I think you need to look at the context of the times. God was not always revealing teaching that was black and white.
No, it does not make sense. You claim your God is outside of time (that’s another topic) and he is all good.
Interesting that you see this as a negative endeavor rather than a positive one.
Tell me what it is that I fail to know after all of the instruction and attendance at Holy Mass since I came on to this forum.
Of course, to a human, all endeavors MUST look like human endeavors.
He didn’t condone it, he permitted it. Big difference.
How would you, or I, know what Abraham thought?
Ever hear the phrase “God works in mysterious ways”? There was a good discussion on why God permits evil, suffering, etc on Catholic Answers Live. If I can find it, I will post it.
When a person desires to be something (or involved with something) they are presented with a list of “positives” and “negatives”. To take your analogy, if I told a woman about troubles my sisters had with raising kids they would be things to add in the “negatives” column. But this is something different. One of the positives for christianity is that it’s headed by and run by God, and He is perfectly good. He is the ultimate source of what is right and what is wrong. In fact, christianity is predicated on this. Yet with what I’ve presented I’ve shown that is clearly not the case. Any being that allows for and endorses slavery is not good. I’m removing an item from christianity’s “positive” column. Heck, I’m removing the core “positive” item. That’s a big difference than telling a pregnant woman that kids are messy.
Of course. Look at all those laws in the books which specify how one can and can not chain women up in his basement. You can only beat them so often and you have to replace the chains with new ones every year, right? No, if he’s giving specific instructions on how it’s ok to beat slaves and hold their families hostage if they decide to leave, then he’s in favor of it.
As I noted above, God felt that picking up sticks on the Sabbath on not circumcising one’s son has a higher priority than saying owning people is wrong. That speaks incredibly poorly of God. I think we should all be thankful that God didn’t prioritize other things before getting around to telling us murder was wrong.
And then to have those free slaves starting a new nation by enslaving people in neighboring lands.
In freeing wills he should have made it known where he stands on crimes against humanity – slavery near the top. Actually let me correct myself. He did make it known where he stands: Go on ahead and get your slaves!
Then why did he give the Ten Commandments? Why did he give all of those dozens of rules in Exodus, rules that cover things like minor oxen disputes, yet only speaks in favor of completely eliminating the sanctity of human dignity by owning people? Only by desperately clinging to a desired result can anyone look at the Scriptures, pretending with all one’s might, and claim that it’s anti-slavery.
You do understand that the Ten Commandments are distinct from the Mosaic Law (the Deuteronomic or second law,) do you not? If you read very carefully, the Mosaic Law came from Moses, which us why Jesus made the point of Moses “permitting” divorce because of ”the hardness of your hearts.” The Mosaic Law was a kind of “compromise” between God and Moses in terms of the level of goodness the people were capable of. Recall that as Moses was bringing down the tablets signifying God’s law, the people were engaged in an orgy of rebellion against the God who brought them out of slavery (the fleshpots of Egypt) and they demanded to be taken back. Here is the problem with reading things out of context and not “being there” to pick up on the subtle nuances.
Jam,
God is outside of time, humans on earth are not.
Perhaps a system executed by humans but created by God.
Onesimus probably did, until the intervention of St.Paul, who was reveared in the Early Church. St. Paul even mentioned that he could command, but rather he gave Philemon opportunity, to do the right thing!
My interpretation of the events maybe speculation, but they are far more probable that he was received as a son, or brother. If we were to review this information as historians do today, I bet the reconstruction and short playback adaptation on film, would be Philemon welcoming back Onesimus. Probability is in my favor!
Why would this letter continue, if Onesimus was taken back as a slave? First of all Philemon would have been publicly admonished and shamed by St.Paul, and then you posit that he could of kept the letter? My reading is far more likely!
So your reading from this gets you to believe that the Evil, Wicked St.Paul forced a Slave back to his master??? Really??? Seems highly unlikely, that St.Paul would act so immoral!
Yes, no evidence, only reasonable inferences to what was probable.
Is this a MORAL issue?
Yes, and immediately after from Exodus 21 through 23 he gives numerous other instructions (including how to possess and beat slaves). It is the same event except Moses walked into the darkness because the others were afraid. There is no indication at all that God was making a distinction between the two sets of laws.
I know where in the Bible where Jesus specifically states that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of our hearts. Where is there any similar condemnation of slavery in the Bible? You can’t just assume that God “permitted” slavery because now humanity feels kind of ooky about it. How do you back up your assertion?
The problem is that God gave all those instructions on slavery (including the wonderful bit about how daughters are to be sold by their fathers) occurred before Moses came down with the tablets. Again, what bright line is there that separates laws God gave because they are good and laws God gave because compromise was needed?
Context is not some magic word. It’s not “abracadbra” or “swiper no swiping”. It’s not a wild card that allows one to give a phrase or passage any meaning its reader wants. Above I put the passages from Exodus regarding slavery in context of other passages in the same speech by God. It’s tort law, and it comes utter devoid of any negative implication.
I’d be curious to know what greater wrongs would have occurred had slavery been forbidden. With slavery forbidden now, are those wrongs occurring now? If so, would it be better if we once again allowed and encouraged slavery.
