'Ignorance may be bliss, but Knowledge is power.'

#21 - Most Viewed (This Week) - Education - Canada
#24 - Most Viewed (Today) - Education - Canada
#25 - Most Viewed (Today) - Education - Canada
#28 - Most Discussed (Today) - Education
#30 - Most Discussed (Today) - Education
#31 - Most Viewed (This Week) - Education - Canada
#32 - Most Viewed (Today) - Education - Canada
#33 - Most Viewed (Today) - Education - Canada
#36 - Most Viewed (Today) - Education - Canada
#39 - Most Viewed (Today) - Education - Canada
#62 - Most Viewed (This Week) - Education - Canada
#67 - Most Viewed (This Week) - Education - Canada

This video is just to prove once again how those Atheist fanatics out there really do not know what they are talking about when it comes to the Bible. So here is another video debunking their sorry misconceptions about the Bible again. Would it ever hurt to actually read some thing before you make these silly claims? Makes a person look really stupid.

No I do not see the Bible as the only true source to God. I am highly curious when there are claims made about the Bible or any other text in regards to saying that it condones Slavery, Murder, Rape, etc. That is why I make the videos I do to see if these claims are true or not.Mostly debunking the misconceptions about them. I do not put my faith totally into the Bible, it is just a book, but it does have good morals in it. My faith goes into God. I would be more of a Deist than a Theism. I would say in my part, Theism would only apply to me in regards to those who are considered prophets, and that's about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Az3DSAulgAM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWMLKLsaBeA
Last edited {1}
Original Post
quote:
I am highly curious

..."Highly curious", WillyWill3?

How High, WillyWill3?

So high that you can touch the sky?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the slavery part:

O.T. RSV, quote:

"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money."(exodus 21:20-21)

N.T. RSV, quote:

"Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ"
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
I am highly curious

..."Highly curious", WillyWill3?

How High, WillyWill3?

So high that you can touch the sky?


Just as God is not...but I won't go that far and claim to be holy...
laugh
laugh
laugh

20 20 20

----------------

Seriously, reading is important; however knowing the original source of what you are reading is even more paramount...!
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
[QUOTE]---------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the slavery part:

O.T. RSV, quote:

"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money."(exodus 21:20-21)

N.T. RSV, quote:

"Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ"




The PBS series "Slavery in the Making of America" stated slaves were read the above and similar passages in the bible as a justification of their bondage...their status was explained as "God's will".

Their rest would come upon death when they as good Christians reached the paradise in the sky

Question, Will there be a joining of hands of those who were Christian slaves with those who "owned" them? All of the subjugation, rape and humiliation forgotten by Blacks?
All of the disdain and contempt toward Blacks by white slave owners removed?

Or will there be separate accommodations?

If God is all powerful, why as he allowed his faithful to suffer so completely in the Americas as well as in Africa?
The is a derivation of the oft asked question "If God is so powerful then..." Warren Buffet has the ability to completely change the poor part of Omaha but he doesn't. Why? He has the power to make his kids rich, but only pays for their education and gives them no inheritance, why?

I think it is a question that the questioner asks when they don't want to critically think about finding the answer themselves. They use it to justify their unbelieve as opposed to seeking the answer for knowledge sake.

More to the original point. The bible of course tolerated slavery as it was part of culture, and the bible is a cultural and historical reflection of its time with God expressing himself through culture and history.

Name me one historical religion that prohibited slavery explicitely. We act as if slavery is the worse thing that could happen in the world. Is it? We act as if all slavery is equal. Is it?

In regard to modern American slavery, we are talking about a different animal when you consider the injection of Christianity into the equation. There is a direct contradiction between the way "Christian" slave owners acted to their slaves and the way the bible said Christians should behave towards one another in love.

In addition, if you really study American history you will know that it was the Amish, the Black Christian, and other church groups that were fighting against slavery. In fact the Amish were considered extrodinarily radical because of their fierce anti-slavery sentiment prompted by their faith.
quote:
Originally posted by urbansun:
The is a derivation of the oft asked question "If God is so powerful then..." Warren Buffet has the ability to completely change the poor part of Omaha but he doesn't. Why? He has the power to make his kids rich, but only pays for their education and gives them no inheritance, why?

I think it is a question that the questioner asks when they don't want to critically think about finding the answer themselves. They use it to justify their unbelieve as opposed to seeking the answer for knowledge sake.

More to the original point. The bible of course tolerated slavery as it was part of culture, and the bible is a cultural and historical reflection of its time with God expressing himself through culture and history.

Name me one historical religion that prohibited slavery explicitely. We act as if slavery is the worse thing that could happen in the world. Is it? We act as if all slavery is equal. Is it?

In regard to modern American slavery, we are talking about a different animal when you consider the injection of Christianity into the equation. There is a direct contradiction between the way "Christian" slave owners acted to their slaves and the way the bible said Christians should behave towards one another in love.

