 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > tangent | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/12/2004 4:08 AM (GMT -6) |   | Victory,
Why is slavery singled out?
You say:
As has been well pointed out by others, slavery was something that was TOLERATED and never CONDONED. Christians who claim to have a relationship with Jesus should not have ever practiced the abomination of enslaving men because of the color of their skin, along with the other cruel acts they committed.
I say that Christians who claim to have a relationship with Jesus should not have practiced the abomination of greed, immorality, lying, unbelief, gluttony, or any of the other sins God condemns. The gospel was given to us by a man to save us from these sins as well as from any cruel acts that we would inflict on another. God uses a metaphor to call himself a slave-owner and us slaves. This is not "toleration" but God taking the part of an "abomination." You go too far in labeling thus. Sodom was considered so sinful by God that He made an example of it and supernaturally wiped it from the earth as an example. The sins of Sodom that caused God such fury are listed in Ezekiel 16:49. They are not slavery but material freedom and not helping the poor and needy - ultimately pride. We can be kind to poor and needy physical slaves as well as poor and needy slaves to sin. If we only offer material help and fail to preach the gospel of life - we are failing.
“Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. “Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 4/12/2004 4:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Spenlake:
I don’t interpret Paul’s “Lord’s Commandment” in the same way you do. The Lord’s Commandment, and what Paul was teaching to the church, was to Love God, and to love your neighbor as yourself. There must be specific and delicate application of that and we are given the ability to make judgments about that by the power of the Holy Spirit. So, I don’t literally take everything that Paul teaches at face value. However, there is an application for everything that Paul teaches. For example; women covering their heads translates into modesty.
This temperament should support your and my view on slavery, that it is not in itself sinful.
I believe this is consistent with Paul’s teaching in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 10:23, 24. “All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own good but that of his neighbor.”
In the time that Paul was speaking, he was using slavery itself as a metaphor of how we should submit to God. No slave is greater than his master. In this context, Paul’s hearers interpreted that to mean that we must acquire something much greater than good deeds.
I believe the same goes for polygamy. It IS gross from our western perspective. But it is not unlawful. And in a time when men are dying in war, it is better to provide for widows than to let them waste away. Tigress, I think that most all women around the world would agree with you. Even Muslim women… they are known to put their foot down at the arbitrary taking of a second wife. But we also know that many women are oppressed by their husbands in their own homes. This is not unique to any society.
Wahoo | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/12/2004 4:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Great reply Wahoo.
I believe in the concept of liberty. Where God hasn't specifically stated something to be a sin or omission of something to be a sin - we have freedom. Each person can choose according to their own conscience and do so unto the Lord. I bristle when I believe that men go too far and call an action sin that God has given us liberty in. The action may be stupid, unprofitable, short-sighted, etc. but we can do it if we wish with no threat of sin. But once we call an action a sin, sin separates us from God and is very serious. The man who calls an action a sin that God hasn't is a false prophet in that he is falsely claiming to speak for God Himself. Only God has the authority to define "sin."
This was the issue that Jesus was most agressive about concerning the Pharisees. He castigates them for elevating Man's words above God's words. Mark 7:1 contrasts the Jewish Talmud of Man's words to the Law of the Torah. Jesus' statement is very strong, claiming that their worship is in vain. Traditions of men are not sin either unless they attempt to define sin and set themselves above the Law of God.
"The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem, and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.) The Pharisees and the scribes asked* Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?” And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’
“Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 4/12/2004 5:01 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
Victory,
Why is slavery singled out?
The issue of slavery, and particularly, AMERICAN slavery is singled out because, first, that was the initial post that started this thread and this discussion, and second, you advocated a document that was in support of the abusive American slavery system and that used the Bible itself to jusify it.
JOhn and others already explained to you the difference between slvaery during the time that the Bible (specifically the NT) was being written and the system of slvaery in the USA. BIg diff. Now you claim that you recognize that the Bible speaks against the atrocities done in the American slavery system, but you have yet to recognize that those atrocities were very much INTRINSIC to the American and European slave trade. By closing a blind eye to this you can continue to rail about how "Biblical" slavery is and not recant your posting such a horrible document that "christianized" the American/European slave trade.
