Today is the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible. A special celebratory service was held at Westminster Abbey today. It was the Bible, commissioned by a King, that made the Word of God available to all English-speaking people so that they were no longer reliant on translations by those who could read Latin. It allowed the common man to drink, as it were, straight from the bottle.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
ML nuki, your rather crass , degenerate mouthings is a reflection on you, as a person, and are not representative of any reality connected to me. It results from your intellectual ineptitude, your social upbringing, and your deceitful , dastardly demeanour.
Now we know why some animals eat their offspring. You started out with nothing, and still have most of it left.
Good riddance to fecal matter.
With medicine advancing at warped speed. It is insane that anybody would use the bible as a refernced guide on medical things. However i will renege and say they ought to stay with “PRAY” for sure they really need “PRAY” somewhow i think Jenkins would not be safe haven for those people seems like there is no class or classification to put them under.
Ph.D | November 20, 2011 at 4:13 PM |
Please leave me and my backside alone. I know nothing of fecal matters since I see it as an important and necessary “waste” of time. The same time it took your conception to take place.
Please don’t ejaculate on me! But deal with what J is saying about your views on menstruation! Do you see a woman who is performing a biological function as dirty and against your god’s commandments?
Yes or No! Left-hand wanker!
If you read about the mikvah found here in Barbados at the synagogue you will see that the Bible was taken very seriously from earliest settlement.
If you take a look at what wikipedia has to say you will see it was in use by both men and women from the year dot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikveh
I came across the statement that a mikvah is usually built before tha synagogue.
As you can see, the mikvah is still in use to this day and here is a youtube video on how a modern one works.
I am yet to hear anyone characerise God’s chosen as anything other than intelligent.
“If you read about the mikvah found here in Barbados at the synagogue you will see that the Bible was taken very seriously from earliest settlement.’
John the bible is the Christian’s holy book so how come you are saying that the early Jews in Barbados used it? Wouldn’t they have used their Torah?
Dear John:
If the Bible was taken so seriously in 17th, 18th and 19th century Barbados can you expalin please how come the Christians disenfranchised and harrassed the Jews and enslaved the black people?
Tek ya time answering.
Very few people in Barbados have actually practised Christianity (how could they when the love of money got in the way) then and now.
It is only recently that Barbados has become a good place for Jews and black people.
I am a Christian so I must write the truth.
J…. I was liking you before that last post of yours, whenever I hear those words ” I am a Christian” I know it is time for hypocrisy and lies. Saying you are a Christian does not give anyone credibility, will not make anyone a good person nor will it make anyone a moral person.
Both isalndgirl246 & J bring a breath of intellectual fresh air to this matter befitting of Athenian or “Minervan” description.
Now how can a human being like dear John be such a real “johnny of a Zoeian size” to believe that God has favourites? These people portray God as a foolish, stupid old bat easily influenced and controlled by the whims and fancies of a special group of Jesus killers.
Now if only people who follow jewish rituals have the direct ear and influence with the big guy how come the Chinese got the other smart jesus loving or hating religious bastards by the economic balls to the extent where prayers for manna are now directed to the dragon instead of jehovah jireh?
J | November 20, 2011 at 5:49 PM |
Dear John:
If the Bible was taken so seriously in 17th, 18th and 19th century Barbados can you expalin please how come the Christians disenfranchised and harrassed the Jews and enslaved the black people?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Perhaps because inspite of all their assertions they simply were not Christian!!
Kind of obvious!
What you should look at is how the worldwide and age old scourge of slavery was addressed by Christians over time.
Christians are responsible for its abolition.
Slavery is by and large no longer acceptable.
Christian men and women made this happen.
Go and read and think.
You will find out much more than by listening to uninformed gossip.
@ John | November 20, 2011 at 6:53 PM |
“Christians are responsible for its abolition.”
If you shit yourself you should be man or woman enough to clean your underwear! Unless you are too incompetent to help yourself!
And John weren’t those Christians also responsible for Slavery? But they brought you a reliegion that has enslaved your mind after you got your freedom. You are still a slave!
Go read about the Clapham sect
millertheanunnaki | November 20, 2011 at 6:58 PM |
@ John | November 20, 2011 at 6:53 PM |
“Christians are responsible for its abolition.”
If you shit yourself you should be man or woman enough to clean your underwear! Unless you are too incompetent to help yourself!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Suppose I don’t wear underwear!! What then!!
The point is that before assuming something to be the case because it is comfortable and convenient and everybody says so, go and check it out for yourself ……
……. now ….. am …. er ….. I am just using underwear as an example here.
Slavery was going on long before 1AD.
The enslavement of Africans and the trans saharan slave trade was going on for eons before the trans atlantic slave trade started.
Slavery existed all over the world.
It was comfortable and convenient to continue enslaving people, Africans and others.
It took Christian commitment and zeal to bring it to an end.
That much maligned thing called faith galvanised people into action and small numbers became the salt of the earth.
I don’t think I can be challenged on this one.
The facts speak for themselves.
Instead of dwelling on slavery, spend some time looking at why the world no longer accepts it as normal everyday business.
Nnaki-Raelian, In his endarkened, spiritual inept ignorance, writes:
“Are you trying to tell us that Jesus or your god along with a cohort came to Earth in a physical vehicle to warn Ezekiel? Sounds like some advanced sophisticated craft to us! I don’t think that kind of technology was available to mankind in Ezekiel’s day. Not even NASA today can boast of such astronautical engineering!”
Man, you are so backward in your understanding and perception of our Omnipotent, Omniscient, Creator, Almighty God.
The word ‘technology’ ‘astronautical engineering’ does not even exist, in His REALM of ABSOLUTE reality; for the ENTIRE Universe, of TRILLIONS of galaxies, that HE Created, and sustains, not by might* or power* BUT, by His ‘SPIRIT as He SPOKE the WORD* came into EXISTENCE, and He holds HIS* Universe in the plam of HIS* HAND* like an ATOM*!
NASA’s feble knowledge of ‘astronautical engineering’ is literally child’s play, LITERALLY, to HIM*; of course, your spiritually endarkened mind-set, (de psuekikos anthropos), does NOT, will NOT, and CANNOT fathom. grasp, nor understand such matters; nor would you even begin to understand, the ‘spiritual’ symbolic, significance, of Ezekiel’s vision, and the descriptive language and terms used, such as ‘wheels’ ‘eyes’ infront, at the sides, and behind, a waste of time, trying to explain, such significance to your Nnaki/Raelian, Satanically influenced and captivated mind, of Demonically driven FOLLY, FOOLISHNESS, and utter futility!
