yes it was devestating. It got worse for me. I had a rule. If a foster ever was damaging to our two kids (both girls) the foster had to go. I came into the garage and the girls were all in the mini van as we were getting ready to head to church and the foster was explaining and showing my 9 year old and 4 year old how to perform oral sex. In the 11 months we had her I had lost 20 lbs because she was one who constantly tried to get "physical" with men. It was non stop no's and me pushing hands away and still at the same time trying to not reject her and trying to show what is healthy affection between a man and a child. I can deal with my stress induced loss of appetite. but when it came to my kids, No I cannot allow that.
As I was deep in guilt thinking I had failed the test as she walked back into the emergency shelter, her case worker who knew exactly what I was feeling came up put her arm around me and said "Steve, when she is grown she will know that there was at least one man in her life that cared for her as a person and not as a toy for their gratification. and she will remember what you modeled for her."
Steve, I personally know several people who were raped pre-puberty and then at puberty began raping other children or introducing other children to sexualised acts that no child should be exposed to.
The damage can be lifelong. But Dr Anna Salter, who is a world class expert in sexual offenders, says that minors who sexually offend against other minors often cease sexually offending when they become adults, especially if they receive skilled intervention early.
This poor girl was messed up beyond belief. even though she ended up in the shelter for about 6 months (a dad of mom's other 5 kids adopted her when he was successful at terminating mom's parental rights (It needed to be done, trust me))
I recontacted her through facebook once she was an adult. She struggles but I am glad to report that just what you described happened. She still had much work to do because the mother, who should have protected her had instead sold her for drugs. My then wife asked me once why was I so passionate and got so hot when I told a judge something regarding another foster who needed to be back home. The parents got on their feet and I am happy to say it was a total success. Back to what I said, I think I used the words " Lets just keep this kid in the system and insure she is totally f'ed up, lets just finish what the parents started" in open court with a mean stare (I am 6 ft, 52 inch chest and back then 34 inch waist. I could be intimidating. I said it directly to the judge, I am surprise I didn't get thrown in cuffs. I have seen to much of the damage so while a child was with me they got the same guy who brought a schools system to it's knees when it said it would not allow staff to give my type 1 diabetic daughter a glucogon shot in an emergency.
That passion to protect the innocents TBH is why I felt like a failure sending this child from my home.
The horror stories of CPS is as horrid as what brought the kid into the system to begin with.... I feel my BP rising, gotta just leave it🙂
As I read you came to a conclusion point that was running through my head during the whole reading.
God holds you accountable for actions you take voluntarily. God hold accountable fir an action the person who forces an action on you, you are still holy, they are not.
I am a bit quezzy about saying what I will now say but it is important I think to emphasize Paul's argument. Years ago my wife and I did therapitic foster care. We had a young 11 year old girl who by the age of six was not a virgin (my queezyness stems from even thinking about that rage starts to boil up in me) One day, I picked her up after school, as we were driving home she suddenly asked me "dad, if somebody did something to you and you didn't want them to "are you still a virgin?" My response was immediate. Yes, virginity is a state of mind, If someone did something to you and it was against your will, you are still a virgin. You only become not a virgin when you decide yourself to do something.
This in my humble opinion is exactly what Paul was arguing. Living a life honoring the temple of the Lord that you are means You act in all things to keep that temple holy. If others violate that temple it does not diminish or change it's holy state. The only way for that to occur is if it is you yourself violate that temple.
Thanks for that story, Steve! Your answer to that girl’s question would have comforted her in a very deep place of her soul. And I think she may have felt that comfort in her ‘splancha’ — the Greek word which Catherine referenced in this post.
Side note: The KJV often translates ‘splancha’ as bowels in phrases like ‘bowels of compassion’ or ‘bowels of mercies’. I recommend doing a deep dive on that word ❤️ and look it up in the LXX as well.
Our modern day concept of ‘virgin’ is too anatomically tethered. A hymen being broken, a female who has never been genitally penetrated, or a male who has never genitally penetrated a female. It doesn’t account for the (innate) responses which are part of the way God created us, our neurobiological responses to genital stimulation and penetrative intercourse.
The girl may have experienced sexual arousal and even orgasm when she was being raped. That is not uncommon. And it’s very confusing for victims of rape! They feel disgusted and afraid and ashamed that their body felt pleasure while simultaneously feeling fear, loathing, terror, because the rapist was violating them at the deepest level of their being. The girl may have been unable to voice this to you, but it may have been behind her question.
