Amen.

everything in the bible is not GODS command nor are the commands that are there commanded of ALL people

the bible has accounts of mans laws and punishments as well as GOD's words (through Christ) of how to apply love and respect

no matter whether we call ourself slave or employee, spouse or maid, we are SERVING others in some capacity and if those we SERVE are also following the regulations of GOD(through christ) regarding how to treat others,, there is nothing evil in it,,,

AB,

I am either a liar or you are wrong. Take your pick. If you want to consider me a liar, that's fine. If you think I'm a liar, then I won't waste my time or effort responding to any more of your posts. If you admit that you might be wrong, read the links below.

Does the Bible condone slavery?

The Bible and Slavery

I refuse to be called a liar by people who want to twist the Bible to repudiate Christianity. It's absolutely disgusting the depths of depravity to which these people will reach. A fair judgment is a fair judgment. Some Christians used scriptures to support slavery, but an honest person would have to admit those scriptures were misused and abused. It is galling that you and others deny that slavery in ancient Israel was voluntary. That's not even questioned by historians. Nobody doubts that (except ignorant, narrow minded bigots), it's recorded in the Bible and the Talmud. If you want to call me a liar, there is nothing I can do about that, except ignore you and your responses.

Could it be that you're wrong and not a liar?

Looks like a false dilemma ta me Spider.

You think that because biblical slavery was nationality based rather than race-based that that somehow makes bilical slavery immune to being slavery?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

Evidently there is some confusion regarding what constitutes being slavery. Even though the term is found in many, if not all, biblical translations, the apologeticists(is atta word?) claim that what is described in the Bible is not slavery. Nevermind that that stands in direct opposition to what the text says.

We cannot go around changing the meaning of words in order to justify a false belief.

When the 'Children of Israel' are told (as it is written more than once) to 'sack', 'rape', and take for themselves a town, city or tribe... Followed by an extortion (or so it is written more than once) to kill some and enslave some...

One is left wondering who wrote the words... God... Or some leader that needed something from said town.

These things exist within that book... I reckon biblical scholars that do not question are blinded by their own faith.

Slaves gained by war are not 'willing' unless it is to save themselves from being 'put to the sword'.

no, my point is not that there wasnt slavery, my point is equating the regulations imposed upon slavery that existed in biblical times with condoning ALL forms of slavery is intellectually dishonest

nor should we use one brush to paint every situation with

or ignore the fact that translations are a tricky matter and that CONTEXT can give many different meanings to the same set of words

I have not changed the meaning of any words, I have ACKNOWLEDGED the many different CONTEXTUAL implications a word can have


'Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away".
Matthew 5:38-42

now certainly, this did not mean that SLAPPING someone was acceptable, yet the situation was addressed because it was a REALITY that was being faced

similarly with SLAVERY, which was already a reality of the time, in many different forms and for many different reasons, the SITUATION was addressed and BOTH parties were regulated in their behavior

so that ANY type of slavery was indeed not condoned, and certainly the ABUSIVE forms of slavery that were persistent in western culture,,, BEHAVIORS of both slaveowner and slave were morally regulated by the bible because both were HUMAN enough to be expected to have MORALS,,,,unlike the chattel slavery which DE HUMANIZED the human property

There are no instructions for any Hebrews to rape anyone. Rape was a serious crime among the Hebrews and raping anyone would have resulted in the death penalty.







So if you didn't like being a slave for whatever reason, you could run away and the law protected you and you were allowed to live as a free man.

It is funny to see how far some will go to justify wrongdoing in the bible.

Then your point addresses things that are not in evidence.

I have not equated the 'regulations' imposed upon slavery that existed in biblical times with condoning all forms of slavery. Obviously the kind of slavery that existed in America was not exactly like all forms of biblical slavery, nor need it it be. Those differences are not what made it slavery. The fact that American slavery differs does not make biblical slavery change. It is still a form(s) of slavery.

"Slavery" is a term attributed to a set of living conditions. Those conditions are what make a human a "slave". It is called "slavery" for quite specific reasons. Biblical slavery, as it is described within the text, meets those conditions. My point is that focusing upon the minor differences between regulations/forms was your tactic. There were different kinds of slaves in the text and they were treated like the kind of slaves that they were. The fact that some were life-long slaves and some were not does not change the fact that they were slaves. The fact that there are differences between some forms of modern slavery and some forms of biblical slavery does not change the fact that biblical slavery is "slavery".

The fact that the Bible did not admonish slavery itself because of the inherent immorality that is extant in all forms of slavery is just one reason of many which constitute the ground which supports the conclusion that the Bible condones slavery.

Let's look at those reasons, shall we?

Your statement of rewards only come after death is simplistic at best, and totally incorrect. The rewards come in this life from having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. lf you never had a relationship with Him, then you would not understand that His love has no comparison in this world. Once you experience this, you will understand how rewarding life as a Christian is. He only wants the best for us all, and when this relationship develops, you will willingly do as He asks, knowing that it is the best for you. As for the point of homosexuality, The Christian should love the sinner, but hate the sin. As a Christian, it would not be appropriate to stand up and condone what God, the Creator of the Universe, says is wrong. This would be like standing up for a child molestor, who continually does the same thing without repentance. So therefore, as a Christian, if the homosexual acknowledges his sin, and repents, then as a Christian, we have to forgive and love them. By not condoning such behavior, it is, in effect, loving that person, whether they are a child molester, a murderer, a thief, or an adulterer. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Sin of any kind leads to death, including homosexuality.

It is rather curious, not so much regarding how far any particular person here is going, but how far anyone who wished to defend any sort of literal translation has to go in order to do so.

This lends merit, once again, to the OP.

First post too.

Every aspect of brainwashing is used in religion to make them repeat the same things over and over.

Welcome to the General Religion thread and hope you are okay with those who do not believe you are right for everyone.

Edited out the entire post. I would rather not digress from the current discussion.

Technically speaking there is no defense for what is written in the bible except that it was written by men a long aas time ago with all the unhealthy social ills that man had back in the day.

Men writing stories and speculating on things they could not explain in some cases so they blamed a god or gods for them.

Some of the writers appear to have been smoking peyote or something along those lines for some of the stories like Revelations.

I have read the book from front to back and memorized stuff from the book in bible school and I am here to tell people it is no more the word of god than what I wrote here.

Context is irrelevent to what constitutes being a "slave". It has no bearing upon the criterion that must be met in order for a human to be a slave. It makes no sense to call someone a "slave" who is not a slave. The biblical scholars who translate the Bible are fully aware of this.



There are several different problems with this. Murder, idol worship, working on the Sabbath, using God's name in vain, dishonoring one's parents, lying, and many other behaviors were also already a reality, and yet they were not "morally" regulated.

There is no regulation of that which is forbidden. Slavery is not forbidden. It is regulated. A regulated behavior must be first deemed acceptable. Acceptable behaviors are regulated. Unacceptable behaviors are not - those are forbidden.

Do you not see the problem here?



Here is an example of changing the meaning of the term dehumanize in order to internally justify holding the belief that biblical slavery was somehow not dehumanizing. Calling a human "property" IS dehumanizing - first and foremost.

Slavery being "morally" regulated? Do you not SEE the problem here? Can we "morally regulate" murder, rape, the killing of innocents? Perhaps it be better put like this...

We cannot "morally" regulate immoral behavior. To regulate behavior is to instruct how it is to be performed. Regulating slavery is condoning not only it's existence, but further instructing how it is to be done.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.