“If the light that be in YOU (Nnaki/Raelian) IS* DARKNESS, Oh’ how great is that DARKNES!”
Quoting John “It was comfortable and convenient to continue enslaving people, Africans and others.”
Comfortable and convenient for whom?
The enslaved?
Or the enslavers?
John if someone set my house on fire and then calls the fire service I don’t believe that I have to hug and kiss and express my undying graditude to the arsonist.
As a matter of fact I believe that I am well within my rights to call the police for the arsonist, or in my anger to drop some lashes in him and then call the police.
But gratitude?
No.
In spite of Zoe and Phd’s ranting and raving the major bodly fluid that has been responsible for spreading HIV in the late 20th and early 21st century is not “filthy” menstrual blood, but male ejaculate.
Let Zoe and Phd write a thesis on the filthiness of male ejaculate.
I must write the truth.
Goodnight everybody.
J | November 20, 2011 at 10:39 PM |
Quoting John “It was comfortable and convenient to continue enslaving people, Africans and others.”
Comfortable and convenient for whom?
The enslaved?
Or the enslavers?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Both!!
That is just how mankind (and womankind) thought.
……. until something changed in their hearts……. well, …… I’ll leave you to fill the blanks
J | November 20, 2011 at 10:46 PM |
John if someone set my house on fire and then calls the fire service I don’t believe that I have to hug and kiss and express my undying graditude to the arsonist.
As a matter of fact I believe that I am well within my rights to call the police for the arsonist, or in my anger to drop some lashes in him and then call the police.
But gratitude?
No.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You miss the point entirely.
Your arsonist who you want to call the police for or drop some lashes in does not exist except in your mind, a figment of your imagination, a strawman created in an abstract discussion.
You have been able to read a bit about the past and judge it against standards set by Christianity through Christian acts at the time, although you might not realise it.
Nobody has enslaved you as has been the case in the past.
Nobody will because Christianity worked and removed that threat which existed for generations.
You J have no axe to grind with anyone because you J are the beneficiary of Chhristian acts in the past.
@ J /
” Let Zoe and Ph.D write a thesis on the filthiness of the male ejaculate”.
Since you consider the male ejaculate to be filthy, then by extension you
are saying that you are filth. Without the male ejaculate, not one of us
would be here. Are we all HIV infected? The virus is transmitted through
bodily fluids, even breast milk, vaginal secretions, blood etc.
How is it that lesbians become infected? Where did the virus come from
in the first place? Are you equating HIV/AIDS with the menstrual cycle
of a woman?
MLnuki, you do a very good job of potraying who you are, and where
level of sophistication lies, by your lewd , obnoxious outbursts. A sewer
mentality.
Why don’t you respond to John’s statemant about who was responsible
for the abolition of slavery instead of releasing another flow of vile,
swinelike dribble. We humans have at least the ability to abolish
slavery, I don’t know of a swine who is capable of voting for the abolition
of the trough.It is his very existence.
Ph.D | November 21, 2011 at 5:02 AM |
” slavery, I don’t know of a swine who is capable of voting for the abolition”
I will avoid your personal attacks because you started it and I expect you to end it! Like water on a duck’s back I will shake it off!
But let me tell you something, Christians did not put an end to slavery! Economics did! The same way Christians were used in the forefront of the Trans-Atlantic trade by the political aristocracy and commercial barons (including the Jewish business financiers) the said Christianity was used as an excuse to end the unprofitable trade with the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
If modern so-called Christians like you and Zoe were so pathetically concerned about slavery then you would not peddle your filth about the Bible being the truth and only word of your god. Your book of confusion “clearly” (if you can appreciate the figure of speech implied here) approves of slavery! Please do not come with the alibi that that was then in those old days but Jesus came along and freed us all through salvation! This will certainly make you look like a damned fool and hypocrite given your strident defence of men having nothing to do with a menstruating women.
Why don’t Christian missionaries like you and Zoe take your newfound anti-slavery propaganda to those Islamic countries where slavery and subjugation of women are still practised. But again you would free the male slaves but leave the female, not so misogynist?
But remember, you will not be able to mention the word “Christian” without the religious police on your backside; neither would you be able to deal in any piggy matters!
As far as your innuendo to pigs is concerned, just bear this in mind: human beings eat pigs. A pig does not want to vote but would take great pleasure in watching you swallow its flesh causing you to ingest such biblical crap as to induce a long bout of verbal diarrhoea thus freeing you mind of the mental slavery the likes of you & Zoe continually try to promote among black people.
Stop running your mouth like a sick ‘nigger’ backside! Go figure that one out, dickerer!
@ MLnuki
” So Zoe I take it you have never been “through the red lights”.
Good for you for obeying god’s instruction. Neither have I also. So you see I do follow go(o)d personal hygiene practices.
” This will certainly make you look like a damned fool and hypocrite given your strident defence of men having nothing to do with a menstruating women. ”
I suppose you recognise the two above quotations. They came from you in this very thread. Who is the hypocrite here, or are you just overwhelmed and confused? Q.E.D.
Time to move on. Auf wiedersehen.
Wtf have I just read above???
John states that the abolition of slavery was due to Christianity?….and has the nerve to tell people to go read and research?
I did this at secondary school with loads of research and Christianity had NOTHING to do with the abolition of slavery…..it was strictly ECONOMICAL!
At least John is correct when he says that some portray to ‘be’ Christians as we can see clearly here on BU.
Just wind them up and watch their true colours, their nasty insults hidden behind biblical jargon etc.
What a joke!
@ Ph.D | November 21, 2011 at 8:27 AM |
What kind of academic fool are you?
Can’t you see the difference between having sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman and that of quarantine and isolation of women from any other form of day-to-day contact as required by your Leviticus 15 archaic and impossible law as if the women are carriers of the plague.
I suppose if you had your way you would recommend the same treatment for people with AIDS, would you not?
Please deal with “TECHNICIAN | November 21, 2011 at 10:42 AM | ”
regarding Slavery Christianity and Economics.
