09 Oct 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, what would you like to know? that a Hebrew slave was to be treated differently than a slave of the nations? ok, what about it?
It seems Jewish slaves fared much better than non-Jewish slaves who could be kept as permanent slaves and did not have the protections of Jewish slaves and could be "ruled with severity". Regardless, it is clear that insofar as God dictated Leviticus, God endorsed slavery.
Can there really be any circumstance under which slavery is not condemned?
Are there any Christians who will condemn God's endorsement of slavery?
09 Oct 10
3 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneHebrews who had let themselves become slaves could not be kept indefinitelyIt seems Jewish slaves fared much better than non-Jewish slaves who could be kept as permanent slaves and did not have the protections of Jewish slaves and could be "ruled with severity". Regardless, it is clear that insofar as God dictated Leviticus, God endorsed slavery.
Can there really be any circumstance under which slavery is not condemned?
Are there any Christians who will condemn God's endorsement of slavery?
whereas those from the nations could be kept as a permanent possession,
however, all slaves were to be protected against abuses.
Indeed i doubt that God endorsed the idea, for his very word while giving the
concession, speaks against tyranny, or have you never read,
(Ecclesiastes 8:9) All this I have seen, and there was an applying of my heart to
every work that has been done under the sun, [during] the time that man has
dominated man to his injury.
also it was a capital offence to capture someone and sell them into slavery, or have
you never read,
(Exodus 21:16) “And one who kidnaps a man and who actually sells him or in
whose hand he has been found is to be put to death without fail.
Hardly an endorsement, is it! therefore i reject the premise of endorsement!
09 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieReread Leviticus 25:
Hebrews who had let themselves become slaves could not be kept indefinitely
whereas those from the nations could be kept as a permanent possession,
however, all slaves were to be protected against abuses.
Indeed i doubt that God endorsed the idea, for his very word while giving the
concession, speaks against tyranny, or have you never read, ...[text shortened]... thout fail.
Hardly an endorsement, is it! therefore i reject the premise of endorsement![/b]
44‘As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45‘Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46‘You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.
This is a clear endorsement of slavery.
Do you reject Leviticus 25 as the word of God?
09 Oct 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneno i reject your evaluation of endorsement! i thought i made that quite clear.
Reread Leviticus 25:
[quote]44‘As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—[b]you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45‘Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will ha ...[text shortened]... e]
This is a clear endorsement of slavery.
Do you reject Leviticus 25 as the word of God?[/b]
09 Oct 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou can "reject" all you want. It won't change the fact that in Leviticus 25, approval is clearly given. Therefore, insofar as God dictated Leviticus, God endorsed slavery.
no i reject your evaluation of endorsement! i thought i made that quite clear.
09 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnepure bum! , i have shown two scriptures which contradicts your claim! so who are we to believe, you or the word of God! Your assertion of approval is not an endorsement, God merely permits it, in much the same way as he permits other evils!
You can "reject" all you want. It won't change the fact that in Leviticus 25, approval is clearly given. Therefore, insofar as God dictated Leviticus, God endorsed slavery.
09 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieActually God explicitly gives the right to acquire slaves from pagan nations:
pure bum! , i have shown two scriptures which contradicts your claim! so who are we to believe, you or the word of God! Your assertion of approval is not an endorsement, God merely permits it, in much the same way as he permits other evils!
"you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you."
This is from Leviticus 25. Is Leviticus 25 not the word of God?
10 Oct 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneits states you may acquire slaves, not that it was obligatory, secondly they were still to be protected from abuse.
Actually God explicitly gives the right to acquire slaves from pagan nations:
"you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you."
This is from Leviticus 25. Is Leviticus 25 not the word of God?
10 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo claim was made that it was "obligatory". Why do you respond as if it was? That's dishonest. You continue to show that you are what you are.
its states you may acquire slaves, not that it was obligatory, secondly they were still to be protected from abuse.
Clearly approval is given for acquiring and possessing non-Hebrew permanent slaves that are passed down generation to generation. That approval is an endorsement for slavery.
Once again:
Can there really be any circumstance under which slavery is not condemned?
Are there any Christians who will condemn God's endorsement of slavery?
In Leviticus 25:35-46, in the section talking about non-Hebrew slaves, they are not told to not rule with severity as they are in the section about Hebrew slaves. Instead it is made doubly clear that Hebrew slaves cannot be ruled with severity. The implication is that non-Hebrew slaves could be treated with severity. If the intention was to protect non-Hebrew slaves it would have called for their protection there instead of reiterating that Hebrew slaves cannot be ruled with severity.
10 Oct 10
4 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneso if it was not obligatory then God would hardly be endorsing it would he, in fact if he was, he would have made it obligatory, would he not? But he did not! Therefore i reject your claims of endorsement! Not only that, put you have provided no reasons as to why measures were taken to stem abuse, why not? Are you being truly honest with the forum thinkofone? Remember the heavy weight of sin weighing you down! I reject also your claims of dishonesty.
No claim was made that it was "obligatory". Why do you respond as if it was? That's dishonest. You continue to show that you are what you are.
Clearly approval is given for acquiring and possessing non-Hebrew permanent slaves that are passed down generation to generation. That approval is an endorsement for slavery.
Once again:
Can there really be ir protection there instead of reiterating that Hebrew slaves cannot be ruled with severity.