Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

[Shadow Wolf]

If you had a choice between becoming a slave and you family being treated like a human beings or to be beaten to death because there is no one to protect you, then which would you choose?

I would much rather die than be someone's property.

Your being a little naive by not considering the circumstance of that day.

I am considering the circumstances. It still stands that slavery is evil, and the Bible makes no effort or attempt to condemn it or end it. Rather, it says it's ok to own them, they are your property, and you even get to run their lives and beat them.

 

[Serenity7855]

1. You've been here long enough to know I don't think the Bible is a history book. Parts may be history from the view of the Hebrew, and the rest is myth. I am merely debating what the Bible says.

In that case let me give you my opinion, that is, that what you are debating may not be a part of any reality. It may be just fables and parables intended to teach correct principles to the reader as that is what God compiled the Bible for.

2. I was replying to a specific post which said I had drawn a wrong conclusion. I proved my point, - and him wrong

.

You may think you have proven him wrong but there is no rights and wrongs in debating, there is just an exchange of beliefs and opinion that create a better understanding of how people think. The person who you think you proved wrong will, of course, disagree with you and say that the opposite is true.

3. It doesn't matter if it is allegory, parable, etc., as it is teaching that those whom don't want to be under Jesus' reign - are enemies that should be slain!!!

They are people to be apprehensive and cautious of because they may not hold the same moral value as a Christian's does, or should.

This commentary makes sense of this parable and clearly shows that it teaches correct principles. Many try to discredit His words but when one takes a closer look they are always vindicated.

Gill's Exposition

But those mine enemies,.... Meaning particularly the Jews, who were enemies to the person of Christ, and hated and rejected him, as the King Messiah; and rebelled against him, and would not submit to his government; and were enemies to his people, and were exceeding mad against them, and persecuted them; and to his Gospel, and the distinguishing truths of it, and to his ordinances, which they rejected against themselves:

which would not that I should reign over them; see Luke 19:14

bring hither, and slay them before me; which had its accomplishment in the destruction of Jerusalem, when multitudes of them were slain with the sword, both with their own, and with their enemies; and to this the parable has a special respect, and of which Christ more largely discourses in this chapter; see Luke 19:41 though it is true of all natural men, that they are enemies to Christ; and so of all negligent and slothful professors, and ministers of the word, who, when Christ shall come a second time, of which his coming to destroy the Jewish nation was an emblem and pledge, will be punished with everlasting destruction by him; and then all other enemies will be slain and destroyed, sin, Satan, the world, and death: of the first of these the Jews say (n),

"in the time to come the holy, blessed God, will bring forth the evil imagination (or corruption of nature), "and slay it before" the righteous, and the wicked.''

(n) T. Bab. Succa, fol. 52. 1.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

27. bring hither, etc.—(Compare 1Sa 15:32, 33). Referring to the awful destruction of Jerusalem, but pointing to the final destruction of all that are found in open rebellion against Chris

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes

How did I know that?

The UK


Yes, I did


I am not misogynistic in any way so the context was not intentionally misogynistic, however, I recognize that it could have been interpreted thus. So when I was accused of being misogynistic, in an attempt to besmirch me, I explained my point demonstrating that i was not guilty as accused. That should be enough. I shouldn't have to keep explaining myself.

The point being made was that society used to be much more misogynistic than it is now, and what you had said about women ended up reinforcing that point. I wasn’t trying to point out that you personally are misogynistic. We were talking about societal norms.

Yes, I agree, however, there is always two sides to every story.

What’s the other side to this story?

That is fine, I really don't mind that. It is the insults that I find unnecessary and offensive. It is being told to keep my opinion to myself on a debating forum.

Okay, good.

I don’t think I’ve insulted you. I try to make a point not to insult people.

The bible does not really talk about homosexuality, rather, it is sexual perversion that it condemns as sinful. In the scriptures relating to men it is clear, when analyzing them, that God is referring to anal sex. I can think of no scriptures where the love of one man for another is condemned. Many Christian believe that it is homosexuality that is being spoken of, it is not. Anal sex is a sin because it is a sexual perversion, regardless of your sexual orientation. It is my opinion that anal sex is quite rightly a sexual perversion that causes many problems in our society, that gets swept under the carpet. What is most important to note is that we are here to be tried and tested in the flesh and are given free agency to act in the manner of our choice. It is the individual who will have to stand accountable for their actions, therefore, we have no right to judge them or condemn them when we walk so imperfectly. We should pray for them that they to will feel the promptings of the Holy Ghost and come unto Christ.

