Continuation of Christianity debate.

[CrazyAnglican]

Didn't I read that it isn't physically possible for a human body to be suspended by three nails and remain hanging there...and that the images you speak of are actually "artists conceptions" rather than factual?

Hi Backglass, how's it going?

I've heard that too, but there's an M.D. in Michigan who's done extensive study on this and states it's entirely possible. He'll even put you up on a cross if you want; he's got one in his garage. There are also people, (in the Phillipines?) who voluntarily reinact the crucifixtion each year. They don't actually kill them though. I've even heard of a British guy who let them nail him to the cross (and survived); he was credible enough to be feartured on a History Channel documentary, but I have no other info about him.

Like Vtmarik said, there's archaeological and historical data supporting crucifixtion by nailing. It didn't only happen to Christ.

Actually nailing was a little more humane in that you usually died from shock and blood loss within a few hours. Being tied to a cross could prolong death for three or four days. St. Andrew took four days to die being crucified that way.

[unriggable]

To be honest, I just can't take the Bible seriously. It talks about God loving every individual and then spends several chapters in Exodus talking about slave rules. Doesn't make much sense.

[2dimes]

I don't believe in Romans. You've never met one have you?

They were made up by the Catholics that wrote the bible to take the heat off their friends the jews who actually run the vatican.

I nominate you to write a spinoff series of novels based on THE DAVINCI CODE

That's a distraction to prevent you from noticing the real artist code.

[luns101]

To be honest, I just can't take the Bible seriously. It talks about God loving every individual and then spends several chapters in Exodus talking about slave rules. Doesn't make much sense.

That's a very good point. I can understand why that would seem like such a contradiction. I hope you would be willing to read some biographies about Christians who fought against that heinous system.

Of course, there were also Christians who either tried to justify slavery, or just were apathetic to denouncing it. I just don't see how anyone can use Jesus Christ to justify such an awful & degrading system which exploits another human being.

[daddy1gringo]

To be honest, I just can't take the Bible seriously. It talks about God loving every individual and then spends several chapters in Exodus talking about slave rules. Doesn't make much sense.

Remember that the "slavery" in Old Testament culture, as that in the Roman empire later, was very different from the horrific institution that African Americans suffered in the South of the U.S. Slaves had rights and could earn and buy their freedom. It was basically a way to survive if you lost everything financially.

[luns101]

Remember that the "slavery" in Old Testament culture, as that in the Roman empire later, was very different from the horrific institution that African Americans suffered in the South of the U.S. Slaves had rights and could earn and buy their freedom. It was basically a way to survive if you lost everything financially.

Yes of course. I wasn't meaning to just ignore this fact. I was referring to the fact that to someone who doesn't believe the Bible is true in the first place, that issue might be difficult to reconcile. In fact, it would seem contradictory.

For the record, I've read Philemon. When a Christian (who happened to be a slave) had the gift of teaching, it became a real difficult situation if the Roman master was also a Christian and recognized the need for the slave to be freed so he could spread the gospel.

[unriggable]

Remember that the "slavery" in Old Testament culture, as that in the Roman empire later, was very different from the horrific institution that African Americans suffered in the South of the U.S. Slaves had rights and could earn and buy their freedom. It was basically a way to survive if you lost everything financially.

I'm saying that it is nothing short of lunacy to free the Jews from slavery via plague and then say 'here's how to handle slaves'.

[OnlyAmbrose]

To be honest, I just can't take the Bible seriously. It talks about God loving every individual and then spends several chapters in Exodus talking about slave rules. Doesn't make much sense.

Who says God can't love slaves? Who says being a slave is a spiritually fatal fate? Who says that because you're a slave God somehow doesn't love you?

A good amount of Christian belief boils down to a need for submission. In the case of the Israelites leaving Egypt, it's always been my belief that God didn't want His people submitting to the wrong authorities. And God would certainly see pagan authorities as the wrong ones.

But if you look at slavery from a purely religious viewpoint, it's not horrible at all. Quite to the contrary, it could be beneficial for the slave. Humility, detachment from material possessions... all this makes the life of a Christian far easier.

Christianity isn't about freedom, it's about losing your freedom. It's a lot easier to forfeit your freedom to God when you have no freedom to forfeit. Blessed are the poor, the meek, etc.

