Anything Divine in the Bible?

What do you think of how God treated the female slave of Abraham, Hagar ? Abraham's wife wanted to throw her out of the camp with her son Ishmael.Did you notice how God made provision for her? Was that horrendous?Have you read the book of Philemon? A slave escaped and joined Paul the Apostle. He became a co-worker of Paul. Paul sent him back to his master with a reminder that this was now a Christian brother and a hint that the master owed Paul his very life - so he should treat him well, like the eternal Christian brother that he is.Paul said, if he owes you anything, charge that to his account.Was that demonic and horrendous treatment of the matter of slavery ?I don't think so. My ancestors were American slaves. There songs were filled with comforting and supporting passages from the Bible to those oppressed and in bondage. I don't think they could have survived without the Bible.Slavery was a social fact in the ancient times. And God worked with Israel in a progressive way. He did not ignore some of the customs of war and social order of the surrounding nations.If I had to have been a slave, I would have prefered to be one under the Hebrews who were seeking to live under the Mosiac law. Glenn Miller fields objections and questions about slavery in the Bible at his Christian Thinktank: (copied by permission) The center of the Bible is that this man Jesus Christ is the only Person 100% pleasing to God. He is resurrected and available for us to live IN as a realm, as a sphere. We can receive this Person into our being and live a mingled and blended life with Him. "Abide in Me and I in you."The salvation that the Bible speaks of is this living Person who is totally pleasing to the Father and completely righteous is available as the life giving Spirit to come and indwell us."The last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor 15:45)This means that Jesus is alive. This means that Jesus is available to supply us with divine life. He is in a form in which He may enter into our hearts, not sentimentally but actually and spiritually. Christ can live in us and through us.You should think of this living in oneness with the living Jesus as the kernel of the Bible.Keep this in mind and go back and read the Gospel of John - In Him was life. And the life was the light of men.Don't be distracted from this central matter - receiving Christ as the life giving Spirit and abiding in Him, living in Him in a blended and mingled way of union.This should be our central focus in the Bible. I would put it in terms of transformation into the image of Christ by the Holy Spirit.Most mutations are negative in evolution. Only by some fortunate accident, supposedly, do the positive ones advance the species.Every bit of transformation from the Holy Spirit is beneficial. And every bit of transformation conforms us more and more to the image of Jesus."And the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom.

​

But we all with unveiled face, beholding and reflecting like a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory even as from the Lord Spirit." (2 Cor. 3:17,18)When we receive Christ we can focus out inner heart towards Him. This causes us to be transformed into His image. We live Him out to express Him.This transformation will conform us to be brothers of the Firstborn Son of God:"Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers;

​

And those whom He predestinated, these He also called; and those whom He called, these He also justified; and those whom He justified, these He also glorified." (Rom. 8:29,30)This regeneration, transformation, and conformation through Christ's salvation, we can fully trust in.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

What you are doing is exactly what the slave masters of American South did - selectively quote passages to uphold their evil system.You give the impression that you are against them but you find them handy if it helps put the New Testament in a pro slavery negative light.The jist of the slavery passages is not Paul condoning slavery at all. It is Paul teaching that Jesus Christ is a prevailing supporting force of survival in ANY social environment.You do not see Paul as a social activist scheming and organizing how to overthrow the existing social order. He is not a political activist.He was supplying people who found themselves in all manner of different existing social situations to live by the resurrection life of Christ. This was a all fitting and victorious life which can blossom in all kinds of difficult situations.This Paul taught not simply doctrinally. It was his personal experience. He was a dispised Jew under the Roman imperialism. He was a persecuted Christian under the floggin whips of his own countrymen. He was a prisoner in chains in a Roman jail.Paul was teaching the Christians (not the public at large), but the Christian churches that whatever social environment they found themselves in they could be victoriously upheld by Jesus Christ.You are twisting the passages to make Paul appear to be condoning slavery. You're no better than the racist slave masters who did the same things.In fact it is at least arguable that the apostle encouraged Christians in slavery to obtian their freedom for the church's sake if they could (1 Cor.7:21)I am sure that the slave traders jumped over Pauls exhortation to give the slaves what was fair and equal:"Masters. grant to your slaves that which is just and equal, KNOWING THAT YOU ALSO HAVE A MASTER IN HEAVEN." (Col.4:1)Nice try Advocate of the Devil. But you see my ancestors were slaves in America. And we know that abolition and indeed the whole Civil Rights movement drew strength from the Bible's utterances.Paul was not a social or political activist trying to enfluence the existing social systems. What he was about was establishing communities called churches. And I do not mean physical buildings. These were communities of people from all walks of life living in brotherhood by the power of Christ's resurrection presence and life.Even his talk on slavery is not for slavery's sake. His focus is what is best for the building up of the new testament church life.His was the God of people who may be found in all kinds of situations. That is a large God. That is not a petty God. That is an all-inclusive God who can supply people in prisons, in slavery, and in other difficult circumstances within which they discover that Jesus can be contacted for salvation. [b]" Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

And you. What are you going to do. Look at your children. When it comes to the Bible you want to take them first to the book of Joshua and make sure they get a good healthy dispising attitude about God. Then when they come to the other 65 books of the Bible they'll have a good skeptical filter.Maybe you'll teach them that all they have to know about Jesus is found in the account of the conquest of Canaan.Are you going to teach your kids to hate Jesus ? You going to start them on Leviticus ?You're the Sicko dad.

