God Condoned Chattel Slavery

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
With respect sir, you really have no understanding of slavery.

We’re talking about Biblical slavery, correct?

Originally posted by @romans1009
We’re talking about Biblical slavery, correct?

Is there a difference? (Yes, I know you want to downplay it, but is there? )

Look, God condoning slavery in the OT is devastating to Christianity for 2 reasons:

1. God is unchanging.
2. It is blatantly obvious that the reason slavery is not condemned by God in the OT is that men at this time did not condemn slavery, making it evident that the OT was written by man alone, not God.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Is there a difference? (Yes, I know you want to downplay it, but is there? )

Look, God condoning slavery in the OT is devastating to Christianity for 2 reasons:

1. God is unchanging.
2. It is blatantly obvious that the reason slavery is not condemned by God in the OT is that men at this time did not condemn slavery, making it evident that the OT was written by man alone, not God.

Yes, there is. In the case of indentured servitude, the indentured servant obviously had a great deal to do with his circumstance. Same, I think, though not to the same degree, for a conquered group of people in a war. Those circumstances are not at all like American slavery in the 19th and 18th centuries.

1. God being unchanging doesn’t mean how He addresses something is unchanging. If I hate driving a car, and one day I walk to my destination and the next day I take a bus, has my hatred of driving changed?

2. Do you think man could have invented the New Testament (New Covenant) when even Jesus Christ’s Apostles and the religious leaders of the day couldn’t figure out what was going on?

Originally posted by @divegeester
Why don’t you post a few more links to books which help us “understand the god of the OT” or whatever it was you said?

So you think slaverly is morally acceptable

You think burning people alive for ETERNITY is morally acceptable

How about burying a woman up to her neck and having men stand around her and throw rocks at her until her skull caves and she dies...

Is that also morally acceptable?

Bump for sonship

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Why are you digressing into kidnapping?

No digression. I am demonstrating that the comparison between millions of slaves kidnapped at gun point and sent over on ships to be worked to death is different from what the Law of Moses allowed for in the good land of Canaan for the Israelites.

Could there have been the Atlantic Slave Trade without kidnapping?

If your answer is no, then apart from the English word "slave" , you are comparing two quite unequal systems.

Perhaps you could show me a parallel law in the US slavery days to this instruction in Leviticus 19:33-34.

"When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God." (Lev. 19:33-34)

Could you provide an similar rule for the American white slave owners ? I mean, like "Now American citizens are to treat these African people in your homeland as you would want yourself to be treated."

That slave trade must have been a little different, huh?
Just a tad?

Originally posted by @romans1009
Yes, there is. In the case of indentured servitude, the indentured servant obviously had a great deal to do with his circumstance. Same, I think, though not to the same degree, for a conquered group of people in a war. Those circumstances are not at all like American slavery in the 19th and 18th centuries.

1. God being unchanging doesn’t mean how He a ...[text shortened]... us Christ’s Apostles and the religious leaders of the day couldn’t figure out what was going on?

Yes, there is. In the case of indentured servitude, the indentured servant obviously had a great deal to do with his circumstance. Same, I think, though not to the same degree, for a conquered group of people in a war. Those circumstances are not at all like American slavery in the 19th and 18th centuries.

Once again, the topic of this thread is "God Condoned Chattel Slavery". Once again, the chattel slavery that God condoned in Leviticus 25:44-46 was very much like "American slavery in the 19th and 18th centuries":
Considered property? Check.
Slaves for life? Check.
Can be bequeathed to children? Check.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
[b]Yes, there is. In the case of indentured servitude, the indentured servant obviously had a great deal to do with his circumstance. Same, I think, though not to the same degree, for a conquered group of people in a war. Those circumstances are not at all like American slavery in the 19th and 18th centuries.

Once again, the topic of this thread ...[text shortened]... :
Considered property? Check.
Slaves for life? Check.
Can be bequeathed to children? Check.[/b]

How did they become “slaves” in Biblical times?

Originally posted by @sonship
No digression. I am demonstrating that the comparison between millions of slaves kidnapped at gun point and sent over on ships to be worked to death is different from what the Law of Moses allowed for in the good land of Canaan for the Israelites.

Could there have been the Atlantic Slave Trade without kidnapping?

If your answer is no, then apart fro ...[text shortened]... rself to be treated."

That slave trade must have been a little different, huh?
Just a tad?

Perhaps you could show me a parallel law in the US slavery days to this instruction in Leviticus 19:33-34.

What nonsense. No doubt "in the US slavery days" free men who were foreign born were to be treated as well as any other free men just as depicted in Leviticus 19:33-34. What does that have to do with slaves that were considered chattel?

Considered property? Check.

The murder of which would be avenged (with the death penalty), punished as a capital crime. (Exodus 21:20,21)

Slaves for life? Check.

Not at all necessarily (Lev. 25:42-49)

Can be bequeathed to children? Check.

And the Hebrew could likewise be forced by poverty to sell himself to a foreigner's family descendents.

"Now if the means of a stranger or of a sojourner with you becomes sufficient, and a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to him as to sell himself to a stranger who is sojourning with you, OR TO THE DESCENDENTS of the stranger's family, then he shall have redemption right after he has been sold. ..." (Lev. 25:47,48)

During Reconstruction in the US how many poor white folks sold themselves to be servants of the descendants of African slaves?

The more you push "the same - Check" the more I'm likely to push back - "not exactly the same - Check" .

That's realism.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
[b]Perhaps you could show me a parallel law in the US slavery days to this instruction in Leviticus 19:33-34.

What nonsense. No doubt "in the US slavery days" free men who were foreign born were to be treated as well as any other free men just as depicted in Leviticus 19:33-34. What does that have to do with slaves that were considered chattel?[/b]

When are you going to admit you’re an atheist? Why are you ashamed to admit that? It’s not like you’re the only one here.

Originally posted by @romans1009
How did they become “slaves” in Biblical times?

According to God as depicted in Leviticus 25:44-46, they were to be bought from neighboring nations or from "temporary residents" and were considered "property". There God made no stipulation as to how they became slaves. In the US they were largely bought from distant nations with no stipulation as to how they became slaves.

Leviticus 25
44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45You 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. 46You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life,..

Originally posted by @romans1009
When are you going to admit you’re an atheist? Why are you ashamed to admit that? It’s not like you’re the only one here.

Perhaps ThinkOfOne wants what he thinks is the best of both worlds.

- the imagined freedom from God's authority "enjoyed" by the atheist.

- the moral high ground of posturing as a Christian Gospel disciple of Jesus.

Originally posted by @romans1009
When are you going to admit you’re an atheist? Why are you ashamed to admit that? It’s not like you’re the only one here.

Only an atheist finds the Bible to be problematic? I don't think so.

Originally posted by @sonship
Perhaps ThinkOfOne wants what he thinks is the best of both worlds.

- the imagined freedom from God's authority enjoyed by the atheist.

- the moral high ground of posturing as a Christian Gospel disciple of Jesus.

John the Apostle really nailed ToO. Who says the Bible is no longer relevant or applicable today?

“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.”

(1 John 2:22-23)

Originally posted by @apathist
Only an atheist finds the Bible to be problematic? I don't think so.

ToO refuses to answer if he believes in the existence of God. That’s why I’d bet dollars to doughnuts he’s an atheist.

Plus, what he claims to believe is so unBiblical and illogical, the only way it makes sense is if he’s an atheist who believes Jesus was only a man and wise teacher.