-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
W
So this is acceptable behavior on this forum? Someone stands up for liberty and they are told to renounce Christ, as apparently all Christians are slaves to the Lord? (I have not read past Exodus, so I cannot confirm or deny what has been said).
So it leaves me to think that some of you believe everything the opposite of post #10, which I guess shouldn't surprise me if you are a Christian, it follows that you believe in the Laws of God. Good thing that Western justice didn't follow this train of thought, as enlightenment thinkers (American founding fathers) rejected the spirit of Biblical law in more ways than one.
So it leaves me to think that some of you believe everything the opposite of post #10, which I guess shouldn't surprise me if you are a Christian, it follows that you believe in the Laws of God. Good thing that Western justice didn't follow this train of thought, as enlightenment thinkers (American founding fathers) rejected the spirit of Biblical law in more ways than one.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you're having trouble distinguishing between being owned by God and being owned by another human. Surely you can see the difference, or should I list some for you?
So you're pro-human slavery? You're for one human legally owning another human? You don't mind seeing people as property of other people? I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.
I keep saying "legally" because I think, in fact, nobody actually owns anybody else. Slavery is legalized fiction (human slavery, for those who have trouble distinguishing between being owned by God, the all-knowing-loving-powerful life giver and sustainer and being owned by another human). In fact, nobody actually owns anybody else. Sure, people exert force and violence on other people, but they don't own their lives. Everyone owns their own life as is self evidenced by the observational fact that they are the ones living it. God gives you your life as he gives me mine. No other human can actually take ownership.
So you're pro-human slavery? You're for one human legally owning another human? You don't mind seeing people as property of other people? I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.
I keep saying "legally" because I think, in fact, nobody actually owns anybody else. Slavery is legalized fiction (human slavery, for those who have trouble distinguishing between being owned by God, the all-knowing-loving-powerful life giver and sustainer and being owned by another human). In fact, nobody actually owns anybody else. Sure, people exert force and violence on other people, but they don't own their lives. Everyone owns their own life as is self evidenced by the observational fact that they are the ones living it. God gives you your life as he gives me mine. No other human can actually take ownership.
Last edited:
W
Yes, but at least they are being honest and living out the Bible, which would require the acceptance of human-to-human slavery. By the way, God should not care about Israelite or any other societal norms, He transcends all norms of the epoch of any society. That is a lame excuse to disregard it as being part of ancient civilization, as God is above and more omniscient than a society would be. The Bible would have been much more convincing if there was a verse to the effect of "You shall not keep slaves, for you remember what it was like to be a slave in Egypt". But it doesn't.
S
I can't speak concerning the slave issue, but regarding the Sabbath, it was the sign of the covenant that God had with ancient Israel, and the sign of the covenant could not be violated.
The same was true of circumcision as it was the entry sign of the Old Covenant, as well as the Abrahamic Covenant.
I've done a comparison of circumcision and the Sabbath to show that the language is very similar:
http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/117464-sabbath-circumcision-comparison.html
God was dealing with a carnal nation, and not a spiritual people. They were not regenerate and did not have the Holy Spirit. Their laws were a faint glimmer of his holiness, but they were not the full manifestation of the holiness of God. This comes in the New Covenant, where believers are given the Holy Spirit in order to discern what is good and right. The written code only roughly approximated God's holiness.
He gave this law in order to prepare for the Messiah. It was preparatory and temporary in nature. It did not fully reflect God's holiness as the New Covenant does, which involves the receipt of the Holy Spirit so that God can lead and guide us in terms of right behavior toward Him and others. This gives us spiritual eyes to read the Bible and to understand the underlying spiritual and moral principles underlying it. As well, we have the apostolic writings to guide us from a New Covenant perspective.
Deut 5:29 Oh that they had such a heart as this always, to fear me and to keep all my commandments, that it might go well with them and with their descendants forever!
Ex 36:26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
Matt 19:18 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
2 Cor 3:3 And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
By the way, I believe God used tablets of stone, and not paper, to illustrate the hardness of the hearts of the Israelites. Some who claim the Sabbath still applies say that the commandments were written in stone due to the enduring nature of the Sabbath, but I think it was because of the hardness of the hearts of the Israelites.
