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.
And your point is??? God gives man free will. This is a fallen world, goes back to Adam and Eve. God did not encourage, condone, or invent slavery or whatever it is you are saying. He deals in the reality of humans and yes it is mentioned in the Bible because it was reality. Just becaue it is mentioned in the bible does NOT mean that God condoned it. Good grief there are murders, adultery, you name it in the Bible, do you believe he condoned these acts? The argument that some present regarding "if it is in the Bible then God was Ok with it" is ridiculous. God is not in control of man because if He was we would not have free choice, but He is ultimately in charge and will right the wrongs eventually. There is all kinds of evil and sin in this world and people ask, "How can God allow it", or "If he was loving he would not let children be harmed" But the truth is it is not God, it is man.
No one here is saying that everything mentioned in the bible is approved by God. That would be ridiculous. But when you have specific laws clearly stating that it's ok to have, beat and purchase slaves, when you have Jesus (God HIMself) speak on how a slave should treat his master, then your argument that he doesn't condone slavery is lost.
Hate Machine, that is quite a leap you take that if God speaks of slavery then he condones it. Does that mean, in your mind, that since the Bible speaks of murder and adultery that he accept it? Doesn't really make sense. . .
If he speaks of it in a favorable manner, then yes he does condone it. According to HIM, murder and adultery are sins, he speaks favorably of slavery. Where am I losing you?
[quote=PrettyHateMachine;480695]Again if God does not condemn slavery then by default he condones it. Your passage above talks about kidnapping as the crime not slavery. Leviticus clearly states you can purchase a slave, which is the topic of discussion, not kidnapping.
Quote:
As we already know, slavery was common in the Middle East as far back as ancient Egypt. If God had simply ignored it, then there would have been no rules for their treatment and they could have treated them harshly with no rights. But since they did have rights and rules for their protection, it showed that God cared for them as well. However, this is often misconstrued for an endorsement of slavery, which it is not. God listed slave traders among the worst of sinners in 1 Timothy 1:10 (kidnappers/men stealers/slave traders). This is no new teaching as Moses was not fond of forced slavery either:
Exodus 21:16
He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.
They just included kidnapping along with slavery since this was done at the same time they would kidnap and sell into slavery!!!
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way". (Leviticus 25:44-46)Remember this is God's word. Here he makes it crystal that he does approve of slavery.
Quote:
God prefaces this passage specifically with a reminder that the Lord saved them from their bondage of slavery in Egypt. Again, if one becomes poor, they can sell themselves into slavery/servitude and be released as was already discussed.
Verse 44 discusses slaves that they may already have from nations around them. They can be bought and sold. It doesn’t say to seek them out or have forced slavery. Hence it is not giving an endorsement of seeking new slaves or encouraging the slave trade. At this point, the Israelites had just come out of slavery and were about to enter the Holy Land. They shouldn’t have had many servants. Also, this doesn’t restrict other people in cultures around them from selling themselves as bondservants. But as discussed already there are passages for the proper and godly treatment of servants/slaves.
The slavery of “Black” people by “White” people in the 16th to 19th centuries was harshly unjust like many cultures before. This harsh slavery is not discussed in Moses’ writings, because such slavery was unknown in Hebrew culture. This is not surprising. Paul tells us in Romans 1:30 that people are capable of inventing new ways of doing evil.
Although an owner could beat a male or female slave, she/he would have to avoid serious injury to eyes or teeth. The owner would have to avoid beating the slave to death. But it was acceptable to beat a slave so severely that it only disabled him or her for two days: Exodus 21:20-21
Exodus 21:26-27
Quote:
Exodus 21:18-21
18 If men contend with each other, and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but is confined to his bed,
19 if he rises again and walks about outside with his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted. He shall only pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed.
20 And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.
This passage follows closely after Moses' decree against slave traders in Exodus 21:16. We include verses 18 and 19 to show the parallel to servants among the Israelites. The rules still apply for their protection if they already have servants or if someone sells themselves into service.
The Old and New Testament encourages and approves of slavery. Jesus himself speaks on how a slave should treat his master. To his credit he was a little less barbaric, but in the end a slave is still a slave.