In addition, if you really study American history you will know that it was the Amish, the Black Christian, and other church groups that were fighting against slavery. In fact the Amish were considered extrodinarily radical because of their fierce anti-slavery sentiment prompted by their faith.


Money is a man made concept, this world survived with out it before. Who's fault is that? We as humans could be a lot more kinder and eliminate the need of their being a poor or rich. Yet some of us, not all let our greed of materialism and position of power get in the way.

Judaism- Slavery= Servitude...you do not pay a slave or give them human rights. So this is slavery once again?
Willywill3,

What was the reason why you posted this thread regarding "Slavery and Rape in The Bible"?

Was this a spin off or carry-on of another thread, if I recall, you making the claim that the bible didn't condone slavery for it was speaking in regards to servitude and how that was different than slavery?
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
Willywill3,

What was the reason why you posted this thread regarding "Slavery and Rape in The Bible"?

Was this a spin off or carry-on of another thread, if I recall, you making the claim that the bible didn't condone slavery for it was speaking in regards to servitude and how that was different than slavery?


This was a continuation on that a bit and how the Bible does not condone Rape either.
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
This was a continuation on that a bit and how the Bible does not condone Rape either.


Okay, however, with regard to the slavery part, do you agree with urbansun that the bible "tolerated slavery"?
quote:
Name me one historical religion that prohibited slavery explicitely


19This would make good for another thread...
Without getting into what I think God condones, versus what the Bible condones, I'll stay specific in stating that the Old Testament condoned, conquest, indentured servitude, and conversion. One almost gets the idea that slavery was a privilege, and a prerequisite to working your way into the Jewish world/faith, which was the only way to heaven.
quote:
One almost gets the idea that slavery was a privilege, and a prerequisite to working your way into the Jewish world/faith, which was the only way to heaven.

And the same can not be said of the xian world/faith? For clarification's sake.

Afterall, the verses that I quoted came out of a n.t. christian bible.

Surely, we can find those who practice judaism today don't condone slavery, though one could find verses in the torah to the contrary.
fro I'm just tiptoeing in...for a moment. Back in those days i.e. Slavery and Rape in the Bible, they didn't call it RAPE [modern term]......they called it the "BOOTY." Which is the treasures of the conquered....this includes women, children, property and "spoils" of the land. Okay. Tiptoeing out! fro
quote:
And the same can not be said of the xian world/faith? For clarification's sake.


No, the same cannot be said. The culture of slavery changed drastically from the Old Testament to the New Testament.
quote:
Originally posted by urbansun:
More to the original point. The bible of course tolerated slavery as it was part of culture, and the bible is a cultural and historical reflection of its time with God expressing himself through culture and history.

Name me one historical religion that prohibited slavery explicitely. We act as if slavery is the worse thing that could happen in the world. Is it? We act as if all slavery is equal. Is it?
The point of the question, when it's asked, it that the condoning of slavery in the Bible, if slavery is indeed a wrong, gives lie to the notion that the Bible is God's word, or inspired by God.

Urbansun, I find something you said here particularly fascinating, and worth pasting again:
quote:
The bible of course tolerated slavery as it was part of culture, and the bible is a cultural and historical reflection of its time with God expressing himself through culture and history.
We often here one camp argue something along the lines of the following: "Times are changing, and the church is out of touch. The church needs to update its views on [whatever the issue is; contraception, gay rights, nonmarital sex, etc.]." The answer from the opposing side is usually around the idea that God's word is timeless, and that if society is becoming more permissive then that's because society is straying away from God's word. God's word doesn't have to adjust with human behavior; it's the other way around.

Well, here you seem not to have a problem with the Bible as a reflection of the cultural times in which its books were written. If it's so timeless, then what was wrong should have been stated as such back then. If not, if the Bible is subject to (and therefore limited by) the times and the culture that it came from, then I don't see a justification for the "timeless" argument. If society believes today that gay marriage is OK, then it's okay.

The bible would impress me -- as would any religion's text that claims to be inspired by God -- if it revealed truths that transcended the culture it was written in, and didn't condone something that was common in that culture just because it was common in that culture. If it stated back then that slavery was sinful and not allowed, and if it contained knowledge that the people otherwise couldn't have had, such as the correct nature of earth and space.

The point here is that this is why people point out slavery in the Bible. As far as they're concerned, if it condones something that we know is thoroughly sinful just because it wasn't seen as sinful in those days, then it's not the product of any divine inspiration, then it would be taken seriously by many of the people who instead reject it.

There's nothing in there that couldn't have been conceived of independently by men living back then. That's the point.
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
quote:
And the same can not be said of the xian world/faith? For clarification's sake.


No, the same cannot be said. The culture of slavery changed drastically from the Old Testament to the New Testament.


...A drastic change, culturally of course, from the o.t. methods of slavery to the n.t. methods -of slavery.

I see.
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
quote:
And the same can not be said of the xian world/faith? For clarification's sake.


No, the same cannot be said. The culture of slavery changed drastically from the Old Testament to the New Testament.

