|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jan 26, 2019 1:01:06 GMT
First of all, it wasn't "a former slave" - it was his own son. Not by blood, but by love. Second, he didn't tell the slave master to receive him as friend rather than slave, he beseeched him to. Third, you are placing the cart before the horse. This is the correct way to look at it: Paul's request to have Onesimus freed in no way contradicts his position that slaves should be diligent to their masters. Throughout the history of slavery we have slave owners granting freedom to slaves, or people asking for individuals to be freed, who were not opposed to the institution of slavery. There is no contradiction, as there is no overlap. Just because you want something to happen to one specific individual, does not mean you want the same to happen to all individuals of the same demographic. Yes, indeed - specifically, even if they were not rewarded in this life, they'd be rewarded all the more in the next. And slave owners didn't mind this at all, because here was a religion which told slaves to be content to be slaves! So there was incentive both from below and above to encourage Christianity, which is a major reason why it spread so fast. As already mentioned, St. Paul was not a rebel leader; just a missionary. Hence, he did not encourage rebellion from the people that were slaves, who were Christians. That's right. People awaited being awarded in the next life. Hence, they humbly lived their lives as slaves, and other low-class positions, because their Lord too, had Suffered in this life, and is now the King of Heaven. The pagan Roman masters/mistresses of the Christian slaves worshipped Mars, the god of war & bloodshed, as well as other gods, and enjoyed hedonistic lifestyle in the PRESENT life. So we agree - there is no condemnation of slavery anywhere in the Bible. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 26, 2019 1:04:43 GMT
As already mentioned, St. Paul was not a rebel leader; just a missionary. Hence, he did not encourage rebellion from the people that were slaves, who were Christians. That's right. People awaited being awarded in the next life. Hence, they humbly lived their lives as slaves, and other low-class positions, because their Lord too, had Suffered in this life, and is now the King of Heaven. The pagan Roman masters/mistresses of the Christian slaves worshipped Mars, the god of war & bloodshed, as well as other gods, and enjoyed hedonistic lifestyle in the PRESENT life. So we agree - there is no condemnation of slavery anywhere in the Bible. Yes there is. The Book of Exodus is one big condemnation of slavery in the Holy Bible. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 26, 2019 1:09:22 GMT
So we agree - there is no condemnation of slavery anywhere in the Bible. Yes there is. The Book of Exodus is one big condemnation of slavery in the Holy Bible. Only when those enslaved are god's "chosen people". Not when the "chosen people" do the enslaving. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 26, 2019 1:14:13 GMT
Yes there is. The Book of Exodus is one big condemnation of slavery in the Holy Bible. Only when those enslaved are god's "chosen people". Not when the "chosen people" do the enslaving. But, then God Sends them Prophets to condemn their evil acts.  |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 26, 2019 1:16:48 GMT
Only when those enslaved are god's "chosen people". Not when the "chosen people" do the enslaving. But, then God Sends them Prophets to condemn their evil acts. And slavery is not one of those "evil acts". Not killing all animals of a land, however... |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jan 26, 2019 1:18:35 GMT
So we agree - there is no condemnation of slavery anywhere in the Bible. Yes there is. The Book of Exodus is one big condemnation of slavery in the Holy Bible. Where? It condemns the slavery of God's chosen people, yes, but not slavery as an institution. Exodus would have been the perfect time to condemn slavery, though: the Israelites had escaped bondage, they had no slaves. The commandments given to Moses on Mount Sinai could well have included a prohibition on owning slaves. "You shall never presume to own another human being - that is the way of the gentiles, but you are to be better than that." Or something to that effect. But no, instead Exodus tells us how slaves are to be kept. And further specified in Leviticus. There is no condemnation of slavery. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 26, 2019 4:52:13 GMT
But, then God Sends them Prophets to condemn their evil acts. And slavery is not one of those "evil acts". Not killing all animals of a land, however... Yes it is. St. Matthew chapter 23, verse 4, Christ begins His Denunciation of the Pharisees, by Pointing out that they place heavy burdens on other people's shoulders, when they themselves will not carry anything. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 26, 2019 4:54:06 GMT
Yes there is. The Book of Exodus is one big condemnation of slavery in the Holy Bible. Where? It condemns the slavery of God's chosen people, yes, but not slavery as an institution. Exodus would have been the perfect time to condemn slavery, though: the Israelites had escaped bondage, they had no slaves. The commandments given to Moses on Mount Sinai could well have included a prohibition on owning slaves. "You shall never presume to own another human being - that is the way of the gentiles, but you are to be better than that." Or something to that effect. But no, instead Exodus tells us how slaves are to be kept. And further specified in Leviticus. There is no condemnation of slavery. Exodus chapter 22, verse 20: "Do not oppress the stranger, for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt." |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jan 26, 2019 5:12:07 GMT
