The argument has been given that slavery is condoned within the Bible. The verses are held as facts in evidence. The semantic objection requires that one take a definition of slavery which does not apply to what is clearly described in the Bible and apply it anyway.

I have shown that there are clear cases which are not voluntary. Cases of abuse, and the like. No definition changes that.

sweetestgirl wrote:

many rewards are evident in the corporeal life - rewards come everyday in small miracles that happen everyday.

but dragoness, many Christians, myself included, are weak in our knowledge of doctrine that is needed to really address your questions academically

but to me the knowledge of doctrine is not as important as the behavioral aspects -to lead a life based on Jesus' teaching in the NEW Testament- the call to love- to forgiveness because we are men not divine- the call to seek peace with one's neighbor and follow the golden rule - I don't really much care about the rest of it

Truly.

What you say here Sweet is exceedingly true.

I would personally venture to say that the overwhelming majority of people who claim to be "Christians" approach the religion very much in the same way that you describe here.

They don't even question the Old Testament as being the "word of God". They are even told that it's not their place to question the "word of God". After all, "How arrogant is that?", they often suggest.

They really push hard for everyone to just accept the assumption that the Bible is indeed the "word of God", and they try to focus on the things that you've just mentioned:

In other words, don't worry about the details, just accept Jesus Christ as your savior, try to live the best life you can, support the church and the religion, and don't ask a lot of questions!

To renounce the religion, is to renounce Jesus as "Lord", etc. And that's a big no-no!

But the truth is that if a person really examines these biblical stories in any sincere depth they are going to find major problems with it.

The very idea that Jesus was the "sacrificial lamb of God" sent to be crucified to pay for our sins as a "perfect sacrificial lamb", itself stands upon the shoulders of a very acceptance that "God" is somehow appeased by blood sacrifices in the first place.

The Bible is actually quite contradictory in this if you study it well. There are places in the Bible where these scriptures are clearly stating that God is "appeased by" or accepts as "atonement for son" the blood sacrificing of highly pure animals.

However, there are also places in the biblical scriptures where God is actually questioning where people ever got that idea from in the first place.

So truly, if you are worshiping a religion and you aren't even familiar with the doctrine upon which it stands, then truly all you are doing is going along with social conventions. You're just accepting that it's "must be true" or all these preaches and churches wouldn't be preaching it so much.

But in truth even the clergy of churches often disagree with each other on what these stories have to say, etc.

In fact, like you, I had originally accepted this religion with open arms. After all my very own parents told me that it was true. All the adults at our church and the preachers, all acted like it was serious stuff, and it's the non-believers who are "In the dark".

I believed them!

Yet at the same time I noticed that even the preachers themselves would have disagreements about various things. Moreover, when I asked sincere questions I was often met with answers like, "We just need to have faith that God knows the answer". Because clearly the preacher had no good answer himself.

Well, fortunately for me, I was also taught that the bible contains all the answers. So I went looking for them myself within the bible. I was not looking to renounce the bible. On the contrary, I sincerely believed that it did indeed contain all the answer, just like I was taught to believe. So I expected to find the answers and be able to help the preachers and others better understand the Bible since they obviously appear to be confused and concerned about various things themselves.

Well what I discovered is that the bible does not contain answers. On the contrary, the more I studied it the more contradictions and questions I had. And trying to find answers was like a dog chasing its own tail.

What I soon realized is that the biblical picture as it is being held up by the Christian religion simply cannot possibly be true as is. I also realized that it is extremely unlikely that Jesus was a "sacrificial lamb of any god" sent to pay for the sins of mankind.

At best he was a very wise man, probably educated in the moral and spiritual values of Mahayana Buddhism. Jesus actually renounced many things that are in the Torah or Old Testament, and he was indeed crucified for blaspheme.

I don't think he ever expected to be "officially" crucified. In fact, he wasn't according to the legend. Pilate himself exonerated Jesus of blaspheme and said, "I find no fault with this man". It was an unruly crowd (probably incited by angry Pharisees whom Jesus had publicly renounced as hypocrites) who had Jesus crucified.

It was a freak thing, and I'm sure Jesus never expected such a thing. Left to the officials Jesus was capable of exonerating himself of charges of blaspheme because he was most likely a pantheist, and not claiming to be the son of the God of Abraham like the scriptures claim.

In fact, keep in mind also, that nary a word from Jesus is contained in the Bible. Jesus never wrote down anything. The entire New Testament is nothing more than hearsay rumors about a man who lived and died actually several decades before those "New Testament Rumors" were even written.

So, truly, you should question this religion before you just accept it on totally 'blind faith'. Especially if you're going to support the "organized religion" (i.e. the very label of "Christianity")

Because in truth "Christianity" doesn't represent Jesus. Christianity represents the myth that Jesus was the "only begotten son of the God of the Old Testament who was sent to be the sacrificial lamb of God to pay for the sins of man".

That's what Christianity represents, and that demands that the entire Old Testament be accepted as the "Word of God" right along with Jesus.

But that's a fallacy. Jesus was not the son of the God of Abraham. The God of Abraham was a myth no different from Zeus.

Jesus was probably a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva, which would have been quite reasonable in those day. Many "Jews" were mystics at that time period.

