|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 9, 2019 15:46:23 GMT
Atheists like to make this claim. The problem with their objection is that He kind of did. Luke 4:18““The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captivesAnd recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed;Christ was citing Isaiah 61:1 which in practical application condemns the slavery of His day. That is not a condemnation of anything at all. It is a promise of the rewards of faith. What, for example, is condemned with the line, "And recovery of sight to the blind"? Jesus did condemn slavery in Matthew 7:12. The well-known Golden Rule covers the slavery issue and a whole lot of other issues. According to the rule, if you would not want to be a slave you should not have slaves. The golden rule no more condemns slavery than it condemns any sort of hierarchy, whether in government, places of employment or families. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 9, 2019 16:01:04 GMT
NO HE FUCKING GODDDAMN DOESN'T! You motherfuckers need to stop with this lying bullshit I swear to god. Nowhere in the bible does ANYONE ever condemn "slavery". Unspecific, random verses about how people should generally treat each other is NOT a condemnation of a social institution specifically allowed for in God's law. What part about that do you not fucking understand? In order to say that ANYONE in the bible condemns slavery, you need to find a scripture where they call out the institution of slavery. The Golden Rule is a general guideline that is not all conclusive, and Paul demonstrates this when he tells the Corinthians to remove the evil from among them (referring to atheists and people of other religions who are sinning outside of the church). So you are yet another Christian moron who clearly doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about and just grasping at straws for any verse that you can find that can somehow invalidate God's law allowing slavery (and the apostles later support of it). But you can't do that because you don't know the bible! Those verses do not speak to slavery. And again, even IF they did, you'd still have to explain why God allowed it in the first place as it is immoral! The closest verse I've ever been directed to that addresses slavery in any way was the one where Paul lumps slave traders with some other slimy scum in 1 Timothy 1. That's a very modern translation, though. Earlier translations rendered it "men stealers", "kidnappers" etc. Since the modern translation is sometimes "slave traders", I imagine the original meaning was more those who kidnap free people in order to sell them off as slaves, a practice we know took place. Even legally, even into the 19th century, when press gangs could seize able-bodied men by force, into military service. |
|
|
|
Post by llanwydd on Feb 9, 2019 16:02:41 GMT
Atheists like to make this claim. The problem with their objection is that He kind of did. Luke 4:18““The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captivesAnd recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed;Christ was citing Isaiah 61:1 which in practical application condemns the slavery of His day. That is not a condemnation of anything at all. It is a promise of the rewards of faith. What, for example, is condemned with the line, "And recovery of sight to the blind"? Jesus did condemn slavery in Matthew 7:12. The well-known Golden Rule covers the slavery issue and a whole lot of other issues. According to the rule, if you would not want to be a slave you should not have slaves. The golden rule no more condemns slavery than it condemns any sort of hierarchy, whether in government, places of employment or families. Not specifically, but there is a difference between slavery and being the lowest among classes. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 9, 2019 16:07:10 GMT
That is not a condemnation of anything at all. It is a promise of the rewards of faith. What, for example, is condemned with the line, "And recovery of sight to the blind"? The golden rule no more condemns slavery than it condemns any sort of hierarchy, whether in government, places of employment or families. Not specifically, but there is a difference between slavery and being the lowest among classes. There certainly is a difference, but fact remains that whether you are with your family, or at work, or in front of a judge, you always find yourself in positions of inequality. "Judge not" obviously does not apply to a judge fulfilling his office, and "do unto others" obviously does not apply to a police officer making an arrest. The golden rule was never meant to disrupt the functional relationship between the employee and his boss, or for that matter slave and slave owner. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Feb 9, 2019 17:55:50 GMT
So he condemned the slavery that the Bible permitted in the first place? Oh ok.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Feb 9, 2019 19:19:24 GMT
So he condemned the slavery that the Bible permitted in the first place? Oh ok. The bible permitted indentured servitude yes. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 9, 2019 21:10:42 GMT
So he condemned the slavery that the Bible permitted in the first place? Oh ok. The bible permitted indentured servitude yes. Let's face it! The indentured biblical apologist can make the Bible say anything at all one minute, and the opposite the next! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2019 21:23:50 GMT
So he condemned the slavery that the Bible permitted in the first place? Oh ok. The bible permitted indentured servitude yes. And slavery. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 9, 2019 22:16:20 GMT
