A Christmas Story

thomas_t

Blessings Collector
Nov 9, 2019
675
138
43
Bamberg
✟33,904.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Why not? That's how I read your post.
no, no.
I'm well aware that it isn't up to me to decide which is better: being a slave or being homeless and nothing to eat 2000 years ago in a poverty stricken country/ 3000 years ago in a situation that was even more devastating for the country. It's exactly as @Halbhh says, I think.

I'm not the one who proposes a problem swap here. This is what my conversation partner does. ;).

BTW, Germany has plenty of problems concerning modern forms of slavery, too. Even worse than in the US maybe.
Thomas
 
Upvote 0

thomas_t

Blessings Collector
Nov 9, 2019
675
138
43
Bamberg
✟33,904.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It was my observation that Jesus spoke into a situation prevailing 2000/3000 years ago, as I said.
Even if you say there was no "that time" - there was still a situation of back then. When they didn't have a blacksmith, as can be seen in 1 Samuel 13:19, they didn't have much money for the homeless either, I'm afraid.
- Slavery is virtually undefined, regarding whom to enslave. Jesus leaves this 'law' ambiguous. Please acknowledge this 'reality.'
no, in my opinion, there is nothing ambiguous about the story of Joseph getting enslaved. God clearly shows he is against it, as can be seen in Genesis 42:21.
See this story in lights of Ephesians 6:9 (no respecter of persons). I think, since it was wrong to enslave a brother of back then... enslaving brothers will be wrong anytime.
I'm not advocating replacing homelessness by slavery.
You are the one who apparently opposes slavery in societies that used to be in place 2000/3000 years ago.
I'd like to ask you to put your cards on the table, please: Firstly, what other option, besides slavery for life, do you propose for the then slaves? Homelessness?
And secondly, once you've answered my first question, how would you have led the revolution to abolish slavery in the Roman Empire/ in Israel and please show that your strategy would have been a succesful one. Successful in a context in which a revolution concerning slavery has failed, already. I'm thinking of Spartacus in the Roman Empire.
Many centuries later, that one was still a heroe. Here in Germany. The Spartkus Bund, active some 100 years ago, occupied the city of Bremen. The family of my grandmother had to escape this town, due to a famine that occured after the Spartkus Bund assumed power in town. They wanted the big revolution. My grandmother told me a horrible story about her having lost her mother in famine. Horrible. Then she grew up without her mother, which was also horrible.
So revolution, I guess, is what you propose/ would have proposed for the Roman Empire?
No, I'm not avoiding your key points. As I said (I'm copy-pasting now), I answered them by giving the example of a living slave who is better off than a dying prisoner of war, for instance.
---
I neither disagree with Paul nor with God.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
I think you're just reading into the existential situation, that situation being simply this: I'm of the mind to only hint with folks about the epistemic issues that are relevant rather than get into an extended explication of them. Why? Because not only is my time limited, but as one who is educated in Education, I realize that the motivations for actual learning that other people have are also limited. And I'm not going to waste my time on those who have a hidden disinclination or have a Vendetta against Christianity. So this means, I'm NOT going to lay out various arguments on the table until such a time comes that I feel another person is truly interested in the Journey of Faith ...

Besides, why should I waste my time Defending the Christian Faith when there's plenty of other Christians who are fully capable of doing all of that kind of thing. No, I'm more interested in tearing down the opposing ideas against God that are often called "knowledge." I'm just being honest here. I don't intend to be 'like' other Christians ...

Not sure what ideas you think you're criticizing, because I certainly haven't seen criticisms that amount to much so far, more just derision of something that isn't centered on your messianic figure, which seems a bit short sighted in focus to advancing human flourishing at large.

A journey of faith can progress elsewhere, there are people who can respect Jesus and such but not regard him as a messiah, where would they fit in terms of a journey if they're as satisfied with their perspective as you are with yours?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Not sure what ideas you think you're criticizing, because I certainly haven't seen criticisms that amount to much so far,
I find it strange that you say this since this is what I just said and implied above. Again, reiterating, I said I'm not going to lay out arguments in a more extensive manner until I see that a person has the motivation to want to engage my sources. So, no Engagey on the part of the skeptic, then no further Explaney from me!

