Bachman gets confronted by 8-yr old on homosexuality.

[JoeChalupa]

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/watch-8-year-old-confront-bachmann-on-homosexuality.php

Using children to confront political candidates with awkward questions is often an embarrassing exercise for all involved. This instance is no exception, but it’s highly watchable.

Michele Bachmann had a rough encounter with an 8-year-old at a signing of her book Core of Conviction in South Carolina on Sunday. The child, Elijiah, whispered his line to Bachmann while his mother stood beside him.

“Ms. Bachmann, my mommy’s gay but she doesn’t need any fixing,” the child said.

[LnGrrrR]

Good for the kid. I'd hope that Bachmann might be ashamed, but I don't think she has that capacity, being devilspawn and all.

[spursncowboys]

I doubt you even know her position on homosexuality. She had a good interview with glenn beck this morning.
i honestly this that is disgusting anytime kids are used for their parent's political views.

[Spurminator]

I doubt you even know her position on homosexuality. She had a good interview with glenn beck this morning.
i honestly this that is disgusting anytime kids are used for their parent's political views.

It's not a political view, it's a human rights view.

[spursncowboys]

human rights as in how?

[Spurminator]

As in how preferential treatment is given to select (heterosexual) consenting adult couples based on religious standards on marriage.

[Stringer_Bell]

Bachmann is a lying bitch, but that doesn't mean you can use kids to lob bombs on her. The fact that the moment was so far from organic means that it doesn't even count as a GOTCHA! moment. It's a stupid, useless, and inconsequential moment caught on video and I want to slap that mom for putting her obviously socially awkward child up to it.

[Spurminator]

Eh, I'd usually be pretty opposed to something like this, but it's not like the kid was used to argue for mommy's right to have an abortion, or to pay lower taxes, or to copy baseball games without the express written consent of Major League Baseball.

Basically, the message instilled in this kid is "Your parents are normal and you should not be ashamed of them." It's one thing to pawn your kid off on a message that wouldn't otherwise be consequential to him until later in his life, but this issue will be relevant to him while he's growing up.

[Spurminator]

Eh, I'd usually be pretty opposed to something like this, but it's not like the kid was used to argue for mommy's right to have an abortion, or to pay lower taxes, or to copy baseball games without the express written consent of Major League Baseball.

Basically, the message instilled in this kid is "Your parents are normal and you should not be ashamed of them." It's one thing to pawn your kid off on a message that wouldn't otherwise be consequential to him until later in his life, but this issue will be relevant to him while he's growing up.

[Drachen]

Spurminator feels twice as strongly about this as the rest of us.

[MannyIsGod]

My initial reaction was one against it but Spurm brings up a good point.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I just wish gay people whould stop choosing to be gay..

[Spurminator]

Spurminator feels twice as strong about this as the rest of us.

:lol

Too much free time this morning. Gotta argue about something.

[spursncowboys]

As in how preferential treatment is given to select (heterosexual) consenting adult couples based on religious standards on marriage.

So you want a federal law forcing churches to marry same sex couples?

What is wrong with states allowing something no other generation in 5000 years of recorded history to do, as a sign of our more progressing and enlightened culture?

How is that going against human rights?

[Drachen]

:lol

too much free time this morning. Gotta argue about something.

lol

[Drachen]

So you want a federal law forcing churches to marry same sex couples?

What is wrong with states allowing something no other generation in 5000 years of recorded history to do, as a sign of our more progressing and enlightened culture?

How is that going against human rights?

He is saying that preferential treatment is given by government based on religious traditions and this should be changed to reflect that whole equality thing we were founded on. Not that the government should force a change by religious institutions.

[CuckingFunt]

So you want a federal law forcing churches to marry same sex couples?

No. No one wants that. Churches can and should be allowed to turn away any couple seeking marriage that they don't feel comfortable with.


What is wrong with states allowing something no other generation in 5000 years of recorded history to do, as a sign of our more progressing and enlightened culture?

Huh?


How is that going against human rights?

"Human rights" generally implies equality.

[ChumpDumper]

So you want a federal law forcing churches to marry same sex couples?Only the Church of the Eternal Straw Man.

[spursncowboys]

He is saying that preferential treatment is given by government based on religious traditions and this should be changed to reflect that whole equality thing we were founded on. Not that the government should force a change by religious institutions.

what government programs exactly are we talking about?
Do you want a blanket change in all government programs?

[ChumpDumper]

what government programs exactly are we talking about? Seriously?

Do you want a blanket change in all government programs?Sounds like it.

[spursncowboys]

Your troll makes better posts.

[ChumpDumper]

Your troll makes better posts.Which one?

[mingus]

People are basically saying that religous people shouldn't be forcing their beliefs on anyone else. That's what Judeo-Christianity is all about. That's one of its tenents, to try to shape the world in terms of Judeo-Christianity. The fact that they have that liberty is what this country is all about.

[clambake]

Your troll makes better posts.

tbh, fear of the gays is gayer than the gay.

[ChumpDumper]

People are basically saying that religous people shouldn't be forcing their beliefs on anyone else. That's what Judeo-Christianity is all about. That's one of its tenents, to try to shape the world in terms of Judeo-Christianity. The fact that they have that liberty is what this country is all about.They have the liberty to force their beliefs on other people and take away their liberty!

[mingus]

that is one of the religious tenents. they actively try to shape their society. they have a right to excercise those beliefs.

[ChumpDumper]

that is one of the religious tenents. they actively try to shape their society. they have a right to excercise those beliefs.And others have the right to tell you to fuck yourself when you try to force your beliefs on them.

[LnGrrrR]

that is one of the religious tenents. they actively try to shape their society. they have a right to excercise those beliefs.

And others have the right to insult and mock them.

Edit: Too late I see. Kudos Chump.

[mingus]

And others have the right to tell you to fuck yourself when you try to force your beliefs on them.

I'm simply doing as God instructs me to do. You've just told God to go fuck himself.

[Blake]

I'm simply doing as God instructs me to do.

lolwtflol


You've just told God to go fuck himself.

so what will God do if someone tells Him to fuck himself?

[clambake]

I'm simply doing as God instructs me to do. You've just told God to go fuck himself.

so, now you think you're god?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm simply doing as God instructs me to do.So you've been told by men.
You've just told God to go fuck himself.If he's everything that's been claimed, he's done worse to me.

[mingus]

Being instructed by God is not a choice. Just like being homosexual is not a choice.

[Blake]

so, now you think you're god?

some might say he is part of the body of Christ.

I might say the dick part.

[Blake]

Being instructed by God is not a choice.

sucks for you.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

God supports slavery, persecuting homosexuals, and telling rape victims they must give birth to their rapists' child.

Sounds like someone I'd have no problem telling to fuck himself.

[101A]

As in how preferential treatment is given to select (heterosexual) consenting adult couples based on religious standards on marriage.

There is no discrimination. A gay man can marry all the gay, or even straight women he wants (1 at a time).

As it is, I, as a straight man, am tired of being discriminated against. If I want to add a partner to my employer sponsored health plan, I have to marry her! A gay guy? Just has to say - "This is my partner - add him".

[Spurminator]

As it is, I, as a straight man, am tired of being discriminated against. If I want to add a partner to my employer sponsored health plan, I have to marry her! A gay guy? Just has to say - "This is my partner - add him".

Assuming that's correct, if there was an official process in place for gay marriage, that gay guy would have to get a marriage license just like you.

[ChumpDumper]

There is no discrimination. A gay man can marry all the gay, or even straight women he wants (1 at a time).

As it is, I, as a straight man, am tired of being discriminated against. If I want to add a partner to my employer sponsored health plan, I have to marry her! A gay guy? Just has to say - "This is my partner - add him".This is really your argument?

[LnGrrrR]

There is no discrimination. A gay man can marry all the gay, or even straight women he wants (1 at a time).

