Christians who reject the old testament and slavery

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm sorry but your definition of who Christians are is a little bit way off.

Roman Catholics, Protestant, Orthodox aren't Bible believing organizations/churches hence couldn't be Christians. I specifically posted "Slavery is still practiced today in countries which do not believe in the Bible"
They use the Bible, but they do not believe in it. I used to be Catholic so I should know. Holding the Bible per se doesn't mean you believe it. It is really a different matter.

No True Scotsman fallacy.

Is America, a Bible believing nation?

I am sorry, my answer would be the same as "Is the 86% Catholic Philippines a Bible believing nation?

There is no such thing as a Bible believing nation except the Church of Christ.

So your earlier assertion that the countries that practice slavery as not "Bible believing nations" was just meaningless nonsense because, to you, there are no "Bible believing nations".

Tell you what, I can prove to you that non-Christians are inherently better people than Christians, because no non-Christians have ever committed any wrong against anyone.

Think you can disprove that? Think again. Because anyone who isn't Christian but HAS committed any wrong isn't a TRUE non-Christian by my definition.

See how that works? Like it or not, four out of the ten countries you gave in that list, the majority of them use the Bible as the basis for their morality and also practice slavery.

Which isn't that surprising, when you realize that the Bible endorses slavery.

 

[MJFlores]

Research Israeli cities. Nearly all of them were either owned by another civilization or created relatively recently in their history. Israel is built on genocide. Sure, lots of other countries are too, but Israel tries to claim some sort of divine exemption to how bad it is.


They're the ones who made the bible, dear.


Where do you think they got the idea?


Slavery is inherently bad. There is no "worse than".

Israeli cities built on slavery? None.

But the British did at one time engaged in Slave Trade.

 

[MJFlores]

No True Scotsman fallacy.


So your earlier assertion that the countries that practice slavery as not "Bible believing nations" was just meaningless nonsense because, to you, there are no "Bible believing nations".

Tell you what, I can prove to you that non-Christians are inherently better people than Christians, because no non-Christians have ever committed any wrong against anyone.

Think you can disprove that? Think again. Because anyone who isn't Christian but HAS committed any wrong isn't a TRUE non-Christian by my definition.

See how that works? Like it or not, four out of the ten countries you gave in that list, the majority of them use the Bible as the basis for their morality and also practice slavery.

Which isn't that surprising, when you realize that the Bible endorses slavery.

If there is a truly Bible believing nation - give me a call.

What is your definition of a Christian?

My definition of who is a Christian is:
A Christian believes in the Bible 100%.
He belongs to the body of Christ, the church.
He worships God everyday, lives in the love of the Son and has the fellowship of the Holy Spirit
He does not believe in man-made doctrines like the Trinity which isn't in the Bible.
He worships God in spirit and in truth because God is not human but spirit.
He believes that there is no Hell for the moment but it will be created on the Day of Judgement.
He does not worship statues nor possess statues of saints, or deity or what-have-you
He strives not to sin, does not drink wine or beer, does not do drugs
He loves his neighbor as the second commandment.
He obeys all the commandments of God because the proof that he loves God, the Father.

if the Bible endorses slavery, as you alleged it to be - is something of a misinterpretation on your part because it orders freeing of Hebrew slave on the 7th year and it was voluntary enslavement. Unlike the American enslavement which you have to import them from Africa, cram them on a ship where 20% are not expected to make it and hold them up in an auction - to work in the plantation.

Even the White House was built using slave labor.

Even the Presidents of the United States had slave labor.

This is a list of Presidents of the United States who owned slaves. Slavery in the United States was legal from its beginning as a nation, having been practiced in British North America from early colonial days. The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution formally abolished slavery, though the practice effectively ended only after the end of the American Civil War. In total, twelve presidents owned slaves at some point in their lives, eight of whom owned slaves while serving as president. George Washington was the first president to own slaves, including while he was president. Zachary Taylor was the last president to own slaves during his presidency, and Ulysses S. Grant was the last president to have owned a slave at some point in his life.

Slave owning was common among early presidents; of the first twelve, only John Adams (2) and his son John Quincy Adams (6) never owned slaves, although two of the others (Martin Van Buren and William Henry Harrison) did not own slaves while serving as president.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_who_owned_slaves

 

[Subduction Zone]

That was your post. You should have posted - The slavery in the Old South of the U.S. was worst than the biblical slavery. But I think you are so white, you can't help it.