How so?
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
quote:
Originally posted by urbansun:
More to the original point. The bible of course tolerated slavery as it was part of culture, and the bible is a cultural and historical reflection of its time with God expressing himself through culture and history.

Name me one historical religion that prohibited slavery explicitely. We act as if slavery is the worse thing that could happen in the world. Is it? We act as if all slavery is equal. Is it?
The point of the question, when it's asked, it that the condoning of slavery in the Bible, if slavery is indeed a wrong, gives lie to the notion that the Bible is God's word, or inspired by God.

Urbansun, I find something you said here particularly fascinating, and worth pasting again:
quote:
The bible of course tolerated slavery as it was part of culture, and the bible is a cultural and historical reflection of its time with God expressing himself through culture and history.
We often here one camp argue something along the lines of the following: "Times are changing, and the church is out of touch. The church needs to update its views on [whatever the issue is; contraception, gay rights, nonmarital sex, etc.]." The answer from the opposing side is usually around the idea that God's word is timeless, and that if society is becoming more permissive then that's because society is straying away from God's word. God's word doesn't have to adjust with human behavior; it's the other way around.

Well, here you seem not to have a problem with the Bible as a reflection of the cultural times in which its books were written. If it's so timeless, then what was wrong should have been stated as such back then. If not, if the Bible is subject to (and therefore limited by) the times and the culture that it came from, then I don't see a justification for the "timeless" argument. If society believes today that gay marriage is OK, then it's okay.

The bible would impress me -- as would any religion's text that claims to be inspired by God -- if it revealed truths that transcended the culture it was written in, and didn't condone something that was common in that culture just because it was common in that culture. If it stated back then that slavery was sinful and not allowed, and if it contained knowledge that the people otherwise couldn't have had, such as the correct nature of earth and space.

The point here is that this is why people point out slavery in the Bible. As far as they're concerned, if it condones something that we know is thoroughly sinful just because it wasn't seen as sinful in those days, then it's not the product of any divine inspiration, then it would be taken seriously by many of the people who instead reject it.

There's nothing in there that couldn't have been conceived of independently by men living back then. That's the point.

This seems to be a reoccurring issue with respect to how different people understand what constitutes "God's word." I have and will continue to argue against literalism of all kind. It is true that there are those who believe that the only way one can assert that the Bible is the God's word is if it is literally true. If they are Christians that hold this view, they are probably fundamentalist and/or conservative evangelicals who promote doctrines such as inerrancy and/or infallibility. I used to be such an individual, and thus feel that I have an understanding of this mindset. What is surprising to me now, however, are the number of no Christians who wish to promote such a view as well. In some respects, I believe that it is predicated on the same fallacy that one finds with fundamentalists, namely, that truth is synonymous with fact (empirical, scientific, historical, etc.), but this is far from a necessary relationship.

Perhaps it is a failing of our educational system that privileges certain kinds of knowledge over others. Perhaps it has to do with the general lack of historical consciousness that exists in this culture. Yet, it would seem to me that we all acknowlege and call upon a sense of truth that is not confined to or circumscribed to fact. This is why we read literature and good fiction. This is why we listen to music or experience art. In these genres, we encounter "truth" about what it means to be human. We do not throw Toni Morrison's Beloved aside because there never was a literal Baby Sugg Holy, because there is no Sweet Home Plantation, or that it talks about ghosts. Yet, I believe that in reading this work, one learns more about what it is to be African American. One get closer in many ways to the truth of slavery experience on an existential level.

This for me is very much how the Bible functions in the context of a community of faith. It becomes the word of God to the extent that it conveys or communicates truth for us and others. But this is not a simple or automatic process. It is a relational process, an interpretive process, that requires the use of collective intellects and experiences.

For the most part, I would assert that this is the way that more religious traditions have functioned, at least up through the twentieth century. Unfortunately, vulgar literalism has infected an increasing number of spiritual traditions, which I believe has contributed to the rise of various fundamentalisms.

It is for this reason that I am also a strong advocate of functional analysis with respect to the study of religion. How does religion actually work. In many instances, I believe that we need to bracket or set aside our assumptions about how things should work, what criteria should obtain or hold with respect to "God's word" and examine what transpires, how it works, and then turn to questions of meaning. In this way, one hopefully avoids the imposition of their reality on someone else.
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:

This seems to be a reoccurring issue with respect to how different people understand what constitutes "God's word." I have and will continue to argue against literalism of all kind. It is true that there are those who believe that the only way one can assert that the Bible is the God's word is if it is literally true. If they are Christians that hold this view, they are probably fundamentalist and/or conservative evangelicals who promote doctrines such as inerrancy and/or infallibility. I used to be such an individual, and thus feel that I have an understanding of this mindset. What is surprising to me now, however, are the number of no Christians who wish to promote such a view as well. In some respects, I believe that it is predicated on the same fallacy that one finds with fundamentalists, namely, that truth is synonymous with fact (empirical, scientific, historical, etc.), but this is far from a necessary relationship.