The same was true of circumcision as it was the entry sign of the Old Covenant, as well as the Abrahamic Covenant.
I've done a comparison of circumcision and the Sabbath to show that the language is very similar:
http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/117464-sabbath-circumcision-comparison.html
God was dealing with a carnal nation, and not a spiritual people. They were not regenerate and did not have the Holy Spirit. Their laws were a faint glimmer of his holiness, but they were not the full manifestation of the holiness of God. This comes in the New Covenant, where believers are given the Holy Spirit in order to discern what is good and right. The written code only roughly approximated God's holiness.
He gave this law in order to prepare for the Messiah. It was preparatory and temporary in nature. It did not fully reflect God's holiness as the New Covenant does, which involves the receipt of the Holy Spirit so that God can lead and guide us in terms of right behavior toward Him and others. This gives us spiritual eyes to read the Bible and to understand the underlying spiritual and moral principles underlying it. As well, we have the apostolic writings to guide us from a New Covenant perspective.
Deut 5:29 Oh that they had such a heart as this always, to fear me and to keep all my commandments, that it might go well with them and with their descendants forever!
Ex 36:26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
Matt 19:18 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
2 Cor 3:3 And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
By the way, I believe God used tablets of stone, and not paper, to illustrate the hardness of the hearts of the Israelites. Some who claim the Sabbath still applies say that the commandments were written in stone due to the enduring nature of the Sabbath, but I think it was because of the hardness of the hearts of the Israelites.
Last edited:
P
Who is having the problem here, you or me? Again, your problem seems to be with Christ, the Master of His servants, and with Christianity itself and you should either align yourself with Christ and Christianity or just renounce Him and Christianity altogether. The New Testament has plenty to say about proper Master/master and servant relationships whether they pertain to Christ, the Master of His Christian servants, or to strictly natural master and servant relationships. In fact, there are regular comparisons made between the two throughout the New Testament. Here are some examples:
Ephesians chapter 6 verses 5 thru 9
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;
With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:
Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.
And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.
Here, natural servants are admonished to be obedient to their natural masters as unto Christ and as the servants of Christ. Yes, their service is actually unto the Lord and not unto men and by doing good unto their natural masters these servants shall receive the same good from their Lord, the true Master, and the same principle of doing service unto the Lord, the true Master, applies to both those who are naturally bond or free. Again:
I Corinthians chapter 7 verses 21 thru 23
Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.
Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
Those who are natural bondservants are actually the Lord's freemen. Similarly, those who are naturally free are actually the Lord's servants or bondmen. This Master/master and servant parallel between Christ, the true Master and His Christian servants, and natural masters and their natural servants is seen throughout the New Testament and you'd be wise to recognize such a parallel and to thereby also recognize what a Master/master and servant relationship is really all about. Earthly, natural masters are not called to abuse their servants. Why not? Well, as we just read in the Ephesians passage, they need to be aware of the fact that they, too, have a Master in heaven Who is no respecter of persons and their mastery therefore ought to mirror the same type of Mastery that Christ exerts over them. Is Christ, the true Master, abusive? No, He isn't and therefore earthly, natural masters ought not be abusive either. Even in the case of an abusive master, however, Christians, as true servants unto their true Master, Christ, are instructed to respond in the following manner:
I Peter chapter 2 verses 18 thru 23
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
Here, servants are instructed to be subject even unto froward masters and to endure grief and to suffer wrongfully because of their consciences towards God. In other words, regardless of how an earthly, natural master might abuse them, they're still ultimately accountable unto their heavenly Master and God has clearly defined for us in His Word how we are to respond to both the good and the froward and there's really not much of a difference if any difference at all in either situation. Like it or not, Jesus Christ is our example. When He was reviled, He reviled not again. When He suffered, He threatened not. No, ultimately, Jesus committed Himself to Him, God the Father, Who judges righteously and He was therefore more than able to endure wrongful suffering upon this earth in light of a far greater eternal glory and this ought to be the same mindset of all Christians, whether they are naturally bond or free. Why then do you rail against the same? Ought we to obey your opinions over the Word of God?