...more just derision of something that isn't centered on your messianic figure, which seems a bit short sighted in focus to advancing human flourishing at large.
Not really. I have problems with your whole outlook and understanding of epistemology before we even bring the bible or Christianity into the discussion. My books on Critical Thinking and Epistemology are telling me they're just aching to be opened, read, and applied to the wishy-washy smearing of epistemic statements that have been thus far proffered by many a skeptic thus far. Then on the other hand, I keep asking for the sources from which you skeptics draw so I can see the essence of your 'mental training'---------------and all that happens is that nearly each and every time, I get brick-walled by the skeptic, and y'know, that's not a good start to showing that one has a cogent or coherent point of view. So, I'd suggest you skeptics start supporting your work with citations and maybe a few quotes along the way to show the rest of us that you received some epistemic training from somewhere outside of yourselves. And stop with the cheap poo-poo excuse, "Oh, but this is just a public forum, and we couldn't possibly expect anyone to have to show some kind of scholarly support for his/her own propositions here ... you ask too much and I doth think you protest too much, te-he! Besides, I never claimed to be an expert anyway ... te-he, te-he, te-he!"

Well, in my book, if you're no expert on epistemology and you know it, that isn't a time to clap your hands. No, it's a time to admit that either:

A) You're a Troll and merely wish to give Christians a black-eye.

or

B) You really don't know, but would honestly like to investigate further so you can become more knowledgeable about something you presently understand inadequately.

or

C)
You're a skeptical victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect and, God Help Us, you know not what you do!


A journey of faith can progress elsewhere, there are people who can respect Jesus and such but not regard him as a messiah, where would they fit in terms of a journey if they're as satisfied with their perspective as you are with yours?
... some of them may be on their way to Hades, of course. And some of the others, by God's Grace in Christ, if they haven't rejected Christ, might find their journey ends up at the feet of Christ anyway in the long-run.

Oh, but I see, you instead seem to mean to ask me about what I think of the epistemic state of those who are spiritual in the here and now but who don't traverse a spiritual journey in byways that I think would be within Jesus' Million Acre Woods, ay?
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Tone
Upvote 0

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,214
5,605
Erewhon
Visit site
✟923,438.00
Faith
Atheist
I'm well aware that it isn't up to me to decide which is better: being a slave or being homeless and nothing to eat 2000 years ago in a poverty stricken country/ 3000 years ago in a situation that was even more devastating for the country.
I suspect there is little to back that up. 3000 years ago the world had a population of about 50,000,000 (cite: World Population by Year - Worldometer). I'd venture homelessness then isn't about sitting on a street corner begging for handouts though handicapped people might have no other option. An ablebodied person can go find a piece of unused land and start farming.

Give your POWs a knapsack of food and let them walk away. If you don't trust them, march them 250 miles and have done with it. Easily preferrable to slavery.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I suspect there is little to back that up. 3000 years ago the world had a population of about 50,000,000 (cite: World Population by Year - Worldometer). I'd venture homelessness then isn't about sitting on a street corner begging for handouts though handicapped people might have no other option. An ablebodied person can go find a piece of unused land and start farming.

Give your POWs a knapsack of food and let them walk away. If you don't trust them, march them 250 miles and have done with it. Easily preferrable to slavery.
No, it was not possible 3500 years ago in that area where Israel is now to just walk 50 or 100 or 200 miles and find some usable, productive land not claimed by some people or king, in that area. Maybe somewhere like North America back then...but not around one of the most dense and well populated lands, Israel and nearby. North, East, even South: peoples, kingdoms, ready to defend their land. (yes, there was empty land in the desert, but you suggest land that can be farmed....) Check and see if you like. Get more information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thomas_t
Upvote 0