I do not think of Hagar in that sense. It seems that Abraham had never had any sexual relations with her until it was suggested by Sarah his wife.I don't think southern slave owners waited around for their wife's approval let alone suggestion, before they went to bed with their slave women.The suggestion was that since Abraham and Sarah could not produce a child perhaps God would fulfill the promise of a son through Abraham having a child with Sarah's slave Hagar.1.) I don't think of this as the typical sex slave.2.) It was the wife's idea which I don't think is typical of a situation of men owning sex slaves.3.) You can't blame it on God.Having said that, I still am not suggesting it was a good situation.After Abraham produced a son through Hagar, God didn't speak to him for another 13 years. I take this as a sign of Divine disapproval rather than approval.My time is a bit limited right now. I'll get back latter and examine your other comments.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I have never heard anyone suggest that Paul was "groveling" before Philemon.You have a strange perspective. The one in command of the situation appears to be Paul and not Philemon. I did not set out to prove that Paul condemned slavery. But he certainly nullified it's negative effects.The dehumanizing of kind of slavery practiced was nullified where the letter of Philemon was taken seriously by Christian slave owners. In fact both in England and the US some slave owners gave it up when their consciences got the best of them. Preaching on Philemon probably played a part in that.There was such a thing as X - slave owners. We should not assume that none of them decided that they could not continue it in good conscience. The point here is that though Sarah turned Hagar loose without much provision God, my dear, God provided for her.Hey, that's not fair. We're trying to make God look like the Big Slave Owner in the Sky here, right ?The Scripture is economical. And a portion is reserved to indecate how God blessed Hagar, kept her child alive, and even caused her descendents to become 12 princes. This weakens your drive to paint God as the Ultimate Simon Legree. Yes I do. It is my father's area of expertise. He has an honorary doctorate in the field of the history of Black people in the US and Carribean. I didn't say they were. Of course the prayers of loved ones, such as bereaved mothers, fathers, and siblings are often effective in the blessing of non-believing family members.It is not necessary that every slave upheld by God directly or inderectly was a Christian. God allowed multiple wives for a season among the kings of Israel. That He it was His permissive will doesn't mean it was his perfect will.The nation of Israel wrestled with God wanting to be like the other nations around them. It is clear that though God permitted this and still guided them, He was not always happy with it.The matter of slavery is not as simple as you would like to make it.Even in ancient Rome I studied this matter. Slaves in the country had brutal treatment. But slaves in the city could even seek legal recourse against a master. So I would be careful about painting too broad of a stroke on the institution of slavery.The website I linked to went into a more scholarly review of the nuances of ANE slavery.Many people who think about slavery in the Bible think of the Exodus when God led the Hebrews out of it. It is interesting that God reminds the Hebrews in their treatment of foreigners to have empathy for them. They are to recall what it was like to be in bondage in Egypt. I would think that God can be the sustainer and supporter in all kinds of situations. I would not look for difficult situations to be in. But I would expect that God is able to sustain me in difficult trials.When I was a younger Christian and read the Psalms, I noticed how so many Psalms had to do with people in trouble.I do not look for terrible situations to be in. But I look to God that IF I have to go through them, He is big enough to support me. This is really a major theme in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The OT has everything to do with Christ. But I think one has to have revelation from God to see it.Of course many prophecies have Christ as their meaning. It is harder for me to imagine that Isaiah 9:6 for example has nothing to do with the Son of God incarnated.Aside from this we take the New Testament as the oracles of God. We do not regard it as a faulty error prone commentary on the Hebrew Bible. So if the New Testament says that Christ is spoken of in the Old Testament, we take that as authoritative. That's the end of the matter.Jesus in His resurrection opened the minds of the disciples to see that the Old Testament was talking a lot about Himself/ After His resurrection He said this: So to Jesus the Old Testament included writings about Him. We need our minds opened to see these things.Practically, I think this means reading and praying to the Lord Jesus over what we read, seeking spiritual enlightenment.Prayerful reading of some good Christian commentaries is also helpful. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

