TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
This discussion went from science vs religion to everyone questioning megadoc1 (and later toyo) about their neo-christian beliefs and intolerance. The argument against science was set aside perhaps because there were so many various sources that supported the teachings of science; not to mention the empirical evidence shown for the age of the universe, speed of light and evolution etc etc. The evidence brought forward for science came from various sources who tried to prove themselves and each other wrong by stringent testing, this is the method of science and so we ended up with unbiased reports and solid evidence in the findings. This is how science avoids circular logic. Are you saying that no one can support your beliefs other than the people who chose to believe it and that you feel it is right only because you believe it to be right?megadoc1 wrote: thats unfair Duane, we will always have a problem, yuh see if any unbiased source shows that the bible is right then there is a possibility that they would follow it, they might believe what is said in it , then they might take the bible as absolute authority then you will call it circular logic and them being biased
again sending me off to find another to suit you which is very unfair
what you are asking for is someone who exhausted all possible resources proving the bible right but wicked to themselves by not adhering to it and totally staying independent on it...I don't think thats possible my friend
hang on, because the article questions the validity of what is written in the bible you automatically see it as negative and sensationalism?megadoc1 wrote:I cannot really put words to my thoughts on slavery but what I can tell you is that the article posted only seeks to sensationalize the issue of slavery to refute the bible
but if it was not for slavery who knows we might not have had INTERNET yet or time to waste on it for we would be busy building the basic structure of this modern era
if I was your slave but you loved God how would you treat me?
knowing God created me
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:^ he claims he is right because he feels he is right. His proof is a feeling he has. So condemn the rest of the world who does not believe what megadoc1 believes based SOLELY on the fact that megadoc1 just has a feeling.
it seems comforting to you when you individualize the matter
I think you are making it harder for you because you will find yourself saying that for every Christian by name and it will become foolish in itself after a while keep it up
All religions have claimed to see miracles that affirm their faith, what makes megadoc1's more right in his own head is because he is ignorant of that fact.based on my posts you are the one ignorant to the fact that I know this and a bit more especially whats behind them
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:This discussion went from science vs religion to everyone questioning megadoc1 (and later toyo) about their neo-christian beliefs and intolerance. The argument against science was set aside perhaps because there were so many various sources that supported the teachings of science; not to mention the empirical evidence shown for the age of the universe, speed of light and evolution etc etc. The evidence brought forward for science came from various sources who tried to prove themselves and each other wrong by stringent testing, this is the method of science and so we ended up with unbiased reports and solid evidence in the findings. This is how science avoids circular logic. Are you saying that no one can support your beliefs other than the people who chose to believe it and that you feel it is right only because you believe it to be right? no you can support my belief and be unbiased if you want but you are not gonna take that chance ,we established that along time ago don't try to push that motion again knowing you cantmegadoc1 wrote: thats unfair Duane, we will always have a problem, yuh see if any unbiased source shows that the bible is right then there is a possibility that they would follow it, they might believe what is said in it , then they might take the bible as absolute authority then you will call it circular logic and them being biased
again sending me off to find another to suit you which is very unfair
what you are asking for is someone who exhausted all possible resources proving the bible right but wicked to themselves by not adhering to it and totally staying independent on it...I don't think thats possible my friend
subject yourself to it
that is one hell of a weak argument for something that you claim to be so strong and powerful.
okhang on, because the article questions the validity of what is written in the bible you automatically see it as negative and sensationalism?megadoc1 wrote:I cannot really put words to my thoughts on slavery but what I can tell you is that the article posted only seeks to sensationalize the issue of slavery to refute the bible
but if it was not for slavery who knows we might not have had INTERNET yet or time to waste on it for we would be busy building the basic structure of this modern era
if I was your slave but you loved God how would you treat me?
knowing God created me
no if you read the article yourself you will see that they are against a bible week
or something like that all because the bible supported slavery( their reasons)
The article makes mention of the fact that parts of the bible condone slavery; slavery which we know today is a terrible act against humanity. If the article was about something positive in the bible you wouldn't cry sensationalism! The fact is you cannot deny that the bible condones slavery.
I never seek to deny what the bible condones but please tell me is that a legitimate reason
for them?
Your reply is an example of a cop-out; you are often very willing to go at lenghts to explain Jesus in the bible but then squirm out of a discussion about slavery with a short reply claiming you can't really comment on it. It's like a defense attorney stating "no comment" as a way to avoid the questions that may reveal the truth. exactly its too broad a topic to bring on here especially where our lack of understanding especially mines reign in this ched
Claiming that without slavery we may have no internet is wrong in two ways:
I cant make a simple example now ? that why I choose what to respond to now because of our problem in understanding one another you and me
1. We could also claim that without religion there would have been ALOT less bloodshed and wars in human history. true but we are talking about the structural advancement that came through slavery Using your logic we might as well continue slavery as it may bring about something even greater than the internet!
using that same logic it is ok to have blood shed whats your point?
I just hope in your nonsense you don't think I claim that slavery is responsible for the Internet
2. You are apologising for the act of slavery whereas the bible was not, rather it has instructions on how to do it! The bible didnt say it was wrong and it didnt give a cut off date circa 1800s. As far as the bible teaches, slavery is still correct. cool so show me where I was apologizing? and show me where I said slavery ended?
Why should a man be the slave of another man?yeah tell me Didn't God create us all equal?yes
the bible talks about slavery because when it was compiled, slavery was acceptable. The bible doesnt mention the how to use the internet, how we should drive, which shows we should watch on TV, space stations, airplanes or how to be pious when using phones. Shouldn't the bible be relevant throughout the ages? yes it still is very relevant even more relevant than what you think are relevant because it is the word of God
if you claim that talk of such things would have confused readers back then, it is obvious that readers NOW are still confused by what is in the bible and have various translations and varying biblical hermeneutics for it. So it cannot be the purpose of the bible not to be confusing.
that statement is very confusing
In a bible study class you may spend sessions and sessions on Psalm 147:3-5 but never ever have a bible study class on Leviticus 25:44-46
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. now please in your capacity explain what they meant by "You may treat your slaves like this but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way"tell me if it means treating them badly?
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/slavery_and_christianity.html
Defending the Bible’s Position on Slavery
by Kyle Butt, M.A.