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,214
5,605
Erewhon
Visit site
✟923,438.00
Faith
Atheist
No, it was not possible in that area where Israel is now to just walk 50 or 100 or 200 miles and find some usable, productive land not claimed by some people or king, in that area. Maybe somewhere like North America back then....but not around one of the most dense and well populated lands, Israel and nearby. (yes, there was empty land in the desert, but you suggest land that can be farmed....) Check and see if you like. Get more information.
So much for a land flowing with milk and honey, huh? If the Jews could live there, a band of people, who in fact were well acquainted with the land from which they were evicted (more acquainted with it than the Jews, if we take the stories at face value), could live there. However hard-scrabble, it's better than slavery and if anyone was equipt to live there, it was the Caananites.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So much for a land flowing with milk and honey, huh? If the Jews could live there, a band of people, who in fact were well acquainted with the land from which they were evicted (more acquainted with it than the Jews, if we take the stories at face value), could live there. However hard-scrabble, it's better than slavery and if anyone was equipt to live there, it was the Caananites.
Since you are talking here about the text in the books Genesis through Joshua, are you aware of why the Canaanites (most of them) were to be destroyed and removed and the land given to Israel? The cause/reason? (What was it they were doing? that created the necessity that their culture be entirely erased, so that none of it was left, all sent on early to the day of judgement the text says all will face, where the innocent will be separated from the unrepentant guilty, and the innocent and forgiven given mercy and Life, but the unrepentant guilty instead the second death.)

Without that reason, it's all merely genocide. At least on human terms of assuming God does not exist.

Of course, since we are relying on the text, it tells us that actually God makes death of this body only sleep, so it's not actually a real death, but a doorway to the day of accounting.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,214
5,605
Erewhon
Visit site
✟923,438.00
Faith
Atheist
Since you are talking here about the text in the books Genesis through Joshua, are you aware of why the Canaanites (most of them) were to be destroyed and removed and the land given to Israel? The cause/reason? (What was it they were doing? that created the necessity that their culture be entirely erased, so that none of it was left, all sent on early to the day of judgement the text says all will face, where the innocent will be separated from the unrepentant guilty, and the innocent and forgiven given mercy and Life, but the unrepentant guilty instead the second death.)

Without that reason, it's all merely genocide. At least on human terms of assuming God does not exist.

Of course, since we are relying on the text, it tells us that actually God makes death of this body only sleep, so it's not actually a real death, but a doorway to the day of accounting.
All we have is the winners' word that the Caananites were evil. (There is no historical evidence that any of these events occurred.)

Oh, look! Now we're justifying murder saying that those killed were not really dead, just asleep. Sheesh. But if that is the case, surely one could agree that merely being put to sleep is better than slavery?

An omniscient, omnipotent god could do better.

where the innocent will be separated from the unrepentant guilty, and the innocent and forgiven given mercy and Life, but the unrepentant guilty instead the second death.

Wow. Literally, "kill them all and let God sort them out." Shameful.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
(There is no historical evidence that any of these events occurred.)
Are you talking about the routine ongoing child sacrifice the Canaanites were doing? -- Deuteronomy 12:31 You must not worship the LORD your God in this way, because they practice for their gods every abomination which the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.

You think there's not any historical evidence of that? Interesting assumption.

Myself, I like to put my assumptions to the test -- try to shoot them down -- for my own gain.

How about you?

Do you like to test your assumptions? See if they are supported or false?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,214
5,605
Erewhon
Visit site
✟923,438.00
Faith
Atheist
Are you talking about the routine ongoing child sacrifice the Canaanites were doing? -- Deuteronomy 12:31 You must not worship the LORD your God in this way, because they practice for their gods every abomination which the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.

You think there's not any historical evidence of that? Interesting assumption.

Myself, I like to put my assumptions to the test -- try to shoot them down -- for my own gain.

How about you?

Do you like to test your assumptions? See if they are supported or false?
I'm saying the evidence for any conquest of Palestine corresponding to biblical stories is scant.

So now that you are changing topics, are you admitting your god could have done better?
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm saying the evidence for any conquest of Palestine corresponding to biblical stories is scant.