Quote:
As for Jesus’ supposed support for beating slaves, this is in the context of a parable. Parables are stories Jesus told to help us understand spiritual truths. For example, in one parable, Jesus likens God to a judge. The judge is unjust, but eventually gives justice to the widow when she persists. The point of that story was not to tell us that God is like an unjust judge—on the contrary, He is completely just. The point of the parable is to tell us to be persistent in prayer. Similarly, Luke 12:47–48 does not justify beating slaves. It is not a parable telling us how masters are to behave. It is a parable telling us that we must be ready for when Jesus Himself returns. One will be rewarded with eternal life through Christ, or with eternal punishment (Matthew 25:46)
A few pointers to remember:
1.Slaves under Mosaic Law were different from the harshly treated slaves of other societies, more like servants or bondservants.
2.The Bible doesn’t give an endorsement of slave traders but the opposite (1 Timothy 1:10). A slave/bondservant was acquired when a person voluntarily entered into it when he needed to pay off his debts.
3.The Bible recognizes that slavery is a reality in this sin-cursed world and doesn’t ignore it, but instead gives regulations for good treatment by both masters and servants and reveals they are equal under Christ.
4.Israelites could sell themselves as a slave/bondservant to have their debts covered, make a wage, have housing and be set free after six years.
5.Foreigners could sell themselves as a slave/bondservant as well.
6.Biblical Christians led the fight to abolish slavery.
I have asked this question numerous times and I will just for fun ask it again.
Why in the heck would any one want to be a Christian,, would ya'll quite quibbling over the dogma and explain it. Seems to me to be an excessively boring way to spend Sunday morning.
My answer would be this......... What Is The Crown Of Life??
Q. Of the 5 crowns mentioned as rewards to be earned, what exactly is The Crown of Life, and to what does it refer?
1.The five crowns are identified as the Everlasting Crown (Victory) in 1 Cor 9:25,
2. Crown of the Soul Winner in Phil 4:1 and 1 Thes 2:19
3. Crown of Righteousness in 2 Tim 4:8
4. Crown of Life in Jas 1:12 and Rev 2:10
5. Crown of Glory in 1 Peter 5:4
The Crown of Life is awarded to those people who remain faithful to the Gospel even under persecution. The future tense of the verbs in James 1:12 indicates that it refers to eternal life, and is therefore a promise of entry into the Kingdom for those who successfully endure persecution for their faith.
I'm greedy I want them all, not just one or two!!!
1.Slaves under Mosaic Law were different from the harshly treated slaves of other societies, more like servants or bondservants.
2.The Bible doesn’t give an endorsement of slave traders but the opposite (1 Timothy 1:10). A slave/bondservant was acquired when a person voluntarily entered into it when he needed to pay off his debts.
3.The Bible recognizes that slavery is a reality in this sin-cursed world and doesn’t ignore it, but instead gives regulations for good treatment by both masters and servants and reveals they are equal under Christ.
4.Israelites could sell themselves as a slave/bondservant to have their debts covered, make a wage, have housing and be set free after six years.
5.Foreigners could sell themselves as a slave/bondservant as well.
6.Biblical Christians led the fight to abolish slavery.
Here's some more information for you to deny!!!
We are both using biblical passages in our argument. It goes to show you that the Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions.
Now, on your number six- If you're speaking of William Wilberforce, I'll tell you the real story (the short version).
Christian Britain finally abolished slavery but not for moral or ethical reasons. Britain was the biggest slave-trader, and economic forces led her to abolish slave-trade. The movement against slavery was not spear-headed by Churches, it was led by a handful of moralists whose cries remained unheard until the economic necessity compelled the Parliament to pass a bill in 1807 against slave-trade. After 26 years, another bill was passed to abolish slavery itself in British-held countries in 1833. It was a form of cutting of losses.
Read up on the "triangular trade", how the secession of the south closed a big market against the British held West Indies, and how that affected cost of sugar.
"abolition was the direct result of that (economic) distress."
My answer would be this......... What Is The Crown Of Life??
Q. Of the 5 crowns mentioned as rewards to be earned, what exactly is The Crown of Life, and to what does it refer?
1.The five crowns are identified as the Everlasting Crown (Victory) in 1 Cor 9:25,
2. Crown of the Soul Winner in Phil 4:1 and 1 Thes 2:19
3. Crown of Righteousness in 2 Tim 4:8
4. Crown of Life in Jas 1:12 and Rev 2:10
5. Crown of Glory in 1 Peter 5:4
The Crown of Life is awarded to those people who remain faithful to the Gospel even under persecution. The future tense of the verbs in James 1:12 indicates that it refers to eternal life, and is therefore a promise of entry into the Kingdom for those who successfully endure persecution for their faith.
