Christian Slavery

[Roz]

I'm curious about what the christians who visit ex-c think of this topic.  I'm collecting responses from all christ's followers with regards to christian slavery.  I say 'christian' slavery because jesus specifically said 'I and my father are one.'  This was jesus who ordered this and codified it.

 

Lev. 25.  It talks about how Israelites deal with property rights and all that, and for the first half christians will nod their heads and say 'amen' when Moses goes on talking about how property is to be handled. 

 

(verse)25 ‘If one of your brethren becomes poor, and has sold some of his possession, and if his redeeming relative comes to redeem it, then he may redeem what his brother sold. 26 Or if the man has no one to redeem it, but he himself becomes able to redeem it, 27 then let him count the years since its sale, and restore the remainder to the man to whom he sold it, that he may return to his possession. 28 But if he is not able to have it restored to himself, then what was sold shall remain in the hand of him who bought it until the Year of Jubilee; and in the Jubilee it shall be released, and he shall return to his possession.

No problems at all with that stuff?  'It's just the law of ancient Israel!'  Ok, fair enough.

 

 

29 ‘If a man sells a house in a walled city, then he may redeem it within a whole year after it is sold; within a full year he may redeem it. 30 But if it is not redeemed within the space of a full year, then the house in the walled city shall belong permanently to him who bought it, throughout his generations. It shall not be released in the Jubilee. 31 However the houses of villages which have no wall around them shall be counted as the fields of the country. They may be redeemed, and they shall be released in the Jubilee.

I assume you won't have any problems at all with what's being said here.  The general response I've received from former church members was 'look how ordered and just god is!  These are good laws'

 

 

39 ‘And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave. 40 As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 And then he shall depart from you—he and his children with him—and shall return to his own family. He shall return to the possession of his fathers. 42 For they are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. 43 You shall not rule over him with rigor, but you shall fear your God.

39-43, I assume you guys have no problems with that?  Look at how just and righteous yaweh/allah/jehovah/jesus is!  It's not slavery!

 

44 And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. 45 Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. 46 And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.

44-46.  What are you thoughts on this?  Did god/yaweh/jesus/allah suddenly switch from being literal to allegorical?  And what is the moral lesson to be found here?  What part of allah/god/yaweh/jesus' omnibenevolence is being shown in these passages?  Why did your deity feel the need to differentiate the treatment of non-hebrews to hebrews? 

 

Please pray earnestly to your deity and then reply with an answer.  So far, none of the answers I've collected match up, but maybe the christians I've been talking to haven't prayed with faith the grain of a mustard seed. 

 

PS:  yaweh/allah/jesus/jehovah said at the beginning of the chapter:

 

The Lord said to Moses at Mount Sinai, ² “Speak to the Israelites and say to them:

It's his words.

[Roz]

No christians huh, I guess god's soldiers still hold fast to all his teachings and actions, including this one.

[Adam5]

When I was a christian, I used to justify the slavery passages by saying to myself that slavery in the Bible was different in nature to slavery in 16th-19th century America.  That slavery back then was more the status of servants, rather than fueled by racism.

 

As we know Christianity today is just cherry picking bits of the new testament you like and leaving everything else aside

[Roz]

RIght Adam, I used to adhere to the same schtick as well.  That it was only all indentured servitude, that the Israelites were in fact 'job creators' providing those who sold themselves as servants with work and the means to live.

 

Bull pucky.  I read Lev. 25 in its entirety and that all flew out the window.  I want to know how anyone can read those passages and still think it was anything other than the permanent ownership of another person.

[Guest afireinside]

In religion the ends are somehow meant to justify the means. Genocide, oppression, racism and slavery are considered necessary evils for the greater good as it's God who makes the call in order to advance the " chosen race " and in latter times the cause of Christ. The crusades were necessary to bring salvation to many who were in the dark and malleus maleficarum was essential in ridding society of the time of the pollution of " witchcraft ". None of it is justified, especially when the end result is merely advancing a chosen religion or race. We just have to face it's evil, there is no justification or reasoning to condone it in any way, the fact that it is faithful people who promote the love of God is a paradox and confusing to reasonable people who see wrong as wrong and don't muddy the waters of morality.