You can jump to the opposite extreme if you like. But you should have noticed that I followed that sentence with one which said I did not think it was an ideal situation. I don't blame her either.My guess is that from the day Ishmael was born Hagar firmly planted in her son's mind that he was the son of a prophet.Somehow I don't think you care about any of that but are rather intrigued by what scandelous information you can derive from the story.The Bible records many things which could be considered scandelous. I try to discern the difference between what the Bible teaches and what the Bible records as having happened.I don't think it is teaching that everything that happened is what ought to have happened. Usually, the lesson I would emphasize to young people conserning the the Isaac / Ishmael matter is how man messes things up when unbelief comes in. You see it was Abraham's and Sarah's doubts about God's promise which tempted them to "help" God.I am not interested in teaching anything scandelous from Genesis simply for scandel's sake. That's naive. I don't think the lusty master was looking that far down the road. All of which tends to make the Hagar affair less like the typical sex slave.And again, it was not a good situation for Hagar, in case you think I am trying to portay it as so. I was not there. And that much information is not given to us. So I have no comment on to what degree Hagar was forced or not forced.There are other accounts in the Bible where those matters are detailed. In this particular instance, we are not given that much information. As I said before. There is a difference between what the Bible teaches and what the Bible records as having happened.You have no example of a teaching commanding the forcing of a woman to have sexual intercourse. Produce one if you know of one. And I expect it to be a divine command and I expect it to be unambigous.What the Scriptures records as having happened is not the Scripure teaching what necessarily OUGHT to have happened. Even if it was a forceful rape, you could only say this was a sin commited by Abraham.What else is new? The patriarchs were human and some of them blew it. David stole a man's wife and conspired to have him murdered.If you are expecting that the Bible should not have recorded any bad sexual behavior, this might be an indication of your own naivete. Since I have never and still have no intention of justifying Abraham's act, I have no need to comment. If you are expecting that the Bible should be free from recording any immorality, I don't know what kind of book you think it is.A book leading us to live the highest standard of morality and be free from sin, might be expected to expose those sins, Don't you think?I wonder what it is that you are looking for when you read your Bible? Are you hunting for scandels.You might find your appetite better served with the National Enquiry if you just want scandelous stories to read. That is a hugely incorrect assumption. Yes Abraham was the father of nations. But Abraham is also a recipient of God's act of Justification from sin and redemption. Apart from these no one can be used by God.The idea is not that Abraham, Moses, David, etc were that good in themeselves. It was what God's salvation was able to do with typical sinners, that is the point.Their failures are quite well outlined in the Bible. This is another reason why I regard the book as divinely inspired rather than simple Jewish national propoganda.The inclusion of potentially embarressing information about the national heros like Abraham, Jacob, David, and Moses suggests candor. I consider the failures recorded about the patriarchs when they well could have been concealed, as further evidence of God trying to communicate with us. No. I think that this is not a reflection on the inspiration of the Bible."As face answers to face in water so the mind of a man reflects the man."I think your what you seem eager to derive from the Bible tells us more about you actually. The assumption here is that it has to be one or the other.But we believers in the Word of God see a cooperation of man and God. Just as Jesus was God and man blended and united, we see the production of the Bible as a coordinated work between God and humanity.Yes, Peter has his flavor, John has his style, Luke has his tendencies, etc. etc. still there is the work of the Holy Spirit moving through the various liturary forms and styles of mortals.We see a coordination and cooperation of the divine with the human to produce such a wonderful book as the Bible.Your assumption that either came floating down from the sky with wings or was written by mortal and fallible men is false. God moved through imperfect human beings to produce such a revelation. I would ask you that if God were to become a human being, then which human being in human history do you think He would most likely have acted like?My vote is for Jesus of Nazareth. I think that Jesus Christ is in a class all His own. The second most likely person to have been God become a man, is not even close. And there have been some other good people.At any rate if your morality surpasses that of Jesus, I wonder why you impact on human history seems so woefully short of His. The Bible itself was used to put that kind of sensativity into people's consciences.Actually, from Genesis chapter one that Man was made in the image of God and according to His likeness, is a condemnaton on racism and dehumanizing racist slavery.This is why the American slaver had to utilize a belief that blacks were less than human, which was of course unbiblical. They said that blacks did not have souls which was of course not biblical because all men had souls.So to a great degree you would have to acknowledge Christian theology as a tool to discourage racist slavery throughout the Western world.I like to have the historical objectivity to see both how the Bible was used by both sides. And I would resist as bias any attempt to portray slavery as the Bible's pet idea. There were many poor white young men maimed and killed on the battlefields of the Civil War who would tell you that they found out that the Deity apparently did not condone slavery. They found out the hard way.Had God condoned it to the degree that you wish to portray than He surely could have permitted it to continue to this day and even strenghtened it.As it stands, it appears that the Divine Hand was not on the side of those who wished to continue it. All that I wrote about abiding in Christ and having Christ abide in us, seems to have gone right over your head. You mentioned not a word about it.I think that you do not talk about it because it is alien from your experience. Well for many of us on this side of the New Testament it is the path to the highest level of morality on the earth.That is to realize that we all have sinned, slave and slave owner alike, we all are in need of the redemptive death of Christ to forgive us. We all are slaves of the sinful nature, Even the ones of us who think being able to point out the wrongs of others, somehow, makes us better than they, when it doesn't.Our part is to believe into Christ and live in union with Him. You don't talk about this at all. Maybe you have no experience and have no idea what I am talking about.But this is the focus of the New Testament - receiving the Person of Christ as the indwelling Lord and Savior. Living in union with Him leads to the highest standard of morality a man can attain. Perhaps you are refering to someone else. You will find no quotation of me refering to the absulute moral system. I may have refered to the Law of Moses. But we are not commanded to live by the law of Moses. That law was chiefly given to expose man's inability to live up to the standard of God.Today, our call is the new covenant. That is to enter into a living Lord and Savior who becomes our righteousness. We abide in Him and He abides in us.The high standard of the law was meant to expose our sinful natures. I is a silly misunderstanding of you or anyone else to thing that today God's plan is that we go out and grit our teeth to live the Livitical laws and ordinances.You will probably say nothing about living in Christ and Christ living in us. Good for you Granny! You tell em! You kind of dense. Abraham needed salvation just like the rest of us. There is only one man on this earth that was totally righteous and pleasing to the Father. That was the Son Jesus Christ.All the rest of us, including Abraham, are in need of salvation.Your kind of ignorance reminds me of the Moslem who cannot believe that any prophet of God could possibly sin. They also vigorously object to the idea of a prophet or patriarch being less than an angelic being.No, Granny, the Bible is about people like you and I. That is people who have faith and are recipients of Redemption, Justification, Reconciliation, Regeneration, Sanctification, Transformation, Resurrection, Glorification, and full Salvation from the grace of God.The partiarchs were also sinners who needed to be saved by Grace.

