Sheshonq

Wrong as usual, arnoldo. This was not the result of battle. By the time they had returned to Moses, the battle was over. It was after the battle was already over that Moses gave the command to kill the male children. The battle didn't cause this problem; Moses did.

You're continually, habitually confused by what the claim being discussed is. The existence of slavery was offred as proof that hte morality of the bible is not eternal or a valuable yardstick, since modern morals have surpassed it.

Exciter

How else would the slave I'm talking about gain freedom?

I could probably hit you and make you do what I say with out knocking out your teeth or causing you to lose an eye, lol.

How do you think an Israeli dealt with a slave that said "STFU! Dig your own toilet, ya dirty >edited<! ???



Apologetics, lol.




Well hooray for Jesus and the Apostles! All a slave had to do is wait for them to arrive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo 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).

:jump:

So what happened to this church? Where were they during the African slave trade?

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo 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).

The conclusion from your 'scholarly' apologetic website pretty much is how slave owners past and present think of slavery:

Johnny Skeptic

Nor have you ever provided any proof of God's existence. The Partition of Palestine is most certainly not proof of God's existence, but that is what you and sugarhitman claimed. Even the Bible discredits the claim. It says that God promised Abraham and his descendants all of the land of Canaan as an everlasting covenant. Obviously, the Partition of Palestine did not satisfy either of those requirements.

If you wish, you can start a new thread on the Partition of Palestine. That would be fun, at least for skeptics.

Johnny Skeptic

Better yet, for an even more scholarly examination, please read all of Elaine Pagel's and Bart Ehrman's major books.

You still have not learned that you will not be able to win any debates just by mentioning links and books. In order to win debates, you have to be able to come up with good arguments of your own, and you do not have any. You frequently try to let your sources do your thinking and arguing for you. That will not work.

Sheshonq

1. Futile? Why? What a lame excuse - "we won't say anything about slavery, because we can't change it." Why didn't they take the same attitude towards worship of pagan gods? Given how 99.99% of the Roman world was pagan, why wasn't changing the religion of the masses seen as "futile"?

2. This also seems to say that it doesn't matter if something is morally wrong; if you don't have a good chance of changing the status quo, then don't bother trying. That's quite opposed to the other lessons in the bible where the text clearly states that people are to do the right thing, even if they are the only ones doing it.

3. They had time to go on a crusade against other sins (i.e., hypocrisy, etc.) and didn't consider that to be a hindrance to their primary mission. Of course, it helps that they considered hypocrisy, etc. to be sins in the first place. The reason they failed to mention slavery is because they didn't consider it to be a sin.

They did not "undermine" slavery; the insitution of slavery existed for another 2000 years. If they really wanted to undermine slavery, they should have said "Slavery is unjust and immoral. Do not practice it."

But they did not extend that equality into everyday society. It was an equality that existed only inside their faith. Outside of that, everything stayed the same. It's of little value to the slave to know that inside the faith he's equal, but he has to wait until the afterlife to realize that equality.

No, this is just whitewashing a moral evil - and it's the same thing that the southern slaveowners said to their black slaves: "Yes, we're all equal in the eyes of God. Now get back to picking cotton."

It never ceases to amaze me the contortions that apologetics will get itself into, when it wants to avoid admitting a mistake or a moral failure in the bible.

arnoldo

If you have checked the news lately it's hard to believe that "modern morals" are working. Don't you think that our present society would be much better if everyone abiding by the following guidlines:

Johnny Skeptic

But that does not apply to the immoral double-standard of treatment for Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves in the Old Testament because the double-standard issue is not about the abolishment of slavery. It is about a double- standard.

If God stopped killing people with hurricanes, would that be a hindrance to Christians' primary mission? Of course not, it would be a help, so please do not embarrass yourself my bringing up what is and is not a hindrance.

arnoldo

Both of those individuals support christianity, try again. . .

http://bartdehrman.com/index.htm
http://www.princeton.edu/religion/pe...?netid=epagels

arnoldo

Just a note to state that the above quote attributed to me is from Defending the Bible’s Position on Slavery by Kyle Butt, M.A.

Johnny Skeptic

The primary issue in this thread is not about anything that Jesus said. It is about whether or not Old Testament slavery was immoral. If arnoldo wishes to discuss off-topic issues, I request that he start new threads of his own. If arnoldo continues to try to derail this thread, I request that a moderator tell him to stay on topic.

There is no doubt that Old Testment slavery was immoral. Consider the following Scriptures:

Leviticus 45:26

KJV - And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

NASB - You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

NIV - You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

The Amplified Bible - And you shall make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession; of them shall you take your bondmen always, but over your brethren the Israelites you shall not rule one over another with harshness (severity, oppression).

The word "but" appears in all four translations. It is used to distinguish between two different methods of treatment regarding two different groups of people, Hebrews and non-Hebrews.

Consider the following excerpts from the aforementioned Scriptures:

KJV - ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

NASB - you shall not rule with severity over one another.

NIV - you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

The Amplified Bible - you shall not rule one over another with harshness (severity, oppression).

Those texts clearly show that the writer believed that it was immoral for Hebrew slaves to be forced to be slaves for life. We know that because previously in the same sentence, involuntarily forcing non-Hebrew slaves to be slaves for life was endorsed, followed by the word "but," which as I said "is used to distinguish between two different methods of treatment regarding two different groups of people, Hebrews and non-Hebrews."