Rob, I'm sorry that put words in your mouth and ignored your perfectly valid points. I had no idea it meant so much to you. In the future, I'll be more sensitive, encouraging, and patient.
Bobby On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Robert Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > I think you are assuming that my beliefs are irrational and I know you are > assuming that I implied my beliefs are unaffected by the opinions of > others. I have frequently said that I listen to and respect the opinions of > others. At the end of the day though I'm going to prayerfully make up my > own mind. Frankly, I've lost track of what we're even talking about here. > My relationship with Jesus matters in how I look at scripture. In some > cases, where I have not taken the time to learn further, this is all I > have. I don't think I'm so different from most people in that. I don't use > it as license to justify whatever I want (not to my knowledge anyways). I > "passively" called you out for "arbiting" because I felt you dismissed my > argument by first putting words in my mouth and then ignoring perfectly > valid points as if I never said them. Now who exactly would put much stock > in someone's comments that don't seem to reflect what was actually said? I > don't have the energy to cut and paste it all out over again but I don't > need to because you are putting words into my mouth in this very > discussion. Clearly I am not holding a position that it is "not ok for my > beliefs to be challenged." I had an unexamined belief on Jesus's view of > slavery. You challenged it. I wanted to find out more so I looked up the > other side of the argument as a basis for where my beliefs may have > developed and asked for assistance in reconciling. I have not ducked this > difficult issue in any way. I understand pet peeves as I have my own but I > think it's possible you're seeing something here that's not here. Jeez! now > I am getting defensive!!! grrr.... > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:28:37 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [email protected] > Subject: [crosspointe-discuss] Re: Abortion and Slavery > > > > Dave, > > The basic concept of slavery is that a person is the property of another > person. The slave owner "uses" the slave much like the owner of a tool or > animal uses that tool or animal to do work. In this sense, I see the > concept of slavery as having application in colonial America as well as in > ancient times. Also, indentured servants would be slaves on this > classification. Again, the crucial feature of slavery is that one person is > the property of another person, however they got this status and regardless > of if the status is permanant. The modern West has stressed fundamental > rights, which undermines the possibility of one person being the property of > another. I don't see this kind of mindset in the Bible: one of humans > having fundamental rights. So at this level the scripture is fine with one > person being the property of another, and hence, is fine with > slavery. Slavery in the West -- which did include moral wrongdoing within > it (esp. rape, murder, and cruelty) -- is of course wrong. But this is > seperate from condemning the basic concept of slavery. > > Rob, > > In your initial post, you mentioned my name twice in ways that had passive > suggestions. First, you suggested that I hold no authority as an arbiter of > arguments, which is false. Everyone does, so long as they understand the > normativity of argumentation and apply it correctly. > > You went on to describe your method of subjective interpretation that is > isolated from the rational scrutiny of others; and you implied strongly that > it is a perfectly correct and good method of interpretation. Thus, since I > disagree strongly, I went after your method and tried to offer support that > it is anti-Christian, as I think all subjective interpretation isolated from > the rational scrutiny of others is. Yes, if I'm right, you are on the wrong > side of epistemic normativity. But at times, we are all on the wrong side of > it. This is why we need the community to hold us in check. > > The second time you mentioned me: you had just offered a rationale for a > position that would undercut my position on slavery. Then it appears that > you acknowledge that the rationale probably doesn't hold under rational > scrutiny, and tell me not to go after your rationale (fitting with your > initial suggestion that it's okay to hold a subjective interpretation or > view isolated from the rational scrutiny of others). So it really looks > like you hold (or held) a position like this: "I can hold any position I > like, so long as it reflects my current beliefs and as long as it seems that > Jesus is fine with my holding it. It is not okay for people to challenge my > personal beliefs. My personal beliefs are between Jesus and me." I went > after you and your position because it is my pet peeve. This kind > of antirational isolation leads people to think that Christianity > is subjective and non-rational, when our roots stem from Jesus and Paul, who > were as objective and rational as you can get. Jesus gave massive evidence > for his Messiahship and reasoned frequently with people (from the time he > was a kid until after he rose from the dead). Paul argued from the > scripture and from his experience for everything he asserted. He even > rationally defended he apostleship. He didn't defend it on subjective, > non-rational grounds. Rather, he gave evidence for his apostleship and > rested it on reason. > > The subjective non-rational method is also at odds with Jesus' and the > Apostles' teachings concerning discipleship and false teaching. The > apostles specifically told us not to listen to teachings that were contrary > to theirs. But they definitely told us to listen to teachings that were > expositions of theirs. That is why I was alarmed when you shrugged off what > I said in the last thread. It's not as if you explained why my positions on > these topics are not correct. You just shrugged off what I had said like a > kid who shrugs of his parents' or principal's authority by saying, "I don't > accept your authority and there's nothing you can do about it." In > a sense, I could care less if you accept my "authority," but in another > sense I do -- for I have a calling and a vocation to be a Christian > philosopher. And as a Christian believer, I have the authority to "preach > the Word; to be prepared in season and out of season; to *correct*, rebuke > and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction." You may > criticize me for not being patient or sensitive or encouraging, but this is > separate from saying I don't have the authority to correct and to rebuke > with precision and care. I respect your calling to teach, and I don't > accept or reject your teachings by fiat. Instead, I try to engage you on > rational grounds if I disagree. It definitely looked like you wanted to > reject what I had to say by fiat, so I engaged you with reason and with the > ethics of argument, trying to persuade you back into a mindset to where we > can discuss things. > > With all this said, I still think that it is clear that slavery is not > condemned in scripture. Of course, there is an ethics of slavery in the > Bible, but again, this fact presupposes that the institution of slavery, per > se, is okay. Equally clear and true is that the Bible does not teach > against killing, but only murder, which is unjustified killing. For > example, the Bible does not speak out against a just war. Rob, those, like > you, who see the tension between our culture's position on slavery and God's > position on slavery should side with the Bible. There doesn't seem to > be grounds for a crisis of conscience about this issue. It just turns out > that, according to Judeo-Christian Divine Command Theory, people can be > property of other people, and hence, slavery is permitted. And this is the > opposite of what our culture typically believes -- partly, I think, because > they conjure up morally wrong instances of slavery when they report that > slavery is wrong. That, and our culture glorifies freedom, and without > argument, assumes that humans are by nature free. This assumption is deeply > dubious on several levels: philosophically, theologically, and > psychologically. Concerning the conjuring up of negative images of slavery, > I definitely think that we are not looking at the institution of slavery as > a whole and what it essentially is. > > Essentially, slavery means that we are not our own, but are the property of > another person. In this sense, Paul is right that we are slaves to Christ > and to God. We are not our own; we are His. By analogy, human slaves are > not their own, but are the property of their master. Now, just like we are > slaves to God, some humans were slaves to earthly masters. And just as God > can righteously be our Master, early masters can righteously be masters of > slaves. > > Indeed, to claim that all instances of slavery is morally wrong is to > indict God of moral wrongdoing. Think about it. God is a person and we are > God's property; so technically we are His slave. So if all instances of > slavery is wrong, God is in the wrong for having us as slaves. > > Here is an excellent sermon on the topic of being Slaves to Christ, by John > MacArthur: > > http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/80-321.htm > > Also, by way of a side note, Jesus does speak approvingly of slavery: For > example, in Matthew 6:24 Jesus said this, "No man can be a slave to two > masters." I anticipate that you all will try to show that not all versions > say "slave" but MacArthur addresses this issue and goes to the Greek and the > Godspeed translation to demonstrate that Jesus probably was talking about > slaves. I'll get Rusty and Hugh's take on this passage, since they are > Greek scholars. But Godspeed should suffice for now. > > Bobby > > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 3:28 PM, D C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I haven't done any great study myself, but remember reading a study > that seemed to assert that "slavery" often mentioned in the Bible is > poorly interpreted from multiple roots, where sometimes it means out > and out slavery as we are used to the definition, while other times it > is referring to indentured servants of some sort as Rob described. > However, even "slavery" as it relates to the Israelites in Egypt > doesn't have equal connotation to the slavery we think of from our > country's history. They were more like a usurped or conquered nation. > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crosspointe Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/crosspointe-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
