13 Oct 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobYou have a sliding scale which is what you think is right nothing more.
Sorry Kelly, i've read that three times and i still don't know what you're talking about.
The people of the days your refering too also had that same scale and your
condemning the practice they accepted.
You have anything other than you don't like it?
Kelly
13 Oct 10
Originally posted by KellyJaySlavery always was, is and always will be an abomination, just as torturing children always was, is and always will be an abomination.
I'm saying if that is your standard than the standard of the days when slavery
was accepted had people doing to the samething, but they viewed it as something
worth doing. If you have any other reasons for saying it is bad I'd like to hear
them.
Kelly
These practices are abhorrent to everyone who have compassion for their fellow human beings, i.e., love their neighbors as themselves.
13 Oct 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI agree, my feelings on the topic are it is bad too; however, if all you got is that
Slavery always was, is and always will be an abomination, just as torturing children always was, is and always will be an abomination.
These practices are abhorrent to everyone who have compassion for their fellow human beings, i.e., love their neighbors as themselves.
you don't like it, others did like it so who are you to condemn someone from
another time place? I don't think anyone in this topic was talking about torturing
children, anywhere in time you see that as anything other as an abomination?
Kelly
13 Oct 10
5 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayI agree, my feelings on the topic are it is bad too; however, if all you got is that
I agree, my feelings on the topic are it is bad too; however, if all you got is that
you don't like it, others did like it so who are you to condemn someone from
another time place? I don't think anyone in this topic was talking about torturing
children, anywhere in time you see that as anything other as an abomination?
Kelly
you don't like it, others did like it so who are you to condemn someone from
another time place?
I must not understand what you're asking here as I'm thinking I've already answered this. Can you rephrase?
I don't think anyone in this topic was talking about torturing
children, anywhere in time you see that as anything other as an abomination?
It was a rhetorical to drive home the point that there are definitely practices that always were, are and always will be abominations. Slavery is one of them.
As evidenced by the fact that there have been and are those who torture children, there are those who "have not viewed" / "do not view" it as an abomination. If express permission to do so were given in the Bible as it was for slavery, doubtless there would have been more.
13 Oct 10
Originally posted by KellyJayBut i'm not condeming someone from a different time and place, these are supposedly instructions and commands from God himself are they not?
I agree, my feelings on the topic are it is bad too; however, if all you got is that
you don't like it, others did like it so who are you to condemn someone from
another time place? I don't think anyone in this topic was talking about torturing
children, anywhere in time you see that as anything other as an abomination?
Kelly
I would like to think that an omniscient, omnipotent 'God of love' wouldn't have to lower his standards to the brutal barbaric nature of that era.
Maybe my 'standard' for God is just higher than yours.
13 Oct 10
Originally posted by KellyJayProbably not those enslaved, I'm guessing?
I agree, my feelings on the topic are it is bad too; however, if all you got is that
you don't like it, others did like it so who are you to condemn someone from
another time place? I don't think anyone in this topic was talking about torturing
children, anywhere in time you see that as anything other as an abomination?
Kelly
13 Oct 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobBut he does tell one how to acquire. The Bible explicitly states you can 'buy slaves from the nations around you' and from 'temporary residents living among you'. If that's not telling someone how to acquire something, what is it?
[b]yes, may not must, not should, but may. Its far different than endorsing or encouraging.
Yes, but he's still allowing the practice of slavery when he could have easily condemned it. You stated in an earlier post -
I disagree, he doesn't tell one how to aquire, nor does he encourage slavery.
But he does tell one how to acquire. Th ...[text shortened]... f creativity in your thought process.[/b]
And it exposes a lack of humanity in yours.[/b]
setting the boundaries of behavior is not the same as endorsing. My daughters wear makeup though they no I disapprove. I could tell them to stop, but they wouldn't listen, so I set boundaries like no black lipstick, or no eyeliner etc...Humanity has come a long way in the last 3000 years, but there are still millions of slaves, maybe the next 3000 will be better.
What it boils down to is that it looks like i have a higher opinion of what an omnisicient God is supposed to be. You worship a God who permitted slavery, who also condemned people to death by stoning and burning. Sounds like a charmer, i bet he's a delight at a dinner party.
