Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
Raf

Are You More Moral Than Yahweh?

Recommended Posts

Is ebeddery, as described in the Bible, morally acceptable to you? Only verses can outline what biblical ebeddery is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exodus 21:1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.

2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant [ebed], six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. 5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 6 then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

Ladies and gentlemen, exhibit 1:

Biblical ebeddery allows a master to hold an ebed's wife and children hostage if the ebed wants to go free (if he gave the wife to the ebed in the first place).

If you have a moral objection to that rule, which is presented to us as God's voice and not man's, then you are saying that you are more moral than the God who gave that rule. If you do not have a moral objection to that rule, you are probably, and I'm guessing here, not reading this.

7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. 8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. 9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

Read it as many times as you'd like. A man can sell his daughter as an amah. She doesn't get that cool deal about going free after seven years. That's for male ebeds. (I'm assuming we are not restricted to ebed, but even if we are, the concepts are clearly related and on-topic). And if the master marries another woman, in addition to his... let's call it, purchased sexual companion... as long as he keeps feeding, clothing, and boning his amah, he doesn't have to free her.

If you have a moral objection to that rule, which is presented to us as God's voice and not man's, then you are saying that you are more moral than the God who gave that rule. If you do not have a moral objection to that rule, you are probably, and I'm guessing here, not reading this.

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 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.

God must have not read the part about how they were not to be treated as property. He said, yeah, treat them like property.

If you have a moral objection to that rule, which is presented to us as God's voice and not man's, then you are saying that you are more moral than the God who gave that rule. If you do not have a moral objection to that rule, you are probably, and I'm guessing here, not reading this.

Let me know if I need to keep going.

Edited by Raf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, you could not go free before seven years. If you went free, you couldn't take your wife and kids with you. That's. Not. Freedom. Just the fact that God would let the master keep the wife and kids... Holy cannoli, really? How is that morally acceptable regardless of what word you're using? Slave, ebed, jolly green giant... It's NOT something I would ever allow morally. Seems to me the so-called source of absolute, objective morality clearly is not as moral as the vast majority of the people who follow him today (not to mention the vast majority of people who don't).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is ebeddery, as described in the Bible, morally acceptable to you? Only verses can outline what biblical ebeddery is.

Remember, that first, "ebeddery" is quite a number of different things, so we need to look at each "morally" questionable occurrence, and we also must limit that to what Yahweh allows, and not just any one in the writings..

And yes, those 3 sentences are considered a portion of the overall "torah"(guidance/teachings) given by Yahweh to Moses at Mt.Sinai and therefore are a part of this discussion, in case you thought I was trying to exclude them.

If you have a moral objection to that rule, which is presented to us as God's voice and not man's, then you are saying that you are more moral than the God who gave that rule. If you do not have a moral objection to that rule, you are probably, and I'm guessing here, not reading this.

And just so we are still clear, I have no objection to these torah's when understood in their correct context. And I was aware of these 3 already, but as mentioned before, there may be many I am still not aware of.

Only, I'm a little out of time at the moment to expand, please continue if you have more, I don't object at all.. Full disclosure only helps us communicate better.

Edited by TrustAndObey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, you could not go free before seven years. If you went free, you couldn't take your wife and kids with you. That's. Not. Freedom. Just the fact that God would let the master keep the wife and kids... Holy cannoli, really? How is that morally acceptable regardless of what word you're using? Slave, ebed, jolly green giant... It's NOT something I would ever allow morally. Seems to me the so-called source of absolute, objective morality clearly is not as moral as the vast majority of the people who follow him today (not to mention the vast majority of people who don't).

I understand what you are saying here, only I must admit, I think you are misunderstanding both the premise and the situation. Actually you could go free before seven years for quite a few reasons, yet it all depends on the situation. And yes you could take your wife and kids, with one except for which I will have to handle later.