I Timothy chapter 6 verses 1 thru 5
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
We are supposed to be teaching and exhorting servants to count their masters worthy of all honor that the name of God and His doctrine be not blasphemed. Is this what you're doing? No, you're doing the exact opposite. Why do people like you teach otherwise and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ and to the doctrine which is according to godliness? Because you are proud and know nothing and because you have a corrupt mind that is destitute of the truth. Hey, that's the Spirit led opinion of the Apostle Paul and I personally agree with him. You'd be wise to agree with him, too.
I could go on and on with Biblical examples from the New Testament, but I'll just conclude here by saying this:
Based solely upon your comments which I've read here (I know nothing else about you at the moment), I'd say that you sound more like a proponent of The Declaration of Independence than a proponent of Christianity to me. Whereas The Declaration of Independence reads, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, Jesus said, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me for whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it, Matthew chapter 16 verses 24 and 25. You're going on and on about ownership of our own lives while Jesus commands us to lose the same for His sake and the gospel's sake if we want to be His disciples. Some things for you to hopefully ponder before the Lord.
Colossians chapter 3 verse 2 thru chapter 4 verse 1
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:
And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;
Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.
But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.
Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.
Again, that was for those who don't deem themselves to be wiser than God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and Paul, to name just a few.
Ephesians chapter 6 verses 5 thru 9
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;
With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:
Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.
And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.
Here, natural servants are admonished to be obedient to their natural masters as unto Christ and as the servants of Christ. Yes, their service is actually unto the Lord and not unto men and by doing good unto their natural masters these servants shall receive the same good from their Lord, the true Master, and the same principle of doing service unto the Lord, the true Master, applies to both those who are naturally bond or free. Again:
I Corinthians chapter 7 verses 21 thru 23
Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.
Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
Those who are natural bondservants are actually the Lord's freemen. Similarly, those who are naturally free are actually the Lord's servants or bondmen. This Master/master and servant parallel between Christ, the true Master and His Christian servants, and natural masters and their natural servants is seen throughout the New Testament and you'd be wise to recognize such a parallel and to thereby also recognize what a Master/master and servant relationship is really all about. Earthly, natural masters are not called to abuse their servants. Why not? Well, as we just read in the Ephesians passage, they need to be aware of the fact that they, too, have a Master in heaven Who is no respecter of persons and their mastery therefore ought to mirror the same type of Mastery that Christ exerts over them. Is Christ, the true Master, abusive? No, He isn't and therefore earthly, natural masters ought not be abusive either. Even in the case of an abusive master, however, Christians, as true servants unto their true Master, Christ, are instructed to respond in the following manner:
I Peter chapter 2 verses 18 thru 23
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
Here, servants are instructed to be subject even unto froward masters and to endure grief and to suffer wrongfully because of their consciences towards God. In other words, regardless of how an earthly, natural master might abuse them, they're still ultimately accountable unto their heavenly Master and God has clearly defined for us in His Word how we are to respond to both the good and the froward and there's really not much of a difference if any difference at all in either situation. Like it or not, Jesus Christ is our example. When He was reviled, He reviled not again. When He suffered, He threatened not. No, ultimately, Jesus committed Himself to Him, God the Father, Who judges righteously and He was therefore more than able to endure wrongful suffering upon this earth in light of a far greater eternal glory and this ought to be the same mindset of all Christians, whether they are naturally bond or free. Why then do you rail against the same? Ought we to obey your opinions over the Word of God?
I Timothy chapter 6 verses 1 thru 5
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
We are supposed to be teaching and exhorting servants to count their masters worthy of all honor that the name of God and His doctrine be not blasphemed. Is this what you're doing? No, you're doing the exact opposite. Why do people like you teach otherwise and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ and to the doctrine which is according to godliness? Because you are proud and know nothing and because you have a corrupt mind that is destitute of the truth. Hey, that's the Spirit led opinion of the Apostle Paul and I personally agree with him. You'd be wise to agree with him, too.