As it is, I, as a straight man, am tired of being discriminated against. If I want to add a partner to my employer sponsored health plan, I have to marry her! A gay guy? Just has to say - "This is my partner - add him".

You could just pretend to be gay! And I assume the process is a bit more rigorous than you imply.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm simply doing as God instructs me to do. You've just told God to go fuck himself.

What if God instructed me to tell you to go fuck yourself?

You've just heard God tell you to fuck yourself, in that case.

[ChumpDumper]

You could just pretend to be gay! And I assume the process is a bit more rigorous than you imply.
Right, just add any straight guy you want!

[CosmicCowboy]

The very fact that the mother used her child like that kind of indicates she needs some "fixin". Fucking attention whore...

[coyotes_geek]

There is no discrimination. A gay man can marry all the gay, or even straight women he wants (1 at a time).

As it is, I, as a straight man, am tired of being discriminated against. If I want to add a partner to my employer sponsored health plan, I have to marry her! A gay guy? Just has to say - "This is my partner - add him".

???

Granted it's a small sample size, but both my wife and I have employer plans that include domestic partners and I don't recall either saying that a domestic partner has to be same sex.

[101A]

You could just pretend to be gay! And I assume the process is a bit more rigorous than you imply.

No, in most cases, it is not. Seriously.

[101A]

???

Granted it's a small sample size, but both my wife and I have employer plans that include domestic partners and I don't recall either saying that a domestic partner has to be same sex.

Trust me, it does.

[101A]

This is really your argument?

Sure, why not?

[ChumpDumper]

Sure, why not?Great, then you can add any straight man you want to your plan. Even if you are married to someone else, apparently.

[coyotes_geek]

Trust me, it does.

Cut & pasted directly from my employer's benefits enrollment material....

Your domestic partner who is an opposite-sex
or same-sex partner who lives with you and with
whom you are legally registered or have filed an
affidavit with (CG's employer) attesting to such.

[Spurminator]

So you want a federal law forcing churches to marry same sex couples?

Not the least bit.

[Drachen]

???

Granted it's a small sample size, but both my wife and I have employer plans that include domestic partners and I don't recall either saying that a domestic partner has to be same sex.

My wife was on my insurance before she was my wife. They recognized DP, no matter what the sexual orientation.

[Blake]

Trust me, it does.

Oops no. Mine also says same or opposite sex.

[101A]

Cut & pasted directly from my employer's benefits enrollment material....

Your domestic partner who is an opposite-sex
or same-sex partner who lives with you and with
whom you are legally registered or have filed an
affidavit with (CG's employer) attesting to such.


Doh!

pwned.

[Drachen]

Doh!

pwned.

its alright we all have intellectually lazy moments which affect a broad view of the world sometimes.

:LOL

[George Gervin's Afro]

People are basically saying that religous people shouldn't be forcing their beliefs on anyone else. That's what Judeo-Christianity is all about. That's one of its tenents, to try to shape the world in terms of Judeo-Christianity. The fact that they have that liberty is what this country is all about.

Well so does Islam...

[Ginobilly]

Judeo-Christians far outnumber any other religious/sub-cultures groups(gays, jews, muslims, transgender people, etc) that the laws mirror the cultural values of the group. They're the alpha-males of society because they built the infrastructure of it. I give at least a couple more hundred years till Christians change their stance on homosexual acts. If not, you could always start a new society on another continent that promotes homosexuality and free sex for everyone. I guess you could start telling the kids that getting it up the ass is another way of getting off, like jacking off, or having heterosexual intercourse.

[clambake]

wut

[Jamtas#2]

Generally, I find myself to be more conservative than liberal on issues, but in this case I believe homosexuals should be able to marry and get all of the same benefits afforded to hetrosexual couples. Seeing as how ~1/2 of all marriages end in divorce, the argument that homosexuality somehow is against the sanctity of marriage is ridiculous. Making it legal, does not mean the Catholic church (for example) is now forced to marry gay couples. They an other churches/religions can choose to close their doors to whom they choose, but the ones who will allow it should be permitted to do so. Having had gay friends and relatives, I can not fathom believing any of them are somehow immoral, misguided or unfit to enter the bonds of matrimony or even raise children as successfully as any of us "heteros".

And on the topic of what God is telling you to do, please take a moment to reflect that there is someone with a completely different viewpoint as yourself claiming their hatred of you & your beliefs is a result of what God is telling them to do.

The words of God have brought some of the greatest and worst parts of man to the forefront. From all of the biblical studies of my youth, Jesus preached tolerance and love of his fellow man no matter what. I constantly lose faith in those who use their teaching primarily for the purpose of persecution and war. That goes for Christians, Muslims, etc - no one group is guilty or innocent of it. And those are the ones who pick and choose their religious teachings to fit what they want.

[JoeChalupa]

The boy was standing up for his mother. :tu

[boutons_deux]

"religous people shouldn't be forcing their beliefs on anyone else. That's what Judeo-Christianity is all about."

"Christians" and Mormon weirdos think the Bible requires them to convert, more or less aggressively, non-Christians.

[spursncowboys]

God supports slavery, persecuting homosexuals, and telling rape victims they must give birth to their rapists' child.

Sounds like someone I'd have no problem telling to fuck himself.
Ok Moses. How does God feel about accounting students who regurgitate
everything their professor says?

[Wild Cobra]

God supports slavery, persecuting homosexuals, and telling rape victims they must give birth to their rapists' child.

Sounds like someone I'd have no problem telling to fuck himself.
Will you please show me a passage where God supports slavery? The way I understand the Bible, is God's followers are told to obey the laws of man also. Slavery was already part of man's laws.

[spursncowboys]

The boy was standing up for his mother. :tu

He sounds like he was too, and not just resaying what his mother and cameraman had told him to say.

[spursncowboys]

The end of slavery in America was started from a crazy notion that God created every man equal.

[Blake]

The end of slavery in America was started from a crazy notion that God created every man equal.

Bible God doesn't know about that notion.

[cantthinkofanything]

Will you please show me a passage where God supports slavery? The way I understand the Bible, is God's followers are told to obey the laws of man also. Slavery was already part of man's laws.

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness (WHITE): and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." Genesis 1:26 AKJV

[LnGrrrR]

Will you please show me a passage where God supports slavery? The way I understand the Bible, is God's followers are told to obey the laws of man also. Slavery was already part of man's laws.

If God supported man's laws, and man's laws included slavery, then it can be reasoned that God supported slavery.

[JoeChalupa]

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness (human): and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." Genesis 1:26 AKJV

FIFY . No where in the Bible does it have (WHITE). Good try though and Jesus was not white.

[Blake]

Will you please show me a passage where God supports slavery?

God obviously didn't think slavery was a sin.

By default, slavery gets two holy thumbs up.

[Wild Cobra]

If God supported man's laws, and man's laws included slavery, then it can be reasoned that God supported slavery.
Maybe in your mind, but not in mine. Also remember that slavery as we think of it today was not the only way the word was used then.

[Blake]

Maybe in your mind, but not in mine. Also remember that slavery as we think of it today was not the only way the word was used then.

Show me the passage where God openly denounces the evils of slavery.

[Wild Cobra]

Show me the passage where God openly denounces the evils of slavery.
LOL...

You want God to settle this? I doubt there is any, but there might be. He did have Moses free his people from slavery, but I don't think that qualifies as an answer to your question.

[Phenomanul]

Indentured servitude from the old testament is no different than being a slave to the workforce... you work for pay (food and a roof over your head). Hence, you have to follow the rules of your employer (master) otherwise you can get penalized (dock in pay, unpaid "off time", or even employment termination). People could actually work off their slavery, unlike the slavery of African-Americans that tarnished our country's past. Then there's the passage that talks about 'beating the slaves' into discipline... slightly different context but not all that disimillar to childrearing...

Not that you all would even consider the implications of the New Covenant in all of this...

