[ange7]

lol 12:53am ..."early morning"
hehe you even sound like ned flanders. ... though I'm not sure how many race wars he tried to start on tibb. So what's you next thread going to be "are Muslims human?"

ps love that you stared getting personal so soon. Very Christian of you.

[Skeptic-i]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

slavery in the first century is not the slavery that you are mistakenly getting your knickers in a twist about.

LT, who said slavery in the first century was the same as slavery in later centuries [when Christians ruled the roost]? - I certainly made no such claim. Nor did I get my knickers in a twist by confusing the two. Of course, slavery was slightly different in earlier times; Pagans, including those of the early Roman Empire, often gave their slaves a few more privileges - including chances of bettering their situation and purchasing their freedom. Of course, there were also the Stoic philosophers[pre-christian] who outright condemned slavery as immoral. But then Christianity came along and most of the privileges - and condemnation of slavery - become lost. Increasingly, slaves had fewer rights while under Christian rule. They were forced to accept their lot in life with humility (Ephesians 6:5-8) and please their masters in everything (Colossians 3:22, Titus 2:9,) - even if those masters treat them harshly (1 Peter 2:18). A result of the Christian attitude towards slavery soon made the Church the largest slave owners in the Roman Empire. As time went by, Christians[with the exception of Quakers] increasingly found more reasons to enslave others - a trend that continued through to the abolitionist movements(where Quakers, non-believers - and heretical Christians) fought for change.

LT, I could go into much greater depth for you - and discuss biblical and traditional Christian attitudes towards women. But you obviously aren't capable of serious, intellectual discussion. So I wont waste any further time with you.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Skeptic-i

LT, who said slavery in the first century was the same as slavery in later centuries [when Christians ruled the roost]? - I certainly made no such claim. Nor did I get my knickers in a twist by confusing the two. Of course, slavery was slightly different in earlier times; Pagans, including those of the early Roman Empire, often gave their slaves a few more privileges - including chances of bettering their situation and purchasing their freedom. Of course, there were also the Stoic philosophers[pre-christian] who outright condemned slavery as immoral. But then Christianity came along and most of the privileges - and condemnation of slavery - become lost. Increasingly, slaves had fewer rights while under Christian rule. They were forced to accept their lot in life with humility (Ephesians 6:5-8) and please their masters in everything (Colossians 3:22, Titus 2:9,) - even if those masters treat them harshly (1 Peter 2:18). A result of the Christian attitude towards slavery soon made the Church the largest slave owners in the Roman Empire. As time went by, Christians[with the exception of Quakers] increasingly found more reasons to enslave others - a trend that continued through to the abolitionist movements(where Quakers, non-believers - and heretical Christians) fought for change.

LT, I could go into much greater depth for you - and discuss biblical and traditional Christian attitudes towards women. But you obviously aren't capable of serious, intellectual discussion. So I wont waste any further time with you.

yes, in other words you were talking crap and your finishing line is a standard forum bailout.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Why is slavery permitted in the Bible?

Slavery was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world. It existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered. God allows many things to happen in the world such as storms, famine, murder, etc. Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it is allowed. Where many nations treated their slaves very badly, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. So, even though it isn't the best way to deal with people, because God has allowed man freedom, slavery then exists. God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly.

* The Bible acknowledged the slave's status as the property of the master (Ex. 21:23; Lev. 25:46).
* The Bible restricted the master's power over the slave. Ex. 21:20).
* The slave was a member of the master's household (Lev. 22:11).
* The slave was required to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14).
* The slave was required to participate in religious observances (Gen. 17:13; Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11).
* The Bible prohibited extradition of slaves and granted them asylum (Deut. 23:16-17).
* The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12).
* When a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive economically (Deut. 15:14).

The reality of slavery cannot be denied. "Slave labour played a minor economic role in the ancient Near East, for privately-owned slaves functioned more as domestic servants than as an agricultural or industrial labour force."


http://www.carm.org/questions/skepti...ermitted-bible

[Skeptic-i]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

yes, in other words you were talking crap and your finishing line is a standard forum bailout.

Certainly not. Your responses lack depth: you don't discuss what's actually being said - the above quote being an example. Really, it shows - keeping in mind your appeal to google earlier - that you have very little understanding of history. This, along with your almost belligerent attitude, shows you aren't capable of mature, intellectual discussion. So I'm not going to waste my time.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Skeptic-i

Certainly not. Your responses lack depth: you don't discuss what's actually being said - the above quote being an example. Really, it shows - keeping in mind your appeal to google earlier - that you have very little understanding of history. This, along with your almost belligerent attitude, shows you aren't capable of mature, intellectual discussion. So I'm not going to waste my time.

