Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, it is not. It is ONE example of a leading of the Spirit that contradicts OT teaching and goes well past what is taught in the NT, and that movement of the Spirit took place 1700 years after the time of the apostles. You refuse to acknowledge that the point that it is wrong for anyone to OWN another person is both true and a new extra-biblical leading.
Perhaps you disagree with that conclusion regarding slavery?
You said the Bible does not talk about it, and I showed you a verse which does talk about, so you are wrong.
You said the Bible does not talk about it, and I showed you a verse which does talk about, so you are wrong.
How are your reading skills? I said the Bible does not in any way indicate that it is just wrong for one person to own another. Are you being deliberately obtuse to avoid the clear conclusion that the Spirit has led in something that contradicts the Bible?
How are your reading skills? I said the Bible does not in any way indicate that it is just wrong for one person to own another. Are you being deliberately obtuse to avoid the clear conclusion that the Spirit has led in something that contradicts the Bible?
Obtuse? Your insults are uncalled for. I provided you with a Bible verse which proved you wrong. I am sorry you have a hard time accepting it.
“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."
Obtuse? Your insults are uncalled for. I provided you with a Bible verse which proved you wrong. I am sorry you have a hard time accepting it.
“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."
Kidnapping is NOT the only means of enslaving, and, as I clearly pointed out, that injunction is right alongside other injunctions indicating how to treat slaves so it CLEARLY does not address the point that it is wrong to own another person (hold a slave) under any circumstances.
You did not show me to be wrong, you showed me to be right about spurious reasoning to deny the fact that the Bible does not address the point being made. Since I had clearly explained why that was the case, "obtuse" is the only appropriate term, the only question is whether it is deliberate stonewalling.
Kidnapping is NOT the only means of enslaving, and, as I clearly pointed out, that injunction is right alongside other injunctions indicating how to treat slaves so it CLEARLY does not address the point that it is wrong to own another person (hold a slave) under any circumstances.
You did not show me to be wrong, you showed me to be right about spurious reasoning to deny the fact that the Bible does not address the point being made. Since I had clearly explained why that was the case, "obtuse" is the only appropriate term, the only question is whether it is deliberate stonewalling.
I already explained what 'slavery' (servant) meant among the Israelites, and how it differs from the 1800 century slavery you keep talking about. The Bible was against the kind of slavery you are talking about, so there is nothing new about it. Sorry.
I already explained what 'slavery' (servant) meant among the Israelites, and how it differs from the 1800 century slavery you keep talking about. The Bible was against the kind of slavery you are talking about, so there is nothing new about it. Sorry.
Obtuse? Your insults are uncalled for. I provided you with a Bible verse which proved you wrong. I am sorry you have a hard time accepting it.
“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."
What verse and Bible version is that quote from , Finn?
I already explained what 'slavery' (servant) meant among the Israelites, and how it differs from the 1800 century slavery you keep talking about. The Bible was against the kind of slavery you are talking about, so there is nothing new about it. Sorry.
I guess I missed the part where you explained exodus 21:20ff, Finn " 20"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21"If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.…"
Could you do that for me again so that I can understand how the Hebrew slavery was different?
I guess I missed the part where you explained exodus 21:20ff, Finn " 20"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21"If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.…"
Could you do that for me again so that I can understand how the Hebrew slavery was different?
Why repost, when you just read it again?
Besides, even "love your neighbor" speaks against kidnapping and forcing people to slavery, so to say Bible says nothing about it is simply not true. Would you like to try something else?
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 03-28-2014 at 11:34 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
