2005 (UTC) 

 === Exegetics is not "special pleading" === 

 "I've reverted... special pleading", says Mel Etitis. So simple to disregard more than ten paragraphs where I talk about the disciplines of exegetics and hermenutics. What has been reverted? 
 * An interpretation of a narrative text about Noah. Narrative texts, especially in the Genesis, do not claim that the actions of the people automatically should be considered as God's will. on the contrary. Even if Noah "institutionalised" slavery (very much disputed) that can in no way be taken as an indication that this was a good thing to do. One needs corroborating texts to make such a claim. Remove this hermenutical principle and the Bible says absolutely everything. 
 To prove the point that I am wrong, please state what exegetical and hermeneutical principles you follow in order to substantiate the following: "In this way slavery appears to be not only sanctioned but institutionalized by Noah." 
 * "The apostle Paul never explicitly addressess the issue of slavery as an institution." Please provide a text where st Paul addresses the institution of slavery, where his topic is if slavery should be abolished in society or not. My claim was that he addressess the topic of how a special group of people should conduct themselves in a society where slavery is everywhere. This is no "special pleading" but a simple fact. 
 What one should make from the fact that the institution is not addressed is another step, namely in constructing a christian ethic. I am discussing exegetics. 
 * "In his context however, this principle did not lead to any agitation for the abolishment of slavery per se." is reverted to "Yet, Paul never takes this to the stage of calling for the abolition of slavery." The word yet speaks volumes and is in itself definately more POV than my phrase. My phrase is nothing but a very simple stating of facts. It does not condone st Paul, nor explain why he chose his topic. It simply says he did not argue that slavery as an institution should be dropped (just as he never argues the opposite either). 
 * "Present-day Christians argue ... And that early christianity did not have a poltical voice, but was often trying to survive in the face of hostility and persecution. They would also argue that as soon as christianity became a more dominant factor in society it mostly have stood for the abolishment of slavery, as is evidenced when it overtook belief in the Æsir gods." In this paragraph we address the issue of how present day christians look at the passages in Scripture and what guiding principles they follow when the claim that Christianity is anti-slavery. That is the topic. To deny the very voicing of these arguments in such a context is offensive. Should it be considered OK if a christian went to the article on ateism and simply removed the arguments that ateists have? Of course not. 

 Before anyone reverts once again, I would  appreciate some exegetics and some hermeneutics! 

 Mel Etitis also makes the following claim that I make "the true but irrelevant point that slavery is seen as being a dreadful state for the enslaved" (emphasis added). Nonsense. The topic at hand is how did the biblical authors regard slavery. When something in the bible is considered a curse that is not simply another way of saying that someone had an unpleasant experience. It speaks volumes about how God regards something. 

 Noah cursed on of his sons. That is in no way a comparable act with issuing a law. When the people of Israel disobey God, they face the possibility of being taken as slaves by other people. That is a consequence of not fulfilling the Covenant with God, something God especially pleads with the people that they should in every way avoid. 

  16:59, 1 August