So the bottom line is that although you'd like to support the moral philosophy of "Jesus", by supporting "Christianity" you're actually supporting the anti-thesis of Jesus.

This is what sincere Christians truly need to understand.

But the truth is that if a person really examines these biblical stories in any sincere depth they are going to find major problems with it.

The very idea that Jesus was the "sacrificial lamb of God" sent to be crucified to pay for our sins as a "perfect sacrificial lamb", itself stands upon the shoulders of a very acceptance that "God" is somehow appeased by blood sacrifices in the first place.

The Bible is actually quite contradictory in this if you study it well. There are places in the Bible where these scriptures are clearly stating that God is "appeased by" or accepts as "atonement for son" the blood sacrificing of highly pure animals.

However, there are also places in the biblical scriptures where God is actually questioning where people ever got that idea from in the first place.

No the point is that not all of those translations fit the situation at hand.



Unless you have a way to prove that the Bible meant something other than what it says quite clearly. Then I'll go by what it says. After all this entire argument is about what is in it.

Slavery in Bible requires clearly immoral behavior and treatment of another human. That's what we're talking about.

Msharmony:

you are claiming you go by what it says but you post very little scripture to clarify which things you are referring to(remembering the bible is a collection of accounts over hundreds of years including several different specific situations, regions, and people)

My point of reference is RESEARCHING the history of what type of slavery existed during biblical days, and then considering how what is written fits in with the CONTEXT of what history has recorded happened in those cultures and times

...slavery, slaves and slaveowners are not MANDATED in how they have to treat each other, just in how they are NOT permitted to

Msharmony:

where is the commandment to commit immoral behavior? do you have an example as it pertains to slavery in general(as opposed to verses that are describing a specific situation occuring with a specific people at a specific time)

...slavery, slaves and slaveowners are not MANDATED in how they have to treat each other, just in how they are NOT permitted to

Not true, I quoted plenty of scripture and even used three different translations. The time period does not matter. Either the Bible condones slavery or it does not. Either the Bible forbids slavery or it does not. Either the Bible regulates slavery or it does not. One can replace slavery with blaspheme, or murder, or marriage, or whatever else one wishes to seek out.



There were several variations of slavery, for different kinds of people/conditions. They all involved selling/buying of another human. Most, according to these external sources, were not voluntary, because most slaves entered into slavery as children who were sold by their parents. Some were born into slavery. Some could never leave, some could. Some were killed when their master died in order to be buried along with them, so as to continue their 'employment' into the afterlife. None, as far as I could see had the right to enter into litigation with their masters. They could not stand up for their own interests.

That is not like modern employment. Not even close.



So what? There are conflicting verses regarding this.



Do you think that the fact that a verse is placed in specific circumstances/time makes the instructed behavior any less immoral?

There were several variations of slavery, for different kinds of people/conditions. They all involved selling/buying of another human. Most, according to these external sources, were not voluntary, because most slaves entered into slavery as children who were sold by their parents. Some were born into slavery. Some could never leave, some could. Some were killed when their master died in order to be buried along with them, so as to continue their 'employment' into the afterlife. None, as far as I could see had the right to enter into litigation with their masters. They could not stand up for their own interests.

That is not like modern employment. Not even close.

For Pete's sake cowboy, what is not true?

Sorry wasn't paying attention that you were referring to ALL kinds of slavery. Thought you were specifically talking about what it says about slavery in the bible. I apologize.

. Most, according to these external sources, were not voluntary, because most slaves entered into slavery as children who were sold by their parents

I did this because the slavery in the bible is voluntary. The start of their slavery was anyways.

This is false, cowboy. According to the sources which recorded the history of slavery back then, most entered into slavery as children sold by their parents. That is not voluntary. Children who were born into slavery through wedlock during the father's time as a slave had no choice either. I also cannot find a verse which shows a woman ever being set free, unless she was already married and both, here and her husband were enslaved.

I posted the verses in response to this comment and a couple others that are similar


I did this because the slavery in the bible is voluntary. The start of their slavery was anyways. Once they became a slave, they pretty much sold their entire self to their masters for 6 years.

The problem with this 'interpratation' of biblical 'slavery' is that it does not fit the facts of 'interpretations' used in the last few centuries by the churches for which the 'bible' is the guiding document.

Proof - Biblical interpretation was used by an major portion of society to justify slavery within the United States until the 'civil war'.

Therefore your 'interpretation' goes against the accepted historical USE of that concept as recorded by history.

Not true, I quoted plenty of scripture and even used three different translations. The time period does not matter. Either the Bible condones slavery or it does not. Either the Bible forbids slavery or it does not. Either the Bible regulates slavery or it does not. One can replace slavery with blaspheme, or murder, or marriage, or whatever else one wishes to seek out.



There were several variations of slavery, for different kinds of people/conditions. They all involved selling/buying of another human. Most, according to these external sources, were not voluntary, because most slaves entered into slavery as children who were sold by their parents. Some were born into slavery. Some could never leave, some could. Some were killed when their master died in order to be buried along with them, so as to continue their 'employment' into the afterlife. None, as far as I could see had the right to enter into litigation with their masters. They could not stand up for their own interests.

That is not like modern employment. Not even close.



So what? There are conflicting verses regarding this.



Do you think that the fact that a verse is placed in specific circumstances/time makes the instructed behavior any less immoral?