Okay, I think I’m getting closer to understanding your position.

So if two gay men are in love and want to marry and spend their lives together, and they never have anal sex, they are not committing any sin?

Is oral sex a perversion?

It doesn't. It is OK for both to be gay it is not OK for them to commit sexual sins. But remember, that only relates to Christianity.

So if two lesbian women have sex with each other, but never have anal sex, they are not being sinful?

That is my opinion.

That is my belief

I believe so

Okay, so we agree it is normal, in the sense I described.

That is a theory not a fact. It is not known, for a certainty, what makes someone gay. But remember, we all have free agency to act in the manner we chose, that means that just because you have these emotions does not mean that you have to act upon them. Whether you do or not is your choice.

We don’t know precisely what makes someone heterosexual either. Or bisexual. But the idea that sexuality falls along a spectrum is backed up by the fact that when you ask people where they fit, they actually do fall in various places all along the spectrum.

Sure, you don’t have to act on your feelings but what kind of way is it to live where you can’t be your true self?

Well no, off course not. It is a postulation, a hypothesis or a theory that may or may not end up as a fact

Then you should say something like, “some people think …. “ or “some people have postulated … “ because that doesn’t imply that it’s a commonly accepted fact.

Your talking about prejudices. I do not know if they have gotten better or if they are simmering away on the back boiler. Secondly, there are more of us now so there is naturally more prejudices. Even if they have gotten better everything else is dilapidating around us.

I’m talking about prejudice, discrimination and traditional “norms.”

I really have to wonder how you can believe that there has been no improvement on these things for women and other minorities over the last century or so.

Society is ripening ready for the second coming. Just watch the news and you will see many examples.

In what ways?

We are all individuals with different needs, wants, aspirations, likes and dislikes. What makes you happy might make me sad. You might only know about today. Yes, I did post an article showing the decline of our society. But there are so many of these articles on the internet demonstrating that society is pretty run down in all areas. As someone that grew up in the 50s I can categorically state that, in my opinion, things were much better then compared to what they are like today.

I think that’s nothing more than the “good old days” syndrome. Most people think things were better in the days when they grew up because everything is better when you’re a kid, free from responsibility and worries (for the most part) and you don’t really know the greater societal issues that are going on around you.

In the UK in the 1950s, you could be chemically castrated just for being gay. It was either that or go to prison. (Imagine being thrown in prison just for being gay!) That’s what happened to one of the 20th century’s greatest minds - Alan Turing. After probably saving all of our lives breaking codes that nobody else code break during World War II, he ended up taking his own life after he was castrated and humiliated by the government. The physical and psychological effects of the castration were too much for him to live with. Who knows what he could have done had he lived.


If you were person of colour in the US in the 1950s (over 100 years after being freed from slavery) you definitely didn’t have it better than you do now. You would be segregated from the white population, forced to go to your own separate schools, washrooms, public transportation, restaurants, drinking fountains and housing (and they were usually much worse conditions than everyone else was offered). Even the military was segregated. You’d be living in a society that viewed you as somehow less human than the rest of them.


Things today sound much better to me.

That is because you are living it right now. You may have said the same thing a hundred years ago. All that you mention is what you could not have and not what you could have. All are material but happiness is not material it is spiritual. One thing is for sure, you could breath clean air a hundred years ago. Pollution is just one of the prices we pay for what you have.

What is it that I am living?

I didn’t list a bunch of material things. The right to own property or to voice my own opinion, or to have bodily autonomy or to be seen as equal to every other human being are not material things. They are basic human rights. And they have nothing to do with air pollution.

The meaning of life, the purpose for our existence, the reason why we are here at this time in this universe. They knowledge and wisdom that comes with companionship of the Holy Ghost, I wish that I could give you a free sample, however, only you can come to a knowledge that there is a divinity and God does exist. Science confirms it for us via the Big Bag, the Cosmological Model, The Higgs Boson, Dark Energy and Dark Matter, Fine Tuning, Biogenesis, Rapid Expansion, Evolution, and the most important of them all is Quantum Physics. All of these testify that a God exists, must exist.

