Freethought & Rationalism Archive

countjulian · 07-08-2006, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Sure it did. That's the point. On it's face its theology contradicted slavery because it posited that every human was the a child of God. Leaving aside the fact that Paul says explicitly that there is no slave or freeman in Christ, this new way of looking at humanity ultimately lead to the anti-slavery movement in Europe and America, which as an historical fact was almost exclusively a Christian movement.

But so did Stoicism. The 3 Discourse of Epictetus (Book 1) is even entitled "What Can We Conclude from the Doctrine that God is the Father of Mankind?" In it, he says

Quote:

1. If a man should be able to assent to this doctrine as he ought, that we are all sprung from God in an especial manner, and that God is the father both of men and of gods, I suppose that he would never have any ignoble or mean thoughts about himself. 2. But if Caesar should adopt you, no one could endure your arrogance; and if you know that you are the son of Zeus, will you not be elated?

You also ignored my posts on slavery in the New Testament, as well as the fact that in pre-Civil War South the Bible was used to uphold slavery, and indeed the Quakers and other antislavery groups had "no arrows in their quiver" when Southerners quoted verses like

Quote:

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

1 Timothy 6:1-3 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;"

The fact is, the only verse in the Bible that could possibly be interpreted to be against slavery is in Deuteronomy, a book which Christians such as yourself usually refuse to even acknowledge. That verse was, by the way, abrogated by the the New Testament.

Quote:

1 Peter 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

It's pretty safe to say that without Christianity slavery would have been abolished much sooner. Just listen to what the slavery advocates said

Quote:

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

As a student of American history, I can tell you that you are just plain wrong. Slavery was upheld by the Bible, and the only reason abolitionists were Christians is because EVERYONE at that time was a Christian.

And you did not retort to any of my other points on Stoicism.

Ben C Smith · 07-08-2006, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You misunderstand Tacitus. As I said, there were different status provinces. Syria was a big one, at the proconsular level. They didn't call the ruler a proconsul though, because the emperor was officially only a permanent proconsul and someone of the same status wouldn't serve another -- hence the name game. Syria was an A grade province so to speak, while Judea after Archelaus was a C grade province, you know, one run by a prefect (and we're talking about a praefectus civitatium). It was under the wing of Syria. And serious disturbance was dealt with by Syria, because there were only a few cohorts in Judea and a prefect didn't have the power to wield more.

When H.Agrippa died the province would have gone into the hands of Syria, until the appointed procurator sent by Claudius could take over.

Tacitus has it right.

That is an interesting take on things. I agree with most of what you said about provincial status and such, but I do not see why a kingdom after the death of its king would default to Syria. What is your primary evidence for this? Whatever it is, Syme seems to have been unaware of it, as he calls this a Tacitean error.

Ben.

andrewcriddle · 07-08-2006, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by countjulian

Without wanting abolition, I hardly see how you could get more radical. At a council in Spain in 313, the church decided that maid who beat their slaves to death were to be punished with, get this, 1 year without communion! OMG! That's tough Christiant anti-slavery.

I think you mean the council of Elvira in c 306,
If so it was somewhat tougher than in your account.
http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Ca...viraCanons.htm

Quote:

If a woman beats her servant and causes death within three days, she shall undergo seven years' penance if the injury was inflicted on purpose and five years' if it was accidental. She shall not receive communion during this penance unless she becomes ill. If so, she may receive communion.

Andrew Criddle

countjulian · 07-09-2006, 08:37 AM

Could we get back on topic? Thank you. Maybe the thread needs to be split into SCS or PD.

Johnny Skeptic · 07-09-2006, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by countjulian

Could we get back on topic? Thank you. Maybe the t
thread needs to be split into SCS or PD.

I'm sorry. I agree. Either SCS, PD, or GRD if Solo wishes to continue discussing fundamentalist Christians.

Amaleq13 · 07-10-2006, 09:22 AM

The tangent discussion can now be found here:

Fundamentalist Christians Pervert Science

spin · 07-11-2006, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

That is an interesting take on things. I agree with most of what you said about provincial status and such, but I do not see why a kingdom after the death of its king would default to Syria. What is your primary evidence for this? Whatever it is, Syme seems to have been unaware of it, as he calls this a Tacitean error.

It should be obvious that Syria being the nearest Roman centre of importance -- remember proconsular status, three legions, etc. -- would have taken control for the interim.

spin

Ben C Smith · 07-11-2006, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

That is an interesting take on things. I agree with most of what you said about provincial status and such, but I do not see why a kingdom after the death of its king would default to Syria. What is your primary evidence for this? Whatever it is, Syme seems to have been unaware of it, as he calls this a Tacitean error.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It should be obvious that Syria being the nearest Roman centre of importance -- remember proconsular status, three legions, etc. -- would have taken control for the interim.

Okay, so which primary sources make this inference obvious?

Ben.

Solo · 07-11-2006, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

More importantly, Paul's argument is against Jewish Christians (or, more aptly, "Judaizers." People who wished the Gentiles in the community to accept circumcision).....

Regards,
Rick Sumner

I disagree. Paul obviously considers his Christology superior to Judaism of the law, but I don't see that has problem with the latter. His boom is lowered against the Jewish Gnostic cackle around Cephas, the hypocrites who preach the law but do not keep it. It is against them he invokes 'the scandal' of the cross. He never criticizes the saints around the ascetic James. Correct me if I am wrong.

JS

Mythra · 07-11-2006, 08:04 AM

Hmm. It seems to me that the bulk of Galatians, which is deemed to be authentically Pauline, was written in opposition to the "perfecters of the flesh", those who insisted on following jewish traditions and customs.

Much of the anti-gnostic flavor and vitriol is in the Pastorals. Which are believed to be second-century, and pseudo-Pauline.

Correct me if I'm wrong. (I do my best learning while in the process of removing portions of my size 13 foot from my mouth)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-09-2006, 08:37 AM	#144
countjulian Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the torture chambers of Pinochet's Chile Posts: 2,112	Could we get back on topic? Thank you. Maybe the thread needs to be split into SCS or PD.

07-10-2006, 09:22 AM	#146
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	The tangent discussion can now be found here: Fundamentalist Christians Pervert Science

07-11-2006, 08:04 AM	#150
Mythra Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: BFE Posts: 416	Hmm. It seems to me that the bulk of Galatians, which is deemed to be authentically Pauline, was written in opposition to the "perfecters of the flesh", those who insisted on following jewish traditions and customs. Much of the anti-gnostic flavor and vitriol is in the Pastorals. Which are believed to be second-century, and pseudo-Pauline. Correct me if I'm wrong. (I do my best learning while in the process of removing portions of my size 13 foot from my mouth)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.