Gods ways are not our ways, and his thoughts are not our thoughts. I am sure he couldn't care less what you think, nor do I for that matter.
And it exposes a lack of humanity in yours.
Really? because though I find what slavery was like in the US and the rest of the world repellent, it seems to me that Judaism found a way to be humane in their treatment of others, but hey if you prefer we can just execute people who steal bread, or cut their hands off so they become beggars the rest of their lives...
nope, I'd say my position is both more creative and far more humane. you lose.
13 Oct 10
Originally posted by duecersetting the boundaries of behavior is not the same as endorsing.
[b]But he does tell one how to acquire. The Bible explicitly states you can 'buy slaves from the nations around you' and from 'temporary residents living among you'. If that's not telling someone how to acquire something, what is it?
setting the boundaries of behavior is not the same as endorsing. My daughters wear makeup though they no I disapprove. I ...[text shortened]... es...
nope, I'd say my position is both more creative and far more humane. you lose.[/b]
Yep, and where did i say it was? The fact still remains God failed to condemn the practise of slavery. He made decrees telling people not to wear clothing of two different materials and not to plant two types of seed in a field, yet he forgot to mention the practise of taking away peoples freedom.
It's interesting that you mention the American slave trade, supporters of the trade used Gods non-condemnation of slavery to justify their actions. Which leads to the question, if God is omniscient like you said, he would've known this was going to happen?! Why not condemn the practise from the start and he could've saved the lives of millions?
I could tell them to stop, but they wouldn't listen, so I set boundaries like no black lipstick, or no eyeliner etc.
I understand what your saying, but the crucial difference is that you ain't God..............or are you?
Humanity has come a long way in the last 3000 years.
I would say humanity has come along way in the last few hundred years. But imagine how much further we could've come if God had outlawed slavery and his draconian punishments from the start.
I am sure he couldn't care less what you think, nor do I for that matter.
Well then why are you spending the time to answer my posts?
but hey if you prefer we can just execute people who steal bread, or cut their hands off so they become beggars the rest of their lives...
Your cherry picking again. There was more to slavery than what you mentioned above.
nope, I'd say my position is both more creative and far more humane. you lose
How can slavery be more humane than the total abolition of it?
13 Oct 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobHow can slavery be more humane than the total abolition of it?
[b]setting the boundaries of behavior is not the same as endorsing.
Yep, and where did i say it was? The fact still remains God failed to condemn the practise of slavery. He made decrees telling people not to wear clothing of two different materials and not to plant two types of seed in a field, yet he forgot to mention the practise of taking away ...[text shortened]... e humane. you lose[/b]
How can slavery be more humane than the total abolition of it?[/b]
so you would prefer executions and dismemberment?
13 Oct 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneNot every jot and tittle of the Bible represents the Will of the Almighty.
Approval is explicitly given in Leviticus 25:44-46:you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you... they also may become your possession...‘You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves.
If you believe this to be the "word of God ...[text shortened]... lso believe that God gave explicit approval for slaves to be acquired and kept as possessions.
13 Oct 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobWell, slavery as an institution has been around forever and you are addressing
But i'm not condeming someone from a different time and place, these are supposedly instructions and commands from God himself are they not?
I would like to think that an omniscient, omnipotent 'God of love' wouldn't have to lower his standards to the brutal barbaric nature of that era.
Maybe my 'standard' for God is just higher than yours.
God's rules on the matter. So I'm guessing all of those people who had other
views much worse in your opinion and mine are also below our standards too
right? God put rules and regulations on proper treatment and the way out of
being a slave, while in other places it was anything goes. During those times
slavery was a normal part of life, and you are telling me you view it as bad now
and then correct? So doesn't that mean you are indeed condemning people of
another time and place for something they thought of as normal, unless I'm
missing something in this.
Kelly
13 Oct 10
1 edit
This refutes claims of how wells slaves were treated:
Exodus
20“If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21“If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
Clearly the beating of slaves was allowed. The master was punished if the slave died in less than 1 day. Otherwise there was no punishment because, after all, the slave was his PROPERTY.
