Christians who reject the old testament and slavery

[ImmortalFlame]

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?

Right. So why is the Bible's endorsement of slavery justified just because there are worse forms of slavery throughout history?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

There is more than one translation of that verse and older translations tend to favor the version that I used. I do believe that some Christians tried to spin that verse. At any rate it was at the very least permissible to beat a slave to the point that they were very close to death. And some of your own posts showed that there were limits in punishment in the south that appear to be restrictive than the punishments in the Bible.

By the way did you not see how you had to use cases where a slave fought with his master to even make your weak claim? Being beaten to the point of death in the Bible was okay for merely being lazy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right. So why is the Bible's endorsement of slavery justified just because there are worse forms of slavery throughout history?

And it is hard to say if U.S. slavery was worse. We had a record of our wrong doings, in the Bible there is no record, there is merely a statement of what is allowed by slave owners, and what is allowed appears to be just as bad or worse than what was allowed in the south. In the south one could not sell one's own daughter into what was obviously sex slavery. One could do that in Old Testament times.

 

[MJFlores]

Right. So why is the Bible's endorsement of slavery justified just because there are worse forms of slavery throughout history?

Where is the endorsement?

en·dorse·ment
inˈdôrsmənt,enˈdôrsmənt/
noun
noun: endorsement; plural noun: endorsements; noun: indorsement; plural noun: indorsements

1. 1.
   an act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something.
   synonyms: support, backing, approval, seal of approval, agreement, recommendation, championship, patronage, affirmation, sanction;
   informalbuy-in
   "the proposal won their overwhelming endorsement"
2. 2.
   a clause in an insurance policy detailing an exemption from or change in coverage.

Could you show us the endorsement - say the chapter and verse [which allegedly I am ignoring?]

[This is my reaction while I am typing on my keyboard]

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

Ah good. So we agree, the Bible is immoral. That did not take too terribly wrong.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Where is the endorsement?

en·dorse·ment
inˈdôrsmənt,enˈdôrsmənt/
noun
noun: endorsement; plural noun: endorsements; noun: indorsement; plural noun: indorsements

1. 1.
   an act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something.
   synonyms: support, backing, approval, seal of approval, agreement, recommendation, championship, patronage, affirmation, sanction;
   informalbuy-in
   "the proposal won their overwhelming endorsement"
2. 2.
   a clause in an insurance policy detailing an exemption from or change in coverage.

Could you show us the endorsement - say the chapter and verse [which allegedly I am ignoring?]

[This is my reaction while I am typing on my keyboard]
View attachment 23425

I've already provided you with two links which tell you exactly how you can own slaves and provide instruction on how to treat, sell, inherit, beat and marry them off.

If I don't renounce something, and in fact give people instruction on HOW to do something, I am endorsing it. I am saying "You CAN do this, and here is how you can do it". It's no different to providing people with a recipe with the expectation that they are going to make it.

So, the Bible EXPLICITLY ENDORSES slavery by instructing people HOW THEY CAN DO IT.

Do not debate this point, it is unambiguous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where is the endorsement?

en·dorse·ment
inˈdôrsmənt,enˈdôrsmənt/
noun
noun: endorsement; plural noun: endorsements; noun: indorsement; plural noun: indorsements

1. 1.
   an act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something.
   synonyms: support, backing, approval, seal of approval, agreement, recommendation, championship, patronage, affirmation, sanction;
   informalbuy-in
   "the proposal won their overwhelming endorsement"
2. 2.
   a clause in an insurance policy detailing an exemption from or change in coverage.

Could you show us the endorsement - say the chapter and verse [which allegedly I am ignoring?]

[This is my reaction while I am typing on my keyboard]
View attachment 23425

When one is told how, where and who you can buy slaves from that is an endorsement. When one is told that one can sell one's daughter into sex slavery that is endorsement. When it says it is okay to beat your slaves, as long as they do not immediately die, that is an endorsement. When the Bible tells you how you can trick your fellow countryman into being a slave for life that is an endorsement. All of those verses can be found in the Bible.

 

[MJFlores]

And it is hard to say if U.S. slavery was worse. We had a record of our wrong doings, in the Bible there is no record, there is merely a statement of what is allowed by slave owners, and what is allowed appears to be just as bad or worse than what was allowed in the south. In the south one could not sell one's own daughter into what was obviously sex slavery. One could do that in Old Testament times.

