----- Original Message ----- From: Ed BabinskiCc: Steve LocksSent: 30 October 2002 18:05Subject: Re: Recent Mail
Hi Jordan,
Thanks for hoping for the safety of my loved ones, and wishing me a nice
weekend. I wish the same for you as well, the same in fact for everyone on
earth.
One of my favorite prayers by the way is this one, written by a pagan who
lived near the time of Christ (though on the web I have seen its
authorship confused with a church father who had the same name, and who
lived a couple hundred years after Christ -- the web attribution is
incorrect however since I've checked the source of the quotation in
Gilbert Murray's book):
May I be no man's enemy, and may I be the friend of that which is eternal
and abides.
May I never devise evil against any man; if any devise evil against me,
may I escape without the need of hurting him.
May I love, seek, and attain only that which is good.
May I wish for all men's happiness and envy none.
When I have done or said what is wrong, may I never wait for the rebuke of
others, but always rebuke myself until I make amends.
May I win no victory that harms either me or my opponent.
May I reconcile friends who are wroth with one another.
May I, to the extent of my power, give all needful help to all who are in
want.
May I never fail a friend in danger.
May I respect myself.
May I always keep tame that which rages within me.
May I never discuss who is wicked and what wicked things he has done, but
know good men and follow in their footsteps.
- The Prayer of Eusebius (a pagan who lived some two thousand years ago,
as quoted in Gilbert Murray, Five Stages of Greek Religion)
And thanks for taking a peek at my writings with Habby. No, I was not
hoping that you would post them at your site, but I am happy to hear that
you have read them.
I think you should also read Bob Price's Beyond Born Again on the web,
rather than settle for what others tell you about it. (I've read Holding's
articles concerning Bob Price's writings, but the first step toward
understanding anyone is reading them for yourself, not settling for
reading reviews.)
I have read that when you were an atheist you read some atheistic
magazines and also three books on atheism, Ingersoll the Magnificent,
O'Hair's Questions and Answers, and Paine's Age of Reason. Such a list is
quite small compared to the hundred or more Christian books I read and
studied intently when I was a Christian. And Ingersoll's book is simply a
collection of freethought assertions, not footnoted, and not related
strictly to a study of the Bible. The same goes for O'Hair's book of
questions. Paine's Age of Reason is one of the books I read during my
evangelical Christian days and I did not find it challenging as a
Christian. Though years later I did find Paine's smaller book "On the
Prophecies" to be more interesting and challenging, as he at least stuck
to discussing and comparing particular Bible verses in the O.T. with how
the N.T. authors used them. Later still I read books by Jewish scholars
who questioned how the N.T. authors cited and used O.T. verses. I also
began reading theology in earnest, from Raymond Brown to J.D.G.Dunn. (There
are ideas and arguments in Brown and Dunn's works that Holding does not
tell his audience, and that he seems unaware of himself.) Your atheist
activism period and books that you read at that time do not appear to have
touched very much on particular Biblical matters, and it was my study of
the Bible, not broad freethought and atheistic assertions like those of
Ingersoll, O'Hair and Paine, that eventually led me out of evangelical
Christianity. (And no, I am not attempting to make you an atheist again.
I am not one myself. I am not attempting to make you anything at all in
fact.)
After reading my exchange with Habby you mentioned, "
>the implication is that the Gospels are so messed up they can't be relied
>upon.
"
You seem to not have considered that parts of the Gospels might be so
messed up that they can't be relied upon, and which parts those might be.
As for people willing to die for their beliefs I think you may be placing
a too much emphasis there. Martyrdom proves nothing about the truth or
falsity of people's beliefs. Human beings have "suffered" at each other's
hands for as long as human beings have had hands. "Suffering" for almost
any conceivable reason, including "suffering for the Gospel," is not
unique. Throughout history and in fields of human endeavour as diverse as
religion, politics, science, art, and education, great minds have suffered
at the hands of little minds; great hearts and souls have suffered at the
hands of the heartless and the soulless; obstinate hearts, minds and souls
have suffered at the hands of equally obstinate hearts, minds and souls.
Those inflicting the suffering often thought they were "right" to do so.
And those experiencing it took succour in believing that their faith, or
ideas, or actions, were "right."