Objective scholarship shows that there are several different models of what we call slavery in the Bible. I think we could say that some were worse than others and that still what I am most familiar with as US Slavery is also a perticular brand:Glenn Miller's comments are helpful (copied by permission)Does God Condone Slavery? From G. Miller Christian Thinktank http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html My contribution to the Moral Law matter was to highlight what I understood the theist's criticism was of the Atheistic view. That is that there is a weak basis and foundation for his moral attitude.Read over what I wrote. Still, I think it is important to discern different types of master-servant relationships in Ancient Near East and in Hebrew culture. Miller continues comparisons of modern SLAVERY to ANE forms: In another post I would like to compare some of the Levitical laws and compare them to what I know about slavery in the US. I see some significant differences.But another section of Miller's discussion of slavery in the Bible: All from Does God Condone Slavery? From G. Miller Christian Thinktank http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.htmlEdited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Miller speaks to a comparison of master / slave rape in the New World Slavery with incidents of master / slave sexual recorded in the OT.Copied by Permission from http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.htmlA questioner believes that the Hebrew slave was subject to the raping whims of the master. [She ...]

Do you know for a fact that Hagar was not the kind of ANE slave who sold herself into slavery? Do you have proof that she was wrenched away from her land and family as the millions of kidnapped African's of US slavery? I don't think you can prove that Hagar's servitude was not initiated by her.And if it was according to frequent ANE custom, poverty is usually less than ideal than finacial independence.Prove from the text that Hagar's slavery was of the same type as the kidnapped African native. Let me be clear also. You seemed to have blinders on when the story continues with God's gracious provision to the cast out slave. It doesn't support your idea of God as the Heavenly Slaver.So I brought it to your attention. Don't just stop with what Sarah did to her. Go on to notice how God provided for her. It is not matter of simply my taste in answers. I will point out the shallowness of your interpretations. In the case of Hagar, the special favour is upon the mistreated slave.And in the more general case, innocent blood shed in the Good Land was cause for Divine displeasure rather than favor:" ... innocent blood may not be shed in the midst of your land, which Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance, and the guilt of blood be upon you." (Deut. 19:10)As for rape, I see no Divine command whatsoever to commit rape.I do notice this portion concerning a captive woman:"When you go out to fight against your enemies and Jehovah your God delivers them into your hands and you take them captive, And you see a beautiful woman amon the captives and desire her and would take her to your self AS A WIFE;

​

You shall bring her within your house, and she shall shave her head, trim her nails. And take her clothes of captivity away from her. And she shall dwell in you house and mourn her father and mother for a full month. And afterward you shall go in unto her and be her HUSBAND, and she shall be WIFE to you." (Deut. 21:10-13)That doesn't come across to me as "Thou shalt go in and rape the women" that you and other skeptics want to find in the Bible.Then God made provision for the situation where the man decides he doesn't really want to be the woman's husband.And if [after a time] you do not delight in her, you wshall let her go WHEREVER SHE WISHES. But you must not sell her for money; you shall not deal with her as a SLAVE, because you have humbled her." (v.14)This is not the command to go in and rape captive sex slaves.
If the woman is beautiful and to be desires the capture may have her for a wife after she is shaved and mourns her family for a month, under his support and provision.The alternative to many ancient women of conquered societies was a life of starvation or prostitution to avoid it. The subsequent provision for a wishy washy husband who changes his mind is that he shall NOT treat her as a slave. And this is provision for a weak man not a command to marry and divorce.I see this as a divine instruction about what to do when a certain situation occurs and how the Hebrew man is to act. I see it as limitation and control. Skeptics want to find "Thus says God, go rape captive women." Its not there. It not just a matter of my personal taste about your answer. It is a matter of the superficiality of your interpretations. Your bias is obvious. Don' blame me if when you read on a little further and a little deeper your point shows up as bogus.Paul was not groveling before anybody. And God even performed a miracle to save Hagar. He doesn't do those things lightly or without significance. I didn't see where it said she was forced. I see that Sarah had to give her to Abraham first to be a wife:"Now Sarai, Abram's wife, bore him no children, and she had an Egyptian female servant, whose name was Hagar.

​

And Sarai said to Abram, Because Jehovah has prevented me from bearing, please fo in to my female servant, perhaps I will obtain children by her. And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai.