Through the millennia, some of the worst atrocities perpetrated on humans have been linked to the institution of slavery. Historically, slavery has not designated one particular ethnic group as its singular victim. The Hebrews were slaves to the Egyptians during the days of Moses. During the reign of King David, the Moabites were subjected to slavery (2 Samuel 8:2). Alexander the Great forced almost the entire inhabited world to cower and serve him. Truth be told, practically every nationality of people that exists today could point to a time in its past history when it fell victim to slavery. Hitting closer to home, the pages of history dealing with the formative years of the United States are despoiled with gruesome stories of ships carrying slaves sold to the Americas by their fellow Africans (and others, e.g., Arabians). These slaves frequently were packed so densely in lower ship decks that many of them died of disease or malnutrition. Those who lived to see the States soon learned that their fate hinged upon those who purchased them. Some slaves were ushered into homes with kind masters, decent living facilities, good food, and freedom to worship. Other slaves were purchased by cruel, greedy people who overworked them, abused them, underfed them, and allowed them no freedom.
Friction soon arose between those who wanted to maintain slavery, and those who wanted to outlaw the practice as inhumane and unjust. It can be argued convincingly that the American Civil War was fought primarily over this very issue. Politicians raged on both sides of the matter. Interestingly, so did religious people. Abolitionists, as well as pro-slavery advocates, went to the Bible to marshal arguments for their particular view. Abolitionists armed themselves with verses such as: “Therefore whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them: for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12); or “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you all are one man in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3: 28). Religious pro-slavery activists fired impressive scriptural guns by quoting passages such as: “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh” (1 Peter 2:18); and “Servants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of your heart, as to Christ” (Ephesians 6:5). Can we determine with accuracy what the Bible really says on the topic of slavery? Does the Bible condemn it as a social injustice? Does the Bible condone the practice? And how does the Bible’s position on slavery mesh with the idea of a loving God?
For years, skeptics have railed against the written Word, insisting that its pro-slavery tendencies should alert any reader who has a scrap of common sense to the idea that an all-loving God could not have inspired such atrocious material. Morton Smith and R. Joseph Hoffman, in a book titled What the Bible Really Says, commented:
[T]here is no reasonable doubt that the New Testament, like the Old, not only tolerated chattel slavery (the form prevalent in the Greco-Roman world of Paul’s time) but helped to perpetuate it by making the slaves’ obedience to their masters a religious duty. This biblical morality was one of the great handicaps that the emancipation movement in the United States had to overcome. The opponents of abolition had clear biblical evidence on their side when they argued (1989, pp. 145-146, parenthetical item in orig.).
Following a similar line of thinking, Ruth Green wrote that “it was the Old and New Testaments of the Bible that were the authority for keeping humanity in serfdom for centuries and for legitimizing slavery in America, making a bloody civil war necessary to give slaves human rights under our Constitution” (1979, p. 351).
Has the Bible been responsible for the oppression of slaves in the past? No, it has not. In fact, an in-depth look into the biblical account that reveals God’s attitude toward slavery shows just the opposite.
SLAVERY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
In Matthew 19:3-10, the Pharisees came to Jesus, attempting to trap Him with questions about the Old Law. They asked: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” Jesus informed them that divorce was not in God’s plan from the beginning. Thinking they had trapped Him, they inquired: “Why, then, did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce and to put her away?” If it was in the Old Law, they suggested, then it must be God’s ideal will. But Jesus’ answer quickly stopped that line of thinking. He responded:
Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.
Jesus’ point was crystal clear—some things permitted in the Old Testament did not necessarily represent the ideal. Due to the hardness of ancient Israel’s heart, God tolerated (and regulated) some things under the Old Law that He did not endorse. As He did so, however, He progressively revealed His divine will to mankind, clarifying that will more fully through Christ.
Many of the injunctions found in the Old Testament pertaining to slavery fall into the category of regulating something that was “less than ideal.” Even in the Old Testament, God desired that all people love their neighbors as themselves (Leviticus 19:18). Yet, in a time when God used the children of Israel as His arm of justice to punish evildoers, certain questions arose. What was to be done, for example, with the survivors of those wicked nations? What was to be done with a man who was so far in debt that he could not repay his lender? These issues, and others like them, necessitated that God institute some form of humane regulations for “slavery.”
Often, those who attack the Bible skirt the real crux of the slavery issue. They point to verses in the Old Testament that offer a particular regulation for slavery. From there, they proceed to argue that the Bible is a vile book that does not condemn, but actually condones slavery. And, they argue, since all slavery is morally wrong, the Bible must not be the product of a loving God.
However, those who take such a position fail to consider that certain types of slavery are not morally wrong. For instance, when a man is convicted of murder, he often is sentenced to life in prison. During his life sentence, he is forced by the State to do (or not do) certain things. He is justly confined to a small living space, and his freedoms are revoked. Sometimes, he is compelled by the State to work long hours, for which he does not receive even minimum wage. Would it be justifiable to label such a loss of freedom as a type of slavery? Yes, it would. However, is his loss of freedom a morally permissible situation? Certainly. He has become a slave of the State because he violated certain laws that were designed to ensure the liberty of his fellow citizen, whom he murdered. Therefore, one fact that must be conceded by anyone dealing with the Bible and its position on slavery is the fact that, under some conditions, slavery is not necessarily a morally deplorable institution.
Taking that into account, we also must ask: Who has the right to determine when slavery can be imposed on a certain person or group of people? The answer, of course, is God. In the Old Testament, immoral nations who practiced unspeakable evils surrounded the Hebrews. In order to rid the world of their destructive influence, the children of Israel dealt with them in several ways. One of those ways included forcing the wicked nations into slavery. Many of the slave regulations in the Old Testament deal with the treatment of individuals and nations who had committed crimes against humanity that were worthy of death. The wicked people were graciously allowed to live, but they were subjected to slavery, much like a lifetime prison sentence in modern criminal cases. Let us look more closely at this situation. In Leviticus 18:21,24 we read that the Lord told Moses to instruct the Israelites as follows:
And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech.... Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you.
In order to understand this scenario, it is important that we understand what the phrase, “pass through the fire to Molech,” means in verse 21. In brief, it means that the nations around the Israelites were burning their own children as human sacrifices to a pagan god named Molech (for further information on Molech and this practice, see Harrison, 1988, 3:401). Fitting this into our discussion, would it be morally permissible for God to allow a government (e.g., the Israelites) to punish those people who were viciously murdering their own children? We must answer in the affirmative. What punishment would be appropriate for a person who had committed such heinous crimes as to murder his or her own innocent children? The answer to that question rages even in our own society today when instances of child homicide arrive before the courts of our land. Legitimate answers often include the death penalty, or a life in prison in which many freedoms are revoked.
As additional evidence along these lines, in Exodus 22:1-3, the Bible discusses a situation in which a man was caught in the act of thievery. The thief was instructed to restore what he stole, returning four sheep, and five oxen, for every one stolen. The text further states: “He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft” (vs. 3). Being sold into slavery was often a government-regulated punishment based on a criminal action. One can see, then, that it is morally permissible to revoke the freedoms of certain people or groups of people based on their inappropriate conduct.