Speaking of non-Christians who have suffered: Jews have suffered for over
a thousand years at the hands of Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Catholics,
Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Moslems, and Germans. Which
reminds me of the Jewish story of a rabbi facing the Inquisition, who was
asked to deny his faith. He asked for time to think it over. The next
morning he said, "I will not become a Catholic, but I have a last request
- before I'm burnt at the stake my tongue should be cut out for not
replying at once. To such a question 'No!' was the only answer."
Christian antisemitism has been the cause of much Jewish suffering over
the past 1900 years, because Christians were certain that their religion
superseded that of Judaism, and the Jews were too blinded, either due to
their stubborn wills or to Satanic blindness, to recognize that the world
had been saved and Jesus was their savior. Differences between the two
religions became most acute after the doctrine of the Trinity was signed
and sealed by church councils during the reign of a Christian Roman
Emperor in the 3rd century, and that form of Christianity was declared the
one true religion of the Empire and all other heretics and Jews and pagans
were obligated to suffer the Emperor's wrath for disagreeing with that
doctrine.
Like the modern day disavowal of the importance of pro-slavery Biblical
passages, most of today's Christians disavow the importance of anti-Jewish
New Testament passages, which is certainly an improvement over the past.
Still, neither the antisemitic passages, nor the pro-slavery passages,
have been erased from the Bible, and some people continue to find such
passages "divinely inspired." According to the author of Antisemitism in
the New Testament, "Nearly every book in the New Testament expresses
slander and contempt for Jews. Most Christians have maintained that the
New Testament is not anti-Jewish but that antisemitism arose as a result
of the misunderstanding of it. Examination of the contents of the New
Testament does not support this claim."
And what about the religion known as "Bahaism?" It began when the Persian
holy man, Ali Muhammad (1819-1850) set out to reform Islam and bring
people back to the worship of a purely spiritual God instead of dumb
repetitious rituals et al (not unlike how Jesus set out to reform the
Judaism of his day). Ali Muhammad's movement caused much religious
ferment. This led to his execution in 1850 by order of the Shah's chief
minister and at the instigation of Muslim clerics who saw his movement as
a threat to orthodox Islam. Besides Ali Muhammad, 20,000 of his followers
were martyred for their beliefs. Yet the "Bahai" religion survived, and it
has communities in 205 countries.
The early Mormons were persecuted by the "orthodox" Christian majority,
and the founder of Mormonism was killed by a mob. Yet that religion
continues to do quite well, and continues to spread in fact, faster than
many Protestant denominations do today.
And what about agnostics, atheists, "heretical" Christians and "heretical"
Muslims, all of whom have suffered at the hands of "orthodox" Christians
and "orthodox" Muslims for daring to speak and publish their "blasphemous"
or "heretical" ideas? Christians and Muslims have publicly burnt the books
of their critics, so that even today, the words of Christianity's earliest
critics only survive in the form of excerpts in the works of their
Christian opponents. Luther and Melanchthon signed a statement demanding
the dead penalty for anyone who disavowed the Apostle's Creed. In
colonial America, there were laws that made "blasphemy" a crime punishable
by death. Even up till the early 1900s, the authors of "blasphemous"
literature in Great Britain and America could be put on trial, fined,
and/or imprisoned for their "crime." Some Muslims still view "blasphemy
and heresy" as crimes deserving the death penalty. So there have been
martyrs on both sides of seemingly every religious question.
As I said above, human beings have "suffered" at each other's hands for as
long as human beings have had hands. "Suffering" for almost any
conceivable reason and belief is therefore not unique and does nothing
toward proving the truth of either miracles or dogmas.
Best, Ed
cc Steve Locks
----- Original Message ----- From: G. Zeinelde JordanTo: Ed BabinskiCc: Steve LocksSent: 31 October 2002 13:40Subject: Re: Recent Mail
Hi Ed,
You caught me on a day I had some extra time. I'm pleased to know that all is well with you.
Beautiful prayer--reminds me of, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."
Yes, I'm aware of the historical Christian atrocities. As I claimed in my testimony, such people and other entities had no biblical basis for support. Paul and Christ are innocent and taught to the contrary. Do atheist atrocities mean atheism is false?
To my knowledge, slavery in NT days was something entirely different than slavery as we see it such as the American south, more like debtors' prison for a simple term. In any case, the NT never condoned slavery. It commanded that whatever someone's station in life may be, all were answerable to God in the end. All were to labor as if unto the Lord. That instruction remains today in modern American slavery. Most Americans do not like their ball-and-chain (sick days, medical coverage, living paycheck to paycheck, being two paychecks from homelessness, etc.) marriage to their masters.
In any case, you had much to say. I can't cover it all but I'm open to posting your comments in the e-mail MailBag (http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/emailbag_files/emailbag.htm).
Let me know.
Jordan
----- Original Message ----- From: Ed BabinskiCc: Steve LocksSent: 31 October 2002 16:41Subject: Re: Recent MailG. Zeinelde Jordan writes:
H
>i Ed,
>You caught me on a day I had some extra time. I'm pleased to know that
>all is well with you.
ED: If you keep saying that, I'll begin to feel like a patient in a
hospital bed that you keep checking up on every day. (Smile) Hope all is
well with you too. People can function quite well and even happily with
different religious and philosophical views. I've heard and read positive
testimonies from a wide variety of people concerning their physical and
mental health and happiness.
>
>Beautiful prayer--reminds me of, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive
>those who trespass against us."
ED: Yes, I love that one too. (By the way, Voltaire once remarked that
the Our Father might be described as blasphemous since it does not require
the death of a substitutionary sacrifice to obtain God's forgiveness, all
you have to do is forgive others. )
>
>
>Yes, I'm aware of the historical Christian atrocities. As I claimed in my
>testimony, such people and other entities had no biblical basis for
>support. Paul and Christ are innocent and taught to the contrary. Do
>atheist atrocities mean atheism is false?
ED: Actually my point wasn't the atrocities, but simply that people were
willing to suffer persecution and death for a lot of different beliefs.
>
>To my knowledge, slavery in NT days was something entirely different than
>slavery as we see it such as the American south, more like debtors'
>prison for a simple term. In any case, the NT never condoned slavery. It
>commanded that whatever someone's station in life may be, all were
>answerable to God in the end. All were to labor as if unto the Lord. That
>instruction remains today in modern American slavery. Most Americans do
>not like their ball-and-chain (sick days, medical coverage, living
>paycheck to paycheck, being two paychecks from homelessness, etc.)
>marriage to their masters.
ED: So you're saying you'd rather be a literal slave in the Old South
than a modern day "wage slave?" To each his own. Speaking for myself, I
wouldn't. As for the Bible's teachings on slavery, you do know that it
split the greatest theological minds in America during the time just prior
to the Civil War. Even splitting whole denominations. I've collected
many quotations on this matter, and could send them in a separate email if
you find the subject as interesting as I.
>
>In any case, you had much to say. I can't cover it all but I'm open to
>posting your comments in the e-mail MailBag
>(http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/emailbag_files/emailbag.htm).
>Let me know.
ED: You may post whatever strikes your fancy.
Ed followed this with:-
----- Original Message ----- From: Ed BabinskiSent: 31 October 2002 17:13Subject: Pardon me, I misread something you wrote
G. Z.,
Please pardon me, I misread what you wrote below. You were saying that you
didn't see much difference between todays' "wage slaves" and slavery in
NEW TESTAMENT times. However, you should consider Jesus's depiction of
slavery in that day and age in a parable in which he said "the slave who
knew his master's will and did not do it, was beaten with many stripes."
I'll take today's "wage slavery" over that. Also...
The first Christian Roman Emperor, Constantine, showed little sympathy for
slaves. In a law dated 319 he ruled that if a slave died following
flogging or confinement in chains, his master was not liable to any
charge: he was guilty of homicide only if he deliberately killed him or
tortured him to death. Unions between women and their slaves were brutally
penalized, the woman being executed and the slave burned alive. Even when
they had been manumitted, Constantine deprived them of their security by
making them liable to re-enslavement if their former masters established
that they were ungrateful or insolent. Nor did he show any sympathy to the
vast mass of once free citizens who had been reduced to a kind of serfdom
by being tied to their holdings. Of agricultural workers who had
transferred their services to another landlord he writes in 332: "It will
be appropriate that those who are planning escape should be put in chains
like slaves, that they may be forced in virtue of a servile condemnation
to fulfil those duties which are fitted for free men."
- A. H. M. Jones, Constantine and the Conversion of Europe
Throughout the Bible slavery is as cheerfully and leniently assumed as are
royalty, poverty, and female submission to males. In the English Bible
there is frequent mention, especially in the parables of Jesus, to
"servants." The Greek word is generally "slaves." Jesus talks about them
as coolly as we talk about our housemaids or nurses. Naturally, he would
say that we must love them; we must love all men. But there is not a
syllable of condemnation of the institution of slavery. According to Jesus
"fornication" is a shuddering thing; but the slavery of fifty or sixty
million human beings is not a matter for strong language.
- Joseph McCabe, "Christianity and Slavery," The Story of Religious
Controversy, Chapter XIX
THE BIBLE AND SLAVERY
The Bible says that all the patriarchs had slaves. Abraham, "the friend of
God," and "the father of the faithful," bought slaves from Haran (Gen.
12:50), included them in his property list (Gen. 12:16, 24:35-36), and
willed them to his son Isaac (Gen. 26:13-14). What is more, Scripture says
God blessed Abraham by multiplying his slaves (Gen. 24:355). In Abraham's
household Sarah was set over the slave, Hagar. After Hagar ran away the
angel told her, "return to your mistress and submit to her." (Gen. 16:9)
The Bible even depicts the "Lord" making his own ministers slaveholders.
Numbers, chapter 31, says that the Hebrews slew all the Midianites with
the exception of Midianite female virgins whom the Hebrews "kept for
themselves...Now the booty that remained from the spoil, which the
[Hebrew] men of war had plundered included...16,000 human beings [i.e.,
the female virgins] from whom the Lord's tribute was 32 persons. And Moses
gave the tribute which was the Lord's offering to Eleazar the priest, just
as the Lord had commanded Moses...And from the sons of Israel's half,
Moses took one out of every fifty, both of man [i.e., the female virgins]
and animals, and gave them to the Levites [the priestly tribe]...just as
the Lord had commanded Moses."
At God's command Joshua took slaves (Josh 9:23), as did David (1 Kings
8:2,6) and Solomon (1 Kings 9:20-21). Likewise, Job whom the Bible calls
"blameless and upright," was "a great slaveholder" (Job 1:15-17; 3:19;
4:18; 7:2; 31:13; 42:8)...Slavery is twice mentioned in the ten
commandments (the 4th and 10th), but not as a sin. ["Thou shalt not covet
thy neighbor's wife, or his male slave, or his female slave." Exodus 20:17]
How long must a person remain enslaved? Genesis, chapter nine, says that
Noah laid a curse on one of his sons' sons making him [and his children's
children] "a slave of slaves.forever." And Leviticus 25:44-46, says, "You
may acquire male and female slaves from the nations that are around you.
Then too, out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among
you...they also may become your possession. You may even bequeath them to
your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever [i.e., the slave's
children would be born into slavery along with their children's children,
forever]." So, slaves acquired from "foreign" nations could be treated as
"possessions...forever;" also, enemies taken in war. Moreover, the second
Psalm in the Bible (which scholars believe was sung at the coronation of
Hebrew kings) proclaims, "Ask of me [the Lord], and I shall give thee the
heathen for thine inheritance [as slaves], and the uttermost parts of the
earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou
shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."
There were a few exceptions to "everlasting slavery." If the slave was a
Hebrew owned by a fellow Hebrew the master allegedly had to offer him his
freedom after "seven years." Though there is not a single penalty
mentioned in the Bible should the master detain his slave longer than that
period or refuse to offer him his freedom. Neither does such an offer
appear to apply to female slaves. Furthermore, if a Hebrew slave chose to
remain with his master after being offered his freedom, then the "Lord"
told his people to "bore holes in the ears" of that slave to mark him as
his master's possession "forever." So you had better speak up clearly and
without hesitation the first time your master offered you your freedom
because there was no Biblical provision for changing your mind at a later
date. Complicating such decisions was the fact that masters often gave
their slaves wives so they could produce children, yet the wife and
children remained the master's "possessions." (Exodus 21:4-6)
The Bible also apparently allowed for a creditor to enslave his debtor or
his debtor's children for the redemption of the debt (2 Kings 4:1); and
children could be sold into slavery by their parents (Exodus 21:7; Isaiah
50:1). So sayeth "the word of the Lord."
How much punishment could a master employ to discipline their slaves and
ensure their obedience? The Bible tells us that a master may beat his
slave within an inch of the slave's life or within "a day or two" of their
life: "If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at
his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives a day or
two (before dying), no vengeance shall be taken; for the slave is his
master's money." (Ex. 21:20-21) In line with such pearls of wisdom an
early Christian Council, The Council of Elvira (c. 305), prescribed that
any Christian mistress who beat her slave to death without premeditation
was merely to be punished with five years of penance. 1 Peter 2:18-20
teaches that the Christian who is a slave should "patiently endure" even
harsh unjust punishments in order to "find favor with God."