[RipVanWinkle]

The OT was written about 3000 ago, plus or minus. That means the whole world was more barbaric, despite how barbaric the world still is. It was worse. Xtians still refuse to acknowledge the obvious: It's idiotic to use ancient standards to apply today. We would be in a pathetic state if that Xtian attitude had continued to control society. Xtians sure didn't eschew taking advantage of modern scientific advancement once it arrived. There are really extreme Xtians who claim that we should go back to the age before science, but if we did, they would be the first to complain. They would say it happened because we didn't have enough faith.   bill

[Roz]

Still no soldiers of the bloody cross to illuminate how god's mercy and wisdom justifies the ownership of another human being, and how it was justified only from non-nationals.  Those of your kin and country?  Don't treat them with rigor.  The strangers you bought?  Please, feel free.

 

And to the freethinkers who posted, I'm just incensed at how we should do x, y, and z because god prescribed them.  How we should hang the 10 commandments in courthouses (you mean the REAL 10 commandments in Exo 38?).  How we should only classify marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman (the original Jew, Abraham, certain violated that one...).  How the old testament matters because of these things, and how their religion is true because of the OT and NT.

 

Bull pucky.  Steaming pile of it.  Even the answer "well Lev. 25 was justified in that time and in that context" is bull pucky.  In what context is it EVER moral?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

No christians huh, I guess god's soldiers still hold fast to all his teachings and actions, including this one.

It's difficult to get christians to respond to the really tough threads.  End3 is about the only one with the courage to do so on a regular basis.  The rest of them seem to just want to come here and start threads of their own while ignoring the threads we start.

[mymistake]

Besides we are fresh out of fundamentalists.  That last batch didn't last long.  You have to give the Holy Spirit time to reload.

[sdelsolray]

Well, Christianity did not arise until well after the OT was written.  Quite a long time.  It was the previous religion(s), as well as the human societies, existing during the 1000 years or so that the OT was written which originated and promoted this slavery you speak of, not Christianity.  Nevertheless, Christianity endorses the OT, except when it doesn't, which is often (depending on the particular Christian denomination reviewed).

 

Christian Apologetics attempt to diffuse the slavery issue, and, not surprisingly, does so quite poorly.  The Apologetics contain the common lies, intentional misrepresentations and infantile logical fallacies suffered by most Christian Apologetics.  In short, they are full of shit.

 

So much for absolute and objective morality.

[FriendlyChristian]

In response to the original post. I think it actually boils down to a matter of "lenses."

 

What I mean, is, look through the lenses of a first century Pharisee.  He would have said to us, "so long as one obeys all of the law, then everything is kosher."

 

Jesus offers us a different set of lenses by which to read the law, though.  Jesus underlines, in many different ways, the idea that the reasons for the law is the substance of the law. I think this is an important thing to recognize, because the only function laws in any ancient society (and even modern society) ever have is that they merely set limits on the amount of evil that men are allowed to do.  Laws don't create moral, truly changed, people.  You can't legislate morality by creating laws anymore than you can call yourself moral simply because you don't do anything that is technically illegal.

 

And, indeed, we can find a significant number of morally reprehensible loopholes in our own legal system today if we try really hard at it.  Many lawyers make their living this way.  This frustrates many of us, because we know (deep down) those loopholes shouldn't be there. . . but as soon as a legislator tries to create a new law to sow up those loopholes, another loophole opens up to get around the closed loophole.

 

It's almost exactly like a child to whom you say, "don't touch that!"  And then he says, "technically I wasn't 'touching' it. . . because I was using tongs to carry it around!"  So you tell him, "don't use anything to touch that!"  And then he says, "technically I'm not using anything to touch it, because now my buddy is playing with it however I ask him to."  Trying to make up rules to create moral people is an exhausting, never ending game.