Accordingly, many of the slavery regulations in the Old Testament pertained to people who deserved far worse. Dan Vander Lugt commented:
Old Testament laws regulating slavery are troublesome by modern standards, but in their historical context they provided a degree of social recognition and legal protection to slaves that was advanced for its time (Exodus 21:20-27; Leviticus 25:44-46). We must keep in mind that on occasion it was an alternative to the massacre of enemy populations in wartime and the starvation of the poor during famine (2001, p. 1).
A Mutually Beneficial Relationship
Frequently, “slavery” in Bible times was much more of an employer/employee relationship than an owner/slave situation. Even the words used to delineate between a hired servant and a slave are difficult to separate. As Herbert Lockyer noted:
In the ancient world, service and slavery were closely related, so much so that one can scarcely distinguish the one from the other. The original words used for “servants” and “service” carry a variety of meanings between which it is not always easy to determine what is meant (1969, p. 197).
Arndt and Gingrich documented that the Greek word doulos meant “slave,” but that it also was used “in a wider sense” to denote “any kind of dependence.” In 2 Corinthians 4:5, the apostles are called the douloi (plural of doulos) of the Christians. Christ took on the form of a doulos, as stated in Philippians 2:7. Paul designates himself as a doulos of Christ in Romans 1:1, Philippians 1:1, Galatians 1:10, and numerous other passages (1967, pp. 205-206). The term can describe a person who is obligated in some way, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, to another person. Due to this broad use, various translations have employed a wide range of words to render the meaning of doulos in English. Using Romans 1:1 as a case in point, the NKJV has “bondservant,” the New Living Translation has “slave,” the KJV and ASV have “servant,” and the Darby Bible has “bondman.”
The Hebrew word ebed is similar to the Greek doulos, in that it can be translated as “slave” or “servant.” In Exodus 4:10, Moses referred to himself as the “servant” (ebed) of God. Abraham called himself the ebed of the angels who came to visit him in Genesis 18:3. In Genesis 39:17-19, Potiphar’s wife described Joseph as the Hebrew ebed, and Genesis 24:2 talks about the eldest ebed in Abraham’s house, who “ruled over all he had.”
The purpose of including this brief description of the two most common terms for a slave is to show that our modern use of the word slave generally evokes mental images of cruelty, injustice, and bondage against a person’s will. While such ideas could be included in the biblical usage, they do not necessarily fit every time the words are used. Instead, the picture that we often see when the biblical words for “slave” are employed is a mutually beneficial arrangement similar to an employer/employee relationship. Job describes this relationship quite well:
If I have despised the cause of my manservant (ebed) or of my maidservant, when they contended with me; what then shall I do when God riseth up? And when he visiteth, what shall I answer him? Did not he that made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb (Job 31:13-15)?
Obviously, Job’s dealings with his slaves provided a mutually acceptable situation for master as well as slave.
To illustrate further the true nature of much Old Testament slavery, Abraham’s relationship with his slave Eliezer should be examined. In Genesis 15:2-3, Abraham lamented the fact that he was childless. In his dialogue with God, he stated that the heir of his wealth was Eliezer of Damascus. In verse three of chapter 15, Abraham described Eliezer as “one born in my house.” Later, in Genesis 24:2, Abraham’s oldest servant (probably Eliezer) “ruled over all that he had.” Add to this the fact that Abraham armed 318 trained servants (Hebrew ebed) to bring back Lot after he had been captured (Genesis 14:14-15). If the slave/owner relationship was anything less than mutually trusting, Abraham most likely would not have intentionally armed his slaves.
Due to the mutually beneficial nature of much Old Testament slavery, some slaves did not even want to leave their masters. Deuteronomy 15:16-17 deals with that very situation:
And if it happens that he [a slave—KB] says to you, “I will not go away from you,” because he loves you and your house, since he prospers with you, then you shall take an awl and thrust it through his ear to the door, and he shall be your servant forever. Also to your maidservant you shall do likewise.
Do the actions and words of Abraham’s slaves, or those found in Deuteronomy 15, seem like the actions and words of tyrannized, oppressed people? Hardly. Rather, they seem more like the words and actions of people enjoying a mutually beneficial and consensual relationship.
Even during New Testament times, slavery often provided a mutually beneficial relationship to both owner and slave. As Paul Copan remarked:
During Paul’s time, the master-slave relationship provided sufficient benefits and opportunities, such that it dampened any thoughts of revolutionary behavior. One freed slave had inscribed on his tombstone: “Slavery was never unkind to me....” More often than not, it was the free workers rather than slaves who were abused by foremen and bosses. (After all, an owner stood to have an ongoing loss if he abused his slave.) [2001, p. 172, parenthetical item and emp. in orig.].
But suppose a master did abuse his slaves in Old Testament times, and those slaves decided to run away. In Deuteronomy 23:15-16, God made it unlawful for runaway slaves to be returned to their masters. The text states:
You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you. He may dwell with you in your midst, in the place which he chooses within one of your gates, where it seems best to him; you shall not oppress him.
This passage is particularly revealing because it shows how costly cruelty to slaves was. It also shows that slaves had the freedom to choose where, and with whom, they wanted to live. Wright noted that this passage proves that
[s]lavery as such is not protected or rendered sacrosanct under Israelite law. At the very least it can be said that such a law probably presumes that runaway slaves will be the exception, not the rule. This lends further weight to the view that normally slavery in Israel was not oppressively harsh. It would certainly not have been, if the spirit of the slavery laws of Exodus and Deuteronomy were put into practice (1983, pp. 181-182).
Add to this the fact that kidnapping a man and selling him as a slave was a crime punishable by death, as noted in 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.” Certainly, any parallel to slavery in early America can be easily refuted.
Also note that the slavery regulated in the Bible had absolutely nothing to do with race, color, or ethnic background. While it is true that certain nations, as a whole, were captured and enslaved because of their wicked, idolatrous practices, it is not true that they were enslaved due to their allegedly inferior nationality. Leviticus 19:34 states: “But the stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” Deuteronomy 24:14 reads: “You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether one of your brethren, or one of the aliens who is in your land within thy gates.” And, although certain regulations applied only to Hebrews who found themselves enslaved (Deuteronomy 15:12-14; Exodus 21:2), it was not because they were a “superior” race or nationality, but simply because they were citizens of the nation of Israel (a similar concept would be the fact that a person who is born in the USA is not inherently any less or any more valuable than any other person, but, under the law system of the United States, that person would possess certain rights and privileges that a non-citizen would not enjoy). Deuteronomy 10:17-19 illustrates God’s impartiality well:
For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe. He administers justice for the fatherless and widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. Therefore, love the stranger; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
The New Testament further underscores the idea of human equality in passages such as Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one man in Christ Jesus.” Job’s statement regarding his slave’s equality—due to the fact that God formed him in the same way that God formed Job (31:15)—provides a perfect example of the biblical idea that all men possess the same inherent value. The idea that one nation or race is superior to another does not come from the Bible. Racism like that displayed by many during the slavery years of the United States has always been a sin (Acts 17:26-31).