But feel free to explain why you feel this is the fact. I understand you are taking this one sentence to mean this, but are there other things that help you reach that understanding in this verse, context? Hebrew definitions or word studies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but the verses speak for themselves quite clearly, I think. You keep saying there are different definitions and contexts, but I seem to be the only one quoting scriptures here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please explain each verse in its context and demonstrate that the situation being described and prescribed is morally acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be awesome if you quoted and responded to the actual verses instead of quoting and responding to my flippant summaries. Here you have Bible verses that actually authorize a slaveowner to keep a man's wife and children if the man leaves. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a provision allowing the slavemaster to release them! Try that in today's culture. Go on, I dare you. You'd never get away with it, and with good reason. I don't see how a word study or a better understanding of Hebrew definitions changes the fact that a man's wife and children are effectively being held hostage by a slavemaster and the only solution is to submit to a lifetime of slavery. What the bloody hell?

But PLEASE, show me how words and definitions and "context" make this a morally acceptable practice! PLEASE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be awesome if you quoted and responded to the actual verses instead of quoting and responding to my flippant summaries. Here you have Bible verses that actually authorize a slaveowner to keep a man's wife and children if the man leaves. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a provision allowing the slavemaster to release them! Try that in today's culture. Go on, I dare you. You'd never get away with it, and with good reason. I don't see how a word study or a better understanding of Hebrew definitions changes the fact that a man's wife and children are effectively being held hostage by a slavemaster and the only solution is to submit to a lifetime of slavery. What the bloody hell?

You seem pretty anxious here, Raf.. I did mention I was a little out of time yesterday, so patience is key! I'm still not sure how much I will be able to cover today. But we'll see.. I answer according to what time I have, I can do no better, sorry! I'm human, what more do you expect?! Understanding scripture isn't just a quick A, B, C, there you go.. It's not necessarily complicated either, but I do want to ensure that I am accurate and do not give my God whom I do server a bad name by speaking presumptuously. That doesn't mean that what I say is 100% accurate, but I am trying my best to double check and ensure what I do present is the best "I" can do. Which means it will take a little longer than if we just sat and talked face to face. Does that make sense? Are you OK with that?

Edited by TrustAndObey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In most any book we read, any amount of writing, context is key. Without it, the Bible itself says "...there is no God...". But of course, simply put the very phrase is out of it's contextual sentence. Which is why when we read these statements taken from the Tanakh, the first thing we need to key into is what is the context. And while many may know the context, it can easily be lost or misunderstood, especially in certain areas where long lists and items are presented.

For me when it comes to the topic and verses given at hand, the best place I can think of to start with understanding context is the overall context of the "torah". That is the 613 mitzvot given to the Israelites at Mount Sinai. Of course, here again, we come up with a word that is traditionally translated as commandments(mitzvot) but in reality the word itself means directions given to those on a journey. So just as the Torah is God's guidance and teaching given to his people, according to the Jews, it contains 613 mitzvot, or directions given to those trying to live God's way, and are taking that journey. And many may wonder what is the difference, and what is wrong with calling these law and commandments like the English, Latin, and Greek bibles do.. And there isn't anything necessarily wrong, as long as one understands the difference. Jesus said that the law was made for man not the other way around. And that is correct. When his disciples were plucking ears of corn on the Sabbath, for which the torah(guidance) was against, it is just that, guidance. When David and his men were hungry and he took of the shewbread from the temple, again something that goes against the mitzvah(directions on one's journey to live God's way), it is not a black and white, cold , hard, and fast rule or law. It is not a commandment that does not allow room. But as the book of Romans states, then should we sin(miss the mark) that grace should abound? Heaven forbid. That's not the point. The point isn't that the totah and it's mitzvot's should be ignored, but rather they should be understood as given. A wise schoolteacher guiding it's students who are still learning, until they can be mature in righteousness. Until they are ready. That is the the beginning context of understanding the Torah, and unfortunately, many times misunderstood. And today with the usual "dispensational" view, much of the Tanakh is glossed over as old and irrelevant. Yet it isn't. Neither are these sentences that you, Raf, have brought up. Nay, they are very relevant today. But again, I can't just type out everything at once. Patience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In getting back to the context, I stated the torah should be seen as a wise schoolteacher guiding it's students who are still learning, until they can be mature in living rightly. Until one understands the basis, the context, the reasons, the purpose, until then, one is guided(torah) by these directions(mitzvot). Because once once gains that understanding and is able to live accordingly, then one may understand how David or Jesus' disciples could do the things they did. As Paul said "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. But now we see only through a dim mirror; but then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully.." So while we today have been given the spirit, that it might guide us in the ways even greater than the torah, we still only see in part.