[Blake]

LOL...

You want God to settle this? I doubt there is any, but there might be. He did have Moses free his people from slavery, but I don't think that qualifies as an answer to your question.

No.


Genesis 17:

9And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

13He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

[ElNono]

Indentured servitude from the old testament is no different than being a slave to the workforce...

Sure it is.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Will you please show me a passage where God supports slavery? The way I understand the Bible, is God's followers are told to obey the laws of man also. Slavery was already part of man's laws.
God sucks at his job if he couldn't find an alternative to slavery.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Ok Moses. How does God feel about accounting students who regurgitate
everything their professor says?
great comeback

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Indentured servitude from the old testament is no different than being a slave to the workforce
:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao

[ElNono]

God sucks at his job if he couldn't find an alternative to slavery.

:lol And the "already were laws of men" part cracks me up...

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

It's just one of many justifications bible bangers come up with to vindicate their belief that the bible is more than a whacked out book of fairy tales.

[Blake]

Leviticus 25 KJV

45 Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property.
46 And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.

[cantthinkofanything]

FIFY . No where in the Bible does it have (WHITE). Good try though and Jesus was not white.

Yes he was. Haven't you seen the pictures?
But I'm sure he would have liked the negros and Mexicans if they would have been around.

[Phenomanul]

Not that you all would even consider the implications of the New Covenant in all of this...

For those of you all with highly selective reading...

[ChumpDumper]

Not that you all would even consider the implications of the New Covenant in all of this...Which are?

[Phenomanul]

Which are?

Not sure if serious?

In the remote, unlikely chance that you were... I don't have time to discuss that now. I'm on my way back to the office to resolve a pending matter.

[ChumpDumper]

Not sure if serious?Why not?

If the New Covenant means nothing before counts*, why even have anything before it?











* - Unless you say someone said GOD says it does

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

'm on my way back to the office
tbh why would you wanna work at an office and do the equivalent of slave labor?

[lazerelmo]

Two mom's. Poor kid. If he had a daddy, I think he would have opted for "fishing with Dad" instead of "Bookstore with mom". Maybe he'll get the video game Mom promised him when she put him up to it.

[ElNono]

If the New Covenant means nothing before counts*, why even have an Old Testament?

Would "we make stuff as we go" be a logical response?

[LnGrrrR]

Maybe in your mind, but not in mine. Also remember that slavery as we think of it today was not the only way the word was used then.

Well, if God is omnipotent, then it follows that he could do anything. Therefore, if he disagree with slavery, he could make it disappear. Or heck, if you want to support free will, he could've made "not keeping slaves" a commandment.

[Blake]

For those of you all with highly selective reading...

highly selective Bible reading


Luke 12

Luke 12:45-47
King James Version (KJV)

45But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;

46The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

47And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

new covenant same as the old covenant

[ChumpDumper]

Well, if God is omnipotent, then it follows that he could do anything. Therefore, if he disagree with slavery, he could make it disappear. Or heck, if you want to support free will, he could've made "not keeping slaves" a commandment.Also, he could make just one covenant and stick with it.

I guess he gave himself a mulligan on the first one.

[Blake]

Would "we make stuff as we go" be a logical response?

but that would be intellectual dishonesty

[Wild Cobra]

Well, if God is omnipotent, then it follows that he could do anything. Therefore, if he disagree with slavery, he could make it disappear. Or heck, if you want to support free will, he could've made "not keeping slaves" a commandment.
Do you believe God was a liberal or something? He gave Adam and Eve the garden, and they fucked things up. They proved that liberal Utopia is a fantasy for mankind.

[ChumpDumper]

So God is an asshole landlord.

[redzero]

:lol at people defending the fact that the God of the Bible is perfectly okay with slavery.

[Phenomanul]

Luke 12

Luke 12:45-47
King James Version (KJV)

45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;

46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

new covenant same as old covenant


LOL… that’s your argument? You’re trying to pass off some metaphorical passage from the New Testament (one that clearly speaks about Judgment Day) as a ‘New Covenant’ sanctioned, biblical endorsement on slavery??? Tis’ truly laughable, and an indication that you have zero grasp of the Scriptures whatsoever (but that’s expected from someone who mockingly reads the Bible without any intent of actually understanding the Scriptures themselves or from someone who has acknowledged the half-hearted effort that they ''only attend church to appease [their] mom'')…

To bolster your argument, you could have gone with say… Ephesians 6:5-9 (but even that passage has a contextual caveat that precludes us from making the suggestion that it too, endorses slavery…) I could explain that context, but someone out there already has:



I read Ephesians 6:5 through new eyes after this encounter: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ" (NLT). Different translations use the word "servant" or "bondservant," but enough of the newer translations use "slave" to where there's little doubt about whom the apostle Paul was speaking - the slaves in the Roman Empire.

So does this make Paul a racist? Does it make the church an advocate of slavery? I understand the distress of this professor, a fairly new believer herself, who wanted to reassure her students that it's not possible. And it's no secret that slave traders and slave owners used the Bible to justify this evil practice.

In fact, in doing research, I found numerous accusations in philosophical and historical debates thrown at the church for its role (or lack of) in dealing with slavery. A quick internet search finds rebukes such as: "In spite of all the Christian churches in the American South I don't recall reading of any outcry against slavery before the civil war. Where were the churches and God-fearing Christians during segregation in the South in the earlier part of the last century?...The truth is your Christian churches upheld a lot of racism."

Sadly, there is some truth to that. It's a grievous period of church history, but it's only a small portion of church history, because there were in fact many who stood up to slavery, many who risked lives and reputations to fight slavery. The whole truth of the Gospel and the Christian faith is about freedom.

I know that there were many political and economic forces that drove the Civil War, but for many, it was about freedom and against slavery.

One of the strongest expressions of anti-slavery sentiment came from Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811-1896), who wrote her novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852) from a strong Christian perspective. Talk about the power of the written word! Her book is widely recognized as a major influence in causing the people of the North to turn against slavery. Abraham Lincoln called her, "The little woman who wrote the book that made this great war." She came from a prominent family of theologians, married a theologian, and helped raise the consciousness of the Church to fight slavery.

Anti-slavery activists in the United States were heavily influenced by William Wilberforce (1759-1833), who fought for 50 years against slavery in Britain, basing his opposition on Biblical morality. Wilberforce realized that 1 Timothy 1:10 lists slave traders with murders, adulterers, perverts, liars and other evil people.

Wilberforce in turn had been influenced by the preaching of John Newton (1725-1807), who wrote the famous hymn Amazing Grace. Newton had been a slave trader before his conversion to Christianity. He eventually left the trade, and joined forces with the great evangelists George Whitfield, John Wesley, and Frederick Douglas to preach the Gospel and stand against slavery. Newton also became a minister, and testified to King George III about the atrocities of the slave trade.

Everything about the Gospel of Christ proclaims freedom! Jesus came to se us free-free from the oppression of sin, free from bondage. "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed," he proclaimed John 8:36.

How Does God Feel About Slavery?
How does God feel about slavery? The story of Moses is the great story of redemption and freedom in the Old Testament, where God moves with passionate fervor, causing miraculous signs, wonders, and plagues,even inflicting death upon the firstborn children of Egypt to free the Israelites. Freedom came at a great cost - as it always does. The story of Moses, who was a foreshadowing of Christ, is the story of God setting His people free. God believes in freedom!

A spiritual bond between the children of Israel and the slaves was forged across the centuries, described by Harriet Beecher Stowe as she wrote, in a different book: "Nations struggling for liberty against powerful oppressors flee as instinctively to the Old Testament as they do to mountain ranges. The American slave universally called his bondage Egypt, and read the history of the ten plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea as parts of his own experience. In the dark days of slavery, the history of Moses was sung at night, and by stealth, on plantations, with solemn rhythmic movements, reminding one of Egyptian times" (Woman in Sacred History). 3

The great story in the New Testament is summed up in the book of Luke where Jesus the Messiah quotes Isaiah 61: "The Spirit of the Lord is on Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight to the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor" Luke 4:18, NIV.

