PoodleLovinPessimist

Assuming the translation is accurate...

• Peter explicitly issues an command to slaves to accept their slavery; The text is in the imperative voice.
• Peter explicitly justifies slavery; it is praiseworthy to endure punishment for doing good.

Additionally, Peter does not say, "Masters, free your slaves." If one is going to speak at all about slavery and not say exactly that in so many words, I just can't see how one is not endorsing slavery.

I'll repeat my point about what was and wasn't possible in the ancient world: It's irrelevant. This is the book that is purported to speak to all people at all times, expressing the universal, objective and perpetual moral values decreed by God. The followers of Christianity were expected to endure martyrdom and death; if you're already going to be martyred, you might as well be on the right side of slavery as well.

I personally (as an atheist) think that it's fairly obvious that the book is indeed limited in applicability to ancient times; that's one important reason I don't think it's divinely inspired.

Johnny Scholar

Extramarital sex and other "pagan" acts were behaviors in direct violation to the moral code of Judaism as well as against the prescribed behavior or newly converted Jews (via Jerusalem Council) that could be avoided by the Christians.

Slavery was a situation that Christian slaves could not just "avoid."

However, your point is well taken. You'd think that when Peter and Paul spoke to the masters of slaves, they would have judged them for their evil and told them to reform, rather than just tell them to "play nice."

PoodleLovinPessimist

No argument there! :thumbs:

Chris Weimer

Which is why no intelligent Christian should ever hold the belief that Paul or Peter had any authority.

Chili

But Peter was the first Pope and his insight was to be the rock of salvation.

Chris Weimer

Where's proof that Peter was the first Pope? I say it is just Catholic tradition. Got any evidence to support your claim?

Oh wait, it's you Chili. Nevermind. I see where you're getting at.

MortalWombat

Poverty was a situation that poor people couldn't avoid either, but that didn't stop Jesus from telling rich people to sell all they have and give to the poor on several occasions. Surely he could have slipped in a "...and free your slaves while you're at it." Presumably selling all you had would include selling any slaves you had, if you had them.

Johnny Scholar

This is a very good point. I almost mentioned it, but it would have done a fair amount of damage to my argument. I've got to teach this stuff in Sunday School. Hehe.

Johnny Scholar

Curious, too, as Dan Barker affirms, that Jesus did not speak against the racism and sexism of his day.

I'm glad you brought this up. I think the likewise refers to the passage about masters and slaves.

I am thoroughly offended my Peter and Paul's sexism. When I was a fundie, I had no problem throwing this shit in the faces of my female laypersons.

However, now I am repulsed when I read it, and troubled when I prepare an outline to teach it.

Listen to me... I'm arguing that they are not racist-- but if they are sexist, why bother trying to vindicate them of other gross prejudices?

Johnny Scholar

Their economy relied heavily on slavery. There was no option of total emancipation.