The whole of the torah, the context of it all, is given in the ten sayings known as the ten commandments. It is the cornerstone of the torah so to speak, upon which if they were taken away the torah would crumble and you end up with misunderstanding the torah such as being done here. So what about these ten sayings, what makes them so crucial, and how are they relevant to the topic you, Raf, and I are discussing today? Unfortunately, I see the time and I can't answer in full, so please patience my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to the torah, and its cornerstone, the ten sayings or as most know them as the ten commandments. One of the most fundamental things Jews learn about the ten sayings is that they are divided into 2 parts. The first 5 words/sayings that deal with honoring and loving God, and the second 5 that deal with honoring and loving your neighbor. Thus the saying of Jesus, that the first great commandment being love the Lord your God and the second similar to it, to love your neighbor as yourself, and upon these 2 hang all the torah and prophets. The apostle Paul then took this one step further, that is, in Galatians when he said that they all hang upon one word, that word being love.

They all depend and hang on love. That is the crux of the matter here. If you take away the guidance and direction on “love”, then they all fail. And then you can take these verses here speaking about servants and misunderstand and think there is something evil going on. Sure. Easy to do. That is why it is imperative we get back to the context. It should suffice to say, that if something in the torah, a mitzvah, seems to be “unloving” or immoral, and out of character for which they depend upon, then either we misunderstand love, or we misunderstand the mitzvah.

Going a step further, there are 3 attributes that I am aware of that God is specifically mentioned as actually being, encompassing. One is love, one is light, and the other is spirit. So what can we understand about love? There are many things in the world that are described as love, but what are we talking about when we are speaking about the love that the torah and mitzvot depend upon? There is brotherly love, that relational type bond. Of course there’s the coveting / lustful kind of love, the kind that drives one to desire “things” whether material or immaterial. There’s the passionate and sexual love. There’s what I call the debtor’s love that many relationships and marriages get founded upon, also known as quid pro quo. That mutual love because you gain from someone only to always be indebted and only lasts as long as until one side doesn’t give back for some reason or in the “right” amount of time or amount. All different things that could be called love to some extent.

I tend to go back to what does the word “love” mean?! In Hebrew it is the word ‘ahav’. Made of three letters, aleph-hey-bet. And there is a two letter parent root word for “ahav”/love and that is the word “give”(hav)[hey-bet]. So the basis of love is to give with the Ancient Hebraic picture of the house/family and a person waving his arms to bring attention to it. In Eastern philosophy, taking care of one’s family is prime directive numero uno. What the family needs, you give. Now, with love, we take that picture one step further and add the aleph. The ox’s head that stands for strength. So then not only is it giving, but now strong giving. Emphasis on the strength. Love is strong giving. It is the actual process of giving that develops the very connection between the giver and the receiver. The more giving that one does, the greater is the connection. Why? The process of giving is a vehicle through which the giver through his act of giving is able to, through a physical gift (or even a verbal comment), give of himself to another. This act of giving something is not merely helping another. For sure, giving is helping another, but it is much more than that. Giving is a method that enables us to make a connection to another. When we give to another, that which we give to him/her, could have been utilized to further our own self. In stead, we choose to take this object, which could have been utilized for our own needs and instead, use it for someone else. Thus love is not selfish and all the other things 1 Corinthians 13 speaks of.