I don’t think science confirms the existence of god(s). And I think anybody can have meaning to life without having to invoke any god(s).

This is what you mean when you say society is falling apart?

 

[Serenity7855]

One could say the exact same thing today! Yet we don't condone slavery!

However, ISIS does!

People doing this in the past are no different then ISIS.

ISIS uses the Qur'an - however - the same laws are in the Bible. According to the Bible you can own real slaves, rape captives, bring captives into slavery, etc.

*

I would agree that this kind of behavior is not acceptable, however, mankind has been doing this for many centuries and will continue because they are an enemy unto God who created them. But the fact that they were so evil does not detract from the fact that the parable teaches moral principles aand that God cannot be held accountable for what mankind does.

 

[SkepticThinker]

At this time, it could very well be that way.

What reason do you have to believe it is the way you say?

I wasn't referring to the physical I was referring to the spiritual. A spiritual bond between a spirit father and his son that may, or may not, be responsible for that unconditional love. I am referring to Morphic fields that underlie the organization of proteins, cells, crystals, plants, animals, brains, and minds. They help to explain habits, memories, instincts, telepathy, and the sense of direction. They have an inherent memory and imply that many of the so-called laws of nature are more like habits. They may cause an interaction between the father and son during pregnancy that eventually creates a bond. It is a relatively knew area of research that stems from the magnetic fields generated by our body and how they can effect those around us.

Please define “spiritual.”

Are you talking about morphogenetic fields? There would still be a physical process involved, so I wonder why you bring it up when you don’t want to talk about physical things.

Anyway, the morphogenetic field hypothesis is not something that’s widely accepted in the science community. Since the field of genetics has come into existence, it’s basically been discarded.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You seem to think that the Bible is a history book and it's contents are an accurate account of those times, let me tell you that it most certainly is not. Don't beat yourself up about it though as most atheists are under the same impression, or they use it as such to try and discredit the existence of Deity. The New Testament is not even chronologically correct.

The main impetus and objective for the existence of the Bible is to help us to draw nearer to God by adhering to the concepts and principles in this magnificent book of commandments. By using the Bible to help manoeuvre us through life's trials and tribulations will help us to gain eternal life in the presence of God.

It is very possible that many of the stories and allegories contained in the Bible are just that, fictitious stories with a moral undertone. For example, we pretty much know that it is unlikely that a world flood ever occurred, however, by reading that story we can learn what the reward for excessive and persistent evil might be. That is the reason why the Bible contains that principle.This can all be corroborated by looking up the definition of a "parable" it is "a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels." A moral fable selected by God to teach us correct principles so that we may be the benefactors and reap eternal life with Him.

The bible is full of these moral tales that can only produce virtuous and edifying fruit when teaching them in our schools, and all places of learning, to instill wholesome moral principles in our society instead of hostile children with a chip on their shoulders who have no real direction in life. No reason for their existence. Heck, I would sooner that it was all a lie and when I die there would be nothing, rather then to have no purpose or meaning for my life, how very desperately depressing. No wonder our world is on a social kamikaze mission to final and certain coup de grâce.

There is some pretty terrible stuff in the Bible that I would never want to show a child. Just the idea of hell alone is bad enough.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We could, however, that is not how God wanted it to be, and as he knows the beginning from the end, whereas you only have the experience of your relatively short life, your understanding of why He does what He does is infinitesimally minuscule and falls far short of His Brobdingnagian wisdom. There is only negative in the Bible if that is what you are intentionally looking for to use in a negative manner. Is that what you are doing.

Where is the part where god says that slavery is immoral?

 

[Serenity7855]

I would much rather die than be someone's property.

Well, each to there own.

I am considering the circumstances. It still stands that slavery is evil, and the Bible makes no effort or attempt to condemn it or end it. Rather, it says it's ok to own them, they are your property, and you even get to run their lives and beat them.

Slavery is evil, as are those who were involved in it. There is no question about that, however, you have to understand the mentality of people of those times. You can do this by looking at the Mosaic Laws that were in place to keep them under control. But mankind is carnal in nature. That is not God though and the parable teaching a very good moral principle by showing that In order to eat an elephant you have to do it bit at a time.

 

[Serenity7855]

There is some pretty terrible stuff in the Bible that I would never want to show a child. Just the idea of hell alone is bad enough.