I am at a loss to understand how I deserve to be spoken to this way. Have I insulted you or something? Yes you did, and indeed you've insulted every intelligent person here who happens to be a decent human being. But I'll come back to that...Let me address everything else you've said first. Please explain how I am a "Christian moron". I will not resort to name calling like you have Sure you will, you'll just dishonestly do it in a backhand way in this very comment and then pretend that you have a moral high ground which clearly you do not. but may I ask, "Who is the moron?" I never said whether I was a Christian or not so how do you draw that conclusion. I drew the conclusion from your own implication that you were. And that implication is based on your statement that: "Jesus did condemn slavery". Not only are you implying that Jesus was a real person who actually existed, but your defense of the statements you are attributing to him suggests that you actually buy into what he supposedly said. The logical conclusion is that you are a Christian. Now, true you didn't actually say you were a Christian and I suppose you could have meant " the bible says" when you said " Jesus said", which wouldn't necessarily make you a Christian. And if that's what you meant as opposed to what you said, then I take back calling you a Christian moron. The correct thing to do would be to just call you moron! Because it's still an asinine claim that has been defeated whether you believe in Christ or not. Very easy to hide behind your computer and vent at anyone who expresses an opinion. And easy to see why you do nothing but write on this board all day instead of go out once in a while. Because nobody in the real world can stand you. That's an interesting lump of assumptions about a person you don't know, coming from a person who appears to be venting about someone behind your computer because they expressed an opinion that you don't like. Maybe you should try following your own advice. Better yet, maybe you should actually try defending your position when it's challenged instead of crying a river about other people challenging your position. That might actually make you look more like someone with a leg to stand on rather than the hypocrite it's making you look like now. My comment was about Jesus, not about the apostles or anyone else in the Bible. And "God's law allowing slavery?" Get back on your meds. Backhanded insult noted. The implication here that I need to be on meds for positing a fact about the bible that you chose to ignore. Whether or not your comment was about Jesus or anyone else becomes sort of irrelevant when it is demonstrated that your comment doesn't support your own conclusion. And maybe you should go back and read the parts of the bible that you seem to have avoided instead of cherry picking. Now to circle back about how you have offended every decent person with a brain...your argument is calculated to excuse away the SLAVERY that was depicted in the bible as though it was not (which on it's own makes you a despicable human being)! It ignores the fact that god condoned slavery and that the apostles condoned slavery, and then tries to use an abstract, unrelated verse from Jesus in order to say that he condemned something he didn't address. [/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 9, 2019 22:21:40 GMT
They cover slavery. Yes they are. Many slaves in the Old Testament were obtained through warfare. That’s nice... No they don't. No they aren't. That's completely irrelevant (because many others were not). And I know. Or it could cover any form of oppression, which would include slavery. Which is something that you would actually have to DEMONSTRATE with a supporting scripture, instead of just asserting it. He didn’t need to. He already said stuff like “love your neighbour as yourself” and “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and anybody who applies those principles to their life would not feel compelled to own another human as property. Except that there is no reason why anyone listening to these teachings would apply them to SLAVES. Because slaves were not "neighbors", they were "property" (the owning of which God already declared as moral). Which means that he DID need to if he wanted to include slaves as neighbors! |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 9, 2019 22:27:30 GMT
NO HE FUCKING GODDDAMN DOESN'T! You motherfuckers need to stop with this lying bullshit I swear to god. Nowhere in the bible does ANYONE ever condemn "slavery". Unspecific, random verses about how people should generally treat each other is NOT a condemnation of a social institution specifically allowed for in God's law. What part about that do you not fucking understand? In order to say that ANYONE in the bible condemns slavery, you need to find a scripture where they call out the institution of slavery. The Golden Rule is a general guideline that is not all conclusive, and Paul demonstrates this when he tells the Corinthians to remove the evil from among them (referring to atheists and people of other religions who are sinning outside of the church). So you are yet another Christian moron who clearly doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about and just grasping at straws for any verse that you can find that can somehow invalidate God's law allowing slavery (and the apostles later support of it). But you can't do that because you don't know the bible! Those verses do not speak to slavery. And again, even IF they did, you'd still have to explain why God allowed it in the first place as it is immoral! The closest verse I've ever been directed to that addresses slavery in any way was the one where Paul lumps slave traders with some other slimy scum in 1 Timothy 1.