Spen, be honest with me: if you lived back then in that America, would you or would you not have had slaves? Would you have joined with those anti-abolitionists you seem to support who justified American slavery?
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 4/12/2004 5:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Wahoo wrote:
"I believe the same goes for polygamy. It IS gross from our western perspective. But it is not unlawful. And in a time when men are dying in war, it is better to provide for widows than to let them waste away. Tigress, I think that most all women around the world would agree with you. Even Muslim women… they are known to put their foot down at the arbitrary taking of a second wife. But we also know that many women are oppressed by their husbands in their own homes. This is not unique to any society."
Tigress' response:
I just don't understand why God didn't come up with another system to take care of the women like they did in the New Testament. In the NT the Christians took care of the widows and unmarried women by sharing all they had with them - not by making the women share one husband with each other.
I mean, every time I read the story about how David took Abigail to be his wife, I think it's great for them, but certainly not for the wife or wives he already had. Plus, his wife Michal made the mistake (sin) of judging him for his dancing nude in the street before people, so she was never able to have children again, and I think part of that is because he probably didn't want to be intimate with her anymore, in addition to God's curse on her. But, if he didn't have any other wives, he would have been forced to do the right thing and work on his relationship with her, instead of just being able to go to another woman and enjoy her at the expense of Michal.
I mean, look how miserable Rachel and Leah were to have to share their husband with each other. Leah's wedding night must have been so wonderful when he thought she was Rachel but after that it must have been awful to see how he only went through the motions with her to do the right thing, but he didn't really even want her. (Her father was the one who commanded her to deceive him, so it wasn't entirely her fault either as she had to obey her father in order to obey God.)
I just can't understand why God didn't find a better way to take care of the women.
Tigress 
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/12/2004 5:16 AM (GMT -6) | |
A favorite passge that Southerners used to argue against the abolitionists was the following:
1 Timothy 6
6:1 Those who are under the yoke as slaves must regard their own masters as deserving of full respect. This will prevent the name of God and Christian teaching from being discredited. 6:2 But those who have believing masters must not show them less respect because they are brothers. Instead they are to serve all the more, because those who benefit from their service are believers and dearly loved.6 Teach them and exhort them about these things. 6:3 If someone spreads false teachings and does not agree with sound words (that is, those of our Lord Jesus Christ) and with the teaching that accords with godliness, 6:4 he is conceited and understands nothing, but has an unhealthy interest in controversies and verbal disputes. This gives rise to envy, dissension, slanders, evil suspicions, 6:5 and constant bickering by people corrupted in their minds and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a way of making a profit. 6:6 Now godliness combined with contentment brings great profit. 6:7 For we have brought nothing into this world and so we cannot take a single thing out either. 6:8 But if we have food and shelter, we will be satisfied with that.11 6:9 Those who long to be rich, however, stumble into temptation and a trap and many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evils. Some people in reaching for it have strayed from the faith and stabbed themselves with many pains.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 4/12/2004 5:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Romanticism has warped God's original covenant. Surely we are supposed to fall in love, but the ideals that marriage is a cinderella story do not play out. Marriage is a covenant first and then because we are loving creatures(God's image) then it becomes an intimate and fulfilling relationship. We've got it backwards in the West and that is evidenced by the soaring divorce rate.
Polygamy is not best for everyone, but it is not condemned, except by the West.
Wahoo | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 4/12/2004 5:21 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Wahoo
Romanticism has warped God's original covenant. Surely we are supposed to fall in love, but the ideals that marriage is a cinderella story do not play out. Marriage is a covenant first and then because we are loving creatures(God's image) then it becomes an intimate and fulfilling relationship. We've got it backwards in the West and that is evidenced by the soaring divorce rate.