Then just use a more suitable one.

I do not see there being a hell. Outer darkness, yes, but a hell of fire and brimstone, no. But let me explain. The Devil was cast out of heaven to dwell on earth. That is where he is now, with a third of the host of heaven, who went with him. They are all desperately trying to tempt us, so who is in hell right now? Secondly, for there to be spirits in heaven they must first be judged and found unqualified to gain entry into heaven, which is fine, however, the judgement has not yet taken place yet, so there can be nobody in heaven or hell. Lastly, through the atonement of Christ all will receive salvation, that is, a physical body and immortality. We will all receive a place in the kingdom of heaven, many masons are there in my kingdom etc. etc.., either in a damned kingdom (maybe the damned kingdoms are hell) or a progressive one, where we continue to learn and progress. That just leaves the sons of perdition, who, we are told, will be banned to outer darkness. Still no candidates for that illusive hell. Hell does not fit into the Plan of Salvation, in my opinion.

 

[Serenity7855]

Where is the part where god says that slavery is immoral?

How Come the Bible Doesn’t Condemn Slavery?

It is true that the Bible does not formally and explicitly condemn slavery as an institution. So how do we account for this? Just what does the Bible say about slavery? Several important points warrant careful consideration.

1. The forms of servitude and slavery practiced in a biblical context bear little resemblance to the tyrannical type of slavery found in the American antebellum South and in other modern Western countries. Certain moderate forms of “servitude”—for example, indentured (voluntary) servitude—were considered morally beneficial before God under certain circumstances in the Old Testament. Examples of this are seen in voluntary indenturement in order to earn a living or to learn a trade. It could also include the indenturement of a criminal in order for the offender to render restitution. But in none of these moderate cases, nor even the more extreme case of foreigners captured by the Israelites in war, would the so-called slave or servant be viewed as a mere piece of property without human rights. Nor would the time of servitude be constituted as a life term of bondage (Deuteronomy 15:12-13). Many slaves in the ancient world, and especially those held by the Hebrews, were able to earn their freedom.
2. The institution of slavery was so deeply rooted in ancient culture that it could not be dismantled overnight. Old Testament scholar Gleason L. Archer notes: “As to the moral status of slavery in ancient times, it must be recognized that it was practiced by every ancient people of which we have any historical record: Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Syrians, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Greeks, Romans, and all the rest.”1 Furthermore, Christian apologist Paul Copan states: “During the first century A.D., approximately 85 to 90 percent of Rome’s population consisted of slaves.”2 Slavery was viewed as playing a critical economic role for society. Nevertheless, the Old Testament Mosaic Law limited and regulated the practice and sought to correct its inhumane abuses (Exodus 20:10; 21:20-27). Unlike with slavery in other cultures, the masters in a biblical context did not have absolute rights over their slaves. Forms of slavery and servitude were permitted in the Old Testament, but it was never considered the moral ideal (Deuteronomy 15:18).
3. Unlike some ancient cultures, and certainly unlike the American South in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the slaves in the Old Testament were recognized as full persons who possessed human dignity and basic rights (Deuteronomy 5:14; Job 31:13-15). Abusing one’s slaves and servants was viewed as being both imprudent and immoral (Deuteronomy 23:15-16). A group of biblical scholars provide this perspective on the Old Testament’s true position concerning slavery: “Nowhere was the institution of slavery as such condemned; but then, neither did it have anything like the connotations it grew to have during the days of those who traded human life as if it were a mere commodity for sale.”3
4. The New Testament indicates that in God’s sight there is “neither slave nor free” (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11) and that both are part of Christ’s church and equally accountable to God (Ephesians 6:5-9). In fact, in the apostolic church, slaves were granted all the rights and privileges of free men (see the book of Philemon).
5. The likely reason that the apostolic authors of the New Testament did not categorically condemn slavery was because they placed the preaching of the gospel and the redemption of lost souls ahead of societal reform. Yet that very biblical teaching about humankind and their relationship to God through Christ was the inevitable moral and spiritual force that showed the fundamental injustice of slavery in the Western world.
6. God’s way of eliminating slavery was to allow the biblical teachings (the “Good News”) to spread throughout all cultures. Indeed, it was the Judeo-Christian teaching that human beings have intrinsic value and worth as a result of being made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27) that brought an end to slavery. Many in the abolitionist movements of England and America in the nineteenth century were Protestant evangelical Christians. And they viewed slavery as being fundamentally inconsistent with the historic Christian view of man’s creation and redemption.

