"Slavery" in the Bible

[POI]

Allow us readers to be very careful. We must make sure we identify the proper context here, to assure against hasty and/or self-serving conclusions.

Exodus 21:2-3:

"2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him." <-- Okay, this seems clear enough, if you are a purchased Hebrew, with a wife, you are both to go free in year 7.

Exodus 21:4:

"4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free." <-- Here is where things start to look sketchy for the modern-day believer. If the slave is provided with a wife, and they have kids, the wife and kids are to stay with the slave master. They are not to go free.

Exodus 21:5-6:

"5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life." <-- More uncomfortability for the Christian here. Without getting into the weeds, common sense suggests a special rule is made to trick the male Hebrew into remaining a slave for life.

Leviticus 25:44-46:

"44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." <-- More awkwardness for the believer, as the Bible reader clammers to find a rationale to make this passage not read the way it does.

Here is a basic definition of chattel slavery --> "Chattel slavery is full slavery in its traditional form whereby slaves are the complete property of their master, can be bought and sold by him and treated in any way that he wishes, which may include torture and other brutality, excessively bad working conditions, and sexual exploitation"

Looks like all the ingredients fit the given Bible description here, minus the torture. Wait a minute, this is covered in the rest of Exodus 21. (i.e.):

"20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." <-- So basically, since the slave is your property, beatings with impunity are acceptable. Just don't kill them.

For debate:

By applying common sense, does/did the Bible ever, and/or currently still sanction chattel slavery?

Again, by using common sense, can a believer effectively use the Bible in support of breeding chattel slaves?

************************

Before you answer, consider this.... Since the NT does not mention the abolition of 'slavery', and yet the Bible makes further proclamation(s) and/or addendums (in favor of retaining 'slavery',) this means the Bible is not against chattel slavery either. Further, the Christian may want to introduce the importance of the 'golden rule'. However, the specifics outweigh the generals. The specifics of the rules for engagement of slavery are outside the 'golden rule'. Otherwise, the Bible would be a one-pager. 'Slavery' is an expressed exception to the general rule. Thus, anytime a specific scenario is not invoked, yes, 'golden rule.'

[tam]

Peace to you,

Come on now. How is this any different than me or any other theist saying to you, "Yeah, well you can dismiss it and make it about what you happen to think, but to we faithful and anyone whose mind is not closed, it is clear that one cannot listen to Christ and enslave another person against their will at the same time...."

I did not resort to anything personal in my remarks to make my point. I did not have to. I also used what is written in the bible that is under discussion to make my argument.

If you ignore your interlocutors, you can certainly retain your statement(s). But, me being patient, here they are again:

It is NOT clear, that one can listen to Christ and think it's okay to enslave another person against their will.... Why?

Because one cannot listen to Christ and think it's okay to enslave another person against their will.

I suspect you phrased your sentence wrong unintentionally. But the fact remains that you cannot listen to Christ and think it's okay to enslave another person against their will.

Just ask yourself these questions:

If I must treat others as I wish to be treated, can I enslave another person against their will?

If I must love others as I love myself, can I enslave them against their will?

Does God or Christ force me to serve them? How then can I force someone else to serve me?


In your 30+ years of seeking to hear God's voice, did you think that you could listen to Christ and at the same time enslave another person against their will?

**

(2-4 thousand years ago, selling oneself might have been a means of survival, of gaining food and shelter or the protection of a household, of paying off a debt you owed. I don't know, I wasn't there, but it might have been better than the alternative - starving or homeless or forced to turn to crime, or imprisoned for a debt, or dead. Outright forbidding it could have taken away some choices for those who had few to none. Even though God DID say what He wanted: for the oppressed to be set free and for every yoke to be broken.)

1. Leviticus mentions the "golden rule", while still providing instruction for chattel slavery. The specifics outweigh the generals. If God never mentioned slavery, then sure, 'golden rule'. Exceptions exist for the general rule. Chattel slavery was an exception made by God. Did Jesus agree with his dad here?

You think I have ignored 'my interlocutors' but I have already responded to this.

"In EVERYTHING you do, do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Everything leaves no room for exceptions to the rule.