​

So .... Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her female servant, and gave her to Abram her husband TO BE A WIFE." (Gen. 16:1-3)Probably Hagar regarded this promotion from a servant to the WIFE of a wealthy man and prophet like Abram to be a step up in life rather than a demotion. That is implied strongly in the following verse: [b]"And he went into Hagar [his other WIFE], and she conceived; and when she wsaw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes." (v.4)She realized the huge leap in her status. She was able to bear a son to the patriarch when Sarai her mistress was not able to. If you insist that she was forced, it is purely speculation on your part. My wager is that seeing her status go from servant to wife of the patriarch was a welcomed promotion. I think the evidence points that way. Probably, Granny, this was an afterthought of how they could utilize a situation which was getting out of hand.I don't think the lustful slave owner initially calculated that much. He knew he had a lot of supposedly "sub-human" females which were at least human enough to allow him to indulge his greedy lust on any given night. When I read the autobiograpy of Sojourner Truth I was stuck by the incident she discribed as the taking away of one of her children. She pleaded with the master's wife not to allow her baby to be taken away. The white woman said "Why are you making such a fuss about a little nigger?"Sojourner Truth said she prayed to God and asked God to take vengence for her for the incident. Some time latter, the same white woman's daughter who had been married was brutally murdered by her deranged husband.When the news came to the woman her mind snapped. She went mad in Sojournor's arms crying out over and over again the name of her daughter.Sojourner Truth said that she learned from the incidedent the she had to be real careful about asking God to take vengence on someone.This may be a remote point except that what Sojouner learned about God she got from the Bible. She apparently didn't share the hopelessness of assuming that God was on the side of Slavery and the slave owners no matter what. He came in and judged harshly, severly. My points right now:1.) Though the word "slavery" has a strong association because of my experience in America, I don't automatically transfer its associative content to every place it appears in the Bible.When the comparison is appropriate to American chattel, Darwinian style racist slavery I'll notice it. But if the situation is somehwat different, I wish to take note of the difference.2.) There is no command to rape women from God to the nation of Israel. There is no command to have sex slaves.Some skeptics of the Bible are sounding a false alarm. Okay, let's say she screamed at the thought of being Abraham's wife. Let's say she was dragged kicking and screaming into the tent and raped. Let's assume that that is what happened. Let's imagine that she hated being a slave of Sarai and hated even more having to marry Abraham.Given that, what does that say about what the Bible TEACHES?Is it saying this ? "Go out and do likewise".Is it saying this ? "Now if you want to be a good Commandment keeping Jew or Christian you have to do what Abraham did. Get yourself a female slave and marry her along with your wife and have a child by her."Could you show me where the Bible is holding up Abraham's experience in this incident as a model for behavior?I said that after the scheme was hatched and the desired child was born, God does not appear and speak again to Abraham for another 13 years. There is a long period of silence. When God does come back to speak to him Abraham is so relieved at the end of this cold shoulder from God, that he falls on his face:"And when Abram was ninety-nine years old, Jehovah appeared to Abram and said to him, I am the All-sufficient God; Walk before Me, and be perfect. And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.

​

And Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying, As for Me My covenant with you ..." (17:1-2)This is after a 13 year period of silence. The chapter goes on to explain how Abram so much wanted God to accept Ishmael as the promised offspring. But God will not have it so. He rejected Sarai and Abram's scheme. He doesn't need there help. He can make the barren Sarai to have a child. He was clearly not pleased with what Abram had done.There is no "Thus Sayeth God, Abram, Go rape thy slave." That's what you're looking for and its not there. Instead there is the Divine displeasure.Even if Hagar was forced, there is no hint that God commanded it or was pleased with it.So you have no case.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Now the Bible does hold up Abraham as a model of FAITH. But the incident with Hagar was an example of his lack of it.He learned to have faith. That is the point. He wasn't born with it. He learned the hard way and became the father of faith.Along the way, some of his failures were recorded as a backdrop upon which the faith he eventually arrived at is contrasted.

