Slashdot Mirror

Jesus' silence on the issue of owning people speaks for itself.

I can tell you're a bit ignorant on the subject of how slavery worked in Israel...

Jewish slavery was a system of being voluntarily owned in order to pay off debts. If you owed Joe Hebrew 600 bucks and couldn't pay it, you became his servant in exchange for writing the debt off. As a bonus, according to Judaic law, the term could only last for seven years, as every Jubilee (which happened every seven years) automatically freed anyone bound to this servitude.

The only lifetime-involuntary-type slaves were those owned by the Romans.

As for speaking out against slavery, well, you'd be fairly wrong on that count too:

"... to proclaim release to the captives to set free those who are oppressed"

-Luke 4:18

A better explanation of the philosophical opposition to slavery in principle can be explained thus:

"New Testament writers, like Jesus their Master, opposed the dehumanization and oppression of others. In fact, Paul gave household rules in Ephesians 6 and Colossians 4 not only for Christian slaves but for Christian masters as well. Slaves are ultimately responsible to God, their heavenly Master. But masters are to “treat your slaves in the same way” — namely, as persons governed by a heavenly Master (Ephesians 6:9). Commentator P.T. O’Brien points out that “Paul’s cryptic exhortation is outrageous” for his day.2

Given the spiritual equality of slave and free, slaves even took on leadership positions in churches. Paul’s ministry illustrates how in Christ there is neither slave nor free, when he greeted people by name in his epistles. Some of these people had commonly used slave and freedman names. For example, in Romans 16:7,9, he refers to slaves such as Andronicus and Urbanus (common slave names) as “kinsman,” “fellow prisoner,” and “fellow worker” (NASB). The New Testament’s approach to slavery is contrary to aristocrats and philosophers such as Aristotle, who held that certain humans were slaves by nature (Politics I.13).

Paul reminded Christian masters that they, with their slaves, were fellow-slaves of the same impartial Master. Thus, they were not to mistreat them but rather deal with them as brothers and sisters in Christ. Paul called on human masters to grant “justice and fairness” to their slaves (Colossians 4:1, NASB). In unprecedented fashion, Paul treated slaves as morally responsible persons (Colossians 3:22–25) who, like their Christian masters, are “brothers” and part of Christ’s body (1 Timothy 6:2).3 Christians — slave and master alike — belong to Christ (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11). Spiritual status is more fundamental and freeing than social status."

ref: http://enrichmentjournal.ag.or...

Many evangelicals have mental health issues, sadly. It's one of the bigger problems with that group. I don't have enough information, after reading Genesis, to assert that it's a literal account of creation; therefore, I don't. The Bible we have now is certainly a human work. The most-reasonable Christians, in my opinion, say that the original manuscripts are inerrant and there may be some (plenty of?) mistranslations and misunderstandings in the versions we read today. And the new testament isn't pro-slavery, at all. I've never got that impression from reading it; however, I do feel that it emphasizes humility, whether or not you're being oppressed. I enjoyed this read: http://enrichmentjournal.ag.or...

Some others to consider - http://www.convoyofhope.org/ uses its donations to help feed children and help in disasters. Their website reports administration expenses of 5% and fund raising expenses of 6% of donations in 2010. 89% of donations go toward food, with corporate food donations matching at a 7 to 1 ratio at last report. Every dollar donated provides seven dollars of food.

If you want something more personal, http://www.missionofmercy.org/ provides sponsorship of individual children around the world. This organization has a Christian focus, but also provides education, nutrition and health monitoring services for sponsored kids (40,000 kids in 16 countries). Their goal is an 80% donation rate - last stats were 84%.

Support your local shelters for abused children or spouses.

Donate through local churches. For most main-line denominational churches, the local staff salary is supported by the local members and attendees. Any money that comes in that is ear-marked for a particular purpose that the church supports will go 100% to that purpose. Just call to see what is available as an avenue through each church.

Our local church provides a food bank, for example, and provides toys, school supplies, and other gifts for local school children or families that are in need. If you don't know of anyone yourself who is in need, you can be sure that local churches have been contacted routinely by those who need help. Some churches in town collect items and take them directly to elementary schools for the office to distribute to kids that don't have winter coats, shoes, or the like. Your donations to the church for local relief programs can make a direct difference in your community with virtually no overhead at any good sized church. Most also have guest speakers over the course of the year who are active in doing relief work as missionaries. They are spreading the gospel, but many are also helping to provide clean water by digging wells and providing pumps, helping with medical training, and many other things while doing their first calling.

