I'm suspicious here of a "cafeteria" style of Christianity, which grants its adherents a permission structure in which they can pick and choose freely from Scripture, which injunctions they like and which ones they'd rather push to the side or ignore.
Perhaps you should just read the Bible and find out for yourself. It's a very entertaining book, lots and lots of stories from the past. You might learn about something, and human nature.
Exodus 21:16 Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.
Deuteronomy 24:7 If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
RULES FOR ENSLAVING FREE MEN
ARE NOT RULES FOR SLAVES IN THE BIBLE
those are very different things
'' seven passages in the Bible where God is depicted as directly permitting or endorsing slavery. Two of these are in the Law of Moses: God permitted the Israelites to take slaves from conquered peoples permanently, and the Israelites could sell themselves into slavery temporarily to pay off debts (Exod 21:2-11; Lev 25:44-46). The other five passages are in the New Testament, where slavery as a social institution is endorsed and slaves are called to obey their masters “in everything” (Eph 6:5-9; Col 3:22-4:1; 1 Tim 6:1-2; Tit 2:9-10; 1 Pet 2:18-20).
note racist jews have different rules for non jews who are slaves
''But slavery is viewed positively in Scripture well beyond these commands. Owning slaves was seen as a sign of God’s blessing (Gen 12:16; 24:35; Isa 14:1-2), and there are literally dozens of passages in the Bible that speak of slavery in passing, without comment. Slavery was simply part of life, and most people saw it as just the way things always were, even the divinely ordained order of things. in case there is any doubt, this was real slavery: “the slave is the owner’s property” (Exod 21:21)''
'' seven passages in the Bible where God is depicted as directly permitting or endorsing slavery. Two of these are in the Law of Moses: God permitted the Israelites to take slaves from conquered peoples permanently, and the Israelites could sell themselves into slavery temporarily to pay off debts (Exod 21:2-11; Lev 25:44-46). The other five passages are in the New Testament, where slavery as a social institution is endorsed and slaves are called to obey their masters “in everything” (Eph 6:5-9; Col 3:22-4:1; 1 Tim 6:1-2; Tit 2:9-10; 1 Pet 2:18-20).
note racist jews have different rules for non jews who are slaves
''But slavery is viewed positively in Scripture well beyond these commands. Owning slaves was seen as a sign of God’s blessing (Gen 12:16; 24:35; Isa 14:1-2), and there are literally dozens of passages in the Bible that speak of slavery in passing, without comment. Slavery was simply part of life, and most people saw it as just the way things always were, even the divinely ordained order of things. in case there is any doubt, this was real slavery: “the slave is the owner’s property” (Exod 21:21)''
so no the buybull is not against owning people
Says the atheist.
Not disagreeing with what it says, but why should you care?
'' seven passages in the Bible where God is depicted as directly permitting or endorsing slavery. Two of these are in the Law of Moses: God permitted the Israelites to take slaves from conquered peoples permanently, and the Israelites could sell themselves into slavery temporarily to pay off debts (Exod 21:2-11; Lev 25:44-46). The other five passages are in the New Testament, where slavery as a social institution is endorsed and slaves are called to obey their masters “in everything” (Eph 6:5-9; Col 3:22-4:1; 1 Tim 6:1-2; Tit 2:9-10; 1 Pet 2:18-20).
note racist jews have different rules for non jews who are slaves
''But slavery is viewed positively in Scripture well beyond these commands. Owning slaves was seen as a sign of God’s blessing (Gen 12:16; 24:35; Isa 14:1-2), and there are literally dozens of passages in the Bible that speak of slavery in passing, without comment. Slavery was simply part of life, and most people saw it as just the way things always were, even the divinely ordained order of things. in case there is any doubt, this was real slavery: “the slave is the owner’s property” (Exod 21:21)''
so no the buybull is not against owning people
I see no citation of your source there. If you are going to quote something you need to give the source. The characterization of those verses shows a lack of understanding of both the verses and the context.
The Bible gives rules for slavery but that is not an endorsement of it. This may be a bit too nuanced for you to understand but it was a similar compromise as was done during the founding of the US. Slavery was allowed to establish the country. Slavery was universal during the thousands of years which span the timeline of the Bible. Outright banning it might have caused the rejection of monotheism. Much of the slavery described was what we would call indentured servitude today.