And it is with this love, that is required when speaking of any part of the torah. Because without it, these mitzvot are all just actions without the correct context, reason, or purpose. But with this love in heart, mind, and action, the torah then can be understood properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so as long as they're owning, buying, selling, holding wives and children hostage in LOVE, it's okay. Never mind that these folks were a thousand and a half years away from Jesus and Paul. They're supposed to... dude, I can't even fake it. There's nothing loving about owning a man, giving him a wife, then letting that man go and keeping his wife and kids as your property. The reason it's so easy to call that unloving and immoral is simple: it's unloving and immoral. You cannot lovingly keep a man from his wife and kids unless that man promises to be your slave for life. And you cannot morally do it either.

What you've done is known as begging the question. It reaches a conclusion by assuming it to be true in the first place. God is love. Therefore, everything he does will be loving and moral. If he has rules for keeping, buying, trading, beating banging and selling slaves, they must be loving and moral rules for keeping buying trading beating banging and selling slaves. Because he's love!

That's not thinking. That's making horrific excuses for horrific verses that are indefensible. You say God is love. I show you he is not. And you are so jedi-mind-committed to the "God is love" paradigm that you would rather endorse a patently immoral practice than admit that maybe, just maybe, the skeptics have a point on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using your logic, you'll never be able to find fault with anything God orders, because he's always right and moral and just. THAT'S NOT THINKING. And it's not morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the strawman fallacies have begun..

Maybe not purposefully and maybe because I wasn't clear in what I've explained thus far, or maybe because you have yet to be patient and let me fully explain yet (No, I haven't finished explaining). Either way, you have not explained my position accurately, and thus your opinions of your strawman are irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is some information from the Nelson Bible Dictionary which quotes many verses with accurate, truthful and readable understanding. Historically, slavery has primarily been prominent in cultures like Rome, which had a very high slave percentage of people. The United States even had slavery up through the 1860s when the civil war ended it. No, I will not blame slavery on God for nations like this. This was cultural mixed with greed, which we have in the sin nature of man as the end part of the below, from the Nelson Bible Dictionary explains. And hopefully there won't be any :CUSSING: or :realmad: here in this discussion. Just posted this to provide honest and unbias information. My heavy schedule would not allow any more than this from me.

SLAVE, SLAVERY

A person bound in servitude to another human being as an instrument of labor; one who has lost his liberty and has no rights.

An ancient practice (Gen 9:25), slavery existed in several different forms in biblical times. Household or domestic slavery was its most common form; this is illustrated by HAGAR, who lived in the home of Abraham and Sarai (Gen 16:1) and by Jesus in His parables (Matt 13:24-30; 21:33-44). State slavery, another common form, is illustrated by the Israelites' experience under their Egyptian taskmasters (Ex 5:6-19; 13:3), and later by Solomon, who enslaved some of the Canaanite peoples (1 Kings 9:20-21). Temple slavery is illustrated by the practice of Moses and Joshua, who assigned certain people as slaves to the Levites for Temple service (Num 31:25-47; Josh 9:21-27).

One could purchase slaves, as in the case of Joseph. He was sold into slavery by his brothers for 20 shekels of silver (Gen 37:28). Israelites could also buy foreign slaves (Lev 25:44). People captured in war frequently became slaves (Gen 14:21; Num 31:9). Occasionally those who wanted slaves might kidnap them, but this practice was forbidden by the Jewish law (Ex 21:16; 1 Tim 1:10).

People could become slaves in several ways. The poor who were unable to pay their debts could offer themselves as slaves (Ex 21:2-6; Neh 5:1-5). A thief who could not repay what he had stolen could also be sold as a slave. Children born of slave parents became "house-born slaves" (Gen 15:3; 17:12-13). Sometimes children would be taken as slaves in payment for debts (2 Kings 4:1-7).

Treatment of slaves generally depended on the character of the master (Gen 24; 39:1-6). But a set of regulations governed the treatment of domestic slaves (Ex 21; Deut 15:1). Repeatedly, Israel was instructed by the law not to rule over a fellow Israelite harshly (Lev 25:39; Deut 15:14). If a master beat a slave or harmed him, the law provided that the slave could go free (Ex 21:26-27); and the killing of a slave called for a penalty (Ex 21:20).