Hebrew slavery wasn't even discussed by any documentary. Unless one is an anti-Semite.

View attachment 23414

While the former plight of the African slaves are everywhere in great detail.

So how do you justify your post:


View attachment 23415

You appear to be projecting your flaws upon others. I am far less of a racist than you appear to be by your posts. You use rather racist memes, and have been rather antisemitic by denying the effect of slavery on Hebrews as caused by the verses that you do not understand.

 

[MJFlores]

You appear to be projecting your flaws upon others. I am far less of a racist than you appear to be by your posts. You use rather racist memes, and have been rather antisemitic by denying the effect of slavery on Hebrews as caused by the verses that you do not understand.

I'm sorry but your words betray you.

The slavery in the Old South of the U.S. was not nearly as bad as biblical slavery.

You know it was bad, as I know it was really really bad.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If there is a truly Bible believing nation - give me a call.

View attachment 23420

What is your definition of a Christian?

My definition of who is a Christian is:
A Christian believes in the Bible 100%.
He belongs to the body of Christ, the church.
He worships God everyday, lives in the love of the Son and has the fellowship of the Holy Spirit
He does not believe in man-made doctrines like the Trinity which isn't in the Bible.
He worships God in spirit and in truth because God is not human but spirit.
He believes that there is no Hell for the moment but it will be created on the Day of Judgement.
He does not worship statues nor possess statues of saints, or deity or what-have-you
He strives not to sin, does not drink wine or beer, does not do drugs
He loves his neighbor as the second commandment.
He obeys all the commandments of God because the proof that he loves God, the Father.

if the Bible endorses slavery, as you alleged it to be - is something of a misinterpretation on your part because it orders freeing of Hebrew slave on the 7th year and it was voluntary enslavement. Unlike the American enslavement which you have to import them from Africa, cram them on a ship where 20% are not expected to make it and hold them up in an auction - to work in the plantation.

Even the White House was built using slave labor.

Even the Presidents of the United States had slave labor.

This is a list of Presidents of the United States who owned slaves. Slavery in the United States was legal from its beginning as a nation, having been practiced in British North America from early colonial days. The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution formally abolished slavery, though the practice effectively ended only after the end of the American Civil War. In total, twelve presidents owned slaves at some point in their lives, eight of whom owned slaves while serving as president. George Washington was the first president to own slaves, including while he was president. Zachary Taylor was the last president to own slaves during his presidency, and Ulysses S. Grant was the last president to have owned a slave at some point in his life.

Slave owning was common among early presidents; of the first twelve, only John Adams (2) and his son John Quincy Adams (6) never owned slaves, although two of the others (Martin Van Buren and William Henry Harrison) did not own slaves while serving as president.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_who_owned_slaves

By your own definition you appear not to be a Christian. You are not afraid to break the Ninth Commandment, at least not here. And you appear to be calling God a liar, though you probably don't understand how you are doing that.

No one here has denied slavery in the U.S. or that slavery was a great evil. The only one denying slavery is you. You can't deal with the fact that the Bible is proslavery.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sorry but your words betray you.

You know it was bad, as I know it was really really bad.

Of course I know it was bad in the south. I never claimed that it was not. I never implied that it was not.You have to quote out of context to try to imply that I did. Quoting out of context is usually done as a former of lying. It is called quote mining. If the ninth commandment means anything at all to you you should avoid this practice.

Once again, you can't deal with the fact that the Bible is proslavery.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If there is a truly Bible believing nation - give me a call.

View attachment 23420

What is your definition of a Christian?

My definition of who is a Christian is:
A Christian believes in the Bible 100%.
He belongs to the body of Christ, the church.
He worships God everyday, lives in the love of the Son and has the fellowship of the Holy Spirit
He does not believe in man-made doctrines like the Trinity which isn't in the Bible.
He worships God in spirit and in truth because God is not human but spirit.
He believes that there is no Hell for the moment but it will be created on the Day of Judgement.
He does not worship statues nor possess statues of saints, or deity or what-have-you
He strives not to sin, does not drink wine or beer, does not do drugs
He loves his neighbor as the second commandment.
He obeys all the commandments of God because the proof that he loves God, the Father.