I'm greedy I want them all, not just one or two!!!
In real terms, what are these crowns? An actual crown of jewels, symbolisms of other rewards?
The Bible recognizes that slavery is a reality in this sin-cursed world and doesn’t ignore it, but instead gives regulations for good treatment by both masters and servants and reveals they are equal under Christ.
Why didn't God just order them to give up their slaves? Golden idols were a reality, yet God demanded them not to build any? I don't think this argument holds water.
Why didn't God just order them to give up their slaves? Golden idols were a reality, yet God demanded them not to build any? I don't think this argument holds water.
I've been soooo reluctant to even post here again. But this slavery thing just kills me. It's so typical to find one thing, try and dance on it, and when the music changes, you'll pick something else.
Every example of the slavery issue you use is from the Old Testament, the Law, EXCEPT those of you knowledgeable about the teachings on slavery in the New Testament which I don't really see the correlation. Yes there are teachings on slavery in the New Testament but in EVERY case except one, the directive is that the believer is the slave, not the slave owner. So what is your point?? The New Testament teaches me that if I am under authority, I should treat that person a certain way. I AM THE SLAVE IN THESE EXAMPLES!!! That exception I mention is in Ephesians and it's where there are instructions for believing slaves and believing owners and it basically says "Look, we're all under Christ, so we're all under His authority, the cross leveled the field for us all." Is it Galatians that tells that there's no difference between slave and free under Christ? I can't help but think that it was rare for a believer to have a slave, there is, after all, only one example that I know of.
Now I'm trying to keep this short because I really don't think anyone reads the long ones. But let me close by addressing the Old/New stance I take. Let me say, for those that don't understand, CHRIST CHANGED EVERYTHING!! Now those hard lined legalists will say "No, He said he didn't come to change the law but to fulfill it." OK, if I make you a promise and then I 'fulfill' the promise, what condition is the promise now? And, in fact, the same Bible that holds that verse holds this one, "Christ is the end of the law " Romans 10:4, so don't bring me legalism and also, don't bring me free license, but that's another thread, I'm sure.
So, if you want to argue a Christian stance on slavery, please argue it in the light of Christ. I'm not saying the Old Testament doesn't have a place in Christianity, I'm just saying that the Old Testament, particularly when you look at law which is what you ALL are doing, you must look at it through Christ. Otherwise, it's like me saying you condone slavery because you're American and at one time those same types of laws were on our very own books.
When the law was ENDED (Read:Christ) the law was put away. Doesn't that make sense? And I'm not really asking that question to Christians. I'm not asking that you accept the validity of Christ or God or anything else, I'm just saying that IF that's true, does that help with this whole slavery thing?
AMAZNJOHN, PRETTYHATEMACHINE, and GREATBASINGUIDE, I respect all of your opinions and regard you as obviously knowledgeable folks. I post solely for your consideration.
Tradition, education, and indoctrination are powerful tools for anyone - especially children.
When you've been brought up with religious concepts which conflict with science, it takes strength to face ridicule, and accept scientific evidence that contradicts that upbringing. Morality and religion are not inclusive. Many non-believers are very moral persons. Where would humanity be if Islamic/Christian/Judaic religious law dominated all human actions, and all science which conflicted with those laws was banned? Many faith-based 'believers' (regardless of stripe) take from science and religion those concepts which dovetail neatly with their view of existence. Now someone will reference the religious writings that put science in its place alongside religious belief...
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.
As we already know, slavery was common in the Middle East as far back as ancient Egypt. If God had simply ignored it, then there would have been no rules for their treatment and they could have treated them harshly with no rights. But since they did have rights and rules for their protection, it showed that God cared for them as well. However, this is often misconstrued for an endorsement of slavery, which it is not. God listed slave traders among the worst of sinners in 1 Timothy 1:10 (kidnappers/men stealers/slave traders). This is no new teaching as Moses was not fond of forced slavery either:
I'm greedy I want them all, not just one or two!!!