Polygamy is not best for everyone, but it is not condemned, except by the West.
Wahoo
Wahoo,
If the reverse were true and there were less women to go around than men, would you still think it was acceptable for a woman to take many husbands? How would you feel if you had to share your wife with other men?
Also, regarding romanticism, that is the ideal actually, as is fully evidenced by the book of Song of Solomon (Songs). There God shows and feels romantic love towards His Bride and vice versa. This is the example for all people individually in their marriages. People don't want to be intimate with someone just because it's the right thing to do. Nor does someone want a spouse who's only doing it because it's the right thing to do. People want someone who truly wants him/her because of true romantic feelings in addition to being committed to being committed. That's what free will is. Love, commitment and intimacy happen out of free will and true feelings, and not by compulsion and a sense of doing the right thing. That's pretty much what Open Theism says, too, does it not?
Tigress
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/12/2004 5:24 AM (GMT -6) | | I think that there is an indication that monogamy is preferred. We see in both Timothy and Titus that the leaders that they were installed were not to be multi-wifed but have one. The "why" doesn't appear to me to be specified. It doesn't say the other is sinful, it doesn't say why. Perhaps polygamy is simly like divorce, the result of our hard hearts?
1 Tim 3:2, "An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,
1 Tim 3:12, "Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households."
Titus 1:5, "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion."
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 4/12/2004 5:24 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
A favorite passge that Southerners used to argue against the abolitionists was the following:
1 Timothy 6
6:1 Those who are under the yoke as slaves must regard their own masters as deserving of full respect. This will prevent the name of God and Christian teaching from being discredited. 6:2 But those who have believing masters must not show them less respect because they are brothers. Instead they are to serve all the more, because those who benefit from their service are believers and dearly loved.6 Teach them and exhort them about these things. 6:3 If someone spreads false teachings and does not agree with sound words (that is, those of our Lord Jesus Christ) and with the teaching that accords with godliness, 6:4 he is conceited and understands nothing, but has an unhealthy interest in controversies and verbal disputes. This gives rise to envy, dissension, slanders, evil suspicions, 6:5 and constant bickering by people corrupted in their minds and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a way of making a profit. 6:6 Now godliness combined with contentment brings great profit. 6:7 For we have brought nothing into this world and so we cannot take a single thing out either. 6:8 But if we have food and shelter, we will be satisfied with that.11 6:9 Those who long to be rich, however, stumble into temptation and a trap and many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evils. Some people in reaching for it have strayed from the faith and stabbed themselves with many pains.
The plantation owners were obviously slighting over the latter parts of this passage. Its so blatantly obvious that the plantation owners used the passage to demand obedience from slaves, with no regard for Paul's intended meaning and the historical context.
Wahoo | | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 4/12/2004 5:28 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
Wahoo,
If the reverse were true and there were less women to go around than men, would you still think it was acceptable for a woman to take many husbands? How would you feel if you had to share your wife with other men?
I never said that I found polygamy acceptable, I even went so far to say that it wasn't the "best". I do think that's "gross" as I stated earlier. Why do you ask me this as if I were condoning it?
Wahoo | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/12/2004 5:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Wahoo,
Race relations became so embittered during Reconstruction that many ex-slaves, at the end of their life, said they preferred the slave days to their existing situation. There were indeed bad masters in the South, just as there are bad husbands, parents, and governments now. But there were also benevolent ones, like Jeff Davis.
Tigress,
There is a law in the Old Testament that required a brother to raise up seed in his deceased brother's name if the deceased brother died without an heir. This would, in many cases, necessitate polygamy. Thus, polygamy may have been allowed for that reason alone. After all, that's why Abraham took another wife - to get a male heir. If so, it would be wrong to practice it now. But I still think it's difficult to conclude, that if a polygamist converts, that he should divorce any of his wives. That is still not clear to me.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 4/12/2004 5:51 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Wahoo,
Race relations became so embittered during Reconstruction that many ex-slaves, at the end of their life, said they preferred the slave days to their existing situation. There were indeed bad masters in the South, just as there are bad husbands, parents, and governments now. But there were also benevolent ones, like Jeff Davis.