I wish you every success in your future employment and of course will be in touch if any vacancies arise here in the future.

yours sincerely

LT

[Skeptic-i]

Now you've copied and pasted from carm.org (proving my point above), I think I will waste a little more time:

Firstly, when discussing slavery, I was very careful not to quote the OT - had I quoted the OT, you'd have probably said "That's the OT, not the NT - Christians don't follow the OT". No, they just use it when convenient - like your post above.

Secondly, where in the bible does it say: "Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God." - it doesn't. This is nothing more than conjecture on your part. There is not one verse condemning slavery - but many supporting/condoning it.

Thirdly, "God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly." - Since when is beating slaves to the brink of death, "treating them properly" - Exodus 21:20-21 is a get out of trouble card for the slave master who beats his slave to death. Hardly beneficial for the slave.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Skeptic-i

Now you've copied and pasted from carm.org (proving my point above), I think I will waste a little more time:

Firstly, when discussing slavery, I was very careful not to quote the OT - had I quoted the OT, you'd have probably said "That's the OT, not the NT - Christians don't follow the OT". No, they just use it when convenient - like your post above.

Secondly, where in the bible does it say: "Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God." - it doesn't. This is nothing more than conjecture on your part. There is not one verse condemning slavery - but many supporting/condoning it.

Thirdly, "God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly." - Since when is beating slaves to the brink of death, "treating them properly" - Exodus 21:20-21 is a get out of trouble card for the slave master who beats his slave to death. Hardly beneficial for the slave.

The Bible roundly denounces slavery as sin. The New Testament goes as far as to put slave trades in the category as murderers, adulterers, perverts and liars (1 Timothy 1:9-10). While the Bible as a whole recognises the reality of slavery, it never promotes the practices of slavery. It was the application of Biblical principles that ultimately led to the overthrow of slavery not only in ancient Israel but in the United States of America as well. Israel’s liberation from slavery in Egypt was a model for the liberation of slaves in general.

Slavery in the OT was sanctioned due to economic realities rather than racial or sexual prejudices. Bankrupcy laws did not exist so folks would voluntarily sell themselves into slavery. A craftsman could use his skills in servitude to discharge a debt. Even a convicted thief could make restitution by serving as a slave.



Bible answer book volume 2

[Skeptic-i]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

The Bible roundly denounces slavery as sin. The New Testament goes as far as to put slave trades in the category as murderers, adulterers, perverts and liars (1 Timothy 1:9-10).

1 Timothy 1:9-10 refers to menstealers. This is not condemning slavery at all. Let's remember: slaves were bred as chattel [property/livestock] - you can't steal your OWN property [Leviticus 25:44-46 Thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you: of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, 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. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bond-man forever.]

And to add: heathen was used as a derogatory term for foreigners, people of other nations and religions - they were considered barbaric, uncivilised, beast like. Based on a 1493 papal Bull, the Spanish jurist cited Leviticus as justification for the enslavement of Indians: "The king has every right to send his men to the Indians to demand the territory from these idolaters because he had received it from the pope. If the Indians refuse, he may quite legally enslave them, just as Joshua enslaved the Canaanites.” - likewise, pope Alexander VI, gave " .. full and free permission to invade, search out, capture and subjugate the Saracens
and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities and other properties and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery." - Bull Eximiae Devotionis, 1493

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Slavery in the OT was sanctioned due to economic realities rather than racial

- I partly agree. I just disagree with you on the racial issue - referring you to Leviticus 25:46 (which protects the people of Israel from slavery - but doesn't protect others).

[NettoSuperstar!]