God also said in the OT that He hates divorce, and yet, Moses gave the people (the men) permission to divorce (their wives) but made sure they had to meet certain stipulations: providing her with a certificate of divorce, which at least freed her up to remarry. He did not say it was good. He just worked with what he had to work with. The best of a bad situation, so to speak, due to the hard hearts of the people.

2. Jesus goes out of his way to mention many things to do, INSTEAD of just mentioning the second "greatest" Commandment-- (the golden rule). He goes out of his way to mention no stealing, no lying, no adultery, no murder, treat your mom with respect, and etc... Heck, he even emphasizes NOT to work on the Sabbath. But for some strange reason, even though many of these are all completely redundant, when compared to the 'golden rule', he leaves out "don't own other people as property"?

He mentioned some of the commandments - which He says are all summed up in the greatest two: love God with all your heart and mind and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself.

--- Even though His dad provided instructions to do so in a previous book in which Jesus pledged allegiance to.

Christ did not pledge allegiance to a book and there was certainly no commandment TO own slaves. Provisions were made in the law, however, for a people whose hearts were hard.

I guess this topic was NOT important enough for him to issue a one-liner, even though it would end up being one the greatest recorded 'atrocities' in human history to date. I have to ask, is lying always a sin? More-so than owning another person? If not, why did Jesus mention lying, but nothing about chattel slavery? They BOTH apply to the golden rule, and yet Jesus goes out of his way to mention stuff, which appears trivial, in comparison. Again, a one-liner would have been sufficient.

Without having to assume that it must mean He approved of people being enslaved against their will (something that is clearly not true):

- Perhaps it was unnecessary (because He knew His sheep would understand based on His words, example, and commands: including the command that we are to make OURSELVES least ones and that we are OURSELVES to serve others.)

- Perhaps it would have caused greater harm to people at that time (think revolts and executions, butting heads with Rome/Caesar).

- Perhaps it was the only means some had to make a living (shelter, food, debts paid, protection of a household, etc).

- Perhaps it was not even an issue among His disciples? Are any of them even written to have had slaves (especially against their will)? You can't use the Centurion as an example since he was not Jewish, and you do not know the situation between him and his slave (the man could have been willing, the man could also have loved his master and wanted to remain in a household that greatly valued him.)

3. Being that Jesus did not write anything to paper, and we are to rely upon oral tradition, how in the heck are we to know exactly what Jesus did and did not say?

Sure, for all you know, He could have said something more specific about it. He said and did more things than are written down, after all.

Plus, the only commandments that God is said to have written Himself are the ten inscribed on the two stone tablets. How do you know which of the rest came straight from Him, or might have been allowances made in the law, or might have been laws that were mishandled by the lying pen of the scribes?




Peace again to you.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to tam in post #131]

Nice try but not good enough Those who listened to Christi kept slavery up to the 18th c. Clearly even where they didn't do slavery, inequality.exploitation and abuse was still a thing. The Overarching commandment doesn't make everyone play nice, and while the Fall and man's sin can be used to shift the blame, a God should have known it and given specific instructions. Just as a specific point was made about divorce. Because rules were given?They were with slavery. They weren't in the commandments? That just shows that God didn't care. Slavery was ok. The overarching 'play nice' PLUS a commandment not to kill goes in the Bin as God orders it all the time.

So these are special conditions and the Commandment is there to back it up. A special set of rules for divorce even without a command as it was taken for granted. But again God didn't know it would be needed?And Rules for slaves and no command. Well a case can be made i suppose that God never intended it as he never intended divorce, but because of 'hardness of heart' it would happen; I'm writing your case for you. So He made rules to regulate it. And that would explain why no Commandment. He knew he'd have to permit it.

This will do until we come to foreign slaves and here, the indentured servitude to refer to is NOT what is being permitted, but lifetime slavery for non -Hebrew slaves. Commandment or not you cannot plausibly deny that the rules recommend lifetime slavery as property regarding foreign slaves. So no wonder that was no problem for the later Christians.

If you want to start cherry picking to say what is God's word and what is the word of man, you have already compromised the Bible and made it your convenient opinion.