I love how deep you are exploring this issue. I can't help but notice the way Paul's words have been used regarding slavery and gendered exploitation historically. I do have a probing question, if you don't mind my asking. How does Paul's discussion of slavery differ from Jesus' words on oppressive, exploitive systems?
I don't see as big of a gap as you do between Jesus and Paul. I do think you're right that, at times, Jesus confronts exploitative systems more directly than Paul does. We especially see this when he interacts with certain corrupt Jewish religious leaders. A clear example that comes to mind is the story of the widow's two coins—and the context that comes before and after it. And at times Jesus makes statements about money that are more radical than what we see in Paul.
But I think we often see them making the same move—undermining exploitative systems in a backhanded way. Examples: nonresistance in the SOTM (Matthew 5:38-42), "render unto Caesar" (Matthew 22:15-22), even Jesus's response to the Sadducees about the resurrection—the Sadducees, of course, were the coziest with Rome (Matthew 22:23-33). I think this fits well with my exegesis of 1 Corinthians 6-7, and also with the book of Philemon.
If we're narrowing to slavery specifically, critical scholars looking at NT slavery actually sometimes have MORE negative things to say about Jesus than about Paul, particularly regarding Jesus's use of stock characters (both enslaved and slaveholders) in the parables. I'm hoping to do more work on slavery in the Gospels at some point.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply! That's shocking that critical scholarship would come to that conclusion, especially once you factor in the Golden Rule and his anti-hierarchy teachings. If you're interested in reading my analysis on the subject to simply hear the other perspective, this is one of the topics I address in my most recent article.
I dare say you're a better defender of Paul (in a critical sense) than Paul was for himself. Here's my main concern that I hope you are able to address in other/future posts:
1. Can you explain for your readers the precise obligations placed onto a manumitted enslaved person once they've been manumitted? They weren't just "freed" and that was the end of it. There were multiple life-long (and intergenerational) expectations of obsequium and deference (socially, materially, economically, and publicly) placed on the manumitted. This might help explain why and how Paul's suggestion that one try to remain in enslavement (if the conditions allow). After all, he would know: his ancestor (father or grandfather) was manumitted after Pompey conquered Cilicia. It also enabled Paul's family to become extremely wealthy, acting as a military subcontractor of cilicium tents for the legions and the Roman navy. His obsequium expectations never, ever ended.
2. I'm not sure it's accurate, unless you can point to an example in the text that I'm forgetting, that Paul 'sometimes chose not to' brandish his own citizenship exemptions from abuse and beatings. Every time I read Paul in trouble with authorities, he pulls that card rather quickly - including to appeal to the sovereignty and final judgment of Caesar himself.
3. I read Paul as "too clever by half" - though in a qualified sense. Paul is certainly a more brilliant rhetor than I am. Perhaps you feel the same about Paul, though I would challenge that. I think you're far clearer than he is. And this is my point directly: you do very well to "explain" Paul in ways that are far more favorable than he does for himself. I don't see that as humility on Paul's part. I see it as a true failure - "too clever by half", as the saying goes. Paul had no problem being plainspoken when he wanted to be. He had no problem saying that Ebionites should castrate themselves. He had no problem saying that Ebionites were "dogs" and "mutilators of the flesh" and that the Twelve were self-aggrandized "super apostles".
In other words, he suffered no shortage of plainspoken clarity when he was being a smug, abusive a-hole. Why is he, then, so circumspect when he's talking about these highly sensitive circumstances?
Perhaps you'll take some time to discuss this further in future posts? Again, thank you for making this series available to the mendicant, such as myself.
Great questions! I'll put together a post on manumission in the next few weeks or months.
Re: Paul's citizenship exemptions—we seem him pull the card a couple times in Acts, but he doesn't always. Sometimes the violence he suffers is just mob violence, but in Philippi, he's beaten with rods and thrown in prison by magistrates, without apparently ever invoking it (Acts 16). His letters also mention beatings he's received that aren't described in Acts.
Re: Paul's plainspokenness—this may deserve its own post, too, but I'll make a couple quick notes:
1) I'm not sure who Paul identifies as his opponents in Philippians (there are a number of proposals), and I don't think the super-apostles of 2 Corinthians are the Twelve.
2) Our rhetorical choices aren't always governed by how strongly we feel about something. We might choose softer language for any number of reasons. In Philemon, for example, Paul uses soft, roundabout language but still turns the pressure up to 11, leaving Philemon with no choice but to comply or severely lose face.