So now that you are changing topics, are you admitting your god could have done better?
I'll address the 2nd thing first: Actually, as I've gotten older, I've started to see how easy it is for an entire nation to descend into evil. In other words, the Khmer Rouge or the Thousand Year Reich (Nazi Germany) instead of being just a couple of outliers are instead...very much to my resistance, in actuality representative of how any nation/culture can go down a very dark path to evil, and it's not as uncommon as we would prefer. I'd like to think there are only a handful of such instances.

We'd prefer those to be very rare.

But, history doesn't agree with that preference. These extreme examples I listed are just part of a continuum, where there are many many instances of nations going into significant evil over time. Rwanda or the Atlanta church bombing (16th Street Baptist Church bombing - Wikipedia) aren't....a rare bird, but kinda something....present all the time in all places and times, waiting to lurch forward. Always there. Waiting.

That's the thing I didn't want to accept, for a long time, despite my extensive reading on instances. I wanted to continue to think human nature is just good, and these were terrible moments when a bad guy took over and forced the people to do wrongs, and had some followers, and the rest of the nation was just innocent. 99% innocent Germans, 1% Nazis, or such. Just a few, rare, tragic wrong doers that misled many innocents....

Unfortunately, it's not that pretty, in reality.

That's kinda a big topic by itself, and I don't want to short change it. We could start a thread about it if you like.

About the first thing: did the conquest happen, well....I'm surprised anyone thinks it did not. History is rife with conquests. So many you'd think it was only the norm, and the absence of a conquest or territory expansion, the lack of those at a moment in time, just a temporary lull before the next.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
I find it strange that you say this since this is what I just said and implied above. Again, reiterating, I said I'm not going to lay out arguments in a more extensive manner until I see that a person has the motivation to want to engage my sources. So, no Engagey on the part of the skeptic, then no further Explaney from me!

Not really. I have problems with your whole outlook and understanding of epistemology before we even bring the bible or Christianity into the discussion. My books on Critical Thinking and Epistemology are telling me they're just aching to be opened, read, and applied to the wishy-washy smearing of epistemic statements that have been thus far proffered by many a skeptic thus far. Then on the other hand, I keep asking for the sources from which you skeptics draw so I can see the essence of your 'mental training'---------------and all that happens is that nearly each and every time, I get brick-walled by the skeptic, and y'know, that's not a good start to showing that one has a cogent or coherent point of view. So, I'd suggest you skeptics start supporting your work with citations and maybe a few quotes along the way to show the rest of us that you received some epistemic training from somewhere outside of yourselves. And stop with the cheap poo-poo excuse, "Oh, but this is just a public forum, and we couldn't possibly expect anyone to have to show some kind of scholarly support for his/her own propositions here ... you ask too much and I doth think you protest too much, te-he! Besides, I never claimed to be an expert anyway ... te-he, te-he, te-he!"

Well, in my book, if you're no expert on epistemology and you know it, that isn't a time to clap your hands. No, it's a time to admit that either:

A) You're a Troll and merely wish to give Christians a black-eye.

or

B) You really don't know, but would honestly like to investigate further so you can become more knowledgeable about something you presently understand inadequately.

or
C) You're a skeptical victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect and, God Help Us, you know not what you do!

... some of them may be on their way to Hades, of course. And some of the others, by God's Grace in Christ, if they haven't rejected Christ, might find their journey ends up at the feet of Christ anyway in the long-run.

Oh, but I see, you instead seem to mean to ask me about what I think of the epistemic state of those who are spiritual in the here and now but who don't traverse a spiritual journey in byways that I think would be within Jesus' Million Acre Woods, ay?

So 1), you don't apparently want engagement in a way that isn't on your overly high standards, 2) you seem to disregard anyone who isn't on your intellectual caliber as disingenuous in their discussions and 3) you think I somehow mean one thing that I don't think was remotely implied in my statement and you facetiously insinuate I claimed it.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So 1), you don't apparently want engagement in a way that isn't on your overly high standards

Now your catching on. Why should I desire or expect anything else? Do you settle for 'lesser' thought? I don't think you think you do. So then, don't assume the rest of us do or should, either. AND if you indeed have something you think we should learn BETTER about, then by all means....................................................................................TEACH US!

