|
|
Post by Cody™ on Feb 10, 2019 0:33:01 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? I’m assuming the slavery your thinking of is of the variety of people being captured and forced against their will into bondage and owned as property. Exodus 21:16 is indeed a condemnation of slavery. It clearly not only prohibits capturing anyone but also holding them in your possession. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 10, 2019 0:33:42 GMT
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. On what authority do you say that "slave dealer" was its main definition? Every single Bible, in all languages that I can read, rendered it as the equivalent of "abductor" until quite recently. "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession." Again, this is dealing with illegitimate slavery. It was perfectly permissible to buy slaves, especially if they were foreign slaves - in which case they were the owner's property for life. Consider the context of the verse, which is legislation surrounding slavery. There is never any ban on slavery, but rather what rights slaves do and do not have, and the obligations of the masters. And the Bible makes it very clear that it's not just indentured servitude, but slavery as we understand it. Because it makes a clear distinction between Israelites and foreigners: "If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God."Lev. 25:39-43 And moving right along: "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."Lev. 25:44-46 This is really quite unambiguous. Slavery is 100% approved, except if the slave be an Israelite - only then is it a no-no. That is not remotely what it says. It talks about kidnap victims, and kidnap victims still being in possession of the kidnapper. Slave owners are not condemned anywhere, and indeed Exodus 21 is a law text telling slave owners what sort of obligations they have - kind of moot if they are to be put to death, wouldn't you say? The only possible way you can read Ex.21:16 as a condemnation of slavery is if you really, really want it to be. But it isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 10, 2019 0:36:44 GMT
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!! An interesting claim. But you haven’t demonstrated that you CAN see the forest for the trees regarding what it teaches. The only thing you’ve demonstrated is a penchant for ignoring most of what it says and cherry picking. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 10, 2019 0:54:19 GMT
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!! An interesting claim. But you haven’t demonstrated that you CAN see the forest for the trees regarding what it teaches. The only thing you’ve demonstrated is a penchant for ignoring most of what it says and cherry picking. I'm not. I showed you where it is condemned. You are the one who is cherry picking. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 1:12:28 GMT
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? I’m assuming the slavery your thinking of is of the variety of people being captured and forced against their will into bondage No. That bit. Nope. It prohibits kidnapping people and holding them in captivity. It does not prohibit the owning of another person as property. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Feb 10, 2019 2:00:27 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 2:57:03 GMT
Once again I am amused by the idea pushed by certain christians that if biblical slavery is not identical to slavery as practiced today (or sometimes as practiced in the US a couple of centuries back), then that slavery is A-okay.
Desperation. Pure desperation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 10, 2019 3:55:51 GMT
I’m assuming the slavery your thinking of is of the variety of people being captured and forced against their will into bondage No. That bit. Nope. It prohibits kidnapping people and holding them in captivity. It does not prohibit the owning of another person as property. On cursory examination it does appear to prohibit involuntary servitude. You do realize that in Biblical times people volunteered for slavery because there were no other options, no large industries in need of employees? Do you not? |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 10, 2019 23:56:12 GMT
An interesting claim. But you haven’t demonstrated that you CAN see the forest for the trees regarding what it teaches. The only thing you’ve demonstrated is a penchant for ignoring most of what it says and cherry picking. I'm not. I showed you where it is condemned. You are the one who is cherry picking. There’s no point in arguing with a dishonest poster who lies. But then you’re Catholic so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 10, 2019 23:59:29 GMT
I'm not. I showed you where it is condemned. You are the one who is cherry picking. There’s no point in arguing with a dishonest poster who lies. But then you’re Catholic so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. I haven't lied about anything. I spoke the truth. Exodus is one big condemnation of slavery!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 11, 2019 0:20:24 GMT
Where does it say that "slave trader" was the main definition? Thayer's Greek Lexicon certainly doesn't. And even Strong's Exhaustive Concordance lists "kidnapper" first. It actually doesn't. The African slave trade involved Europeans and Americans buying slaves from African slave traders. So the Western slave traders would have been ok by the Biblical definition. The African slave traders might have been at odds, depending on how they acquired the slaves. First of all, linking to an apologist site isn't very persuasive. Second, even that site doesn't argue against the definition of slavery as we know it. It says foreign slaves were more like serfs than slaves, but what is that supposed to mean? There is little, if any, practical difference between a slave and a serf. A serf is a slave; indeed the word means "slave". According to the Bible, even foreign slaves had more rights than African slaves of more recent history, but so what? They're still slaves, and slavery is still sanctioned by the Bible. And I don't know about you, but when I think of slavery, I take all of history into account. I consider Egyptian slaves, Greek slaves, Roman slaves, viking thralls, European galley slaves, African slaves etc. As for the slavery prescribed in the Bible, it mirrors Egyptian slavery very closely. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 11, 2019 0:21:26 GMT