I absolutely love the behavioral aspect that you are addressing, as it's underdiscussed even in scholarship. I've a tendency to be blunt, and it can be a flaw at times, so I love to see others bringing pointed rigor to the Scriptures. I just wrote a thorough breakdown of the divergences between the Gospel that Jesus teaches and that of Paul. There are scholars who look at the evidence in Paul's behavior in addition to his personal disclosures and postulate that he's a Herodian, and I have to agree.
I’ve actually written quite a bit myself on Paul from an Ebyonim perspective, so you’ll find plenty on my page to help your future writings if you have interest. 😁🙏🏻
Brother, you had me at Ebyonim 💛 I’m reading your work next. I love studying how the first Christians — the Jewish Christian Nazarenes and Ebionites — lived out Jesus’ teachings in practice. The fact that their traditions were largely unchanged for the four centuries leading up to their intensified persecution is amazing and quite telling. I’m sure their disappearance from the region had nothing to do with the Roman troops being deployed to that region while the church amped up their rhetoric. 🤨
I'm really happy we connected here!! 😁 I haven't found anyone else doing this same work on the platform yet from the perspective of the Ebyonim. I'm catching up on your Substack now.
In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul also takes on the men in Corinth, who, extrapolating from Paul's preaching about freedom, are arguing that satisfying their own sexual desires is natural and healthy ("food for the stomach and the stomach for food"). I find a certain kinship in this argument to the implications of purity culture that women are responsible for the sexual desires of men. They must dress modestly and act circumspectly to avoid inflaming men's lust, as if men are unable to control their own bodies once aroused. Paul insists on freedom but only for what is truly beneficial. He expects the men to control themselves. "Shall I take the members of Christ and unite them to a prostitute? Never!"
Thanks for writing. I'm really enjoying your work. I'll probably subscribe eventually.
Great connection! I talk about 1 Corinthians 6 in Part 3 of this series, but didn't connect it to that. But one of the (many) problems in 1 Corinthians 6 is that men are treating these womens' bodies as disposable, while claiming that the body is meaningless!
I really appreciate this article, and it’s given me a lot to think about. 1 Corinthians 7 is challenging, especially considering that Roman slavery really was a horrible institution. Why would Paul want someone to continue being exploited if the gospel promises freedom? But I’ve also noticed that Paul seems to subvert the dominant institutions by appealing to the gospel. There was no way that he could rid Rome of slavery or rescue enslaved Christians from the horrors they endured. But he could offer them the hope of the gospel, encourage them to seek their freedom if they could, and even help them do so when possible, as in the case of Philemon and Onesimus. And like you mentioned, he could help someone like Prima by encouraging her that God sees her and has not placed any guilt on her for what oppressors have done or do to harm her.
I suspect that some of his accommodation is rooted in the social realities of Roman hierarchy. Slavery was a particularly bad institution, but hierarchy was built into every facet of Roman life. When a slave was manumitted, they weren't fully freed—they still had obligations to the former enslaver.
I do think Paul was pro-manumission. But in some ways, it was more radical to say that the whole status system was antithetical to the Gospel than it would've been to command manumission.
Yup :) It was a guy justifying hatred and violence on those who hated him. He gave me leviticus 24 as his justification. I gave him proverbs, Matthew and Romans. then he said "don't quote scripture at me "god man" I dont follow your God" and you can pick it up from there 🤣
Summing up my takeaways from this very good post, with my already gained understanding of sexualised abuse.
God is wrathful at those who use coercion, social status and surreptitious psychological brainwashing (to control what people think) in order to sexually abuse others.
God does not condemn victims of sexualised abuse. He says the guilt belongs to the perpetrators.
He also says that the perpetrators’ enablers bear guilt for not resisting the perpetrators and not standing with the victims in their cry for justice.
God’s unwavering stance on this affords every victim of sexualised abuse some measure of dignity. I wish churchianity would give this measure of dignity to victims!
God’s unwavering stance comforts the victims with the promise that the Lord himself will render judgment against all abusers who have refused to take full accountability for their actions.
yes it was devestating. It got worse for me. I had a rule. If a foster ever was damaging to our two kids (both girls) the foster had to go. I came into the garage and the girls were all in the mini van as we were getting ready to head to church and the foster was explaining and showing my 9 year old and 4 year old how to perform oral sex. In the 11 months we had her I had lost 20 lbs because she was one who constantly tried to get "physical" with men. It was non stop no's and me pushing hands away and still at the same time trying to not reject her and trying to show what is healthy affection between a man and a child. I can deal with my stress induced loss of appetite. but when it came to my kids, No I cannot allow that.