God cares so deeply for those in captivity--of any kind- -that He sent His only Son to suffer and die for our freedom.

So what then did Paul mean by Ephesians 6:5? Paul was giving instructions for helping slaves and masters to live together in peace while the church was being forged, because virtually every household in the Roman Empire was affected by a slave/master relationship. It is estimated that there were some 60 million slaves in the Roman Empire and that as many as one-third of the population of large cities such as Rome, Corinth and Ephesus were slaves. Many within the Church were either slave or master - and everyone was still sorting out how to navigate these relationships in view of the newfound faith.

Paul was trying to lift the mentality of these new believers from a slave/ master relationship to one of brotherhood, humility, servanthood, and love on all sides; doing good in service to the Lord, no matter what our lot in life. Just a few verses later he said, "And masters, treat them [slaves/servants] the same way, without threatening them, because you know that both their and your Master is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with Him" Ephesians 6:9.

Paul could not change the political landscape immediately, but he could preach the truth that God has no partiality and does not regard one race above another; thus would begin the change in men's hearts that would eventually change their practices. Later, in the book of Philemon we read where Paul exhorted his friend to free his escaped slave Onesimus, "that you might receive him forever, no longer as a slave but more…as a beloved brother…both in the flesh and in the Lord" Philemon 15-17.

Where Christ's love is lived by the power of the Spirit, unjust relationships and barriers are broken down. The Roman Empire ultimately disintegrated and collapsed under the weight of its depravity and sin, and the brutal and exploitive system of slavery collapsed with it - due to the power and influence of Christianity. I also believe that the prayers and influence of those who obeyed God helped awaken our nation to the utter sinfulness and shame of having tolerated slavery.

The Word of God, wherever it is shared truthfully, by the power of God's Holy Spirit, sows the seeds of a beautiful community "where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all" Colossians 3:11.

BTW there’s no way of ‘sweetening’ the message of what will come to pass on Judgment Day; GOD will deliver Judgment and punishment to all those who have rejected Him, because His attributes of HOLINESS and JUSTICE demand it... And despite ElNono’s continued assertion that this future somehow makes Christians ‘live in fear,’ it’s quite the opposite – GOD will not hold our sinful actions against us because we have deposited our faith in Jesus’ finished work on the cross. It is Jesus’ redemptive payment (more on that later), that absolves us from the receiving the punishment that we would have otherwise had to face.



Also, he could make just one covenant and stick with it.

I guess he gave himself a mulligan on the first one.

Ummm… no… Adam and Eve broke the ‘first’ covenant, not GOD. The Hebrew nation then went on and distorted/broke GOD’s covenant with Abraham, Israel and Moses countless of times requiring the need for GOD to provide a far more reaching, and eternally redemptive pact known as the New Covenant; this one, paid for by Christ’s shed blood grafts us (any willing believer) into the joy of the ‘unbroken communion’ that Adam [mankind] enjoyed under the original covenant. Christ Himself, however, came to fulfill the requisites of the ‘Old Covenant’ (a covenant that was strictly given to only the Hebrew nation) because its demands were ultimately untenable on account of our human nature. Not that you actually care to truly understand the tenets of my faith… and will predictably type out another sarcastic snippet, to prove that indifference…



:lol at people defending the fact that the God of the Bible is perfectly okay with slavery.

There’s much contempt in your simplistic, subjective desire to interpret Scriptures without proper context and historical accuracy. Sure, if you’re intellectually lazy go ahead and keep doing that. And… you can call me crazy for all I care; I’m not the one ignoring history for the sake of justifying a godless, hateful stance. :lol



http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/skeptics/03slavery.html
Consider the following observations made by Paul Copan:

Hebrew Servanthood as Indentured Servitude
We should compare Hebrew debt-servanthood (many translations render this “slavery”) more fairly to apprentice-like positions to pay off debts -- much like the indentured servitude during America’s founding when people worked for approximately 7 years to pay off the debt for their passage to the New World. Then they became free.

In most cases, servanthood was more like a live-in employee, temporarily embedded within the employer’s household. Even today, teams trade sports players to another team that has an owner, and these players belong to a franchise. This language hardly suggests slavery, but rather a formal contractual agreement to be fulfilled -- like in the Old Testament.

Through failed crops or other disasters, debt tended to come to families, not just individuals. One could voluntarily enter into a contractual agreement (“sell” himself) to work in the household of another: “one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself” Leviticus 25:47. A wife or children could be “sold” to help sustain the family through economically unbearable times -- unless kinfolk “redeemed” them (payed their debt). They would be debt-servants for 6 years. A family might need to mortgage their land until the year of Jubilee every 50 years.

Note: In the Old Testament, outsiders did not impose servanthood -- as in the antebellum South. Masters could hire servants “from year to year” and were not to “rule over [them] ruthlessly” Leviticus 25:46, 53. Rather than being excluded from Israelite society, servants were thoroughly embedded within Israelite homes.

The Old Testament prohibited unavoidable lifelong servanthood -- unless someone loved his master and wanted to attach himself to him Exodus 21:5. Masters were to grant their servants release every seventh year with all debts forgiven Leviticus 25:35-43. A slave’s legal status was unique in the ancient Near East (ANE) -- a dramatic improvement over ANE law codes: “Hebrew has no vocabulary of slavery, only of servanthood.”

An Israelite servant’s guaranteed eventual release within 7 years was a control or regulation to prevent the abuse and institutionalizing of such positions. The release-year reminded the Israelites that poverty-induced servanthood was not an ideal social arrangement. On the other hand, servanthood existed in Israel precisely because poverty existed: no poverty, no servants in Israel. And if servants lived in Israel, this was voluntary (typically poverty-induced) -- not forced.

The Dignity of Servants in Israel
Israel’s servant laws were concerned about controlling or regulating -- not idealizing -- an inferior work arrangement. Israelites entered into servitude voluntarily -- though not optimal. The intent of Israel’s laws was to combat potential abuses, not to institutionalize servitude. The Old Testament punished forced slavery by death. Once a master freed a person from his servant obligations, the former servant had the “status of full and unencumbered citizenship.”

Old Testament legislation sought to prevent voluntary debt-servitude. God gave Mosaic legislation to prevent the poor from entering, even temporarily, into voluntary indentured service. The poor could glean the edges of fields or pick lingering fruit on trees after their fellow Israelites’ harvest Leviticus 19:9-10; 23:22; Deuteronomy 24:20,21; cp. Exodus 23:10. Also, God commanded fellow-Israelites to lend freely to the poor Deuteronomy 15:7-8, and to not charge them interest Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:36, 37. And when the poor could not afford sacrificial animals, they could sacrifice smaller, less-expensive ones Leviticus 5:7, 11. Also, people were to automatically cancel debts every 7 years. And when a master released his debt-servants, he was to generously provide for them -- without a “grudging heart” Deuteronomy 15:10. The bottom line: God did not want there to be any poverty (or servanthood) in Israel Deuteronomy 15:4. So, servant laws existed to help the poor, not harm them or keep them down.

Rather than relegating treatment of servants (“slaves”) to the end of the law code (commonly done in other ANE law codes), the matter is front-and-center in Exodus 21. For the first time in the ANE, God’s legislation required treating servants (“slaves”) as persons, not property. Genesis 1:26, 27 affirms that all humans are God’s image-bearers. Job states that master and slave alike come from the mother’s womb and are ultimately equals Job 31:13-15. As one scholar writes: “We have in the Bible the first appeals in world literature to treat slaves as human beings for their own sake and not just in the interests of their masters.”

