Slave to Christ
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-09-2010, 11:57 PM
Slave to Christ
My brother posted this on his Facebook with the caption "This looks like a GREAT book!"

Slavery = a good thing? Apparently they have no idea what truthful connotations and terrifying, corruptive, absolute power that comes with that kind of pairing. Or even worse: maybe they do.

If I believed that there was even a small chance it would work, I'd start praying for the dismantle of this self-destructive lifestyle right now.

"It does feel like something to be wrong; it feels like being right." -Kathryn Schulz
I am 100% certain that I am wrong about something I am certain about right now. Because even if everything I stand for turns out to be completely true, I was still wrong about being wrong.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2010, 12:12 AM
RE: Slave to Christ
If that is the meaning of slavery in the bible, why did it take nearly 2,000 years for anyone to figure it out? I highly suspect that this guy is making it all up so he can develop a following and sell books so that he can become rich, famous and influencial.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2010, 02:33 AM
RE: Slave to Christ
He actually already is quite rich, famous, and incredibly influential among the fundies. Tongue I'm actually prone to believe him, having studied firsthand the strange P.C. translations that are introduced into the New Testament to allow it some conformity within itself to avoid some contradictions. Still, I'm sure the motivation is to garner more money, fame, and fortune, of course.

"It does feel like something to be wrong; it feels like being right." -Kathryn Schulz
I am 100% certain that I am wrong about something I am certain about right now. Because even if everything I stand for turns out to be completely true, I was still wrong about being wrong.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2010, 02:55 AM
RE: Slave to Christ
I am not prone to believe him. I am prone to mistrust everything he says. I have never heard an arguement like that before. Why? Probably because he made it up to suit his propaganda, and to avoid the fact that the bible condones slavery. We are living in a society that condemns slavery. He is making this up to sell to people so that he can sidestep the implications of slaveryin the bible and say that it didn't happen. Sounds a lot like holocast deniers. This kind of re-interpretting of the bible to suit different societies, and to keep up with the social views is a very old ploy designed to bring in new converts and to keep people from leaving the church. If the bible was such a good book, why is it not being recommended by every psychiatrist to their patients? Why are there atheists who can poke so many holes through the incongruities of the bible? And, how did the bible get so popular if it weren't for smooth talking salesmen who could convince people that the bible was an infallible word of god?

That guy is a very influencial. So was Adolph Hitler. History shows that believing influencial people can destroy nations. If you are interested, find proof, or at least good evidence. Don't believe because it sounds good to you. That can be very dangerous.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2010, 03:41 AM (This post was last modified: 25-09-2010 03:47 AM by ebilekittae.)
RE: Slave to Christ
I'm afraid you missed my point. Tongue Here's evidence of doulos = slave. If you don't trust the source, please feel free to look it up in any other old greek dictionary.

Personally, I don't see how this condones slavery at all, nor was that the point of my post. On the contrary, I posted the video to show the insanity that fundamentalism leads to, even to the point of considering yourself a "slave" (though clearly without much of the negativity being a real slave brought). Making it known that instead of just being a "servant" to christ you're his fully-bought "slave" doesn't sound like something a lot of people would enjoy. I'm unconvinced that his motive with this is to keep up with the times, since the times seem to be moving the opposite direction. Tongue

And of course the Bible isn't a good book. Tongue It's an old book of poetry and legends composed by men mostly more than 2000 years ago that brings little relevance to anything within modern society aside from a code of ethics that accepts and is a proponent of ethics that are quite usually born into us, as well as a proponent of a set of "ethics" that are nowhere near moral. I'm not sure where you got that I was saying it was a good book. Quite the opposite, actually. Tongue

Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagan, and Richard Dawkins are also influential. Do I believe everything they say? No, of course not. Do I believe everything John MacArthur has to say? Far less so. Just because he is influential does not mean he can't be right any more than it means he is right. I don't think we're disagreeing, here, I'm not entirely sure why this discussion is taking place. Tongue Perhaps you tied in my "I'm actually prone to believe him" with the sentence that preceded it, instead of my reasoning for which directly afterwards when I wrote "I'm actually prone to believe him, having studied firsthand the strange P.C. translations that are introduced into the New Testament to allow it some conformity within itself to avoid some contradictions."

