AronRa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vquOuWx6NlA
- My original answer to part of video
- 34:23 In the Bible slavery is conditionally acceptable, but slave hunting is not.
Human sacrifice is not, except for God who laid down His human life on the Cross.
Funny, that you are sitting on the branch of a Biblical abhorrence of Molochism and cutting it off by attacking the Bible for not abhorring it enough. As if it didn't. - M McQuarrie
- Leviticus 25:44 "'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves."
So there's one (of many) passages in the bible saying slavery is very much acceptable and it tells you exactly whom you may buy and from where.
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers all state that god demands sacrifices because he loves the smell of burning flesh.
[Those were animal sacrifices.]
It is painfully clear to anyone who has read the bible that it is a book of moral atrocities written by bigoted and savage men who had no understanding of morality or the world around them. The bible does not abhor savagery or immorality. The bible clearly condones it. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- As I precisely said : slavery is acceptable on certain conditions, but slave hunting is not.
Thank you for making my point again! - M McQuarrie
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl Slavery is acceptable. That doesn't bother you that slavery is acceptable?
Okay. You are an immoral thug. Your bible advocates slavery. [Curse over Bible, its God and myself as His worshipper, omitted but noted.] - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- The alternative would have for instance having even gentle masters go to Hell - and giving no real and at the time realistic alternative to the real Pagan thugs who not only owned slaves, but hunted freemen to make slaves, forced slaves to sexual immorality and even committed human sacrifice on slaves. Like the Etruscan origin of gladiator games.
Or, for there having been no morality, Biblical or otherwise, until the total rejection of slavery in European countries started morality - through belief in a Bible which did quite a lot to discourage slavery, despite formally allowing it. - M McQuarrie
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl First off you have no reason to think Hell exist and you have no way of knowing the criteria in which souls are judged if they are judged at all or even if they exist.
Not every Pagan culture owned slaves. And the bible outlines exactly a Hebrew may beat his slave provided he doesn't kill said slave. Hebrew slaves were among the most cruelly treated and child slavery was a common practice, condoned by the bible no less.
The cruelty within the bible is evident to anyone who has read it. The bible did NOTHING to discourage slavery (site me ONE passage where it explicitly says "you shall not own slaves").
The abolition of slavery was a largely secular movement. Southern Slave owners opposing the abolition of slavery often used the bible as a platform for keeping their slaves. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Not every Pagan culture owned slaves?
Those in the area around did. [Dacians seem to have had very few slaves, but were marginal to the area.]
A master could beat a slave and if he died after a certain time it was no murder, but if he died the same day it was.
In certain other cultures a man could feed a slave to a murenas and get away with it. And yes, I am talking about the Mediterranean.
Last off, Hell does exist, since God has revealed that. He has also proven his divinity (unlike Odin and Muhammed, for instance, and prophethood in the latter case) by lots of miracles including His Resurrection.
Souls exist, it is even obvious once you think of the fact that we can think.
And souls getting to Hell if they treat slaves badly was one of the fears through which slaves came to be treated better or even - and in the long run after centuries normally so - freed. I am not talking about the abolitionism of around Civil War. I am talking about diverse abolitions of slavery from France under Queen St Bathilde to Sweden in the 14th C. but even more than nationwide abolitions I am talking of the gradual abolition that was going on all the time between conversion of a country and the time it ceased having slaves.
There is not one passage forbidding the owning of slaves as you said. There are several indirectly discouraging it.
Say you are bad tempered and your slaves suffer? Well, fear of getting to Hell for their suffering would be one motive of freeing them, to be on the safe side.
Say you are good tempered and your slaves are happy? Well, making them happier by freeing them as you yourself are a "freedman" of Christ would also be a motive for releasing slaves. Plus you would be treating the ones you kept decently. - M McQuarrie
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl Care to site them?
Because if they are there, then the god of the bible is so inept that it couldn't discern that slavery was wrong or the people who wrote the bible came to the conclusion that slavery is immoral of their own accord.
By what right do I or anyone else have to own another human being?
"Christ would also be a motive for releasing slaves."
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." Ephesians 6:5.
HAVE YOU EVEN READ THE BIBLE? - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- If you went to Ephesians yourself, you would know the earthly masters were no wise encouraged to regard the slaves as their property, but rather to regard both themselves and their slaves as the property of God.
That IS discouraging slavery. In the long run.
Here is verse 9: [9] And you, masters, do the same things to them, forbearing threatenings, knowing that the Lord both of them and you is in heaven; and there is no respect of persons with him. - M McQuarrie
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl No it isn't. It's encouraging a person to maintain the idea of slavery in every regard. [!]
Where the bible isn't condoning or outlining the ownership of slaves it is encouraging people to be slaves. There is nothing moral with that. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- It is not encouraging people to "be slaves" as people were in fact slaves. It is encouraging to use their slavery about as public servants use their offices (or did at the time), that is as honourable men.