I understand that there were alot more bad vibes than just the slave issue when it came to the Civil War. But why did the South become so embittered towards African Americans? I am submitting a theory that they imprinted their bitterness in losing the war to their white victors but passed the rage to thier former slaves. That doesn't sound like a healthy spirituality to me.
Also, I have been in authority over people before and I know how the power can get to your head. All of the sudden these slaves were equals. A grandiose year of Jubilee. But the former slave holders wouldn't accept that.
Bottom line- The imperialist/colonialist slave owners were not practicing slavery as a means of redemption for the dissenfranchised. They saw the profit in kidnapping vulnerable people and making them labor, for the owner's profit.
Wahoo | | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 4/12/2004 5:54 AM (GMT -6) | | jefscot,
I would like to read about Jefferson Davis' benevolence and any other source that you have. It is fascinating. Any leads? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 4/12/2004 5:58 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Wahoo
quote:
Originally posted by Tigress
Wahoo,
If the reverse were true and there were less women to go around than men, would you still think it was acceptable for a woman to take many husbands? How would you feel if you had to share your wife with other men?
I never said that I found polygamy acceptable, I even went so far to say that it wasn't the "best". I do think that's "gross" as I stated earlier. Why do you ask me this as if I were condoning it?
Wahoo
Wahoo,
Sorry, I guess I just wasn't absolutely sure about your opinion. I get very upset about this issue probably because I'm a woman and had I lived during those times, would have had to deal with this issue. I think you can never really understand how a person feels about something unless you're a member of that gender or race. Since you're not a woman, I wasn't sure if you were fully comprehending the horror that polygamy would be like for a woman. And I'm assuming that you're not black, (I'm not either) so neither of us can fully comprehend how horrible it would be to realize that you could have been enslaved only 140 years ago, or even now if slavery hadn't been abolished.
Jefscot,
Just because former slaves had such a difficult time during Reconstruction and that some even thought slavery was preferable to their current predicament, doesn't mean that slavery is always best. White treatment of freed blacks should not have been as bad as it was during Reconstruction. Neither slavery nor the poor treatment of blacks afterward was right.
I think we're forgetting that God freed Israel from slavery in Egypt not only because they were His people but also because slavery is wrong. Israel was an example for the world. God freed them from physcial slavery as a symbol of freeing us from spiritual slavery (slavery to sin and death). Both types of slavery are wrong and never God's intention for humans. Christians are to reverse what Satan started which is slavery and polygamy, because they were never God's intent. We're to be the light of the world that makes the darkness flee, and slavery and polygamy are parts of the darkness.
Tigress
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Wahoo
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 142
| Posted 4/12/2004 6:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Tigress (and others),
Sorry if I sounded unsypmathetic. I tend to go right for what I see as the underlying attitudes instead of engaging people. That is stereotypical of me to do that and I'm sorry that I confused you.
I did want to address the general attitude from secularists that the Bible contradicts itself. So many times people accept sweeping statements that Christians and the Bible are imperialist and narrow-minded. By showing how people of the East and in that historical context found such things acceptable, I hope to generate a better understanding of those things. Less dissonance equals better communication of the gospel.
Wahoo | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/12/2004 7:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Wahoo,
Here are a couple of links to look at (hope they work right):
http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/PoliticsAndPoliticians/jeffersonfinisdavis.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/188576717X/qid=1081789181/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2_xs_stripbooks_i2_xgl14/104-6950198-4205568?v=glance&s=books
But concerning history, the North was in ways more racist than the South - and I would contend still is. There were all kinds of black codes in Northern states. Oregon didn't allow black residents at first. Illinois had some really radical anti-black legislation - most of which Lincoln supported (Please read "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas Dilorenzo; or check out his posts to Lewrockwell.com). Thus, when Reconstruction started, the South knew that the enfranchisement of blacks and disenfranchisement of whites in the South (NOT THE NORTH) was done purely to keep political power for the new Republican Party. The history is complex, but the bottom line is - corrupt politicians created discord to advance their own power and interests - much as they do today.
