Alan Austin wrote: Remember it was Bible-believing Christians who first challenged slavery (Wilberforce)

Dear Alan,

Why should one remember something that isn’t true?

The opposition to slavery existed in the ancient world before Christianity was invented, and the New Testament written. I have visited the pagan Greek shrine at Delphi. There are many inscriptions by Greeks telling how they had freed slaves. Leviticus 25:8-55 tells of the Jubilee year in which slaves were freed. That is in the Jewish Bible.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm

The Christian Scriptures and Slavery

Neither Jesus nor St. Paul, nor any other [New Testament] Biblical figure is recorded as saying anything in opposition to the institution of slavery.

Quoting Rabbi M.J. Raphall, circa 1861:

"Receiving slavery as one of the conditions of society, the New Testament nowhere interferes with or contradicts the slave code of Moses; it even preserves a letter [to Philemon] written by one of the most eminent Christian teachers [Paul] to a slave owner on sending back to him his runaway slave." 1

Paul's violation of the Mosaic Code on slavery:

While in prison, Paul met a runaway slave, Onesimus, the property of a Christian -- presumably Pheliemon. He sent the slave back to his owner. This action is forbidden in Deuteronomy 23:15-16:

"Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee."

“The Arrogance of Faith” by F. Wood tells how Christianity justified slavery.

“In West Africa, where the population was especially dense and from which the great bulk of slaves was secured, Christianity was practically unknown until the Portuguese began to plant missions in the area in the sixteenth century. It was a strange religion, this Christianity, which taught equality and brotherhood and at the same time introduced on a large scale the practice of tearing people from their homes and transporting them to a distant land to become slaves.” - John Hope Franklin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention

The Southern Baptist Convention, largest Baptist sect in the world, became a separate denomination in 1845 in Augusta, Georgia, following a regional split with northern Baptists over the issues of slavery.

Thanks for the clarification, David. You are entirely correct. What I meant by the shorthand ‘slavery’ was ‘the legal practice of slave trading throughout the British Empire from the 16th to the 18th century’. Strictly, of course, Wilberforce wasn’t the first to challenge it.
The point being attempted was that it was his conversion to Evangelical Christianity which impelled him to pursue this particular political reform.

Alan you write 'It is no sin to be who God made you.’
Child molestors could argue the same thing. Sexual conduct is a choice despite the constant dogma that you are born that way. There are numerous who start out straight, have families and then go into a unnatural relationship. Personally I think you are deceived.

btw proper science has only confirmed the accuray of Scripture not diminished it.

Dear Alan

Thank you for your teasingly erudite article. I especially enjoyed the way you interleaved other biblical references throughout the main thread. A Bible study group would be extremely busy working its way through all the doctrinal issues to which you refer.

I have to admit that on one of my re-readings I imagined your article running as a short film… In that version your St Peter was a whimsical Peter Ustinov (it seemed a good fit with your article's tone of voice).

The God you presented reminded me somewhat of that in Terry Lane's book "God: the interview".

I wonder if runner's doctrinal certainty would change if he read the late Yale University Prof of history John Boswell's academically dense but rewardingly informative books "Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe" and "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the 14th Century"? In the former he includes translations of many of the manuscripts containing ceremonies of same-sex union still held in the Vatican.

Again thank you for your article which I am about to re-read... What effect would it have if I imagine it read by John Cleese…?

WmTrevor

Thanks, WmTrevor. Must find those two volumes myself. Haven’t heard of them before.
@ Runner, two good points again. Thanks for this.
Yes, agree with you science has confirmed the accuracy of much of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments. But would you agree that good science has also led Christians to change their understanding of the interpretation and application of many passages?
Unfortunately Bible-believing Christians on the wrong side of science-scripture arguments have often done great damage before realising their errors.
Fair point also about child molesters. We could add rapists, men who abuse animals and other perversions. We must certainly condemn sexual activities where there is an unwilling participant. But would you agree that consensual sexual activities are less clear? And that Scripture can then be both helpful and problematic?
Should a married couple who have sex during the wife’s period be excommunicated? Does God allow rulers to have concubines? Must elders have one wife, but deacons and pastors have two or none? The Bible is quite clear on these: yes, yes and yes. But most Christians these days say: no, no and no.
On other questions, Scripture is frustratingly silent. When is it okay for an engaged couple to hold hands, kiss and make love? Is oral sex okay within marriage? (against the law in many US states.) What sex positions are permissible within marriage? (only the missionary position is legal in Washington DC.)
So would you agree, Runner, it can be tricky to determine what is actually meant by some passages that refer to sexual immorality? And that this is where we need scholarly exegesis, the insights of science, profound pastoral sensitivity and internet forums?

Dear runner,

Alan Austin's cleverly crafted article is a parable. Clever because he weaves examples of Biblically-referenced doctrinal inconsistency into his narrative - the proof's in the pudding, as it were.

The lesson I took from the article was that doctrinal certainty is illusionary.

I've re-read your comments and your criticisms can be summarised as, the Word is the Word and a sin is a sin.

The problem is that the verses in the Bible can be explicit, implicit, historic, poetic, worshipful, factual and/or fantastical.

In a second post I'll offer some suggestions on interpretation.