God Condoned Chattel Slavery

Originally posted by @thinkofone
The fact is that your "point" has nothing to do with my post.

Evidently you were unable to understand the following from my post:
[quote]The reality is that In Leviticus 25:44-46 God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery.

The reality is that chattel slavery flies in the face of what Jesus taught is the foundation of t ...[text shortened]... t, then I suggest you ask someone with decent reading comprehension skills to explain it to you.

What exactly are you trying to argue with this? That God exists or that He doesn't exist? Or something else?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
What exactly are you trying to argue with this? That God exists or that He doesn't exist? Or something else?

The main points in my post to SS were as follows:
1) The reality is that In Leviticus 25:44-46 God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery.
2)The reality is that the depiction of God condoning chattel slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46 flies in the face of righteous God spoken of by Jesus during His ministry.

Since you still seem to be struggling to comprehend my post, I once again suggest you ask someone with decent reading comprehension skills to explain it to you. They should be able to walk you through it line-by-line so that you can understand it. It's really pretty straightforward.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
The main points in my post to SS were as follows:
1) The reality is that In Leviticus 25:44-46 God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery.
2)The reality is that the depiction of God condoning chattel slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46 flies in the face of righteous God spoken of by Jesus during His ministry.

Since you still ...[text shortened]... k you through it line-by-line so that you can understand it. It's really pretty straightforward.

1. Do you think your subjective opinions are objectively true?

2. Are you arguing from a position of moral relativism or moral absolutism?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
1. Do you think your subjective opinions are objectively true?

2. Are you arguing from a position of moral relativism or moral absolutism?

ToO is not contrasting biblical positions to his own. He is contrasting biblical positions (OT) to biblical positions (NT). There is nothing atheistically disqualifying, in fact, the contrast is recognized by some Christians. Do you not see any differences between the OT and NT Gods, wrt chattel slavery?

Originally posted by @js357
ToO is not contrasting biblical positions to his own. He is contrasting biblical positions (OT) to biblical positions (NT). There is nothing atheistically disqualifying, in fact, the contrast is recognized by some Christians. Do you not see any differences between the OT and NT Gods, wrt chattel slavery?

Obviously it doesn't make sense to those who don't take into account the old and the new covenant. Do you recognise the existence of the old and the new covenant and recognise that they are different?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
The main points in my post to SS were as follows:
1) The reality is that In Leviticus 25:44-46 God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery.
2)The reality is that the depiction of God condoning chattel slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46 flies in the face of righteous God spoken of by Jesus during His ministry.

Since you still ...[text shortened]... k you through it line-by-line so that you can understand it. It's really pretty straightforward.

1) "The reality is that In Leviticus 25:44-46 God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery."

So you keep saying. In the following statement is found the evidence of your twisted logic.

2)"The reality is that the depiction of God condoning chattel slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46 flies in the face of righteous God spoken of by Jesus during His ministry."

God is righteous in all He says and does throughout scripture. Now you're suggesting that Jesus is saying that the God of Leviticus is unrighteous.

You gummed up Leviticus, and now you're going to gum up Jesus too.

Originally posted by @js357
ToO is not contrasting biblical positions to his own. He is contrasting biblical positions (OT) to biblical positions (NT). There is nothing atheistically disqualifying, in fact, the contrast is recognized by some Christians. Do you not see any differences between the OT and NT Gods, wrt chattel slavery?

ThinkOfOne's exegesis is flawed because he fails to concider the whole context.

ThinkOfOne lifts three verses out of their context and injects an external interpretation onto the verses. Namely, that God condones slavery, which cannot be logically inferred because that would make God unjust.

Which is where ThinkOfOne is going. In the post above ThinkOfOne is now saying, based on flawed logic, that the God of Leviticus is unrighteous because it, the verses in Leviticus, "flies in the face" of the God Jesus reveals.

Are there two Gods in the Bible? Is the God of the O.T. not the God of the new? Is God a changing God?

