient times slavery was a much more accepted thing, so it is natural to assume that many of God's people would have slaves. The laws on treating slaves raised the status of these slaves tremendously. The notion of a "hired hand" was probably rare. Paul's assertion may have been considered pretty radical by some non-Jewish groups. (and just because your father took you aside before the prom and explained about birth control, doesn't mean he approved of premarital relations) -- Darin Johnson djohnson@ucsd.edu - Political correctness is Turing undecidable.
lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (03/11/91)
In article <Mar.8.00.24.05.1991.23740@athos.rutgers.edu> rjb@akgua.att.com (Robert J Brown) writes: >In article <Mar.4.21.51.23.1991.26083@athos.rutgers.edu>, lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >> Futher Paul states simply that you are to treat your slaves well. He does >> not disapprove of the idea of one human being 'owned' by another. >> Obviously this is an accademic question, but on what biblical grounds > I apologize that I can't find my reference right now, but Paul clearly > stated the things you said but he also said that if, as a slave, > you could obtain/buy your freedom legally then do so. Everyone (via e-mail) seems to be jumping on the Paul comment here. The real thrust of my question dealt with the words of God to Moses in Exodus. These are the passages that I found disturbing. I merely threw in the bit about Paul to indicate that the laws were not revoked or contradicted in the New Testament in any real way. Jeff Lindborg
sacg1198@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Scott Cattanach) (03/13/91)
mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) writes: >Well, the Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity is wrong. There was, >indeed, a range of possibilities including relatively good treatement of >slaves as fully integrated family memebers. But Roman latifundias, which Which is more than just freeing them, which was the point of what I posted. What the book said that the negative action of freeing them (i.e. stop doing something wrong and just abandon them to their fate) would not have led to a life of total freedom in and of itself. I don't have a Bible handy, but I think Paul told owners to do something along the lines of what you mention above. >were a major part of the slave population, were much the same as plantations >in the American South. And some kinds of slave usage, as in the Athenian >silver mines, were as abominable as any mistreatment ever meted out by man >against man. The only dimension in which ancient slavery tended to be much I don't believe Paul was addressing the men who owned those mines (at least there is no specific mention of that sort of activity, it seems like the slaves he refers to are not quite in that particular situation). -- -catt (Scott Cattanach - catt@uiuc.edu) "I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two become a law firm, and that three or more become a congress!"
fasano@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Cathy Fasano) (03/13/91)
lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >Futher Paul states simply that you are to treat your slaves well. He does >not disapprove of the idea of one human being 'owned' by another. Actually, Paul is known to have harbored a fugitive slave. When the slave returned to his owner (and there is no suggestion that returning is against the runaway slave's will) he brought along a letter from Paul strongly urging the owner to free said slave. (I would describe the letter as friendly blackmail -- "Therefore, although I feel that I have every right to command you to do what ought to be done, I prefer to appeal in the name of love." And later, "If he [the slave, Onesimus] has done you an injury or owes you anything, charge it to me. I, Paul, write this in my own hand: I agree to pay -- not to mention that you owe me your very self! ... Confident of your compliance, I write you, knowing that you will do more than I say." Yep -- all the subtlety of a brick through your front window...) To somehow conclude that Paul is in favor of slavery is simply fantastic -- clearly it's not his first priority, but he's not in favor of it, either! I guess what I find most fantastic about Jeff even bringing up the topic of slavery is that it's a simple historical fact that the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is as clear and classic an example as we're going to get of "Christians imposing Christian morality on non-Christians." Not to mention Christians imposing Christian morality on Christians-who-just- don't-want-to-act-according-to-Christian-morality (who, I will freely admit, are probably, at least in the United States, a much larger group than non-Christians .) Slightly incredulous, cathy :-) -- Cathy Fasano aka: Cathy Johnston cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.edu "Education is a strange good. Once people pay for it, they demand less of it"