The Gay Awakening

The Gay Awakening

There are 475 comments on the The American Prospect story from Nov 18, 2013, titled The Gay Awakening. In it, The American Prospect reports that:

Supporters of same-sex marriage outside Camp Innnabah, the Methodist retreat center where Rev.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The American Prospect.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#250 Dec 27, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
In the Letter to Philemon, Paul does not address the general question of slavery as a social institution, nor does he discuss whether or not Onesimus should be set free. Instead, the Letter illustrates in a very concrete way how Paul applied his grasp of love or agape to the problem of the slave, Onesimus, returning to his master, Philemon. The Law gave Philemon the right to discipline the wayward slave and even to put him to death ...
But that's not what Paul had in mind.

"Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever — no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord."

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#251 Dec 27, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
Re-reading it doesn't change its meaning ...
How could you re-read what you didn't even read to begin with?

"Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— no longer as a slave..."

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#252 Dec 27, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
How could you re-read what you didn't even read to begin with?
You're just being silly, you know I've read the book, I've proved it often enough.
Joe DeCaro wrote:
"Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— no longer as a slave..."
Paul's emancipation was strictly spiritual, only Philemon had control over the legal. He wasn't Paul's servant to emancipate.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#253 Dec 28, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
But that's not what Paul had in mind.
"Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever — no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord."
Hm.

" ... what Paul had in mind ..."

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#254 Dec 28, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>You're just being silly, you know I've read the book, I've proved it often enough.
<quoted text>Paul's emancipation was strictly spiritual ...
Was his separation "spiritual" as well, or did he really run away?

"Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever — no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother ..."

Now look how's being silly.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#255 Dec 28, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
Was his separation "spiritual" as well, or did he really run away?
"Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever — no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother ..."
Now look how's being silly.
Try and keep up. Onesimus was still Philemon's property, even though he left with Paul. He was not emancipated. He was a slave who had run away from his master. Christian or not, his not having been emancipated made Onesimus subject to return to his owner. Paul returned Philemon's property as his property, spiritually emancipated from their earthly master-slave relationship and with the request that it be done legally as well, but he was still his property at that point. The really big point that you're missing is that in this passage, Paul is without reservation, albeit belatedly, obeying Roman law regarding slavery, without objection to them or the institution of slavery itself. He's talking about the one slave he saved, but couldn't and didn't free, not all slaves. So, do you still imagine that you have found a passage in the Bible which proves that God was an abolitionist or have you come to your senses?

The Old Testament God is not only cool with the practice, He could require it. Jesus said such earthly situations didn't matter, as long as both master and slave did their utmost to keep their commitments God and to each other, one's slavery too shall pass. And Paul, well, you found him returning a slave to his master. Hardly the stop on the underground railroad a runaway slave would want to make.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#256 Dec 28, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Onesimus was still Philemon's property, even though he left with Paul. He was not emancipated. He was a slave who had run away from his master. Christian or not, his not having been emancipated made Onesimus subject to return to his owner. Paul returned Philemon's property as his property ...
"Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever — no longer as a slave" means just that: no one's slave, not Paul's and not Philemon's.

Paul had also redeemed any loss Onesimus caused Philemon to Paul's own account (v. 18).

And Onesimus didn't leave with Paul, who was still imprisoned in Rome according to verse 1, yet another point that you didn't bother to read from one of the shortest letters in the NT.

Try and keep up.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#257 Dec 28, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
"Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever — no longer as a slave" means just that: no one's slave, not Paul's and not Philemon's.
Paul had also redeemed any loss Onesimus caused Philemon to Paul's own account (v. 18).
If Onesimus had been freed by Paul, why was he being returned to Philemon? It was Paul's obligation to return him, because as Philemon's property, he had no legal authority to free him himself. Christians still approved of slavery until they changed God's mind on the subject, several centuries later. You still haven't proved otherwise.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#258 Dec 29, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>If Onesimus had been freed by Paul, why was he being returned to Philemon? It was Paul's obligation to return him, because as Philemon's property, he had no legal authority to free him himself. Christians still approved of slavery until they changed God's mind on the subject, several centuries later. You still haven't proved otherwise.
You are right, Rick.

Joe DeCaro is just being obstinate. Slavery was a cultural reality among the Romans, the Greeks and the Jews of Palestine and also, in other cultures and tribes. There are many references to the practice of slavery in both the New and the Old Testament books and scriptures of the Bible.

Jesus uses the institution of slavery to make theologic concepts understandable. Old Testament stories are full of references to slavery. God relates to man and vice versa along every stage of man's development.

