No worries, I suddenly find myself with a bit of free time. That depends, what sort of support are we talking about? If in this scenario I'm the person I am today, then I would not have supported or been in favour of slavery regardless of its legal status. I would, and do, consider the majority of slave owners to be evil de facto. Maybe, but then it goes both ways: the zeitgeist of one century against the zeitgeist of another. If we assume this is the case, then how do we distinguish between 'a lot' of the moral arguments that are relative, and the rest that aren't? Which of Paul's instructions from 1 Corinthians 6.9-10 do you suggest we consider part of the 'a lot of the moral arguments' that are driven by zeitgeist? Are you suggesting, for example, that Paul was homophobic and could have benefited from a more nuanced view of same-sex relationships? As far as 1 Corinthians 6.9-10 go, it seems pretty clear. What's muddled or controversial?
I don't believe it was muddled or controversial. I think it makes perfect sense in the context of Corinth and the practices there that Rabbi already alluded to. I regard slavery as evil. To me it's wrong to claim ownership of another human being, under any circumstance. People are not property. You regard the majority of slave owners as evil de facto. Paul did not, or if he did, at least told nobody in writing of such, that we know of. He never told Philemon "you need to repent for owning slaves", he merely charged him to treat Onesimus decently. In the OT slavery was not forbidden, just regulated. There's other laws of the Torah that we no longer regard as sinful or worthy of punishment. Like picking up sticks on a Sabbath, for example. The early believers were wrestling with a lot of these things, when it came to spreading the Gospel to the Gentiles without requiring them to become Jews. So they agreed on some ground rules (Acts 15:29) and beyond that did not charge the Gentile believers with anything else. The only thing sexually forbidden was "porneia". Which there's some disagreement as to what that refers to. The very broad application is "all sexual behavior except for that between a married man + woman", and the very narrow application is that of prostitution/adultery. Yet even Paul broke that Acts 15:29 rule ... bad Paul! ... when in fact he did abide by the dictates of his own conscience/understanding because he knew idols aren't real, so to him the meat was just meat. However, for the sake of weaker believers, when he was around them, he abstained. Because whatever isn't of faith, is sin. Does that make any of us morally relative? I don't think it does. What it does show is that morality can and does in fact change with time, and even with personal maturity, as people grow in understanding of certain things. I call that "zeitgeist" ... if you have a better word for it, then feel free to apply it. Basically, if you can't do something with a clear conscience, then don't do it. For some people that's more narrow than for others. Walk in the light you've been given, but don't nose around in your neighbor's light or become their "faith police" or "sex police" (overreach much?) or what-have-you. I don't believe that speaking out against certain same-sex behaviors (such as prostitution/pedophile acts) made Paul "homophobic" either. If that clarifies anything ...
Here we would need to take a step back and ask: what vision of slavery do we have in mind, and what was the reality of slavery in Paul's day? Paul himself wasn't exactly kind to Philemon in his letter, but then what do we do with ancient slavery where ownership then is little different from debt (ownership) today, having traded people or family for corporations? I wouldn't go screaming at everyone about the evils of slavery in a society like that, either. That's a fine option, but I'd prefer to make human the slave and have the slave owner realise his error. After all, how can you treat a slave like Onesimus poorly if he is doing the Lord's work? You'll have the Lord to answer to. (The answer is you can't, and if that's true of Onesimus, then...) Sure, but those items are examined in their own right. What do you suggest a better understanding would be? I'd need some convincing to believe that paul broke Acts 15.29. What did you have in mind? Do you have a concrete example that we can examine?
I'm honestly not sure. I reckon the truth is somewhere in the middle between the two. Acts 15:29 was a prescribed guideline that God and the apostles together arrived at, to help the Gentile believers mature in faith. It wasn't a "thus sayeth the Lord" and so not technically a commandment, but the wording was "you are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols". So in that sense he "broke" that rule which everyone had agreed upon, and which they put in writing to send out by way of a letter. It's no less an epistle than the official ones Paul wrote to the Romans, Corinthians, and etc. Sure, the example of Paul eating meat sacrificed to idols. Paul ate it with the understanding it was just meat because he knew that the "gods" the Greeks worshiped, weren't real, and he knew that God provided the meat in the end, so he ate it with thanksgiving and in faith. Another believer who thought those "gods" were real, and ate the meat anyway, wouldn't eat it in faith and so it would be wrong for them. Two people, same action, one isn't wrong/sinful, the other is.
You must have some idea though if you suspect that the truth is 'in the middle'. What would you guess at the middle looking like? Where did he break it, though? Acts 15.29 says, "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols..." and 1 Corinthians 8.13 says, "Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.", which seems to be in line with the reasoning that informs Acts 15.29. I'm seeing two different contexts, not a breaking of the rule? Okay, but does this apply in the context of this thread? Are SSA relationships sin only to weaker believers?
One of the people who radically changed my views of Christians and eventually led to me accepting Christ was a Sheriff's Department Chaplain that called me and wanted to meet with me. He met me at a place of MY choosing. A bar. The kind that serves alcohol. He sat down and talked to me and listened all the while I pounded shots of Jack. I CANNOT emphasize enough how much this singular event changed my life and would later shape my ministry.
Going from a bar to a Satanic service is quite the jump (albeit the hedonism between the two may be held in common). But let's go with that point. Let's say that one day you were walking down the street and God told you to go into a random building to talk to someone of a certain description. You do, only to find a giant picture of Aton LeVay on one wall, and Baphomet on the other. You finally find a group of people, among whom is your target, and all they seem to talk about is hedonism, pleasure, and living for the self. Would you take issue with God's direction? Because, you should do what God tells you to do.
Well, seeing as how you and I don’t agree on much, and we have a history of mutual animosity, I’m taking this as mere sarcasm...
Well, I was responding to Firefighter. I said something about not going to a satanic church and he came back with a bar being one of the places he experienced the most dramatic evangelism occurring in. I just wanted to know if his point was that it meant I should then hang out in satanic churches. If I was convinced for 100% that God “told me” to go talk to somebody at a satanic church...I suppose I would, though quite hesitantly so. Outside of THAT specific scenario...no FREAKIN’ way...