I sincerely mean that!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Now your catching on. Why should I desire or expect anything else? Do you settle for 'lesser' thought? I don't think you think you do. So then, don't assume the rest of us do or should, either. AND if you indeed have something you think we should learn BETTER about, then by all means....................................................................................TEACH US!

I sincerely mean that!
I take people as they are, I don't expect everyone to meet unrealistic standards, because we're all beings in a different state in life, which is something you don't seem to understand entirely.

I don't assume anything like that, a discussion involves flexibility

Never claimed to be a teacher, that's you putting words in my mouth
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I take people as they are, I don't expect everyone to meet unrealistic standards, because we're all beings in a different state in life, which is something you don't seem to understand entirely.
I begin with people where they're at too; it's just a part of my education training in Education. I also don't expect everyone to meet certain arbitrary standards, but I definitely to parse out my expectations of other people according to the degree of intelligence I think they have. Not only that, bu the more intelligent I think they are, then the MORE I expect from them, and you, my dear friend, are a highly intelligent person. So, my expectations of you will be applied accordingly.

I don't assume anything like that, a discussion involves flexibility
A discussion involves critical thinking. But that brings us to an interesting thought: What would it mean to have 'flexibility' installed as an aspect of one's 'critical thinking'? And by this, I don't intend to merely mean that we might try to install some degree of Emotional Intelligence into the whole critical apparatus. No, I mean to go beyond just E.I.

Never claimed to be a teacher, that's you putting words in my mouth
Well, then. You've claimed several times here and there on CF that you're no expert. Now you're claiming that you're no teacher, so then, if you're neither of these, then who in your estimation is? (Being that you're highly intelligent, I'm just going to run with the idea that you're no Nihilist either ... :cool:)
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
You are still dodging key elements to this discussion. I will again answer your replies below; but you will find I keep having to repeat my responses, as you are not really addressing what I am actually saying.

It was my observation that Jesus spoke into a situation prevailing 2000/3000 years ago, as I said.
Even if you say there was no "that time" - there was still a situation of back then. When they didn't have a blacksmith, as can be seen in 1 Samuel 13:19, they didn't have much money for the homeless either, I'm afraid.

Again, based upon the many passages of slavery provided from the Bible, slavery is still permitted. Why? Because Jesus never lays down specific criteria or circumstances. And Jesus never rebukes the allowance for generalized slavery.

no, in my opinion, there is nothing ambiguous about the story of Joseph getting enslaved. God clearly shows he is against it, as can be seen in Genesis 42:21.
See this story in lights of Ephesians 6:9 (no respecter of persons). I think, since it was wrong to enslave a brother of back then... enslaving brothers will be wrong anytime.

I was wondering what took you so long, in finding that verse in Ephesians?

Now let's see the entire set of instructions, in context:

"5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.


9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."

- God condones slavery.
- God applies virtually no qualifiers for slavery
- God never later rebukes slavery.
- And yet, we seem to have a conflict of sorts?...

You have verse 9, but then have to somehow reconcile conflicting verses elsewhere (i.e.) below....

So please actually address the following, which you have yet to do :)


"20 Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

"45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

"1 Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. 2 Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. False Teaching and True Riches Teach and urge these duties."

"18 Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh."

I'm not advocating replacing homelessness by slavery.
You are the one who apparently opposes slavery in societies that used to be in place 2000/3000 years ago.
I'd like to ask you to put your cards on the table, please: Firstly, what other option, besides slavery for life, do you propose for the then slaves? Homelessness?

