Are Christians permitted to own slaves?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what are you talking about, happy with teh gays. They have placed themselves in a position contrary to nature and contrary to God, as individuals we are under duress to demonstrate love, we are under no duress to love the things they practice. It isn't out rightly condemned because it was an accepted part of the social fabric at the time.

You must be trolling now. Remember Matthew 7; you just get to love 'em - it's yer god get's to do the judging.

Also, I'm pretty sure coveting stuff was an accepted part of the social fabric at that time too.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
You must be trolling now. Remember Matthew 7; you just get to love 'em - it's yer god get's to do the judging.

you must be trippin, love is demonstrated to people and its principled love, not unconditional, Greek (agape) we are under no duress to love their acts,yes God ultimately judges them, however there is also a plethora of other scriptures dealing with abhorring what is bad.

(Romans 12:9) Let your love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is wicked

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you must be trippin, love is demonstrated to people and its principled love, not unconditional, Greek (agape) we are under no duress to love their acts,yes God ultimately judges them, however there is also a plethora of other scriptures dealing with abhorring what is bad.

(Romans 12:9) Let your love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is wicked

But how do you know it's wicked? Your god changed his mind rather dramatically on a lot of things. He chose not to specify his position on slavery, which you interpret to mean he condemns it. Where in the NT does he specify his position on homosexuality?

-Removed-

yes you are correct, I am truly sorry FMF attempted to pit Christian against Christian, to refuse to answer a single question asked of him, to engage in tabloid journalism and to use an emotive subject to troll the forum, truly sorry indeed.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
But how do you know it's wicked? Your god changed his mind rather dramatically on a lot of things. He chose not to specify his position on slavery, which you interpret to mean he condemns it. Where in the NT does he specify his position on homosexuality?

its absolutely condemned as unnatural and deserving of punishment,

(Romans 1:24-27) Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them, even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen. That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its absolutely condemned as unnatural and deserving of punishment,

(Romans 1:24-27) Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them, even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than t ...[text shortened]... what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.

Now that's being disingenuous, and with your knowledge of scripture, I think you must know this.

Here, read what Wesley Ellis has to say on this oft touted passage:

http://whateverisgood.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/bible-and-homosexuality-romans-1.html

Gotta go, but more tomorrow I hope.

-Removed-

look due if you want to suck up to FMF that's your business, FMF badgers people for a response, its therefore hardly surprising that after some reflection, they may change their perspective and come to a different conclusion.

-Removed-

hardly. FMF's modus operandi is to extract a hurried and thoughtless statement and proceed to see if it can be subject to falsification, he is a victim in this instance of his own crimes. Had we been permitted to engage in a discussion rather than be subject to FMFs haranguing i dare say I would have come to the conclusion, sooner. In fact, it was only after i dismissed FMF's posts that i was able to concentrate on the real issue at hand, I therefore state that I came to the conclusion, despite FMF, not because of him.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Ah, so your god changed his mind eh? Well that's cool I guess. You probably shouldn't sigh like that though, not a very neighbour-loving attitude that, but I understand what a trial we must all be to you.

I have to wonder why slavery isn't directly condemned in the NT, but I suppose there's a limited amount of room there, probably hard to fit in a ...[text shortened]... t do. Glad to hear you guys are all ok with teh gayz now though, that's a big improvement.

And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

(John 21:25 NKJV)

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by Rank outsider
It is difficult to see how the law's 'fulfilment' is to show compassion to people who engage in homosexual acts when that law originally demanded that you stone them to death.

Even if it is clear to you, you can see why people struggle with this, surely?

You ignore the fact that even with the Old Testament laws of Moses, there was room for repentence and giving of sacrifices for the sins of the people. The judgment of stoning to death was for the unrepentant sinner.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...FMF's modus operandi is to extract a hurried and thoughtless statement and proceed to see if it can be subject to falsification...

Your purportedly "hurried and thoughtless statement" came as the culmination of a discussion that lasted 14 hours and was spread across 10 pages of Thread 150734 and then your retraction of the same "hurried and thoughtless statement" only came after 3 days and 4 hours of discussion spread across 23 pages of this thread.