So while the Bible doesn’t formally and explicitly condemn slavery, neither does it condone it. It was the unique ethical message contained in Scripture concerning human dignity and redemption that provided the moral and spiritual force that ultimately succeeded in eliminating slavery as an institution. The gospel message of salvation in Jesus Christ remains a powerful force against human evil and social injustice. It is also the only antidote for each human being’s slavery to sin and death.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/how-come-the-bible-doesnt-condemn-slavery

 

[SkepticThinker]

How Come the Bible Doesn’t Condemn Slavery?

It is true that the Bible does not formally and explicitly condemn slavery as an institution. So how do we account for this? Just what does the Bible say about slavery? Several important points warrant careful consideration.

1. The forms of servitude and slavery practiced in a biblical context bear little resemblance to the tyrannical type of slavery found in the American antebellum South and in other modern Western countries. Certain moderate forms of “servitude”—for example, indentured (voluntary) servitude—were considered morally beneficial before God under certain circumstances in the Old Testament. Examples of this are seen in voluntary indenturement in order to earn a living or to learn a trade. It could also include the indenturement of a criminal in order for the offender to render restitution. But in none of these moderate cases, nor even the more extreme case of foreigners captured by the Israelites in war, would the so-called slave or servant be viewed as a mere piece of property without human rights. Nor would the time of servitude be constituted as a life term of bondage (Deuteronomy 15:12-13). Many slaves in the ancient world, and especially those held by the Hebrews, were able to earn their freedom.
2. The institution of slavery was so deeply rooted in ancient culture that it could not be dismantled overnight. Old Testament scholar Gleason L. Archer notes: “As to the moral status of slavery in ancient times, it must be recognized that it was practiced by every ancient people of which we have any historical record: Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Syrians, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Greeks, Romans, and all the rest.”1 Furthermore, Christian apologist Paul Copan states: “During the first century A.D., approximately 85 to 90 percent of Rome’s population consisted of slaves.”2 Slavery was viewed as playing a critical economic role for society. Nevertheless, the Old Testament Mosaic Law limited and regulated the practice and sought to correct its inhumane abuses (Exodus 20:10; 21:20-27). Unlike with slavery in other cultures, the masters in a biblical context did not have absolute rights over their slaves. Forms of slavery and servitude were permitted in the Old Testament, but it was never considered the moral ideal (Deuteronomy 15:18).
3. Unlike some ancient cultures, and certainly unlike the American South in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the slaves in the Old Testament were recognized as full persons who possessed human dignity and basic rights (Deuteronomy 5:14; Job 31:13-15). Abusing one’s slaves and servants was viewed as being both imprudent and immoral (Deuteronomy 23:15-16). A group of biblical scholars provide this perspective on the Old Testament’s true position concerning slavery: “Nowhere was the institution of slavery as such condemned; but then, neither did it have anything like the connotations it grew to have during the days of those who traded human life as if it were a mere commodity for sale.”3
4. The New Testament indicates that in God’s sight there is “neither slave nor free” (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11) and that both are part of Christ’s church and equally accountable to God (Ephesians 6:5-9). In fact, in the apostolic church, slaves were granted all the rights and privileges of free men (see the book of Philemon).
5. The likely reason that the apostolic authors of the New Testament did not categorically condemn slavery was because they placed the preaching of the gospel and the redemption of lost souls ahead of societal reform. Yet that very biblical teaching about humankind and their relationship to God through Christ was the inevitable moral and spiritual force that showed the fundamental injustice of slavery in the Western world.
6. God’s way of eliminating slavery was to allow the biblical teachings (the “Good News”) to spread throughout all cultures. Indeed, it was the Judeo-Christian teaching that human beings have intrinsic value and worth as a result of being made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27) that brought an end to slavery. Many in the abolitionist movements of England and America in the nineteenth century were Protestant evangelical Christians. And they viewed slavery as being fundamentally inconsistent with the historic Christian view of man’s creation and redemption.