Perhaps it is a failing of our educational system that privileges certain kinds of knowledge over others. Perhaps it has to do with the general lack of historical consciousness that exists in this culture. Yet, it would seem to me that we all acknowlege and call upon a sense of truth that is not confined to or circumscribed to fact. This is why we read literature and good fiction. This is why we listen to music or experience art. In these genres, we encounter "truth" about what it means to be human. We do not throw Toni Morrison's Beloved aside because there never was a literal Baby Sugg Holy, because there is no Sweet Home Plantation, or that it talks about ghosts. Yet, I believe that in reading this work, one learns more about what it is to be African American. One get closer in many ways to the truth of slavery experience on an existential level.

This for me is very much how the Bible functions in the context of a community of faith. It becomes the word of God to the extent that it conveys or communicates truth for us and others. But this is not a simple or automatic process. It is a relational process, an interpretive process, that requires the use of collective intellects and experiences.

For the most part, I would assert that this is the way that more religious traditions have functioned, at least up through the twentieth century. Unfortunately, vulgar literalism has infected an increasing number of spiritual traditions, which I believe has contributed to the rise of various fundamentalisms.

It is for this reason that I am also a strong advocate of functional analysis with respect to the study of religion. How does religion actually work. In many instances, I believe that we need to bracket or set aside our assumptions about how things should work, what criteria should obtain or hold with respect to "God's word" and examine what transpires, how it works, and then turn to questions of meaning. In this way, one hopefully avoids the imposition of their reality on someone else.


I agree with this, but I would go further to say that all words of truth are indeed words of God. The only thing that differentiates the Abrahamic scripts from Shakespeare, Homeric books, and the works of Toni Morrsion is the level and type of devotion that people have to them. If, or even when, people have the kind of devotion to works of art (and I have to admit, the Bard comes kinda close) that people have to the Bible and Quran, then those works too, or more often instead of, become the Word of God.

Under the glare of critical analysis, how does the need to salvation look fro outside the world of the bible?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:

quote:
And the same can not be said of the xian world/faith? For clarification's sake.


No, the same cannot be said. The culture of slavery changed drastically from the Old Testament to the New Testament.

How so?


In the OT, slavery was based on dominance and views of spiritual inferiority. There are numerous accounts where nations were looked down upon because of how/what/who they worshipped. The Jewish culture was one of deep segregation (from the Caananites for instance) and colonization. Interestingly, one only has to go back less than forty years in order to see what that was a recipe for.

God/Jesus in the NT was more servile and harmonizing. HE couldn't condone slavery anymore than he could be a proponent for hatred, world dominance, and fascism. However, since slavery wasn't on Jesus' agenda, HE is being accused of "not standing up for human liberties". To that I say, Pedophilia wasn't on His agenda, perhaps because the culture of pedophilia either didn't exist, or was slightly different than it is today. Homosexuality wasn't on His agenda, and sadly enough this silence is used to prove that He condoned/advocated same sex marriages. Major concepts back then, like War, Diplomacy, and Nationalism weren't on his agenda; and again, sadly enough, His silence on those issues could be spun into meaning anything, depending upon which side of the religous spectrum you stand on.
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:

quote:
And the same can not be said of the xian world/faith? For clarification's sake.


No, the same cannot be said. The culture of slavery changed drastically from the Old Testament to the New Testament.

How so?


In the OT, slavery was based on dominance and views of spiritual inferiority. There are numerous accounts where nations were looked down upon because of how/what/who they worshipped. The Jewish culture was one of deep segregation (from the Caananites for instance) and colonization. Interestingly, one only has to go back less than forty years in order to see what that was a recipe for.

God/Jesus in the NT was more servile and harmonizing. HE couldn't condone slavery anymore than he could be a proponent for hatred, world dominance, and fascism. However, since slavery wasn't on Jesus' agenda, HE is being accused of "not standing up for human liberties". To that I say, Pedophilia wasn't on His agenda, perhaps because the culture of pedophilia either didn't exist, or was slightly different than it is today. Homosexuality wasn't on His agenda, and sadly enough this silence is used to prove that He condoned/advocated same sex marriages. Major concepts back then, like War, Diplomacy, and Nationalism weren't on his agenda; and again, sadly enough, His silence on those issues could be spun into meaning anything, depending upon which side of the religous spectrum you stand on.

I am unclear how your comments above fit with your claims as to the changing culture of slavery in the Hebrew Bible vs the New Testament.

I think that you start out on the right track with respect to talking about the social/cultural milieu in which slavery functioned in the OT, but for some reason, you switch when talking about slavery in the NT to a theological apologetic as to why Jesus does not or cant not speak to it. Why not do a similar analysis as the one you began with? How did historical and social circumstances of 1st century Palestine effect the culture of slavery? If you wanted to do something textual, there are numerous references to slavery by the epistle writers, particularly Paul, as I am sure you know. There is one whole letter, Philemon, for which slavery is a central issue.