Expanding a No True Scotsman fallacy doesn't make it any less of a fallacy.

if the Bible endorses slavery, as you alleged it to be - is something of a misinterpretation on your part because it orders freeing of Hebrew slave on the 7th year and it was voluntary enslavement. Unlike the American enslavement which you have to import them from Africa, cram them on a ship where 20% are not expected to make it and hold them up in an auction - to work in the plantation.

Now you're just outright lying or completely ignorant of the Bible. Yes, the Bible talks about freeing Hebrew slaves and voluntary slavery - but it also endorses taking the people of conquered lands as your slaves, and provides a method by which you can keep a Hebrew slave indefinitely.

You're dishonestly ignoring the parts of the Bible that contradict your beliefs.

Even the White House was built using slave labor.

Even the Presidents of the United States had slave labor.

This is a list of Presidents of the United States who owned slaves. Slavery in the United States was legal from its beginning as a nation, having been practiced in British North America from early colonial days. The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution formally abolished slavery, though the practice effectively ended only after the end of the American Civil War. In total, twelve presidents owned slaves at some point in their lives, eight of whom owned slaves while serving as president. George Washington was the first president to own slaves, including while he was president. Zachary Taylor was the last president to own slaves during his presidency, and Ulysses S. Grant was the last president to have owned a slave at some point in his life.

Slave owning was common among early presidents; of the first twelve, only John Adams (2) and his son John Quincy Adams (6) never owned slaves, although two of the others (Martin Van Buren and William Henry Harrison) did not own slaves while serving as president.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_who_owned_slaves

None of this is remotely relevant. How do you not understand this when I have explained it multiple times?

Do I have to put something in a GIF form before you'll read it?

 

[MJFlores]

By your own definition you appear not to be a Christian. You are not afraid to break the Ninth Commandment, at least not here. And you appear to be calling God a liar, though you probably don't understand how you are doing that.

No one here has denied slavery in the U.S. or that slavery was a great evil. The only one denying slavery is you. You can't deal with the fact that the Bible is proslavery.

There you go again.

You gotta put up - lay down your references that the Bible is pro-slavery.
I say it isn't.

Is it because of the Hebrews owning Hebrew slaves? What did they build?

The US Government say the African American slaves built the White House and the Capitol Building of the United States.
https://www.whitehousehistory.org/questions/did-slaves-build-the-white-house
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/12/02/slaves.white.house/index.html
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/white-house-was-fact-built-slaves-180959916/

How about the Hebrew slaves?
If it is really a big issue and if such slavery was brutal then it would be recorded everywhere.
But no scholar did not write such stuff.
Because it was nothing and insignificant.
Unlike the horrors of the African American slaves

Where the Hebrew slaves raped? No, but the African American slaves were.

The treatment of slaves in the United States varied by time and place, but was generally brutal and degrading. Whipping and sexual abuse, including rape, were common. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_of_slaves_in_the_United_States

And today we find racism as the aftershock of 246 years of slavery in the United States.

Where are the atrocities against Hebrew slaves? Or such just in your mind.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

There you go again.

You gotta put up - lay down your references that the Bible is pro-slavery.
I say it isn't.

Is it because of the Hebrews owning Hebrew slaves? What did they build?

View attachment 23422

The US Government say the African American slaves built the White House and the Capitol Building of the United States.
https://www.whitehousehistory.org/questions/did-slaves-build-the-white-house
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/12/02/slaves.white.house/index.html
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/white-house-was-fact-built-slaves-180959916/

How about the Hebrew slaves?
If it is really a big issue and if such slavery was brutal then it would be recorded everywhere.
But no scholar did not write such stuff.
Because it was nothing and insignificant.
Unlike the horrors of the African American slaves

Where the Hebrew slaves raped? No, but the African American slaves were.

The treatment of slaves in the United States varied by time and place, but was generally brutal and degrading. Whipping and sexual abuse, including rape, were common. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_of_slaves_in_the_United_States

And today we find racism as the aftershock of 246 years of slavery in the United States.

View attachment 23423

Where are the atrocities against Hebrew slaves? Or such just in your mind.