So while the Bible doesn’t formally and explicitly condemn slavery, neither does it condone it. It was the unique ethical message contained in Scripture concerning human dignity and redemption that provided the moral and spiritual force that ultimately succeeded in eliminating slavery as an institution. The gospel message of salvation in Jesus Christ remains a powerful force against human evil and social injustice. It is also the only antidote for each human being’s slavery to sin and death.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/how-come-the-bible-doesnt-condemn-slavery

I don't feel like this really answers my question. Or maybe it does: God never condemns slavery.

So when Christians tell me that it's evil and immoral, that is their own sense of morality speaking (thankfully).

 

[SkepticThinker]

Then just use a more suitable one.

I do not see there being a hell. Outer darkness, yes, but a hell of fire and brimstone, no. But let me explain. The Devil was cast out of heaven to dwell on earth. That is where he is now, with a third of the host of heaven, who went with him. They are all desperately trying to tempt us, so who is in hell right now? Secondly, for there to be spirits in heaven the must first be judged and found to unqualified to gain entry into heaven, which is fine, however, the judgement has not taken place yet so there can be nobody in heaven or hell. Lastly, through the atonement of Christ all will receive salvation, that is, a physical body and immortality. We will all receive a place in heaven, many masons are there in my kingdom, either in a damned kingdom (maybe the damned kingdoms are hell) or a progressive one where we continue to learn and progress. That just leaves the sons of perdition, who, we are told, will be banned to outer darkness. Still no candidates for that illusive hell. Hell does not fit into the Plan of Salvation, im my opinion.

I'd rather make up a better story.

Your version of hell (or lack thereof) is interesting. It's a bit different than what I'm used to hearing about.

 

[Serenity7855]

That is your opinion.

Yes.

You think YHVH is a real God, - and wanted it that way.

I do, and I am comfortable in that belief

My study of the Bible tells me the YHVH character is too twisted, and human like in his actions, to be anything more then the made-up God of a people that wanted to do horrendous things, - while claiming God said it was OK!

That has never been my experience in the 40 years of being a Christian. I have nothing negative to say about my experiences within Christianity.

Innocent babies being murdered for the actions of adults - on its own - is enough to tell me this is not God.

Would you prefer they die of hunger and malnutrition, as there wouldn't have been any adult around to care for them. Surely a quick death is far better then a long drawn out death? God was looking after these babies, however, we do not always see the full story. Did you also know that babies who die are instantly taken back to heavenly father as they have not sinned so cannot be judged.

 

[Serenity7855]

I don't feel like this really answers my question. Or maybe it does: God never condemns slavery.

I genuinely thought it explained it very well.

So when Christians tell me that it's evil and immoral, that is their own sense of morality speaking (thankfully).

Well yes, of course, based on their knowledge of the scriptures. Only God can judge you.[/QUOTE]

 

[Serenity7855]

I'd rather make up a better story.

Sadly, God no longer has that opportunity.

Your version of hell (or lack thereof) is interesting. It's a bit different than what I'm used to hearing about.

That is because I am an individualist who has not seen the need to ask another human being to interpret that which I can interpret myself. The Holy Ghost testifies of that which is true, but this is just inductive reasoning at the end of the day.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I genuinely thought it explained it very well.

Honestly, they sounded like excuses to me.

Well yes, of course, based on their knowledge of the scriptures. Only God can judge you.

God never comes right out and says "slavery is wrong" or "slavery is evil" or "thou shalt not own other human beings as property" as he does with murder or theft.

 

[Serenity7855]

Ingledsva,

This is baloney. We have had several debates on this one. The Hebrew could only be indentured servants for a limited time. ALL others could be bought, beaten, bred, raped, and held forever.

This is baloney in your opinion, right?

Slavery was to be a last resort. Israel was to "remember that you were a slave in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you from there" (Deuteronomy 24:18).

Sometimes, circumstances were such that the laws requiring care for the poor were not enough. In ancient agrarian societies, it was often extremely difficult to provide for oneself and one's family. Many slaves in Old Testament Israel had sold themselves to prevent starvation; others had been sold by their family so the family wouldn't starve.

Some people categorically condemn the Bible because it does not call for the universal abolition of slavery. What they don't understand are the cultural conditions that made slavery a sad necessity. Even so, this was not chattel slavery—masters did not "own" their slaves' humanity; they leased their work. Like divorce and polygamy, slavery was never in God's perfect plan. But, because of sin, for a time and place, slavery was permitted by God, with certain restrictions.

http://www.compellingtruth.org/slavery-Old-Testament.html

ALL others could be bought, beaten, bred, raped, and held forever.

