Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TamerVirus]

Biggus Dickus
Bondage
Domination

[Naturegirl1999]

Oh

[Dunamisdeos]

Tamervirus is also your friend for giving you a heads up.

Eschar is the villain here.

[Naturegirl1999]

The internet is an odd olace

[scriver]

Yeah, No. He went out of his way to specifically say that he's writing this letter not as the leader of all Christianity, or as someone who is giving an order, but as an old man in jail. The first third of the letter is him letting him know he's not trying to strong-arm him.

Do you know the meaning of the saying "a king is not easy denied"? An authority do not need to use it's authority to strong-arm people into doing what he wants. The authority is known.

Additionally, it's not because he's "like a son to him". You've altered the wording, and therefore changed the meaning. It says "who is my son, who became my son while I was in chains". He didn't adopt the man, so what does this mean? Older translations even use the phrasing "begat in my bonds". He's is very clearly referring him as a new Christian, aka born again, aka easily the most common euphemism for converting to Christianity.

The idea that Paul would ask his friend to free this man becuase it's the right thing to do. "no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord." He does not simply appeal to him based on Onesimus' new status as a Christian, or as a person he cares for, but simply as a human being. Even the mere sentiment given here is in direct opposition to the concept of slavery.

I am aware. This is literally the thinking behind the idea that "No Christian can keep a Christian as a slave, but it's totally okay to enslave anyone who isn't Christian" that I mentioned above. He is telling him to free one slave because that one person matters to him. It does not speak out against slavery. It does not say keeping slaves is immoral. You are still reading the text and seeing what you want to find and ignoring anything that you can't fit to your own opinions.

And no, I don't think there's an argument to be had in that a person who visibly does not follow the tenets of Christianity is not, in fact, a Christian. Therefore the concept of Christianity inherently supporting slavery is in fact a filly valid and direct argument that a person who is aware of the fact that Christianity does not support slavery or racism and still supports slavery or racism is not in fact a Christian.

Finally, Jesus Christ the historical figure did not found Christianity. Paul did, based on visions he experienced on the road to Damascus some time after Jesus' death. While Christianity is based on the teachings and ostensible divinity of Jesus, Christianity as a religion as most of itself owed to Paul. He directly wrote (at least) half of the New Testament. Paul's feelings on things such as slavery as he put forth in the sole guide to the will of God on earth should be taken as direct guidelines for Christianity as a whole.

Does this also include his thoughts on other things, like for example women and homosexuality, or do his outdated views suddenly take the backseat to your own enlightened 2019 self there?

Those are the rules for the Us, not the Them. You know, it's by the same nonsense that Islam calls itself the Religion of Peace. It's totally the Religion of Peace, nevermind that it was founded on the waging of war upon everywhere it could. Christianity is totally the Religion of Love, nevermind that it was founded on genocide, hatred and bigotry.

It was founded based on the teaching of a man who hated violence to the point of healing the people hauling him off to be crucified. It was founded by a another man who went from being one of the most violent people in the bible (read about Stephen's stoning, the description of pre-Christian Paul/Saul hauling people out of their homes) to the man who wrote this:

“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them…Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.  If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God…To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

He credits this directly to his experience with Jesus.

“But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life.”

Actions speak louder than words. To use your own saying -- the Bible says we will know them by their fruits, and by their fruits we came to know them. War, hatred, bigotry, genocide, oppression, these are the fruits that grew on the Tree of Christianity. You can't just ignore that whole part of the stem and crown because "my own branch of Christianity, based on modern sentiments and values, is the Only True Christianity and on it grows only love" and then justify that by going back to a tiny letter left on it's roots.

We can easily see the character of this man and apply the context to his other writings. I'm drawing conclusions based on context and research, not re-wordings of snippets of verses.

Again, you literally need to forego research and rely on secondhand information in order to come to the conclusions that you are putting forth.

I don't have a theology degree, but I can reply how it was explained to me by people who do.

[Magistrum]

Paul even goes so far out of his way to offer to take his punishment for him if any is warranted, and offers to pay his debts if any exist.

Not at all. He says "Do not punish him, and forgive his debts, because you owe me this one."

Tn the letter: 17 "If you think of me as a true friend, take him back as you would take me. 18 If he has done anything wrong or owes you anything, send me the bill." - sounds good.
 19 I will pay it. I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will not talk about how much you owe me because you owe me your life. " - sounds not good. "I won't talk about it, but I am talking about it right now, in case you don't remember it."

20 "Yes, Christian brother, I want you to be of use to me as a Christian. Give my heart new joy in Christ. 21 I write this letter knowing you will do what I ask and even more." - Sounds like a mob boss. "I'm writing this because I need you to be useful somehow. Do me a solid. I trust won't make a fuss and mess this up."

[Dunamisdeos]

snip

No, I didn't comment on Paul's views on homosexuality and women, because Paul didn't mention any of those in the slightest. Way to fire off some irrelevant emotionally charged phrases there. But since you brought it up, Paul stated in Galatians 3:28 that "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.".

Not sure why you've taken my comment on my not having a theology degree out of context, but that doesn't preclude my doing research and adding context, as evidenced by the research and context I've presented.

Paul doesn't stick to the logic that you can only enslave Christians, or even present that idea in any way. He does specifically brings up that he should be freed because he is a fellow man. As referenced. The people who followed the logic that non-Christians can be enslaved ended up needing to censor the Bible in order to continue their beliefs, as presented earlier. It's quite obviously, by evidence of their own actions, not in line with biblical doctrine.