Three Remarkable Provisions in Israel
A simple comparison of Israel’s law code with those of the rest of the ANE reveal three remarkable differences. If Bible-believing Southerners had followed these three provisions, antebellum slavery would not have existed or been much of an issue.

1. Anti-Harm Laws: One marked improvement of Israel’s laws over other ANE law codes is the release of injured servants Exodus 21:26, 27. When an employer (“master”) accidentally gouged out the eye or knocked out the tooth of his male or female servant/employee, he/she was to go free. God did not allow physical abuse of servants. If an employer’s disciplining his servant resulted in immediate death, that employer (“master”) was to be put to death for murder Exodus 21:20 -- unlike other ANE codes. In fact, Babylon’s Hammurabi’s Code permitted the master to cut off his disobedient slave’s ear (¶282). Typically in ANE law codes, masters -- not slaves -- were merely financially compensated. The Mosaic Law, however, held masters to legal account for their treatment of their own servants -- not simply another person’s servants.

2. Anti-Kidnapping Laws: Another unique feature of the Mosaic Law is its condemnation of kidnapping a person to sell as a slave -- an act punishable by death Exodus 21:16; cp. Deuteronomy 24:7. Kidnapping, of course, is how slavery in the antebellum South could get off the ground.

3. Anti-Return Laws: Unlike the antebellum South, Israel was to offer safe harbor to foreign runaway slaves Deuteronomy 23:15, 16 a marked contrast to the Southern states’ Fugitive Slave Law. Hammurabi’s Code demanded the death penalty for those helping runaway slaves (¶16). In other less-severe cases in the Lipit-Ishtar (¶12), Eshunna (¶49-50), and Hittite laws (¶24) fines were exacted for sheltering fugitive slaves. Some claim that this is an improvement. Well, sort of. In these “improved” scenarios, the slave was still just property; the ANE extradition arrangements still required that the slave be returned his master. And not only this, the slave was going back to the harsh conditions that prompted him to run away in the first place. Even upgraded laws in first millennium BC Babylon included compensation to the owner (or perhaps something more severe) for harboring a runaway slave. Yet the returned slaves themselves were disfigured, including slitting ears and branding. This isn’t the kind of improvement to publicize too widely.

Old Testament scholar Christopher Wright observes: “No other ancient near Eastern law has been found that holds a master to account for the treatment of his own slaves (as distinct from injury done to the slave of another master), and the otherwise universal law regarding runaway slaves was that they must be sent back, with severe penalties for those who failed to comply.”

If the South had followed these three clear laws from Exodus and Deuteronomy, slavery would have been a nonissue. What’s more, Israel’s treatment of servants (“slaves”) was unparalleled in the ANE.

Lastly, it is good to remember that the Israelites themselves were slaves of the Egyptians for 400 years and God delivered them, bringing judgment on all of Egypt for this oppression. God hates it, and so God delivering His people from the bonds of slavery is one of the key themes of Scripture, and the Exodus points us to Christ who sets us free from bondage.

[Blake]

LOL… that’s your argument? You’re trying to pass off some metaphorical passage from the New Testament (one that clearly speaks about Judgment Day) as a ‘New Covenant’ sanctioned, biblical endorsement on slavery??? Tis’ truly laughable, and an indication that you have zero grasp of the Scriptures whatsoever (but that’s expected from someone who mockingly reads the Bible without any intent of actually understanding the Scriptures themselves)…

Metaphorical or not, Jesus said it as non-chalant common place .

It truly would have been a perfect opportunity for him to denounce slavery.

But he didn't.


BTW there’s no way of ‘sweetening’ the message of what will come to pass on Judgment Day; GOD will deliver Judgment and punishment to all those who have rejected Him, because His attributes of HOLINESS and JUSTICE demand it... And despite ElNono’s continued assertion that this future somehow makes Christians ‘live in fear,’ it’s quite the opposite – GOD will not hold our sinful actions against us because we have deposited our faith in Jesus’ finished work on the cross. It is Jesus’ redemptive payment (more on that later), that absolves us from the receiving the punishment that we would have otherwise had to face.

God's a fucking hypocritical asshole.

Now thanks to Jesus, I'm going to be spending eternity in a gated community with streets of gold next door to this asshole.

Thanks a lot, JC.


Ummm… no… Adam and Eve broke the ‘first’ covenant, not GOD. The Hebrew nation then went on and distorted/broke GOD’s covenant with Abraham

Part of God's covenant with Abraham was allowing him to have slaves.

[LnGrrrR]

Do you believe God was a liberal or something? He gave Adam and Eve the garden, and they fucked things up. They proved that liberal Utopia is a fantasy for mankind.

Right, but since he's omniscient, he already knew that Adam and Eve would fuck it up before he even created them, right?

[LnGrrrR]

God cares so deeply for those in captivity--of any kind- -that He sent His only Son to suffer and die for our freedom.



But he didn't care enough to make, say, a commandment forbidding the purchase or ownership of another person.

Let's face it, the Bible pretty much contradicts itself on every major position, in order to give fuel to both sides.

[Blake]

Let's face it, the Bible pretty much contradicts itself on every major position, in order to give fuel to both sides.

There's apparently a clause in the new covenant that negates contradictions between old and new testaments

[Phenomanul]

Metaphorical or not, Jesus said it as non-chalant common place .

It truly would have been a perfect opportunity for him to denounce slavery.

But he didn't.

Some logic...

That's such a non-sequitor and you know it... We all talk about many disagreeable topics, and we don't all make parenthetical side comments about our stance on those topics every time we talk about them... especially when they aren't even the central argument or topic of a discussion... In your selection Jesus was clearly talking about Judgment Day, not his take on the existing social structure...

So, by your logic, the next time you talk about pedophiles, drug use, murder, fraud or any other undesirable activity be sure to use disclaimers that you don't endorse those activities otherwise the clear implication is that you do... :rolleyes Or perhaps the next time you talk about Whataburger or McDonald's, the clear implication is that you endorse obesity... :rolleyes That logic is silly. You know it... of course, if it doesn't suit the needs of your argument you will side-step it to death...


God's a fucking hypocritical asshole.

Now thanks to Jesus, I'm going to be spending eternity in a gated community with streets of gold next door to this asshole.

Thanks a lot, JC.

And clearly your spiteful venomous comments very much define you...

We've been down this road before.


Part of God's covenant with Abraham was allowing him to have slaves.


Either you're being deliberately dense, or you have no clue what a covenant is...

[Phenomanul]

But he didn't care enough to make, say, a commandment forbidding the purchase or ownership of another person.

Let's face it, the Bible pretty much contradicts itself on every major position, in order to give fuel to both sides.

Foremost commandment according to Jesus:

"Love GOD, with all your heart, soul, and mind."

2nd most important commandment according to Jesus:

"Love thy neighbor as thyself."

Ooooops. There's goes that theory. Try again.

[Blake]

Some logic...

That's such a non-sequitor and you know it...

get to it then.

Where in the New Testament or new convenant is slavery condemned?


And clearly your spiteful venomous comments very much define you...

We've been down this road before.

and your spiteful venomous comments are very Christ-like.

or not.


Either you're being deliberately dense, or you have no clue what a covenant is...

Genesis 17 speaks of God's covenant with Abraham:


Verse 13 KJV: He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

Either you are being deliberately dense, you are illiterate or you simply haven't read your Bible.

[LnGrrrR]

Foremost commandment according to Jesus:

"Love GOD, with all your heart, soul, and mind."

2nd most important commandment according to Jesus:

"Love thy neighbor as thyself."

Ooooops. There's goes that theory. Try again.

If that's an example of your debating prowess, I'm not very impressed. Tell me phen, was Jesus a lover or a fighter? The Bible has verses to support both. The same goes for slavery.

Trying to compare slavery to indentured servitude doesn't really work, if the children of the "indentured servants" become your property.