In short... I see no reason why Exodus shouldn't include rules regarding slavery. It was common practice at the time, and can't be looked upon as an evil or lack of love on God's part. A brave, but worthy, prayer, could certainly be: "Lord, make me a slave."

[Jenos Ridan]

Good points ambrose. What happens to you 'in the flesh' does not nessessarily reflect the spiritual reallity.

[Guiscard]

To be honest, I just can't take the Bible seriously. It talks about God loving every individual and then spends several chapters in Exodus talking about slave rules. Doesn't make much sense.

Remember that the "slavery" in Old Testament culture, as that in the Roman empire later, was very different from the horrific institution that African Americans suffered in the South of the U.S. Slaves had rights and could earn and buy their freedom. It was basically a way to survive if you lost everything financially.

No. It wasn't. The type of slavery present in the ancient near east in the Old Testement period involved the wholesale deportation of peoples from their homelands, against their will, as well as the separation of husbands and wives in some cases, and also the slaughter of children to make the 'journey' easier. I studied ancient Assyria and Babylonia a great deal as an undergrad, and nearly made it my specialist subject...

The more of your posts I read the more I become convinced you are entirely dis attached from any kind of historical reality...

[OnlyAmbrose]

To be honest, I just can't take the Bible seriously. It talks about God loving every individual and then spends several chapters in Exodus talking about slave rules. Doesn't make much sense.

Remember that the "slavery" in Old Testament culture, as that in the Roman empire later, was very different from the horrific institution that African Americans suffered in the South of the U.S. Slaves had rights and could earn and buy their freedom. It was basically a way to survive if you lost everything financially.

No. It wasn't. The type of slavery present in the ancient near east in the Old Testement period involved the wholesale deportation of peoples from their homelands, against their will, as well as the separation of husbands and wives in some cases, and also the slaughter of children to make the 'journey' easier. I studied ancient Assyria and Babylonia a great deal as an undergrad, and nearly made it my specialist subject...

The more of your posts I read the more I become convinced you are entirely dis attached from any kind of historical reality...

I could be wrong, but I believe slavery in Israelite civilization was far more lax than that in Assyria and Babylon. Certainly, the slavery prescribed in the Bible would be.

That being said, it is once again important to remember the points made in my previous post. The 21st century American worldview, which is dominated by the idea that happiness is synonymous with the freedom to increase your material standing, automatically rejects the word "slavery" as an evil. If your values are different, that's not necessarily the case.

[unriggable]

But obviously they didn't care much for the slave, if they did the Bible would spend at least a sentence or two saying 'if you're the slave'...

The word you're thinking of is 'servant'.

[MR. Nate]

Most of the laws indicate that Jewish slavery was primarily to involve selling oneself into slavery to repay an otherwise unplayable debt, or as restitution for a property crime, rather than some some individual captured as a result of battle.

Regardless of the type of slave, however, all servants & slaves were to be released every 7th year, if they refused, they could CHOOSE to remain indentured to a family for the rest of their lives, but if they chose to leave, they were to be given food, animals and wine (Deuteronomy 15:14), and there were regulations as to how they could be treated by their masters.

However, that is the slavery that God prescribed, not the one that Israel actually practiced. But don't place their inability to live up to God's standards on God.

[luns101]

However, that is the slavery that God prescribed, not the one that Israel actually practiced. But don't place their inability to live up to God's standards on God.

Yeah, and not only in that area, but many others. Is it any wonder that there are so many skeptics out there? Jesus says one thing, and his followers pervert it and alter it...all the while justifying it with the very scriptures that they're supposed to be obeying in the first place. People aren't attracted to hypocrisy...they're attracted to holiness and consistent love.

[vtmarik]

However, that is the slavery that God prescribed, not the one that Israel actually practiced. But don't place their inability to live up to God's standards on God.

Yeah, and not only in that area, but many others. Is it any wonder that there are so many skeptics out there? Jesus says one thing, and his followers pervert it and alter it...all the while justifying it with the very scriptures that they're supposed to be obeying in the first place. People aren't attracted to hypocrisy...they're attracted to holiness and consistent love.

Is there any one path that isn't filled with those kinds of gaps though, given man's infallibility and unwillingness to be wrong?