A valid question naturally arises from the comment above, that, on occasion, nations as a whole were enslaved because of their wickedness. What about the children of those wicked men and women? Must they become slaves as well, suffering for their parents’ evil actions? First, let us acknowledge that, even today, children often suffer because of their parents’ poor decisions. Consider the sad and pitiful plight of a child whose father is an alcoholic or child abuser. That child will suffer physically, emotionally, and financially. Even in modern times, the children who are born in poverty or cruelty often remain slaves of those elements their entire lives. Second, let us ask a more pertinent question: Would it be better for that child to grow up in a country where the slave laws protected him or her, or would it be better for the child to have to “pass through the fire to Molech”? To ask is to answer, is it not? When nations were conquered by the Israelites, what was to happen to the nations’ children who remained alive? They could be left to die on their own, or they could be given homes, food, and jobs. Which of the two options is more humane? Again, to ask is to answer. Furthermore, if the child grew up and did not like his master, he or she could simply run away and live wherever he or she wanted (Deuteronomy 23:15-16).
As we consider further the situation of slaves in ancient Israel, it is interesting to note that every slave was entitled (by God) to have a part in the Sabbath rest once every week. Exodus 20:10 states:
[B]ut the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates (emp. added).
Along these same lines, every slave also was entitled to partake in the eight-day festivities surrounding the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Tabernacles (Deuteronomy 16: 9-17). The welcome rest provided on these occasions shows that God’s regulations for slavery in Israel were humane and fair. Furthermore, the year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25: 10) provided freedom to “all the inhabitants” in the land of the children of Israel. [This provision included the bulk of the slaves, with possible exceptions such as those slaves who had chosen to stay with their masters and have their ears pierced as a sign of their situation.]
And you shall consecrate the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a Jubilee for you; and each of you shall return to his possession, and each of you shall return to his family.
Certainly, God kindly provided rest and freedom for slaves under the Old Testament in order to quell abuses that might arise.
Slaves of Debt
Another aspect of Old Testament slavery had to do with severe debt accumulation. In Old Testament times, no bankruptcy legislation held sway over the Israelites. What was to be done for the person who was drowning in a sea of debt? Was his lender simply to wave his hand and forgive the debt? Would that be a fair situation for the lender? Hardly. Therefore, many of the slave situations arose because of such debt. Herb Vander Lugt commented:
Remember too, at that time no nation had the ability to deal with people who had gotten themselves hopelessly in debt. So they were allowed to sell themselves into slavery (often temporarily) in exchange for release from their financial obligations (Ex. 21:2-4; Lev. 25:39-43; Dt.15:12) [1999, p. 11, parenthetical item in orig.].
Leviticus 25:47-49 provides an example of slavery caused by debt:
Now if a sojourner or stranger close to you becomes rich, and one of your brethren who dwells by him becomes poor, and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner close to you, or to a member of the stranger’s family, after he is sold he may be redeemed again. One of his brothers may redeem him; or his uncle or his uncle’s son may redeem him; or anyone who is near of kin to him in his family may redeem him; or if he is able he may redeem himself.
Would it be fair for a society to allow a person who had accumulated a huge amount of debt to sell his labor to another person to pay that debt? Yes, it would. However, God—aware that abuse might arise in any situation—even regulated debt slavery, and provided for the rights and privileges of the slave to be guarded.
DIFFICULT LAWS TO UNDERSTAND
Admittedly, even with all the humane slave laws contained in the Old Testament, there are certain laws that we, in modern times, have a difficult time understanding. For instance, Exodus 21:20 reads:
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. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.
In the first place, how could God allow a slave owner to beat his slave at all? To answer this question, we must remember who many of the Old Testament slaves were. They were members of the wicked, sinful nations who had been delivered into the hands of the Israelites because of their immorality. Suppose that a slave from one of those nations had made up his mind to do as much damage to his owner as possible. The slave had the option of running away to a gentler owner whenever he wished (Deuteronomy 23:15-16). However, suppose that he chose to stay and steal from the owner, or break the owner’s equipment intentionally, or destroy the owner’s crops. What could the owner do to stop such sabotage? Herb Vander Lugt put it like this:
Then, too, no matter how well the slaves were treated, some might have been rebellious and defiant. Forgetting that they were alive because they were taken as war captives instead of being executed, they might have blamed their master for their slave status. They might have shown their resentment by destroying property, abusing fellow slaves, or refusing to work. The master may have had no other way to bring his slave in line than to use physical punishment (1999, p. 17).
As appalling as it is to the sensitivities of most United States citizens, many countries still employ some type of beating or bodily harm to deter crime (some readers may recall the controversy over “caning” in Singapore in the early 1990s). When a modern- day prisoner violates rules while incarcerated, more stringent punishment (such as solitary confinement) often is required. If a slave deserved the death sentence, yet was allowed to live under certain conditions—and then did not comply with those conditions—would it be feasible to suggest that his death sentence could be reinstated? Even though it seems harsh to us, Exodus 21:20 does not militate against the justice of God.
In fact, the more closely the passage is scrutinized, the more it manifests the idea that God was protecting the slave. Concerning the punishment that a master would receive if he did beat his slave to death, Christopher Wright noted that the word “punished” as used here actually means “avenged.” And,
in any other context [it] would mean that the guilty party would be liable to death himself at the hands of his victim’s family.... This law’s natural sense is that the murderous master was to be executed by the legal community on behalf of the slave, who had no family to avenge him (1983, p. 180).
While not all commentators are as confident as Wright is (that in this passage the death penalty is involved), there is no concrete case which argues that the death penalty is not at least a possibility in this situation. The authors of the Pulpit Commentary observed how this fear of punishment would protect the slave.
Involving, as the death of the slave did, criminal proceedings, and, on conviction, severe punishment, the mere danger of a fatal result ensuing would be a powerful deterrent from exceptional violence.... The mere risk of incurring such a penalty would inspire salutary caution (Spence and Exell, n.d., p. 179).