Apologetics aside, the skeptic has all the cards, (apart from the joker) when he or she says 'It is all the work of man to suit themselves at the time, and that is why it ill favoring the Hebrews in the OT as they wrote it and favouring the Gentiles in the NT as they wrote that". And I've seen all the apologetics and you really have no valid counter case, other than excuses.

Have a stunning weekend and Peace as yr head hits the pillow.

[POI]

Because one cannot listen to Christ and think it's okay to enslave another person against their will.

What do you mean by 'listen'? All we have is a collection of writings, in which both you and I can read. Some of these writings are said to express words from Jesus.

you cannot listen to Christ and think it's okay to enslave another person against their will.

Why not? Did he disagree with his dad? Or are you saying god did not give instructions for chattel slavery? Other?

Just ask yourself these questions:

1) If I must treat others as I wish to be treated, can I enslave another person against their will?

2) If I must love others as I love myself, can I enslave them against their will?

3) Does God or Christ force me to serve them? How then can I force someone else to serve me?

1) Well, his dad apparently made laws to do so. Does his son agree or disagree?
2) Well, his dad apparently made laws to do so. Does his son agree or disagree?
3) Isn't introducing a compulsory proposition forcing someone to serve them? I'd say so. If your parent tells you to do this/that, or I will be locked up in a fiery dungeon for eternity, do I really have a choice? Isn't Jesus said to be the one who introduces a similar proposition?

In your 30+ years of seeking to hear God's voice, did you think that you could listen to Christ and at the same time enslave another person against their will?

I never heard god's voice. A guess he skipped right over me.

(2-4 thousand years ago, selling oneself might have been a means of survival, of gaining food and shelter or the protection of a household, of paying off a debt you owed. I don't know, I wasn't there, but it might have been better than the alternative - starving or homeless or forced to turn to crime, or imprisoned for a debt, or dead. Outright forbidding it could have taken away some choices for those who had few to none. Even though God DID say what He wanted: for the oppressed to be set free and for every yoke to be broken.)

This response lends nothing to the original post. A chattel slave is for life. Seems we agree God sanctioned chattel slavery for life, and the breeding of chattel slaves. The best Jesus's dad could come up with, is to give instructions for chattel slavery, for life?.?.?.?.?

"In EVERYTHING you do, do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Everything leaves no room for exceptions to the rule.

Circles. All Scripture means all scripture. All leaves no room for exceptions to the rule. So now, I guess apologists get to cherry pick anyways? How can we tell what IS Scripture and what is not Scripture? Remember, Jesus never wrote anything himself.

God also said in the OT that He hates divorce, and yet, Moses gave the people (the men) permission to divorce (their wives) but made sure they had to meet certain stipulations: providing her with a certificate of divorce, which at least freed her up to remarry. He did not say it was good. He just worked with what he had to work with. The best of a bad situation, so to speak, due to the hard hearts of the people.

POI You are going to compare (divorce provisions) to (chattel slavery provisions)? Okay? However, did God say he hates all chattel slavery? If so, why create rules for some to become lifetime chattel slaves?

Further, as I stated prior, God has NO PROBLEM laying down the law. God IS the law. Why tippy toe around lifetime chattel slavery? Maybe just admit these 'provisions' were made by men, and passed off as 'god-pronouncements'. For which we could then ask, what else was passed off as a 'god-pronouncement'?

Also, you did not answer the question. Did Jesus agree with his dad? yes or no?

Tam He mentioned some of the commandments - which He says are all summed up in the greatest two: love God with all your heart and mind and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself.

POI And again. Jesus mentions nothing about no longer owning lifetime chattel slaves, but happens to mention lying, trespassing, etc?

Tam Christ did not pledge allegiance to a book and there was certainly no commandment TO own slaves. Provisions were made in the law, however, for a people whose hearts were hard.

POI Exodus furnished the commandments, as well as instructions for proper "slavery". (i.e.) Exodus instructs how you may trick a servant into chattel slavery. Further, that a master is not to be punished for beating their slave, as long as they live through it, and do not lose eyes/teeth. Read the OP. The Bible is also reckless, in that it does not give reasons for why a slave can and cannot be beaten. Or, how often? This is sloppy work by the Bible writers. All we know, is masters are instructed not to be punished if they should do so. I guess this means God does not dislike slave beatings. Otherwise, he would instruct punishment for slave beatings, not the exact opposite.