ThinkOfOne's exegesis is heretical and his logic twisted.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Obviously it doesn't make sense to those who don't take into account the old and the new covenant. Do you recognise the existence of the old and the new covenant and recognise that they are different?

Yes I do although probably not to the extent you do.

Again, modified: Do you not see any differences between the OT and NT teachings, wrt chattel slavery?

Originally posted by @js357
Do you not see any differences between the OT and NT teachings, wrt chattel slavery?

Obviously.

A text without a context is a pretext.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
1. Do you think your subjective opinions are objectively true?

2. Are you arguing from a position of moral relativism or moral absolutism?

Evidently you are still unable to understand the following from my post:

The reality is that In Leviticus 25:44-46 God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery.

The reality is that chattel slavery flies in the face of what Jesus taught is the foundation of the will of God (Matthew 7:12, Matthew 22:37-40) :
1) Chattel slavery flies in the face of "treat people the same way you want them to treat you".
2) Chattel slavery flies in the face of "‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF".

The reality is that chattel slavery flies in the face of the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry.

The reality is that chattel slavery flies in the face of the righteousness preached by Jesus during His ministry.

The reality is that chattel slavery flies in the face of the righteous God spoken of by Jesus during His ministry.

The reality is that the depiction of God condoning chattel slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46 flies in the face of righteous God spoken of by Jesus during His ministry.

Since you still can't understand it, then I suggest you ask someone with decent reading comprehension skills to explain it to you. Have you done this?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Obviously it doesn't make sense to those who don't take into account the old and the new covenant. Do you recognise the existence of the old and the new covenant and recognise that they are different?

Yes they are different. That's my point:
1) The reality is that In Leviticus 25:44-46 God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery.
2)The reality is that the depiction of God condoning chattel slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46 flies in the face of righteous God spoken of by Jesus during His ministry.

IIRC you've long been of the position that you believe in an absolute morality given by God as depicted in the Bible. Was that not you? If it was, how does your recognition that they are different square with that position?

Originally posted by @secondson
ThinkOfOne's exegesis is flawed because he fails to concider the whole context.

ThinkOfOne lifts three verses out of their context and injects an external interpretation onto the verses. Namely, that God condones slavery, which cannot be logically inferred because that would make God unjust.

Which is where ThinkOfOne is going. In the post above Thin ...[text shortened]... of the new? Is God a changing God?

ThinkOfOne's exegesis is heretical and his logic twisted.

Namely, that God condones slavery, which cannot be logically inferred because that would make God unjust.

And yet the fact remains that in Leviticus 25;44-46 God is depicted as condoning slavery. The problem seems to be that you are of the mistaken belief that everything in the Bible is the "inerrant word of God". As I've shown, it isn't. You refuse to recognize this truth.

Originally posted by @js357
Yes I do although probably not to the extent you do.

Again, modified: Do you not see any differences between the OT and NT teachings, wrt chattel slavery?

Obviously punnishments for sin were different in the old and the new covenant. In the new covenant Jesus said he who has no sin should throw the first stone.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Evidently you are still unable to understand the following from my post:
[quote]The reality is that In Leviticus 25:44-46 God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery.

The reality is that chattel slavery flies in the face of what Jesus taught is the foundation of the will of God (Matthew 7:12, Matthew 22:37-40) :
1) Chatt ...[text shortened]... u ask someone with decent reading comprehension skills to explain it to you. Have you done this?

Evidently you still can't comprehend the difference between the old and the new covenant.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Evidently you still can't comprehend the difference between the old and the new covenant.

Yes they are different. That's my point:
1) The reality is that In Leviticus 25:44-46 God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery.
2)The reality is that the depiction of God condoning chattel slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46 flies in the face of righteous God spoken of by Jesus during His ministry.

IIRC you've long been of the position that you believe in an absolute morality given by God as depicted in the Bible. Was that not you? If it was, how does your recognition that they are different square with that position?