Adding additional weight to the argument that the restriction in Exodus 21:20 was for the benefit of the slave, Burton Coffman wrote:
This was a protective right granted to slaves that they should not be beaten to death! If that seems like a small blessing to us, let it be remembered that under the system in vogue all over the pagan world of that era, and extending down even till apostolical times, the Roman Law, in force all over the world, provided as a penalty against slaves, even for trivial and unintentional violations, that shame of the whole pagan world “flagellis ad mortem” (beaten to death), a penalty usually inflicted in the presence of all the other slaves of a master. God here provided that punishment should be meted out to a slave-owner for following that pagan custom (1985, pp. 309-310).
By way of summary, then, Exodus 21:20 documents that under certain circumstances, beating could be morally acceptable as punishment. This passage, however, provided rights that did not exist in other pagan cultures for the protection of the slave.
Exodus 21:26-27 provides another example of a law that seems difficult for us, in the present day, to understand as coming from a righteous God.
If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth.
Again, let it be noted that physical punishment might be the only solution to an unruly, rebellious slave who should have received the death penalty. However, something else of interest emerges from this verse that, rather than expressing the cruelty of Old Testament laws regulating slavery, shows instead God’s care for those enslaved. The text states that the eyes and teeth of slaves should not be knocked out or destroyed. However, the nations around the Israelites did not adhere to any such standards. When the Philistines captured Samson, they “took him and put out his eyes; and brought him down to Gaza. They bound him with bronze fetters; and he became a grinder in the prison” (Judges 16:21). Also, when the Babylonian soldiers raided Israel, capturing King Zedekiah, “they killed the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, put out the eyes of Zedekiah, bound him with bronze fetters, and took him to Babylon” (2 Kings 25:7). God’s regulations for the treatment of slaves provided the slaves with many more rights than they had in the nations surrounding Israel.
Another of the most startling regulations concerning slavery is found in Leviticus 19:20-22:
And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering (KJV).
Of course, skeptics have a heyday with this reading from the King James Version, which seems to indicate that if a free man has sexual intercourse with a slave woman who is betrothed, then the slave woman is to be scourged and the man simply supplies a ram as a trespass offering. However, upon further investigation, it can be seen that this passage says something far different.
In the first place, the translators of the KJV most likely mistranslated the part of the text “she shall be scourged.” The ASV translators rendered the passage as follows:
And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman that is a bondmaid, betrothed to a husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; they shall be punished; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass-offering unto Jehovah, unto the door of the tent of meeting, even a ram for a trespass-offering.
The NKJV translators offered this reading:
Whoever lies carnally with a woman who is betrothed to a man as a concubine, and who has not at all been redeemed nor given her freedom, for this there shall be scourging; but they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering to the Lord, to the door of the tabernacle of meeting, a ram as a trespass offering.
A brief look at these three translations shows that the recipient(s) of the punishment is not as clearly delineated as the KJV indicates. Keil and Delitzsch, in their commentary on the Pentateuch, noted that the scourging “referred to both parties, as is evident from the expression, ‘they shall not be put to death’ ” (1981, p. 422). G.J. Wenham has introduced another interesting solution regarding this passage by translating the disputed passage about scourging as “damages must be paid” (1979, p. 270). Concerning this translation he wrote:
This is the most problematic phrase in this law: literally, “there will be a biqqôret.” The word biqqôret occurs only here in the OT, and its meaning is therefore quite uncertain.... Other renderings of biqqôret have less to commend them. “An inquiry shall be held” (RSV; cf. NEB) is vacuous: every legal dispute would have involved inquiry. “She shall be scourged” (AV) goes back to an old Jewish interpretation, probably based on the dubious derivation of biqqôret from bâqâr, “ox, i.e., an oxhide scourge” (pp. 270-271, emp. added).
Taking these things into account, it appears that the passage does not indicate that the female should be scourged apart from the guilty male. Rather, whatever punishment was inflicted should be applied equally, except for the fact that the guilty male alone shoulders the responsibility of supplying the ram for the trespass offering.
According to God, the Israelites did not have absolute control over their slaves, as is evinced by the instructions in Exodus 21: 20,26-27 and Leviticus 19:20. This idea was a departure from the generally accepted notions of slavery in the Near East during the Israelites’ day. “Any demeaning or oppressive treatment of slaves was condemned as wrong by biblical writers” (Copan, 2001, pp. 173-174). God’s laws in the Old Testament not only regulated slavery (so that those enslaved would be given many rights that they otherwise would not have had), but they also supplied the means whereby fairness could be meted out with regard to criminal activity and debt. Every regulation of slavery in the Old Testament can be shown to be in harmony with the principles of justice and fairness.
SLAVERY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
As we look into the New Testament, we see a strikingly different picture with regard to the biblical injunctions pertaining to slavery. The New Testament does not contain the specific regulations dealing with slavery that can be found in the Old Testament. In fact, for the most part, the New Testament says very little in its regulation of slavery. And herein lies one of the skeptic’s primary challenges to the New Testament’s stance on slavery. If the New Testament is supposedly a book inspired by an all-loving God, why does it remain virtually silent on slavery? Smith and Hoffman, in their attack on the Bible, stated:
Slave-owning was the order of the day and, so far as we are told, Jesus never attacked the practice. He took the state of affairs for granted and shaped his parables accordingly.... If Jesus had denounced slavery, we should almost certainly have heard of his doing so (Smith and Hoffman, 1989, p. 143).
The other challenge to the New Testament’s stance on slavery centers on the passages that teach slaves to be humble and obedient servants to their masters. In Colossians 3:22, Paul commanded: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord” (NRSV). Although several modern translations insert the word “servants” at the first of this verse, “slaves” is probably a better translation of the Greek word douloi in this passage (Arndt and Gingrich, 1967, p. 205). Other similar passages include 1 Peter 2:18-20, 1 Corinthians 7:21- 24, and Ephesians 6:5-9. Ruth Green, after presenting her case to suggest that the Bible condones slavery, wrote:
Those who deny my contentions about the Bible should turn to the Epistles to see what Paul and Peter have to say about “servants” and masters. Here are only two examples: “Servants, be subject to your masters in all fear” (1 Peter 2:18). “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters . . . with fear and trembling” (Ephesians 6:5). There are many more instructions about slavery in the Christian Holy Book (1979, p. 352).
Does the New Testament remain silent in its condemnation of all slavery? And why does it specifically instruct slaves to be obedient to their masters?
