Originally posted by @eladarThe Bible was written by people who were describing the nuts and bolts of their own superstitions and who, at the same time, didn't think having slaves was wrong, so it's not all that surprising.
Not according to the Bible.
You'd think that if having slaves was inherently sinful God would have instructed Christian slave owners to free their slaves.
Originally posted by @eladarClearly you are not using the whole bible to determine your answer here.
Of course it is if you are talking sex slaves.
Slavery in Bible times was not contrary to the laws of the land. It is now. So if a Christian engages in slavery he is disobeying the law of the land, and both Christ and Paul said that the governments are placed there by God and these must be followed.
If however there is a country where slavery / forced labour is still legal then that is s different story.
Originally posted by @suzianneSlavery isn't only about racism, there are slaves of the same race all over the world. Slavery is about power over individuals or ownership of individuals.
Are you actually asking if being racist follows God's will?
Originally posted by @rajk999I suppose that it is an easy statement to make when you are on this side of the fence. If T & T became a slave state tomorrow and slavery became the 'law of the land' would you willfully become a slave if forced, giving up all that you owned to do another's bidding? Family, possessions, homes and business? Just wondering.
Clearly you are not using the whole bible to determine your answer here.
Slavery in Bible times was not contrary to the laws of the land. It is now. So if a Christian engages in slavery he is disobeying the law of the land, and both Christ and Paul said that the governments are placed there by God and these must be followed.
If however there is a country where slavery / forced labour is still legal then that is s different story.
Originally posted by @leunammiIf the law of the land changed I would be neither a slave nor a slave owner.
I suppose that it is an easy statement to make when you are on this side of the fence. If T & T became a slave state tomorrow and slavery became the 'law of the land' would you willfully become a slave if forced, giving up all that you owned to do another's bidding? Family, possessions, homes and business? Just wondering.
Originally posted by @leunammiIf T & T became a slave state tomorrow and slavery became the 'law of the land' would you willfully become a slave if forced, giving up all that you owned to do another's bidding? Family, possessions, homes and business? Just wondering.
I suppose that it is an easy statement to make when you are on this side of the fence. If T & T became a slave state tomorrow and slavery became the 'law of the land' would you willfully become a slave if forced, giving up all that you owned to do another's bidding? Family, possessions, homes and business? Just wondering.
If you were to take the time to consider your question, would you be able to see how poorly thought out it is? Just wondering.
Originally posted by @eladarDeuteronomy 21
Of course it is if you are talking sex slaves.
10When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 14And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
Originally posted by @thinkofoneWell I can see how you might be implying 'willfully' and 'slave' as contradictory, if that is what you are driving at. My point is, if such a thing were to befall an individual (in this case Rajk999), a county becoming a slave state that is, would there be resistance to being forced into slavery or would he willfully become a slave? Assuming that going into slavery is iforced.
[b] If T & T became a slave state tomorrow and slavery became the 'law of the land' would you willfully become a slave if forced, giving up all that you owned to do another's bidding? Family, possessions, homes and business? Just wondering.
If you were to take the time to consider your question, would you be able to see how poorly thought out it is? Just wondering.[/b]
In other words; you are going to be a slave, it is going to be the 'law of the land', do you go willfully or do you resist. I only ask, because as I read Rajk999's comment he would comply or 'it would be a different story'. Just trying to understand what he meant by his comment, nothing more.
2 edits
Originally posted by @leunammiWell there is that and actually the contradiction is between "forced" and "willfully".
Well I can see how you might be implying 'willfully' and 'slave' as contradictory, if that is what you are driving at. My point is, if such a thing were to befall an individual (in this case Rajk999), a county becoming a slave state that is, would there be resistance to being forced into slavery or would he willfully become a slave? Assuming that going i ...[text shortened]... ld be a different story'. Just trying to understand what he meant by his comment, nothing more.
Seeing as you've repeated it in your response, evidently you can't see it.
On a deeper level, there are implications for those who believe in "Biblical inerrancy" and that "all scripture is the word of God." Do you?
Originally posted by @leunammi'Figured as much' is another example of a snide remark that appears harmless but its intention is to insult.
Figured as much, thanks anyways.
Asking me personal questions about what I do or would not do is another low ploy used in discussions to steer the discussion away from the main point toward a specific poster.
You do these things all the time .. you make snide remarks and you get personal.
I do no such thing. I never steer discussions toward people personally.
I keep all these discussions to the point without involving anyones personal life or situation.
I use insults AFTER you people do this to me and you do it all the time, because generally you cannot present your arguments properly. You have half baked ideas in your head and you lack the ability to present them properly so you get personal ... you are a sickening person.
Originally posted by @rajk999You made a statement, I asked a question. I am just trying to understand what you were meaning by your comment. If you want to make something larger out of this go ahead, but it truly is nothing more than that.
'Figured as much' is another example of a snide remark that appears harmless but its intention is to insult.
Asking me personal questions about what I do or would not do is another low ploy used in discussions to steer the discussion away from the main point toward a specific poster.
You do these things all the time .. you make snide remarks and you ...[text shortened]... ou lack the ability to present them properly so you get personal ... you are a sickening person.
On second thought, nevermind.
Originally posted by @suzianneYou do know during the slave time in the US they also did kidnap little white European kids. There were also black slave owners too. But I say without Jesus Christ everyone's a racist until they become born again.
Are you actually asking if being racist follows God's will?