I think that you have misunderstood that slaves can be held forever. That only happened if the slave wanted it to. Slaves also had the protection of the law.

Exodus 21:2-6

2 If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. 3 If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.

How Come the Bible Doesn’t Condemn Slavery?

It is true that the Bible does not formally and explicitly condemn slavery as an institution. So how do we account for this? Just what does the Bible say about slavery? Several important points warrant careful consideration.

1. The forms of servitude and slavery practiced in a biblical context bear little resemblance to the tyrannical type of slavery found in the American antebellum South and in other modern Western countries. Certain moderate forms of “servitude”—for example, indentured (voluntary) servitude—were considered morally beneficial before God under certain circumstances in the Old Testament. Examples of this are seen in voluntary indenturement in order to earn a living or to learn a trade. It could also include the indenturement of a criminal in order for the offender to render restitution. But in none of these moderate cases, nor even the more extreme case of foreigners captured by the Israelites in war, would the so-called slave or servant be viewed as a mere piece of property without human rights. Nor would the time of servitude be constituted as a life term of bondage (Deuteronomy 15:12-13). Many slaves in the ancient world, and especially those held by the Hebrews, were able to earn their freedom.
2. The institution of slavery was so deeply rooted in ancient culture that it could not be dismantled overnight. Old Testament scholar Gleason L. Archer notes: “As to the moral status of slavery in ancient times, it must be recognized that it was practiced by every ancient people of which we have any historical record: Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Syrians, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Greeks, Romans, and all the rest.”1 Furthermore, Christian apologist Paul Copan states: “During the first century A.D., approximately 85 to 90 percent of Rome’s population consisted of slaves.”2 Slavery was viewed as playing a critical economic role for society. Nevertheless, the Old Testament Mosaic Law limited and regulated the practice and sought to correct its inhumane abuses (Exodus 20:10; 21:20-27). Unlike with slavery in other cultures, the masters in a biblical context did not have absolute rights over their slaves. Forms of slavery and servitude were permitted in the Old Testament, but it was never considered the moral ideal (Deuteronomy 15:18).
3. Unlike some ancient cultures, and certainly unlike the American South in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the slaves in the Old Testament were recognized as full persons who possessed human dignity and basic rights (Deuteronomy 5:14; Job 31:13-15). Abusing one’s slaves and servants was viewed as being both imprudent and immoral (Deuteronomy 23:15-16). A group of biblical scholars provide this perspective on the Old Testament’s true position concerning slavery: “Nowhere was the institution of slavery as such condemned; but then, neither did it have anything like the connotations it grew to have during the days of those who traded human life as if it were a mere commodity for sale.”3
4. The New Testament indicates that in God’s sight there is “neither slave nor free” (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11) and that both are part of Christ’s church and equally accountable to God (Ephesians 6:5-9). In fact, in the apostolic church, slaves were granted all the rights and privileges of free men (see the book of Philemon).
5. The likely reason that the apostolic authors of the New Testament did not categorically condemn slavery was because they placed the preaching of the gospel and the redemption of lost souls ahead of societal reform. Yet that very biblical teaching about humankind and their relationship to God through Christ was the inevitable moral and spiritual force that showed the fundamental injustice of slavery in the Western world.
6. God’s way of eliminating slavery was to allow the biblical teachings (the “Good News”) to spread throughout all cultures. Indeed, it was the Judeo-Christian teaching that human beings have intrinsic value and worth as a result of being made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27) that brought an end to slavery. Many in the abolitionist movements of England and America in the nineteenth century were Protestant evangelical Christians. And they viewed slavery as being fundamentally inconsistent with the historic Christian view of man’s creation and redemption.

So while the Bible doesn’t formally and explicitly condemn slavery, neither does it condone it. It was the unique ethical message contained in Scripture concerning human dignity and redemption that provided the moral and spiritual force that ultimately succeeded in eliminating slavery as an institution. The gospel message of salvation in Jesus Christ remains a powerful force against human evil and social injustice. It is also the only antidote for each human being’s slavery to sin and death.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/how-come-the-bible-doesnt-condemn-slavery

Baloney! I always use the verse, related exegesis, links, etc. I also hardly ever - start these discussions. I come in and debate what is being said by others.