In addition, all major denominations have relief and outreach organizations associated with them. You can send earmarked money directly to these organizations and know that a high percentage of the donation - 100% in some cases - will be used to reach those in need, whether in the United States or around the world. http://ag.org/ - Assemblies of God - for example lists Center for the Blind, Compassion Link, Convoy of Hope, Global HIV/AIDS, and Healthcare ministries. Regardless of your opinions on mixing religion and relief, if you aren't willing to do any relief yourself, you should consider donating to those who are at least trying to make a difference, even if not in the way you would do it, if you ever did.

Yes.

The pro-life side needs to deal with scenarios like this. My church, the Assemblies of God, has set up Highlands Child Placement Service and Maternity Home. They take care of the girls who are in that position. Somebody who gets raped is going to have some serious issues to deal with anyway, and aborting the baby isn't going to help any more than having it will. In fact, it will most likely be better, as a girl who goes to Highlands will know that her child has been placed in a good, loving home. So she brings a new life into the world, and she brings joy to parents who may not have otherwise been able to have a child. She sees something genuinely good come out of what would have otherwise been a senseless tragedy.

I completely agree with you that pro-life advocates must not hide behind the phrase "except in cases of rape or incest." At the same time, the other side needs to concede that those are quite rare. IIRC, it's only about three percent of abortions that fall under those circumstances. (Please correct me if someone has the stats on this.) Most abortions are performed for sheer convenience, a fact which is not frequently promulgated by those who support abortion.

I'm glad you acknowledge the hideousness of abortion. Thankfully, less hideous alternatives exist.

Yes.

The pro-life side needs to deal with scenarios like this. My church, the Assemblies of God, has set up Highlands Child Placement Service and Maternity Home. They take care of the girls who are in that position. Somebody who gets raped is going to have some serious issues to deal with anyway, and aborting the baby isn't going to help any more than having it will. In fact, it will most likely be better, as a girl who goes to Highlands will know that her child has been placed in a good, loving home. So she brings a new life into the world, and she brings joy to parents who may not have otherwise been able to have a child. She sees something genuinely good come out of what would have otherwise been a senseless tragedy.

I completely agree with you that pro-life advocates must not hide behind the phrase "except in cases of rape or incest." At the same time, the other side needs to concede that those are quite rare. IIRC, it's only about three percent of abortions that fall under those circumstances. (Please correct me if someone has the stats on this.) Most abortions are performed for sheer convenience, a fact which is not frequently promulgated by those who support abortion.

I'm glad you acknowledge the hideousness of abortion. Thankfully, less hideous alternatives exist.

To start this off on an honest note (after flaming a Microsoft worker for not saying so w.r.t. a Microsoft post he made), I'm a theology student with the PAOC, although they have no responsibility for the words herein ... :-) I love my beliefs ... I believe in God and basic Christianity and the rest of it. If you don't like that (anyone reading this), tell me about it elsewhere and read my feedback on the Internet Infidels site. I would agree that most incarnations of organised Christian religion (I won't comment on others) are not perfect and, in some cases, bad. However, it should be pointed out that from within the worldview of true Christianity, organisation makes sense, even if it doesn't always work out well. The PAOC, for instance, organised itself mostly because there was a desire to share funds between individual independant churches to send people overseas with. In todays incarnation of it, there is still the attitude that we are an association of independant assemblies ... (we are a sister organisation to the Assemblies of God in the USA). Why do I mention all this? I don't want to compose a 20 page essay on the issue, but suffice it to say that Christians wouldn't be Christian if they didn't believe in getting together for Church regularly, that certain activities are wrong (like murder, lying, cheating or homosexuality ... none more than the others), etc. If you don't like the beliefs of Christians, that's not the problem of Christianity. If a person is truly a Christian, it will permeate their life and system of thinking. If so, it will affect what they have to say to their governors and how they vote. If this happens, you will end up with what looks like religion in government when in fact all you have is Christians who are voters. Yes, there are Christian-right groups who aren't thinking straight and not acting in love of the world while promoting their beliefs. Mind you, the rest of "us" try to keep them straight as much as the rest of "you" do. We just tend to be nicer about it ... Censorship? Just on a note that hits home a little, I believe that censorship is wrong to the Christian because, if anything, those who are able to control anything will control and stifle religion first. I'm not too worried about the religious right taking over the world (it won't happen) ... but getting my free speach shut up (including my belief that homosexuality is wrong but that I can still hang out with and befriend a homosexual) is something that really scares me ... ... have fun with this ... I'm not proofreading :-)