And this is why you'll never "get it"...

You have to read it yourself, it's "blind faith" if you believe someone without checking the facts.



"1 Thessalonians 5:21 (King James Version)

21Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

(I take this litteraly and apply it in everything I do)

ok, so we still CONDONE slavery, because our history writes about a time when it was regulated and accepted?


interesting,,,


the bible condoned certain behavior under certain conditions, it didnt have an all encompassing stance on chattel type slavery,,,

Yes, it was to be a contractual agreement. You fail to realize that dueteronomy was God talking to Moses. The contract was between God and human, not between two humans. One should also take note that this contract does not offer the slave a choice in the matter. Sending a slave out with 'furnishings' and wine makes him a slave no less.

You're wrongfully equating this to the common meaning behind an employment contract. They are not equitable.

sigh

'And when thou sendest him out free from thee'


are you now retracting your previous assertion that slavery and freedom are not the same thing?



it is equitable to ANY other type of contract, so long as the person is not FORCED to enter into it


and in those cases, it is similar to a prisoner of war,, it is NOT the same animal as slavery for profit BASED in a system of superior and inferior races


show me were western slavery required slaves to be freed after six years(other than indentured servitude, another form of slavery similar to the biblical form) or where western slavery required slaveowners to provide ANYTHING to a slave once they were 'free'

and I can maybe concede to the stance that they were the SAME thing

Relative concept...

i.e. what you hold as 'good' another may hold as 'evil' and versa vicea.

Pay attention to what you're responding to. Re-read the claim I made at the top of this post, and then explain to me how your response here has anything to do with that claim.

Are you arguing against my claim at the top of this post?

Are you trying to say that they are?

In order for a slave to be sent free, s/he must have first been not free.

None of this denies the fact that biblical slavery is endorsed and instructed by the Bible.



No need to. I am not arguing that biblical slavery was exactly like American slavery in every imaginable way. That is an absurd position to hold.



Forget about forty acres and a mule?

This is becoming rather rediculous. You're claiming that an employment contract between two different people is the same thing as a contract between God and a slave-owner regarding how the owner is to treat the slave. The slave is called the property of the slave-owner.

If one does not belong to themself, they are not free.

There's a problem here...

You are taking what someone told you and pleading your case.

I'm telling you to actually read it, then check the original and see if it was translated correctly.

You have to do it yourself, there's no two ways about it. You're no more than "sheeple" if you don't check for yourself...


If you can't admit that it was voluntary, just let it go....

Arguing against what is clearly written within the Bible, does not justify that which is... clearly written. In order for one to even attempt to make sense of the idea that biblical slavery was a type of contract freely chosen by the slave, one must first deny the meaning of the terms slavery, property, freely, and contract.

I mean your attempting to say that slaves were free, when the Bible clearly calls slaves the property of the slave-owner.

It takes believing in nonsense to justify such a thing as believing that biblical slavery was somehow ok. No matter how much you may wish to change the meaning of these terms, they have clear and unambiguous meanings. The term slavery necessarily implies not being free. Beating a human so bad that s/he takes a couple of days to get up has no mystery in it's meaning. What it means to beat a slave like that is not at all mysterious either.

thank God that people and their laws evolve, as was told in the stories and references of the BIBLE


the laws of a father to his child are different than the laws of a co worker to a coworker, and such was the case MANY times in the bible when a SPECIFIC situation and environment were addressed


some believe that and some believe that all the words were applicable for all situations at all times,,,,

shrugs

the way I was brought in the word was to use WISDOM, which to me requires applying logic,,,which tells me there are very few ABSOLuteS in the world or in human behavior and circumstances

Slavery is a contract? Not.

Slavery is a crime.

One problem that I see is that it seems that you still think that I have not read the Bible, in several different translations might I add. Another is that your objections here are rather empty.

No substance whatsoever when one really looks at what is being said.



Your argument is beginning to defeat itself.

To actually read what? The 'original' text? Are you kidding me here? In order to be able to determine whether or not a text has been properly translated, one must first have a good grasp upon the original language and then must somehow obtain possession of the original text.

There is no two ways about it.



Have you, Sir, gone out and acquired the original texts? Have you also then, Sir, acquired the linguistic knowledge of the several languages in question here in order to even be able to see if the original text has been properly translated?

The volume of the dog's bark, is of little consequence if there is no bite backing it up.

Forty Acres and a Mule

not at all, that rule was one southern generals provision for HIS situation, not applicable as a law of the land and revoked after just ONE year


I dont hold that as equitable to the REGULATIONS for slavery given in the bible with no such limited statute of limitations,,,

As Union soldiers advanced through the South, tens of thousands of freed slaves left their plantations to follow Union general William Tecumseh Sherman's army.

To solve problems caused by the mass of refugees, Sherman issued Special Field Orders, No. 15, a temporary plan granting each freed family forty acres of tillable land on islands and the coast of Georgia. The army had a number of unneeded mules which were also granted to settlers.


read more at:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reconstruction/40acres/ps_so15.html

slavery is now a crime, as is adultery

slavery has had broad applications and manifestations, some have been criminalized,, others (such as the BDSM lifestyle) are perfectly legal as one person AGREES to be under the authority of another(for whatever reason)



civil law and moral law are not inequivocably attached at the hip,,,

Quite a leap there Ms. We have changed our laws. We longer condone slavery as a nation, and that can be easliy verified by examining the wealth of empirical data which elucidates exactly whay that is now the case regarding this subject matter.

There is no such admonishment of slavery within the Bible.

I am not drawing the conclusion that the Bible condones slavery based upon an historical account within the Bible that describes the state of man's affairs which are entirely under his control. Rather I am claiming that the Bible condones slavery because it is an written account of what God told Moses. God did not say anywhere that slavery is wrong. If God thought that slavery was wrong, then He would have said it. If God thought slavery was wrong, he would not have instructed it. Afterall, he did say that it was wrong to steal another's slave, to murder, and to do any number of other things. Slavery itself was never called wrong.



No excuse for American slavery, and there is no excuse for God instructing biblical slavery. Slavery being condoned and even instructed under any given conditions is immoral.

I do not 'let go' of things that make perfect sense in order to be able to hold a irrational belief based on nonsense. If one wishes to believe that any human, if given a choice, would willingly and voluntarily enter into a set of circumstances like the slavery clearly described in the Bible, then that is on them.

I suppose that these regulations are also somehow different in that they are not really regulating slavery? But rather they are regulated a woman/man who is the 'free' property of the slave-owner?

I can not 'admit' it was voluntary as such would be a lie. A voluntary is a 'servant' and glad to serve.

When such 'service' is done because of capture, intimidation, war prize, sword right or any other 'euphemism' (such as claiming god commanded it) that is slavery.

Printing it in a book as though it was a commandment of god is (IMHO) generational blasphemy. Sorta like poking god in the eye thousands of years after you used his name to justify your own vileness.