There’s no point in arguing with a dishonest poster who lies. But then you’re Catholic so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. I haven't lied about anything. I spoke the truth. Exodus is one big condemnation of slavery!!! It is just the opposite. Exodus, as well as Leviticus, is one big embrace of slavery. Namely: it lays out what sort of slavery is acceptable. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 11, 2019 0:23:33 GMT
No. That bit. Nope. It prohibits kidnapping people and holding them in captivity. It does not prohibit the owning of another person as property. On cursory examination it does appear to prohibit involuntary servitude. You do realize that in Biblical times people volunteered for slavery because there were no other options, no large industries in need of employees? Do you not? You are thinking of Israelites selling themselves into indentured servitude. The Bible is very clear, however, that chattel slavery is perfectly acceptable where foreign slaves are concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 11, 2019 4:31:50 GMT
There’s no point in arguing with a dishonest poster who lies. But then you’re Catholic so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. I haven't lied about anything. I spoke the truth. Exodus is one big condemnation of slavery!!! Clusium, it appears that the noble captain doesn't want to discuss it anymore. You made him very mad. So please, do more of it.  |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 11, 2019 4:43:07 GMT
I haven't lied about anything. I spoke the truth. Exodus is one big condemnation of slavery!!! Clusium, it appears that the noble captain doesn't want to discuss it anymore. You made him very mad. So please, do more of it. I'm perfectly fine discussing Exodus. I mean, I doubt you're up to the task, but anything you think you can defend about slavery, by all means give it your best shot. And this may expand my opinion of you. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 11, 2019 5:15:04 GMT
Clusium, it appears that the noble captain doesn't want to discuss it anymore. You made him very mad. So please, do more of it. I'm perfectly fine discussing Exodus. I mean, I doubt you're up to the task, but anything you think you can defend about slavery, by all means give it your best shot. And this may expand my opinion of you. Slavery is a fact of life. It never went away. It morphed. The slavery practiced in our country was one of the worst in the history of the world. With the American Civil War the Illuminati accomplished two things. 1) It replaced gold and silver currency with paper currency. 2) It replaced involuntary servitude with voluntary servitude. None of this is intended as a defense of slavery. You asked for a defense but you got something else instead. And if it doesn't expand your opinion of me, that's okay. I'll get along just fine.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2019 9:45:38 GMT
We all get Jesus's direction of travel on the issue of slaves. To be pro-slavery wouldn't sit with his core teachings, so obviously he was opposed to it.
Jewish leaders at the time used to try and belittle Christ's followers and believers, by saying it was a religion for 'slaves and women'... ie. Those who are oppressed and needed liberating.
Pope Francis himself has just railed against the evils of modern slavery... At Mass yesterday one of our prayers was for those suffering modern slavery to be freed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Feb 11, 2019 13:26:00 GMT
We all get Jesus's direction of travel on the issue of slaves. To be pro-slavery wouldn't sit with his core teachings, so obviously he was opposed to it. Jewish leaders at the time used to try and belittle Christ's followers and believers, by saying it was a religion for 'slaves and women'... ie. Those who are oppressed and needed liberating. Pope Francis himself has just railed against the evils of modern slavery... At Mass yesterday one of our prayers was for those suffering modern slavery to be freed. While it can be said that the New Testament is spiritually opposed to slavery, at no point does it ever try to discourage people from owning slaves. On the contrary, it tells slaves to be diligent, whether their owner is Christian or not. The promise of reward and liberation is only in the afterlife, not the life at present. Indeed, the implication is that the lowlier you are, the greater your chances of heavenly bliss. And if anything, Jesus is far more opposed to people being rich than people owning slaves.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 11, 2019 16:28:53 GMT
I'm perfectly fine discussing Exodus. I mean, I doubt you're up to the task, but anything you think you can defend about slavery, by all means give it your best shot. And this may expand my opinion of you. Slavery is a fact of life. It never went away. It morphed. The slavery practiced in our country was one of the worst in the history of the world. With the American Civil War the Illuminati accomplished two things. 1) It replaced gold and silver currency with paper currency. 2) It replaced involuntary servitude with voluntary servitude. Okay, for once in my life I'm going to agree with everything you just said here (minus your assessment of slavery practiced in the US being the worst in the history of the world or the Illuminati bullshit). But basically, your overarching point here happens to be true. I'm just not sure why you think I need a history lesson on this when it doesn't seem to relate to any point I've made. None of this is intended as a defense of slavery. You asked for a defense but you got something else instead. I tend to make points like these whenever someone throws out a disclaimer ahead of (or after) their position. It doesn't matter what you "intended"; it only matters what you say and do. And if what you say and do draws an inappropriate moral equivalency, or minimizes in any capacity SLAVERY of any kind, then your intentions become irrelevant at that point. People defend all kinds of things without it being their "intent" to do so. And if it doesn't expand your opinion of me, that's okay. I'll get along just fine. Actually, it did to some small extent. You told the truth as opposed to some of the other slavery defenders here. What you failed to do was actually address the point of contention (which was whether or not the bible/God condones slavery). And I understand why you'd want to avoid that debate as it generally doesn't go very well for the bible believers side (as evidence in this thread among others). |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Feb 11, 2019 17:57:26 GMT
With the American Civil War the Illuminati accomplished two things. 1) It replaced gold and silver currency with paper currency. 2) It replaced involuntary servitude with voluntary servitude. I always knew the Illuminati were the good guys. |
|