 

Jesus portrays the law a lot like that.  That the law is actually a response of having to set limits on the evil that men would, otherwise, do. But it, alone, is insufficient to change them, or save them, or make them any good whatsoever.  They will still find loopholes, and justify themselves by the law however they can.

 

I mean think about it.  What do you say to a man who says, "I'm not breaking any laws by smoking my cigarette around an infant. . . because, technically, I'm doing it in my own home."  Jesus found the Pharisees similar attempts at justifying themselves according to the law equally reprehensible.

 

The skeptic, I find, comes at the law in a manner that is very similar to the Pharisees.  Except the skeptic actually tries to find out everything that is "kosher" so that he can make the argument of how morally reprehensible it is.  In fact, the skeptics charge seems to be against the way the Pharisees would use the law to justify themselves. . . not Christianity.

 

Because Jesus summed up the reasons for all law in a way that cut through all such legal sophistry in the two commands, "Love the Lord, your God, with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength.  And second, love your neighbor just as much as you love yourself."

 

Then, he went on to exhibit this love in a concrete way.

 

So my response is, "lenses."  Do we approach the law with lenses like a lawyer trying to find loopholes?  Do we approach the law with lenses like a Pharisee trying to justify himself?  Or do we approach the law with lenses like Jesus who recognized the law was merely a response to the unfortunate need to set some kind of checks and balances on man's inclinations?

 

Edit: Oh and one quick edit.  The word "slavery" itself has undergone a significant amount of evolution in our own modern society.  Lincoln didn't actually succeed in abolishing slavery, for example.  He actually only succeeded in abolishing involuntary slavery.  

 

Today, there are still three forms of tacit slavery still practiced (even in our modern society).

 

1.  Debt

2.  Military service

3.  Court ordered community service

 

Of course we don't use the word "slavery" anymore.  But, in practice, its still the same thing.  For all intents and purposes a human being may be compelled to do something that he would not, otherwise, like to do. . .  simply because of decisions that he, himself, made.  Again, we see a picture of the law being a kind of unfortunate reality, more of a response, to the decisions that men make.

[mymistake]

In response to the original post. I think it actually boils down to a matter of "lenses."

 

What I mean, is, look through the lenses of a first century Pharisee.  He would have said to us, "so long as one obeys all of the law, then everything is kosher."

 

Jesus offers us a different set of lenses by which to read the law, though.  Jesus underlines, in many different ways, the idea that the reasons for the law is the substance of the law. I think this is an important thing to recognize, because the only function laws in any ancient society (and even modern society) ever have is that they merely set limits on the amount of evil that men are allowed to do.  Laws don't create moral, truly changed, people.  You can't legislate morality by creating laws anymore than you can call yourself moral simply because you don't do anything that is technically illegal.

 

And, indeed, we can find a significant number of morally reprehensible loopholes in our own legal system today if we try really hard at it.  Many lawyers make their living this way.  This frustrates many of us, because we know (deep down) those loopholes shouldn't be there. . . but as soon as a legislator tries to create a new law to sow up those loopholes, another loophole opens up to get around the closed loophole.

 

It's almost exactly like a child to whom you say, "don't touch that!"  And then he says, "technically I wasn't 'touching' it. . . because I was using tongs to carry it around!"  So you tell him, "don't use anything to touch that!"  And then he says, "technically I'm not using anything to touch it, because now my buddy is playing with it however I ask him to."  Trying to make up rules to create moral people is an exhausting, never ending game.

 

Jesus portrays the law a lot like that.  That the law is actually a response of having to set limits on the evil that men would, otherwise, do. But it, alone, is insufficient to change them, or save them, or make them any good whatsoever.  They will still find loopholes, and justify themselves by the law however they can.

 

I mean think about it.  What do you say to a man who says, "I'm not breaking any laws by smoking my cigarette around an infant. . . because, technically, I'm doing it in my own home."  Jesus found the Pharisees similar attempts at justifying themselves according to the law equally reprehensible.

 

The skeptic, I find, comes at the law in a manner that is very similar to the Pharisees.  Except the skeptic actually tries to find out everything that is "kosher" so that he can make the argument of how morally reprehensible it is.  In fact, the skeptics charge seems to be against the way the Pharisees would use the law to justify themselves. . . not Christianity.

