Who's Calling, Please?

You do know that the Quran borrows some things from the Bible right?
How do you know it borrowed this from the Bible, rather than it being revealed to Mohammed?
No, understood in its perspective and context in the original language and using Gods other book, Nature, to help interpret it, it is not wrong.
So, it doesn't say what it really means, and can be interpreted to suit, got it.
Giving mathematical equations would not serve Gods purpose for the Bible. It is not meant to be a science textbook.
Of course it would serve God's purpose for the Bible, by convincing people with something definite.
The hebrew word for slave can also mean servant. I dont think there is a hebrew word for apprenticeship.
It can also mean slave.
 
So why does it explicitly say gentile slaves are kept as slaves for life if that is not the case?
Because the gentile year of jubilee was 70 years, most were dead by then.
Lev 25 paints a very different picture. Gentiles could be purchased as slaves, and regarded as property. There is no suggestion this was by choice. there is nothing to suggest the slavery of gentiles in Lev 25 was any different to the slavery of blacks in the US, who were likewise purchased from outside the nation, were treated as property, and slaves for life.

You are reading into it your own wishful thinking.
Again you are ignoring the several verses that show that it is not like American slavery. Exodus 21:16 for one. You could not be kidnapped and enslaved either by the kidnapper or whomever he sells you to.
 
... and the POW gentiles?
They were enslaved involuntarily, just America did with German POWs during WW2. Criminals could also be enslaved involuntarily, just like in modern America.
You are running out of excuses - there were people that were bought and sold involuntarily, and treated as property.
And your god allowed this, never once declaring it to be immoral.
Yes He did as I have demonstrated.
(And neither did Jesus.
Ever.)
Jesus didnt need to explicitly the OT already did. But He did mention it indirectly, in Luke 4:16-21 and also He revealed to Paul that slaves should be treated like a brother especially if both the master and slave are Christians as seen in Philemon.
 
They were enslaved involuntarily, just America did with German POWs during WW2.
And you think this was morally acceptable?
Criminals could also be enslaved involuntarily, just like in modern America.
Modern American criminals are not slaves.
They are not the property of the state.
Yes He did as I have demonstrated.
You god allowed the defeated peoples of the nations he ordered conquered, to be enslaved against their will.

And you think this leaves him looking good?!
:ROFLMAO:
Jesus didnt need to explicitly the OT already did.
The OT never explicitly declared slavery to be immoral.
If it had, it would have depicted Yahweh legalizing an immoral act.

Which is, of course, immoral itself.
 
That passage refers to Paul's plea for one - ONE - person (Onesimus).

You are becoming more disingenuous by the reply - nowhere in the New Testament is the concept of slavery denounced, or repealed.
Nowhere.
But he is the only slave dealt with in the NT so he is our example for how to treat them. Just like there is only one case of incest in the early church reported in the NT. Paul excommunicated them. So that is our example of how to handle incest cases. It is similar to case law.
 
But he is the only slave dealt with in the NT so he is our example for how to treat them.
:ROFLMAO:

You're no longer scraping the bottom of the barrel; you've gone right through it - "Paul makes a plea for the liberty of one named slave" = "slavery bad"?!
You need to dump whatever source you're getting this from.

In any case, the NT also says

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

Nowhere is there an exhortation to masters to free their slaves.
So that is our example of how to handle incest cases. It is similar to case law.
Case law is law; this isn't.

You want the Bible to have a negative position on slavery, so you are using every trick in the apologetics book to crowbar this interpretation out of it.
 
Because the gentile year of jubilee was 70 years, most were dead by then.
Not those born ten years before it!

In the year of the Jubilee, there would be people of every age from zero upwards. All the Hebrew slaves were freed in that year, regardless of age.

But not the gentile slaves. The gentile slaves were slaves for life. Lev 25 is very clear on that.

Again you are ignoring the several verses that show that it is not like American slavery. Exodus 21:16 for one. You could not be kidnapped and enslaved either by the kidnapper or whomever he sells you to.
Exodus 21:16 applies to Hebrews. Hebrews could not be kidnapped or enslaved.

But very clearly they were allowed to buy slaves from the nations around them, because Lev 25 states exactly that!
 
That is just referring to the fact that the children cannot be inherited by the master and cannot be for life because hebrews were freed only after 7 years not 70. And in the New Covenant they were no longer allowed to be treated as property, but rather as a brother, read Philemon 16.
I have read Philemon, and it does not say that. That you have to pretend it does tells me you know you have lost the argument.
Fraid so,
15: For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever,
Unchecked Copy Box
Phm 1:16
no longer as a bondservant[fn] but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother—especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

And even in the OT they were not treated as property because a master could be executed for killing a slave unlike a cow which was treated as property and would only be fined if they killed someones cow.
No, besides the above, they could not be kidnapped and sold like American slaves, read Exodus 21:16
Exo 21:16 “Now one who [n]kidnaps someone, whether he sells him or he is found in his [o]possession, shall certainly be put to death.

