2 edits
Originally posted by Rank outsiderbecause the so called old testament contained laws and mandates towards a specific people, the Hebrews, it ended when Christ instituted a new covenant, with the disciples at the passover of 33CE. You are trying to apply laws that are essentially non binding in practice upon Christians, its an irrelevancy to be honest. The fact of the matter is that the Christian Greek scriptures do not give a single iota of permission for a Christian to own a slave. Paul merely mentions it and in fact exhorts those who were slaves to do their utmost to buy their freedom, if possible.
Actually, its those very principles which ended the practice. I suspect, in its infancy the social institution was practised, but as it became more and more apparent that it was contrary to Christian principles the practice was opposed. The Bible does not give permission for a Christian to own slaves, it merely cites that it happened. The fact th d to when you have time?
Do you really think two men sleeping together is worse than slavery?
seeing that you have asked i will permit myself a are personal opinion, I think that both homosexuality and slavery are unnatural states of affair
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes but that was under a different covenant with regard to a different people, as i have stated before this covenant ended and a new one was instituted. If you can find an single iota in scripture where a Christian is given permission to own a slave, please do so now and i will be glad to examine the text.
...but that was under a different covenant with regard to a different people...
Hmm. Colossians 3:22 suggests otherwise.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatno, Colossians merely states that a slave should be obedient, it is counsel given to a slave not permission for a Christian to own a slave....but that was under a different covenant with regard to a different people...
Hmm. Colossians 3:22 suggests otherwise.
Originally posted by menace71on the contrary we are among the most law abiding citizens on the planet.
LOL....No I don't think I can produce anything like that at all. I don't think Christian's should own slaves quite the contrary. We were slaves to sin yet God set us free so this is fitting metaphor
PS
My point was JW's usually have an anti-Government slant is what I was getting at
Manny
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatit was not intended to , it was made, with the disciples, for a Kingdom, Gods Kingdom to be precise, which, as Christ stated , was ,'no part of this world'. Slavery was simply an issue which took time to get to grips with, it being a social institution.
No, but that tacit approval is a pretty clear implication the 'new covenant' didn't repeal previous instruction regarding slavery.
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Call it what you will, it still not explicit permission for a Christian to own slaves.
If you had been asked your opinion about slavery in the US, and you had stated that slaves should be obedient, do you think it would be reasonable for me to say, at the very least, that you were not in the anti-slavery camp?
If God is so dead set against slavery, why is he giving such ambivalent messages?
1 edit
Originally posted by Rank outsiderno, because i distinguish between the type of slavery that was practised in the Americas with that practised among the Israelites and latterly the Christians. Kidnapping was a capital offence in Israel, making those who would buy kidnapped persons, complicit through association.
[b]Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Call it what you will, it still not explicit permission for a Christian to own slaves.
If you had been asked your opinion about slavery in the US, and you had stated that slaves should be obedient, do you think it would be reasonable for me to say, at the very least, that you were not in the anti-slavery camp?[/b]