[luns101]

However, that is the slavery that God prescribed, not the one that Israel actually practiced. But don't place their inability to live up to God's standards on God.

Yeah, and not only in that area, but many others. Is it any wonder that there are so many skeptics out there? Jesus says one thing, and his followers pervert it and alter it...all the while justifying it with the very scriptures that they're supposed to be obeying in the first place. People aren't attracted to hypocrisy...they're attracted to holiness and consistent love.

Is there any one path that isn't filled with those kinds of gaps though, given man's infallibility and unwillingness to be wrong?

No, probably not.

[waradmiral]

why don't we all just agree to disagree.

[vtmarik]

why don't we all just agree to disagree.

I'm gonna have to remain neutral on that.

[daddy1gringo]

To be honest, I just can't take the Bible seriously. It talks about God loving every individual and then spends several chapters in Exodus talking about slave rules. Doesn't make much sense.

Remember that the "slavery" in Old Testament culture, as that in the Roman empire later, was very different from the horrific institution that African Americans suffered in the South of the U.S. Slaves had rights and could earn and buy their freedom. It was basically a way to survive if you lost everything financially.

No. It wasn't. The type of slavery present in the ancient near east in the Old Testement period involved the wholesale deportation of peoples from their homelands, against their will, as well as the separation of husbands and wives in some cases, and also the slaughter of children to make the 'journey' easier. I studied ancient Assyria and Babylonia a great deal as an undergrad, and nearly made it my specialist subject...

The more of your posts I read the more I become convinced you are entirely dis attached from any kind of historical reality...

Guiscard, think what you are saying. Unriggable was saying that it was inconsistent for the Bible to have rules for slavery, so the issue is slavery as described in those rules in the Bible, which is as I described. My point stands. There is no inconsistency.

Maybe "Old Testament culture" was an unfortunate way to word it. It still should be clear what the issue is.

[daddy1gringo]

why don't we all just agree to disagree.

That would take all the fun out of it!

I love a good argument, even if I do get insulted!
PPPbbbbbbbbt

[Symmetry]

The people here have made an excellent point about the distinction between physical freedom and spiritual freedom. A slave can always refuse to obey.

However, there has been a shocking lack of condemnation for slavery here. If you think that slavery was somehow better in another time, or you think that it's ok as long as it's not Black People from the civil war era, then maybe you need to re-evaluate yourself.

Daddy gringo seems to suggest that some forms of slavery are ok. I'd like to think that he just got carried away with his side of the argument, but I'm afraid that he doesn't realise that first and second degree murders both result in a corpse. Saying that one is better than another is missing the point.

Finally, if you take the idea that physical and spiritual freedom are seperate entirely, then you reduce Christianity to an aristocracy. Those who have easier lives will face fewer spiritual crises. Much as I admire people who come through their problems and strengthen their faith, it's easier to lead an upright life if you have the money.

I'd suggest, to both sides, examining whether you believe that the way that certain people act equates to their "worth".

[OnlyAmbrose]

Finally, if you take the idea that physical and spiritual freedom are seperate entirely, then you reduce Christianity to an aristocracy. Those who have easier lives will face fewer spiritual crises. Much as I admire people who come through their problems and strengthen their faith, it's easier to lead an upright life if you have the money.

This is absolutely false though!

It is easier to lead a visibly more upright life if you have the money. But in the heart is a different story. Let's recall a Bible story.

Some rich guy walks up to Jesus and he says "Hey what do I have to do to get to Heaven?"

Jesus says "Follow the commandments."

The guy says "Sure. I do that."

Jesus says, "Oh, and give everything you hold dear up for my sake."

The guy says, "Oh, nvm. See ya."

Jesus turns to his disciples and says, "Poor guy. He has so much stuff that doesn't mean a gosh-darned thing that he doesn't care much about stuff that really does matter. It's going to be about as easy for people like him to get to Heaven as it is for a camel to fit through the head of a needle."

Poverty is at the heart of Christianity. The fewer material possessions you hold dear, the more room you have in your heart for Christ. There's a reason why most Catholic religious orders require vows of poverty.

That said, you'd think that slaves, who have no possessions and a hard life full of suffering, are the most likely to enter the kingdom of Heaven.

The last shall be first and the first shall be last, after all.