 

Because Jesus summed up the reasons for all law in a way that cut through all such legal sophistry in the two commands, "Love the Lord, your God, with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength.  And second, love your neighbor just as much as you love yourself."

 

Then, he went on to exhibit this love in a concrete way.

 

So my response is, "lenses."  Do we approach the law with lenses like a lawyer trying to find loopholes?  Do we approach the law with lenses like a Pharisee trying to justify himself?  Or do we approach the law with lenses like Jesus who recognized the law was merely a response to the unfortunate need to set some kind of checks and balances on man's inclinations?

 

Edit: Oh and one quick edit.  The word "slavery" itself has undergone a significant amount of evolution in our own modern society.  Lincoln didn't actually succeed in abolishing slavery, for example.  He actually only succeeded in abolishing involuntary slavery.  

 

Today, there are still three forms of tacit slavery still practiced (even in our modern society).

 

1.  Debt

2.  Military service

3.  Court ordered community service

 

Of course we don't use the word "slavery" anymore.  But, in practice, its still the same thing.  For all intents and purposes a human being may be compelled to do something that he would not, otherwise, like to do. . .  simply because of decisions that he, himself, made.  Again, we see a picture of the law being a kind of unfortunate reality, more of a response, to the decisions that men make.

 

I get the impression that you do not actually know any skeptics.  I'm certain that you do not know any first century Pharisees.  You make God out to be no more powerful nor wise at lawmaking than a mere human.  There in lies one core problem with Christianity.  If God made the law then why would Jesus comment about the law?  Whatever Jesus does should have been done the first time God introduced the law.  We are left with ad hoc justifications for the discrepancy.

 

Supposedly God created our minds and our language so why not come up with just the one commandment the first time and skip all evil in the Old Testament?  God couldn't because God could.  It doesn't make much sense.

[Roz]

Ah, welcome FC.  I guess there are crusaders after all

 

Thanks for the reply, I've read through it all.  I do have some questions.

 

 

And, indeed, we can find a significant number of morally reprehensible loopholes in our own legal system today if we try really hard at it.  Many lawyers make their living this way.  This frustrates many of us, because we know (deep down) those loopholes shouldn't be there. . . but as soon as a legislator tries to create a new law to sow up those loopholes, another loophole opens up to get around the closed loophole.

Ok, I'll take you at your word. Yes, there are loopholes in our system, our imperfect system (because your god is the perfect being right?).  We try to create a more perfect union, not a perfect one. 

 

 

 

It's almost exactly like a child to whom you say, "don't touch that!"  And then he says, "technically I wasn't 'touching' it. . . because I was using tongs to carry it around!"  So you tell him, "don't use anything to touch that!"  And then he says, "technically I'm not using anything to touch it, because now my buddy is playing with it however I ask him to."  Trying to make up rules to create moral people is an exhausting, never ending game.

Uh huh...

 

 

Jesus portrays the law a lot like that.  That the law is actually a response of having to set limits on the evil that men would, otherwise, do. But it, alone, is insufficient to change them, or save them, or make them any good whatsoever.  They will still find loopholes, and justify themselves by the law however they can.

So the law sets limits, it establishes an 'objective' value where we humans can know right from wrong. 

 

Well then, thus saith your lord:

 

 

39 ‘And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave. 40 As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 And then he shall depart from you—he and his children with him—and shall return to his own family. He shall return to the possession of his fathers. 42 For they are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. 43 You shall not rule over him with rigor, but you shall fear your God.

This is your god telling Moses to speak these to the children of Israel.

Make fellow Israelites servants instead of slaves.  Is this clear to you?

 

 

44 And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. 45 Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. 46 And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.

This is your god telling Moses to speak these next words to the children of Israel.  Yeah, exact same god.  It's jesus.  He and his father are one, remember?

Your male and female slaves whom you may have, from the nations around you, you may buy slaves.  Permanent property slaves.  To pass them onto your children.

However, don't rule over each other with rigor.