My arguments have not been based on modern examples. They have been based on the fully-quoted writings in the Bible, and any references I've included that are not taken directly from the bible are included as references that previous eras of Christianity shared my interpretation, including many leaders of the day.

Not at all. He says "Do not punish him, and forgive his debts, because you owe me this one."

Tn the letter: 17 "If you think of me as a true friend, take him back as you would take me. 18 If he has done anything wrong or owes you anything, send me the bill." - sounds good.
 19 I will pay it. I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will not talk about how much you owe me because you owe me your life. " - sounds not good. "I won't talk about it, but I am talking about it right now, in case you don't remember it."

20 "Yes, Christian brother, I want you to be of use to me as a Christian. Give my heart new joy in Christ. 21 I write this letter knowing you will do what I ask and even more." - Sounds like a mob boss. "I'm writing this because I need you to be useful somehow. Do me a solid. I trust won't make a fuss and mess this up."

Firstly, he literally uses those words. I'm not paraphrasing. "16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.

Second, that is the NLT translation. It's unsuitable for study, and honestly for any kind of reference. It's is openly a translation of a paraphrasing of the Bible. I believe it is also used by *ahem* modern Evangelicals, likely due to it's dumbed-down phrasing of basically everything.

There is no context in the more detailed texts that Philemon actually owed Paul anything in terms of debt. He specifically came to him as a friend. The only "debt" that can be inferred, and this is very speculatively, is that of Paul converting Philemon. In that sense, there is no debt, and the phrase is reduced to a simple banter. He also had no real authority whatsoever for Philemon to be afraid of, he was hardly a King. He was sitting in a Roman Prison. His supposed "authority" was wholly born of a perception of wisdom and morality.

I would challenge anyone reading this thus far to go back through this conversation and decide for yourself which argument relies more on historical reference, biblical research, and presented biblical doctrine for context as it pertains to Christianity as a system of belief and therefore a religion. Believe what you want about God and the meaning of our existence, but there is no case for Christianity as a religion of slavery.

[Rolan7]

snip

No, I didn't comment on Paul's views on homosexuality and women, because Paul didn't mention any of those in the slightest. Way to fire off some irrelevant emotionally charged phrases there. But since you brought it up, Paul stated in Galatians 3:28 that "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.".

Oh dang, saving *that*!  Thanks.
And thanks again for making me aware of Philemon at all.

Firstly, he literally uses those words. I'm not paraphrasing. "16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.

Second, that is the NLT translation. It's unsuitable for study, and honestly for any kind of reference. It's is openly a translation of a paraphrasing of the Bible. I believe it is also used by *ahem* modern Evangelicals, likely due to it's dumbed-down phrasing of basically everything.

There is no context in the more detailed texts that Philemon actually owed Paul anything in terms of debt. He specifically came to him as a friend. The only "debt" that can be inferred, and this is very speculatively, is that of Paul converting Philemon. In that sense, there is no debt, and the phrase is reduced to a simple banter. He also had no real authority whatsoever for Philemon to be afraid of, he was hardly a King. He was sitting in a Roman Prison. His supposed "authority" was wholly born of a perception of wisdom and morality.

I would challenge anyone reading this thus far to go back through this conversation and decide for yourself which argument relies more on historical reference, biblical research, and presented biblical doctrine for context as it pertains to Christianity as a system of belief and therefore a religion. Believe what you want about God and the meaning of our existence, but there is no case for Christianity as a religion of slavery.

I'd like to suggest that maybe this should go to the Railgun thread at this point.  I certainly learned things though.

[Egan_BW]

I would challenge anyone reading this thus far to go back through this conversation and decide for yourself which argument relies more on historical reference, biblical research, and presented biblical doctrine for context as it pertains to Christianity as a system of belief and therefore a religion. Believe what you want about God and the meaning of our existence, but there is no case for Christianity as a religion of slavery.

Thanks to greatorder your comment is the first one I saw when I clicked on the [new] button, and I don't really feel like reading back, so I'll have to decline.

[Dunamisdeos]

Thanks to greatorder your comment is the first one I saw when I clicked on the [new] button, and I don't really feel like reading back, so I'll have to decline.

Forum bugs are the real bad guy.

Quickedit, ninja'd below (lol)
And yeah Rolan7, you right. This isn't really the place for this discussion. That's on me, I went into debate/argue mode first :3

Saying you learned things really makes my week. Thank you, no matter which side of the issue you learned from most.

[Yoink]

My WTF: opening the WTF thread to find a couple pages' worth of religious argument.   

[pikachu17]

My WTF: opening the WTF thread to find a couple pages' worth of religious argument.   

Wait, this is the first time that has happened to you? Huh. Strange it has apparently happened so rarely.

[Yoink]

Oh, no, not by a long shot haha. It's more of a "wtf are you guys doing we have a dedicated thread for this nonsense" kind of WTF.   

[McTraveller]

Christianity is totally the Religion of Love, nevermind that it was founded on genocide, hatred and bigotry.

Dunamisdeos already commented at length on this but... WTF? Are we having a miscommunication on what 'founded' means?  I feel like there is a major fundamental disconnect - taking it all the way to WTF levels.

[Magistrum]

Yeah, Jesus founded of the Church as much as Jean Jaques Rousseau founded the Jacobin club. Yeah, the idea is really comes from the guy, and he is a great inspiration, but the dude has no hand in this.

Further textual criticism and theological bickering in the railgun thread.