As I was deep in guilt thinking I had failed the test as she walked back into the emergency shelter, her case worker who knew exactly what I was feeling came up put her arm around me and said "Steve, when she is grown she will know that there was at least one man in her life that cared for her as a person and not as a toy for their gratification. and she will remember what you modeled for her."
Sometimes the world just makes me scream at God.
Steve, I personally know several people who were raped pre-puberty and then at puberty began raping other children or introducing other children to sexualised acts that no child should be exposed to.
The damage can be lifelong. But Dr Anna Salter, who is a world class expert in sexual offenders, says that minors who sexually offend against other minors often cease sexually offending when they become adults, especially if they receive skilled intervention early.
This poor girl was messed up beyond belief. even though she ended up in the shelter for about 6 months (a dad of mom's other 5 kids adopted her when he was successful at terminating mom's parental rights (It needed to be done, trust me))
I recontacted her through facebook once she was an adult. She struggles but I am glad to report that just what you described happened. She still had much work to do because the mother, who should have protected her had instead sold her for drugs. My then wife asked me once why was I so passionate and got so hot when I told a judge something regarding another foster who needed to be back home. The parents got on their feet and I am happy to say it was a total success. Back to what I said, I think I used the words " Lets just keep this kid in the system and insure she is totally f'ed up, lets just finish what the parents started" in open court with a mean stare (I am 6 ft, 52 inch chest and back then 34 inch waist. I could be intimidating. I said it directly to the judge, I am surprise I didn't get thrown in cuffs. I have seen to much of the damage so while a child was with me they got the same guy who brought a schools system to it's knees when it said it would not allow staff to give my type 1 diabetic daughter a glucogon shot in an emergency.
That passion to protect the innocents TBH is why I felt like a failure sending this child from my home.
The horror stories of CPS is as horrid as what brought the kid into the system to begin with.... I feel my BP rising, gotta just leave it🙂
Wow Steve! You are my kinda guy! I love the way you spoke to that judge! 👏👏👏👏 Would that there were more men like you!
gonna subscribe to your Substack.
As I read you came to a conclusion point that was running through my head during the whole reading.
God holds you accountable for actions you take voluntarily. God hold accountable fir an action the person who forces an action on you, you are still holy, they are not.
I am a bit quezzy about saying what I will now say but it is important I think to emphasize Paul's argument. Years ago my wife and I did therapitic foster care. We had a young 11 year old girl who by the age of six was not a virgin (my queezyness stems from even thinking about that rage starts to boil up in me) One day, I picked her up after school, as we were driving home she suddenly asked me "dad, if somebody did something to you and you didn't want them to "are you still a virgin?" My response was immediate. Yes, virginity is a state of mind, If someone did something to you and it was against your will, you are still a virgin. You only become not a virgin when you decide yourself to do something.
This in my humble opinion is exactly what Paul was arguing. Living a life honoring the temple of the Lord that you are means You act in all things to keep that temple holy. If others violate that temple it does not diminish or change it's holy state. The only way for that to occur is if it is you yourself violate that temple.
Oh my heart. That poor little girl.
Thanks for that story, Steve! Your answer to that girl’s question would have comforted her in a very deep place of her soul. And I think she may have felt that comfort in her ‘splancha’ — the Greek word which Catherine referenced in this post.
Side note: The KJV often translates ‘splancha’ as bowels in phrases like ‘bowels of compassion’ or ‘bowels of mercies’. I recommend doing a deep dive on that word ❤️ and look it up in the LXX as well.
Our modern day concept of ‘virgin’ is too anatomically tethered. A hymen being broken, a female who has never been genitally penetrated, or a male who has never genitally penetrated a female. It doesn’t account for the (innate) responses which are part of the way God created us, our neurobiological responses to genital stimulation and penetrative intercourse.
The girl may have experienced sexual arousal and even orgasm when she was being raped. That is not uncommon. And it’s very confusing for victims of rape! They feel disgusted and afraid and ashamed that their body felt pleasure while simultaneously feeling fear, loathing, terror, because the rapist was violating them at the deepest level of their being. The girl may have been unable to voice this to you, but it may have been behind her question.
I love how deep you are exploring this issue. I can't help but notice the way Paul's words have been used regarding slavery and gendered exploitation historically. I do have a probing question, if you don't mind my asking. How does Paul's discussion of slavery differ from Jesus' words on oppressive, exploitive systems?