Nixon adviser Henry Kissinger branded Jewish as self-serving ‘b*******’, new documents reveal
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 1:38 PM on 18th November 2011
His famous quote was to call ordinary people ‘ the useless eaters’,
Comments (25)
Add to My Stories
Share
American Jewish groups, lobbying the Nixon administration on behalf of their Soviet brethren, got under White House adviser Henry Kissinger’s skin so much that he denounced them as self-serving ‘bastards’, newly released documents reveal.
The comments were made in August 1972, when appeals were flooding the White House over the Kremlin’s levying of fees for exit permits.
One such letter was from the Israeli prime minister, Golda Meir, appealing to the White House to end its strategy of ‘quiet diplomacy’, and for Mr Nixon to take up the issue with Soviet leaders directly.
White House legend: Henry Kissinger in his White House office in the Seventies. Newly released documents shes light on some of his less famous quotes
Honoured: Receiving the Association of German Magazine Publishers Golden Victoria Award last night
A White House official, Leonard Garment, himself flooded with letters and phone calls with Jewish appeals, asked Mr Kissinger for help and guidance.
According to transcripts released by the State Department, Mr Kissinger – deputy national security adviser at the time – said to Mr Garment: ‘Is there a more self-serving group of people than the Jewish community?’
Mr Garment replied: ‘None in the world.’
The exchange was all the more remarkable because both Mr Kissinger and Mr Garment were Jewish.
But Mr Kissinger continued, saying: ‘What the hell do they think they are accomplishing? You can’t even tell bastards anything in confidence because they’ll leak it.’
Despite his outburst, Mr Kissinger said he would take up the issue with Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin and also meet again with Jewish leaders.
But he finished with: ‘They ought to remember what this administration has done.’
Power behind the throne: Mr Kissinger was an adviser and then Secretary of State for presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford
Presidential adviser: Even after his term of office was over, Mr Kissinger’s opinions were sought by successive presidents, including Ronald Reagan
Still on duty: Mr Kissinger and George W Bush in the White House in 2002, ahead of Mr Bush signing legislation for a commission into the 9/11 attacks
The remarks were contained in documents dealing with U.S.-Soviet relations released by the State Department.
Mr Kissinger, 88, was not available for comment over the released transcript.
Nobel Peace Prize winner Mr Kissinger played a dominant role in U.S. foreign policy between 1969 and 1977.
During this period, he pioneered the policy of detente with the Soviet Union, orchestrated the opening of relations with the People’s Republic of China, and negotiated the Paris Peace Accords, ending American involvement in the Vietnam War.
Even after his term with presidents Nixon and Gerald Ford, he has been approached for advice by successive presidents – including Ronald Reagan and George W Bush.
TECHNICIAN | November 21, 2011 at 10:42 AM | Wtf have I just read above???
“John states that the abolition of slavery was due to Christianity?….and has the nerve to tell people to go read and research?
I did this at secondary school with loads of research and Christianity had NOTHING to do with the abolition of slavery…..it was strictly ECONOMICAL!”
“I did this at secondary school with loads of research and Christianity had NOTHING to do with the abolition of slavery….it was strictly ECONOMICAL”
Where did you go to school? And whose LOADS of research, perspective did you read?
There are many historians, who have written on this subject matter, with varying and conflicting views, on what caused the imputus, that ultimately drove the abolition of slavery. And any honest, unbiased perspective, has to include a number of contributing FACTORS* and NOT* any one single factor. It was clearly a combination of, Political, Economic, AND religious, specifically, the influence of ‘Christianity’ that played a role in the abolition of slavery! And, NOT strictly economical!
To hold this “…strictly economicall” view, is very myopic, to say the least!
Zoe | November 21, 2011 at 10:47 PM |
Zoe, but preferably PhD, please defend the following passages from your book of truth and the only source of your god’s word. Remember we must always follow your god’s word to the very “T”. No wavering; no re-interpretation to suit your personal agenda:
“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
@ J…
My apologies, you are correct! It IS the eggs that are disposed every month, not the ovaries themselves.
And yes, it IS economical reasoning, rather than religious, that ended the slave trade. Also, some slaves were becoming more aware of their plight, and it would cost a lot more to quell a rebellion than to free the source.
The question is…are we free? Truly?
Nnaki/Raelian, The following is NOT any re-interpretation, to suit any personal agenda; but, rather a sound scholarly interpretation, from a historic, cultural, and Biblical perspective, which is necessary, in order to understand its historical context.
‘Make Good Use of Your Servitude’
Some Observations on Biblical Interpretation and Slavery
by Michael Marlowe
October, 2003
“When you buy a Hebrew slave, six years shall he serve; and in the seventh shall he go out free, for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and the children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the slave shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: then his master shall bring him unto God, and he shall bring him to the door or unto the door-post, and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.”
—Exodus 21:2-6.
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.”
—Ephesians 6:5-6.
If there is anything in the Bible that makes modern people nervous, it is its treatment of slavery. Slavery is humanely regulated in the legal portions of the Old Testament, and in the epistles of the New Testament slaveholders are exhorted to show kindness to slaves, but nowhere in the Bible is there anything which can be interpreted as a disapproval of the institution as such. People of our generation, Christians included, tend to have a very hard time with this, because it seems to amount to a tacit approval of the institution, and we balk at the idea that God did not consider the institution itself to be immoral.
Part of the problem is that we have false ideas about what slavery was really like. The life of a slave was not easy, but we get an exaggerated idea of the hardships of slavery from watching movies or reading historical material that is written on a popular level. Here the purpose is usually to dramatize the plight of slaves or to make some point about the evils of slavery in general, (1) but the historical reality was less dramatic. In most cases the life of a slave was not much different from the life of any lower-class worker. Those who have been in the military have experienced something like it — being legally bound to an employer and to a job that one cannot simply “quit” at will, not free to leave without permission, subject to discipline if one disobeys or is grossly negligent — all of this is familiar enough to those of us who have served in the military. And yet we know that the daily life of a good soldier is not especially hard. This is what it was like to be a slave.
Another problem is, when thinking about slavery we tend to have in mind the recent slavery of the black race in America, and so the whole subject of slavery gets mixed up with the issue of racism. But in ancient times, slavery was not associated with any particular race. By condoning slavery the Bible does not approve of racism.