If you want to know what slaves really were like, don't look at Spartacus, do look at the slaves in the comedies. THAT is what kept slavery going. Ephesians 6:5 killed off slavery as much or even more than Ephesians 6:9. - M McQuarrie
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl There is nothing honorable about slavery. It is owning a person as property. It is dehumanizing.
You get it? The bible dehumanizes people.
It outlines how to beat them. Whom may be bought. Whom maybe sold (little girls not with standing). How you can ensure their servitude for life.
You want to know what slavery was like? Look at actual history. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- No, the Bible RE-HUMANISED people who were dehumanised by Pagan society.
Time you start getting it. 70 BC, Spartacus leads a revolt of slaves and massive crucifixions follow. After that humanly speaking nothing can rehumanise slaves, hardly even Stoicism. 313 Christianity is made licit and some decades later official religion. Slaves becoming freemen is now order of the day, so much that even the Church (which has encouraged it) starts getting worried about things going too fast. 1000 years later large parts of Christendom show a spectacle not seen on a large scale since Nimrod started making slaves : societies where no one is a slave. THAT is history. Actual history. - M McQuarrie
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl Then where in the bible does it say you will not own a slave? Or buy a slave? Where does it say you will not beat a slave? You will not sell your daughter as a slave?
Where in the bible does it say slavery is immoral?
That the church is being strong armed into supporting a secular cause that is no where to be found in their bible, is a clear indication that the bible got it wrong. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I see you refuse to get a very simple point.
Slavery is [often enough] dehumanising. Slaves needed rehumanising. Abolishing slavery was not the obvious first step.
It does say slave hunt is immoral by stating Nimrod was a slave hunter. A "mighty hunter before the Lord" the traditional comment has "not just of beasts but of men". It also enumerates plagiarii - kidnappers or slave hunters - among with homosexuals [ok, sodomites really, since “men going to bed with men” do not include purely psychological cases of homosexuality] as people who will not get to Heaven. In other words, it says very clearly that if you encounter a free man it is immoral to make him a slave against his will. You can make a contract of indentured servitude, but you cannot hunt him down to make him your slave or to make him a slave to sell to others. It is also said very clearly that giving a slave his freedom if you are his master is an act pleasing to God. - M McQuarrie
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl "Abolishing slavery was not the obvious first step."
WHY […] NOT?
You literally have a god that supposed to be able to reveal profound morality and inarguable wisdom. And it couldn't abolish slavery on its own? ESPECIALLY AFTER IT ENDORSED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
[Omitting a blasphemy.] - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- God never endorsed slavery as much as certain others did.
Why it was not the first step, well because mentalities had to change - and did that thanks to the Bible and the Church - before legal institutions could.
You look like you are throwing a kind of childish tantrum - at least you look like that to me - on the subject of partial endorsement of slavery as if that is what made men want slaves and (against God's law) hunt slaves in the first place. - M McQuarrie
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl If your god never endorsed slavery, why is it endorsed, outlined, permitted and instructed in his hand book?
And why is not outlawed in that same hand book?
Did god have nothing to do with the bible? That seems to be the most obvious answer since it was largely secular movements that abolished slavery. - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Be glad we have internet between us. Or if you are strong I should be. If you had behaved like that in a bar, you would have had beer in the face. Every question you pose I have already answered. Adequately and patiently.
- M McQuarrie
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl Not even close.
Oh and how very Christian of you. Do what I say or I'll hurt you.
Just full of god's love aren't you? - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Sure, beer in your face would hurt you. Are you a girl? [He was not.]
- A close look
- at three parts of three speeches:
- M McQuarrie
- [The Bible] couldn't abolish slavery on its own? ESPECIALLY AFTER IT ENDORSED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- God never endorsed slavery as much as certain others did.
- M McQuarrie
- If your god never endorsed slavery, why is it endorsed, outlined, permitted and instructed in his hand book?
- See what he omitted?
- “as much as certain others did.”
- See an answer to his question?
- Partial endorsement – of slavery but not of slave hunt – BECAUSE not endorsing as much as certain others did.
- A close look at what I originally answered:
- In the Bible slavery is conditionally acceptable, but slave hunting is not.
Human sacrifice is not, except for God who laid down His human life on the Cross.
Funny, that you are sitting on the branch of a Biblical abhorrence of Molochism and cutting it off by attacking the Bible for not abhorring it enough. As if it didn't. - Of the three paragraphs,
- M McQuarrie does not even try to refute two, only goes about slavery, never even tries to accuse Bible of endorsing human sacrifice. He also makes no attempt of accusing Christianity of endorsing slave hunt. Some honesty even he has.
No comments:
Post a Comment