Granny writes: I don't think Paul "believed in Crack Cocaine Usage" because there is no epistle explicitly rallying Christians against it.I don't think Paul "believed in slavery" because there is no explicit epistle dedicated to political activism opposing it.But to be fair, we do have some instructions of Paul as to how a Christian brother should conduct himself should he become a Christian while in that status.I knew a man who taught his teenage sons what to do if they should ever be lost in a distant city. That was not his teaching them to go there. It was his instructions as to what to do should they go there and have no clear transportation back home.Yes, Paul wrote a letter to a slave owner telling him to receive back Onisumus his run away slave. Granny objects that is proof of Paul believing in slavery. But if Paul really believed in slavery the tone of the letter would have been like this: But what do we have from Paul ?Paul himself is a prisoner of Jesus Christ. He has to act according to the love of his own Master (v1). He repeats again for emphasis that he himself is Christ's prisoner (v.9). It is not a matter of what he personally wants or what Philemon wants. It is a matter of what the Lord Jesus Christ wants of His captives.Onesimus is Paul's child (v.10) spiritually begotten by Paul while Paul was in Roman chains for preaching the gospel. He wants the slave owner to treat the run away slave as Paul's own spiritual child.Since the implication is that Philemon the master himself, also was converted by Paul, this would amount to Paul asking Philemon to treat him as he himself would want to be treated.Paul finds this run away slave USEFUL to him. Excuse me Granny, but to be considered useful to a man like the Apostle Paul I would consider a huge honor. The fellow apostles who co-worked with Paul, risking their lives for the ministry, were USEFUL to Paul's life and work.Paul recommends this slave as his own co-worker, and a useful one. His sending Onesimus back was just like him sending Titus or Timothy or Luke to Philemon. Philemon was to receive him as a co-associate of the Apostle Paul.Paul's sending the slave back was his sending his own heart - "Him I have sent back to you - him, that is, my very heart -." (v.12)The word can be translated "bowels". In other words Paul's deep inward feelings and emotions.How is Philemon to receive the run away slave? He is to receive him back as a Christian brother with whom they will enjoy eternal life forever together:"For perhaps for this reason he was separated from you for but an hour, that you migh fulle have him forever, NO LONGER AS A SLAVE, A BELOVED BROTHER, especially to me, and how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord." (v.16)Now when Paul said that this runaway was now useful to him and to Philemon he was not refering to worldly usefulness. He was refering to his usefulness in the spread of the gospel, the building up of the churches, the building of the kingdom of God. This is the association that Paul had with the slave master Philemon. Their friendship was around the work of Christ in the new testament ministry.Housewives, bankers, farmers, soldiers, prisoners, slave owners, slaves, empoyers, employees, etc they were Paul's associates in the furthering of the Gospel work in their various stations of life.Paul's direct work was preaching salvation and forming local churches. We so not see him rallying Christians for political resistence in the modern sense of activism.But in his work to establish what he called the one new man in Christ, he taught that the social statuses and classes could not exist. Here Paul does not say sentamentally, "There should not be" as to imply "We really shouldn't behave that way with social class distinctions." No he emphatically says that "there CANNOT BE" these class conflicts in the new testament church. That's right. We have to make a choice. Either we want class distinctions or we want the church of Jesus Christ. If we want class distinctions such as SLAVE and FREE MAN, then we cannot have the church. But if we want the Lord's church then we have to let go of SLAVE / FREEMAN.The new man is something that the Christians are being renewed into by transformation. In this transformation from the Holy Spirit they are putting on the new man.The new man is one new man created in Jesus Christ Himself. In the realm and sphere of Jesus Christ the living Person, He created one new man breaking down old Adamic social classes and national and ethnic divisions of enmity: This spiritual transformation by the indwelling life of Christ is what Paul turned the slave and the slave owner over to. His teaching was to be renewed in the transforming Holy Spirit, ie, that is to PUT ON THE NEW MAN, the ONE NEW MAN. Paul was a political or social activist. But as a byproduct of the life transforming power of the Gospel, he was building up the one new man which renewed the minds from the old concepts of social status and class distinctions. This would include slave / master class warfare. There could not be these enmities in the new testament church which was the one Body of Christ and the one new man.Granny continues: The emphasis of the Apostle is on bringing people into the experience of Regeneration http://www.regerated.net . He feeds them with the living Christ. He leads them to grow in this new divine life to be renewed and transformed.He plants the life of God into people. He waters this life. He teaches and shepherds them that they may be builded up into what he calls the church, the one new man, the Body of Christ. As they have their minds renewed by Christ more and more there CANNOT be the old social barriers of SLAVE / MASTER - SLAVE / FREEMAN, Greek vs Jew, Male vs Female, rich vs poor, barbarian vs Scythian (which is even MORE barabarian).These barriers come down in Christ. Saturation with Christ is his Gospel message and work. His aim is not patching up the world. His aim is building up communities called churches. The church is the EKKLESIA. It is those CALLED OUT ONES.Paul is not the social activist coming to place bandaids on a corrupt world system. He is preparing communities in the world which are not of the world. Some who come into this community will be slaves when they come. Others will be masters when they come. They must all be built into the Body of Christ, the One New Man.These churches becomes testimonies to the world of where men and woman live in divine harmony together. They express Christ. They are the salt of the earth said Jesus. Salt only prevents the food from becoming totally rotten.Paul is not the activist to fix your godless Christ rejecting world for you. Paul is preparing churches. And at most these will act as a salt to keep society from completely rotting until physically returns to the earth. But the church is in the realm of the living Jesus which the world at large rejects.In working to build up a living organism in Christ in which there CANNOT be the old class stuggles, ie, slave and free, Paul is destroying the effect of the evil social system with those in the Christian church. These churches are to be a light on the hill, the salt of the earth. Here is testimony of living in the will of God.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Thanks. I got it.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Granny, God created the human conscience.
And God's word convicts and reminds man's conscience. Some historical objectivity will point out that Christian theology played a part. I would not say that Judaism or Buddhism could not have also done so.I think it is futile to suggest Bible theology had nothing to do with Abolition. This would be secular revisionism of the American history. In other words there was some Moral Law somewhere against which they could measure things and tell that they were crooked.This had to be stronger than a vague sense of someone's tastes and preferences like "I prefer Vanilla to Chocolate".This gets back to something I have not spoken to much but I think Bertot has addressed. I would only say that if there was a Moral Law to inform the conscience, there should be Legislator responsible for it.The collapse of the slave trade I would account to a number of social activist writings many of which were enfluenced by Bible Theology. I would not exclude non-religious moral reasoning. But its inclusion I would say was due to a sense of a transcendent Moral Law and thus a Law Giver, a divine Legislator.Moral laws are not physical things. So I would reject that materialistic atheism was its source. Dirt, molecules, chemicals do no, IMO, constitutes such things as moral decision of right and wrong. Back to the alledged rape again.A slave was given by her master to a rich patriarch to marry as a wife. When she bore a child which Sarah the other wife was not able to do, she considered herself higher than Sarah in the social scheme.The evidence implies she considered the marriage to the husband of her mistress as a social promotion. But I admit that I do not know that she forced into sex. But I seriously doubt it.Either way. The scheme, the plan, did not originate with God. You may be mad that the institution that allowed Hagar to be a slave of Sarah in the first place should be blamed on God. But I think that is weak.The shortage of everything came about because of the curse on the earth. And the curse on the earth came about because of Adam's disobedience to God. What I am interested in how and what God does to bring in a salvation to man and the earth. I consider that just ignorant slander. I haven't been at all convinced of your so-called divine promotion.And with a similar amoun of twisted bias I could imagine a case against marriage as forcing women into a slave situation. I showed that Paul was PRO the One New Man. He was FOR The church. And the nature of the Church makes it so that there CANNOT be the social class divisions.If you want to say that there are a lot of abnormal churches, I would agree. But that does not effect the teaching and it does not effect that there are many churches in victory over the social class struggles.I look for the overcoming ones which help my faith. I don't hunt for the ones which will give me reasons to doubt the gospel. They could manage without religion. Many of them, however, could not manage without Jesus Christ.Jesus is not a religion. Jesus is a living Person. Having grown up in the atmostphere where these things were discussed and lectured and spoken of much may be irrelevant to you.Regardless, Jesus who rose from the dead is a living Person and not a religion. The living Person Jesus saw many of them through. You can see it in their songs.Some who didn't believe got through also. Some by the prayers of believers and yes some probably on their own. Maybe even some decided to Mutate and Survive for all I know.Just the same, we are thankful to Jesus for what He did within some of them and in the country as a whole. We believe that God is in control. Once again. Jesus is not a religion. Jesus us a living Person.It is like this. If the law of gravity is a law, then it is not just a law in the science class room. It is a law everywhere. Right?If there is a God, He is not the God of religion. He is the God of reality. For you to state that implies a Moral Law. I derive from that a transcendent Moral Legislator a Law Giver.I think God would be the one responsible for your sense of some absolute Rightness against which you view the wrongness of slavery.I don't think your Moral Rightness somewhere informing you the slavery of any sort is wrong, is material. I don't think it evolved.And again your painting a broad brush stroke on slavery which ignores that some forms are worse than others. I am pro the One New Man like Paul where there cannot be Greek and Jew; circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free man, but Christ is all and in all. (Col. 3:11)I am for co-working with the Apostle to develop this realm in a living Person Jesus, where there is no possibility of these social conflicts because Christ must be given more and more room to fill all and all.The maturation of this entity, the church, at least in a remnant of overcomers, will bring the Lord Jesus back to this earth. He is the desire of the nations.So if you don't want to bring Jesus back and if you are not interested in being filled with Christ for the building up of the church the One New Man, I am not that much impressed with your moral outrage at slavery.I think that if you really cared you would give yourself over to be saturated with the Spirit of Jesus Christ and be built up into His mystical Body as a constituent of the One New Man. I think your motivation is to convince yourself that you're not so bad and are not yourself a slave of sin in need of Christ's salvation.By arguing that you're against all slavery and God isn't you hope to rationalize that you have no need to be justified from your own sins by a faulty God.My way is to allow the Bible to rise above me. I let God rise above me. I humble myself under the mighty hand of God. I believe that in due time he exalts those who humble themselves under His righteous plan of salvation.I have a gut feel that it is ludicrous to assume there is another umpire or a higher standard than God Himself. I am not one thinking that there is no God. That to me is completely absurd.So I don't think Granny will sit God down and teach Him a thing or two about how to be God or what is morally acceptable. I don't think there is a higher Umpire who will join up with Granny to scold God and straighten Him out.And I think the last word belongs to Jesus Christ who is God become a man. My bible didn't stop with Leviticus or even Philemon. All in all against the whole Bible, I think you have no case. Of course not.But there are quite a few things which I have undergone in my over fifty years of life here. And in some of them I GAINED more Christ in my being befause I did not pass through them ALONE but with Jesus.I want to gain Christ. I will use everything to that end. All my cicumstances and situations, the comfortable and the miserable, I want to learn to secret to GAIN more and more and more Christ's nature in the fabric of my being.But of course I would not go out of my way to be in an unpleasant slave master situation. I am thankful that I was born when I was born. But I have other trials to go through. And I want to gain Christ in them. I want to be saturated with Christ and conformed to His image. I want to build His Body and be a constituent of His kingdom by being conformed and transformed by His indwelling Spirit."The last Adam became a life giving Spirit." (1 Cor. 15:45)He is giving and supplying me with divine life. Sometimes my situation forces me into that divine life. There is no way out but UP.I have to go now Granny. Jesus loves you. I don't have time to look up your reference. But no one in God's creation is getting away with anything. It is all recorded. It will all be played back to the sinner.But the good news is that it can ALL be erased with the blood of Jesus. And then His divine life can come into us and transform us and build us up into the One New Man where there cannot be social class warfare. But Christ is all and in all.No more cracks about my brain falling out.