Tam Without having to assume that it must mean He approved of people being enslaved against their will (something that is clearly not true):

- Perhaps it was unnecessary (because He knew His sheep would understand based on His words, example, and commands: including the command that we are to make OURSELVES least ones and that we are OURSELVES to serve others.)

- Perhaps it would have caused greater harm to people at that time (think revolts and executions, butting heads with Rome/Caesar).

- Perhaps it was the only means some had to make a living (shelter, food, debts paid, protection of a household, etc).

- Perhaps it was not even an issue among His disciples? Are any of them even written to have had slaves (especially against their will)? You can't use the Centurion as an example since he was not Jewish, and you do not know the situation between him and his slave (the man could have been willing, the man could also have loved his master and wanted to remain in a household that greatly valued him.)

POI By applying Occam's Razor, perhaps he agrees with his dad. Perhaps Jesus had no reason to amend/add/remove anything his dad already instructed.

Perhaps you are making excuses for a book you know sanctions stuff you do not like.

Tam Sure, for all you know, He could have said something more specific about it. He said and did more things than are written down, after all.

Plus, the only commandments that God is said to have written Himself are the ten inscribed on the two stone tablets. How do you know which of the rest came straight from Him, or might have been allowances made in the law, or might have been laws that were mishandled by the lying pen of the scribes?

POI Well, nothing was recorded about what Jesus did or did not say about chattel slavery. For all we know, Jesus completely agreed with his dad, that chattel slavery and slave breeding is a-okay.

Plus, are you now saying God never sanctioned chattel slavery at all? If so, what else?

[tam]

Peace to you,

Because one cannot listen to Christ and think it's okay to enslave another person against their will.

What do you mean by 'listen'?

I mean 'obey'.

you cannot listen to Christ and think it's okay to enslave another person against their will.

Why not?

Answer the questions and see for yourself. Except you must not want to see for yourself because you won't answer the questions.

Just ask yourself these questions:

1) If I must treat others as I wish to be treated, can I enslave another person against their will?

2) If I must love others as I love myself, can I enslave them against their will?

3) Does God or Christ force me to serve them? How then can I force someone else to serve me?

1) Well, his dad apparently made laws to do so. Does his son agree or disagree?

You didn't answer the question.

2) Well, his dad apparently made laws to do so. Does his son agree or disagree?

You didn't answer the question.

3) Isn't introducing a compulsory proposition forcing someone to serve them? I'd say so.

Then how is it that you are able to NOT serve them?

If your parent tells you to do this/that, or I will be locked up in a fiery dungeon for eternity, do I really have a choice?

If you did not have a choice, then why are you not serving them?

Isn't Jesus said to be the one who introduces a similar proposition?

If you did not have a choice, then why are you not serving Him and His Father?

In your 30+ years of seeking to hear God's voice, did you think that you could listen to Christ and at the same time enslave another person against their will?

I never heard god's voice. A guess he skipped right over me.

You didn't answer the question.

(2-4 thousand years ago, selling oneself might have been a means of survival, of gaining food and shelter or the protection of a household, of paying off a debt you owed. I don't know, I wasn't there, but it might have been better than the alternative - starving or homeless or forced to turn to crime, or imprisoned for a debt, or dead. Outright forbidding it could have taken away some choices for those who had few to none. Even though God DID say what He wanted: for the oppressed to be set free and for every yoke to be broken.)

This response lends nothing to the original post. A chattel slave is for life. Seems we agree God sanctioned chattel slavery for life,

What we agreed upon was that the bible permitted owning another person. There are occasions where that could have been for life, though there is also God's specific statement that He desires that every yoke be broken, and that the oppressed be freed.

"In EVERYTHING you do, do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Everything leaves no room for exceptions to the rule.

Circles.

Saying 'circles' doesn't change the fact.

All Scripture means all scripture. All leaves no room for exceptions to the rule. So now, I guess apologists get to cherry pick anyways. How can we tell what IS Scripture and what is not Scripture? Remember, Jesus never wrote anything himself.

Asked and answered some time back.

God also said in the OT that He hates divorce, and yet, Moses gave the people (the men) permission to divorce (their wives) but made sure they had to meet certain stipulations: providing her with a certificate of divorce, which at least freed her up to remarry. He did not say it was good. He just worked with what he had to work with. The best of a bad situation, so to speak, due to the hard hearts of the people.

POI You are going to compare (divorce provisions) to (chattel slavery provisions)?

Are you missing the point? Just because something was permitted does not mean that it is something God approved, desired, or even something that was true from Him, from the beginning.

Also, you did not answer the question. Did Jesus agree with his dad? yes or no?

He agrees with His Father. But what you fail to understand is that the bible is the not the truth or word of God. CHRIST is the Truth and Word of God. Who His Father TRULY is and what His Father TRULY wants - is what Christ tells and shows us. You're doing it backward (many do - believer and non-believer alike). You're starting with the OT and making Christ line up with it, instead of starting with Christ -the PERFECT image of His Father - and testing all things against Him. Some also put Paul's words before Christ. But Christ - not Paul - is the Word of God and the Truth.

Know Christ... THEN... you know His Father as well.

Tam Without having to assume that it must mean He approved of people being enslaved against their will (something that is clearly not true):

- Perhaps it was unnecessary (because He knew His sheep would understand based on His words, example, and commands: including the command that we are to make OURSELVES least ones and that we are OURSELVES to serve others.)

- Perhaps it would have caused greater harm to people at that time (think revolts and executions, butting heads with Rome/Caesar).

- Perhaps it was the only means some had to make a living (shelter, food, debts paid, protection of a household, etc).

- Perhaps it was not even an issue among His disciples? Are any of them even written to have had slaves (especially against their will)? You can't use the Centurion as an example since he was not Jewish, and you do not know the situation between him and his slave (the man could have been willing, the man could also have loved his master and wanted to remain in a household that greatly valued him.)

POI By applying Occam's Razor, perhaps he agrees with his dad. Perhaps Jesus had no reason to amend/add/remove anything his dad already instructed.
Perhaps you are making excuses for a book you know sanctions stuff you do not like.

I don't need to make excuses for a book. I am not a 'bible student'. I am not a disciple of the bible. I am not a 'bible-ian.'

I am a Christian. I am a student/disciple/follower of Christ.

My faith is not in the bible.

My faith is in Christ.

Tam Sure, for all you know, He could have said something more specific about it. He said and did more things than are written down, after all.

Plus, the only commandments that God is said to have written Himself are the ten inscribed on the two stone tablets. How do you know which of the rest came straight from Him, or might have been allowances made in the law, or might have been laws that were mishandled by the lying pen of the scribes?

POI Well, nothing was recorded about what Jesus did or did not say about chattel slavery. For all we know, Jesus completely agreed with his dad, that chattel slavery and slave breeding is a-okay.

Plus, are you now saying God never sanctioned chattel slavery at all? If so, what else?

I'm just pointing out the pointlessness of your comment. You want us to go by what the bible says, but when Christ says something that contradicts the position you are trying to hold, you ask 'how do we even know Christ said any of that stuff'. I could say the same thing to you regarding the couple verses that speak about chattel slavery (the way you are using it).

You can't have it both ways.



Peace again to you.

[POI]

tam Answer the questions and see for yourself. Except you must not want to see for yourself because you won't answer the questions.

POI I cannot answer the question, because I already told you we do not know what Jesus said, and did not say. You seem to want to cherry pick, to taste. For all we know, Jesus is okay with chattel slavery.

tam Then how is it that you are able to NOT serve them?

POI Because I do not believe the proposition exists. You do. Thus, you do not really have a choice, in the sense that your only alternative to following him, would be a fiery inferno. Unless you wish to cherry pick this given scenario too? Maybe he did not say this either?

tam You didn't answer the question.

POI Just because you do not like the answer, does not mean I did not answer.

tam What we agreed upon was that the bible permitted owning another person.

POI

tam Asked and answered some time back.

POI As that too was answered some time back.

tam Are you missing the point? Just because something was permitted does not mean that it is something God approved, desired, or even something that was true from Him, from the beginning.