And secondly, once you've answered my first question, how would you have led the revolution to abolish slavery in the Roman Empire/ in Israel and please show that your strategy would have been a succesful one. Successful in a context in which a revolution concerning slavery has failed, already. I'm thinking of Spartacus in the Roman Empire.
Many centuries later, that one was still a heroe. Here in Germany. The Spartkus Bund, active some 100 years ago, occupied the city of Bremen. The family of my grandmother had to escape this town, due to a famine that occured after the Spartkus Bund assumed power in town. They wanted the big revolution. My grandmother told me a horrible story about her having lost her mother in famine. Horrible. Then she grew up without her mother, which was also horrible.
So revolution, I guess, is what you propose/ would have proposed for the Roman Empire?

This is a combination of both a red herring and a strawman. I'm saying the topic of slavery, in general, is sanctioned by God, until the end of earth's time. I'm also saying that what constitutes as 'allowable slavery', is not well defined. Your 'justifications' for 'slavery', back then, is of little to no relevance to my points.

Again, slavery is allowed 'forever'. Again, if you were to be enslaved yesterday/today/tomorrow, seems as though there exists little regulatory restrictions for doing so.


No, I'm not avoiding your key points. As I said (I'm copy-pasting now), I answered them by giving the example of a living slave who is better off than a dying prisoner of war, for instance.

Please address accordingly:

- Slaves can be beaten just short of death, for life. This law has not been rebuked By Jesus. Do you agree with God's allowance?

- Slaves are considered property, for life. This law has not been rebuked By Jesus. Do you agree with God's allowance?

---
I neither disagree with Paul nor with God.

Thus, if a church elder told a woman to 'be quiet, and to have no authority over men in church', and then proceeded to give the primary reason that 'she sinned first', it appears you would just nod your head in agreement. Got it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

thomas_t

Blessings Collector
Nov 9, 2019
675
138
43
Bamberg
✟33,904.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And Jesus never rebukes the allowance for generalized slavery.
There is no need for it to have been laid out, in my opinion. Jesus wrote the whole Bible. Remember the story in Genesis 42:21. So everyone who sells his brother into slavery will experience the same feelings as the brothers in that story did, in my opinion.
It would have been redundant if Jesus declares another time "and remember Genesis 42:21, folks! Don't sell your brother". The Bible is long enough, he wanted to save place, I guess. Many Christians are not proficient in scripture. So another verse added would mean another verse unread by many.
The story of the sold brother is in fact a qualifier for slavery, I think.
I don't think that I tried a red herring. You are against slavery for both 2000 and 3000 years ago? So lay out the alternatives that existed according to you.
I didn't erect a strawman.
So please actually address the following [verses], which you have yet to do[...]
Please address [these verses] accordingly:
I addressed your verses by saying that a living slave is better off than a dead soldier. This was as an example. So, in my opinion, I addressed all keypoints of yours - as I said.
slavery is still permitted.
Depends on the situation, I guess. If something changed in the course of the last 2000+ years... there is no verse in the Bible saying you could still have slaves. At the same time, the story of Genesis 42:21 still stands. You trying to make slaves will be your own risk, in my opinion.

Thus, if a church elder told a woman to 'be quiet, and to have no authority over men in church', and then proceeded to give the primary reason that 'she sinned first', it appears you would just nod your head in agreement. Got it.
No, as I said, I wouldn't nod anything but wait for the reactions of my sisters first, to see if they are ok with citing that verse and at the same time leaving out Galatians. I'm in agreement with both passages. Equality yes.

Thomas
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
@thomas_t I appreciate you taking the time to issue responses. However, you have, yet again, avoided key points. I please ask that you address them this time, labeled in bold red, at the bottom :)

There is no need for it to have been laid out, in my opinion. Jesus wrote the whole Bible. Remember the story in Genesis 42:21. So everyone who sells his brother into slavery will experience the same feelings as the brothers in that story did, in my opinion. It would have been redundant if Jesus declares another time "and remember Genesis 42:21, folks! Don't sell your brother". The Bible is long enough, he wanted to save place, I guess.

The term slavery is not well defined in the Bible; not in the slightest. If Jesus wrote the entire Bible, He would be aware that such a term can present much confusion. Jesus would also be aware that the term slave could be applied, by humans, in differing ways. Jesus, in the NT, later continues not to offer hardly any clarification for the meaning of this term. Instead, Jesus merely lays out loose rules for the 'slave master' and 'slave' relationship.