However, it only addresses slave TRADERS, so it focuses on the trading and, presumably, the transport of people and selling them as slaves. He avoids actually coming out and saying slavery is wrong...probably because he might have been worried that many of his target audience might've had slaves. IOW, he was being "PC."
Much like folks who justify the OT for not coming out more strongly against slavery saying that God thought it was wrong, but that he (God) knew the people he was leading just weren't ready for it yet. This seems to be the gist of this apologists romp into why the OT doesn't come out more strongly against slavery...or really come out against slavery at all. Culturally, the people just weren't ready for it yet. The best he can do is fend off the idea that the Bible actually encourages slavery.
Here again, the person cannot find where the Bible condemns slavery but can only meekly try to claim that it is misleading to suggest the Bible permits or sanctions slavery.
And even there, I think it is equivocal that what Paul says/does is a foundation leading to condemning slavery.
It's pretty weak sauce for anyone to claim that what Paul did reflected a strong conviction that slavery was absolutely a vile sin that was abhorrent in God's sight. At most, it seems like almost a wimpy, "well, gee, maybe you could consider freeing him...he was converted so, really, you could almost think of him as a brother.
"Homosexuality is an abomination, but slavery is inconvenient and...maybe, just maybe you should try to consider if maybe you could think about perhaps....freeing your slave?" Yeah, Paul was a real tower of intolerance when it came to slavery.
You're exactly right. But I take it a step further and call them horrible human beings for believing this. Because to believe this means that you have no morals (beyond that which come from a book that you cannot demonstrate is a moral authority). And people without morals don't deserve any measure of respect. Anyone who can defend slavery, excuse slavery, minimize slavery, pretend that slavery wasn't slavery, or pretend like it was condemned by anyone in the bible is a dishonest human being. And anyone who simultaneously holds the position that homosexuality is a sin worthy of death, but slavery is not (which is ALL CHRISTIANS who believe in the bible as the word of God) is a despicable human being. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 9, 2019 22:30:50 GMT
First of all, no he doesn't. None of those passages address "slavery". Slaves are not "captives"; captives are prisoners of war (or a prisoner of the state)! I was in the military so I know these things, but if you need to go look it up I suggest you find a dictionary. "Liberty to those who are oppressed" is too general of a statement to apply to anything specific like slavery. That could be a metaphor for someone who is oppressed by the curse of the law, or oppressed by their government. And by the way, we KNOW that Isaiah was referring to "prisoners" because he says so in the very next verse (that you didn't include). So you are about 4 steps removed from claiming that this had anything to do with slavery at all! Here is what Jesus actually said: Luke 4:18he Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free,...Compare with... Isaiah 61:1The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me, because the Lord has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captivesand release from darkness for the prisonersNothing about "slavery" there! Secondly, if Jesus wanted to GO AGAINST THE LAW OF GOD and condemn slavery, the simplest way to do that would simply be to say do not own your fellow man as property. But he didn't, and neither did God, nor any Apostle in the bible. Instead, we got this shit! Exodus 20:20-21“If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.Leviticus 25:44-46“‘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.1 Peter 2:18-19Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God.Ephesian 6:5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, These are the pro slavery passages from the Old and New Testament's that no Christians can ever seem to address directly! You just like to pretend this is not in the bible and come up with some obscure passage that has nothing to do with slavery in order to pretend that Jesus somehow condemned it. He did! And even IF he did, that still doesn't explain why god condoned it in the first place. Why did God consider this moral? Or conversely, why was slavery ever part of God's law if it's immoral and had to be reversed by Jesus (which never happened)? clusium 's ridiculous answer was to say that it's not the "bad" kind of slavery, it's actually the really happy, nice, friendly kind of slavery! I hope you can do better than that, but I suspect you'll just ignore it altogether in cognitive dissonance which is what most Christians do when faced with this impossible conundrum. My answer wasn't ridiculous. I explained to you outright where slavery was condemned: Exodus!!! God Commands that the Children of Israel be freed, & when the Pharaoh refuses, he & all the other slave owners are Punished for their evil actions. And yet multiple people now have gone on to RIDICULE your answer as being preposterous for reasons which you've continually ignored (making your argument a concession to failure), which seems to substantiate the fact that it IS in fact ridiculous! You can't keep going in a the circle of "Exodus condemns slavery" when multiple people point out to you that it only condemns Hebrews being taken as slaves and other books support non-Hebrews being taken as slaves. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 9, 2019 22:34:35 GMT