Furthermore, both Abraham and Jesus are shown talking and praying to God in order to ask God to change His/Her mind on situations and their causes and then God does exactly that. So, your assertion that God changed His mind on the subject of slavery is an entirely plausible claim. God changes, God adapts, God leads humanity into its future, a part of which is a reality that has not yet been written, in a proof that Human Beings are made to become capable of charting their individual futures.

In other words, we ourselves, have the individual right and prerogative to make a personal transformation from a condition of slavery within our creative lives into a life of creative action that takes part in creation as a free man - the true "Image of God."

God is not either something that is dead or something that cannot adapt to a set of situations. The Genesis Creation stories show God as doing things, changing things, setting up situations that later occur, reacting to actions, etc. God is an active force in a changing reality.

God is even described as an active hierarchy of powers that employs both angels and saints to effect changes in the lives and futures of humans.

What is wrong with believing that slavery once existed as a form of behavior that was acceptable to God and a behavior that was later not acceptable? I don't think that there is anything wrong with this idea. It reflects the reality of the progression of the spiritual growth and adaptability of Mankind, which progressive growth is clearly the manifestation of our spiritual path.

It is important for us to recognize the scriptural proof of the adaptability that we have, both as an historical fact and as an individual capacity.

Rev. Ken

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#259 Dec 29, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>If Onesimus had been freed by Paul, why was he being returned to Philemon?....
READ THE LETTER!!

12 I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary ...

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#260 Dec 29, 2013
RevKen wrote:
You are right, Rick.
Joe DeCaro is just being obstinate. Slavery was a cultural reality among the Romans, the Greeks and the Jews of Palestine and also, in other cultures and tribes. There are many references to the practice of slavery in both the New and the Old Testament books and scriptures of the Bible.
Joe left obstinate some time ago, he's been quietly living in complete disassociation for awhile now. We send post cards to each other from time to time. He could use a better translator for most of mine, but that's my Joey.

Slavery and servitude were almost inescapable facts of life in those days, the list of cultures that didn't actively participate in the practice in one form or another, a short one at best. Their first reality was that they were either a free person, or they weren't. There were many masters with many more in their service, if you were neither, you knew plenty of both and retained the right to join the first group. It's part of the world that Jesus was born into, He accepted it. He conditioned that they honor their responsibilities to God and each other first and second, if you do that, it really shouldn't matter if you are the slave or the master.
RevKen wrote:
Jesus uses the institution of slavery to make theologic concepts understandable. Old Testament stories are full of references to slavery. God relates to man and vice versa along every stage of man's development.
Joe is one of those Christians who won't let the teachings of Jesus stand in the way of his Christianity.
RevKen wrote:
Furthermore, both Abraham and Jesus are shown talking and praying to God in order to ask God to change His/Her mind on situations and their causes and then God does exactly that. So, your assertion that God changed His mind on the subject of slavery is an entirely plausible claim. God changes, God adapts, God leads humanity into its future, a part of which is a reality that has not yet been written, in a proof that Human Beings are made to become capable of charting their individual futures.
In other words, we ourselves, have the individual right and prerogative to make a personal transformation from a condition of slavery within our creative lives into a life of creative action that takes part in creation as a free man - the true "Image of God."
God is not either something that is dead or something that cannot adapt to a set of situations. The Genesis Creation stories show God as doing things, changing things, setting up situations that later occur, reacting to actions, etc. God is an active force in a changing reality.(edited for length)
While the Bible speaks of there being A God, one omniscient, omnipresent being responsible for not only the single-handed creation of the universe, but the entire history of humanity, but A God that clearly recognizes that He isn't the only one in the room when it comes to omniscient, omnipresent beings capable of single-handedly or collectively creating the universe as well as being responsible for all of human history themselves. The first leap of faith toward any God is a suspension of disbelief. I believe in all Gods and versions of God and all their stories, we tell them for good reason. We're only human, we need somebody's help.

There has never been just one version of Christianity and the versions we have today don't have a whole lot in common with their ancient ancestors, despite their claims of there being a clear family resemblance. Despite any denials from Joe to the contrary, Christians, for better and worse, have a clear track record of changing God's mind about all sorts of things. It's amazing what folk have been able to get the Bible to say for them, even when it's clearly not what God or his co-authors had in mind when it was written. Neither testament was written with abolitionists in mind, but they changed his mind anyways.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#261 Dec 29, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
READ THE LETTER!!
12 I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary ...
Even within Saulianity, if we assume for discussion that interpretation to be true, the message was far from proscriptive.

