I'll comment further, but I want to address this:
> I understand Bobby's argument that the personal > interpretation line of thinking is ethically difficult to defense and > Mike's assertion that my personal interpretation is not a trump card > over other interpretations. However, I don't regard Bobby as the > arbiter of such things (sorry Bob...) and my personal wrestlings with > Jesus and what His word means are relevant to me. Rob, I'm simply expressing a widespread norm of interpretation. This norm is used in Plato scholarship, Biblical scholarship, and elsewhere. The norm is this: when an author specifically addresses an issue and it is clear that they are not condemning a certain practice, then they don't condemn a certain practice. For example, Plato was not against homosexuality, as he freely and noncondemningly speaks of it in his dialogues. The authors of the Torah were not against slavery before Jesus, and Paul wasn't either after Jesus. And you believe that the Holy Spirit is the author of Holy Scripture. So the Holy Spirit, speaking through the authors of the Torah and through Paul, clearly is not against slavery. So what do we conclude about Jesus? As far as I know, he doesn't address slavery. So should we conclude that he thinks differently than the Torah and Paul (and by extension, the Holy Spirit)? I don't think so. Now, with this said, I'll take a look at your post. Bob On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Rob L. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'd like to explore the slavery issue further so I am starting a new > post. > First though to wrap up (for me) thoughts on "the frightful > institution" line. I understand Bobby's argument that the personal > interpretation line of thinking is ethically difficult to defense and > Mike's assertion that my personal interpretation is not a trump card > over other interpretations. However, I don't regard Bobby as the > arbiter of such things (sorry Bob...) and my personal wrestlings with > Jesus and what His word means are relevant to me. Right or wrong my > relationship will trump in my relationship. I may explain it to > others but I am not usually prone to trying to convince anyone of > anything other than I have a point of view and here it is. I suspect > if we sat down over breakfast again sometime we would all say > something similar. I realize that this opens me up to a certain > amount of criticism where I may hold views that are not defensible > other than by my personal beliefs. I can only attempt to examine > these beliefs one at a time as to why I believe or don't believe > certain lines of thinking. > > Abortion: It was brought up that abortion is not addressed in the > bible - therefore there is some doubt perhaps on whether the bible is > for or against perhaps? I didn't look into it although I can't recall > anything offhand except perhaps "thou shall not murder". Not being > sarcastic, just thinking. Anyway, my interest in it for the purposes > of this post have to do with the discussion on Onan. I see Onan as > having been killed by God for the greater good. That thought process > becomes problematic, first in the matter of free will - I won't tell > you what to do but if you don't do what I want you have to die. > Secondly, what it underlines for me is the difference between God's > value on life and our own. If God can kill Onan for the greater good > - why can't a 15 year old have an abortion? Because it removes > consequences? Because it sets us up as God? Isn't it possible that > in some cases it might be better for everyone and God might be ok with > it? I don't really know but I find I tend to believe that in some > cases it might be best for everyone including the unborn baby - > although I guess that's where the rub comes in. Who am I to say > that? I'm glad my mother didn't abort me is all I can muster. My > point here is that the value we place on life and the value God places > on life are different - right? Wrong? How does that apply to the > argument against abortion? > > Slavery: I did take the time to look up some verses and commentaries > regarding. The argument that Christianity opposes slavery bases its > defense on the form of slavery. In other words biblical slaves were > more like indentured servants or something to that effect. They > became slaves to pay debts, they wanted to be slaves so they would be > taken care of. This argument doesn't hold water when examined so > don't even jump on me Bobby! There are differentiations between > bondservants and slaves in the bible for one reason, but there are > others. Although it is true that the American form of slavery (which > probably colors all our views) was somewhat unique in its totality. > Additionally, the defense states that the bible doesn't speak out > against the practice of enslaving specifically but it does imply it > doesn't care for it in some places. Probably the biggest implication > is the enslavement of the Hebrews by the Egyptians. There are other > specific verses where it talks about one Hebrew shouldn't own another > (but its ok to own a Hittite... ). Weak, but they do refute those who > would state the bible never opposes slavery in any way. The third > defense is the one I've subscribed to but am now uncertain about. And > that is the greater overarcing messages of love, forgiveness, > compassion, etc. have changed society from the inside out and > eventually caused the collapse of slavery. This is hard to reconcile > though with the South using the bible to defend slavery in the 19th > century and with Jesus and Paul giving guidance on the proper slave / > master relationship. I've always kind of read those as knowing your > role in life and doing it for God but I feel a little naive now to > have ignored other implications. Additionally, there are other OT > directives on slavery which are frankly not very nice - i.e. they do a > lot to protect the slave owner but are not so great for the slave. > All of this causes a serious dilemma in my line of thinking that the > bible can be looked to as the moral standard. I spent some time in > prayer about it this morning and as of right now I'll have to add it > to my list of questions I have for Jesus when I see him. As well as > spending some more time thinking about it (I'm a slow thinker). I > love Jesus and I could go on for hours on the things He has done for > me, but this troubles me. How do you guys reconcile it? Have you > thought about it? > > Unfortunately, I'm going to have to focus on my Sociology class for > the next few days (last class!! hooray!!) but I'll be reading if > there's any comments. > > Rob > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