But why would he tell us all of these things that he believe are wrong – things as major as not killing and as minor as not leaving a pit open where an animal could fall in. In those instances he gives us free will while at the same time delineating what is good and what is not. Yet he never tells us humanity that slavery is wrong. In fact he condones it and encourages it. How can free will be in play when he wants us to do the exact opposite of what he told us to do?
You’re also assuming that Onesimus lost his fear of returning to Philemon because of the power of Paul?
I greatly disagree. Groups send correspondence to groups with opposing goals all the time. By your reasoning each of those groups throw out all of that correspondence. Opposing heads of state write to each other and that correspondence is kept.
You assume that everybody at that time would have felt shame from those words of St. Paul. Not everyone revered him, simply because no one is universally revered.
Very true. And I’ve shows that my ideas on the matter are plausible and probable.
Assume you have a friend and she tells you that her husband has hit her repeatedly and she has feared for her safety. You believe her. A week later she tells you that he seems to be a changed man and she’s going back to him. She’ll be moving several states away with him which means you can’t verify that’s she safe (similar to how Paul was in jail and could not verify that Onesimus would be safe). Even if the chance of violence is small and even if you leave her husband a friendly asking him to keep his promise, would you tell her to go? Would you tell her to go all out and move away or would you tell her to be cautious? Paul sent this slave to the man he fleed from with only Paul’s stature as an assurance that Onesimus would be safe. Immoral? Probably. Dangerous? Absolutely.
Former slave Jourdon Anderson would beg to digger.
Ah, there it is. :nope:
We can’t know either way, but since Onesimus was being sent on behalf of St. Paul, as his son, his heart, one can assume Onesimus trusted St. Paul, so to think his fear being diminished is plausible!
You would have to assume their goals were opposing after Philemon received the letter, which we don’t know! You are talking about a persecuted people, that became a right nit community of believers, who would say strange and unusual things, like calling people of no relation brother and sister!
Wow, interesting that it exist indeed, but that doesn’t change the fact that St. Paul was the one sending Onesimus, and slavery in the US *could be * far more brutal.
It’s not unreasonable to assume St Paul was reveared, by a guy who runs a Church out of his house in the first century, whom St. Paul refers to as a friend to begin with!
Possible, that the letter was transcribed, but we can only infer, I just think the inference I made, was more plausible!
Perhaps, we all have to take a position, based on evidence!
St. Paul sends Onesimus back to a people who would rather die, than deny Christ in the first century, so I have reason to believe, that peoples hearts change, and do the right thing out of love!
Each case is different, we are dealing with people, not programmed robots, lead by electrical impulses, people have free will!
I do not assume that atheist moral code is suspect, just the grounds for it!
I would agree that it is plausible, just as the idea that Onesimus was still fearful is also plausible.
Repeatedly you’ve told me about all of these things we can’t assume, but then you state we must assume these very uncertain conclusions that you’ve come to. In this instance we can’t assume the goals of Philemon and Paul were different, but you’re saying we must assume that when a leader of a community asks something of a member that the member will comply. Not only can we not assume that all members of a community have the same opinion on all matters, but we have numerous examples of members disagreeing and not complying with their leaders.
What does the fact that the letter came from Paul have to do with whether Philemon kept the letter or not? Paul did not have mind control powers. People were capable of disagreeing with him. In fact, you said yourself originally that if Philemon disregarded Paul’s letter he would have discovered it. You allowed for the possibly that Philemon could have done so. As my example shows people who receive letters from people they are at odds with will sometimes keep those letters. It doesn’t matter if it’s from a slave, Paul, or the president of the United States. Don’t ignore this very clear proof.
Was Paul revered? (Hee!) Likely. Was Paul revered by Philemon? Maybe. Do people disagree with people who are revered? All the time. Also the guy at the hot dog place near me calls me friend. I’m not his friend.
This is important. We’re not looking for the most plausible, but trying to rule out all but one possible cause. We agree that if Paul only made one copy of the letter, if Philemon received, and he destroyed it, then there would be no way that it would be recorded today. Here are what I think are the five best reasons why there is a record of this letter:
I have!
If all of the people involved were real, then I hope you’re right that Philemon’s heart changed. But there’s a difference between optimism and proof.
Absolutely! But you’re treating Philemon like a robot, saying that a man with freewill would be incapable of denying Paul and/or keeping a letter sent by Paul if he disagreed with him. Again, could he have complied with Paul? Yes, but he had freewill and may not have. He also may have not complied and kept the letter.
Your incredulity is noted. I hope you’ll research morals outside of a religious framework, because I have them and many of the non-believers you’ll encounter have them as well despite said incredulity.
As I noted in my previous post, sending Onesimus to a possibly/likely dangerous situation when it was not necessary is immoral. Onesimus was a pawn in Paul’s game. It may have worked out for the best, but if it didn’t then Philemon has to take some of the blame.
There are two distinct times when Moses came down with tablets. The laws pertaining to slavery were spelled out before Moses came down from the mountain the second time with the second set of tablets (Deut 10). Exodus 20-23 concerns the episode prior to the second set of tablets being brought down to the people.