Saul was quite direct in slamming many things. Lists of things. Slavery was not one of them.

I have no trouble being quite simple and direct.

"Humans are not property." "Do not keep slaves." "Free your slaves." "Buy and free the slaves of others." "Slavery is an abomination." etc.

See how easy it is?

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#262 Dec 30, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Joe left obstinate some time ago ...
When did you leave literacy behind?
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Even within Saulianity, if we assume for discussion that interpretation to be true ...
You use made-up words and then have the hypocrisy to question the veracity of the Bible.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#263 Dec 30, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
When did you leave literacy behind?
<quoted text>
You use made-up words and then have the hypocrisy to question the veracity of the Bible.
"... the hypocrisy...?"

He uses made up words and we all understand what he means.

But, you use everyday normal words and nobody has any idea of what you are talking about!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#264 Dec 30, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
When did you leave literacy behind?
<quoted text>
You use made-up words and then have the hypocrisy to question the veracity of the Bible.
Yes, crosspatch. I am free. I create completely comprehensible neologisms using existing words and concepts where no single extent term expresses my meaning with elegance sufficient to my purposes. Gee whiz! Language is a tool, and I can make tools. I apply rational observation and analysis to an old anthology of writings.

There are many and serious reasons "to question the veracity of the bible".

One (just passably summarized) is ...

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

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#265 Dec 30, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Try again.
You try again. Your example fails again.
Joe DeCaro wrote:
State laws -- which are recorded in print -- regulate drinking and driving by setting a percentage at which blood alcohol levels indicate legal intoxication, i.e., drunk driving.
Yes, they regulate it by *banning* it. You are *not allowed* to drive while drunk. The Hebrews *were allowed* to own slaves.
Joe DeCaro wrote:
In the same way, biblical admonitons re the humane treatment of slaves doesn't promote slavery, but humanity.
Slavery is inherently INHUMANE. Buying and capturing people to force them to work for you is inhumane. Having a rule that says you shouldn't beat your slave to death doesn't make the Bible anti-slavery. It's still pro-slavery.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#266 Dec 30, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
... a relatively humane gesture considering the alternative was to put them all "to the ban" and kill them.
LOL

"God's option is a humane gesture because it's more humane than the other option God gives."
Joe DeCaro wrote:
"As for your bondmen and your bondmaids whom you may have, they shall be from the nations round about you, of whom you may buy ..."
The above doesn't say TO buy slaves, but that the Hebrews MAY buy them from other peoples -- this is a concession, NOT a command
Why would God concede to immoral actions?
Joe DeCaro wrote:
The Bible no more endorses slavery than the US Constitution endorsed slavery prior to the Thirteenth Amendment.
The Bible undeniably endorses slavery. God specifically tells the Hebrews to go ahead and practice it. That is an endorsement.

“=”

Since: Oct 07

Appleton WI

#267 Dec 30, 2013
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can't tell the difference between having a drink and driving drunk then YOU are the "friggin' idiot".
So, did you not understand the point, or are you just avoiding it because you have no valid rebuttal, so you manufacture this childish, disingenuous deflection?

The bible goes into great detail about how to properly buy, sell, care for, and discipline one's slaves without ever condemning or forbidding the practice of slavery. That makes it quite obviously implicit that slavery is a-okay with this god.

You can continue to deny this if it makes you feel good, but your denial certainly doesn't make ME a friggin idiot.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#268 Dec 31, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
"... the hypocrisy...?"
He uses made up words and we all understand what he means ...!
... then define "Saulianity".

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#269 Dec 31, 2013
Tre H wrote:
<quoted text>
So, did you not understand the point ...
Did YOU not understand this point?

"Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever — no longer as a slave" means just that: no one's slave, not Paul's and not Philemon's.

Paul had also redeemed any loss Onesimus caused Philemon to Paul's own account (v. 18).

Welcome to the New Testament -- the other half of the Bible.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Australia's 1st Same Sex Weddings to Be Held Wi... 2 hr St Rick Saintpornum 1
News All bets are off at the Supreme Court 3 hr St Rick Saintpornum 9
News Gay man denied marriage license hopes to unseat... 3 hr St Rick Saintpornum 49
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 5 hr Rose_NoHo 14,690
News Supreme Court declines to consider Houston figh... 10 hr RalphB 5
News Gay couple, devout baker take cake fight to hig... 13 hr Hudson 65
News Opponents in LGBT case agree: It's not about we... 18 hr Wondering 30
More from around the web