First, it must be acknowledged that many of the types of servanthood or slavery in the New Testament are identical to the morally permissible types discussed earlier in this article. For instance, much first-century slavery discussed in the Bible centered on the fact that a person had accrued massive debt, and thus had become a slave or servant due to this debt. As an example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said: “Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny” (Matthew 5:25-26). From Christ’s comments, it can be ascertained that the person in this text who does not make the effort to agree with his adversary could risk being thrown into prison until that person “paid the last penny.” This situation involved a revoking of individual freedoms due to the fact that the individual owed an unpaid debt—a debt that originally was owed to the adversary, or one that resulted from a fine imposed by a judge.
In Matthew 18:21-35, Jesus told a story about a servant who owed his master ten thousand talents. A talent was a huge sum of money that would be the modern equivalent of many thousands of dollars. It could easily have been the case that this servant had become a servant due to this enormous debt, or was being kept a servant because of the debt. Debt slavery was still a very real form of restitution in New Testament times. Such a condition absolutely cannot be used to argue that God is an unjust God for letting such take place.
Furthermore, it is a false notion that God condones something just because He mentions it without an immediate condemnation of it in the surrounding verses. Skeptics point to verses like 1 Peter 2:8 and Ephesians 6:5, and then insist that God condones abusive slavery because He instructs servants to be obedient to their masters. But, let us analyze that line of thinking. In Matthew 5:39, Christ instructed His listeners: “Do not resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” Because Jesus told His listeners to be kind and turn the other cheek, does that mean that He condones the actions of the one who did the slapping? Absolutely not! Or what about the fact that Paul, through divine inspiration, instructed his readers to be subject to civil governments and to pay taxes to those governments. Was Paul condoning all practices of all governments to whom his readers would be subject and pay taxes? Certainly not. God never has condoned such unjustified behavior on the part of any individual or group.
Biblical Principles and Abolition
As a concluding argument, let it be clearly stated that the principles set forth by Jesus and His apostles, if followed, would result in the abolition of all types of abusive relationships. Slavery would have been nonexistent if everyone from the first century forward had adhered to Jesus’ admonition in Matthew 7:12: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them.” Any discussion of slavery would be moot if the world had heeded the words of Peter: “Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another, love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous” (1 Peter 3:8).
Truly, the teachings of the Lord and the apostles would have abolished slavery like no other social reform system ever known. As Herb Vander Lugt accurately observed:
Jesus and the apostles didn’t go on an anti-slavery crusade, because doing so would have been futile and a hindrance to their primary mission. The priority of Jesus was the provision of salvation. For the apostles it was the proclamation of the gospel. But both Jesus and the apostles undermined the basis for slavery by making it clear that God equally loves rich and poor, free and slave, male and female. The apostles also welcomed into the church and gave equal status to all who believed, regardless of race, gender, nationality, or social position (1999, p. 26).
Furthermore, an outright condemnation of kidnapping, or slave trading, is found in the New Testament. In 1 Timothy 1:9-10, Paul wrote:
We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine... (NIV, emp. added).
Other versions render the Greek word andrapodistais as “kidnappers,” or “menstealers,” but it also is translated slave dealers or slave traders (Arndt and Gingrich, 1967, p. 63). Therefore, in keeping with the Old Testament injunction that anyone kidnapping and selling a person involves himself in immoral conduct, Paul certainly distinguished between certain types of slavery practices that were inherently wrong, and others that were not intrinsically sinful.
CONCLUSION
The fact is, certain types of “slavery” not only are permissible, but sometimes necessary to the well-being of a society at large. For the biblical stance on slavery to be condemned as unjust, it must be established that the specific regulations of slavery described in the text are immoral and unfair. However, when closely scrutinized, the biblical stance on slavery aligns itself with true justice. All regulations found therein were established for the just treatment of all parties involved. Many times, slavery as regulated in the Old Testament was a mutually beneficial relationship between servant and master, similar to an employee/employer relationship. Furthermore, slavery often was a substitute for the death penalty—which certain nations deserved. Debt accumulation caused many free persons to sell their labor and become slaves.
The skeptic’s criticism that the New Testament does not speak against the abolition of slavery is misguided for any number of reasons. First, an attempt to generalize and condemn all types of slavery fails to take into account prison, personal debt, indentured servanthood, and a host of other morally permissible situations. Bankruptcy laws, prison terms, community service hours, and garnished wages are morally acceptable modern equivalents to certain types of slavery that were prevalent during the time of the biblical writers. Second, Jesus and the New Testament writers always condemned the mistreatment of any human being, instructing their followers to be kind, loving, and compassionate, whether they were slaves or masters of slaves.
In The Social Record of Christianity, atheist Joseph McCabe wrote: “Slavery is the last word that any Christian apologist ought to mention” (1935, p. 27). But he missed one of the main points in the Bible—that point being that everyone is a slave to something. As the apostle Paul wrote through inspiration:
Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness (Romans 6:16-18).
Some people are slaves to drug addiction, sexual promiscuity, attitudes of pessimism and complaint, or any number of other vices. Others, however, are slaves to righteousness, teaching the Gospel, helping the sick, and taking care of the poor. We each must decide which master we will allow to control our lives. As the psalmist so beautifully stated it many years ago, “I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness” (Psalm 84:10).
God’s injunctions and instructions pertaining to slavery have a clear ring of justice, compassion, mercy, and kindness to them. When analyzed fairly and fully, the idea of slavery gives the honest person one more piece of evidence that points to the perfection of the God of the Bible.
megadoc1 wrote:anyways Duane chew on this ...big up to 16cycleshttp://www.inplainsite.org/html/slavery_and_christianity.html
Defending the Bible’s Position on Slavery
by Kyle Butt, M.A.
...However, those who take such a position fail to consider that certain types of slavery are not morally wrong. For instance, when a man is convicted of murder, he often is sentenced to life in prison. During his life sentence, he is forced by the State to do (or not do) certain things. He is justly confined to a small living space, and his freedoms are revoked. Sometimes, he is compelled by the State to work long hours, for which he does not receive even minimum wage. Would it be justifiable to label such a loss of freedom as a type of slavery? Yes, it would....
Taking that into account, we also must ask: Who has the right to determine when slavery can be imposed on a certain person or group of people? The answer, of course, is God. In the Old Testament, immoral nations who practiced unspeakable evils surrounded the Hebrews. In order to rid the world of their destructive influence, the children of Israel dealt with them in several ways. One of those ways included forcing the wicked nations into slavery...
CONCLUSION
The fact is, certain types of “slavery” not only are permissible, but sometimes necessary to the well-being of a society at large. For the biblical stance on slavery to be condemned as unjust, it must be established that the specific regulations of slavery described in the text are immoral and unfair. However, when closely scrutinized, the biblical stance on slavery aligns itself with true justice.
In The Social Record of Christianity, atheist Joseph McCabe wrote: “Slavery is the last word that any Christian apologist ought to mention” (1935, p. 27). But he missed one of the main points in the Bible—that point being that everyone is a slave to something...
