1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe same question applies to you. Personally I reckon, it's because you have been stonewalling that people have started to ask why you are "hiding" and if you are "ashamed". Under the New Covenant, where is the moral basis for the institution of slavery laid out for Christians? Is the moral basis to be found explained in the New Testament somewhere? Or is it in the Old Testament somewhere?
I am not ashamed of any Biblical principles, i have demonstrated that within the framework of the social institution, Christians were counselled to treat those in servitude, with kindness and as beloved brothers, what is there to be ashamed of, nothing.
Originally posted by FMFAnd just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.
Slavery strikes me as a "black and white" issue. I have a moral clarity about the issue. I condemn it because it is an abomination. If you cannot join me in condemning it, can you instead tell me where the moral basis for the institution of slavery is laid out in the New Covenant? Is it in the New Testament somewhere? If so where?
(Luke 6:31 NKJV)
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy!
Anyone who is unwilling to condemn an evil institution, such as slavery clearly is, can be said to NOT be anti-slavery. But conversely they are unwilling to endorse the evil institution of slavery.
These so-called Christians seem to be lukewarm on the subject so their savior would most probably "spew them out of his mouth".🙄
Originally posted by robbie carrobieso as long as you treat your slaves with kindness it is ok to own them? to rape them? to sell off their children, their wives, to break up families?
I am not ashamed of any Biblical principles, i have demonstrated that within the framework of the social institution, Christians were counselled to treat those in servitude, with kindness and as beloved brothers, what is there to be ashamed of, nothing.
there is absolutely no economic situation to justify slavery. even paying them a 0 salary and just feeding them and providing shelter would be exactly as economically taxing on the owner but it would allow the "slave" to leave if another master gives them an extra cupcake on monday lunches.
so you see, god would have realized this and told them so. this is simply another reason why people say the bible is not 100% the work of god. barbaric men simply engaged in a barbaric custom because it was easy and the people in power benefited from it. just like they justified conquering and killing everyone in canaan as "God's will" because it is so much fukin easy to rule over a country when you don't have to worry about rebellion.
Originally posted by RJHindsah, but here is where you are obliviously ignoring me. and you miss the point of my post.
If you think eating pork is wrong, you don't have to eat it. Likewise, if you do not want to be a Republican you can be something else. Like suzianne said, everything does not have to be either black or white, God has given us choices.
if you think pork is wrong you don't have to eat it, it's true. but if you think rape is wrong, not only you don't have to rape someone, you must not rape some one. and you must crush the testicles of any man that does try. and then jail him for life, in a cell block with the violent and the disturbed.
Originally posted by caissad4this should have been the second post of the thread, and the last post of the thread..
Anyone who is unwilling to condemn an evil institution, such as slavery clearly is, can be said to NOT be anti-slavery. But conversely they are unwilling to endorse the evil institution of slavery.
These so-called Christians seem to be lukewarm on the subject so their savior would most probably "spew them out of his mouth".🙄
i cannot believe i am on a non white supremacist site (the ones you probably have to be given the url as google won't show it) and 200+ posts have been made on a subject that is a no-brainer.
all because of about 3 insane people.
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzilol, how is rape a kindness, feel your bum Zippy and be brought back to reality, you are simply spewing out illogical diatribe. You are better than that Zippy.
so as long as you treat your slaves with kindness it is ok to own them? to rape them? to sell off their children, their wives, to break up families?
there is absolutely no economic situation to justify slavery. even paying them a 0 salary and just feeding them and providing shelter would be exactly as economically taxing on the owner but it would allow is so much fukin easy to rule over a country when you don't have to worry about rebellion.
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziIt betrays an ignorance on your part Zippy, Africans don't own a monopoly on slavery, why do you think the Slavic nations are termed Slavic, because of the goodness of their health? If you look into the history of slavery you will see that it has existed in all quarters at all times (until fairly recently) for numerous reasons, your reference to white supremacy therefore makes little sense. Just sayin.
this should have been the second post of the thread, and the last post of the thread..
i cannot believe i am on a non white supremacist site (the ones you probably have to be given the url as google won't show it) and 200+ posts have been made on a subject that is a no-brainer.
all because of about 3 insane people.