POI Nope. Not missing the point... God apparently gave a permission slip for chattel slavery. God does not sanction many things, but chattel slavery was not one of them. But the lesser stuff, like lying and trespassing, God apparently expresses no wiggle room.

tam He agrees with His Father.

POI Then Jesus too is okay with Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25

tam But what you fail to understand is that the bible is the not the truth or word of God. CHRIST is the Truth and Word of God. Who His Father TRULY is and what His Father TRULY wants - is what Christ tells and shows us. You're doing it backward (many do - believer and non-believer alike). You're starting with the OT and making Christ line up with it, instead of starting with Christ -the PERFECT image of His Father - and testing all things against Him. Some also put Paul's words before Christ. But Christ - not Paul - is the Word of God and the Truth.

POI Cherry picking 101 here. Nothing more....

tam I don't need to make excuses for a book. I am not a 'bible student'. I am not a disciple of the bible. I am not a 'bible-ian.'

I am a Christian. I am a student/disciple/follower of Christ.

My faith is not in the bible.

My faith is in Christ.

POI Christ's words are apparently implanted in that collection of books somewhere. Which ones are actually his?

tam I'm just pointing out the pointlessness of your comment. You want us to go by what the bible says, but when Christ says something that contradicts the position you are trying to hold, you ask 'how do we even know Christ said any of that stuff'. I could say the same thing to you regarding the couple verses that speak about chattel slavery (the way you are using it).

You can't have it both ways.

POI It's you, who cannot have it both ways. You cannot omit, and cherry pick to taste, simply by applying the "Jesus excuse". You say you live by Christ's word. How in the heck do you know what Christ said, and did not say?

If he said it ALL, then you have quite the pickle on your hands. If he said less, how do you determine what to remove? You already stated Jesus agrees with his dad?

[tam]

Peace to you,

tam Answer the questions and see for yourself. Except you must not want to see for yourself because you won't answer the questions.

POI I cannot answer the question, because I already told you we do not know what Jesus said, and did not say. You seem to want to cherry pick, to taste. For all we know, Jesus is okay with chattel slavery.

This is just a big ole 'i dont wanna' excuse. Because you can absolutely answer the questions that I asked.

Not to mention the fact that if you want to play the 'we don't know what [Jesus] did or did not say', then you have absolutely nothing upon which to base your case.

tam Then how is it that you are able to NOT serve them?

POI Because I do not believe the proposition exists. You do.

Yes... and I can see that you are free not to serve. Therefore, I can see that God and Christ do not force people to serve them.

Thus, you do not really have a choice, in the sense that your only alternative to following him, would be a fiery inferno.

Says who?

Unless you wish to cherry pick this given scenario too? Maybe he did not say this either?

I believe you are the one claiming not to know what [Jesus] did or did not say.

tam You didn't answer the question.

POI Just because you do not like the answer, does not mean I did not answer.

Sure, but the fact that you did not answer the question does mean that you did not answer the question.

tam He agrees with His Father.

POI Then Jesus too is okay with Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25

Now how did I know you were going to quote mine me here?

Keep reading...

tam But what you fail to understand is that the bible is the not the truth or word of God. CHRIST is the Truth and Word of God. Who His Father TRULY is and what His Father TRULY wants - is what Christ tells and shows us. You're doing it backward (many do - believer and non-believer alike). You're starting with the OT and making Christ line up with it, instead of starting with Christ -the PERFECT image of His Father - and testing all things against Him. Some also put Paul's words before Christ. But Christ - not Paul - is the Word of God and the Truth.

POI Cherry picking 101 here. Nothing more....

Cherry picking is what you are doing. Or are you trying to suggest that the things I said above are not in the bible? If so, then perhaps you do not know that book as well as you think you do. In which case, maybe you should stop trying to tell people what it says and means.

tam I don't need to make excuses for a book. I am not a 'bible student'. I am not a disciple of the bible. I am not a 'bible-ian.'

I am a Christian. I am a student/disciple/follower of Christ.

My faith is not in the bible.

My faith is in Christ.

POI Christ's words are apparently implanted in that collection of books somewhere.

