Originally posted by SwissGambit
So who was behind the slavery laws in the OT? Moses? Without God's approval? You think there are parts of the Bible that were not divinely inspired?

I am one to believe that scripture is inspired, but not inerrant. Did Moses make mistakes? You betcha, scriptures tell us as much, but he was humble enough to reveal these flaws if he, in fact, had a hand in writing the scriptures.

So to give you a quick answer on the question at hand, I believe that like divorce, slavery was allowed. This was not done because such practices were "good", rather, it was just a way to allow a very primative and sin laden people to function without destroying themselves. As I said, I view the slavery at that time within that society as a means for those down and out to survive. So if slavery were "good", then why give them their freedom after 7 years? Also, why free Israel from Egypt and why the Sabbath? It seems to me that they were being "weaned" off slavery to a different way of thinking.

Originally posted by whodey
Once again, after Christ entered the world there was a new hope for delivering people from sin. With this new hope mercy and grace were born into a very dark world. What better way for people to take pause when they treat you wickedly than to offer the other cheek? This is a form of evangelism. In the end, if they continue they will get their eye for an eye. You just pray they don't have to pay the price is all.

So you have to give them two free shots first, then you can kick their ass. This is going to be a tough sell for Christians in Texas. 😛

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The author basically denied that Jesus was striking down ANY of the OT law. This is clearly false. He took 'eye for an eye' and turned it into 'do not resist an evil person'. He went through the law with his red pen, crossing out parts he didn't like, substituting his own wording, or changing the entire meaning of the laws.

You can't say that the enti ...[text shortened]... nto people's skulls with a sledge hammer since most Christians do not seem to grasp it.

Your problem is lack of understanding. So you are seeing contradictions, where
there are none. The fact that you see a contradiction should be proof to you that
you do not understand the scriptures on this subject. To see the law of Moses that
says "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" indicating only that the
punishment should be equal to the crime and think it has anything to do with
resisting evil is pure ignorance on your part.

You also probably do not understand that the laws of Moses were not direct laws
from God like the Ten Commandments were. And your sledge hammer tactics
will not work on those of us who really do understand, for we will not replace the
truth of God with a lie from Satan.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You also probably do not understand that the laws of Moses were not direct laws from God like the Ten Commandments were. And your sledge hammer tactics will not work on those of us who really do understand, for we will not replace the truth of God with a lie from Satan.

Do you believe that the Mosaic Law was divinely inspired?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The fact that you see a contradiction should be proof to you that
you do not understand the scriptures on this subject.

No no. I refuse to start with the assumption that there are no contradictions in the Bible. That obscures the ability to think critically.

Originally posted by whodey
Sin = slavery, hence, slavery is bad.

Does that help?

No, I still think you are deliberately avoiding giving a clear answer to the questions.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you believe that the Mosaic Law was divinely inspired?

Yes, in a sense, he was inspired like I am sometimes inspired but neither one of
us are perfect like God. But not like the inspiration to write the Holy Bible. Moses
was only inspired to write civil laws based on his own knowledge not with the
knowledge of God. Civil laws need to be changed from time to time.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
No no. I refuse to start with the assumption that there are no contradictions in the Bible. That obscures the ability to think critically.

Then you are starting with the assuption that there are errors. Is that really being
fair to the Holy Bible?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Then you are starting with the assuption that there are errors. Is that really being
fair to the Holy Bible?

No, I am starting from a neutral position.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
No, I am starting from a neutral position.

That shows lack of faith.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
No, I am starting from a neutral position.

Neutral position? Is there such a thing?

Originally posted by whodey
Neutral position? Is there such a thing?

YES of course there is.

The bible either contains errors or it doesn't.

The neutral starting position is NOT to assume that it contains errors OR to assume that it is inerrant.

You then investigate the bible checking it against reality and itself to see if it is self consistent and matching reality.

Biases are assumptions about the outcome before you start.

A neutral position is starting without assumptions about the outcome and letting the evidence guide you.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That shows lack of faith.

That which is true is true regardless of whether people believe in it or not.

If you need 'faith' to believe the bible to be inerrant then the bible is not inerrant.

Originally posted by googlefudge
That which is true is true regardless of whether people believe in it or not.

If you need 'faith' to believe the bible to be inerrant then the bible is not inerrant.

But if you have faith that it is inerrant, then no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince you otherwise, so there is really no point in discussing it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But if you have faith that it is inerrant, then no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince you otherwise, so there is really no point in discussing it.

Getting back to point, if the bible is inerrant then their god condones slavery.