1 edit
who is that trip traping across my bridge thundered FMF, 'its only me said the Gman, the first Christian sheep gruff', I'm going to eat you bellowed FMF, 'oh please dont said the Gman, wait for my brother Robbie, hes bigger and fatter than I', 'ok said FMF, ill wait for him', and so the Gman Christian sheep gruff skipped across the bridge to munch on the green grass.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRight, right. And it's ok to beat the slaves almost to death, so long as they don't die during the beating itself, because, well that's how you express brotherly affection in a slave/master relationship, right? Society permitting, obviously.
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. 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 pa ...[text shortened]... inciples would such a one have? thus the scriptural guidance is beautiful and wholly practical.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy not just answer the question, robbie?
who is that trip raping across my bridge thundered FMF, 'its only me said the Gman, the first Christian sheep gruff', I'm going to eat you bellowed FMF, 'oh please dont said the Gman, wait for my brother Robbie, hes bigger and fatter than I', 'ok said FMF, ill wait for him', and so the Gman Christian sheep gruff skipped across the bridge to munch on the green grass.
4 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatumm news flash, we are errr umm Christians, not Jews, just sayin. No longer under the mandates of the Mosaic Law, now please address the statement that I made with regard to the motivating principles which would guide a Christian, that is, a non Jew and make a comparison with what would motivate someone who was not. I think you will readily discern, although i hesitate to be so presumptuous, that the Christian is wholly vindicated by his guiding principles which is evident, at least to me. In fact was it not these very principles which led to the eventual abolition of slavery?
Right, right. And it's ok to beat the slaves almost to death, so long as they don't die during the beating itself, because, well that's how you express brotherly affecting in a slave/master relationship, right? Society permitting, obviously.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo where, under the New Covenant which replaced the Mosaic Law, is the moral justification for any participation whatsoever in the institution of slavery laid out and explained for Christians?
umm news flash, we are errr umm Christians, not Jews, just sayin. No longer under the mandates of the Mosaic Law...
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRight, so Jews are allowed to beat their slaves nearly to death, but christians must love their slaves, is that what you're saying?
umm news flash, we are errr umm Christians, not Jews, just sayin. no longer under the mandates of the Mosaic Law, now please address the statement that I made with regard to the motivating principles which would guide a Christian, that is, a non Jew.
2 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatthe question is, Christians and slavery, not Jews, not Muslims (who btw are permitted to own slaves), not Hindus, not Sikhs, but Christians. These Christian principles were the very ones which eventually led to the abolition of slavery, can you not bring yourself to admit it? a bitter pill for those who oppose the scriptural record!
Right, so Jews are allowed to beat their slaves nearly to death, but christians must love their slaves, is that what you're saying?
can i get a witness!!!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThose christian principles which include permission to own slaves? And you take your moral guidance from this book which grants you that permission?
the question is, Christians and slavery, not Jews, not Muslims (who btw are permitted to own slaves), not Hindus, not Sikhs, but Christians. These Christian principles were the very ones which eventually led to the abolition of slavery, can you not bring yourself to admit it? a bitter pill for those who oppose the scriptural record!
can i get a witness!!!
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut these are "Christian principles" that permit slavery, according to you. You can't argue that the same "Christian principles" have abolished slavery.
These Christian principles were the very ones which eventually led to the abolition of slavery
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou may not be under the mandate of the Mosaic Law, but as you have told me numerous times the principle behind the law remains does it not?
umm news flash, we are errr umm Christians, not Jews, just sayin. No longer under the mandates of the Mosaic Law, now please address the statement that I made with regard to the motivating principles which would guide a Christian, that is, a non Jew and make a comparison with what would motivate someone who was not. I think you will readily discern ...[text shortened]... to me. In fact was it not these very principles which led to the eventual abolition of slavery?
So what exactly is the principle with respect to the beating of slaves?
Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Right, so Jews are allowed to beat their slaves nearly to death, but christians must love their slaves, is that what you're saying?
Right, so Jews are allowed to beat their slaves nearly to death, but christians must love their slaves, is that what you're saying?
Could you site the passage of concern about the Jews beating a slave nearly to death ?
Quote it for me.
4 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatExodus 21:20-21 - "And if a man strikes his male servant or his female servant with a rod, and the servant dies under his hand, he shall be punished.
Exodus 21:20-21
But if he survives a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his [money; or poperty]. "
1.) This is not a command of God telling the employer/master to go and strick his male or female servant. It is not a directive to DO so. It is not an endorsement TO inflict physical harm upon a servant.
It is an instruction how to proceed IF it should occur.
So off the top let us discard with any notion that God is commanding, endorsing, instructing, physical punishment upon a slave / servant / employee.
2.) The connotation of the Hebrew word there for "punish" is the death penalty. This would mean that the master who causes the DEATH of his slave via physical punishment is guity of murder. He deserves the death penalty for capital murder.
3.) The concept of a master being subject to capital murder for killing his servant elevates the status of the servant more so than other ANE cultures. It puts servant and master on the same level at least in terms of human dignity. Exodus 21:21 is therefore a step TOWARDS greater social justice as compared to other ANE codes.
4.) The master shall not be guilty of murder if the slave survives because it is given the benefit of a doubt that the master was not attempting to kill him. It was probably not premeditated or murder. A loss of temper must be considered.
Neither situation is a teaching or command to physically harm slaves.
It should be noted that perhaps most servants in this setting were young people who were parceled out by destitute parents. Poor families sold their children to more prosperous families who would feed, cloth, and shelter them. Dept servitude was a practice. Poverty was dealt with by selling one's self into servitude. Sometimes parents sold children into servitude.
An older master might hit a youngster servant as a parent could strike his badly behaving youngster. God said, IF HE DIES ... that is murder and the master will be PUNISHED (death penalty). It is here considered murder.
By constrast, the ancient code of Hammurabi permitted the master to cut off the ear of a disobedient slave. Most of the ANE codes gave far more attention to the protection of the masters than thought given to the slave.
The Mosiac law held masters accountable for their treatment of their own servants. Most other ANE codes gave more attention to laws regarding masters treatment of another person's slave.
Kidnapping a man for the purpose of slavery was punishable by death (Exod. 21:16) .
"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death."
The apostle Paul refers to the sin of kidnapping again to the new covenant church in 1 Tim. 1:10.
Care for the servant / slave/ employee is evident in God's word.
But like divorce (which God says He hates (Malachi 2:16)), God made provision for some social customs which He knew would occur.