Don't bother saying that making rules for it is an endorsement. There are laws passed to restrict tobacco purchases and use. That is no endorsement of tobacco by the government.
The four main rules given:
1. Knocking out a tooth or putting out an eye releases the slave. Exodus 21:26-27 2. It was forbidden to return a runaway slave to his master. Deuteronomy 23:16 3. Slave owners who killed their slaves were put to death. Exodus 21:20 4. Slaves were not to work on the Sabbath. Exodus 20:12
I want to point out that #2 is a big deal. That in itself discouraged mistreatment of slaves. If the US has a similar law then history would have been very different. Dredd Scott would not have happened. There would not have been escaped slave laws etc. The institution in itself might have withered away.
Deuteronomy 23:16 is about slaves OF OUTSIDERS/enemy nations who escape to join the jews not local jewish slaves who run away
context matters
next is a quirky as it said you can't beat a slave to death BUT if he lingers a few days you are good
''but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.''
or
The plain meaning of the text
Some of the less literal translations suggest that the correct meaning of Ex 21.21 is "is the slave recovers after a day or two", relying on one of the senses of 'md being "to stand", but this is incorrect, as the idea of "stand" here is that if the slave can remain for one or two days, not stand after one or two days. This is not how the text is translated in any literal translation, in the targums, or in any academic translation.
Literal translations:
KJV: "if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished" LEB: "Yet if he survives a day or two days, he will not be avenged" ESV: "if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged" RSV: "if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished" NASB95: "If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken"
Targums and ancient translations:
Targum Neofiti[1]: "but if he survives a day or two, revenge shall not be taken of him"
Targum Onqelos[2]: "But if he will survive for a day or two days, he shall not be punished"
Douay-Rheims (vulgate): "But if the party remain alive a day or two, he shall not be subject to the punishment".
LXX: "But if he survives one day or two, he shall not be penalized"
Samaritan Pentateuch: "But if he survives a day or two, he will not be put to death"[4]
Academic translations:
Word Biblical Commentary (John Durham): "though if for a day or two days the slave lives, he is not to suffer punishment"[5]
Anchor Yale Bible Commentary: (William Propp): "However, if a day or two days he stands, he shall not be avenged"[6]
Your idea of ancient Jewish slavery is very slanted and wrong. It reeks of antisemitism. You go to great lengths to point out that if a slave survives two days that the master is not executed and completely ignore the fact that the master can be executed for killing a slave. A famous story of rage by the Roman historian and philosopher Seneca tells of a Roman noble who in a fit of rage threw a slave into a pool full of sea lampreys and watched him get eaten alive. By Jewish law, that noble would have been put to death.
Your idea of ancient Jewish slavery is very slanted and wrong. It reeks of antisemitism. You go to great lengths to point out that if a slave survives two days that the master is not executed and completely ignore the fact that the master can be executed for killing a slave. A famous story of rage by the Roman historian and philosopher Seneca tells of a Roman noble who in a fit of rage threw a slave into a pool full of sea lampreys and watched him get eaten alive. By Jewish law, that noble would have been put to death.
Your idea of ancient Jewish slavery is very slanted and wrong. It reeks of antisemitism. You go to great lengths to point out that if a slave survives two days that the master is not executed and completely ignore the fact that the master can be executed for killing a slave. A famous story of rage by the Roman historian and philosopher Seneca tells of a Roman noble who in a fit of rage threw a slave into a pool full of sea lampreys and watched him get eaten alive. By Jewish law, that noble would have been put to death.
you fail to understand the roman father could order his son or grandson in to that pool also [and be obeyed with out legal consequence as his right as a head of the family ]
and the jews had a very us vs them set of slave laws sorry you do not like it it does not change the laws at all a jew had to be freed at jubilee and so was not property a non jew was property and was not freed
o and the minor point our laws are roman root not bible based so a christian slave seldom got a jubilee
you fail to understand the roman father could order his son or grandson in to that pool also [and be obeyed with out legal consequence as his right as a head of the family ]
and the jews had a very us vs them set of slave laws sorry you do not like it it does not change the laws at all a jew had to be freed at jubilee and so was not property a non jew was property and was not freed
o and the minor point our laws are roman root not bible based so a christian slave seldom got a jubilee
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Hah... where is this from? I've seen you post it before... it looks like it's from a gas station commercial or something.