So, for clarity's sake, let me reiterate the reason I'm prone to believe him about the incorrect translation is because of my own research into the topic, using my experience and learnings in the field of linguistics and what little I had learned in theology. I don't think it's too far of a stretch to say that the church mistranslated it earlier to fulfill their own agenda and to make it seem they were more condemning of slavery as the times changed towards that way of thinking. In fact, it's just what you were suggesting, only instead of a single person, a relatively well-organized group of people that could profit from it even further. Tongue

IMPORTANT EDIT:
Quote:If that is the meaning of slavery in the bible, why did it take nearly 2,000 years for anyone to figure it out?

I misread this earlier, which is probably why the discussion was here. I read it instead as "If that is the meaning of doulos in the bible, why did it take nearly 2,000 years for anyone to figure it out?"

Neither my point nor the point of John MacArthur was that the slavery in the Bible was actually referring to being servants of christ. The point he made was that the words translated "servant" when referring to a believer should actually be translated "slave". Instead of making the slavery directly mentioned weaker, it makes the servanthood mentioned harsher.

Sorry for the misunderstanding! Tongue

"It does feel like something to be wrong; it feels like being right." -Kathryn Schulz
I am 100% certain that I am wrong about something I am certain about right now. Because even if everything I stand for turns out to be completely true, I was still wrong about being wrong.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2010, 06:28 AM
RE: Slave to Christ
I just want to know who is behind this 2,000 year old conspiracy? Was there some secret society formed within the Roman Empire who, as the new testament was being written said "ok people, we MUST obscure the meaning of this word even though this religion has no more than 200 followers right now and there is no reason to believe it will grow"?

You guys are focusing on his argument. I think the lead up to his argument is just so stupid that I can't even get to a point where I'm focusing on the merit (and lack thereof) of what he's saying.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2010, 07:00 AM
RE: Slave to Christ
Oh, no, on the contrary, though. It remained in the Greek with "doulos" for quite some time--I believe the Bible wasn't translated into English for the first time until the 1500s? Somewhere around there, give or take a century. By that time, Christianity was quite well-grounded to say the least, and I don't think it's too far of a stretch to say that people at that time didn't like the idea that they were supposed to be slaves to anyone, knowing how they treated their own slaves or how the people with slaves treated their slaves.

Still, there is the point that it IS speculation. The only fact we really have is that "doulos" quite literally means "slave" but had been mistranslated into merely "servant". While it makes sense to me that people could have done it deliberately, I certainly don't have any proof of that, so I withdraw from that argument with humility. Tongue

"It does feel like something to be wrong; it feels like being right." -Kathryn Schulz
I am 100% certain that I am wrong about something I am certain about right now. Because even if everything I stand for turns out to be completely true, I was still wrong about being wrong.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2010, 07:10 PM
RE: Slave to Christ
(25-09-2010 03:41 AM)LeviTimes Wrote:  Perhaps you tied in my "I'm actually prone to believe him" with the sentence that preceded it, instead of my reasoning for which directly afterwards when I wrote "I'm actually prone to believe him, having studied firsthand the strange P.C. translations that are introduced into the New Testament to allow it some conformity within itself to avoid some contradictions."

Yes, that is what happened. I do not trust evangelical types in any way shape or form. If I wrote a dictionary, an evangelist would be "anyone who creates lies in the name of religion." I am not aware of any evangelists who don't fit that description.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2010, 03:27 AM
 
RE: Slave to Christ
The words in the bible (or any text of comparable age) have been transcribed by hand and translated numerous times. It's not just plausible, but virtually inevitable that the words we read in any of the multitude of versions of the bible (or other sacred texts) will include transcription and translation errors. Accepting such words literally is of dubious value, naturally. No one can be certain of the intentions of the original authors. The meanings of words in different languages often involve subtleties that are difficult to translate, especially when doing a literal translation (as anyone who does so will know).
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: