Religion

[Octavian]

And are you a non believer ?

Yes.

Edit, well I’m a non believer in the way of not believing in an omnipotent, benevolent creator of the universe.

I don’t know if there is greater intelligence at work, but there isn’t a God that gives a shiny shit about us.

The fact there’s blind and terminally ill children “created” gives that away.

 

[Lovebitesandeveryfing]

I will bump this question as I have not had a response.
How many of you non believers have sent your children to a church school?

One of the curious things about the U.K. as compared to all other countries in Europe, so far as I am aware, and the U.S.A., is that the Church of England is an ‘established’ religion — this has the technical meaning that the Anglican faith is a state faith. And the head of the Church of England is not, as many believe, the Archbishop of Canterbury, but the reigning monarch, i.e. Elizabeth II. What this meant, in practice, is that all schools, whether state or not, had the compulsory study of Christianity involved in the syllabus.
My parents were both convinced atheists (which, as it happens, I am not, my position is a bit more complicated), I never knew them to set foot in a church or cathedral in their life, not even to visit. They sent me and my brother through private education where, believe it, you got a good, strong dose of Christianity in its Protestant form every single day, and especially on Sundays. I think they didn't think about the religious aspect of it at all, they just felt it was the best form of education they could give us.
I did not even countenance sending my son to a faith-based school, although I rather regret the fact that he's totally ignorant of all the cultural apparatus relating to Christianity (and, to a lesser extent, Judaism and Islam), and has no familiarity with the Bible. If you were in the Indian subcontinent, whether Muslim or Hindu, I don't suppose you'd grow up in total ignorance of the cultural presence of the subcontinent's two great religions. May be wrong, though.
Doesn't bother my son, though, not one bit.

Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

New Living Translation
You who are slaves must submit to your masters with all respect. Do what they tell you—not only if they are kind and reasonable, but even if they are cruel.

English Standard Version
Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.

Berean Study Bible
Servants, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but even to those who are unreasonable.

Berean Literal Bible
Servants, be subject to masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the unreasonable.

King James Bible
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

New King James Version
Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh.

New American Standard Bible
Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are harsh.

NASB 1995
Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable.

NASB 1977
Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable.

Amplified Bible
Servants, be submissive to your masters with all [proper] respect, not only to those who are good and kind, but also to those who are unreasonable.

Christian Standard Bible
Household slaves, submit to your masters with all reverence not only to the good and gentle ones but also to the cruel.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Household slaves, submit with all fear to your masters, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.

American Standard Version
Servants, be in subjection to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
To those who are Servants among you: Submit to your masters in reverence, not only to the good and to the meek, but also to the severe and to the perverse;

Contemporary English Version
Servants, you must obey your masters and always show respect to them. Do this, not only to those who are kind and thoughtful, but also to those who are cruel.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

Good News Translation
You servants must submit yourselves to your masters and show them complete respect, not only to those who are kind and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

International Standard Version
You household servants must submit yourselves to your masters out of respect, not only to those who are kind and fair, but also to those who are unjust.

Literal Standard Version
Servants, be subject in all fear to the masters, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the crooked;

New American Bible
Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.

NET Bible
Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are perverse.

New Revised Standard Version
Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh.

New Heart English Bible
Servants, be in subjection to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the wicked.

You are aware that’s Peter and not Jesus in the Gospels, right?

Nice copy and paste job but that doesn’t endorse slavery, it’s in line with doing well to those who do badly to you.

Peter 2:19 goes on to say “For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God.”

It’s not telling people to take slaves.

Also, slaves back then weren’t slaves like the transatlantic slave trade, poor people would choose to go into slavery in the ancient Roman Empire to guarantee shelter and food for their labour.

The industry was completely different, although I’m not claiming it was moral, it just wasn’t as bad as the African slave trade in the new world.

In any case, this is all well and good, but what exactly is the original Aramaic or Greek term used for ‘slave‘ or ‘servant’ in the NT? And let's face it, ‘servant’ does not mean the same thing as ‘slave’ in any society that I'm familiar with. There's a world of difference between being a sellable piece of meat which is someone else's property to dispose of as they will, and entering into a contractual arrangement whereby you hire out your labour at a given rate for a given period of time. Not that the second arrangement is a form of idyllic freedom, as Marx analysed at length.
I'd be mightily curious to know the original terms, because one of the cornerstones of the entire Reformation was that the Bible had been very freely interpreted, not to say mistranslated, to serve the powers represented by the Roman Catholic Church (which of course did not define itself in the same terms as those), on the one hand, and monarchy/aristocracy, on the other.
Bishops and archbishops have never been accepted as legitimate by the dissenting wings of the Protestant churches (i.e. Quakers and suchlike groups) because the word has no authority in the Bible. The most they will accept is ‘elders’ as in ‘elders of the church’.

 

[Octavian]

One of the curious things about the U.K. as compared to all other countries in Europe, so far as I am aware, and the U.S.A., is that the Church of England is an ‘established’ religion — this has the technical meaning that the Anglican faith is a state faith. And the head of the Church of England is not, as many believe, the Archbishop of Canterbury, but the reigning monarch, i.e. Elizabeth II. What this meant, in practice, is that all schools, whether state or not, had the compulsory study of Christianity involved in the syllabus.
My parents were both convinced atheists (which, as it happens, I am not, my position is a bit more complicated), I never knew them to set foot in a church or cathedral in their life, not even to visit. They sent me and my brother through private education where, believe it, you got a good, strong dose of Christianity in its Protestant form every single day, and especially on Sundays. I think they didn't think about the religious aspect of it at all, they just felt it was the best form of education they could give us.
I did not even countenance sending my son to a faith-based school, although I rather regret the fact that he's totally ignorant of all the cultural apparatus relating to Christianity (and, to a lesser extent, Judaism and Islam), and has no familiarity with the Bible. If you were in the Indian subcontinent, whether Muslim or Hindu, I don't suppose you'd grow up in total ignorance of the cultural presence of the subcontinent's two great religions. May be wrong, though.
Doesn't bother my son, though, not one bit.




In any case, this is all well and good, but what exactly is the original Aramaic or Greek term used for ‘slave‘ or ‘servant’ in the NT? And let's face it, ‘servant’ does not mean the same thing as ‘slave’ in any society that I'm familiar with. There's a world of difference between being a sellable piece of meat which is someone else's property to dispose of as they will, and entering into a contractual arrangement whereby you hire out your labour at a given rate for a given period of time. Not that the second arrangement is a form of idyllic freedom, as Marx analysed at length.
I'd be mightily curious to know the original terms, because one of the cornerstones of the entire Reformation was that the Bible had been very freely interpreted, not to say mistranslated, to serve the powers represented by the Roman Catholic Church (which of course did not define itself in the same terms as those), on the one hand, and monarchy/aristocracy, on the other.
Bishops and archbishops have never been accepted as legitimate by the dissenting wings of the Protestant churches (i.e. Quakers and suchlike groups) because the word has no authority in the Bible. The most they will accept is ‘elders’ as in ‘elders of the church’.

Slave definitely meant slave and I was in no way defending it, even at that time, but wanted to expand on what slavery was in that region during the Roman occupation.

And, it was a different thing to the transatlantic slave trade which was far more brutal and oppressive.

A lot of slaves in the Middle Eastern Roman Empire were former peasants who sold themselves into it, as I said, to give themselves a shelter and food. There was also ways of getting out of it that weren’t granted in the slave trade we think of.

 

[Lovebitesandeveryfing]

Slave definitely meant slave and I was in no way defending it, even at that time, but wanted to expand on what slavery was in that region during the Roman occupation.

And, it was a different thing to the transatlantic slave trade which was far more brutal and oppressive.

A lot of slaves in the Middle Eastern Roman Empire were former peasants who sold themselves into it, as I said, to give themselves a shelter and food. There was also ways of getting out of it that weren’t granted in the slave trade we think of.

I wasn't attacking you, for one second.
What people don't understand it that both as a word, and practice, slavery is quite a complex thing. Etymologically, for a start, it has nothing particularly to do with black people and Africa. It derives from ‘Slav’. Secondly, the Atlantic slave trade which, do I need to say, was an abomination, could have only happened along with the widespread collaboration of slave traders up country in places like Dahomey — often, but not always, Arabs, sometimes of other sub-Saharan ethnic groups, who then brought them down to the ports on the gulf of Guinea and Dakar's île de Gorée to be bartered with the white shipmasters.
Forms of slavery exist today. There are girls in Paris and London, often from eastern Europe and Russia, who are in effect in enslaved prostitution.

 

[Octavian]

I wasn't attacking you, for one second.
What people don't understand it that both as a word, and practice, slavery is quite a complex thing. Etymologically, for a start, it has nothing particularly to do with black people and Africa. It derives from ‘Slav’. Secondly, the Atlantic slave trade which, do I need to say, was an abomination, could have only happened along with the widespread collaboration of slave traders up country in places like Dahomey — often, but not always, Arabs, sometimes of other sub-Saharan ethnic groups, who then brought them down to the ports on the gulf of Guinea and Dakar's île de Gorée to be bartered with the white shipmasters.
Forms of slavery exist today. There are girls in Paris and London, often from eastern Europe and Russia, who are in effect in enslaved prostitution.

I know you weren’t but just wanted to reclarify for anyone reading.

Absolutely agree with your reply and would also add the 10,000 child slaves currently in Ghana.

There are more people in slavery today than any time in history.

40 million in 2016 is the latest figure I’ve seen and it’s rising.

Anyway, we are getting a little sidetracked but I definitely agree with you.

 

[Marklr]

Well, no, the Christian Bible doesn’t endorse slavery. Slavery is permitted in Leviticus which is the Jewish Torah but the context around it is only for that set of people for that time.

Leviticus is a brutal book to be honest but it’s not a Christian book.

The Christian bible fails to amend the atrocities of the OT. Apparently, it's all God's perfect word...even Leviticus.

 

[Octavian]

The Christian bible fails to amend the atrocities of the OT. Apparently, it's all God's perfect word...even Leviticus.

It’s because the Christian Bible isn’t meant to be a wide-sweeping political document.

Christianity is a religious ideology based on the individual salvation of one’s soul.

It’s all God’s perfect word for fundamentalists, who quite frankly couldn’t decipher hypocrisy if it slapped them in the face.

Anyone who says it’s all God’s perfect word to you, run as quick as you can.

 

[splinter]

It's about bloody time Jesus came back to save us..its always next year, I'm sick of waiting

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I will bump this question as I have not had a response.
How many of you non believers have sent your children to a church school?

My kids have always gone to their nearest state school. No of them have been religious schools.

 

[mcfc-mike]

I will bump this question as I have not had a response.
How many of you non believers have sent your children to a church school?

My eldest has just finished a church school as I wanted her to be able to make her own mind up presented with all opinions.
They learn Christianity obviously but study other religions too.

Forcing her to believe (or not believe as the case maybe) the same as me is unfair on her so as much as I’m not a believer I don’t force anything on my child and allow her to form her own opinions and beliefs based on what she learns and sees etc with her own eyes / ears.