[spursncowboys]

great comeback

If slinging around ridiculous one liners fill with generalities, which you do all the time, then I take this to not being facetious.
So christians are all secretly fascists who want to instill christianity into everyone. forced upon them, which goes against all of god's teachings. And soldiers are nothing but murderers and baby killers who would have been trash men and auto repairmen if it werent for the big evil war machine?

[ElNono]

BTW there’s no way of ‘sweetening’ the message of what will come to pass on Judgment Day; GOD will deliver Judgment and punishment to all those who have rejected Him, because His attributes of HOLINESS and JUSTICE demand it..

I thought this was sarcasm...

[Phenomanul]

If that's an example of your debating prowess, I'm not very impressed. Tell me phen, was Jesus a lover or a fighter? The Bible has verses to support both. The same goes for slavery.

First off, who said I was trying to impress YOU...


Trying to compare slavery to indentured servitude doesn't really work, if the children of the "indentured servants" become your property.

I take it you didn't fully read the article nor any of the biblical context surrounding the Hebrew code... Servants were released from slavery during Jubilee every 50 years (no matter the size of the debt). They were also released every 7 years (for various other reasons stipulated in the Scriptures). In other words, an indentured debt couldn't be held against someone or his children forever.

In your example, a credit had to be taken by the parents of the child for a 'master' to take 'possesion' of a servant's child (sounds like payment to me, not just some arbitrary 'abduction')... Imagine if your premise were true. Someone who 'owned' a slave girl could become infinitely rich if he just bred her ad naseum as if she were a farm cow. :lol Clearly, that's not what was going on...

But yeah... go on and keep making blanket statements that "GOD somehow endorses slavery" because He happens to provide provisions that protect the servants from their masters... Especially when His desire (and decree) is that people would actually learn to love other people as themselves... Come now, you can't expect GOD to take fiscal accountability for everyone's bad financial choices...

As for your lover/fighter comment? Ever heard of the concept of pluralism? Can one be both a son and a father? In Jesus case He was both man and GOD. He was both LORD and servant. All powerful and completely submissive. Even in a relativistic context, something can be both small and large. So can one be both lover and fighter? I would say, "yes." Given proper context, that combination is possible. :wakeup

Look, feel free to believe what you want. All I'm saying is that the justification for your disbelief in GOD can't be based on some some flimsy micharacterization of GOD's nature or on your limited understanding thereof. That's a philosophical cop-out.

[Phenomanul]

I thought this was sarcasm...

Clearly, the "get your kicks in" portion of that comment was...

And no...

I'm still not living in fear... :wakeup

[clambake]

how's your daddy, phen?

[Blake]

I take it you didn't fully read the article nor any of the biblical context surrounding the Hebrew code... Servants were released from slavery during Jubilee every 50 years (no matter the size of the debt). They were also released every 7 years (for various other reasons stipulated in the Scriptures). In other words, an indentured debt couldn't be held against someone or his children forever.


The Holiness Code in Leviticus clearly states that non-Hebrew slaves could be slaves forever:


Leviticus 25:44-46
King James Version (KJV)


44Both 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.

45Moreover 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.

46And 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.

:cry old covenant for the heathen sucks

btw, you're an idiot

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I've got an honest question. If its true that according to Christian belief, any non believer is doomed to hell? which means that more than half the population of this world is doomed, correct?

How exactly does one reconcile the notion of an all benevolent God who makes it so that more than half of his children enter his world already doomed through no fault of their own other than having been born into the wrong religion?

Someone explain that one to me plz

[clambake]

I've got an honest question. If its true that according to Christian belief, any non believer is doomed to hell? which means that more than half the population of this world is doomed, correct?

How exactly does one reconcile the notion of an all benevolent God who makes it so that more than half of his children enter his world already doomed through no fault of their own other than having been born into the wrong religion?

Someone explain that one to me plz

"though shalt worship no other god"

he's covering his bases.

[Blake]

I've got an honest question. If its true that according to Christian belief, any non believer is doomed to hell? which means that more than half the population of this world is doomed, correct?

How exactly does one reconcile the notion of an all benevolent God who makes it so that more than half of his children enter his world already doomed through no fault of their own other than having been born into the wrong religion?

Someone explain that one to me plz

Do orthodox Jews go to Heaven?

[Phenomanul]

get to it then.

Where in the New Testament or new convenant is slavery condemned?


Where GOD commands us "to love thy neighbor's as thyself". Where Jesus tells us that he was sent to earth "to free mankind from their bondage, and to redeem us." Or where Jesus says, GOD "has sent Me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight to the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor". Where 1 Timothy 1:10 lists slave traders with murders, adulterers, perverts, liars and other evil people (sounds rather condemning to me). Where Paul writes in Colossians 3:11 that in the Church "there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all" (sounds like equality)...

I don't know, take your pick.



and your spiteful venomous comments are very Christ-like.

or not.

I've never said I hated you... or that I wished you were dead... You on the other hand have lashed out with that type of comment... But go ahead... run with this strawman.

Oh and just so that we're clear on what I was referencing as "spiteful and venomous"...



God's a fucking hypocritical asshole.

Now thanks to Jesus, I'm going to be spending eternity in a gated community with streets of gold next door to this asshole.

Thanks a lot, JC.


I think that would qualify... you're pretty bitter dude. You don't have to curse everyone out.




Genesis 17 speaks of God's covenant with Abraham:

Either you are being deliberately dense, you are illiterate or you simply haven't read your Bible.

So GOD told Abraham that his servants had to get circumcised along with all others in his household? OK? You're still failing to connect how that passage(considering there is no word for "slave" in Hebrew) relates to modern-day slavery. Ultimately, that is where our disagreement falls.

[Phenomanul]

The Holiness Code in Leviticus clearly states that non-Hebrew slaves could be slaves forever:

:cry old covenant for the heathen sucks

btw, you're an idiot

Mistranslation. Show me the word "forever" in Hebrew, and I'll show you that this is not the word that was written in that passage. :wakeup

Sorry, you've been misled.

[Blake]

Where GOD commands us "to love thy neighbor's as thyself". Where Jesus tells us that he was sent to earth "to free mankind from their bondage, and to redeem us." Or where Jesus says, GOD "has sent Me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight to the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor". Where 1 Timothy 1:10 lists slave traders with murders, adulterers, perverts, liars and other evil people (sounds rather condemning to me). Where Paul writes in Colossians 3:11 that in the Church "there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all" (sounds like equality)...

nothing in this paragraph denounces slavery.

The literal translation of 1 Timothy 1:10 is not "slave traders".

You've been misled.


I've never said I hated you... or that I wished you were dead... You on the other hand have lashed out with that type of comment... But go ahead... run with this strawman.

Oh and just so that we're clear on what I was referencing as "spiteful and venomous"...

I never said I hated God or wished he were dead. I'm not even sure he's alive or real.

I'm also not sure why you think I'm directing hate towards anyone, especially yourself.

You are very clearly the one running with straw.


I think that would qualify... you're pretty bitter dude. You don't have to curse everyone out.

straw marathon


So GOD told Abraham that his servants had to get circumcised along with all others in his household? OK? You're still failing to connect how that passage(considering there is no word for "slave" in Hebrew) relates to modern-day slavery. Ultimately, that is where our disagreement falls.

I bolded the part that says "bought with money".

I'm not sure you understand what the definition of slavery is.

[Blake]

Mistranslation. Show me the word "forever" in Hebrew, and I'll show you that this is not the word that was written in that passage. :wakeup

Sorry, you've been misled.


Leviticus 25:44-46
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)


44`And thy man-servant and thy handmaid whom thou hast [are] of the nations who [are] round about you; of them ye buy man-servant and handmaid,

45and also of the sons of the settlers who are sojourning with you, of them ye buy, and of their families who [are] with you, which they have begotten in your land, and they have been to you for a possession;

46and ye have taken them for inheritance to your sons after you, to occupy [for] a possession; to the age ye lay service upon them, but upon your brethren, the sons of Israel, one with another, thou dost not rule over him with rigour.