That is some pretty sneaky language you are using there. America slaves were not kidnapped; they were bought from another nation - as specifically allowed in the Bible.
They were kidnapped in Africa by Africans and then sold by Africans to Americans. And most knew that they had been kidnapped. That is equivalent. It is similar to if you knowingly buy a stolen TV at a pawn shop you will have to return the TV when it is found out that the TV was stolen even though you are not the thief. You are still guilty of owning something that is not yours.
The verse in Exodus says people cannot be kidnapped, turned into slaves and then sold. It is not a prohibition against selling slaves as you seem to be suggesting. Gentile slaves could be regarded as property, so presumably could be bought and sold like any other goods.
I didnt say it prohibits selling slaves, it only prohibits selling involuntary slaves. You can sell voluntary slaves.
No, they had to treated equally except for the above as I have shown in this thread.
Well you have repeatedly asserted that. Shown it? Not so much.

The Bible is clear that gentile slaves can be regarded as property, that gentile slaves are slaves for life, and that it is only Israelite slaves that are not to be badly treated.

Lev 25:44 “‘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 see above how they are not property in the sense you believe.
How do you know that owning people as property is wrong?
And now we get to the depths of the discussion where you are forced to argue that slavery is moral.
No, I have plainly shown that the Bible teaches that involuntary slavery is immoral several times in this thread. I am just asking why YOU think involuntary slavery is wrong. As an atheist, things just are, there are no real oughts. No body can objectively say that you ought not own slaves. Or how do you know slavery is immoral?
This is why Christianity should be stopped. When a religion makes people argue for slavery, the religion should be throw out.
I am not arguing for slavery, but you have no rationally objective basis for arguing against it.
We own animals and according to evolution we are animals too. Why is treating them cruelly and without respect wrong? It makes you feel bad? Hitler treated the Jewish people horribly but it made him feel good. You both are just experiencing brain chemicals that both come from evolution. Why are your brain chemicals better than Hitlers? Their origin is identical. One set of chemicals is no better than another.
I disagree. I think people have intrinsic worth.
How is that possible? Evolution proves that no animal is any more valuable than any other animal including humans.
No, according to the Bible a master under the New Covenant he has to treat him like a brother see Philemon 16.
But you cannot quote the verses because you know as well as I do that Philemon has no condemnation of slavery, only a request that a single slave is freed.

Does it not worry you that I can actually quote Bible verses to support my position and you cannot?
No, see above. Paul wanted this applied to all slaves especially those that became Christian and their master is Christian. Throughout the NT Christians are taught to treat each other as brothers and sisters. This is Christianity 101.
 
Fraid so,
15: For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever,
Unchecked Copy Box
Phm 1:16
no longer as a bondservant[fn] but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother—especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.
Wrong. It asks that Philemon treat Onesimus as a brother, not that all slave owners treat all their slaves as brothers.

And even in the OT they were not treated as property because a master could be executed for killing a slave unlike a cow which was treated as property and would only be fined if they killed someones cow.
And yet it explicitly states they are to be treated as property.

Lev 25:44 “‘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.

They were kidnapped in Africa by Africans and then sold by Africans to Americans. And most knew that they had been kidnapped. That is equivalent. It is similar to if you knowingly buy a stolen TV at a pawn shop you will have to return the TV when it is found out that the TV was stolen even though you are not the thief. You are still guilty of owning something that is not yours.
The Bible says you can buy slaves from other nations.

Lev 25:44 “‘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.

That is what happened with slaves in America. They were bought from other nations. Nothing about having to check how they became enslaved, nothing about only buying slaves that were not kidnapped.

The Hebrews did not care! As long as Hebrews were not kidnapped and enslaved, that was all that mattered.

I didnt say it prohibits selling slaves, it only prohibits selling involuntary slaves. You can sell voluntary slaves.
Where does it make that clear?

No see above how they are not property in the sense you believe.
Bible says otherwise.

Lev 25:44 “‘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.

No, I have plainly shown that the Bible teaches that involuntary slavery is immoral several times in this thread. I am just asking why YOU think involuntary slavery is wrong. As an atheist, things just are, there are no real oughts. No body can objectively say that you ought not own slaves. Or how do you know slavery is immoral?
And I have shown you are wrong every time. What you describe applies only to Hebrews. Not to gentiles.

Lev 25:44 “‘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.

I am not arguing for slavery, but you have no rationally objective basis for arguing against it.
If we both agree slavery is morally wrong, then I do not need to argue against.

How is that possible? Evolution proves that no animal is any more valuable than any other animal including humans.
Can you talk me through that proof? I was not aware that evolution makes any claims about the value of an individual.

No, see above. Paul wanted this applied to all slaves especially those that became Christian and their master is Christian. Throughout the NT Christians are taught to treat each other as brothers and sisters. This is Christianity 101.
So show me the verse where Paul said Christian slave owners should free all their slaves.

Or are you saying Paul only said they shoud free their Christian slaves?
 
No, because that would violate Exodus 21:16. Just like if you buy a stolen TV from a pawn shop, the TV does not really belong to you and can be confiscated even though you technically are not guilty of theft. If the hebrew knowingly bought a slave that had been involuntarily enslaved, ie kidnapped, that would violate Exodus 21:16.
Ah, I get it. You are reading into the text what you want to be there.

