(CNN)–Pastor Louie Giglio sits down with CNN's Michael Holmes to discuss the Passion Movement's campaign against slavery. Read more about Giglio being picked to deliver the benediction at the presidential inauguration.
..."Jesus was the original abolitionist"...???
Is there no end to religions re-writing history to suit their current image problems?
They have raised cherry picking to fine high art ...
What a great opportunity to promote an entirely humanist cause – that is the cause of making life as good as possible for those that are actually experiencing it. Why do religious people feel the need to deflect the credit for wanting to be good, to a cosmic being who clearly endorsed the very thing which this group wants to fight, namely human slavery? Why can’t people just, in the words of the two great philosophers Bill and Ted, be excellent to each other?
Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven' – Under God – The ...
by Elizabeth Tenety – in 624 Google+ circles – More by Elizabeth Tenety
May 16, 2011 – There is no heaven... that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark,” Hawking told the Guardian.
Click the report abuse link to get rid of this trash.
Jesus did not say "Let there be no slavery" but He did in the Gospels call his audience mostly Jewish to keep the Law (Torah) which in it states they have to adhere to the year of Jubilee meaning they must set their slaves/servants free. These slaves/servants would have comprised mostly of people in debt to them. He called them to be merciful and to love. That beats our current system of how we deal with debt. Plus those are two things I'm sure the atheists can agree they would like to see mercy and love shown to others. He did also read infront of the Jews a passage from Isaiah that was about how the Messiah(Christ) was to set captives free and for the Christians who believe the many scriptures that point to a second coming know one of the key issues to be dealt with then is the freedom of those in slavery. Though the atheist's don't believe that will happen the Christians do so in their mindset they would see Him as what we would call now an abolitionist.
Present day slavery of taking someone from their home and making them your slave because of their race or making them your se.xslave was not a current issue with His audience. If it was then He would have addressed it. But if you take His messages on love, mercy and forgiveness it could easily apply to the present form of slavery. Forcing someone into prost.itution is not love. In reality they were the one being oppressed and He called them to love and not attack back. Similar to the MLK method.
The Pauline letters are addressing the same thing if you are a slave/servant then obey them, love them, honor them (i.e. don't fight them). Then he goes on to address the masters and call them to love and honor the slaves/servants (i.e. remember the year of Jubilee). Also in the book of Philemon Paul actually addresses a man on his slave/servant for his freedom to the point he offered to pay for his freedom.
In the end you have to understand the context and audience of the book. It was not written this century to a bunch of westerners but was written to mostly Jewish men and women.
Anyways I hope that helps the questions of the atheists. In the end the real question is why are people upset because this is being done by Christians? The point is the one at age 12 being thrust to have se.x with people and that is just WRONG! So lets agree on that last point stop arguing and do something about it.
The only question with regard to religion and slavery is why does god condone and expect it of adherents? Your cult is vile, and you are a disgusting human for trying to paint slavery as "good."
You are projecting your own personal stereotypes on that whole comment. No one said it was good.
"...which in it states they have to adhere to the year of Jubilee meaning they must set their slaves/servants free."
This was for Hebrew slaves.
As for Non-Hebrew slaves:
You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. ( L:ev 25:46)
Yes the Jewishman could keep the inherited Gentile slaves, but that kind of slave was not what we define modern slavery. Keep in mind I am not promoting slavery or saying it is good just merely defining what was meant by slave in the Bible. Chattel slaves are what we think of as slaves which are those that have no rights. They are considered to be nothing more than animals with no value than that which one could get out of them. That is wrong. The slaves in the Bible both hebrew and gentile are not chattel slaves. They had rights, they could marry, they celebrated with the family (not as the cooks in the back but celebrated with them), they get the sabbath off and so on.
Now Abraham himself had a slave who he made master of his house and heir of his household (Gen 24:2 and Gen 15:3), though as the story goes he eventually has a son in his old age and names him the new heir. Still that seems a peculiar form a slavery if for many years a slave is heir. Maybe something is different about this form of slavery.
Law of Moses (Post Abraham) states mulsiple times to be careful of how they treat slaves and to obey God's laws concerning slavery, for they themselves were onces slaves and know what that felt like to have no rights. Some verses concerning the mandatory special treatment of all the slaves: Ex 20:10, Deut 5:14, Deut 12:12, Deut 16:10-14.
The Code of Hammurabi exacted no penalty for the murder of a slave, but the Law of Moses proscribed the death penalty for the murder of any man (Exodus 21:12). The Code of Hammurabi exacted no penalty for injuring a slave, but the Law of Moses required a master to set his slave free if he inflicted permanent injury (Exodus 21:26-27). The Code of Hammurabi held the life of a slave to be of less value than the life of a free born man, but the Law of Moses valued them equally (Exodus 21:12, 19).