Where? It condemns the slavery of God's chosen people, yes, but not slavery as an institution. Exodus would have been the perfect time to condemn slavery, though: the Israelites had escaped bondage, they had no slaves. The commandments given to Moses on Mount Sinai could well have included a prohibition on owning slaves. "You shall never presume to own another human being - that is the way of the gentiles, but you are to be better than that." Or something to that effect. But no, instead Exodus tells us how slaves are to be kept. And further specified in Leviticus. There is no condemnation of slavery. Exodus chapter 22, verse 20: "Do not oppress the stranger, for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt." That's not in reference to slavery. Or at least, only tangentially. What this means is that they should not force a foreign free man into slavery for no reason. This does not preclude them from buying foreign slaves, or to force prisoners of war into slavery. Exodus speaks mainly about indentured servitude, but Leviticus specifies that the Israelites may buy slaves from amongst the foreigners (Lev.25:44-46). Now, if Ex.22:20 meant that they shouldn't own slaves, this would constitute a contradiction. But you guys don't believe the Bible has any of those, do you? |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 26, 2019 5:17:39 GMT
Exodus chapter 22, verse 20: "Do not oppress the stranger, for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt." That's not in reference to slavery. Or at least, only tangentially. What this means is that they should not force a foreign free man into slavery for no reason. This does not preclude them from buying foreign slaves, or to force prisoners of war into slavery. Exodus speaks mainly about indentured servitude, but Leviticus specifies that the Israelites may buy slaves from amongst the foreigners (Lev.25:44-46). Now, if Ex.22:20 meant that they shouldn't own slaves, this would constitute a contradiction. But you guys don't believe the Bible has any of those, do you? They are not to oppress them, like the other nations do. They have the option of going free, after a few years, unlike in other cultures. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jan 26, 2019 5:24:35 GMT
That's not in reference to slavery. Or at least, only tangentially. What this means is that they should not force a foreign free man into slavery for no reason. This does not preclude them from buying foreign slaves, or to force prisoners of war into slavery. Exodus speaks mainly about indentured servitude, but Leviticus specifies that the Israelites may buy slaves from amongst the foreigners (Lev.25:44-46). Now, if Ex.22:20 meant that they shouldn't own slaves, this would constitute a contradiction. But you guys don't believe the Bible has any of those, do you? They are not to oppress them, like the other nations do. They have the option of going free, after a few years, unlike in other cultures. That applies only to indentured servitude of Israelite, not to foreign slaves. For the foreign slaves the following applies:
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 26, 2019 5:40:51 GMT
They are not to oppress them, like the other nations do. They have the option of going free, after a few years, unlike in other cultures. That applies only to indentured servitude of Israelite, not to foreign slaves. For the foreign slaves the following applies:
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
Deuteronomy chapter 23, verse 15 " If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master."Galatians chapter 3, verse 28: " There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jan 26, 2019 5:56:49 GMT
That applies only to indentured servitude of Israelite, not to foreign slaves. For the foreign slaves the following applies:
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
Deuteronomy chapter 23, verse 15 " If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master."Galatians chapter 3, verse 28: " There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."Deuteronomy pertains to the Israelites' conquest of Canaan, and the refugee slave in Deuteronomy 23:15 is one who has escaped from a Canaanite master - hence the different rules. Earlier in Deuteronomy you find this:
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. Deut.20:10-15
As for the Galatians quote - how do you figure that is a verse against slavery? It'd be a verse against freedom by the same token. You keep picking and choosing what to focus on.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 26, 2019 13:24:25 GMT
That's one individual case, where Paul begged for his own son to be freed. And pretty much completely refuted by... why, it's Paul again, who repeatedly tells slaves to obey their masters, even if their masters are cruel. ^  So you’ve now not only demonstrated that you’re devoid of a moral compass (thanks to religious indoctrination), but apparently you’re also STUPID, and cannot even follow the simple logic of the points being made which refute your argument. This is either a case of you being willfully ignorant, in that you just don’t want to lose, OR genuinely stupid, as in you just don’t get it. And I’m not sure which one is worse at this point (given that the topic is slavery). But it’s sad either way! |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 26, 2019 13:35:26 GMT
Deuteronomy chapter 23, verse 15 " If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master."Galatians chapter 3, verse 28: " There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."Deuteronomy pertains to the Israelites' conquest of Canaan, and the refugee slave in Deuteronomy 23:15 is one who has escaped from a Canaanite master - hence the different rules. Earlier in Deuteronomy you find this: When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. Deut.20:10-15 As for the Galatians quote - how do you figure that is a verse against slavery? It'd be a verse against freedom by the same token. You keep picking and choosing what to focus on.