Originally posted by caissad4thankyou, it always nice when an opposer offers scripturally based counsel.
Anyone who is unwilling to condemn an evil institution, such as slavery clearly is, can be said to NOT be anti-slavery. But conversely they are unwilling to endorse the evil institution of slavery.
These so-called Christians seem to be lukewarm on the subject so their savior would most probably "spew them out of his mouth".🙄
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIrrelevant sidetrack. Just sayin'.
It betrays an ignorance on your part Zippy, blacks don't own a monopoly on slavery, why do you think the Slavic nations are termed Slavic, because of the goodness of their health? If you look into the history of slavery you will see that it has existed in all quarters at all times (until fairly recently) for numerous reasons, your reference to white supremacy therefore makes little sense. Just sayin.
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecathere is the low down,
Irrelevant sidetrack. Just sayin'.
the question was asked, is it permissible for a Christian to own slaves, or words to that effect.
the answer: Yes, if you were living under a regime which permitted it, for, the Bible does not directly condemn slavery as practised in the first century. It most certainly however condemns unlawful abduction and mistreatment of humans.
the implications. what about the 21st century? where is slavery legal? answer nowhere. Therefore by today's standards it is not permissible for a Christian to own slaves, for it is illegal and Christians are counselled to obey secular laws. That the Bible itself advocates love, kindness and brotherly affection, it would be highly unlikely that any true Christian would harbour slaves anyway, although the Bible does not speak against it as a social institution, directly.
conclusion: the Christian has not been shamed, the Biblical principles are sound and within themselves quite beautiful to my mind and much has been made of the Bibles lack of condemnation of the practice, by the usual haters, who have ignored practically every other principle in regard to the topic.
course of wisdom: stay clear of haters.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy are you unable to simply condemn slavery for the abomination that it is?
here is the low down,
the question was asked, is it permissible for a Christian to own slaves, or words to that effect.
the answer: Yes, if you were living under a regime which permitted it, for, the Bible does not directly condemn slavery as practised in the first century. It most certainly however condemns unlawful abduction and mistreatme ...[text shortened]... ically every other principle in regard to the topic.
course of wisdom: stay clear of haters.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
here is the low down,
the question was asked, is it permissible for a Christian to own slaves, or words to that effect.
the answer: Yes, if you were living under a regime which permitted it, for, the Bible does not directly condemn slavery as practised in the first century. It most certainly however condemns unlawful abduction and mistreatme ...[text shortened]... ically every other principle in regard to the topic.
course of wisdom: stay clear of haters.
...Yes, if you were living under a regime which permitted it...
Thus rendering questionable (at the very least) any moral guidance offered by christian scripture.
5 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatyes, slavery as a social institution, but not the actions of the Christian, who in all likelihood, would not exercise the right, even though its permitted and therein lies the difference. Is it loving to keep a person in bondage? hardly, how could a Christian display brotherly affection towards such a one? with great difficulty I suspect for the pangs of conscience would surely arise, therefore even though the practice is not spoken against directly, for the Bible is not a political treatise as such, these guiding principles would most probably have resulted in the freeing of many persons who were formerly slaves and who were now Christian brothers, especially if their master was a Christian as intimated by Paul. The same cannot be said if their master was not, for what motivating principles would such a one have? thus the scriptural guidance is beautiful and wholly practical....Yes, if you were living under a regime which permitted it...
Thus rendering questionable (at the very least) any moral guidance offered by christian scripture.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy does a Christian have the "right" at all according to the Bible? Why is it "permitted" at all? You keep dodging the question; here it is again: Under the New Covenant, where is the moral basis for the permissibility of the institution of slavery laid out for Christians?
yes, slavery as a social institution, but not the actions of the Christian, who in all likelihood, would not exercise the right, even though its permitted and therein lies the difference.