A third reason why modern people have a hard time understanding the Bible’s treatment of slavery is that we often now tend to confuse morality with political values. The modern tendency is to politicize everything, including even the Christian gospel. Moral philosophy or ethics has become so politicized that it seems to be almost a sub-department of political science now, which is why we have seen the rise of an elaborate political correctness in our public life. “Racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” and so on, are the really serious sins under this new morality. Although we all know that people are not really equal, the egalitarian ideology of our time is considered to be of such overriding importance that any slight affront to it is considered sinful, while the principles of ordinary old-fashioned morality are downplayed and even denied. This political correctness is not merely a fad, it is the logical and inevitable result of the politicization of morality, the elaboration of an entirely new morality based upon political ideas of right and wrong.
In recent years the principle of equality has been raised to the status of a theological axiom in liberal churches. This is illustrated by the remarks made by an Episcopal bishop in an interview following his church’s decision to appoint a homosexual bishop in the Summer of 2003. The “Right Reverend” John Bryson Chane appealed to the egalitarian principle in this manner:
When I look at where gay, lesbian, and transgender persons are, they have been excluded from the full sacramental life of the Episcopal Church in the United States — and, in fact, excluded from the full sacramental life pretty much within the Anglican Communion. What I have to say to that is if, in fact, we believe theologically that God created human beings in the good image of God as creator, and if we, in fact, believe that everybody is equal in God’s eyes, then how in God’s name can we say that we don’t have enough theology to work this issue through? And how can we say that a person’s sexuality does not allow them to enter into the full life of this communion? (2)
“Everybody is equal in God’s eyes” is the premise, taken utterly for granted here, and in a rather sweeping way that includes not only spiritual matters but also matters of church government. But the authors of the Bible knew nothing of such modern egalitarian notions. Morality in the Bible is set forth as a personal matter, not a political matter, and it is certainly not based upon any idea that all people are of equal worth in God’s eyes. Salvation in the Bible is no “equal opportunity” proposition either. As for the political and social order, the Bible does not direct us to anything beyond the hierarchical principles of order which pertained to the ancient world of kings and patriarchs, promising only that in due time a righteous Kingdom will come. This must be understood by anyone who wants to get a clear idea of what the Bible is all about. A sensible and honest reading of the Bible cannot be possible for those who would read into it the politicized egalitarian morality of our age. Even the most cherished idea of modern civil philosophy — that “all men are created equal,” and “endowed with certain inalienable rights,” as the American Declaration of Independance puts it — must be left behind by the student who would fully enter into the world of the Bible.
This is denied by many liberal scholars (e.g. John Dominic Crossan, Gerd Theissen, and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza), who, trying to put a ‘biblical’ coloring on their politicized version of Christianity, have argued that the New Testament contains some evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a social revolutionary who founded a short-lived ‘egalitarian’ community based upon a ‘discipleship of equals.’ These scholars maintain that by the end of the first century the egalitarian program of Jesus was abandoned by his followers, who suppressed the egalitarianism of the early Church when they wrote or edited the New Testament documents. In two recent articles (3) John H. Elliott has reviewed these unconvincing efforts to find an egalitarian ‘historical Jesus,’ and in conclusion he finds it necessary to restate the obvious:
This concept that all persons are equal in respect to economic, social, legal, and political domains is of modern, Enlightenment origin and has been shaped by momentous economic, social, and political changes dramatically distancing our modern world from that of the biblical writers. The equality celebrated in the American and French revolutions, has little, if anything, in common with the comparatively rarely discussed concept of equality (more frequently “equity” or proportional equality) in the ancient world. Accordingly, searching for instances of egalitarianism in the New Testament communities, indeed in the ancient world on the whole, is as pointless as hunting for modern needles in ancient haystacks. (4)
As hard as this may be, it is only by prescinding from such modern cultural presuppositions and by adopting instead the presuppositions of the Bible’s authors, that one can even begin to understand and respect its teachings as the word of God. As D.E. Nineham puts it:
If God has condescended to address men in the full particularity of their peculiar historical and cultured environments, then we have got to immerse ourselves fully and sympathetically in those environments, with their customs and values, ways of thinking and patterns of imagery, before we can understand either his demand or their response. (5)
Unfortunately, it is not only liberal scholars who refuse to immerse themselves sympathetically in the Bible, but also many ‘evangelical’ scholars. We are not always well served by our own conservative commentators and translators in this matter. There seems to be an apologetic motive at work here — the Bible is domesticated in order to avoid scandalizing those who would be shocked to discover how utterly foreign it is to modern values. (6) This tendency appears in many forms. Regarding slavery, some of our English translations remove the offense by using the word “servants” instead of “slaves,” (7) and many evangelical expositors have tried to distract attention from the foreignness of the Bible’s teaching on slavery by dwelling upon things in the Bible which they allege to be part of some latent egalitarian “trajectory.” Usually reference is made to something or other in Paul’s Epistle to Philemon, which is construed as if the whole point of the letter was to urge Philemon to free his slave Onesimus. But this attempt to discover and highlight some hidden egalitarian agenda in the Bible is all the more difficult for evangelicals because they cannot simply dismiss most of the New Testament by calling it “secondary,” as do the liberals. And it not only fails to convince, but it is a serious misdirection, because it prevents people from coming to terms with the world-view of the Biblical authors.
However much we may want to find a Biblical case for the abolition of slavery, it is simply not there, not even in the Epistle to Philemon. (8) As George Elden Ladd puts it:
Paul has no word of criticism for the institution as such. In this sense, he was unconcerned about “social ethics” — the impact of the gospel on social structures. In fact, he admonishes slaves to be indifferent to their social status (1 Cor. 7:21), because a human slave is really a freedman of the Lord. (9)
1 Corinthians 7:21
Ladd mentions the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:21, which we will examine now in some detail, because some recent Bible versions have paraphrased the verse in such a way that it appears to be telling slaves that they should seek emancipation. But this interpretation is anachronistic and does violence to the context. In fact the meaning is quite the opposite. It is an instruction to slaves that they should care so little for worldly freedom that they should not even take notice of any opportunities to become free, as in the following modern versions:
New English Bible (margin). Were you a slave when you were called? Do not let that trouble you; but even if a chance of liberty should come, choose rather to make good use of your servitude.
Revised English Bible (margin). Were you a slave when you were called? Do not let that trouble you; but even if a chance of freedom should come, choose rather to make good use of your servitude.
Today’s English Version (margin). Were you a slave when God called you? Well, never mind; but even if you have a chance to become a free man, choose rather to make the best of your condition as a slave.