Lev 22:10-11 Only Levites get to eat the food that is considered holy not even the rest of the children of Israel. But wait what is this The slaves/servants of the priest can? That is quite peculiar.
Also this is just to show that gentiles were not to be considered inferior nor racist: Num 15:15-16, Ex. 23:9, Lev. 19:33-34, Lev 24:22
I end it with this as someone who is still studying and researching the context of a book that covers thousands of years there is more studying to do than a single day of reading biast people's (both Christian and Atheist) articels and listening to a prophesor make their biast rant. So suffice it to say I have not had enough time to learn everything, thus I cannot sufficiently answer every question concerning the Bible or any other book. Though the Bible never says "Thou shalt not have slaves" it does not say "Hey go buy yourself some slaves" it merely addresses how you treat them if they decide to sell themselves to you out of their poverty. They are not inferior but to be considered as part of your family.
ps Not only condones slavery, but is racist as well.
"Also in the book of Philemon Paul actually addresses a man on his slave/servant for his freedom to the point he offered to pay for his freedom."
Paul does offer to pay for anything owed by the servant, but he also fails at any point to condemn the fact that a Christian (if the term were used then) owns another human being.
How is ownership of another human being, which Paul does not condemn, a sign/act of love?
An excellent responce Nathan. Keep up the good work.
Jesus did not preach to christians, he preached to jews that is who his message was for, others perverted his wishes and spread his word to others it was not intended for.
Jesus did not eat pork.
Why do christians?
Read the book of Acts. lol
"they have to adhere to the year of Jubilee meaning they must set their slaves/servants free."
Only if they were Jews. Non-Jews could be kept forever and indeed passed as property to your sons or beaten to within an inch of their lives any time you chose with no punishment so long as they didn't die right away.
Slavery is ugly, even when an all-loving "god" gives you rules on what's allowed and who you can buy and sell.
You missed my earlier point, the slaves were not beaten but treated as sons. There slavery was not what we think of modern day chattel slavery. This is why whenever the slaves were set free whether Jew or Gentile on many occasions they would submit themselves to become bond-slaves for life. Because they loved their master like a son loves their father. We as westerners (specifically Americans) have no grid for the type of slavery that existed then. You atheists really need to stop proof-texting and stop the Eisegesis and must learn proper Exegesis of texts. And once again I am not defending slavery but stating that you guys are jumping to conclusions with no understanding.
Has the art of Hermeneutics and Debate been lost in the west? If this was a debate I would have won hands down. lol. Sorry not trying to be rude just provoke people to not blindly quote things.
Anyways I grow tired of all this nonsense, no one has brought a fresh intellectual comment so I shall bid you all adieu on this post.
A modern critical freethinker
Nathan, it is rare to see such good answers concerning slavery in the Law which is just a form of cheap labor of strangers (not Israelites) with rights.
The comments show that most can not think that far ahead. They would rather have the issues that we have to deal with now which includes dividing the family to produce cheap labor. Driving up debt of households to trap them, I could go on.
Are all atheists unable to think for themselves or just this fool?
there sure are a lot of me today, aren't there?
i think of it as "many me", like mini me.
I would like to apologize for my turdy behavior.
Atheists do think for themselves, We question, we are skeptic and we want facts.
Religious people blindly follow writing from hundreds to thousands of years old wrote by men trying to control a population
So who is the free thinker?
Answer: the one who does not blindly follow some absurd ancient text
Do you have faith? the very definition of faith says it all "belief that is not based on proof"
that does not sound like something a person who thinks for themselves would be into
I find that when I stop taking my Thorazine, I see Jesus in person!
Stealing is a sign of a low end atheist. Still it proves the contention that all atheists are liars.
Everything I ever said was a lie, including this.
Atheist schmatheist, who cares what those angry old k00ks think. Nobody likes, or pays attention to, them in the real world so there's no point in playing their games here. Let them wallow in their own prideful ignorance.
Once again atheist types prove that it is not possible for a self deceived atheist to ever tell the Truth. When confronting these fools understand that none of those atheists can be Truthful and that what one atheist lies to all the others swear to.
Cray bitch, why you have to flap that mouth?
Why are you capitalizing the word "truth" in your sentences?
Indoctrination. Redefine "belief" as "truth" since belief is so, you know, wishy washy sounding. Then capitalize "Truth" so it looks important magical and appears to have a meaning other than the mundane "truth." Then say it over and over with the hope its glittery magic will dazzle others and shield you from the actual truth.
Once again fundietroll types prove that it is not possible for a self deceived fundietroll to ever tell the => Truth. Truthful Truth <=
Plus, they're flipping nuts. On their chins.
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.