 

Instead of basically telling us that we're reading this the wrong way, please explain how:

1.  The god of the universe, jesus, sees it fit and moral to differentiate the treatment of nationals and non-nationals

2.  Instead of saying "slavery is bad, I'm banning slavery" he concocted a system which people can permanently own those not of their clan

 

Jesus summed up everything to love me, and love each other?  Then why was there ever a need to institute a system whereby permanent ownership of another human being was permissible?

 

What were your words again?  "That the law is actually a response of having to set limits on the evil that men would, otherwise, do."

 

If we fallible human beings evolved into seeing the permanent ownership of other humans as abhorent, then why has the eternal unchanging god permitted it in the first place?  To set limits, by allowing it? 

 

All you've done was said "it's ok for that time and that cultural context."

 

Under what context would it be moral for one human to permanently own another human, such that the one owned was his master's property?

 

 

PS:

"The skeptic, I find, comes at the law in a manner that is very similar to the Pharisees.  Except the skeptic actually tries to find out everything that is "kosher" so that he can make the argument of how morally reprehensible it is.  In fact, the skeptics charge seems to be against the way the Pharisees would use the law to justify themselves. . . not Christianity."

 

Please state the context whereby the ownership of human beings is not morally reprehensible.  Jesus, your god, gave license to it. 

 

I'm not trying to find loopholes I'm showing you the words he commanded verbatim.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

In response to the original post. I think it actually boils down to a matter of "lenses."

 

What I mean, is, look through the lenses of a first century Pharisee.  He would have said to us, "so long as one obeys all of the law, then everything is kosher."

 

Jesus offers us a different set of lenses by which to read the law, though.  Jesus underlines, in many different ways, the idea that the reasons for the law is the substance of the law. I think this is an important thing to recognize, because the only function laws in any ancient society (and even modern society) ever have is that they merely set limits on the amount of evil that men are allowed to do.  Laws don't create moral, truly changed, people.  You can't legislate morality by creating laws anymore than you can call yourself moral simply because you don't do anything that is technically illegal.

 

And, indeed, we can find a significant number of morally reprehensible loopholes in our own legal system today if we try really hard at it.  Many lawyers make their living this way.  This frustrates many of us, because we know (deep down) those loopholes shouldn't be there. . . but as soon as a legislator tries to create a new law to sow up those loopholes, another loophole opens up to get around the closed loophole.

 

It's almost exactly like a child to whom you say, "don't touch that!"  And then he says, "technically I wasn't 'touching' it. . . because I was using tongs to carry it around!"  So you tell him, "don't use anything to touch that!"  And then he says, "technically I'm not using anything to touch it, because now my buddy is playing with it however I ask him to."  Trying to make up rules to create moral people is an exhausting, never ending game.

 

Jesus portrays the law a lot like that.  That the law is actually a response of having to set limits on the evil that men would, otherwise, do. But it, alone, is insufficient to change them, or save them, or make them any good whatsoever.  They will still find loopholes, and justify themselves by the law however they can.

 

I mean think about it.  What do you say to a man who says, "I'm not breaking any laws by smoking my cigarette around an infant. . . because, technically, I'm doing it in my own home."  Jesus found the Pharisees similar attempts at justifying themselves according to the law equally reprehensible.

 

The skeptic, I find, comes at the law in a manner that is very similar to the Pharisees.  Except the skeptic actually tries to find out everything that is "kosher" so that he can make the argument of how morally reprehensible it is.  In fact, the skeptics charge seems to be against the way the Pharisees would use the law to justify themselves. . . not Christianity.

 

Because Jesus summed up the reasons for all law in a way that cut through all such legal sophistry in the two commands, "Love the Lord, your God, with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength.  And second, love your neighbor just as much as you love yourself."

 

Then, he went on to exhibit this love in a concrete way.

 

So my response is, "lenses."  Do we approach the law with lenses like a lawyer trying to find loopholes?  Do we approach the law with lenses like a Pharisee trying to justify himself?  Or do we approach the law with lenses like Jesus who recognized the law was merely a response to the unfortunate need to set some kind of checks and balances on man's inclinations?