The slave trade had been stopped years before the war fever got brewing really good. People were inheriting and buying slaves that were already in the country. BTW, the laws in the North which stopped slavery there, allowed THOSE slave owners to sell their slaves to the South - real benevolent, huh! Virtually all of the slave TRADE was done by the North. And Congress compensated the slave-owners of DC during the War - no such luck for the wicked Southerners.
Moreover, I've read that most slaves were not kidnapped (which is clearly evil), but bought from African warlords who had already enslaved them. I personally, am not convinced that being born into slavery is a legitimate practice, but if slavery was practiced that way in the Roman empire, Paul would have condemned it if it was wrong - for he taught the "whole counsel of God." And Israel was allowed to keep Gentile slaves indefinitely - i.e., from birth. The Southern slave owners used these facts to justify their practices.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 4/12/2004 8:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Tigress,
Regarding polygamy, I believe your observations show that it is not the ideal way for marriage as God intended it.
Every example in the Bible of polygamy (Jacob, David, Solomon, etc.) mades things more complicated and worse rather than the opposite. However, God for some reason tolerated it. Why? I probably do not have sufficient answers for that. Again, I feel it has to do with in part to God's working within a culture norm and because the people weren't "ready" for God's ideal ("The law brought me knowledge of sin, but did nothing to remove it...should we sin then to let grace abound? By no means!" [Romans].).
Something that Westerners cannot fathom completely is the inherit "class structure" between the sexes. There really wasn't a Title IX in the ancient world and it was accepted as such. Men could own property (including slaves); women couldn't. Men could vote; women couldn't. And so on. Is this fair? Perhaps not, but God has "allowed" the governments of this world to make those decisions and we ought to be subserviant to these laws unless they violate what God says (e.g. not to pray).
Understand that most women who do not live in an "equal" society do not consider themselves cheated. Even recently, in the former Soviet Union, many women were puzzled by the concept of being a "feminist". There was not good translation. Their thinking was, "Why (as a woman) would you want to be like a man?" Just as in some countries that do not share the same amount of freedoms as we do, they do not consider themselves "oppressed".
However, despite this apparent chauvonistic slant by God, if you notice in the Bible, God reserved his harshest criticisms for MEN regarding the issue of male/female relationships. Even though Eve first bit the fruit, God asked for Adam first. Jesus said that a man who divorces his wife causes her to become an adulteress (because the only way divorced women could make money [it was taboo to marry a divorced woman in that time] was to become a prostitue) and mentions little about the woman being "wrong" (although it still is). And Paul said that someone who does not take care of his own family is worse than unbeliever.
So I would say that as much as it seems we have more "perks" than women, we have a much higher God-given responsibility which I dare say I've known more women to fulfill better than men.
"I say we blast the meatbag, Master" -HK-47, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 4/12/2004 9:01 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laplace
Tigress,
Regarding polygamy, I believe your observations show that it is not the ideal way for marriage as God intended it.
Every example in the Bible of polygamy (Jacob, David, Solomon, etc.) mades things more complicated and worse rather than the opposite. However, God for some reason tolerated it. Why? I probably do not have sufficient answers for that. Again, I feel it has to do with in part to God's working within a culture norm and because the people weren't "ready" for God's ideal ("The law brought me knowledge of sin, but did nothing to remove it...should we sin then to let grace abound? By no means!" [Romans].).
Something that Westerners cannot fathom completely is the inherit "class structure" between the sexes. There really wasn't a Title IX in the ancient world and it was accepted as such. Men could own property (including slaves); women couldn't. Men could vote; women couldn't. And so on. Is this fair? Perhaps not, but God has "allowed" the governments of this world to make those decisions and we ought to be subserviant to these laws unless they violate what God says (e.g. not to pray).