Absence of evidence - cast doubt to your case.
"If the gloves don't fit , acquit"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Absence of evidence - cast doubt to your case.
"If the gloves don't fit , acquit"

There is more than enough evidence. It has been give to you. You can close your eyes but the verses are still there that tell the ancient Hebrews how to buy slaves, how they are property, how they can be passed on to their children, how they can sell their daughters into sex slavery, and how they can trick their fellow countrymen into slavery for life.

 

[MJFlores]

I've already provided you with two links which tell you exactly how you can own slaves and provide instruction on how to treat, sell, inherit, beat and marry them off.

If I don't renounce something, and in fact give people instruction on HOW to do something, I am endorsing it. I am saying "You CAN do this, and here is how you can do it". It's no different to providing people with a recipe with the expectation that they are going to make it.

So, the Bible EXPLICITLY ENDORSES slavery by instructing people HOW THEY CAN DO IT.

Do not debate this point, it is unambiguous.

Yup, that is why this is my reaction.

When one is told how, where and who you can buy slaves from that is an endorsement. When one is told that one can sell one's daughter into sex slavery that is endorsement. When it says it is okay to beat your slaves, as long as they do not immediately die, that is an endorsement. When the Bible tells you how you can trick your fellow countryman into being a slave for life that is an endorsement. All of those verses can be found in the Bible.

And the chapter and verse are?

An accusation should be firmly proven beyond reasonable doubt. If not....

Gotta go.
If you want to believe the Bible is an evil book, go ahead - proof or without proof - we are motivated by our own personal biases and opinions [with or without any cerebral process].

Good day/evening to you all.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, it’s not. Yes, we have the texts. But we also have commentaries on those texts, plus extra-biblical documents from church leaders and theologians. And what do you suppose Christians before there was a “bible,” hmm? There was no Bible for the first 450 years of the church’s existence, plus, most people couldn’t read. We had oral teachings, IOW, tradition.

Your friend may avoid meat, but unless he identifies as a Vegetarian, he’s not a Vegetarian. I have a friend who helps the poor, lifts the downtrodden, feeds the hungry — all those things Jesus told us to do. By your logic, he would be a Christian. But he’s an atheist. It isn’t an objective, outside definition of “Christian” that makes us “trademark Christian.” It’s how we choose to identify. If someone identifies as Christian, guess what? She’s a Christian! No matter what “criteria” you set; you have no authority to make that determination. The “defined term” is “how do I identify?” Then if the person doesn’t waddle and quack like a Christian, those in ecclesial authority make the determination.

You may not be aware that in the 1st and 2nd century, church leaders constantly quoted Bible verses in their correspondence as God's Word--so much so that we could reconstruct the NT just from their correspondence. And yes, before Christianity there was a Bible, indeed the Hebrew scriptures had already been translated to Greek circa 250 BCE.

I agree with you that an atheist who does some of what Jesus commanded but does not wish to identify as follower of Christ is not a Christian. Jesus also said one has to be born again to go to Heaven and all Christians are going there--the NT further says that those who deny Jesus was deity in human form come to die for us as a substitute . . . I'm not interested in modern or ancient ecclesiastical authorities--I go by what the Bible says.

Thanks.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yup, that is why this is my reaction.
View attachment 23426

So, to you, instructing people in HOW to do something, as well as instructing them that they both CAN and SHOULD do it (in certain circumstances), is not endorsing or encouraging that activity?

I'm sorry, but if this is genuinely what you believe, I can't help you. You're clearly far too much in denial.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That’s already been done by church leaders.


How do you know this? Have you interviewed every single person? What makes you think that “trusted Jesus for salvation” is the lynchpin attribute? What about people who trust God for salvation? You have an idea of the qualifications, but does the community as a whole share that idea? YOu don’t get to dream up qualifications and then impose them on everyone else.

Good questions, surely:

1. Both testaments say trusting God as an individual, not corporately, is the key to salvation.

2. The New Testament is clear, including quoted words of Jesus, that trusting Jesus makes a person not only a Christian, but empowered by the Spirit to begin to even attempt to live the Christian life including loving, not just forgiving enemies, and having the fruits of the Spirit.

3. Jesus marked people as either children of God for trusting Him or children of Satan. I'm interesting in what the first community has to say. When I meet individuals as you mentioned, I ask them if they've personally trusted Christ for salvation.

4. When I study chemistry, I find chemistry textbooks helpful. When I want to know what the founders of Christianity wanted people to understand, I read those texts where I can find their words and biographies.