I could go on and on with Biblical examples from the New Testament, but I'll just conclude here by saying this:
Based solely upon your comments which I've read here (I know nothing else about you at the moment), I'd say that you sound more like a proponent of The Declaration of Independence than a proponent of Christianity to me. Whereas The Declaration of Independence reads, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, Jesus said, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me for whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it, Matthew chapter 16 verses 24 and 25. You're going on and on about ownership of our own lives while Jesus commands us to lose the same for His sake and the gospel's sake if we want to be His disciples. Some things for you to hopefully ponder before the Lord.
Colossians chapter 3 verse 2 thru chapter 4 verse 1
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:
And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;
Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.
But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.
Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.
Again, that was for those who don't deem themselves to be wiser than God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and Paul, to name just a few.
I note and appreciate the attempt to paint this discussion as you and Christianity vs me. Usually, this sort of tactic is a sure sign of a failed argument.
Right, Paul doesn't promote the immediate universal emancipation of slaves. I don't know if this is really news to anyone. I'm not really convinced that Paul actually condoned slavery either though based on what I read in Philemon where Paul treated a slave, Onesimus, as an equal and wanted Philemon to do the same. This would be highly unusual for a slave owner to accept a slave as a "brother," especially one that had run away.
In any case, early Christianity presented a new sort of problems: how to treat all of these disparate groups that had come together in the name of Jesus? The newly formed Christian overturned much of the old social order. Our very founder said, "the first will be last" and that he had come to "set the captives free." What were the apostles to do now that the Gentiles had been accepted? What were they to do with women? What were they to do with slaves? Supposedly all these people were now co-equals in Christ where the old social order would have treated them as lower and disparate members of society.
I think one of the natural outworkings of this is the actual emancipation of slaves, not least because it fits perfectly with what Jesus said, but it fits perfectly with observational reality (which is God's creation anyway). It's almost like Jesus' words align well with what we observe reality to be and what we know it ought to be. This would mean the overturning of certain Old Testament laws where slaves were treated as property of other people since "in Christ" they were a "new creation" and were equally brothers and sisters with one another.
The natural working-out of Christianity is the overturning of old master-slave relationships to one of brotherhood, which happens to fit well with the observational reality that it's impossible for one person to own the life of another person.
The problem is that I think people are naturally born free, not "bond" (nice choice of words by the way; call it what it is though - slavery). There are no "natural" slaves. How do I know this? Because it's impossible for a master to actually own the life of another person as is evident by the fact that the master cannot actually live the other person's life. He can do violence to it; he can extinguish it; but he will never be able to own it.
No Paul doesn't call for the universal emancipation of slaves. You won't get much of an argument from me on that point. But in places like the letter of Philemon, he does call for the overturning of master-slave relationships, which indicates to me that his motivation for telling slaves to obey their masters might be more of a practicality than anything else.
For example, what if a slave became a Christian but a master didn't, which undoubtedly was what Paul was addressing in some places? What was Paul to tell the Christian to do? Telling them to leave their master, disobey, or some such would have only led to violence on the slave. Rather, they should demonstrate their faith by love and the way they carried out their lives. But in cases where both master and slave were Christian (as Philemon and Onesimus), Paul wants the master to treat the slave as equal, which indicates to me that Paul did not think the slave was the property of the master, but was equal to the master.
Rail? Don't be so dramatic.
And no, I just disagree with your interpretation of the Word Of God. I think I should probably put that line in all of my signatures so I don't have to repeat it. I don't disagree with GOD, I disagree with what you think he says. Last time I checked disagreeing with you isn't the equivalent of disagreement with God. And let me check again....nope, still isn't.
Now disagreeing with you is blasphemy? That's rich. Please....continue.
And somehow we've wandered away from the Old Testament passages previously in discussion on this thread....