We must obey laws even if they're cruel and inhumane like taking multiple wives, etc.? I don't buy that. Jesus turned the laws upside-down with His decent treatment of women. He showed men to treat the women exactly the way I'm saying they should be treated. He knew that some man-made laws were wrong. To love your neighbor - and your neighbors are also women - is not to take more than one wife! It's to love and respect the one wife you have by being satisfied with her alone and contributing to the welfare of other women in other ways like through charity, etc.
quote:
Understand that most women who do not live in an "equal" society do not consider themselves cheated. Even recently, in the former Soviet Union, many women were puzzled by the concept of being a "feminist". There was not good translation. Their thinking was, "Why (as a woman) would you want to be like a man?" Just as in some countries that do not share the same amount of freedoms as we do, they do not consider themselves "oppressed".
Just because some women don't see things a certain way, doesn't mean it's okay. Just like I said before about how freed slaves thought slavery was better than the conditions afterward, doesn't make it right. Neither situation is right. I would venture to guess that the freed slaves who said that were saying it to make a point - not expressing a desire to go back to the oppression of slavery.
Also, the Israelites whined and complained about their conditions in the desert, saying that they wanted to go back into bondage because they considered that better than their current condition, but God knew that they were wrong - and so should we.
quote:
However, despite this apparent chauvonistic slant by God, if you notice in the Bible, God reserved his harshest criticisms for MEN regarding the issue of male/female relationships. Even though Eve first bit the fruit, God asked for Adam first. Jesus said that a man who divorces his wife causes her to become an adulteress (because the only way divorced women could make money [it was taboo to marry a divorced woman in that time] was to become a prostitue) and mentions little about the woman being "wrong" (although it still is). And Paul said that someone who does not take care of his own family is worse than unbeliever.
So I would say that as much as it seems we have more "perks" than women, we have a much higher God-given responsibility which I dare say I've known more women to fulfill better than men.
Finally I'm not talking about "perks." I'm talking about being treated as humanely as a man would be treated. I don't want or expect to be treated better than a man - only the same as a man - meaning to not have to share a husband with other women.
Tigress
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 4/12/2004 10:08 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Personally, I would prefer the life of one of Jeff Davis' slaves to living in some American slums where moral degradation is the norm. That's my only point.
That's exactly how Satan operates. After a person is redeemed from his slavery and brought into the Kingdom of God's dear Son, they often face a few trials. The thoughts that came to their head are, "Wow, remember when you were in the world? You had all that your flesh can indulge in. I fed you with the finest drugs, plenty of sex with just about anyone you wanted, nice material goods. Yet God won't let you have any of that. Look at you suffering for 'the gospel's sake."
Anywa, I believe most African Americans and any other ethnic group that has ever experienced slavery would tell you that they would rather have a chance to make it on their own than to be in "owned" by some man. Personally, the only one who I want to own me is Jesus Christ.
This Jeff Davis sounds like an urban legend made up by a bunch of southern racists who would rather go back to "the way things were." Just like Davy Crockett. Real person, fake or truth stretched stories. Probably the same with this "Jeff Davis" person.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 4/12/2004 10:19 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Tigress,
I didn't mean to suggest that the fact that many slaves preferred the slave days to the post-Reconstruction days proved anything about the justice of slavery - it is the Bible alone that can do that. I was merely making the point that benevolent slavery is not the absolute horror that everyone seems to think. Would Paul of entertained the thought of returning Onesimus to Philemon if it was? Personally, I would prefer the life of one of Jeff Davis' slaves to living in some American slums where moral degradation is the norm. That's my only point.
And it just goes to show there is a relativism here as to what is the worst condition to be in. I've heard or oriental women who have no problem with their arranged marriages. Can you imagine an American woman thinking that? Part of that relativity is due to our own personal constitution and some of it is due to our culture. The Bible should trump both for Christians.