It is not your protocol that I am critiquing it is your anger with God and His servants that I refer to.

At the end of the day, slavery was inaugurated by man. Man must, therefore, be held accountable for his actions and not Gods. I am sure that there was unscrupulous owners back then, however, they acted off their own back, they were not forced to do it by God. Because slavery was so prevalent in those times it would have been inevitable that God would have used events surrounding slavery in his parables and allegories. There is no argument here

 

[Ingledsva]

In that case let me give you my opinion, that is, that what you are debating may not be a part of any reality. It may be just fables and parables intended to teach correct principles to the reader as that is what God compiled the Bible for.

It doesn't have to be a reality. We aren't discussing if it is a reality. We are discussing what a book says.

You may think you have proven him wrong but there is no rights and wrongs in debating, there is just an exchange of beliefs and opinion that create a better understanding of how people think. The person who you think you proved wrong will, of course, disagree with you and say that the opposite is true.

No debate winners? LOL! Tell that to my debate coach. There is almost always a winner in this type of debate. It is the one proving their point with text, related exegesis, links, etc. In contrast to someone saying "God said it so it just is." Especially when they are relying on a translation.

They are people to be apprehensive and cautious of because they may not hold the same moral value as a Christian's does, or should.

It specifically says the ones to be slain - don't want to be under his reign. Reminds me of all those Christians running around spouting - "You're going to hell because you don't worship Jesus!"

This commentary makes sense of this parable and clearly shows that it teaches correct principles. Many try to discredit His words but when one takes a closer look they are always vindicated.

Gill's Exposition

But those mine enemies,.... Meaning particularly the Jews, who were enemies to the person of Christ, and hated and rejected him, as the King Messiah; and rebelled against him, and would not submit to his government; and were enemies to his people, and were exceeding mad against them, and persecuted them; and to his Gospel, and the distinguishing truths of it, and to his ordinances, which they rejected against themselves:

which would not that I should reign over them; see Luke 19:14

bring hither, and slay them before me; which had its accomplishment in the destruction of Jerusalem, when multitudes of them were slain with the sword, both with their own, and with their enemies; and to this the parable has a special respect, and of which Christ more largely discourses in this chapter; see Luke 19:41 though it is true of all natural men, that they are enemies to Christ; and so of all negligent and slothful professors, and ministers of the word, who, when Christ shall come a second time, of which his coming to destroy the Jewish nation was an emblem and pledge, will be punished with everlasting destruction by him; and then all other enemies will be slain and destroyed, sin, Satan, the world, and death: of the first of these the Jews say (n),

"in the time to come the holy, blessed God, will bring forth the evil imagination (or corruption of nature), "and slay it before" the righteous, and the wicked.''

(n) T. Bab. Succa, fol. 52. 1.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

27. bring hither, etc.—(Compare 1Sa 15:32, 33). Referring to the awful destruction of Jerusalem, but pointing to the final destruction of all that are found in open rebellion against Chris

Let me see if I get this right, - as it is not just talking of the past.

The JEWS and OTHERS - at the end, - whom don't follow Jesus, - are enemies, - and deserve to be slain?

NOT!

Also according to the Bible the Hebrew went after other people and their lands, killing even the non-combatants, women, children, and even dumb animals sometimes. That gives those others a right to war with, and kill them.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

I would agree that this kind of behavior is not acceptable, however, mankind has been doing this for many centuries and will continue because they are an enemy unto God who created them. But the fact that they were so evil does not detract from the fact that the parable teaches moral principles aand that God cannot be held accountable for what mankind does.

In YOUR mind they are the enemy of YOUR God.

Nor does that parable teach any moral principles.

All the servants were told is, - Occupy till I come.

They were hijacked with the other crap at the return.

Not even the third servant did anything wrong by saving his lord's money for him.

The only thing this parable teaches is to slaughter those whom you consider enemies because they don't want to be servants under YOUR God.

*

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I'd rather make up a better story.

Your version of hell (or lack thereof) is interesting. It's a bit different than what I'm used to hearing about.

It's the LDS Church's version of the afterlife. He believes in the Plan of Salvation (another Mormon doctrine) as well as Outer Darkness, spends copious amounts of time apologising for the Church, but he's "not a Mormon".