New American Bible. Were you a slave when your call came? Give it no thought. Even supposing you could go free, you would be better off making the most of your slavery.
American Standard Version. Wast thou called being a bond-servant? care not for it: nay, even if thou canst become free, use it rather.
Revised Standard Version (margin). Were you a slave when called? Never mind. But if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition instead.
New Revised Standard Version. Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever.
The Church Fathers (early writers of the Church) favored this interpretation. See, for example, the commentaries of Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophlact. Here are Chrysostom’s words on the verse:
“Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called. Hast thou been called, having an unbelieving wife? Continue to have her. Cast not out thy wife for the faith’s sake. Hast thou been called, being a slave? Care not for it. Continue to be a slave. Hast thou been called, being in uncircumcision? Remain uncircumcised. Being circumcised, didst thou become a believer? Continue circumcised. For this is the meaning of, “As God hath distributed unto each man.” For these are no hindrances to piety. Thou art called, being a slave; another, with an unbelieving wife; another, being circumcised.
Astonishing! where has he put slavery? As circumcision profits not, and uncircumcision does no harm, so neither doth slavery, nor yet liberty. And that he might point out this with surpassing clearness, he says, “But even (All eikai dunasai) if thou canst become free, use it rather:” that is, rather continue a slave. Now upon what possible ground does he tell the person who might be set free to remain a slave? He means to point out that slavery is no harm but rather an advantage.
Now we are not ignorant that some say the words, “use it rather,” are spoken with regard to liberty: interpreting it, “if thou canst become free, become free.” But the expression would be very contrary to Paul’s manner if he intended this. For he would not, when consoling the slave and signifying that he was in no respect injured, have told him to get free. Since perhaps someone might say, “What then, if I am not able? I am an injured and degraded person.” This then is not what he says: but as I said, meaning to point out that a man gets nothing by being made free, he says, “Though thou hast it in thy power to be made free, remain rather in slavery.”
Next he adds also the cause; “For he that was called in the Lord being a bondservant, is the Lord’s free man: likewise he that was called, being free, is Christ’s bondservant.” “For,” saith he, “in the things that relate to Christ, both are equal: and like as thou art the slave of Christ, so also is thy master. How then is the slave a free man? Because He has freed thee not only from sin, but also from outward slavery while continuing a slave. For he suffers not the slave to be a slave, not even though he be a man abiding in slavery: and this is the great wonder.
But how is the slave a free man while continuing a slave? When he is freed from passions and the diseases of the mind: when he looks down upon riches and wrath and all other the like passions.
Ver. 23. “Ye were bought with a price: become not bondservants of men.” This saying is addressed not to slaves only but also to free men. For it is possible for one who is a slave not to be a slave; and for one who is a freeman to be a slave. “And how can one be a slave and not a slave?” When he doeth all for God: when he feigns nothing, and doeth nothing out of eye-service towards men: that is how one that is a slave to men can be free. Or again, how doth one that is free become a slave? When he serves men in any evil service, either for gluttony or desire of wealth or for office’s sake. For such an one, though he be free, is more of a slave than any man. (10)
Early modern interpreters which follow this line include Camerarius, Estius, Wolf, Bengel, and many others. In the nineteenth century, de Wette, Osiander, Maier, Ewald, Baur, Vaihinger, Weiss, and Meyer. In recent years it generally prevails among scholarly commentators, as for example in C.K. Barrett’s commentary:
“Were you a slave when you were called? See i.26 for the low social standing of many Corinthian Christians. Let not that trouble you, but even though you should be able to become free (emancipation could take place in a variety of ways, and was not infrequent) put up rather with your present status. A number of grammarians (e.g. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, i. 247; ii. 165; Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, pp. 21, 167; M.E. Thrall, Greek Particles in the New Testament (1962), pp. 78-82), and many commentators, prefer to render, If you actually (ει και) have an opportunity of becoming free, by all means (μαλλον, elative) seize it. This finds some support in the aorist tense of the imperative (χρησαι), but does not make sense in the context; see especially the discussion, with references, in J.N. Sevenster, Paul and Seneca, pp. 189 f. (and the same context for a discussion of the Pauline and Stoic attitudes to slavery). Particularly important is the for (γαρ) with which the next verse begins: You need not hesitate to put up with your servile condition, for the slave who has been called in the Lord (that is, to be a Christian, one who is in Christ) is the Lord’s freedman; and similarly the free man who has been called is Christ’s slave.” (11)
1 Timothy 1:10
Sometimes 1 Timothy 1:10 is mentioned as one verse which might indicate that the Bible considers slavery to be sinful. This misinterpretation was often put forth in abolitionist writings of the Civil-War Era. For example, in 1836 Angelina Grimke (a feminist abolitionist who was neither a scholar nor a believer in the Bible) wrote, “how can it be said Paul sanctioned slavery, when, as though to put this matter beyond all doubt, in that black catalogue of sins enumerated in his first epistle to Timothy, he mentions ‘menstealers,’ which word may be translated ‘slavedealers’?” (12) The verse lists ανδραποδισταις “menstealers” along with other ungodly and sinful persons (murderers, fornicators, sodomites, liars, etc.), and indeed this word is translated “slave traders” in the New International Version and in the New Living Translation. The New International Reader’s Version (a revision of the NIV for children) even interprets it as, “people who buy and sell slaves.” This is in keeping with Grimke’s interpretation. But this is certainly not the meaning of the word. Thayer’s Lexicon explains that the word means “one who steals the slaves of others and sells them” or “one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery.” This crime was often committed in ancient times. Penalties for it are specified in the Mosaic Law (see Exodus 21:16 and Deuteronomy 24:7), and it is frequently mentioned by Greek writers as the crime of ανδραποδον. In the ancient Roman code known as the Lex Fabia (third-second century B.C.) these slave-snatchers were called plagiarii, and so the word is translated thus in the Vulgate. (13) So ανδραποδισταις in 1 Timothy 1:10 does not refer to all slave traders, any more than the word πορνοις “whoremongers, fornicators” in the same verse could refer all men who have sexual relations with a woman. It refers to those who engage in an illegal activity, kidnapping of slaves, and not the legal slave-trade itself. For this reason, most Bible versions translate the word “kidnappers.”