I think the question should be: Why do some listen to their conscience and some do not?Then this is further complicated by the fact of different issues. I may be more sensative in conscience in one matter. I notice that that is no garantee that I have boasting rights over another person who may be more prone in another area to listen to his conscience than I.There is also the problem of an over sensative conscience too. That can lead to mental problems. I do not deal with that here.Now, here's what I read in the Bible. The first record we have of someone going against his conscience is Cain, the brother of Abel. This is the second generation of mankind in Genesis. I won't include Adam and Eve blaming their sin on someonee else. Without going into a full exposition on Cain and Abel let me highlight that Cain had a problem listening to his conscience.Let me skim over some details real fast.1.) Cain and Abel's parents told them how God needed to be worshipped.2.) Abel obeyed. Cain decided to invent his own procedure.3.) God recognized Abel's offering and rejected Cain's with an encouraging word to Cain that if he did well he too would be received.4.) Cain, over come with the jealousy of rage becomes the world's first murderer. He also becomes the world's first inventor of a man made religion.5.) God speaks to Cain about the slain brother Abel. Here is where we see Cain's conscience problem: He has just murdered his brother Abel. He is totally callous about it. It is not that Cain had no conscience. It is that he excecised his will power to suppress it. He shut it down. He shut it up. He refused by act of will to listen to his conscience.The problem with his conscience is really the problem in his will's choice to suppress the feeling of wrong doing in his conscience.Of course God knew exactly where Abel was. God was giving Cain an opportunity to realize what he had done and to confess his sin. The result was disappointing: Cain still shows no sign of remorse. He only cares that his punishment is too harsh. He is scared that someone will seek vengence upon him and kill him, an act which God strictly forbids.The Bible portrays the downward current of the human race from Adam's disobedience. The next stage from entry of death is sin, murder, and the refusal to heed the God given conscience.Some would listen to the conscience and some would not.Now the conscience is a part of what the Bible calls the heart. Psalm 33 says: God fashions the hearts of all created men. Then God observes their lives and their works. He is watching. He is observing how each of us reacts to our conscience.He does not expect us to be able to carry out all of the good that we know. He knows that we have fallen into a sinful nature. He does neither expect us to be able to resist all of the evil that we know. He knows that we have become corrupted and damaged by the poisoning of man's nature with the Satanic spirit operating in Adam's descendents.He hopes that the conscience will be listened to to the point that when the Gospel comes and informs us that we have sinned we would agree. When it says that Jesus had died for our sins He hopes we will believe.When we do and accept Jesus as our Savior and Lord there is a great peace that comes into the conscience that nothing in the world can give. There is no imitation for it. It is supernatural. Yet it is quite normal. We have peace toward God. We know that we are now, under the blood of Jesus, in a status AS IF WE HAD NEVER SINNED.The conscience is restful and peaceful because, JUSTICE, has occured on our behalf in the death of Christ. We have not been overlooked. We have been JUDGED. We have been judged in Christ. Justice has been imputed on our behalf in the death of Jesus the Son of God. On Calvary, on Christ's cross, our sins which offend our God created conscience were dealt with by Christ.The wrong reaction is to reason like this:"No I am NOT a sinner. I am a pretty good person. At least I am not as bad as this guy over here. I am better than that one over there. I am better than a lot of religious people. I don't need to be saved. I don't need a Savior.