My question was not a claim that the culture of slavery did or did not change from the OT to the NT, it may have. But, I do not believe that your argument as presented is evidence that it does.
quote:
I think that you start out on the right track with respect to talking about the social/cultural milieu in which slavery functioned in the OT, but for some reason, you switch when talking about slavery in the NT to a theological apologetic as to why Jesus does not or cant not speak to it.



I did switch didn't I? 19 I know before I started to respond my thoughts ran through the purpose of slavery juxtaposed against Jewish conversion tactics and slaveries economic leanings. Also I started with a few constants about slavery, that aren't common and are quite controversial. I was going to comment on how Jewish sensitivity towards slavery may have changed seeing as how they were slaves themselves on several occassions. But in avoiding that controversy, I just ended up on a random tangent about some of the arguments pointing out the "evils of the Bible" that weren't presented here.

My bad.
So... I'll give three things that changed the culture of slavery viewed between the OT the NT.

1. It's usefulness in terms of Jewish socio-economic development

2. Hightenend sensitvity towards bondage.

3. Death of Jewish expansion.
------------------------------------------

In the OT, the earth was the Jew's to inherit. In the NT, the earth was for the meek to inherit.

Isaiah 49 can give one a glimpse of Jewish understanding of God, inheritance, and views towards the placement of other nations.

quote:
1 Listen to me, you islands;
hear this, you distant nations:
Before I was born the LORD called me;
from my birth he has made mention of my name.
2 He made my mouth like a sharpened sword,
in the shadow of his hand he hid me;
he made me into a polished arrow
and concealed me in his quiver.

3 He said to me, "You are my servant,
Israel, in whom I will display my splendor."

4 But I said, "I have labored to no purpose;
I have spent my strength in vain and for nothing.
Yet what is due me is in the LORD's hand,
and my reward is with my God."

5 And now the LORD says—
he who formed me in the womb to be his servant
to bring Jacob back to him
and gather Israel to himself,
for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD
and my God has been my strength-

6 he says:
"It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth."

7 This is what the LORD says—
the Redeemer and Holy One of Israel—
to him who was despised and abhorred by the nation,
to the servant of rulers:
"Kings will see you and rise up,
princes will see and bow down,
because of the LORD, who is faithful,
the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you."



Restoration of Israel
8 This is what the LORD says:
"In the time of my favor I will answer you,
and in the day of salvation I will help you;
I will keep you and will make you
to be a covenant for the people,
to restore the land
and to reassign its desolate inheritances,
9 to say to the captives, 'Come out,'
and to those in darkness, 'Be free!'
"They will feed beside the roads
and find pasture on every barren hill.

10 They will neither hunger nor thirst,
nor will the desert heat or the sun beat upon them.
He who has compassion on them will guide them
and lead them beside springs of water.

11 I will turn all my mountains into roads,
and my highways will be raised up.

12 See, they will come from afar—
some from the north, some from the west,
some from the region of Aswan. [a] "

13 Shout for joy, O heavens;
rejoice, O earth;
burst into song, O mountains!
For the LORD comforts his people
and will have compassion on his afflicted ones.

14 But Zion said, "The LORD has forsaken me,
the Lord has forgotten me."

15 "Can a mother forget the baby at her breast
and have no compassion on the child she has borne?
Though she may forget,
I will not forget you!

16 See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands;
your walls are ever before me.

17 Your sons hasten back,
and those who laid you waste depart from you.

18 Lift up your eyes and look around;
all your sons gather and come to you.
As surely as I live," declares the LORD,
"you will wear them all as ornaments;
you will put them on, like a bride.

19 "Though you were ruined and made desolate
and your land laid waste,
now you will be too small for your people,
and those who devoured you will be far away.

20 The children born during your bereavement
will yet say in your hearing,
'This place is too small for us;
give us more space to live in.'

21 Then you will say in your heart,
'Who bore me these?
I was bereaved and barren;
I was exiled and rejected.
Who brought these up?
I was left all alone,
but these—where have they come from?' "

22 This is what the Sovereign LORD says:
"See, I will beckon to the Gentiles,
I will lift up my banner to the peoples;
they will bring your sons in their arms
and carry your daughters on their shoulders.

23 Kings will be your foster fathers,
and their queens your nursing mothers.
They will bow down before you with their faces to the ground;
they will lick the dust at your feet.
Then you will know that I am the LORD;
those who hope in me will not be disappointed."

24 Can plunder be taken from warriors,
or captives rescued from the fierce ?

25 But this is what the LORD says:
"Yes, captives will be taken from warriors,
and plunder retrieved from the fierce;
I will contend with those who contend with you,
and your children I will save.

26 I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh;
they will be drunk on their own blood, as with wine.
Then all mankind will know
that I, the LORD, am your Savior,
your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob."


Jesus has His own sentiment towards violence, revenge, and bondage.

quote:
50Jesus replied, "Friend, do what you came for."[d]

Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "[B]for all who draw the sword will die by the sword
. 53Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

55At that time Jesus said to the crowd, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. 56But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.

Last edited {1}
You can't forget the business of history revision or the fact that a lot of word meanings are lost in translation.