Why have the translators of the NIV and the NLT used the words “slave traders” here, without even indicating the correct interpretation in a footnote? One might expect the NIV Study Bible, at least, to indicate the meaning, but even in that copiously annotated edition of the NIV there is no explanatory note here. We also observe that the recently-published English Standard Version has “enslavers” here, which is somewhat better than “slave-traders,” and it also has a note stating that the word means “those who take someone captive in order to sell him into slavery.” But this translation and this note are also incorrect for two reasons: In ancient times those who were taken captive in war were often kept or sold as slaves, unless they were redeemed by the payment of a ransom, and this military custom was not considered to be ανδραποδον. It was considered to be a merciful alternative to the massacre of defeated enemies. (14) Also, the crime of ανδραποδον often involved the kidnapping of one who was already a slave, not the enslavement of one who had been free. If the translators were not satisfied with “kidnappers” because this word does not indicate the connection with the illegal slave trade, they might have rendered it “slave-kidnappers,” but “enslavers” is not the meaning of this word.
We suspect an apologetic purpose for these mistranslations. All of these versions were sponsored by evangelical publishers, and many evangelical apologists have used isolated misinterpretations of 1 Timothy 1:10 in support of their contention that the Bible does not really condone slavery after all. But however well-meaning this may be, and however expedient it may be for apologists, it prevents people from really coming to terms with the world-view of the Biblical authors—a world-view which is very remote from modern egalitarian values and agendas.
None of this is to suggest that slavery is a good idea in the modern world. But it is a requirement of scholarly integrity, and of any true understanding of the Bible, that we should refrain from importing our own modern political and social values into the text.
——————————————————————————–
NOTES
1. For example, Schaff’s History of the Christian Church (vol 1, chap. 8, § 48) hyperbolically states that at times there were perhaps twice as many slaves as freemen in the Roman empire, and that, while the treatment of slaves “depended on the character of the master,” “as a rule it was harsh and cruel.” Indeed, life was harsh for all working-class people in ancient Rome by modern standards.
@ Zoe | November 22, 2011 at 12:43 PM |
You seem to be totally out to sea on this one. Why don’t you send an SOS to your friend and advocate PhD to come to your rescue?
You seem to want to wriggle your way out by obfuscating the issue.
But I would put a very simple and straightforward question to you with the naive expectation that you would provide a clear and understandable answer in order to establish your position on this topic. Here goes!
From the various passages quoted above, do you agree that the Judeo-Christian Bible condones and approves of the keeping of slaves?
If so, do you see it as alright in the sight of your god to keep slaves as your god through his word as condoned and approved?
Is it mandatory for modern Christians to follow the instructions as set out in the Book of Leviticus, especially Chapter15?
The most hermetic, DEEP, ABYSMAL SLAVERY* that ALL of mankind has ever being SUBJECTED to, since the FALL of Adam and Eve, IS* SIN* which permeates the ENTIRE human family, bar NONE!
One can be a billionaire, with all of materialism’s WEALTH, and earthly possessions, and STILL* be ENSLAVED* a SLAVE* to SIN!
Conversely, one can be enslaved, TODAY, in servitude, to some master, physically, financially, etc, AND, if one KNOWS* Christ, as personal Saviour and LORD, one IS* then FREE, FREE* in one’s spirit, soul, wheras, the billioniare, is STILL a SLAVE* entraped to his/her BONDAGE of materialism.
It is, therefore, supremely more profitable, to be a BONDSERVANT to Christ, than to be a SLAVE to Sin, and this world system of wanton,crass, evil, the LUST of the eyes, the LUST of the flesh, and the PRIDE, (Arrogance, hubris) of life!
@ Zoe | November 22, 2011 at 1:24 PM |
So this is your way of conceding defeat!
There will be reparations to pay!
@ Zoe..
It was clearly a combination of, Political, Economic, AND religious, specifically, the influence of ‘Christianity’ that played a role in the abolition of slavery! And, NOT strictly economical!
To hold this “…strictly economicall” view, is very myopic, to say the least!
I may not wax lyrical on topics like you but the points are simple and to the point.
FYI….I did this in 3rd form @ CCFS.
IMHO, I say strictly economical because in the day, Slavery was the economic power which ruled over the political will, which was encouraged and even enforced by religious beliefs.
You cant have it both ways.
That is what I gathered from what was researched and is my opinion.
Clear enough for you?
Nnaki?Raelian, Man, you are so dense, IGNORANT, on such matters, the Book of Leviticus, is Old Testament Law, Christ is the end of the law, rituals, sacrificies, to those who BELIEVE IN* HIM* Liviticus is NOT mandatory for the Church Age, you just DO NOT understand ; it YOU who is obfuscating the issue, it’s you who is way out to sea, in the DARKNESS of Raelian obscurity and folly!
“Is it mandatory for modern Christians to follow the instructions as set out in the Book of Leviticus, especially Chapter15?”
What a stupid question? Really!!!
Zoe | November 22, 2011 at 1:45 PM |
“the Book of Leviticus, is Old Testament Law, Christ is the end of the law, rituals, sacrificies, to those who BELIEVE IN* HIM* Liviticus is NOT mandatory for the Church Age,”
So I can dismiss the book of Genesis especially the Adam & Eve and Noah & the Flood nonsense and while at it the whole story of the Exodus.
Imagine a man with the colour of Henry Kissinger and those who called themselves Jews today being enslaved by a people of a darker skin and forced to work for 400 years in the hot boiling SUN. Skin cancer alone would have wiped out that race faster than the fall out from a nuclear disaster that befell Lot and his people.
Now Zoe, you can’t have your cake and eat it too! Is the Old Testament still relevant or what?
@ SojournerTruth | November 22, 2011 at 2:38 PM |
As a key player in the movement of freeing black slaves from the South to a “slightly more liberal” North please give us your views on the relevance of the KJV Bible to the lives of black people then and now!
@ MLniku, this is not my area of EXPERTISE, but here is my understanding of the issue.
The claim is often made that the Bible approves of slavery, implicating God as its supporter, since rules governing slavery can be found in the both the Old and New Testament. Since virtually everyone agrees that forced, involuntary servitude is morally wrong, how can Christians justify the Bible’s apparent support of slavery?
Jihadists invoke the name of Allah when they do their dirty work. So he automatically becomes their accomplice ( in their minds). Likewise God’s enemies invoke his name when they believe they can show some connection between him and perceived evil.
