Originally Posted by Stephen T-B

"Just because pseudo christians supported slavery does not mean that God does." (sugarhitman)
Did they think they were "pseudo christians"?
I dare say they believed themselves to be just as much "proper" Christians as sugarhitman considers himself to be a "proper" Christian.
And the way they read the Scriptures, they believed that the Jewish god did support slavery - the sort of slaveery they were practising.
How can that be?
Because the Word of God is ambiguous in so many repects other than the commandments given to Moses - not just the Ten Commandments but the multitude of others listed in Levitus and Deuteronomy.
Here's something from Chapter 6, Leviticus, which leaves no room whatesover for misinterpration:
" 1: And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2: If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour;
3: Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein:
4: Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found,
5: Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering.
6: And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest:
7: And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.
8: And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
9: Command Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering, because of the burning upon the altar all night unto the morning, and the fire of the altar shall be burning in it.
10: And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh, and take up the ashes which the fire hath consumed with the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar.
11: And he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without the camp unto a clean place.
12: And the fire upon the altar shall be burning in it; it shall not be put out: and the priest shall burn wood on it every morning, and lay the burnt offering in order upon it; and he shall burn thereon the fat of the peace offerings.
13: The fire shall ever be burning upon the altar; it shall never go out."

So, we see that in some matters, God was absolutely specific.
Yet when it comes to slavery, there are such ambiguities that for 1,800 years after the death of Christ (or thereabouts) Christians throughout Christendom believed that the versions of slavery they were practising were acceptable to their god.
Why did their god not set the record straight for 1,800 or so years if indeed slavery as it developed was something it abhorred?

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

God desires freedom.

Originally Posted by WVIncagold

Prove you know what a god wants.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

God desires freedom.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

oh how the skeptics love the corrupt NIV.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

'a mind attempting to escape truth is filled with many silly foolish questions and arguments......seeking cover for its failures and lack of faith.....the mind of a turned backed christian'-----Unknown

Questions open for Steve from before:[list][*]So, in your view, it's OK to enslave those taken in war? That is the order of the day in Bible as well.

[*]I'm still waiting on your view of Ham's heir being named "black",

[*]and whether or not you agree that Augustine saw the continuation of slavery as OK.

Originally Posted by Exciter

lol, Do a search in this thread to see who brings up Christians using the Bible to justify slavery in sugar's assertion in post# 257, or simply click the picture of the Christian slave traders...


He's the only one, I guess his psychic prophecy powers told him someone was going to, lol.

From the start of this thread sugar tried to say Johnny Skeptic was corruptin' da Bibles:




sugarhitman went on "vacation" shortly after that post and this "intelligent" "witty" sugarhitmanism [lol]:



and returned to enlighten us with something no one even mentioned, lol, and said skeptics were way off, lol.

Is it any wonder I see his posts as only being worthy of answering with pictures, mostly cartoons?

Originally Posted by Equinox

Steve wrote:

Paul was talking to a slave owner to convince the slave owner to set a slave free. Slavery certainly was the topic.

Even without that, wouldn’t Paul, when mentioning Onesimus in Col. 4, take a few words to say “who was once enslaved, which is never a moral practice” or some such, if he thought anything at all were wrong with slavery?




Fair enough. Dt 20:10




Note that the only reason men aren’t mentioned as being taken as plunder is because they are to be killed, regardless of whether they surrender or not. Can you imagine doing that - dozens of men are cornered and surrender. You make them give up their weapons, be tied and put in a row. Then you, as an agent of the holy god, take your sword and go down the line, slitting the throat of each, ignoring the pleas for mercy.

I also mentioned that the Bible said buying slaves was fine:

Buying slaves: Lev 25:


It’s also useful to note that Bible treats Israelite slaves differently from other slaves. Israelite slaves were treated humanely as Steve says – one may notice that when someone talks about being nice to a slave, they’ve often chosen a passage that is talking about Israelite slaves. Notice that in the passage above, one is buying foreign slaves, where inhuman treatment and lifelong slavery are allowed (Israelite slaves are set free after 6 years).



Surely you see the word of god as important, and think that deeper meaning lies all through it? What deeper meaning might it mean that the first time slavery is set up, it is set up for the descendants of someone named “black”?




No, I’m not. If I wanted to extend the time as long as possible, I would have said 47 hours. I used a time less than half of what the word of god says to be charitable to you. What do you think the passage means? Here it is:

Ex 21:20



The same chapter shows that if you, though negligence, kill someone’s slave, you have to pay the owner 30 shekels. That’s quite different from killing a person, which earlier passages show carries the death penalty. In the Bible, non-hebrew slaves aren’t people, they are property.




not clear to you? You've got to be kidding - it said you could beat them so severely they couldn't get up for many hours. As long as they can get up after two days, and you haven't taken out an eye or a tooth, then anything apparently goes.

You are scary. Please don’t become a cop, or worse a politician. And could you refrain from voting?


Again, he’s talking about the subject, and says nothing to condemn it. That speaks volumes. Augustine wrote many books, giving opinions on all kinds of things, even minor things. If he did see anything wrong with slavery, don’t you think he’d have mentioned it, at least once?

as far as treatment of non-hebrew slaves went, it also appears that raping slaves was allowed. In Gen, both Abraham’s and Jacob’s wives give one of their female slaves to be impregnated by their master’s husband, and no consent from the slave is needed. It’s treated as if of course everyone knows that consent from the slave would not be required – asking consent from property is silly. This is also seen in Lev. 19:20, where if a man has sex with a female slave who is engaged to be married, then he is punished and must make an animal sacrifice. This is both a far cry from raping a person, and no punishment is mentioned for raping a slave who isn’t engaged – after all, she’s the master’s property. I can find no mention in the Bible of anything being wrong with raping slaves.

Equinox

Originally Posted by WVIncagold

so beatoing is not abuse? wow you are the compasionate one. I gues rape is assualt with a friendly weapon around your thought process. Roman slave was an example since it is the one that is most documentedand adopted through out its conquered world. condoning any type of slavery is moraly reprehensible and trying in anyway to condone it shows a support for bigotry and abuse of your fellow man. accepting the bible as a word of righteousness yet hand waving the abuse of fellow man and a god unable to utter these seven words "thou shalt not enslave your fellow man" when there are 613 ...count them 613 comandments in the babble about what people should not do. the bible condones slavery as a good thing. So if you support the bible you support slavery. its very simple. no amount of handwaving can dismiss it. your premis is that its is not condoned because there is punishment for slave owners. Give that some thought will you. Slave owners. Slave owners. Slave owners can be punished for killing their slaves. Seriously are you going to keep trying to assert that slavery is not condoned in the bible? Then why would there be punishement for a SLAVE owner. SLAVE owner. cant say it enough. Your argumnent is silly and contrived. The institution of slavery is condoned accepted and expressed very well in the babel.