Some people are slaves to drug addiction, sexual promiscuity, attitudes of pessimism and complaint, or any number of other vices. Others, however, are slaves to righteousness, teaching the Gospel, helping the sick, and taking care of the poor.
God’s injunctions and instructions pertaining to slavery have a clear ring of justice, compassion, mercy, and kindness to them. When analyzed fairly and fully, the idea of slavery gives the honest person one more piece of evidence that points to the perfection of the God of the Bible.
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:The article makes mention of the fact that parts of the bible condone slavery; slavery which we know today is a terrible act against humanity. The fact is you cannot deny that the bible condones slavery...
...As far as the bible teaches, slavery is still correct...
...the bible talks about slavery because when it was compiled, slavery was acceptable.
sMASH wrote:so a christian can sin, what happens if he doesn't repent for that sin?
to repent from sin is to break agreement with the devil If you don't repent you remain in agreement with the devil
mega, so if u have a recurring sin which was not repented properly and u need deliverance from it, and den u dead, what happens next?I trust that my God doesn't allow someone who loves him to die in their sins it is not his will for any of us to be lost do u still go to heaven or do suffer in hell? I can't really say
what is the purpose of the holy spirit? in us ? to make us holy why is there need for a holy spirit?he is God can one be saved without the holy spirit being inside them? no .. jesus said no one can enter the kingdom of heaven unless he is born of water and spirit can one go to heaven without the holy spirit being inside them?no .. jesus said no one can enter the kingdom of heaven unless he is born of water and spirit
if one is saved, and has the holy spirit inside them then commits a sin, what happened there?
the Holy spirit convicts him and brings him to repentance if he is obedient
he will repent if not he continues to grieve the Holy spirit
what i seeing is that there is a father, a son, and a holy spirit.the son died for a time, so then there were two, no there is only one albeit for a short while like jonah in the whale 3 days and 3 nites, even though friday evening to sunday mornin is not 3 days and nites. and then now, people convert from a supposed life of sin, into this religion with the holy ghost inside them and can still sin. (free choice)what is the point of the holy ghost coming inside u if u still can do what u were doing before?(free choice) if so then he too is not necessary for god to exist. if u could do the same thing after is ingress into ur body as before, then he not that necessary,you need to understand that what God did, he did it in a way that he does not infringe on our free will, its our choice to love God or not, he just did all what he did, out of love for us that is to make a way for us ..its all up to us to love him back
megadoc1 wrote:the mosaic law I am speaking about , jesus established it on a higher level
megadoc1 wrote:Matthew 5:20
For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
megadoc1 wrote:Christians who truly follows Jesus operates from that higher level where we resists sin from within our hearts
megadoc1 wrote:maybe because we do it this way it appears that we don't have a law to follow
i am not sure......
megadoc1 wrote:sMASH wrote:so a christian can sin, what happens if he doesn't repent for that sin?
to repent from sin is to break agreement with the devil If you don't repent you remain in agreement with the devil
This obsession you have with satan is quite unhealthy. Yes, one must recognize evil, and deal with it when it appears... but to label everything that is not sacred as being evil, shows a clearly unbalanced (paranoid) mind.
Smash, we all fall - some more so than others. We are all expected to feel contrition for any wrong that we have done. If there is no contrition, then forgiveness has no effect. You can buy all the medicine you want, but if you don't take a dose, it won't work.
mega, so if u have a recurring sin which was not repented properly and u need deliverance from it, and den u dead, what happens next?I trust that my God doesn't allow someone who loves him to die in their sins it is not his will for any of us to be lost do u still go to heaven or do suffer in hell? I can't really say
Sounds like megadoc believes in the big washing-machine of the hereafter called Pugatory! (I didn't know you were a Papist, lad.
Smash, contrition is an act of will. It doesn't take time to perform. Due to this fact, even the Catholic Church, which used to refuse to allow suicide victims a church burial, have since changed their stance in this matter - that, plus the fact that in order to go ahead with the act of suicide, one is most likely not in perfect mental order.
Jesus made it plain: If you love me, then you will keep my commandments. One of them was "judge not, that you shall not be judged". While nothing is wrong with offering a hypothetical situation for discussion... can someone who strived most of his life to do the right thing, not feel sorrow for having done something wrong? Unless his reason for striving is not the right one (as proposed by Christians) this is unlikely. As this is a response to a rather vague hypothetical situation, my answer can't be more specific than this, at this time.
how? what good has bloodshed in the name of religion brought?megadoc1 wrote:using that same logic it is ok to have blood shed whats your point?
megadoc1 wrote:sMASH wrote:so a christian can sin, what happens if he doesn't repent for that sin?
to repent from sin is to break agreement with the devil If you don't repent you remain in agreement with the devil
alot of which has already been claimed/accused hereTop Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:^ very interesting
I also found this, though it doesnt seem to be as respectfulalot of which has already been claimed/accused hereTop Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
MG Man wrote:so once u condemned to hell, u can't repent?
while serving your penance, you can't realize the wrongs you did and ask for forgiveness and get parole?????
And what happens if the love of your life ends up in hell cuz he / she didn't repent or was from another religion or summ.................are you condemned to a lonely life in heaven, mournong for the one who is now suffering in hell???????????
. Well according to the bible, once your soul lands in HELL you will be Forever in Torment from burning Brimstone, and Satan would have control over what he does with you in Hell.
)sMASH wrote:in islam, u don't get condemned to hell in this life, is only after every one is raised back up for judgment and ur entire life is judged. as long as u have life on earth, u have the opportunity to repent. the exam metaphor works well here: u can do what every u want for the exam period, but when the buzzer sounds, u cant do no more, and it is time now to examine what u have done and give u a grade.
sMASH wrote:... and what about those who never had the opportunity to encounter that message? in islam every one is judged according to what they did with what they had. the poor in africa would be judged the same way as a rich in europe. the starving child in africa sharing a spoon full of rice to another, or even a dog, may incur more blessing than the philanthropist building a grand temple for worship.
u would not be blamed for not following islam if u never encountered it, but u will be blamed if u saw some thing interesting in it and did not investigate it.
the major religions were initially, originally unadulterated messages from god to those people whom they came to for that time. when they were not necessary to remain, protection over them was relinquished and those in authority over them did what they wanted to them, and that is how we have so many various religions. but the fundamental aspects of good behavior still endures the modifications, and if u ascribe to those teachings, u would be judged according to those parts which are morally right.
a normel person growing up in a atheist environment still has an inherent sense of right and wrong, good and bad. so even with out religious persuasion u would be judged for what u did with what u had.
if u never encountered islam, then u cannot be held accountable for not following its unique rules.