​

Even if I am bad I can change. Just give me one more day. I'll prove that I can change. I can live a life pleasing to God. Beside I don't want to have someone else take the penalty for me. That is not noble. That is not responsible. I will be responsible before God for my own sins. I don't want to say that I am all forgiven because of the death of Jesus." These kinds of reasonings are rebellion and unbelief. It is better to pray like this:"Lord Jesus. I realize that I am a sinner. I don't promise to change myself. I don't promise I can turn over a new leaf. But I do acknowledge that I am a guilty sinner. I need your precious blood to wash away the stain of my sins before God. I receive you as my Lord and Savior." That is much much wiser response to the Gospel. In fact just to confess "Lord Jesus" is most of the battle.This post is not meant to completely explain the Christian experience. I mean it to address the question you had on the conscience. I also wanted to show you how the conscience can be released, made free, clean, gloriously at peace and how you can have a brand new start with a keener and ever brightening conscience.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : I won't include Adam and Eve blaming their sin on someonee else.

This kind of sermonizing is different. You are not stuck to listen passively in your pew. You can heckle, debate, challenge, debunk, correct, sneer, take the conversation in a whole new direction, or preach your own sermon.Seriously. This is what you have to understand ... the truth is a living Person.It is not an accurate fact or some correct information. The truth is a living Person.