People took a word that originally meant basically servant, or employee and made it to mean slave, and slave to mean a person owned by another person (which in actuality is as impossible as actually owning an air molecule or a raindrop, but brainwashing and centuries of socially conditioning and brutality will cause people to actually "believe" anything), etc., etc.,
quote:
You can't forget the business of history revision or the fact that a lot of word meanings are lost in translation.

People took a word that originally meant basically servant, or employee and made it to mean slave, and slave to mean a person owned by another person (which in actuality is as impossible as actually owning an air molecule or a raindrop, but brainwashing and centuries of socially conditioning and brutality will cause people to actually "believe" anything), etc., etc.,


Also,

Keep in mind that there were no such word, literally speaking, as "slave" in the ancient world. However as that saying goes, "A rose by any other name is still a rose."

Again, this thread was a continuation of another thread making the claim that the bible didn't condone "slavery and rape". Regarding the slavery part of the claim, a case was made that the bible was speaking to servitude, not slavery -as to suggest a difference.

I showed, quoted exact verses in the bible where it mentions slavery. I can quote more, but the two I quoted were good enough.

Another point was made that slavery was different with regard to one culture/epoch as opposed to another culture/epoch. I find that point, interesting, as I reflect on my time living in middle ga.

I was speaking to a brotha from macon who told me slaves if ever confronted with the choice of being enslaved in ga. or miss. those 'in the know' would choose ga, because the slave owners weren't as rough on their slaves as they were in miss..

Huh, now think about that for a minute.

My point is, no matter how what, humane?, slavery has become from one time to enother, from one culture, to another, it is STILL SLAVERY.

We can apologize until thy kingdom come, more power 2'ya, yet still the common denominator is showing slavery, "tolerated" in the bible.
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
You can't forget the business of history revision or the fact that a lot of word meanings are lost in translation.

People took a word that originally meant basically servant, or employee and made it to mean slave, and slave to mean a person owned by another person (which in actuality is as impossible as actually owning an air molecule or a raindrop, but brainwashing and centuries of socially conditioning and brutality will cause people to actually "believe" anything), etc., etc.,


Also,

Keep in mind that there were no such word, literally speaking, as "slave" in the ancient world. However as that saying goes, "A rose by any other name is still a rose."

Again, this thread was a continuation of another thread making the claim that the bible didn't condone "slavery and rape". Regarding the slavery part of the claim, a case was made that the bible was speaking to servitude, not slavery -as to suggest a difference.

I showed, quoted exact verses in the bible where it mentions slavery. I can quote more, but the two I quoted were good enough.

Another point was made that slavery was different with regard to one culture/epoch as opposed to another culture/epoch. I find that point, interesting, as I reflect on my time living in middle ga.

I was speaking to a brotha from macon who told me slaves if ever confronted with the choice of being enslaved in ga. or miss. those 'in the know' would choose ga, because the slave owners weren't as rough on their slaves as they were in miss..

Huh, now think about that for a minute.

My point is, no matter how what, humane?, slavery has become from one time to enother, from one culture, to another, it is STILL SLAVERY.

We can apologize until thy kingdom come, more power 2'ya, yet still the common denominator is showing slavery, "tolerated" in the bible.


Not if you get paid, chose to go into as a Servant, not a slave OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL, and receive human rights in the Hebrew culture. It's not slavery!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
You can't forget the business of history revision or the fact that a lot of word meanings are lost in translation.

People took a word that originally meant basically servant, or employee and made it to mean slave, and slave to mean a person owned by another person (which in actuality is as impossible as actually owning an air molecule or a raindrop, but brainwashing and centuries of socially conditioning and brutality will cause people to actually "believe" anything), etc., etc.,


Also,

Keep in mind that there were no such word, literally speaking, as "slave" in the ancient world. However as that saying goes, "A rose by any other name is still a rose."

Again, this thread was a continuation of another thread making the claim that the bible didn't condone "slavery and rape". Regarding the slavery part of the claim, a case was made that the bible was speaking to servitude, not slavery -as to suggest a difference.

I showed, quoted exact verses in the bible where it mentions slavery. I can quote more, but the two I quoted were good enough.

Another point was made that slavery was different with regard to one culture/epoch as opposed to another culture/epoch. I find that point, interesting, as I reflect on my time living in middle ga.

I was speaking to a brotha from macon who told me slaves if ever confronted with the choice of being enslaved in ga. or miss. those 'in the know' would choose ga, because the slave owners weren't as rough on their slaves as they were in miss..

Huh, now think about that for a minute.

My point is, no matter how what, humane?, slavery has become from one time to enother, from one culture, to another, it is STILL SLAVERY.

We can apologize until thy kingdom come, more power 2'ya, yet still the common denominator is showing slavery, "tolerated" in the bible.


Not if you get paid, chose to go into as a Servant, not a slave OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL, and receive human rights in the Hebrew culture. It's not slavery!!!!