Originally Posted by ange7

lol 12:53am ..."early morning"
hehe you even sound like ned flanders. ... though I'm not sure how many race wars he tried to start on tibb. So what's you next thread going to be "are Muslims human?"

ps love that you stared getting personal so soon. Very Christian of you.

aww welcome back

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Skeptic-i

1 Timothy 1:9-10 refers to menstealers.

it may do in the KJV, which was published in 1611 but since then better and more accurate translations have been made, based on new and improved manuscript evidence and enslavers is the better English equivalent - the Greek is andrapodistes (that is, those who takes someone captive in order to sell him into slavery) - it shows that Paul considered all kinds of forcible enslavement to be sinful and a violation of EX. 20:15

[LeatherTrumpet]

"And to add: heathen was used as a derogatory term for foreigners, people of other nations and religions - they were considered barbaric, uncivilised, beast like. Based on a 1493 papal Bull, the Spanish jurist cited Leviticus as justification for the enslavement of Indians: "The king has every right to send his men to the Indians to demand the territory from these idolaters because he had received it from the pope. If the Indians refuse, he may quite legally enslave them, just as Joshua enslaved the Canaanites.” - likewise, pope Alexander VI, gave " .. full and free permission to invade, search out, capture and subjugate the Saracens
and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities and other properties and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery." - Bull Eximiae Devotionis, 1493"


^^^are you serious?

what point are you making, apart from yes in the 15th century people in power used religion to do bad things as they do today, but then people in power will use anything to do that, not just religion. get any group of people together who hold sway and eventually they will do bad things to someone and blame in on something else.

[Skeptic-i]

LT, you made the following claims:

1) While the Bible as a whole recognises the reality of slavery, it never promotes the practices of slavery.

Your first claim was nonsense - I used Leviticus (and Ephesians 6:5-8 , Colossians 3:22, Titus 2:9, 1 Peter 2:18) to show how wrong you are. Those verses condone and encourage the practice of slavery. They DO NOT discourage the practice of slavery.

2) Slavery in the OT was sanctioned due to economic realities rather than racial.

Here, I was in part agreement. However, I didn't agree with the racial claim - again, I used Leviticus to show how the law protected the tribe of Israel - but not the heathen. I also give you additional information on how biblical principles were used to later enslave the Indian populous.

3) It was the application of Biblical principles that ultimately led to the overthrow of slavery not only in ancient Israel but in the United States of America as well.

With the additional information, I showed that it was biblical principles that influenced and encouraged slavery - not the opposite.

Of course, something else came along during the 18th and 19th centuries. They were called the rationalists and the freethinkers. They were amongst the early critics of slavery - heavily criticising the Bible and the Church. This included people like Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Quincy Adams, Wendell Phillips, James Russell Lowell and Ralph Waldo Emerson. It was these people that sought to abolish slavery in the US - and it was through their efforts (along with the abolitionist movements that followed) that laws were introduced to abolish slavery.

It was non-conformity(the heretics and non-believers) to biblical standards that led to the abolishment of slavery.

Your claim that it was the application of biblical principles that ultimately led to the overthrow of slavery is bollocks.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Skeptic-i

LT, you made the following claims:

1) While the Bible as a whole recognises the reality of slavery, it never promotes the practices of slavery.

Your first claim was nonsense - I used Leviticus (and Ephesians 6:5-8 , Colossians 3:22, Titus 2:9, 1 Peter 2:18) to show how wrong you are. Those verses condone and encourage the practice of slavery. They DO NOT discourage the practice of slavery.

2) Slavery in the OT was sanctioned due to economic realities rather than racial.

Here, I was in part agreement. However, I didn't agree with the racial claim - again, I used Leviticus to show how the law protected the tribe of Israel - but not the heathen. I also give you additional information on how biblical principles were used to later enslave the Indian populous.

3) It was the application of Biblical principles that ultimately led to the overthrow of slavery not only in ancient Israel but in the United States of America as well.

With the additional information, I showed that it was biblical principles that influenced and encouraged slavery - not the opposite.

Of course, something else came along during the 18th and 19th centuries. They were called the rationalists and the freethinkers. They were amongst the early critics of slavery - heavily criticising the Bible and the Church. This included people like Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Quincy Adams, Wendell Phillips, James Russell Lowell and Ralph Waldo Emerson. It was these people that sought to abolish slavery in the US - and it was through their efforts (along with the abolitionist movements that followed) that laws were introduced to abolish slavery.

It was non-conformity(the heretics and non-believers) to biblical standards that led to the abolishment of slavery.

Your claim that it was the application of biblical principles that ultimately led to the overthrow of slavery is bollocks.

The relationship between husbands and wives and parents and children are ordained by God from creation. Hence Paul's instruction on marriage represent the perfect will of God. . Slavery, on the other hand, is something created by human beings and does not represent God's will from creation; the Scriptures regulate the institution without commending it (the Roman institution of "bondservant" was entirely different than the institution of slavery in North America 17th to 19th century) and the evil of trafficing in human beings is condemned by the NT. Slaves were encouraged to work heartily, not primarily to please their earthly masters but as if they were working for the Lord.