That’s what she’s been doing right from the start. They all do! You’ll notice she hasn’t ONCE addressed the Leviticus 25 verse that clearly endorsed slavery and completely destroys her argument. Even though this was brought up at the BEGINNING of the conversation, she hasn’t once attempted to address it. Instead she keeps going to the New Testament to find something that she might be able to twist into being an abstract reference to slavery, and failing badly! This is the dishonesty that is Christianity and why I refuse to even engage with her on this anymore. Cognitive dissonance will not allow her to be honest in this discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 26, 2019 15:32:53 GMT
St. Paul's admonishment to slaves to obey their masters in no way refutes the fact that he told a Christian slave master to receive back a former slave as a friend. ^ So you’ve now not only demonstrated that you’re devoid of a moral compass (thanks to religious indoctrination), but apparently you’re also STUPID, and cannot even follow the simple logic of the points being made which refute your argument. This is either a case of you being willfully ignorant, in that you just don’t want to lose, OR genuinely stupid, as in you just don’t get it. And I’m not sure which one is worse at this point (given that the topic is slavery). But it’s sad either way! It is precisely because of religion, that I have morality. Speaking personally, I would be a far more selfish person, than I already am, without it. What I said, which you seem to have a problem with, stands: St. Paul telling a Christian slave master to receive back a former slave as a friend, does not counter his other letters telling slaves to obey their masters. The 2 issues do not counter one another. For one thing, the masters of the particular slaves whom he was writing to, may not have even been Christians themselves. So, no way would they have accepted Paul writing to them, & telling them to be friends with their slaves, instead of their masters. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 27, 2019 2:04:47 GMT
^ So you’ve now not only demonstrated that you’re devoid of a moral compass (thanks to religious indoctrination), but apparently you’re also STUPID, and cannot even follow the simple logic of the points being made which refute your argument. This is either a case of you being willfully ignorant, in that you just don’t want to lose, OR genuinely stupid, as in you just don’t get it. And I’m not sure which one is worse at this point (given that the topic is slavery). But it’s sad either way! It is precisely because of religion, that I have morality. Speaking personally, I would be a far more selfish person, than I already am, without it. What I said, which you seem to have a problem with, stands: St. Paul telling a Christian slave master to receive back a former slave as a friend, does not counter his other letters telling slaves to obey their masters. The 2 issues do not counter one another. For one thing, the masters of the particular slaves whom he was writing to, may not have even been Christians themselves. So, no way would they have accepted Paul writing to them, & telling them to be friends with their slaves, instead of their masters. I hope you are speaking for yourself, because all the paedophile priests, the nuns who tortured children in schools, the wars in the name of religion, the Spanish Inquisition, the missionaries who destroyed cultures SURE all behaved as if their 'morality' was absent in YOUR religion! |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 27, 2019 4:12:41 GMT
It is precisely because of religion, that I have morality. Speaking personally, I would be a far more selfish person, than I already am, without it. What I said, which you seem to have a problem with, stands: St. Paul telling a Christian slave master to receive back a former slave as a friend, does not counter his other letters telling slaves to obey their masters. The 2 issues do not counter one another. For one thing, the masters of the particular slaves whom he was writing to, may not have even been Christians themselves. So, no way would they have accepted Paul writing to them, & telling them to be friends with their slaves, instead of their masters. I hope you are speaking for yourself, because all the paedophile priests, the nuns who tortured children in schools, the wars in the name of religion, the Spanish Inquisition, the missionaries who destroyed cultures SURE all behaved as if their 'morality' was absent in YOUR religion! What makes you think those men would NOT have molested kids had they not been Christian? |
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jan 27, 2019 4:54:44 GMT
goz
Read "Witch Craze". Those Anglicans were really nice to those old ladies; with fake charges, just to steal their land. The victims had to pay their torturers by English law.
How were the native Aussies treated, the Indians? Go on, gozzy, I'm listening.
Read this hypocrite: www.culturalsurvival.org/news/3-horrendous-anti-indigenous-laws
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 27, 2019 5:42:41 GMT
I hope you are speaking for yourself, because all the paedophile priests, the nuns who tortured children in schools, the wars in the name of religion, the Spanish Inquisition, the missionaries who destroyed cultures SURE all behaved as if their 'morality' was absent in YOUR religion! What makes you think those men would NOT have molested kids had they not been Christian? The endemic protection of the Catholic Church, of which they were a part. They knew that they could get away with it without legal justice. |
|