I would argue for some of the basic principles of the enlightenment, like life, liberty and property. I mean, I wouldn't call the Declaration of Independence the foundation of my thinking, but it does contain things I agree with. I think life and liberty are observationally self evident, as I've repeatedly said at this point, and so didn't feel the need to quote from anywhere to make it authoritative. I suppose if you think, as I do, that God is the Author of creation, then those observations are based on God's own decree. Appealing to the created order is basically appealing to God's decree for authority. God created us all free and intends for us to be free to function as he created us to do - it's people who enslave other people.
And again, my beef has been with one human owning another human as a piece of property and your inability to distinguish between God (who is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, and life granting and sustaining) being Master and another human (who is none of those things) owning someone as property. All of us being God's property is just a little bit different from someone being the property of someone else. Surely you can see the difference between God and a man, right?
I would argue that to be a [consistent] Christian, you cannot view another person as your property. You are to view them as equally brothers/sisters in Jesus. This goes well with saying that it's against God's created order to treat other people as property. A Christian naturally aligns themselves with God's decrees.
But hey, be a pro-human-slavery Christian. I think it's a contradiction of terms, but you're allowed to be wrong.
So it's wasn't for you. Check.
We can swap cheesy sunday school insults if you want. I think it's unoriginal and boring though.
Right, Paul doesn't promote the immediate universal emancipation of slaves. I don't know if this is really news to anyone. I'm not really convinced that Paul actually condoned slavery either though based on what I read in Philemon where Paul treated a slave, Onesimus, as an equal and wanted Philemon to do the same. This would be highly unusual for a slave owner to accept a slave as a "brother," especially one that had run away.
In any case, early Christianity presented a new sort of problems: how to treat all of these disparate groups that had come together in the name of Jesus? The newly formed Christian overturned much of the old social order. Our very founder said, "the first will be last" and that he had come to "set the captives free." What were the apostles to do now that the Gentiles had been accepted? What were they to do with women? What were they to do with slaves? Supposedly all these people were now co-equals in Christ where the old social order would have treated them as lower and disparate members of society.
I think one of the natural outworkings of this is the actual emancipation of slaves, not least because it fits perfectly with what Jesus said, but it fits perfectly with observational reality (which is God's creation anyway). It's almost like Jesus' words align well with what we observe reality to be and what we know it ought to be. This would mean the overturning of certain Old Testament laws where slaves were treated as property of other people since "in Christ" they were a "new creation" and were equally brothers and sisters with one another.
The natural working-out of Christianity is the overturning of old master-slave relationships to one of brotherhood, which happens to fit well with the observational reality that it's impossible for one person to own the life of another person.
The problem is that I think people are naturally born free, not "bond" (nice choice of words by the way; call it what it is though - slavery). There are no "natural" slaves. How do I know this? Because it's impossible for a master to actually own the life of another person as is evident by the fact that the master cannot actually live the other person's life. He can do violence to it; he can extinguish it; but he will never be able to own it.
No Paul doesn't call for the universal emancipation of slaves. You won't get much of an argument from me on that point. But in places like the letter of Philemon, he does call for the overturning of master-slave relationships, which indicates to me that his motivation for telling slaves to obey their masters might be more of a practicality than anything else.
For example, what if a slave became a Christian but a master didn't, which undoubtedly was what Paul was addressing in some places? What was Paul to tell the Christian to do? Telling them to leave their master, disobey, or some such would have only led to violence on the slave. Rather, they should demonstrate their faith by love and the way they carried out their lives. But in cases where both master and slave were Christian (as Philemon and Onesimus), Paul wants the master to treat the slave as equal, which indicates to me that Paul did not think the slave was the property of the master, but was equal to the master.
Rail? Don't be so dramatic.
And no, I just disagree with your interpretation of the Word Of God. I think I should probably put that line in all of my signatures so I don't have to repeat it. I don't disagree with GOD, I disagree with what you think he says. Last time I checked disagreeing with you isn't the equivalent of disagreement with God. And let me check again....nope, still isn't.
Now disagreeing with you is blasphemy? That's rich. Please....continue.