Thanks again for your questions.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It says that as much as anything else. The problem is that you believe a myth but you won't even admit that.



And that could apply to you as well as to any other that claims to be a Christian, after all you claim that God is a liar.



And yet no Christian group or individual can seem to do that to the satisfaction to other Christian groups or individuals.



Actually it is. You are still making the same error. But you simply won't let yourself understand at best.

Huh? I know Christians in many, many sects who all recognize other Christians across sects. I happened to hear a sermon at my church last week where the pastor emphasized the universality of the church outside our sect

It says that as much as anything else. The problem is that you believe a myth but you won't even admit that.



And that could apply to you as well as to any other that claims to be a Christian, after all you claim that God is a liar.



And yet no Christian group or individual can seem to do that to the satisfaction to other Christian groups or individuals.



Actually it is. You are still making the same error. But you simply won't let yourself understand at best.

I've participated in numerous gatherings with the universal church across sects, any sect saying they are the only true Christians are cultic.

I've never said God tells lies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yup, that is why this is my reaction.
View attachment 23426



And the chapter and verse are?

An accusation should be firmly proven beyond reasonable doubt. If not....

View attachment 23427

Gotta go.
If you want to believe the Bible is an evil book, go ahead - proof or without proof - we are motivated by our own personal biases and opinions [with or without any cerebral process].

Good day/evening to you all.

You have been given the chapters and verses time after time. You refuse to deal with them. An attorney that ignores the evidence presented against his client will lose. You are clearly not an attorney.

Hiding your head in the sand is not a working defense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Huh? I know Christians in many, many sects who all recognize other Christians across sects. I happened to hear a sermon at my church last week where the pastor emphasized the universality of the church outside our sect

You missed the point. Recognizing another Christian as a Christian sometimes occurs, it quite often does not occur too I have seen many Protestants claim that Catholics are not Christians. But good for your pastor. Maybe he does not apply the no true Scotsman fallacy as so many other Christians do.

I've participated in numerous gatherings with the universal church across sects, any sect saying they are the only true Christians are cultic.

I've never said God tells lies.

How about Christian groups that do not claim they are the only true Christians, but groups that merely deny the Christianity of some Christians?

And yes, you have called God a liar, you just don't realize how. Tell me, do you take the flood myth literally? Do you take the Genesis myth literally and think that they are examples of the "word of God"?

 

[sojourner]

You may not be aware that in the 1st and 2nd century, church leaders constantly quoted Bible verses in their correspondence as God's Word--so much so that we could reconstruct the NT just from their correspondence. And yes, before Christianity there was a Bible, indeed the Hebrew scriptures had already been translated to Greek circa 250 BCE.

I agree with you that an atheist who does some of what Jesus commanded but does not wish to identify as follower of Christ is not a Christian. Jesus also said one has to be born again to go to Heaven and all Christians are going there--the NT further says that those who deny Jesus was deity in human form come to die for us as a substitute . . . I'm not interested in modern or ancient ecclesiastical authorities--I go by what the Bible says.

Thanks.

That's blatant hyperbole. We could not "reconstruct the NT from their correspondence." Yes, they circulated letters, yes, there were OT texts, but there was not a "bible" as we understand it. Most of what was passed between people was passed orally. If you don't know that, I might suggest a course in cultural anthropology.

I gathered from your posts that you have little regard for authority. That's why you insist that only a belief in Substitutionary Atonement is the only way one can identify as a Christian, even tough Substitutionary Atonement is not the only legitimate (or best) way to imagine salvation. You just go by what *you* read in the bible -- as if no one else mattered, as if you were the only Christian who's invested in the Fatih, as if your opinion is the only important one. As if we were never taught to all be "in one accord."

 

[sojourner]

1. Both testaments say trusting God as an individual, not corporately, is the key to salvation.

No. They don't. both testament cultures are FAR more community-oriented than individual oriented. if you don't understand that, I might suggest (once again) a course in cultural anthropology might be in order for you.

2. The New Testament is clear, including quoted words of Jesus, that trusting Jesus makes a person not only a Christian, but empowered by the Spirit to begin to even attempt to live the Christian life including loving, not just forgiving enemies, and having the fruits of the Spirit.

Yes, but what does that mean? What actions/positions are implied in that directive? Do you know? Or are you, again, just spouting platitudes, as if they mean something on their own?

3. Jesus marked people as either children of God for trusting Him or children of Satan. I'm interesting in what the first community has to say. When I meet individuals as you mentioned, I ask them if they've personally trusted Christ for salvation.