Let's sum up. According to the Bible, anyone who has enough money to buy
another human being is "worthy of all honor" (1 Tim. 6:1) in the eyes of
the one who has been purchased. Secondly, slaves should seek to fulfil
the "will of God" by obediently serving their masters (Eph. 6:5-6). And
thirdly, slaves who endured "suffering" (including "unjust suffering")
were "acceptable of God" (1 Peter 2:18-20). So if slaves do not find their
masters "worthy of all honor," but "disobey" their masters, and refuse to
"endure sufferings" imposed by their masters, such behaviour displeases not
only man, but God as well. Even Jesus, in his parables, took for granted
that a master had the right to discipline his disobedient slaves: "The
slave who knew his master's will, but did not do it, was beaten with many
stripes." (Luke 12:47)
Every book in the Bible takes the existence of slavery for granted from
Genesis to Revelation. Revelation 6:15; 13:16 & 19:18 take for granted the
existence of "free men" and "slaves." (Verse 18:13 takes for granted the
existence of both "slaves" and "chariots," which is odd for a book some
believe to be a "vision of the future.") At any rate, it is far from clear
that the Bible is "against slavery."
----------------------
Britain abolished slavery peacefully in 1833, but in the United States
these disputes over slavery brought Presbyterians, Methodists, and
Baptists to schism by 1845, and encouraged the fratricidal Civil War that
finally resolved that crisis. One of the chief ironies of the conflict
over slavery was the confrontation of America's largest Protestant
denominations with the hitherto unthinkable idea that the Bible could be
divided against itself. But divided it had been by intractable
theological, political, and economic forces. Never again would the Bible
completely recover its traditional authority in American culture.
- Stephen A. Marini, "Slavery and the Bible," The Oxford Guide to Ideas &
Issues of the Bible, ed. by Bruce Metzger and Michael D. Coogan (Oxford
University Press, 2001)
--------------------------
It is certainly true that the campaign against slavery and the slave trade
was greatly strengthened by [some] Christian [individuals], including the
Evangelical layman William Wilberforce in England and the Unitarian
minister William Ellery Channing in America. But Christianity, like other
great world religions, lived comfortably with slavery for many centuries,
and slavery was endorsed in the New Testament. So what was different for
antislavery Christians like Wilberforce and Channing? There had been no
discovery of new sacred scriptures, and neither Wilberforce nor Channing
claimed to have received any supernatural revelations. Rather the
eighteenth century has seen a widespread increase in rationality and
humanitarianism, which led others - for instance, Adam Smith, Jeremy
Bentham, and Richard Brinsley Sheridan [and Thomas Paine in America] -
also to oppose slavery, on grounds having nothing to do with religion. [In
fact Wilberforce used to remind Parliament that post-revolutionary
atheistic France had already made slavery illegal -- though that earliest
of attempts at freeing slaves in a French colony led to bloodshed, and
France re-legalized slavery a few years later.] Lord Mansfield, the author
of the decision in Somersett's Case, which ended slavery in England
(though not its colonies), was no more than conventionally religious, and
his decision did not mention religious arguments. Although Wilberforce was
the instigator of the campaign against the slave trade in the 1790s, this
movement had essential support from many in Parliament like Fox and Pitt,
who were not known for their piety. As far as I can tell, the moral tone
of religion benefited more from the spirit of the times than the spirit of
the times benefited from religion.
Where religion did make a difference, it was more in support of slavery
than in opposition to it. Arguments from scripture were used in Parliament
to defend the slave trade.
- Steven Weinberg, "A Designer Universe?" New York Review of Books, Oct.
21, 1999
------------------------
----- Original Message ----- From: G. Zeinelde JordanTo: Ed BabinskiCc: Steve LocksSent: 03 November 2002 02:59Subject: Rough ThoughtsEd,
Here a few thoughts off the cuff. I have them uploaded to an e-mail MailBag page.
http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/emailbag_files/edmail.htm
Talk at ya soon.
--
"Jordan"
===============================
G. Zeineldé Jordan, Se.
http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan
===============================
--
Leaving Christianity contents | email me