 

Edit: Oh and one quick edit.  The word "slavery" itself has undergone a significant amount of evolution in our own modern society.  Lincoln didn't actually succeed in abolishing slavery, for example.  He actually only succeeded in abolishing involuntary slavery.  

 

Today, there are still three forms of tacit slavery still practiced (even in our modern society).

 

1.  Debt

2.  Military service

3.  Court ordered community service

 

Of course we don't use the word "slavery" anymore.  But, in practice, its still the same thing.  For all intents and purposes a human being may be compelled to do something that he would not, otherwise, like to do. . .  simply because of decisions that he, himself, made.  Again, we see a picture of the law being a kind of unfortunate reality, more of a response, to the decisions that men make.

Damn, stevebennett, you are starting to convince me that reincarnation is real.  This is now, what, your fourth incarnation on this website?  Or is it your fifth?  Kudos for not using bold print this time around.

[sdelsolray]

 

(snip)

Damn, stevebennett, you are starting to convince me that reincarnation is real.  This is now, what, your fourth incarnation on this website?  Or is it your fifth?  Kudos for not using bold print this time around.

 

What evidence do you have that this new poster is Mr. Steve "The Rules Do Not Apply To Me, And I'm A Little Shit On Top Of That" Bennett?

[Roz]

Time to see who this Steve guy is, just to see what stuff he posts.

[mymistake]

 

 

(snip)

Damn, stevebennett, you are starting to convince me that reincarnation is real.  This is now, what, your fourth incarnation on this website?  Or is it your fifth?  Kudos for not using bold print this time around.

 

What evidence do you have that this new poster is Mr. Steve "The Rules Do Not Apply To Me, And I'm A Little Shit On Top Of That" Bennett?

 

 

We should probably put the Spotting-Steve-Bennett-Guide in the protected forum so that Steve Bennett doesn't use it to up his game.  

 

Perhaps we could include a section on Guess-Steve-Bennett's-Real-Sexual-Orientation in order to keep it on topic.

[bornagainathiest]

 

In response to the original post. I think it actually boils down to a matter of "lenses."

 

What I mean, is, look through the lenses of a first century Pharisee.  He would have said to us, "so long as one obeys all of the law, then everything is kosher."

 

Jesus offers us a different set of lenses by which to read the law, though.  Jesus underlines, in many different ways, the idea that the reasons for the law is the substance of the law. I think this is an important thing to recognize, because the only function laws in any ancient society (and even modern society) ever have is that they merely set limits on the amount of evil that men are allowed to do.  Laws don't create moral, truly changed, people.  You can't legislate morality by creating laws anymore than you can call yourself moral simply because you don't do anything that is technically illegal.

 

And, indeed, we can find a significant number of morally reprehensible loopholes in our own legal system today if we try really hard at it.  Many lawyers make their living this way.  This frustrates many of us, because we know (deep down) those loopholes shouldn't be there. . . but as soon as a legislator tries to create a new law to sow up those loopholes, another loophole opens up to get around the closed loophole.

 

It's almost exactly like a child to whom you say, "don't touch that!"  And then he says, "technically I wasn't 'touching' it. . . because I was using tongs to carry it around!"  So you tell him, "don't use anything to touch that!"  And then he says, "technically I'm not using anything to touch it, because now my buddy is playing with it however I ask him to."  Trying to make up rules to create moral people is an exhausting, never ending game.

 

Jesus portrays the law a lot like that.  That the law is actually a response of having to set limits on the evil that men would, otherwise, do. But it, alone, is insufficient to change them, or save them, or make them any good whatsoever.  They will still find loopholes, and justify themselves by the law however they can.

 

I mean think about it.  What do you say to a man who says, "I'm not breaking any laws by smoking my cigarette around an infant. . . because, technically, I'm doing it in my own home."  Jesus found the Pharisees similar attempts at justifying themselves according to the law equally reprehensible.