That's right..."if". Roll Eyes
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
You can't forget the business of history revision or the fact that a lot of word meanings are lost in translation.

People took a word that originally meant basically servant, or employee and made it to mean slave, and slave to mean a person owned by another person (which in actuality is as impossible as actually owning an air molecule or a raindrop, but brainwashing and centuries of socially conditioning and brutality will cause people to actually "believe" anything), etc., etc.,


Also,

Keep in mind that there were no such word, literally speaking, as "slave" in the ancient world. However as that saying goes, "A rose by any other name is still a rose."

Again, this thread was a continuation of another thread making the claim that the bible didn't condone "slavery and rape". Regarding the slavery part of the claim, a case was made that the bible was speaking to servitude, not slavery -as to suggest a difference.

I showed, quoted exact verses in the bible where it mentions slavery. I can quote more, but the two I quoted were good enough.

Another point was made that slavery was different with regard to one culture/epoch as opposed to another culture/epoch. I find that point, interesting, as I reflect on my time living in middle ga.

I was speaking to a brotha from macon who told me slaves if ever confronted with the choice of being enslaved in ga. or miss. those 'in the know' would choose ga, because the slave owners weren't as rough on their slaves as they were in miss..

Huh, now think about that for a minute.

My point is, no matter how what, humane?, slavery has become from one time to enother, from one culture, to another, it is STILL SLAVERY.

We can apologize until thy kingdom come, more power 2'ya, yet still the common denominator is showing slavery, "tolerated" in the bible.


Not if you get paid, chose to go into as a Servant, not a slave OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL, and receive human rights in the Hebrew culture. It's not slavery!!!!


That's right..."if". Roll Eyes


It's not even "if" I already covered this in the video.
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
You can't forget the business of history revision or the fact that a lot of word meanings are lost in translation.

People took a word that originally meant basically servant, or employee and made it to mean slave, and slave to mean a person owned by another person (which in actuality is as impossible as actually owning an air molecule or a raindrop, but brainwashing and centuries of socially conditioning and brutality will cause people to actually "believe" anything), etc., etc.,


Also,

Keep in mind that there were no such word, literally speaking, as "slave" in the ancient world. However as that saying goes, "A rose by any other name is still a rose."

Again, this thread was a continuation of another thread making the claim that the bible didn't condone "slavery and rape". Regarding the slavery part of the claim, a case was made that the bible was speaking to servitude, not slavery -as to suggest a difference.

I showed, quoted exact verses in the bible where it mentions slavery. I can quote more, but the two I quoted were good enough.

Another point was made that slavery was different with regard to one culture/epoch as opposed to another culture/epoch. I find that point, interesting, as I reflect on my time living in middle ga.

I was speaking to a brotha from macon who told me slaves if ever confronted with the choice of being enslaved in ga. or miss. those 'in the know' would choose ga, because the slave owners weren't as rough on their slaves as they were in miss..

Huh, now think about that for a minute.

My point is, no matter how what, humane?, slavery has become from one time to enother, from one culture, to another, it is STILL SLAVERY.

We can apologize until thy kingdom come, more power 2'ya, yet still the common denominator is showing slavery, "tolerated" in the bible.


Not if you get paid, chose to go into as a Servant, not a slave OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL, and receive human rights in the Hebrew culture. It's not slavery!!!!


That's right..."if". Roll Eyes


It's not even "if" I already covered this in the video.


"Apology excepted"... Roll Eyes
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:

Not if you get paid, chose to go into as a Servant, not a slave OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL, and receive human rights in the Hebrew culture. It's not slavery!!!!


So now, we are talking about hebrew culture?

Are we talking about the bible or are we taking about hebrew culture?

Speaking of hebrew culture, a book you may be interested in, "The Cultures Of The Jews", edited by David Biale. Some good stuff in there.

Well anyway:

Luke 12:47 (RSV)
"And the servent who knew his master's will, but did not make ready or according to his will, shaw recieve a severe beating"

A verse I believe fredrick douglass would never forget.

In a kjv one may find "lord's" in place of "master's", "beaten with many stripes" in place of "recieve a severe beating". In the niv it ends with "...many blows". All apples to apples, no?

Still think slave and servant are two different things according to luke? Or is it merely a rose by another name according to the above verse?

Or luke don't know what he's talkin'bout?

If so then:

Why beat a paid servant? Why not just fire or dismiss the servent if she/he isn't doing her/his job and go hire/recruit someone who could and pay them?

Your apology is excepted, in advance.
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:

Not if you get paid, chose to go into as a Servant, not a slave OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL, and receive human rights in the Hebrew culture. It's not slavery!!!!


So now, we are talking about hebrew culture?

Are we talking about the bible or are we taking about hebrew culture?

Speaking of hebrew culture, a book you may be interested in, "The Cultures Of The Jews", edited by David Biale. Some good stuff in there.

Well anyway:

Luke 12:47 (RSV)
"And the servent who knew his master's will, but did not make ready or according to his will, shaw recieve a severe beating"

A verse I believe fredrick douglass would never forget.