I would encourage you to get a copy of the ESV Study Bible so that rather than read excerpts taken form specific atheist websites you can read whole chapters with a detailed commentary that will give you context and history.

good luck

[Skeptic-i]

So again, you avoid what's being said by posting apologia(no doubt copied from a website who copied apologia from the ESV) whose sole agenda is to soften and limit the influence Christianity had on the promotion of slavery. Of course, so far, you've not once shown that the bible discourages slavery - if anything, you shown otherwise. You also haven't refuted any of my original claims. But that's be expected.

Have a good day.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Skeptic-i

So again, you avoid what's being said by posting apologia(no doubt copied from a website who copied apologia from the ESV) whose sole agenda is to soften and limit the influence Christianity had on the promotion of slavery. Of course, so far, you've not once shown that the bible discourages slavery - if anything, you shown otherwise. You also haven't refuted any of my original claims. But that's be expected.

Have a good day.

Or you could just stop being a twit and realise that the argument you have is hysterical, been done before, has little basis in historical fact and lighten up. (and be a bit nicer) You cant win them all.

Look if you are someone's slave then don't blame the Bible just tell the call centre manager that you want to leave and pack up your stuff in a box and do one. Set yourself free from that Broadband and Home calls for Ł14.99 hell hole you are in and look to the future, maybe some voluntary work at your local church?

[Skeptic-i]

See, again. You're good at saying people are talking crap - but you're not good showing why.

This is how you work:

1) I disagree
2) You're talking crap
3) I win

Typical trollish behaviour. Hilarious! Enough said.

[ange7]

Originally Posted by NettoSuperstar!

aww welcome back

:P hiya

[ange7]

Originally Posted by Skeptic-i

See, again. You're good at saying people are talking crap - but you're not good showing why.

This is how you work:

1) I disagree
2) You're talking crap
3) I win

Typical trollish behaviour. Hilarious! Enough said.

you completely owned him.
When he starts with the personal attacks and frantically googles for bible quotes ( lol LT a christian? mahahaha)then that's when you've owned.
His pious Christian facade is paper thin and he uses it to justify his usually religious hate. He was way out of his element here lol.....hey LT stick to what you do best Muslim fear mongering.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by ange7

you completely owned him.
When he starts with the personal attacks and frantically googles for bible quotes ( lol LT a christian? mahahaha)then that's when you've owned.
His pious Christian facade is paper thin and he uses it to justify his usually religious hate. He was way out of his element here lol.....hey LT stick to what you do best Muslim fear mongering.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Skeptic-i

See, again. You're good at saying people are talking crap - but you're not good showing why.

This is how you work:

1) I disagree
2) You're talking crap
3) I win

Typical trollish behaviour. Hilarious! Enough said.

psssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss sssssssssssssss

[ange7]

awwww LeatherTrumpet... is it nap time?
I wouldn't keep bring up this thread if I were you :P

[Tom4784]

What an embarrasing thread...I'd throw in the towel LT.

My opinion on the whole thing is that Britain is a democracy, and for democracies to truly work in countries like this we can't have any religious bias. Also why make Immigrants study Christian values when it's obious that most of the reisdents of the UK don't? It's a pointless waste of time.

Immigrants knowing our culture and laws are infinitely more important then knowing a few values from a religion that's not as prominent in our culture any more.

[ange7]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

photoshop fail.
___

good point Dezzy.
Moral codes like " do onto other's as you'd have them do to you" are universal through out many religions and societies. Forcing Christianity down peoples throats won't make people more moral... ( particular as you mentioned in such a secular country like the UK). What makes the UK great is it's democracy and the idea of inclusion that democracy grants all people. LT's religious hate and fear mongering serves to make some people feel LESS included so in that respect he and his type are the problem... not the solution.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

What an embarrasing thread...I'd throw in the towel LT.

My opinion on the whole thing is that Britain is a democracy, and for democracies to truly work in countries like this we can't have any religious bias. Also why make Immigrants study Christian values when it's obious that most of the reisdents of the UK don't? It's a pointless waste of time.

Immigrants knowing our culture and laws are infinitely more important then knowing a few values from a religion that's not as prominent in our culture any more.

Your marking threads now?

if you cant spell embarrassing then don't use the word to try and scrabble for some fictitious moral ground.