Some of them are, yes... and you cannot listen to those words and at the same time enslave another person against their will.

tam I'm just pointing out the pointlessness of your comment. You want us to go by what the bible says, but when Christ says something that contradicts the position you are trying to hold, you ask 'how do we even know Christ said any of that stuff'. I could say the same thing to you regarding the couple verses that speak about chattel slavery (the way you are using it).

You can't have it both ways.

POI It's you, who cannot have it both ways. You cannot omit, and cherry pick to taste, simply by applying the "Jesus excuse". You say you live by Christ's word. How in the heck do you know what Christ said, and did not say?

I am not cherry picking to taste. That is what you are doing. I am holding all things up against Christ. I am listening to Him. Just as I should be doing, as one of His sheep.

If he said it ALL, then you have quite the pickle on your hands.

IF He said all of what? The words that He is recorded to have said? Those are the very words that would not permit a person to enslave someone else against their will.

If he said less, how do you determine what to remove? You already stated Jesus agrees with his dad?

How do you know what His Father said? How do you know what His Father truly desires? How do you know what might have been an allowance that Moses gave people due to their hard-hearts... or what laws might have been mishandled by the lying pen of the scribes?


Peace again to you.

[POI]

This is just a big ole 'i dont wanna' excuse. Because you can absolutely answer the questions that I asked.

Not to mention the fact that if you want to play the 'we don't know what [Jesus] did or did not say', then you have absolutely nothing upon which to base your case.

The way I see it, you have 4 options available; and they all suck.

1) Jesus agrees with his dad's given verses on chattel slavery instruction.
2) Jesus disagrees with his dad's given verses on chattel slavery instruction.
3) Jesus disagrees with the person(s) who gave chattel slavery instruction. And when he came along to give his own instruction, never bothered to abolished it.
4) Jesus agrees with the instruction writer, about chattel slavery.

Yes... and I can see that you are free not to serve. Therefore, I can see that God and Christ do not force people to serve them.

I'm free not to serve a non-existent god?

Says who?

Says Mark 16:16. Unless you now wish to state Jesus did not say that either?

Now how did I know you were going to quote mine me here?

Is Jesus okay with the chattel slavery verses in Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25, or not?

Cherry picking is what you are doing. Or are you trying to suggest that the things I said above are not in the bible? If so, then perhaps you do not know that book as well as you think you do. In which case, maybe you should stop trying to tell people what it says and means.

I am not cherry picking. I'm presenting the verses which make Christians uncomfortable. I think it's all from men alone. Thus, I have no stake in it myself. The onus is on YOU to justify why the Bible says what it says. And thus far, we all read as you perform apologetics 101.

Some of them are, yes... and you cannot listen to those words and at the same time enslave another person against their will.

Again, WHICH words? Jesus wrote nothing himself. Jesus preserved nothing himself. Again, I think they are all from fallible men. You do not. The onus is on you to justify that they are anything other than fallible statements, in which we later decided to abolish ourselves.

I am not cherry picking to taste. That is what you are doing. I am holding all things up against Christ. I am listening to Him. Just as I should be doing, as one of His sheep.

This goes right back to the (4) options at the top. And they all suck.

[tam]

[Replying to POI in post #137]

In all of that, you still refuse to answer the questions asked of you.

I think that speaks volumes in and of itself.


I know that I cannot enslave another person against their will. Love does not enslave a person against their will. The golden rule does not permit a person to enslave another person against their will. Christ enslaved no one against their will - and we who belong to Him are to follow His example. Christ commanded me (and the rest of us who belong to Him) to make ourselves the LEAST. If we are the LEAST, how can we make someone even less? It is a logical impossibility. If we are to serve all others, how can we force someone to serve us? Makes no sense.


I also know that not every law was true, from God, from the beginning. Christ said so Himself. I also know that the lying pen of the scribes has mishandled the law, and even Christ said 'woe to you scribes.'


I am to listen to Christ and remain in Him.


Am I supposed to pretend I do not understand the golden rule? Am I supposed to pretend I do not know that love cannot enslave another person against their will? Am I supposed to pretend that Christ told us to love even our enemies? Should I cherry-pick and pretend that God did not say He wanted every yoke to be broken and for the oppressed to be set free?


Of course not.



Peace again to you and to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[POI]

In all of that, you still refuse to answer the questions asked of you.