Yeah but just because there's a relativism about preferences, doesn't mean that God is truly okay with it. I mean some people like to have "open" marriages where they can have sex with all sorts of people while still having a single spouse. Some people like to do a lot of things with their spouses that God wouldn't approve of like using pornography, strippers, bondage, masochism and anal sex (which is unhealthy as evidenced by the fact that the anus gets torn and bleeds. It's not like a woman's vagina which can handle continuous intercourse even if it bleeds the first time upon losing virginity.) Just because some people are okay with a certain practice doesn't make it okay with God.
As has been pointed out here, God considers divorce a sin, but allowed it in Moses' time to deal with the hardened people, in order to show fairness to women. But, when Jesus came, there was a better way for all. When Jesus came, the Holy Spirit led married people to work out their differences with their spouses and led people to help the widowed and single women. I just can't understand why God didn't command the people in Moses' time and thereafter to help these women in that way, also. I mean, He commanded the Israelites to help the foreigner's in Israel by allowing them to glean their fields, and to show great hospitality to them. He commanded them to free their slaves after every seven years. Why didn't He just command them to provide for the widowed and unmarried, too?
Tigress
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 4/12/2004 10:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Interesting words from Charles G. Finney, who was one of America's most successful revivalists, soulwinner and Evangelists, and who was also a very staunch ABOLITIONIST:
Again: This sin is committed where persons make self-justifying, God-condemning excuses for their sins. Thus some grope on in darkness, error, and distress of mind from year to year, because, instead of taking the blame of sin to themselves, they make excuses which virtually throw it upon God. This is grieving the Spirit. Every selfish person--every one who is set upon the promotion of his own interests instead of the promotion of God's glory grieves the Spirit of God. Such an act is a virtual apostacy from God. They have professedly committed themselves to God, and have no right to do anything but for him. A man can never enjoy communion with God while in pursuit of any selfish ends--while he seeks things merely for his own pleasure, and not for God. If you do this you virtually take back your consecration to God, and devote yourself to your own interests. It matters not at all in what manner you may excuse yourselves for so doing; you have no excuse; and especially is this the case where light has been poured upon the subject. Now, who can suppose, that in these days, such a man as John Newton could, even for a time, continue in the slave-trade without some compunctions of conscience? But suppose he should have no recourse to the Bible, and ask, "Were there not slaves in the days of the New Testament?" Why did not Christ denounce it? Slavery was known to the Apostles, Why did not they denounce it, if it were so wicked?
This is easily enough answered. But suppose men justify the slave-trade in this way? And in the Southern States of America this is very common. They forget that Christ had a previous question to settle before he could make any direct attack on the several sorts of sin. When Christ came into the world, instead of his mission being acknowledged, he had to debate every inch of ground. His divinity and divine mission demanded primary attention; it was necessary that the world should first recognize his authority to lay down regulations, and prohibit practices. It would have been utterly out of place for him to have attempted to set right social questions before he had established his authority to interfere with such matters. Again: it is said the Apostles did not denounce slavery. They, too, had a great question which demanded their first attention. They had to establish the fact of Christ's resurrection, divinity, and messiahship, as well as the divine authority of their own commission. This being done, they would naturally commend to the world the Scriptures of truth, and let them tell what things are right and what are wrong. Now, who does not see that it is a selfish evasion for a slaveholder to talk thus? It would have been absurd for him to have denounced any particular sins without establishing his authority to denounce sin at all.
Suppose a man in this country should attempt thus to justify slavery, you would not go with him. When light is poured upon this question, it becomes a heinous offense, and no man can pursue it without forfeiting his right to be called or treated as a Christian. I can recollect the time when we all thought the use of ardent spirits was necessary--we all thought no one could do without them; but by and by, the question was taken up. Many resisted. It was the rising or falling of many in Israel. Many rose up in resistance and sin quenched the Holy Ghost--and where are they? A desolation has come over some of their churches through taking wrong grounds on this question.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
| 62 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:51 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|