And somehow we've wandered away from the Old Testament passages previously in discussion on this thread....
I would argue for some of the basic principles of the enlightenment, like life, liberty and property. I mean, I wouldn't call the Declaration of Independence the foundation of my thinking, but it does contain things I agree with. I think life and liberty are observationally self evident, as I've repeatedly said at this point, and so didn't feel the need to quote from anywhere to make it authoritative. I suppose if you think, as I do, that God is the Author of creation, then those observations are based on God's own decree. Appealing to the created order is basically appealing to God's decree for authority. God created us all free and intends for us to be free to function as he created us to do - it's people who enslave other people.
And again, my beef has been with one human owning another human as a piece of property and your inability to distinguish between God (who is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, and life granting and sustaining) being Master and another human (who is none of those things) owning someone as property. All of us being God's property is just a little bit different from someone being the property of someone else. Surely you can see the difference between God and a man, right?
I would argue that to be a [consistent] Christian, you cannot view another person as your property. You are to view them as equally brothers/sisters in Jesus. This goes well with saying that it's against God's created order to treat other people as property. A Christian naturally aligns themselves with God's decrees.
But hey, be a pro-human-slavery Christian. I think it's a contradiction of terms, but you're allowed to be wrong.
So it's wasn't for you. Check.
We can swap cheesy sunday school insults if you want. I think it's unoriginal and boring though.
P
You're disagreeing with what the Apostle Paul, under Divine inspiration, said and with what he termed blasphemy.
The rest of your post is more word-twisting, so I won't bother wasting another second debating you. I've already said enough of what needs to be said and you can cast it to the ground if you'd like to.
The rest of your post is more word-twisting, so I won't bother wasting another second debating you. I've already said enough of what needs to be said and you can cast it to the ground if you'd like to.
According to the Bible, Israelites weren't slaves, only the conquered by Israel (as they entered the promised land) were taken as slaves. They were Gentiles for a lack of a better term, at that time. Sometimes people who were Israelites would elect to be a bond servant to another Israelite for a period of 6 years, and then they were forgiven their debts in the 7th year, as we read in the "Lord's Prayer" "forgive us our debts and we forgive our debtors." Israelites were not "slaves" within their own ranks. They were bond servants to pay a debt off. Its all in the Bible but a person has to read quite a bit of the law to put it all together.
Spiritually this relates to being a slave to sin, or to be free from the slavery of sin.
Spiritually this relates to being a slave to sin, or to be free from the slavery of sin.
Last edited:
A stranger or foreigner that came out of Egypt with Israel were considered part of the nation as an Israelite.
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. Leviticus 19:34
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. Exodus 12:49
Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the Lord your God.Leviticus 24:22
Obeying God's commandments makes a foreigner the same as the chosen. They are both God's children. This is the spiritual foreshadowing of the New Covenant.
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. Leviticus 19:34
One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. Exodus 12:49
Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the Lord your God.Leviticus 24:22
Obeying God's commandments makes a foreigner the same as the chosen. They are both God's children. This is the spiritual foreshadowing of the New Covenant.
Last edited:
You might be interested in the thread I started called http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/118674-gentiles.html. It pertains to this "foreshadowing."
W
Just wanted to relay some more scriptural evidence to debunk the bogus claims made by people here regarding slaves as being more akin to "Indentured Servants". I'm almost done with Leviticus and I came across these interesting verses
This is identical to Whites owning black slaves in pre-civil war America. Not indentured servants, but slaves for LIFE. And they can only enslave foreigners. Of course the slaveholders were Biblically sound by holding slaves in early America. This has nothing to to with ancient Hebrew society, this has everything to do with the Word of God. He transcends any societal norms, in fact He supposedly creates the norms!
This is identical to Whites owning black slaves in pre-civil war America. Not indentured servants, but slaves for LIFE. And they can only enslave foreigners. Of course the slaveholders were Biblically sound by holding slaves in early America. This has nothing to to with ancient Hebrew society, this has everything to do with the Word of God. He transcends any societal norms, in fact He supposedly creates the norms!