Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In recent years, one of the primary arenas of the evangelical church attempting to live out the Great Commission has been in politics and the idea that our nation's laws should reflect conservative Christian morality.
I saw a quote from a liberal Christian that said something along the lines of "oppressing people will not convert them, it will only shut their hearts towards what you have to say."
I find that to be very true. In a society where the laws are in line with the Bible, people may follow them because they are the law but they wouldn't have a real change of heart, which is what conversion to Christianity should be about, isn't it? Instead, it will anger and turn hearts away from the conservative Christian message when people are being forced to live a life that they don't want to live in their hearts.
So for those who want to legislate our country back to Biblical values, do you believe that it will actually result in genuine conversions to conservative Christianity? If so, why? If not, what is the reason for being so politically active?
Here's the problem. Whenever Christianity becomes the establishment faith, Christianity ultimately suffers. From the Roman Empire onward, the interweaving of church and state has resulted in the sullying of the church's mission in the world, being held hostage to more temporal problems. From the shenanigans in Constantine's court to Charlemagne to the Spanish Inquisition to the temperance movement in the United States, the uniting of church to the ruling elite causes people to question the movies of the faith. Always a bad idea, one that anyone with some grounding in church history could see. Even Christ said as much when he offered that we should render unto Caesar what is due Caesar and render unto God what is God's.
So you think that because someone does not speak against a practice they are condoning it? I suggest you learn what is meant by the term translated as "slave" in the New Testament. It was something they often choose for themselves. But why worry with facts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
I suggest that you look somewhere besides the very limited rose colored explanations of the people who try to excuse the condoning of slavery in the New Testament by presening a small part of the picture of what slavery was then and in the Old Testament and trying to pass it off as the whole picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantfindagoodname
I have not commented on slavery in the OT since that was not related to the post I was responding to. Just dealing with the facts as they are. No need to do anything else.
New Testament slavery often describes the human condition. We are slaves to the lender. We are slaves to our addictions. We are slaves to a system that forces us to depend on them - much like the current establishment and every establishment that promotes welfare slavery.
Man doesn't expect women to submit. The Bible commands it. The submission comes in a relationship between a man and woman when they are at a stalemate over what is to be done. A thing with two heads cannot survive. A thing with no head dies. A healthy relationship, as ordained by God is one in which the man cherishes his wife above anything and would gladly protect her with his life. Marriage is a picture, a symbol of Jesus and his bride, the church. The church serves Jesus. It's not a negative thing. What a twisted picture some people present. How much joy the love of the Lord provides. Don't be deceived by any man. Go to God for the truth.
In recent years, one of the primary arenas of the evangelical church attempting to live out the Great Commission has been in politics and the idea that our nation's laws should reflect conservative Christian morality.
I saw a quote from a liberal Christian that said something along the lines of "oppressing people will not convert them, it will only shut their hearts towards what you have to say."
I find that to be very true. In a society where the laws are in line with the Bible, people may follow them because they are the law but they wouldn't have a real change of heart, which is what conversion to Christianity should be about, isn't it? Instead, it will anger and turn hearts away from the conservative Christian message when people are being forced to live a life that they don't want to live in their hearts.
So for those who want to legislate our country back to Biblical values, do you believe that it will actually result in genuine conversions to conservative Christianity? If so, why? If not, what is the reason for being so politically active?
Conservative Christians becoming politically involved and attempting to legislate their morality on the rest of society has had a direct correlation on the currently steady 1% per year rise of non believers in the country since the beginning of this century. Keep up the good work.
Conservative Christians becoming politically involved and attempting to legislate their morality on the rest of society has had a direct correlation on the currently steady 1% per year rise of non believers in the country since the beginning of this century. Keep up the good work.
As a matter of fact, I think it is a bit interesting that in the same time period we had Anthony Comstock's censorship and Carrie Nations' temperence movement, we also had the "Golden Age of Freethought". The time period in American history where Atheism, Agnosticism, Freethought, Deism, and a host of other apostate or heretical "isms" were most widely and popularly discussed and embraced in its history. Interesting that this explosion of non-belief sits squarely in the same time that religiously based moralism was destroying private property with a hatchet, and using the government to ban any and all discussion of contraception and reproductive health.
As a matter of fact, I think it is a bit interesting that in the same time period we had Anthony Comstock's censorship and Carrie Nations' temperence movement, we also had the "Golden Age of Freethought". The time period in American history where Atheism, Agnosticism, Freethought, Deism, and a host of other apostate or heretical "isms" were most widely and popularly discussed and embraced in its history. Interesting that this explosion of non-belief sits squarely in the same time that religiously based moralism was destroying private property with a hatchet, and using the government to ban any and all discussion of contraception and reproductive health.
Just a thought...
-NoCapo
The right's agenda has always driven the left's agenda. Otherwise we are far too lazy and self absorbed.
The right's agenda has always driven the left's agenda. Otherwise we are far too lazy and self absorbed.
I think that might be a bit simplistic, though. I am not sure there is a definitive causation in may of the cases, so much as parallel development. But I do think most movements arise from sort of a pendulum swing. Christian fundamentalism, in broad strokes, arose as a reaction to modernist theology, the freethought movement, and Darwin's theory of Evolution. The "Golden Age of Freethought" seems to have been a reaction to the results of the Second Great Awakening, and so on.
But I do find it interesting that precisely as one group of Americans embraces (for the time) gender equality, rationalism, and a host of other ideas, other groups simultaneously attempt to muzzle or stifle that expression in the name or religious morality. I don't you can easily define a starting point. Just like children on a long car ride, each side of any given debate believes it is the other side who "started it".
If you can't handle it then don't read it. I just stated facts.
To be fair, slavery in the Roman empire wasn't some sort of happy, bunnies, and rainbows sort of thing. It just didn't have the same racially and religiously based justification as American slavery, but it wasn't any prettier than it or than the "divinely designed" Old Testament version.
It certainly isn't definitive, but wikipedia does have a nice overview.
If you can't handle it then don't read it. I just stated facts.
No, you did not. You stated partial truths and ignored the rest, trying to make people believe that it is the whole truth. "Wage slavery" compared to "chattel slavery" is a farce and a hopeless excuse for reason. ANY honest evaluation of slavery at the time you mention as well as any other time and place would blow your rationalization to the worthless bits it is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