That's Toomgis... the ampm convenience store mascot.
It fit the context of what I was saying.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-02-2024).]
Although many Enlightenment philosophers opposed slavery, it was Christian activists, attracted by strong religious elements, who initiated and organized an abolitionist movement. Throughout Europe and the United States, Christians, usually from "un-institutional" Christian faith movements, not directly connected with traditional state churches, or "non-conformist" believers within established churches, were to be found at the forefront of the abolitionist movements.
Abolitionists believed passionately in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. Indeed, the campaign’s logo (devised by Josiah Wedgwood) was an image of a manacled slave on his knees beseeching his captor: ‘Am I not a man and a brother?’ Antislavery activism relied on the conviction that all people were made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26–27) and precious in his sight. God was the Father of all mankind, all nations were his ‘offspring’, ‘of one blood’ (Acts 17:26). Disturbed that blacks ‘stand convicted – of a darker skin!’, the Anglican Evangelical Hannah More urged her readers to ‘Respect his image which they bear…They still are men, and men shou’d still be free’.[11] ‘Africans and Europeans, Pagans and Christians, are all on a level’, wrote the Calvinist Baptist Abraham Booth. Oppressed Africans ‘are brethren of the human kind’.[12] ‘We are the common offspring of one universal Parent’, wrote the Anglican Thomas Bradshaw, ‘with whom there is no respect of persons’.[13] When William Cowper contemplated slavery he lamented that ‘the natural bond/Of brotherhood is sever’d’.[14] Every reader of Scripture should know, wrote Cowper,
That souls have no discriminating hue, Alike important in their Maker’s view; That none are free from blemish since the fall, And love divine has paid one price for all.[15]
The Republican party was founded to stop the spread of slavery and eventually abolish it. Perhaps you should look into the history of your beloved Democrats on the issue of slavery.
[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 02-02-2024).]
The Republican party was founded to stop the spread of slavery and eventually abolish it. Perhaps you should look into the history of your beloved Democrats on the issue of slavery.
not his lying minions who pod cast lies like those two
both proven to lie alex by the courts now bankrupt tucker the cause of fox paying 750,000,000 USD LIKE THE RUMP WHEN ALL THREE LIE YOUR LOT GOES “He didn’t say that. If he did say that, he didn’t mean it. If he meant it, you don’t understand what he means. Stop trying to attack him by quoting what he says. And, even if he did say those things,
Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund ~ J6 Journalism is happening ! Much to the consternation of marxists and their ilk everywhere ! Marxist mindreaders, empowered by consensus, ' I can too read your mind ! ' A sad, near illiterate man, imagining a world where what they've been told is true, and that the people agree with them, incorrectly. Repeating their nonsense, in the hope that it will become true, by repetition, also incorrectly. If only they would stop lying, they would then be illuminated with the truth, scattering the dark shadows of the lies away, seeing the light of truth. Directly related to the inversion of their brain's magnetically aligned synapses, their's pointed backwards, the wrong way, and why they're always wrong. ' Biden_Joe is a corrupt diddler ! ' A prosecution to be undertaken in January '25, the bribe transactions electronically recorded, hard evidence. ' Biden_Joe has committed treason ! ' Obviously, the border unsecured from invasion, a constitutionally mandated duty. [ uscode/title18/part1/chapter115 ] Yep ! fjb, it's time he got the gak ! ' Yeah ! Gak the fraud !
but the basic southern con who's great3 granddad owned other people if still a con is in the Gop today
or the party of abe now has the values ideas and political views of jeff davis
while the democratic party is far closer to the ideals of abe today then the Gop is
I do not understand the push back
UNLESS
THE SOUTHERN CON UNDERSTANDS THEIR EVIL HISTORY
AND IS ASHAMED OF THEIR POOR HISTORY SO CAN'T ADMIT THE TRUTH
So that should be simple for you to prove.
We can even look at Democrats who were in office at the time, and see the great switch to Republican as they all saw the error of their ways.
Should be a lot of documentation from during that insanity.
I'm certain that we will never see any documentation showing that Democrats from the 50's (far after that great switch) were members of any groups that would be against any 'minority' groups. 🙄