This is the literal translation. I think "to the age" in this context clearly implies that it means 'forever'. Feel free to explain what you think it means.

[Blake]

Sorry, you've been misled.

ftr, I also find it hilarious that you are telling me that I've been misled by King James...

which in turn means that ordained ministers have been misleading church goers for hundreds of years....

[Phenomanul]

ftr, I also find it hilarious that you are telling me that I've been misled by King James...

which in turn means that ordained ministers have been misleading church goers for hundreds of years....

I'll address your other posts tomorrow... I'll be on my way to Dallas and typing responses through the mobile version of the website sucks...

But I'll comment on this post, before I head out of the house.

I was suggesting you were being misled by whatever website filled your mind with the notion that GOD endorses the brutality of slavery or that He doesn't desire that we be free individuals... I simply don't buy the assertion that you somehow catalogued each and every Biblical "servanthood" reference on your own. Like I said, you were misled by the atheistic agenda of those websites you frequent... I saw all of these same out-of-context references in that website RG posted awhile back concerning amputees...

As for the implications of the New Covenant: Jesus Himself said that "He makes all things new" that He would establish a Kingdom of Righteousness and harmony and furthermore that He came to "liberate the captives free"... that somehow you don't see this statement as a condemnation on the oppression of slavery is beyond me... You have chosen to be conveniently blind only to suit the needs of your argument...

Also 1 Timothy 1:10 references "slave traders" as:

andrapodistais
ἀνδραποδισταῖς
men-stealers,
kidnappers of free men
enslavers
slave dealers

Sounds like modern slavery to me... and listed among the other evil acts... i.e. condemned by the New Covenant through Christ.

The King James Bible as monumental accomplishment as it was is not free of translation errors... the few that were incurred (less than 40 or so), however, have been corrected with the aid of older source codex scrolls and the Dead Sea Scrolls Septuagint. NONE of them, however, detract from the central message because, the Bible as a whole clearly establishes the purpose of Christ's redemptive act and expounds on GOD's desire that "all mankind be saved, and that none should perish".

[ElNono]

Clearly, the "get your kicks in" portion of that comment was...

Disagree about "clearly". Disappointed that the whole thing wasn't in jest, tbh.

[ChumpDumper]

As for the implications of the New Covenant: Jesus Himself said that "He makes all things new" that He would establish a Kingdom of Righteousness and harmony and furthermore that He came to "liberate the captives free"Why didn't he do that the first time around?

Lazy or just a tease?

[LnGrrrR]

I take it you didn't fully read the article nor any of the biblical context surrounding the Hebrew code... Servants were released from slavery during Jubilee every 50 years (no matter the size of the debt). They were also released every 7 years (for various other reasons stipulated in the Scriptures). In other words, an indentured debt couldn't be held against someone or his children forever.

In your example, a credit had to be taken by the parents of the child for a 'master' to take 'possesion' of a servant's child (sounds like payment to me, not just some arbitrary 'abduction')... Imagine if your premise were true. Someone who 'owned' a slave girl could become infinitely rich if he just bred her ad naseum as if she were a farm cow. :lol Clearly, that's not what was going on...

Interesting that you're cool with someone owning the child of an indentured servant for ANY amount of time. But I guess just owning a child for a few years isn't that bad, right?


But yeah... go on and keep making blanket statements that "GOD somehow endorses slavery" because He happens to provide provisions that protect the servants from their masters... Especially when His desire (and decree) is that people would actually learn to love other people as themselves... Come now, you can't expect GOD to take fiscal accountability for everyone's bad financial choices...

So God supports responsible slave-owning then, correct?


As for your lover/fighter comment? Ever heard of the concept of pluralism? Can one be both a son and a father? In Jesus case He was both man and GOD. He was both LORD and servant. All powerful and completely submissive. Even in a relativistic context, something can be both small and large. So can one be both lover and fighter? I would say, "yes." Given proper context, that combination is possible. :wakeup

Thank you for agreeing with my point. In multiple cases of the Bible, arguments can be made for both sides of a point, and the Bible can provide ammunition for both sides from various passages.


Look, feel free to believe what you want. All I'm saying is that the justification for your disbelief in GOD can't be based on some some flimsy micharacterization of GOD's nature or on your limited understanding thereof. That's a philosophical cop-out.

I don't need a "justification" for my disbelief, anymore than you need a "justification" for your disbelief in Zeus, or Allah, or Odin. And if you think that my lack of belief hinders on whether or not God supported slavery, or didn't, then you're way off the mark.

[LnGrrrR]

I've got an honest question. If its true that according to Christian belief, any non believer is doomed to hell? which means that more than half the population of this world is doomed, correct?

How exactly does one reconcile the notion of an all benevolent God who makes it so that more than half of his children enter his world already doomed through no fault of their own other than having been born into the wrong religion?

Someone explain that one to me plz

Free Will is usually the catch-all answer.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

So christians are all secretly fascists who want to instill christianity into everyone. forced upon them, which goes against all of god's teachings. And soldiers are nothing but murderers and baby killers who would have been trash men and auto repairmen if it werent for the big evil war machine?
Glad to see you're catching on :tu

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Gotta love the bible thumper's arguments on slavery

:cry slavery back then wasn't like slavery today, people wanted to be slaves and enjoyed it :cry

[Obstructed_View]

So you want a federal law forcing churches to marry same sex couples?

What is wrong with states allowing something no other generation in 5000 years of recorded history to do, as a sign of our more progressing and enlightened culture?

How is that going against human rights?

Federal law doesn't have to force anyone to do anything, it simply has to prevent lower jurisdictions from infringing on someone's rights. A gay couple can be attracted to each other, fall in love, raise a family, be faithful to each other and stay together until they die, which constitutes a marriage by any measurable standard. If a church refuses to issue a marriage certificate, that's their right, but a local government should not be allowed to refuse to issue one if there's no fraud involved. I'm not sure that marriage is a basic human right, but saying that a gay couple can't get married is about as arbitrary as saying a gay person can't drive a car.

[Blake]

I'll address your other posts tomorrow... I'll be on my way to Dallas and typing responses through the mobile version of the website sucks...

But I'll comment on this post, before I head out of the house.

I'll be sitting on pins and needles.


I was suggesting you were being misled by whatever website filled your mind with the notion that GOD endorses the brutality of slavery or that He doesn't desire that we be free individuals... I simply don't buy the assertion that you somehow catalogued each and every Biblical "servanthood" reference on your own. Like I said, you were misled by the atheistic agenda of those websites you frequent... I saw all of these same out-of-context references in that website RG posted awhile back concerning amputees...

Googled "slavery bible"

resulted in Wikipedia: slavery in the Bible, list of verses.


As for the implications of the New Covenant: Jesus Himself said that "He makes all things new" that He would establish a Kingdom of Righteousness and harmony and furthermore that He came to "liberate the captives free"... that somehow you don't see this statement as a condemnation on the oppression of slavery is beyond me... You have chosen to be conveniently blind only to suit the needs of your argument...

Since when does "captives" means "slaves"?


Also 1 Timothy 1:10 references "slave traders" as:

andrapodistais
ἀνδραποδισταῖς
men-stealers,
kidnappers of free men
enslavers
slave dealers

Sounds like modern slavery to me... and listed among the other evil acts... i.e. condemned by the New Covenant through Christ.

sounds like men-stealers and kidnappers of free men to me from what you put there.


The King James Bible as monumental accomplishment as it was is not free of translation errors... the few that were incurred (less than 40 or so), however, have been corrected with the aid of older source codex scrolls and the Dead Sea Scrolls Septuagint. NONE of them, however, detract from the central message because, the Bible as a whole clearly establishes the purpose of Christ's redemptive act and expounds on GOD's desire that "all mankind be saved, and that none should perish".