How difficult is it for you to understand this? I'm going to make it absolutely plain and simple for you:

Imagine I broke into your house one day, took you captive, took all of your belongings and sold them, then kept you locked up in my house performing menial tasks for many, many years. Along the way, I was reasonably polite to you, fed you regularly and kept my word to release you after twenty years.

My evil twin brother, however, also broke into someone's house, took them captive, took all of their belongings and sold them, kept them locked in the basement performing menial tasks for many, many years. However, rather than being polite, he was cruel, vicious, regularly beat them, would often refuse to feed them, and didn't let them go until they were a crippled, old man.

Now imagine both me and my brother were caught and taken to trial. Would you argue that what I did wasn't wrong or immoral just because what my brother did was worse?

Only a yes or no answer is suitable, please.

 

[MJFlores]

Expanding a No True Scotsman fallacy doesn't make it any less of a fallacy.


Now you're just outright lying or completely ignorant of the Bible. Yes, the Bible talks about freeing Hebrew slaves and voluntary slavery - but it also endorses taking the people of conquered lands as your slaves, and provides a method by which you can keep a Hebrew slave indefinitely.

You're dishonestly ignoring the parts of the Bible that contradict your beliefs.


None of this is remotely relevant. How do you not understand this when I have explained it multiple times?

Do I have to put something in a GIF form before you'll read it?

Scotsman? Sorry, I'm Asian.

Maybe I am ignorant of the Bible, because if I am an expert - I would be a minister of the Church of Christ.

Show me the parts, kiddo [unless you are older than me] - those juicy parts that you say I don't want to explore or ignore [about slavery that is].

use GIF would be nice - it cuts the boredom of replying scholarly.

In my POV - are these Hebrew slaves? How do they look like?

 

[MJFlores]

How difficult is it for you to understand this? I'm going to make it absolutely plain and simple for you:

Imagine I broke into your house one day, took you captive, took all of your belongings and sold them, then kept you locked up in my house performing menial tasks for many, many years. Along the way, I was reasonably polite to you, fed you regularly and kept my word to release you after twenty years.

My evil twin brother, however, also broke into someone's house, took them captive, took all of their belongings and sold them, kept them locked in the basement performing menial tasks for many, many years. However, rather than being polite, he was cruel, vicious, regularly beat them, would often refuse to feed them, and didn't let them go until they were a crippled, old man.

Now imagine both me and my brother were caught and taken to trial. Would you argue that what I did wasn't wrong or immoral just because what my brother did was worse?

Only a yes or no answer is suitable, please.

If I said yes or no - it would be considered Stockholm syndrome.

Stockholm syndrome is a condition that causes hostages to develop a psychological alliance with their captors as a survival strategy during captivity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

 

[Subduction Zone]

There you go again.

You gotta put up - lay down your references that the Bible is pro-slavery.
I say it isn't.

Is it because of the Hebrews owning Hebrew slaves? What did they build?

Hard to say. They did not keep records of that. All that we have is the Bible, which tells Hebrews that it is fine if they own slaves.

The US Government say the African American slaves built the White House and the Capitol Building of the United States.
https://www.whitehousehistory.org/questions/did-slaves-build-the-white-house
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/12/02/slaves.white.house/index.html
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/white-house-was-fact-built-slaves-180959916/

How about the Hebrew slaves?
If it is really a big issue and if such slavery was brutal then it would be recorded everywhere.
But no scholar did not write such stuff.
Because it was nothing and insignificant.
Unlike the horrors of the African American slaves

Where the Hebrew slaves raped? No, but the African American slaves were.

The treatment of slaves in the United States varied by time and place, but was generally brutal and degrading. Whipping and sexual abuse, including rape, were common. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_of_slaves_in_the_United_States

And today we find racism as the aftershock of 246 years of slavery in the United States.

View attachment 23423

Where are the atrocities against Hebrew slaves? Or such just in your mind.

Why do you think it would be recorded if they built buildings? That is a rather ridiculous expectation seeing how poor and incomplete the Bible is when it comes to history. The writers of the Bible were rather poor historians. Yes, they got some things right, but the lack of details is rather amazing.

And whipping and beating of slaves was common in the Old Testament times too. For example Exodus 21 20-21 says:

"“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money."

So one could beat a slave to death, at least as long as it took a couple of days for the slave to die. Do you not see that verse about a slave being the owners money?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Scotsman? Sorry, I'm Asian.