In a kjv one may find "lord's" in place of "master's", "beaten with many stripes" in place of "recieve a severe beating". In the niv it ends with "...many blows". All apples to apples, no?

Still think slave and servant are two different things according to luke? Or is it merely a rose by another name according to the above verse?

Or luke don't know what he's talkin'bout?

If so then:

Why beat a paid servant? Why not just fire or dismiss the servent if she/he isn't doing her/his job and go hire/recruit someone who could and pay them?

Your apology is excepted, in advance.


Fool, this is the same parable that I used quoting Jesus in the video, used by Luke. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

No Raptor, you need to apologize for your ignorance. My God man, this is terrible and the excuses. Shame on you...
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:

Not if you get paid, chose to go into as a Servant, not a slave OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL, and receive human rights in the Hebrew culture. It's not slavery!!!!


So now, we are talking about hebrew culture?

Are we talking about the bible or are we taking about hebrew culture?

Speaking of hebrew culture, a book you may be interested in, "The Cultures Of The Jews", edited by David Biale. Some good stuff in there.

Well anyway:

Luke 12:47 (RSV)
"And the servent who knew his master's will, but did not make ready or according to his will, shaw recieve a severe beating"

A verse I believe fredrick douglass would never forget.

In a kjv one may find "lord's" in place of "master's", "beaten with many stripes" in place of "recieve a severe beating". In the niv it ends with "...many blows". All apples to apples, no?

Still think slave and servant are two different things according to luke? Or is it merely a rose by another name according to the above verse?

Or luke don't know what he's talkin'bout?

If so then:

Why beat a paid servant? Why not just fire or dismiss the servent if she/he isn't doing her/his job and go hire/recruit someone who could and pay them?

Your apology is excepted, in advance.


Fool, this is the same parable that I used quoting Jesus in the video, used by Luke. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

No Raptor, you need to apologize for your ignorance. My God man, this is terrible and the excuses. Shame on you...


I have refraimed, for sometime, from watching your videos of you sayin whatever it is you could post on this forum.

So that may be my fault. And I except that.

Parable... Allegory... Okay. What then is jesus trying to illustrate or teach? In your opinion. By all means exegete on the verse. I trust you can do that without going to an apologist weblink to loot somebody else's exegete and passing it off like its all you.

Furthermore I can except being called ignorant.

Perfectly fine with that.

How'bout we refraim from calling anyone a fool.

I understand your excitement, when you believe you've gotten the drop on me from time to time, however we can agree that there are more 'witty' terms to use other than fool.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:

Not if you get paid, chose to go into as a Servant, not a slave OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL, and receive human rights in the Hebrew culture. It's not slavery!!!!


So now, we are talking about hebrew culture?

Are we talking about the bible or are we taking about hebrew culture?

Speaking of hebrew culture, a book you may be interested in, "The Cultures Of The Jews", edited by David Biale. Some good stuff in there.

Well anyway:

Luke 12:47 (RSV)
"And the servent who knew his master's will, but did not make ready or according to his will, shaw recieve a severe beating"

A verse I believe fredrick douglass would never forget.

In a kjv one may find "lord's" in place of "master's", "beaten with many stripes" in place of "recieve a severe beating". In the niv it ends with "...many blows". All apples to apples, no?

Still think slave and servant are two different things according to luke? Or is it merely a rose by another name according to the above verse?

Or luke don't know what he's talkin'bout?

If so then:

Why beat a paid servant? Why not just fire or dismiss the servent if she/he isn't doing her/his job and go hire/recruit someone who could and pay them?

Your apology is excepted, in advance.


Fool, this is the same parable that I used quoting Jesus in the video, used by Luke. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

No Raptor, you need to apologize for your ignorance. My God man, this is terrible and the excuses. Shame on you...


I have refraimed, for sometime, from watching your videos of you sayin whatever it is you could post on this forum.

So that may be my fault. And I except that.

Parable... Allegory... Okay. What then is jesus trying to illustrate or teach? In your opinion. By all means exegete on the verse. I trust you can do that without going to an apologist weblink to loot somebody else's exegete and passing it off like its all you.

Furthermore I can except being called ignorant.

Perfectly fine with that.

How'bout we refraim from calling anyone a fool.

I understand your excitement, when you believe you've gotten the drop on me from time to time, however we can agree that there are more 'witty' terms to use other than fool.



It's all in the video...
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
It's all in the video...

Interesting.

I found a dude on...YOUTUBE...for you to get up with regarding atheism being a faith and or religion.

You totally dismiss the dude then erge that I go to...YOUTUBE...to watch/listen to you make your claim...

Sweet.
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
It's all in the video...

Interesting.

I found a dude on...YOUTUBE...for you to get up with regarding atheism being a faith and or religion.

You totally dismiss the dude then erge that I go to...YOUTUBE...to watch/listen to you make your claim...

Sweet.


Yes, another one with some half-truth or lack of understanding video you wish for me to watch. Sure, not that I haven't seen most of them. A shame.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×