Bachman gets confronted by 8-yr old on sexuality.

[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

[ElNono]

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

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 ed things up. They proved that liberal Utopia is a fantasy for mankind.

[ChumpDumper]

So God is an asshole landlord.

[redzero]

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, cir cised nor uncir cised, 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…

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.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshol...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 ins utionalizing 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 ins utionalize 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 unen bered 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 Hit e 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 ing 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 ed 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 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.