First, we must recognize that the Bible does not say God supports slavery. In fact, the slavery described in the Old Testament was quite different from the kind of slavery we think of today – in which people are captured and sold as slaves. According to Old Testament law, anyone caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed:
“He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death”.Exodus 21:16
So, obviously, slavery during Old Testament times was not what we commonly recognize as slavery, such as that practiced in the 17th century Americas, when Africans were captured and forcibly brought to work on plantations. Unlike our modern government welfare programs, there was no safety-net for ancient Middle Easterners who could not provide a living for themselves. In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would receive food and housing in exchange for labor.
Injuring or killing slaves was punishable – up to death of the offending party. Hebrews were commanded not to make their slave work on the Sabbath, slander a slave, have sex with another man’s slave, or return an escaped slave. A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in 7 years or in the year of jubilee (which occurred every 50 years), whichever came first. In fact, the slave owner was encouraged to “pamper his slave”.
•There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)
•knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. (Ephesians 6:8)
•And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. (Ephesians 6:9)
•a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. (Colossians 3:11)
And please MLNuki, there is no need for the vulgarity and the reference to your own brethren using the n.. word, no matter in what context it is used.
@ Ph.D | November 22, 2011 at 5:30 PM |
What you have just written only confirms that the writings in the Bible are those of men written within an environment of times gone by but with certain moral precepts that have unchanging relevance to future periods For example, love thy neigbour, do good unto others as you would have them do unto you, etc. But there are other things in the Bible we need to put behind us and don’t see them as emanating from a loving God who created us. Whether we be white, black, yellow or other; gay, straight or both; male, female, or transgender; able or differently able; Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Taoist, Shinto or Animist; tall, short thin or fat. We on this little planet are all God’s creatures made in its likeness and receive its beams everyday without which there is no LIGHT only Darkness and ignorance. Amen!
PS:
The “n’ word is a corruption of the Spanish noun “negro” or “black” in English by uneducated ignorant red necks.
Say it loud I am Black and I am proud! No skin cancer for me or my offspring in the coming times when the SUN of man show his presence and power!
Nnaki/Raelian, The Bible reveals that God is a covenant-making, covenant-keeping and covenant-revealing God. The Bible, God’s Word, is a covenantal book, being divided ino two sections, the Old and New Testaments (Covenants), and containing PROGRESSIVE revelation ob NINE major covenants. these Covenants comprise the purpose of Almighty God in both Creation and Redemption, and involve time and eternity. One of thye primary keys to the interpretation of Scripture is the Covenantal Principle of Hermeneutics.
Of the nine major Divine Covenants in the Bible, eight of them God made with man. These are as follows:
The Edenic Covenant ( Genesis 3)
The Adamic Covenant (Genesis 3)
The Noahic Covenant (Genesis 6-9)
The Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12-22)
The Mosaic Covenant ( Exodus 10-40; Galatians 3:24)
The Palestinian Covenant ( Exodus 19-40; Gal 3:24)
The Davidic Covenant ( II Samuel 7; Psa. 89; 132)
The New Covenant (Jer. 31: 31-34; Heb. 8; Matt 26)
The Everlasting Covenant: Made in eternity in the counsels of the Eternal Godhead, between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All other covenants are but fragments of the WHOLE, and are PROGRESSIVE, unfolding of this Everlasting Covenant.
Naturally, then, it is entirely consistent, Nnaki/Raelian, for you in your unenlightened ‘spiritual’ ignorance, to say that we can dismiss the Genesis creation account of Adam and Eve, the Noahic flood, failing to understand the ‘progressive’ revelatory significance of the Covenants given above; as the Mosaic Covenant, came long after the HISTORIC narrative account of Creation, but, such other, CANNOT be expected from the ilk of your darkened, spiritually DEAD mind!
The Relationship of New Testament Believers to the Mosaic Law
1. He is never saved by keeping the Law (Gal. 2:21).
2. He is not under the Law as a rule of life, i.e., sacrifice, Sabbath keeping, tithing (Rev. 6:14; Acts 15:5, 24).
3. Thus, he does not walk by the Law but by the Spirit, which is the new law for the New Testament saint (Rom. 8:4; Gal. 5:5). This is law of liberty through faith in the power of God.
4. He is dead to the Law (Rom. 7:1-6; Gal. 2:19) by virtue of his union with Jesus Christ who fulfilled the Law.
5. He is to fulfill the righteousness of the Law, i.e., the spirit of the law as seen in Christ’s words in Matthew 10:37-40 love for God, and love for one’s neighbor (James 2:9). But this can only be fulfilled through a knowledge of Bible truth and the filling of the Holy Spirit, which furnishes the power or ability needed to live the Christian life according to the eternal moral law of God. So we are under God’s new law, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:2-4).
Christ, the Fulfillment of the Mosaic Law
Christ fulfilled the Ten Commandments by living a perfect and sinless life. Thus, when man trusts in Christ, Christ’s righteousness is imputed to that individual so we have justification. We have Christ’s righteousness so the Law can’t condemn us (Rom. 8:1; 7:1-6; Rom. 5:1; 4:4-8).
Christ fulfilled the ceremonial ordinances, the shadows and types of His person and work, by dying on the cross for us and in our place. This showed that God was also perfect justice and sin must be judged, but God provided His Son, the precious Lamb of God. The penalty which the Law exercised was paid. Again there is no condemnation because the believer is “in Christ” (Col. 2:14; Rom. 3:24-25).
Christ also fulfilled the Social Law, but now He replaces it with a new way of life fitting to our new salvation. He gives provision for the inner man—the indwelling Holy Spirit—who enables us to experience true sanctification so that we may experience also the righteousness of the Law (Rom. 8:2-4).
Summary
1. Christ is the end of the Law and believers are not under the Mosaic Law. New Testament believers are not under Law but under grace (Rom. 6:14).
2. Since the Lord Jesus Christ fulfills the Law by His person and work, believers are under a new law; the obligation to walk by the Spirit of Life through faith (Rom. 8:2-4). If we are led by the Spirit, then we are not under the Law (Gal. 5:18).
3. Against such, i.e., the fruit of the Spirit, there is no law because the believer is then operating under the highest law, the standards are met as we walk by the Holy Spirit and grow in the Word (Gal. 5:22).
Warning Against Entanglements with the Law as Believers Today
After salvation by grace there has always been the grave danger of reverting to Law or legalism
@ Zoe | November 22, 2011 at 9:01 PM
“……The Bible reveals that God is a covenant-making, covenant-keeping and covenant-revealing God.”