I've answered the question, you just do not like what I have to say. Allow me to explain. You want me to agree with you, that 'Jesus would never sanction chattel slavery." And yet, this is apparently the same Jesus who tells you, believe and stay loyal to me, or your only alternative is hell. In my eyes, this 'loving Jesus', for which you have portrayed for yourself, is WORSE than his dad. Let me ask you this.... In WHAT situation would you ever conceive of sending the ones you claim to love, who have apparently 'wronged' you, into a place of eternal torment? Before you answer, let me guess. (Paraphrased) "Oh, Jesus did not instruct that. That is again the lying pen of scribes". You see, you can cherry-pick all you'd like, and concoct this hippy Jesus character, which preaches love alone. Well, let's examine here...

Was he aware that chattel slavery was a thing? YES
Did Jesus speak his mind, regardless of consequence? YES
Did Jesus have no problem telling folks what he does not like? YES
Did Jesus create a one-liner for chattel slavery? NO

And yet, when compared to the concept of eternal torment for not following him, or maybe even folks like me, who do not think he is real; instructing chattel slavery is a walk in the park.

So yea, It's quite plausible Jesus agreed with the "scribe's" instructions for chattel slavery, and also the "scribe's" instruction for the breeding of chattel slaves. WHY? Well, he was a flawed human, who did not know any better himself. Slavery was just how things were around this time. Just like men > women was just how things were during this time. His dad already laid down the ground rules for slavery, and Jesus must have thought, "yea, that's alright." Same thing with homosexually. No need to beat a dead horse. Don't mention it. Gay sex is an atrocity. Most still thought this. His dad laid down the foundation for things, which needed no more explanation.

I think that speaks volumes in and of itself.

I'll tell you what speaks volumes. Regardless of who wrote these chattel slavery instructions, whether it was his dad, some random dude, or even Jesus himself, here are the "instructions" for humans, in which he apparently loved?

- May be enslaved for life as property
- May be beaten with virtual impunity
- May be breed and the offspring kept by the master

Nowhere do these scribes mention what is, and what is not, a suitable reason for a beating. Nowhere do these scribes instruct how often slaves can be beaten, with impunity. Only that if the slave is beaten, they are explicitly instructed not to be punshed. This is sloppy and haphazard 'instruction'. Jesus would know this, right?

And when Jesus finally comes along, knowing all of this about specific chattel slavery instruction, what does he say about it? NOTHING. You want to hide behind the "golden rule". Yet, he mentions many things which completely overlap the 'golden rule'. Many of which are lesser, verses keeping humans as lifetime property.

So as I stated, in my last response, you have 4 crappy choices:

1) Jesus agrees with his dad's instructions
2) Jesus does not agree with his dad's instructions
3) Jesus agrees with the random scribe's instructions
4) Jesus does not agree with this random scribe's instructions, and says nothing; not even a one-liner.

As I stated prior, they all suck, for YOU.

[tam]

Peace to you,

In all of that, you still refuse to answer the questions asked of you.

I've answered the question, you just do not like what I have to say.

Questions plural. And no, you did not even attempt to answer them.

Allow me to explain. You want me to agree with you, that 'Jesus would never sanction chattel slavery." And yet, this is apparently the same Jesus who tells you, believe and stay loyal to me, or your only alternative is hell. In my eyes, this 'loving Jesus', for which you have portrayed for yourself, is WORSE than his dad. Let me ask you this.... In WHAT situation would you ever conceive of sending the ones you claim to love, who have apparently 'wronged' you, into a place of eternal torment?

There is no such place as eternal torment.

I have said this to you before and there are numerous threads on the subject on this forum.

There is also a thread on this forum titled, "Would a Good God send a decent atheist to hell?"

This is the statement I responded to on that thread:

A Good God would not send to hell a decent person, simply for not believing in his son.

I have shared the link with you before (though you do not appear to have looked at it). But here it is again even if just for the sake of the reader:

viewtopic.php?p=731804#p731804

My response is also supported by what is written.

Did Jesus speak his mind, regardless of consequence? YES

Not always, no.

See John 16:12


The rest is just repetition, and I am content to let my previous post(s) stand.


Peace again to you.