Maybe I am ignorant of the Bible, because if I am an expert - I would be a minister of the Church of Christ.

Show me the parts, kiddo [unless you are older than me] - those juicy parts that you say I don't want to explore or ignore [about slavery that is].

use GIF would be nice - it cuts the boredom of replying scholarly.

View attachment 23424

In my POV - are these Hebrew slaves? How do they look like?

Exodus 21 lays out the rules for Hebrew servants, including providing a loophole whereby a master can own their Hebrew slaves indefinitely if they have a wife and family and do not wish to be separated from them (because their family would still be considered their master's property). It also lays out laws that you can beat your slaves, provided they survive at least two days.

Leviticus 25 lays out the rules for non-Hebrew slaves, allowing followers to take the women and children made captive through war as slaves, to inherent, sell or trade said slaves.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If I said yes or no - it would be considered Stockholm syndrome.

Then ignore you being involved in the scenario. Imagine if it was ANYONE I kidnapped and held. Would it not be wrong then?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I said yes or no - it would be considered Stockholm syndrome.

Stockholm syndrome is a condition that causes hostages to develop a psychological alliance with their captors as a survival strategy during captivity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

No one is holding you hostage. People are merely trying to get you to honestly address the issues at hand.

The Bible tells us that you are wrong.

 

[MJFlores]

Hard to say. They did not keep records of that. All that we have is the Bible, which tells Hebrews that it is fine if they own slaves.




Why do you think it would be recorded if they built buildings? That is a rather ridiculous expectation seeing how poor and incomplete the Bible is when it comes to history. The writers of the Bible were rather poor historians. Yes, they got some things right, but the lack of details is rather amazing.

And whipping and beating of slaves was common in the Old Testament times too. For example Exodus 21 20-21 says:

"“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money."

So one could beat a slave to death, at least as long as it took a couple of days for the slave to die. Do you not see that verse about a slave being the owners money?

They kept records if such occurs - there were Jewish scribes.

Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version (NIV)
“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

That's in the Bible. Now let us compare this one with the Slave Code of the United States...

Violence against slaves [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes#Violence_against_slaves]

• Virginia, 1705 – "If any slave resists his master... correcting such a slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction... the master shall be free of all punishment... as if such accident never happened."
• South Carolina, 1712 – "Be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That no master, mistress, overseer, or other person whatsoever, that hath the care and charge of any negro or slave, shall give their negroes and other slaves leave... to go out of their plantations.... Every slave hereafter out of his master's plantation, without a ticket, or leave in writing, from his master... shall be whipped...."
• Louisiana, 1724 – "The slave who, having struck his master, his mistress, or the husband of his mistress, or their children, shall have produced a bruise, or the shedding of blood in the face, shall suffer capital punishment."

Comparing the Bible and the Slave Code - I have to say I rather be a Hebrew slave than a Negro slave.

 

[MJFlores]

Then ignore you being involved in the scenario. Imagine if it was ANYONE I kidnapped and held. Would it not be wrong then?

I would relate your hypothetical scenario to a real life scenario of a Filipina who suffered enslavement in the UK.

It is really hard to what to say Yes or No because on the onset of such event, I would really resist the kidnapping one way or another, everyday, every hour and every minute. I rather end up dead than to endure even a day of enslavement.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I would relate your hypothetical scenario to a real life scenario of a Filipina who suffered enslavement in the UK.

It is really hard to what to say Yes or No because on the onset of such event, I would really resist the kidnapping one way or another, everyday, every hour and every minute. I rather end up dead than to endure even a day of enslavement.

The fact that you will not say that kidnapping and imprisoning someone for years is wrong just demonstrates to me that you are morally bankrupt.

Now give me a straight answer. Is my kidnapping somehow justified just because I treated the victim better?

 

[MJFlores]

The fact that you will not say that kidnapping and imprisoning someone for years is wrong just demonstrates to me that you are morally bankrupt.

Now give me a straight answer. Is my kidnapping somehow justified just because I treated the victim better?

kidnapping and imprisoning someone for years is wrong
It is punishable under Philippine laws and your laws

Is my kidnapping somehow justified just because I treated the victim better?
NO

Isn't that straight enough?