So he condemned the slavery that the Bible permitted in the first place? Oh ok. Yeah, that's if we pretend that it actually does condemn slavery at all (which it doesn't). But as you said, they still can't defend the idea that he permitted it in the first place, which is why they never answer this! |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 9, 2019 22:49:31 GMT
My answer wasn't ridiculous. I explained to you outright where slavery was condemned: Exodus!!! God Commands that the Children of Israel be freed, & when the Pharaoh refuses, he & all the other slave owners are Punished for their evil actions. And yet multiple people now have gone on to RIDICULE your answer as being preposterous for reasons which you've continually ignored (making your argument a concession to failure), which seems to substantiate the fact that it IS in fact ridiculous! You can't keep going in a the circle of "Exodus condemns slavery" when multiple people point out to you that it only condemns Hebrews being taken as slaves and other books support non-Hebrews being taken as slaves. The multiple people who ridiculed my answer are the people who, like you, do not believe in, nor see the point for God, & thereby, cannot see the forest for the trees, regarding what the Holy Bible teaches!! |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Feb 9, 2019 23:08:40 GMT
The closest verse I've ever been directed to that addresses slavery in any way was the one where Paul lumps slave traders with some other slimy scum in 1 Timothy 1. That's a very modern translation, though. Earlier translations rendered it "men stealers", "kidnappers" etc. Since the modern translation is sometimes "slave traders", I imagine the original meaning was more those who kidnap free people in order to sell them off as slaves, a practice we know took place. Even legally, even into the 19th century, when press gangs could seize able-bodied men by force, into military service. The word used in the original Greek is ‘andrapodistés‘. Now while this word can be used for ‘kidnapper’ or ‘enslaver’ it’s main definition means ‘a slave dealer’. So yes the bible very much does condemn slavery, the slavery of forcibly taking someone as property, both in the old and New Testament. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Feb 9, 2019 23:13:27 GMT
The bible permitted indentured servitude yes. And slavery. No, sir. Not the slavery you’re thinking of. That was outlawed. Go read Exodus 21:16. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 9, 2019 23:22:55 GMT
. No, the New Testament also supports it! Peter and Paul (both apostles of Christ) order Christian slaves to obey their masters as they would Christ. I already pointed out that the Golden Rule doesn't really condemn slavery... I will also point out that telling Christian slaves to be obedient isn't really a ringing endorsement of slavery, either... What do you expect The Bible writers to say "RISE UP AND SLAUGHTER YOUR WOULD-BE MASTERS IN THE NAME OF GOD!!"??  Part of the disconnect here is that The Bible view is that we are already slaves to sin and death. The lives we live are rather inconsequential as we will all get sick, old, and die no matter what kind of life we live. A life of a slave ends the same way as an emperor... So, the position doesn't matter... only HOW you live in that station does... So be a good Christian no matter your lot in life... including if your lot is that of a slave for somebody else's household. |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Feb 10, 2019 0:00:20 GMT
So he condemned the slavery that the Bible permitted in the first place? Oh ok. The bible permitted indentured servitude yes. And slavery as well.
Leviticus 25:44 says it's OK to buy slaves from adjacent countries, as well as from your own country's temporary residents and their families, and also OK to will your purchased slaves to your children so long as you aren't ruthless to your fellow Israelites. Leviticus carefully distinguishes between slaves and what would be considered indentured servants.
Leviticus 25:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 0:00:30 GMT
No, sir. Not the slavery you’re thinking of. That was outlawed. Go read Exodus 21:16. Oh, you can read my thoughts now? Interesting. Tell me, what is the slavery I'm thinking of? Incidentally, I read Exodus 21:16 as you suggested. It is not a condemnation of slavery, so I don't know why you brought it up. Another act of desperation, I guess? |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Feb 10, 2019 0:06:29 GMT
No, sir. Not the slavery you’re thinking of. That was outlawed. Go read Exodus 21:16. It says:
16 “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.
So it has nothing to do with slavery. That whole section relates to how Hebrews are to treat each other. So yes, the Bible is against Hebrews kidnapping other Hebrews.
|
|