Slaves were allowed to secure their freedom. Under the Jewish law, no Hebrew was to be the permanent slave of another Hebrew. After six years of service, a slave was to be released (Ex 21:2; Deut 15:12). In the Year of JUBILEE, no matter how long a slave had served, he was to be released (Lev 25:37-43). If a slave desired to continue with his master, he would have a mark made in the ear; this mark would signify that he had chosen to remain a slave (Ex 21:5-6). A slave could also buy his freedom, or another person could buy his freedom for him (Lev 25:47-49).

Among the Romans in New Testament times, freedom for a slave could be arranged if ownership was transferred to a god. The slave could then receive his freedom in return for contracting his services. He would continue with his master, but now as a free man.

The Bible contains warnings about the practice of slavery. The prophet Amos spoke woe to Gaza and Tyre for their practices of slave-trading entire populations (Amos 1:6-9). The Book of Revelation declares that disaster awaits those who sell slaves (Rev 18:13). As for Christians, the apostle Paul advised slaves to obey their masters (Eph 6:5; Col 3:22; Titus 2:9). Paul appealed to Philemon to receive back Onesimus, a runaway slave who was now a Christian and therefore a brother (Philem 16). Elsewhere Paul counseled believing slaves to seek freedom if they could (1 Cor 7:21). Since slave practices were part of the culture in biblical times, the Bible contains no direct call to abolish slavery. But the implications of the gospel, especially the ethic of love, stand in opposition to slavery.

Both slave and free are called upon to receive the gospel of Jesus Christ. In Christ, social distinctions such as slavery no longer apply (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11); in Christ all are brothers and sisters. The excitement of such new relationships is expressed by Paul: "Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ" (Gal 4:7).

In a spiritual sense, people apart from Christ are slaves to sin. To commit sin is to demonstrate that sin has control of one's life (John 8:34). Christ can set us free from this kind of slavery (John 8:36)-to be obedient to Christ and to do righteousness (Rom 6:16-18).

(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright ©1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll leave it to the readers to determine whether my understanding of your post constitutes a strawman fallacy, TnO. Saying it doesn't make it so. I think I have accurately critiqued what you actually said. So if I haven't accurately represented your position, it is because you have not accurately or completely articulated it.

The accusations of impatience are starting to get stale, though. You've been commenting more than a week, sometimes at length, and have yet to support the notion that biblical slavery is morally acceptable. I'll be as patient as you need me to be, but I suspect the emperor is naked here.

Please. Prove me wrong. But stop saying you're going to. Any minute now. After these messages.

Edited by Raf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, there's nothing to incite :CUSSING: or :realmad: in your post. There's also nothing to refute my observation that slavery is immoral and that God failed to abolish it when he had the chance.

The prevalence of slavery in the cultures of the time coupled with God's failure to abolish it is inconsistent with the existence of a perfectly moral God giving his perfectly moral law to the people. (Consistent would be for other nations to have slaves but for the nation with a truly moral lawgiver to say no. We're going to be different. Remember, our question is not whether ancient Israel was more moral than surrounding nations of the time. It's whether your morality exceeds Yahweh's. On the issue of slavery, it does. Easily).

No one is asking anyone else to blame God for allowing slavery in American law. I am asking you all to hold Him accountable for allowing slavery under HIS OWN law. And stop acting as if He had no choice but to allow it because the Israelites demanded it. That position is both unsupported by scripture and morally insufficient. If slavery is morally wrong and the Israelites demanded it anyway, all he had to do was say No! Thou Shalt Not Own People!

Isn't the whole POINT of the law to let people know right from wrong?

God's endorsement of slavery and his impotence in abolishing it is consistent with a non-existent God invented by people to justify their culture and practices.

But again, by all means, demonstrate where I am wrong. So far, neither of you has even come close (and Mark, I think the article you posted actually supports my position overall, that Biblical slavery -- God's version of it, not man's -- is immoral by our standards).