Further, the verse you finally cited, offers direct conflict to many other verses, for which I keep citing, in bold red below. You must then ignore some of these direct verses, in favor of the opposite. Which is evident in what you are doing here, (below in bold red), in your last response, and also many prior responses.


Please remember, even if you are to follow the new covenant, Jesus never rebukes the undefined topic of slavery. Jesus also mentions the term 'slave' again by name. Hence, instances brought up before the writings of the NT still stand; just the like the verse [you] are now referencing (i.e.) Genesis 42:21 :)

Remember, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Meaning, [you] are not allowed to ignore OT verse, on this topic. You must either a) acknowledge some type of direct conflict. Or, b) ignore verses you may 'not like'. Thus far, it appears you might be opting for option b)?


Many Christians are not proficient in scripture. So another verse added would mean another verse unread by many.

Well, you are apparently proficient in Scripture. And regardless, Jesus apparently DID offer other verses in the Bible anyways. You have just repeatedly ignored them. - below in bold red.

The story of the sold brother is in fact a qualifier for slavery, I think.
I don't think that I tried a red herring. You are against slavery for both 2000 and 3000 years ago? So lay out the alternatives that existed according to you.
I didn't erect a strawman.

I addressed your verses by saying that a living slave is better off than a dead soldier. This was as an example. So, in my opinion, I addressed all keypoints of yours - as I said.

Disagree.

You are creating a specific situation for 'allowable' slavery, as diversion. You are also attempting to get me to 'justify' the use of 'slavery' over the death of POWs. Many responses ago, I agreed that one could argue that being kept alive may be favorable to death. But you are avoiding my direct point... Jesus does not define the term 'slave'. Hence, this would be only one situation, while ignoring others.

Depends on the situation, I guess. If something changed in the course of the last 2000+ years... there is no verse in the Bible saying you could still have slaves. At the same time, the story of Genesis 42:21 still stands. You trying to make slaves will be your own risk, in my opinion.

Then again @thomas_t , if Genesis 42:21 still stands, then so too are the verses below, for which you continue to ignore, in bold red. Please again remember, Jesus mentions the slave master - slave relationship in the NT. Hence, the virtually undefined topic of slavery is still allowed by God.




No, as I said, I wouldn't nod anything but wait for the reactions of my sisters first, to see if they are ok with citing that verse and at the same time leaving out Galatians. I'm in agreement with both passages. Equality yes.

Thomas

Then you are stepping all over yourself. You state you agree with Paul and God. Paul and God state women are to 'be quiet' in church. Paul and God state women are to not have authority over the man in church.

Hence, if [you] should decide to get the woman's opinion, and she disagrees, it does not matter. God has apparently spoken. God has also issued a reason for such command.

Again
:

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

****************

Now to the verses you continue to ignore.

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

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

thomas_t

Blessings Collector
Nov 9, 2019
675
138
43
Bamberg
✟33,904.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Now to the verses you continue to ignore.

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

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
No, it's better for them to live under these conditions than being dead after war.
As I said, I didn't ignore anything.
The peoples around Israel in that era also used to have prisoners of war to sell, I guess. Prisoners of war is an example for me.

Of course these verses still stand.
However, it is referring to the then situation. To my knowledge, (entire) nations selling slaves don't exist anymore.
There is no direct conflict to Genesis 42:21.
You are creating a specific situation for 'allowable' slavery, as diversion.
no, that situation existed beforehand.
But you are avoiding my direct point... Jesus does not define the term 'slave'.
no need to do this.


--------
Then you are stepping all over yourself. You state you agree with Paul and God. Paul and God state women are to 'be quiet' in church. [...]
Again
:

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
No, she should learn in quietness and full submission.
If she wants equality, men should do the same.
That doesn't mean for the woman to never say anything.
It always matters when a woman disagrees with a Bible study that focuses on one verse only.

EDITED
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0