The reality is that the text clearly says they can buy slaves from the nations around them. Nothing about checking they were not kidnapped.
So you think if you knowingly buy a stolen TV you are not guilty of theft? That is a great example of typical atheist morality.
No, again this would be a violation of the verse cited above.
No it would not. Black slaves were purchased from another nation, regarded as property and enslaved for life, just as Lev 25 prescribes.

Lev 25:44 “‘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, plainly that is a violation of Leviticus 19:33-34 regarding strangers and gentiles. And you could not go to another nation and kidnap anyone for slavery as shown with Ex. 21:16.
 
You do know that the Quran borrows some things from the Bible right?
How do you know it borrowed this from the Bible, rather than it being revealed to Mohammed?
Well maybe but if so, Allah was 2000 years late revealing it to Mohammad. Yahweh had revealed it 2000 years before.
No, understood in its perspective and context in the original language and using Gods other book, Nature, to help interpret it, it is not wrong.
So, it doesn't say what it really means, and can be interpreted to suit, got it.
No, it has to be the literal meaning of the hebrew words. The Bible says we should also use His other book, nature, to help understand.
Giving mathematical equations would not serve Gods purpose for the Bible. It is not meant to be a science textbook.
Of course it would serve God's purpose for the Bible, by convincing people with something definite.
There are other things that are definite. In addition, He doesnt want it to be too obvious because then it might take away our free will.
The hebrew word for slave can also mean servant. I dont think there is a hebrew word for apprenticeship.
It can also mean slave.
Yes but from the description it appears to be an apprenticeship.
 
They were enslaved involuntarily, just America did with German POWs during WW2.
And you think this was morally acceptable?
Yes, it was part of their punishment for fighting for an evil nation.
Criminals could also be enslaved involuntarily, just like in modern America.
Modern American criminals are not slaves.
They are not the property of the state.
Yes, they work out on the roads picking up trash and doing other odd jobs without pay.
Yes He did as I have demonstrated.
You god allowed the defeated peoples of the nations he ordered conquered, to be enslaved against their will.

And you think this leaves him looking good?!
:ROFLMAO:
Yes, because they actually deserved to die at birth given their sinful natures. So actually God was being merciful to them. And they were fighting for evil nations similar to the Nazis.
Jesus didnt need to explicitly the OT already did.
The OT never explicitly declared slavery to be immoral.
If it had, it would have depicted Yahweh legalizing an immoral act.
It does not allow involuntary slavery as I have demonstrated in this thread.
Which is, of course, immoral itself.
You are contradicting yourself, you have admitted there is actually no such thing as morality it is just human opinions and preference so how can something be actually immoral?
 
Yes, it was part of their punishment for fighting for an evil nation.
Then you find acceptable the concept of owning people are property, and don't have a moral leg to stand on, IMO.
Yes, they work out on the roads picking up trash and doing other odd jobs without pay.
They are not property of the state.
They are not the state's to do whatever with, the state desires.
Yes, because they actually deserved to die at birth given their sinful natures.
In your opinion.
So actually God was being merciful to them.
Wow...
It does not allow involuntary slavery
Except of prisoners of war.
Which you excused just now.
You are contradicting yourself, you have admitted there is actually no such thing as morality it is just human opinions and preference so how can something be actually immoral?
The same way that food can be delicious.
 
But he is the only slave dealt with in the NT so he is our example for how to treat them.
:ROFLMAO:

You're no longer scraping the bottom of the barrel; you've gone right through it - "Paul makes a plea for the liberty of one named slave" = "slavery bad"?!
You need to dump whatever source you're getting this from.
Yes, just like there is only one case of incest in the early church, how Paul handles that case is our example how to handle the cases when they come up later. It is similar to case law. That is how ancient jews and hebrews handled rules and laws.
In any case, the NT also says

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."
Paul being a scholar of the Torah, he is most likely referring to voluntary slaves as I have demonstrated earlier the teaching of the OT on slavery.
Nowhere is there an exhortation to masters to free their slaves.
Fraid so, if they want to obey Christ, read Luke 4:16-21.
So that is our example of how to handle incest cases. It is similar to case law.
Case law is law; this isn't.

You want the Bible to have a negative position on slavery, so you are using every trick in the apologetics book to crowbar this interpretation out of it.
No, this is called the grammatico-historical hermeneutic which is used in almost all understandings of any ancient document.
 
So you think if you knowingly buy a stolen TV you are not guilty of theft? That is a great example of typical atheist morality.
I think if the laws explicitly states you can buy stolen TVs, then you are not guilty of breaking the law when you buy a stolen TV.

No, plainly that is a violation of Leviticus 19:33-34 regarding strangers and gentiles. And you could not go to another nation and kidnap anyone for slavery as shown with Ex. 21:16.
Right. You had to go and buy them. Just as slave owners in America would buy slaves from other nations.

Lev 25:44 “‘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.
 
Back
Top