Yeah, that's a great question!
I don't see as big of a gap as you do between Jesus and Paul. I do think you're right that, at times, Jesus confronts exploitative systems more directly than Paul does. We especially see this when he interacts with certain corrupt Jewish religious leaders. A clear example that comes to mind is the story of the widow's two coins—and the context that comes before and after it. And at times Jesus makes statements about money that are more radical than what we see in Paul.
But I think we often see them making the same move—undermining exploitative systems in a backhanded way. Examples: nonresistance in the SOTM (Matthew 5:38-42), "render unto Caesar" (Matthew 22:15-22), even Jesus's response to the Sadducees about the resurrection—the Sadducees, of course, were the coziest with Rome (Matthew 22:23-33). I think this fits well with my exegesis of 1 Corinthians 6-7, and also with the book of Philemon.
If we're narrowing to slavery specifically, critical scholars looking at NT slavery actually sometimes have MORE negative things to say about Jesus than about Paul, particularly regarding Jesus's use of stock characters (both enslaved and slaveholders) in the parables. I'm hoping to do more work on slavery in the Gospels at some point.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply! That's shocking that critical scholarship would come to that conclusion, especially once you factor in the Golden Rule and his anti-hierarchy teachings. If you're interested in reading my analysis on the subject to simply hear the other perspective, this is one of the topics I address in my most recent article.
https://katheryngreenleaf.substack.com/p/investigating-biblical-contradictions-00a?r=887mm2&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
This is peak textual interrogation, Katheryn!
I dare say you're a better defender of Paul (in a critical sense) than Paul was for himself. Here's my main concern that I hope you are able to address in other/future posts:
1. Can you explain for your readers the precise obligations placed onto a manumitted enslaved person once they've been manumitted? They weren't just "freed" and that was the end of it. There were multiple life-long (and intergenerational) expectations of obsequium and deference (socially, materially, economically, and publicly) placed on the manumitted. This might help explain why and how Paul's suggestion that one try to remain in enslavement (if the conditions allow). After all, he would know: his ancestor (father or grandfather) was manumitted after Pompey conquered Cilicia. It also enabled Paul's family to become extremely wealthy, acting as a military subcontractor of cilicium tents for the legions and the Roman navy. His obsequium expectations never, ever ended.
2. I'm not sure it's accurate, unless you can point to an example in the text that I'm forgetting, that Paul 'sometimes chose not to' brandish his own citizenship exemptions from abuse and beatings. Every time I read Paul in trouble with authorities, he pulls that card rather quickly - including to appeal to the sovereignty and final judgment of Caesar himself.
3. I read Paul as "too clever by half" - though in a qualified sense. Paul is certainly a more brilliant rhetor than I am. Perhaps you feel the same about Paul, though I would challenge that. I think you're far clearer than he is. And this is my point directly: you do very well to "explain" Paul in ways that are far more favorable than he does for himself. I don't see that as humility on Paul's part. I see it as a true failure - "too clever by half", as the saying goes. Paul had no problem being plainspoken when he wanted to be. He had no problem saying that Ebionites should castrate themselves. He had no problem saying that Ebionites were "dogs" and "mutilators of the flesh" and that the Twelve were self-aggrandized "super apostles".
In other words, he suffered no shortage of plainspoken clarity when he was being a smug, abusive a-hole. Why is he, then, so circumspect when he's talking about these highly sensitive circumstances?
Perhaps you'll take some time to discuss this further in future posts? Again, thank you for making this series available to the mendicant, such as myself.
Great questions! I'll put together a post on manumission in the next few weeks or months.
Re: Paul's citizenship exemptions—we seem him pull the card a couple times in Acts, but he doesn't always. Sometimes the violence he suffers is just mob violence, but in Philippi, he's beaten with rods and thrown in prison by magistrates, without apparently ever invoking it (Acts 16). His letters also mention beatings he's received that aren't described in Acts.
Re: Paul's plainspokenness—this may deserve its own post, too, but I'll make a couple quick notes:
1) I'm not sure who Paul identifies as his opponents in Philippians (there are a number of proposals), and I don't think the super-apostles of 2 Corinthians are the Twelve.
2) Our rhetorical choices aren't always governed by how strongly we feel about something. We might choose softer language for any number of reasons. In Philemon, for example, Paul uses soft, roundabout language but still turns the pressure up to 11, leaving Philemon with no choice but to comply or severely lose face.