 

The skeptic, I find, comes at the law in a manner that is very similar to the Pharisees.  Except the skeptic actually tries to find out everything that is "kosher" so that he can make the argument of how morally reprehensible it is.  In fact, the skeptics charge seems to be against the way the Pharisees would use the law to justify themselves. . . not Christianity.

 

Because Jesus summed up the reasons for all law in a way that cut through all such legal sophistry in the two commands, "Love the Lord, your God, with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength.  And second, love your neighbor just as much as you love yourself."

 

Then, he went on to exhibit this love in a concrete way.

 

So my response is, "lenses."  Do we approach the law with lenses like a lawyer trying to find loopholes?  Do we approach the law with lenses like a Pharisee trying to justify himself?  Or do we approach the law with lenses like Jesus who recognized the law was merely a response to the unfortunate need to set some kind of checks and balances on man's inclinations?

 

Edit: Oh and one quick edit.  The word "slavery" itself has undergone a significant amount of evolution in our own modern society.  Lincoln didn't actually succeed in abolishing slavery, for example.  He actually only succeeded in abolishing involuntary slavery.  

 

Today, there are still three forms of tacit slavery still practiced (even in our modern society).

 

1.  Debt

2.  Military service

3.  Court ordered community service

 

Of course we don't use the word "slavery" anymore.  But, in practice, its still the same thing.  For all intents and purposes a human being may be compelled to do something that he would not, otherwise, like to do. . .  simply because of decisions that he, himself, made.  Again, we see a picture of the law being a kind of unfortunate reality, more of a response, to the decisions that men make.

Damn, stevebennett, you are starting to convince me that reincarnation is real.  This is now, what, your fourth incarnation on this website?  Or is it your fifth?  Kudos for not using bold print this time around.

 

 

Good call Prof!

 

SteveBennett used the lenses analogy on Feb 24 and 25, in the Exodus 'tutorial' thread he started up.

 

Could the Mods check and see if the FriendlyChristian is another sock-puppet manifestation of this troll, please?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

(snip)

Damn, stevebennett, you are starting to convince me that reincarnation is real.  This is now, what, your fourth incarnation on this website?  Or is it your fifth?  Kudos for not using bold print this time around.

 

What evidence do you have that this new poster is Mr. Steve "The Rules Do Not Apply To Me, And I'm A Little Shit On Top Of That" Bennett?

 

What BAA said and also his list:

 

 

Today, there are still three forms of tacit slavery still practiced (even in our modern society).

 

1.  Debt

2.  Military service

3.  Court ordered community service

[Guest]

Well, Christianity did not arise until well after the OT was written.  Quite a long time.  It was the previous religion(s), as well as the human societies, existing during the 1000 years or so that the OT was written which originated and promoted this slavery you speak of, not Christianity.  Nevertheless, Christianity endorses the OT, except when it doesn't, which is often (depending on the particular Christian denomination reviewed).

 

Christian Apologetics attempt to diffuse the slavery issue, and, not surprisingly, does so quite poorly.  The Apologetics contain the common lies, intentional misrepresentations and infantile logical fallacies suffered by most Christian Apologetics.  In short, they are full of shit.

 

So much for absolute and objective morality.

 

Don't forget about the Roman slave who was brought to jesus to be healed.  Here was a prime example to use as a moral teaching against slavery, yet jesus heals the slave and uses it as an opportunity to preach how the faith of that Roman was better than the faith of the Jews.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

(snip)

Damn, stevebennett, you are starting to convince me that reincarnation is real.  This is now, what, your fourth incarnation on this website?  Or is it your fifth?  Kudos for not using bold print this time around.

 

What evidence do you have that this new poster is Mr. Steve "The Rules Do Not Apply To Me, And I'm A Little Shit On Top Of That" Bennett?

 

What BAA said and also his list:

 

 

Today, there are still three forms of tacit slavery still practiced (even in our modern society).

 

1.  Debt

2.  Military service

3.  Court ordered community service

 

 

Here's more evidence, Prof.