Go tell that to the Indians, Chinese & Japanese!
Are these under your god’s covenant too? If so, since when? Remember America’s bigger creditor is China. So lookie, here, don’ t you go sending them to hell, ya hear!
One thing for sure; the same SUN shines on all of them. Starting from the Land of the Rising SUN in the East to California in the West!
To Miller:
I shall give in your proposal, for purposes of this discussion, that most of the first books of the Bible are fairy tales and not relevant to “these modern times”. But what I need to know in order to fashion my responses to you is where within the philosophical divide in the age of reason are you. Are a proponent of John Stuart Mills; are a proponent of Nietzche; are you a proponent of naturalism; are a post modernist or are you of the cultural relativism elk. I hope you are aware of Nietzche’s take on physical and as well as mental slavery. Come out of your hole and stop dropping futile ordinances; this one must done within the field environment.
@ lemuel | November 22, 2011 at 9:41 PM |
I don’t believe in the existence of any god as depicted in the Judeo-Christian story book. Call me pagan if you wish; but I worship the Power that cultures past and present are subjected to. I worship the LIGHT!
But I am of the strong view that other beings some of more advanced technological know-how to earthlings exist in other parts of our galaxy and have visited this solar system before. If you read between the lines in the book of Genesis you would appreciate where I am coming from. The book of Ezekiel also makes clear references to this type of visitations.
If you do not object to my refusal to simply accept at face value the story of man’s creation as outlined in Genesis I would expand a little further. But if you think what is written is the literal interpretation and should be accepted as is, so be it. Every person to his own belief, brainwashed or naive!
@ MLnuki.
You have every right to be proud of your race. So it does’nt help you to uplift your race but perpetrating the same kind of folly of the Redneck ignoramuses and using the n… word. You are also insulting yourself.
Yes the appropriate use and correct translation and description of the black race is Negro, also (Italian, and I beleive Portuguese. The German and Scandinavian word is neger. But this is all basically irrelevant.
Race is a concept of society that insists there is a genetic significance behind human variations in skin color that transcends outward appearance. However, race has no scientific merit outside of sociological classification. There are no significant genetic variations within the human species to justify the division of “ races.” We are all God’s children.The presumption that there are a number of different races within the human species implies that there is a different genetic code for these separate races. The degree to which the genetic makeup between individuals in different racial categories varies is 6%. However, within any certain race there is the same degree of difference between individuals. The development of varying skin pigmentation is not an influential enough of a difference to divide the human species into races. Skin color is merely a reaction to a dangerous environment. The same instances have been documented in immunity to diseases. A people who are endangered by a virus develop a way to survive .
Melanin is the sole reason for the colour differentiation in the skin, hair , and eyes. Its primary function is to protect against the ultra violet radiation.
There is a process called ultra fast internal conversion, which enables the melanin to dissipate more than 99% of the uv radiation , transforming it into heat, thereby protecting against DNA damage and hence any resulting melanoma /skin cancers.
Have a nice day.
@ Ph.D | November 23, 2011 at 5:27 AM |
“We are all God’s children. The presumption that there are a number of different races within the human species implies that there is a different genetic code for these separate races.”
Thanks for the lecture covering etymology, anthropology, genetics, etc. Most interesting!
But you assume I have a black skin so I should therefore see my self as a member of the “black” race. It’s amazing how a scientific thinking person like you can subscribe to the position that the variation among human beings resulting from varying levels of melanin took place in a period less than 9,000 years. You accept the story of the repopulation of the earth as told in the book of Genesis about Noah and his immediate family being the only source of all human beings living today.
Please explain to us, PhD, if Noah’s three sons and their wives were black how come there are Chinese, whites (Europeans), Amerindians, Inuits, etc? Are you suggesting that this variation took place over the period from the end of the flood (estimated by biblical fundamentalists like Zoe to be approx. 6,000 BCE-correct me if I am way of base here) to the present era?
Now if you accept the variation in human skin resulting from the level of exposure to the SUN’s rays why can’t you accept diversity in cultural and religious matters? Why must an Eskimo or a Indian in the Brazilian rainforest worship and accept your Jesus Christ in order to be accepted by your discriminatory god as defined by you and Zoe?
Now please don’t respond in an arrogant and academically pompous fashion. Deal with the issues placed before you and leave my character out of your responses!
To Miller:
Don’t you think it is bit ironic that you whole heartedly give yourself to adoration and worship of extra terrestial beings, but the concept of the extra terrestial being of all, God; finds it difficult to be part of your belief system. Do you recognize that what you purport to rest your entire belief system on the the stuff that science fiction is made of. All of the science fiction block busters conform to your “light” . I can not refer to you as Pagan; they had their Gods; the difficulty with them is they were are always made of wood or stone. The sad thing thing though is that most men today have substituted the wood and stone for riches, position of power, social status and things of that ilk.
You must admit that when men take away the Bible as the authority of right and wrong for the governance of society, that opens the door for a solid reliance on man’s reason. We thought that reason would have prevail when the secrets to atomic and nuclear energy were released, but the Japanese people paid a heavy price. In France after the revolution which got rid of all, including the Bible, their age of reason produced the figure of the city’s whore as the then epitome of worship. As men we have not been doing well with reason. That same Bible refers to man’s wisdom as a whole lot of foolishness. As it stands now we as a race of humanity stand in the shifting sands of what is right or wrong. The only difficulty is that each standard or rule is sweep away with the ebb and tide of reason, spiced with a heavy dose of relativism.
@ lemuel | November 23, 2011 at 8:30 AM |
“You must admit that when men take away the Bible as the authority of right and wrong for the governance of society, that opens the door for a solid reliance on man’s reason.’
What are you implying here, lemuel? That man can only determine what is right or wrong by relying on the Bible?
What about the Chinese & Indians? What is your take on them? After all they make up a significant part of mankind? How about the Eskimos or the pygmies in the jungle of the Congo? They don’t know the difference between right or wrong? Or you don’t consider them as having a “society”?
Each society determines its own standards of morality. Judeo-Christians have theirs, Hindus or Shintoists also have theirs. What we need to do as intelligent beings is to accept diversity and celebrate the good things we have in common but not force our concepts of morality on other cultures. This is not your God’s way. Remember God is not only LIGHT but also LOVE! Read the First Epistle General of John 1:5-10. Not an instruction to me the pagan but to you the Christian!
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.