I absolutely love the behavioral aspect that you are addressing, as it's underdiscussed even in scholarship. I've a tendency to be blunt, and it can be a flaw at times, so I love to see others bringing pointed rigor to the Scriptures. I just wrote a thorough breakdown of the divergences between the Gospel that Jesus teaches and that of Paul. There are scholars who look at the evidence in Paul's behavior in addition to his personal disclosures and postulate that he's a Herodian, and I have to agree.
Oh, I’m going to enjoy reading that!
I’ve actually written quite a bit myself on Paul from an Ebyonim perspective, so you’ll find plenty on my page to help your future writings if you have interest. 😁🙏🏻
Brother, you had me at Ebyonim 💛 I’m reading your work next. I love studying how the first Christians — the Jewish Christian Nazarenes and Ebionites — lived out Jesus’ teachings in practice. The fact that their traditions were largely unchanged for the four centuries leading up to their intensified persecution is amazing and quite telling. I’m sure their disappearance from the region had nothing to do with the Roman troops being deployed to that region while the church amped up their rhetoric. 🤨
Wow! 🤯 🤩
I’m usually the one having to explain this to others! 🤣😁🙌🏻
How refreshing and joyful it is to come across you! I’m glad I subscribed to your page already.
I'm really happy we connected here!! 😁 I haven't found anyone else doing this same work on the platform yet from the perspective of the Ebyonim. I'm catching up on your Substack now.
In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul also takes on the men in Corinth, who, extrapolating from Paul's preaching about freedom, are arguing that satisfying their own sexual desires is natural and healthy ("food for the stomach and the stomach for food"). I find a certain kinship in this argument to the implications of purity culture that women are responsible for the sexual desires of men. They must dress modestly and act circumspectly to avoid inflaming men's lust, as if men are unable to control their own bodies once aroused. Paul insists on freedom but only for what is truly beneficial. He expects the men to control themselves. "Shall I take the members of Christ and unite them to a prostitute? Never!"
Thanks for writing. I'm really enjoying your work. I'll probably subscribe eventually.
Great connection! I talk about 1 Corinthians 6 in Part 3 of this series, but didn't connect it to that. But one of the (many) problems in 1 Corinthians 6 is that men are treating these womens' bodies as disposable, while claiming that the body is meaningless!
I really appreciate this article, and it’s given me a lot to think about. 1 Corinthians 7 is challenging, especially considering that Roman slavery really was a horrible institution. Why would Paul want someone to continue being exploited if the gospel promises freedom? But I’ve also noticed that Paul seems to subvert the dominant institutions by appealing to the gospel. There was no way that he could rid Rome of slavery or rescue enslaved Christians from the horrors they endured. But he could offer them the hope of the gospel, encourage them to seek their freedom if they could, and even help them do so when possible, as in the case of Philemon and Onesimus. And like you mentioned, he could help someone like Prima by encouraging her that God sees her and has not placed any guilt on her for what oppressors have done or do to harm her.
100%
I suspect that some of his accommodation is rooted in the social realities of Roman hierarchy. Slavery was a particularly bad institution, but hierarchy was built into every facet of Roman life. When a slave was manumitted, they weren't fully freed—they still had obligations to the former enslaver.
I do think Paul was pro-manumission. But in some ways, it was more radical to say that the whole status system was antithetical to the Gospel than it would've been to command manumission.
That’s a really great point!
Yup :) It was a guy justifying hatred and violence on those who hated him. He gave me leviticus 24 as his justification. I gave him proverbs, Matthew and Romans. then he said "don't quote scripture at me "god man" I dont follow your God" and you can pick it up from there 🤣
Summing up my takeaways from this very good post, with my already gained understanding of sexualised abuse.
God is wrathful at those who use coercion, social status and surreptitious psychological brainwashing (to control what people think) in order to sexually abuse others.
God does not condemn victims of sexualised abuse. He says the guilt belongs to the perpetrators.
He also says that the perpetrators’ enablers bear guilt for not resisting the perpetrators and not standing with the victims in their cry for justice.
God’s unwavering stance on this affords every victim of sexualised abuse some measure of dignity. I wish churchianity would give this measure of dignity to victims!
God’s unwavering stance comforts the victims with the promise that the Lord himself will render judgment against all abusers who have refused to take full accountability for their actions.
You used scripture to justify your stance. save your thumbs I sm not continuing this discussion.
I think you might have been replying to the wrong post?