Why are you engaged in some kind of "vetting process?" When Jesus met people, he asked, "What do you want me to do for you?" Jesus didn't vet people.

4. When I study chemistry, I find chemistry textbooks helpful. When I want to know what the founders of Christianity wanted people to understand, I read those texts where I can find their words and biographies.

And do you read them through the apostolic filter, as they've always been understood? Or do you read them only through your own?

 

[sojourner]

So, the Bible EXPLICITLY ENDORSES slavery by instructing people HOW THEY CAN DO IT.

Do not debate this point, it is unambiguous.

Actually, the way you state it, it is a little ambiguous. It would be better to say that some texts endorse slavery with certain provisos, within the context of the intended audience. (That's not to say that the entire bible endorses slavery for all times, places and people.)

 

[MJFlores]

So, to you, instructing people in HOW to do something, as well as instructing them that they both CAN and SHOULD do it (in certain circumstances), is not endorsing or encouraging that activity?

I'm sorry, but if this is genuinely what you believe, I can't help you. You're clearly far too much in denial.

You have been given the chapters and verses time after time. You refuse to deal with them. An attorney that ignores the evidence presented against his client will lose. You are clearly not an attorney.

Hiding your head in the sand is not a working defense.

In order for a case to be legitimate and valid - there must be an evidence of the crime to convict. If there is no evidence, then what you have are just mere conjectures and propaganda.

Slaves usually built edifices at the bidding of their masters. If these buildings could not survive the passage of time, then they become ruins and are still valid evidences. The writings should be in the wall of the hard labor they did either in construction or in working in the plantation and so forth - to bring about the nature of their slavery.

The Hebrew slaves do not have such evidence - leading to the presumption that they were confined to household work. There are no evidence that they lived in squalid living conditions. They exist alright, but I believe they were very few. They became slaves because they sold themselves voluntarily.

Historic Structures in the World That Were Built by Hebrew Slaves - ZERO, ZILCH, NADA

However, Black slaves have built buildings and these buildings are landmarks in the US. They have photos to evidence they existed. They have letters and receipts made by their American slave traders and masters. They lived in horrible quarters. Their descendants now live as part of the citizens of the US of A. They came from Africa, unwillingly and by the use of force.

6 Historic Structures in America That Were Built by Black Slaves

1. The U.S. Capitol Building
2. Railroads
3. Thomas Jefferson's Estate at Monticello and Other Presidential Estates
4. Several Buildings at UNC-Chapel Hill
5. Wall Street
6. The White House

CONCLUSIONS: The Hebrew Slave population were few compared to the Black Slaves of the US hence the insignificant to notice. Were there mistreatment - without doubt on both sides but the Black Slaves suffered more maltreatment, mutilations, brandings, deaths and rape.

It is true that the Israelites could acquire slaves during their hey days as Americans and their presidents [not to mention their founding fathers] could acquire slaves. The Israelites were buyers but the Americans were buyers and breeders of slaves - now that is heinous.

And comparing the rules on the buying of slaves - between the Bible and the Slave Code:

Leviticus 19:20 New International Version (NIV)
“‘If a man sleeps with a female slave who is promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed.

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

US Slave Codes [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes]
Virginia, 1662
"Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children got by any Englishmen upon a Negro shall be slave or Free, Be it therefore enacted and declared by this present Grand assembly, that all children born in this country shall be held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother."
Maryland, 1664
"That whatsoever free-born [English] woman shall intermarry with any slave... shall serve the master of such slave during the life of her husband; and that all the issue of such free-born women, so married shall be slaves as their fathers were."
South Carolina, 1712
"Be it therefore enacted, by his Excellency, William, Lord Craven, Palatine.... and the rest of the members of the General Assembly, now met at Charles Town, for the South-west part of this Province, and by the authority of the same, That all negros, mulattoes, mestizo's or Indians, which at any time heretofore have been sold, or now are held or taken to be, or hereafter shall be bought and sold for slaves, are hereby declared slaves; and they, and their children, are hereby made and declared slaves...."

And comparing the rules on the treatment of slaves - between the Bible and the Slave Code:

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."

The Bible laid down the rules for a more humane treatment of slaves, more humane than the country considered the bastion of democracy and the champion of human rights - the United States.

Is slavery wrong? Yes it is wrong - in our time.
Does slavery exist? Yes it still exist because of abject poverty.

Let us not by hypocrites, slavery exist yesterday, today and tomorrow - whether you deny it or not.