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:how? what good has bloodshed in the name of religion brought? I am not talking about religionmegadoc1 wrote:using that same logic it is ok to have blood shed whats your point?
what a pile of manure from that "justification" above for slavery in the bible, a lil bit again they would have instructions on how to rape the enemy's women during war...
oh wait they have that too in Judges 21 10-24
"Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them."
hide at the roadside to pounce on women to rape them? Seriously?
Duane its illogical to assume that rape(the way you tried to put it across) was happening here unless you are saying that God instructed his people to engage in fornication(sex without covenant) if you looked carefully at what you posted below and and search out what was the advice of balaam you will see that it was ....guess what ?....... fornication
Revelation 2:14
Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality.
or Numbers 31:7-18
"Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves." so no way God can be saying rape those women because they made you commit fornication(sin against me because they made you sin against me) is that what you are saying?
d spike wrote:Hold hard! Megadoc, so kidnapping a woman, and forcing her to be your wife is "cool"? by who's standards?You "ok" with that?
not for me to decide That isn't rape?by who's standards? What on God's green earth could you possibly think this was about?you are now gonna explain your idea on it below I bet you will
This is just yet another example provided by you to prove that you have not one idea about the bible, who the people mentioned therein are, their culture, their priorities, their values... for all you know, it could have been written yesterday...well lets see
In those days, virginity was very important, mainly because of the rights of the offspring. If a woman was raped, or had sex, or was even in the position where she might have had sex, she was no longer marriage material, and ended up being a burden on the household.
Also, marriage was seen as ways of increasing one's wealth... strong/wealthy families were made larger, thus stronger - the groom's gang getting the dowry, and the bride's bunch gaining worthwhile in-laws. So you didn't waste your time considering lesser folk for your daughter's hand.
So the easiest way to get a wife was to snatch one and take a taste... then, inform the father of the bride-to-be that you were interested in splicing... and you had no need of dowry. This was a "win-win" situation, the groom getting an otherwise unattainable spouse, and the bride's family (relieved after hearing the news of intended marriage, that they don't have to mind used goods) don't have to divvy out the dowry.
In all this, only the girl suffers - assuming that her papa's progeny include more girls - for her new family have no dowry to boost the happy couple's start in life, and when one considers how the groom chose to woo his bride, her old family would prefer to have little to do with him, and by extension, her... but her point of view hardly mattered in those days, for women were seen rather like noisy, but sometimes pleasant, baggage.
good so based on your understanding of this culture (I am not saying if I agree with you or not ) coupled with your statement in a former post, "Slavery was acceptable then - it isn't now" we can say the same for what we now are calling, by today's standards, rape...... agreed? ....with that said what you are suggesting bellow is ridiculous because by today's standards it is wrong full stop.
If ever you are kidnapped by a lovesick, recently paroled convict - who acquired a rather peculiar habit while incarcerated where his preferences are concerned - please don't be too upset when he presses his suit... for as he really would prefer a habitual relationship with you (he's just a little too ardent, that's all) it certainly isn't rape. in case you were directing that to me as a man , in Gods eyes its an abomination for man to have sexual relation's with another man
so you would be wrong again to suggest that also
however, by today's world standards this is slowly becoming an acceptable thing.
so whatever we consider as right or wrong depends on what or who standards we adhere to and there is one that supersedes all and that is the standards of the true and living God, so by who's standards are we gonna question the word of the true and living God ? ours ?......lol
megadoc1 wrote:d spike wrote:Hold hard! Megadoc, so kidnapping a woman, and forcing her to be your wife is "cool"? by who's standards?
Yours, obviously. You also seem to be in favour of slavery, depending on the circumstances. In understanding your point of view, I can only go by what you post.
You "ok" with that?
not for me to decide
You are so hopeless that you can't make a moral decision? Dear God... and you presume to tell others publicly what choices they should make?
That isn't rape?by who's standards?
Whose standards? So I take it that you don't suffer the burden of owning and operating such moralistic apparatus?
What on God's green earth could you possibly think this was about?you are now gonna explain your idea on it below I bet you will
Well then, why don't you perform that marvelous action called "reading" and see, instead of making useless remarks like this...
This is just yet another example provided by you to prove that you have not one idea about the bible, who the people mentioned therein are, their culture, their priorities, their values... for all you know, it could have been written yesterday...well lets see
Whatever for? See what? Reading the nonsense provided by you is more than enough than most learned folks can stomach! And is certainly proof enough that you clearly have no idea of what you speak.
good so based on your understanding of this culture (I am not saying if I agree with you or not ) coupled with your statement in a former post, "Slavery was acceptable then - it isn't now" we can say the same for what we now are calling, by today's standards, rape...... agreed? ....with that said what you are suggesting bellow is ridiculous because by today's standards it is wrong full stop.
Of all the asinine things you could say...
First of all, my statement in a former post, "Slavery was acceptable then - it isn't now" does not mean that I ever found it acceptable, or that it wasn't slavery. It just means that society then was under the delusion that it was a decent practice. Slavery is slavery. There was a time when certain cultures thought it expedient to sacrifice humans... so, because it was acceptable then, you approve? Have you no spine? Just because, according to scripture, "God's Chosen People" practised slavery, among other unsavoury practices, doesn't mean that Christians should approve of them! Scripture just SAYS that such things happened! It never is expected of you to assume that once it is mentioned therein, it is worthy of approval!!! What sort of cockeyed nonsensical thinking is this before us??!?!?
Slavery is slavery. Rape is rape. Always was, always will be. Our society has evolved to the point where we can identify morally wrong actions. If you cannot identify an action as being morally wrong, something inside your head isn't working right.
Secondly, the material quoted below, is written using a form known to most intelligent people as "sarcasm" (there it is again! ...and again!) and is used as a form of wry humour.
Please forgive my not being aware of the depths of your ignorance, and so callously placing such useless material before you for your uncomprehending perusal.
If ever you are kidnapped by a lovesick, recently paroled convict - who acquired a rather peculiar habit while incarcerated where his preferences are concerned - please don't be too upset when he presses his suit... for as he really would prefer a habitual relationship with you (he's just a little too ardent, that's all) it certainly isn't rape. in case you were directing that to me as a man , in Gods eyes its an abomination for man to have sexual relation's with another man
so you would be wrong again to suggest that...
I was not suggesting anything, my dear and thoughtless scribe. Perhaps humour is not your strong suit. Neither, would it seem, are many of the higher order comprehension skills - and quite a few of the lower ones as well. It might be best for me to refrain from employing such tools, in order for you to understand what is written...
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 86 guests