[daddy1gringo]

If you think that slavery was somehow better in another time, or you think that it's ok as long as it's not Black People from the civil war era, then maybe you need to re-evaluate yourself.

Daddy gringo seems to suggest that some forms of slavery are ok. I'd like to think that he just got carried away with his side of the argument, but I'm afraid that he doesn't realise that first and second degree murders both result in a corpse. Saying that one is better than another is missing the point.

A very polite and thoughtful response, but I believe it is you who is missing the point. One point was that the institution/custom that was being spoken of in the Bible, though going by the same name, is not the same thing at all. The difference is not just the time, or who the victim is, but its characteristics.

The other point is that by no means am I saying it's OK. The Christian response if I had someone who owed me money and was unable to pay me is to forgive him his debt, gain a brother, and have my compensation stored up for me in heaven. I have done this on various ocasions.

What I am saying once again, is that the Bible is not inconsistent in giving rules concerning this custom. As my opponent Giscard pointed out, slavery as practiced in the surrounding nations was a horrible thing comperable to the Afro-American situation. The Biblical rules included some protections for the "slave". Also, as Mr Nate pointed out, The Bible provided that periodically all slaves were freed. Nate says it was on the sabbath years, every 7, so I'll take his word on that, I had thought it was only on the Jubilee, year 50, after 7 sabbaths. But 7's even better.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Not to draw from the discussion on slavery, but here's an article for those still interested in the wrists/palms deal.

http://www.crucifixion-shroud.com/experimental_studies_in_crucifix.htm

[Symmetry]

Well it looks like I'll be leaving this site, so I apologise for making a few final points and not replying to the responses.

Let's see...

OnlyAmbrose and Daddy1gringo:
I understand your points. You believe that modern day slavery and Biblical slavery were different institutions, with different rules and customs. Secondly you believe that an interest in the physical over the spiritual will lead to a life of suffering (spiritual, philosophical, eternal, whatever).

So:
1) The Bible is a product of its times. Reading it as literal truth will result in problems. The messages that Jesus (or the apostles, or whoever you think spoke or wrote the words) gives us are typically stories. They are stories because they excite our imagination and force us to seek the answer. The old testament is part of Christianity, but it is not, strictly, Christian. There is a covenant, and Jesus changes the way that God interacts with people. The Bible has many virtues, but consistency is not one of them. I've always found the book to be beautiful and informative, although I am not Christian. It has many lessons for those who are willing to challenge and doubt.

2) Slavery is a word with a fairly fixed meaning. The fact that slavery in different cultures has followed different customs and rules doesn't detract from it's enormously evil nature. To read the Bible as condoning slavery in any form is to fail to see the cultural routes of the Bible. That goes for critics, and Biblical literalists. The Bible is not the Quran, it is not God's word. It's a guide book, and a collection of stories and poems useful for living a good life.

3) (and lastly) It's a great belief to see the mind (or spirit) as seperate from the body. However, being born into certain situations makes life harder. Some people are surrounded by crime, and drugs, and gangs, whilst others aren't. Jesus had the advantage of being tempted only once, while others are tempted every day. It would be ridiculous of me to claim that wealth is equivalent to virtue (although Christianity has a long history of equating poverty with vice and sin in the past few centuries), but clearly people with physical needs (money, food, drugs etc.) are more likely to suffer spiritual tempations to harm others. We'll file this under unfortunate facts of life. The Catholic orders you mentioned require poverty, but the Catholic church is immensely wealthy. You may be required by a boarding school to have no money, but that doesn't make you poor. It's also something that entrants can choose to reject. Unfortunately the majority of poor people around the world don't have the choice to give up poverty.

Oh, and the last thing for OnlyAmbrose:
You seem to have got almost the right message from the parable you repeated, which is impressive given that you don't seem to have thought about the story.
Don't let someone tell you the answer. Think about it.
A camel can never fit through the eye of a needle. The meaning of the story as you told it is- "A rich person can never get into heaven"
There is a lot of debate about the meaning of this story, but one of the most commonly used explanations refers to a small gate nicknamed "the needle" which was difficult for rich merchants with heavily laden camels to pass through. Those unwilling to shed some packages would not get through. There are other interpretations though.

Anyways- that's me signing off. Apologies for the length.