 

Just today, FriendlyChristian posted at 5:09 a.m., ...5:43, ...6:26, ...6:47, ...6:52, ...6:59, ...7:01, ...7:17, ...7:34, ...8:16, ...8:22, ...9:15 and 9:27.  So that's thirteen posts over a four-hour period.  Why would a newbie Christian post like this?

 

If FC were really Steve (Obsessive) Bennett, that would go a long way to explaining this deluge of posts.

 

Also, several of us have let it beknown that we think this is another sock-puppet of Steve's, yet the FriendlyChristian's failed to respond to any of these remarks.  That's exactly how he behaved before, when he was somebody else.  He ducked the accusation and just carried on posting, just as FC's doing today.

.

.

.

.

Banhammer please!!!!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Here's more evidence, Prof.

 

Just today, FriendlyChristian posted at 5:09 a.m., ...5:43, ...6:26, ...6:47, ...6:52, ...6:59, ...7:01, ...7:17, ...7:34, ...8:16, ...8:22, ...9:15 and 9:27.  So that's thirteen posts over a four-hour period.  Why would a newbie Christian post like this?

 

If FC were really Steve (Obsessive) Bennett, that would go a long way to explaining this deluge of posts.

 

Also, several of us have let it beknown that we think this is another sock-puppet of Steve's, yet the FriendlyChristian's failed to respond to any of these remarks.  That's exactly how he behaved before, when he was somebody else.  He ducked the accusation and just carried on posting, just as FC's doing today.

.

.

.

.

Banhammer please!!!!

 

I've noticed a lot of steve-like posts and behaviors, too.  It is especially telling that he will not answer the direct question as to his true identity.  If I was being accused of being someone I wasn't, my first question would be, "Who is this person you keep confusing me with?"  But with this stevebennet4.0 character, nothing.

 

I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but that won't stop me cutting through bullshit when I see it.

[buffettphan]

 

 

Here's more evidence, Prof.

 

Just today, FriendlyChristian posted at 5:09 a.m., ...5:43, ...6:26, ...6:47, ...6:52, ...6:59, ...7:01, ...7:17, ...7:34, ...8:16, ...8:22, ...9:15 and 9:27.  So that's thirteen posts over a four-hour period.  Why would a newbie Christian post like this?

 

If FC were really Steve (Obsessive) Bennett, that would go a long way to explaining this deluge of posts.

 

Also, several of us have let it beknown that we think this is another sock-puppet of Steve's, yet the FriendlyChristian's failed to respond to any of these remarks.  That's exactly how he behaved before, when he was somebody else.  He ducked the accusation and just carried on posting, just as FC's doing today.

.

.

.

.

Banhammer please!!!!

 

I've noticed a lot of steve-like posts and behaviors, too.  It is especially telling that he will not answer the direct question as to his true identity.  If I was being accused of being someone I wasn't, my first question would be, "Who is this person you keep confusing me with?"  But with this stevebennet4.0 character, nothing.

 

I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but that won't stop me cutting through bullshit when I see it.

 

 

We should be spared further vomit attacks  -- at least until his next reincarnation.  Thanks!

[Roz]

I don't think he took this thread seriously, just a drive-by preaching. 

[FriendlyChristian]

 

Well, Christianity did not arise until well after the OT was written.  Quite a long time.  It was the previous religion(s), as well as the human societies, existing during the 1000 years or so that the OT was written which originated and promoted this slavery you speak of, not Christianity.  Nevertheless, Christianity endorses the OT, except when it doesn't, which is often (depending on the particular Christian denomination reviewed).

 

Christian Apologetics attempt to diffuse the slavery issue, and, not surprisingly, does so quite poorly.  The Apologetics contain the common lies, intentional misrepresentations and infantile logical fallacies suffered by most Christian Apologetics.  In short, they are full of shit.

 

So much for absolute and objective morality.

 

Don't forget about the Roman slave who was brought to jesus to be healed.  Here was a prime example to use as a moral teaching against slavery, yet jesus heals the slave and uses it as an opportunity to preach how the faith of that Roman was better than the faith of the Jews.

 

 

I'm honestly not sure of the verse you are referring to.  Can you give a citation?