Edited by Raf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last thing: calling the Nelson Bible Dictionary unbiased has to be a joke, right? I'm not suggesting it's dishonest, but unbiased? It's apologetic. It's biased by definition.

Please read the Nelson entry on the holy Spirit and tell me again it's unbiased.

Edited by Raf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll leave it to the readers to determine whether my understanding of your post constitutes a strawman fallacy, TnO. Saying it doesn't make it so. I think I have accurately critiqued what you actually said. So if I haven't accurately represented your position, it is because you have not accurately or completely articulated it.

The accusations of impatience are starting to get stale, though. You've been commenting more than a week, sometimes at length, and have yet to support the notion that biblical slavery is morally acceptable. I'll be as patient as you need me to be, but I suspect the emperor is naked here.

Please. Prove me wrong. But stop saying you're going to. Any minute now. After these messages.

Sorry, but trying to shift it to the readers and deny it, doesn't change facts. The moment you "attempt" to present my "position", that responsibility falls on you the person giving it. It is a straw man, it is not my position, and in order to avoid it, as most people do, they ask questions to ensure they accurately represent another's opinion before going off half cocked.

Again, trying to shift blame, because I wasn't accurate or articulate enough, doesn't change facts. The moment you "attempt" to present my "position", that responsibility falls on you the person giving it. It is a straw man, it is not my position

And unfortunately, neither you nor I I have unlimited time to spend on this. So unfortunately, patience is necessary. I will continue as long as you are willing to continue. I only ask that before you try to present my opinion and position, you ask questions to ensure you got it correct! That's all! Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine.

I see the strawman fallacies have begun..

Maybe not purposefully and maybe because I wasn't clear in what I've explained thus far, or maybe because you have yet to be patient and let me fully explain yet (No, I haven't finished explaining). Either way, you have not explained my position accurately, and thus your opinions of your strawman are irrelevant.

I choose the highlighted portion as the reason for my alleged failure to accurately portray your position, although I do not see a hint of inaccuracy in how I portrayed what you actually wrote. If my characterization of what you wrote is lacking, I submit the relevance of what you posted is equally lacking. You also gave no indication that you weren't done.

I can be as patient as you need me to be. But you're trying that patience. You seem to have oodles of time to promise to get to the point, in comparison to the time you're spending actually getting there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last thing: calling the Nelson Bible Dictionary unbiased has to be a joke, right? I'm not suggesting it's dishonest, but unbiased? It's apologetic. It's biased by definition.

Please read the Nelson entry on the holy Spirit and tell me again it's unbiased.

You just made me laugh, literally. You previously asked for a biblical perspective and I offered it. Now for a person that does not actually believe the bible has any real truth, for example possibly yourself, then a biblical perspective would be biased to them.

From a biblical perspective there is the God of this world, Satan and God the father of Jesus Christ. Two different gods. Sorry, but God is not now preventing every evil that Satan promotes. Satan would need to get figuratively chained up for that. The bible says God will do this in the future, but not now. In the mean time I hope you can at least see that Jesus Christ did not promote slavery in his earthly life. Or as this biblical study points outs regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ.

"But the implications of the gospel, especially the ethic of love, stand in opposition to slavery."

Edited by Mark Sanguinetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just made me laugh, literally. You previously asked for a biblical perspective and I offered it. Now for a person that does not actually believe the bible has any real truth, for example possibly yourself, then a biblical perspective would be biased to them.

I have no problem with you offering a biblical perspective. I just laugh that you call it "unbiased." It's not unbiased. It's apologetic. It's a Biblical perspective. A Biblical perspective is not an unbiased perspective. It's a Biblical one. And that's ok. That is not a controversial statement. Nelson wouldn't publish someone who recognized God's failure to condemn slavery as a moral lapse. That alone makes them biased on the subject. It does not invalidate a word of the article.

Mark, once again you are repeating the assertion that I'm someone who "does not actually believe the bible has any real truth." That statement is false. I am politely asking you to stop making that assertion, because it is not true. Ok? Do we have a deal on that?

Edited by Raf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...