Is King James correct here when it says "forever"?

Is the literal translation correct when it says

"45 and also of the sons of the settlers who are sojourning with you, of them ye buy, and of their families who [are] with you, which they have begotten in your land, and they have been to you for a possession;"?

[spursncowboys]

Federal law doesn't have to force anyone to do anything, it simply has to prevent lower jurisdictions from infringing on someone's rights. A gay couple can be attracted to each other, fall in love, raise a family, be faithful to each other and stay together until they die, which constitutes a marriage by any measurable standard. If a church refuses to issue a marriage certificate, that's their right, but a local government should not be allowed to refuse to issue one if there's no fraud involved. I'm not sure that marriage is a basic human right, but saying that a gay couple can't get married is about as arbitrary as saying a gay person can't drive a car.

Great take :toast

[redzero]

Phenomanul types so much but says so little.

It's interesting how God's stance on slavery changes. If he is supposed to be a perfect being, one would reasonably assume that he got the rule right the first time.

[spursncowboys]

I've got an honest question. If its true that according to Christian belief, any non believer is doomed to hell? which means that more than half the population of this world is doomed, correct?

How exactly does one reconcile the notion of an all benevolent God who makes it so that more than half of his children enter his world already doomed through no fault of their own other than having been born into the wrong religion?

Someone explain that one to me plz

There are some denominations, like the catholics I believe, that believe someone who was true to their belief would go to heaven. I honestly wonder the same thing. It hasn't been covered directly in the bible.

[spursncowboys]

Q: Can other religions lead to Heaven too?
A: No. Jesus said there is only one way, and that way is not a religion, not even Christianity. That way is Jesus Himself. People who think other religions lead to the same place forget that everyone does not even want to go to the same place. For example, many Hindus desire to rejoin an eternal life, die for the last time, lose their individuality, and be absorbed in a cosmic consciousness. Buddhists want to go to Nirvana, where among other thing, there is no love or joy. Muslims refuse to worship Jesus and are taught to fight against Christians. Either this pleases God or it displeases God, but it cannot be both. Everyone does not all worship the same God, because God does not have multiple personality disorder! In addition to all the verses referenced in the first question, there are five main things Scripture teaches about Jesus being the only way.
a) Only One Way: Imagine, before Jesus' terrible torture and crucifixion, Jesus praying in the Garden in Gethsemane saying "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me", and God the Father saying, "Your dying on the cross is not needed to take away people's sins, we're just going through all this for fun." Jesus' death did not provide an "alternative way" to go to Heaven. Jesus is the one and only way.
b) Narrow is the gate and way that leads to eternal life (Matthew 7:14). Can someone like a Buddhist ever go to Heaven? Sure, because my father-in-law and mother-in-law were Buddhists, before they rejected Buddhism and came to Christ. A Muslim who wants to come to Christ has to realize that when Mohammed fought against Christianity, he was against the Triune God of Christianity.
c) Sacrifices a person sincerely might make to idols, are sacrifices to demons, not God. (1 Corinthians 10:19-20; Deuteronomy 32:16-17). C.S. Lewis wrote otherwise near the end of his book, The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. C.S. Lewis was wrong here.
d) However, God desires that none perish (2 Peter 3:9; Ezekiel 18:23,32). The narrowness is not due to God's lack of love, or withholding information, but due to people's rejection of God (Romans 1:18-21) and not combining what they know with faith (Hebrews 4:2).
e) Everyone who trusts in Jesus will never be put to shame (Romans 10:11b)
f) People have to call on one whom they believe, whom they have heard about, who have been preached to. (Romans 10:14-15)
An illustration might help here. Suppose you were on an island and you were warned that a hurricane was coming. There is a narrow bridge connecting the island to the mainland. It really does not matter which road you take on the island, or which way you go, as long as you do not want to leave the island. If you want to escape the hurricane though, you have to cross the bridge to the mainland. Now the typhoon of judgment for mankind’s sin in coming to our island called earth. God invites us all to cross the bridge He has provided for us and escape. If we choose not to cross God’s bridge though, then our destruction is our own fault.
When Helen Keller, who was blind and deaf, learned to communicate with the outside world, her teacher shared with her about God. Helen said that she always knew He was there, but she just did not know His name.
Contrary view: Pope John Paul II and many liberal Protestants believe that many religions lead people to the same God, that Jesus is the best way, but not the only way. Jesus said, "no one comes to the Father, but through Me." (John 14:6). If you are going to the same place as all the other religions lead, or you can go to a different place, where Jesus leads.
http://www.biblequery.org/Doctrine/NeverHeardTheGospel/WhatAboutThoseWhoDiedBeforeHearingTheGospel.htm

[LnGrrrR]

An illustration might help here. Suppose you were on an island and you were warned that a hurricane was coming. There is a narrow bridge connecting the island to the mainland. It really does not matter which road you take on the island, or which way you go, as long as you do not want to leave the island. If you want to escape the hurricane though, you have to cross the bridge to the mainland. Now the typhoon of judgment for mankind’s sin in coming to our island called earth. God invites us all to cross the bridge He has provided for us and escape. If we choose not to cross God’s bridge though, then our destruction is our own fault.



Other examples of that logic:

"I told that woman that if she didn't want me to beat her, all she had to do was give me a BJ. She chose not to take the easy way out."

"I told that guy that if he just shut up about our illegal operations, he could keep his job. He chose to blab."

"I offered the guy the option to hand me over his wallet or take a bullet. If he chooses not to hand over the wallet, that's his problem."

[Trainwreck2100]

.

“Ms. Bachmann, my mommy’s gay but she doesn’t need any fixing,” the child said.

gay-



doesn't need fixing






does not compute

[Jacob1983]

How many 8 year old kids know who Bachman is or would want to meet her? Kids don't care about politics and hippie shit.

[DMC]

The 8 year old doesn't know mommy licks vagina. She will learn though.

[Jacob1983]

But seriously, why would a kid want to meet Michelle Bachman? I don't get it. I know it was a stunt by the mom to be political but it's kind of pathetic on the mom's part.
The mom obviously doesn't like Bachman or Bachman's views so why even do it? Was it done just to stick it to the evil Republican bigot conservative female?

[DMC]

But seriously, why would a kid want to meet Michelle Bachman? I don't get it. I know it was a stunt by the mom to be political but it's kind of pathetic on the mom's part.
The mom obviously doesn't like Bachman or Bachman's views so why even do it? Was it done just to stick it to the evil Republican bigot conservative female?
The same reason kids meet some old bearded man in the mall and sit on his lap, because Mom wants it.

But the kid was right. If mom is Gay, she doesn't need to be fixed. She's already thwarted her child production.

[ChumpDumper]

Was it done just to stick it to the evil Republican bigot conservative female?As good a reason as any.

[CavsSuperFan]

Well what a delightful story …Just what this country needs…Another screwed up kid because Mommy went to the dark side…How dare any parent change teams after bringing children into this world…

[Blake]

...An illustration might help here. Suppose you were on an island and you were warned that a hurricane was coming. There is a narrow bridge connecting the island to the mainland. It really does not matter which road you take on the island, or which way you go, as long as you do not want to leave the island. If you want to escape the hurricane though, you have to cross the bridge to the mainland. Now the typhoon of judgment for mankind’s sin in coming to our island called earth. God invites us all to cross the bridge He has provided for us and escape. If we choose not to cross God’s bridge though, then our destruction is our own fault.....


Suppose the fire department invites us all to have fire department services for a relatively reasonable $75 fee.

If we choose not to pay the fee and our houses catch fire, then the death and destruction is our own fault.

[JoeChalupa]

Bill O was a total idiot last night on his show. Saying that an 8 yr old doesn't know about homosexuality? Maybe his 8 yr old kid doesn't know because he's been sheltered from reality. What a jerk.