It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

God is Love... Except when he's committing genocide...

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 06:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Entreri06




Jerusalem was part of the Roman Empire , the Roman Empire practiced the exact same form of slavery as "American slavery".


The Roman Empire also had wild orgies, prostitutes, and worship of Zeus, that doesn't mean the "New Testament" supported those things. You said the New Testament supported the American model of slavery.




Speaking of slavery, the New Testament says slavery is perfectly ok...and yes it was the same kinda slavery used in America.


And that's a lie.





Servants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a bondservant or is free. Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him." - Ephesians 6:5-9


1 Timothy 6:1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine may not be blasphemed. 2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. (WBS)




But there are no verses saying slavery is a sin...
edit on 26-1-2015 by Entreri06 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06




But there are no verses saying slavery is a sin...


Because it isn't a sin. I never said there wasn't slavery, in fact several times I said that was a normal way of life in that period of time for a great number of people. I said this quite a few times. I also said it was a common thing for people who were bankrupt or who owed debts they could not repay. I also said often women who had been raped or who were widows also had to do this often to support themselves and their families. So numerous times in this thread I have stated that this was common in those days, days where there was no such thing as bankruptcy court or Visa and Mastercard.

So lets address EXACTLY what you claimed, that the New Testament condoned the "American Model" of slavery. Where some group or person takes someone captive against their will and sells them to another person against their will into a life of slavery, and an entire life, no hope of freedom. THAT type of slavery is spoken against specifically, it condemns manstealers.

But why would the NT authors condemn voluntary servitude? It's VOLUNTARY. It was a way of life for people who were poor or who could not repay a debt.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Entreri06




But there are no verses saying slavery is a sin...


Because it isn't a sin. I never said there wasn't slavery, in fact several times I said that was a normal way of life in that period of time for a great number of people. I said this quite a few times. I also said it was a common thing for people who were bankrupt or who owed debts they could not repay. I also said often women who had been raped or who were widows also had to do this often to support themselves and their families. So numerous times in this thread I have stated that this was common in those days, days where there was no such thing as bankruptcy court or Visa and Mastercard.

So lets address EXACTLY what you claimed, that the New Testament condoned the "American Model" of slavery. Where some group or person takes someone captive against their will and sells them to another person against their will into a life of slavery, and an entire life, no hope of freedom. THAT type of slavery is spoken against specifically, it condemns manstealers.

But why would the NT authors condemn voluntary servitude? It's VOLUNTARY. It was a way of life for people who were poor or who could not repay a debt.



Most american slaves weren't freshly captured.... They had been slaves for generations. Even in America it was illegal to do that. So the Bahamas became a way point where they would bring captured and have slave auctions pretending they were born into slavery...

So yea that's exactly what the bible says is acceptable slavery.

The exact same system that we had in America, just not based on race....



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06




So yea that's exactly what the bible says is acceptable slavery.


Focus, I'm talking only about the New Testament, because you yourself said New Testament. And no it doesn't condone the American model of slavery, it likewise doesn't condone the Jewish/Egyptian model of slavery which is quite similar. If fact, God freed the Hebrews from Pharaoh. It does speak about an honorable way to practice a common thing for a huge segment of the populations back in that period of time, but it's not really relevant today so why are you even up in arms over it?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Entreri06




So yea that's exactly what the bible says is acceptable slavery.


Focus, I'm talking only about the New Testament, because you yourself said New Testament. And no it doesn't condone the American model of slavery, it likewise doesn't condone the Jewish/Egyptian model of slavery which is quite similar. If fact, God freed the Hebrews from Pharaoh. It does speak about an honorable way to practice a common thing for a huge segment of the populations back in that period of time, but it's not really relevant today so why are you even up in arms over it?



Me too I am only talking about the New Testament. The isrealites weren't under roman rule in the Old Testament.

When Paul says to obey your master like you would obey god. How is that not condo being slavery.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06




When Paul says to obey your master like you would obey god. How is that not condo being slavery.


Any servant has a master. This same man ( Paul) condemned manstealing in Timothy. But bond servants and indentured servants had a master for the duration of their servitude.




edit on 26-1-2015 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Entreri06




When Paul says to obey your master like you would obey god. How is that not condo being slavery.


Any servant has a master. This same man ( Paul) condemned manstealing in Timothy. But bond servants and indentured servants had a master for the duration of their servitude.





Manstealing is not slavery.....

He spoke against kidnapping slaves not against buying or keeping slaves.

He only had affirmations for the institution for slavery, he just thought you should buy not steal your slave...



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06




Manstealing is not slavery.....


You can't have the "American model" of slavery without someone capturing an innocent person and selling them to a buyer for the purpose of enslaving them.

That's like saying "drinking is not being drunk". Well, sure, but you can't be drunk without drinking.




He spoke against kidnapping slaves not against buying or keeping slaves.


Keeping a slave/servant was a normal aspect of life. Since the Bible condemns slave traders you can logically take it to the level that if a person (Christian) buys a slave from a slave trader that would be a sin. In the same manner that the NT condemns prostitutes, the logical conclusion is that the person paying for a prostitute is also forbidden.





He only had affirmations for the institution for slavery, he just thought you should buy not steal your slave...


Or purchase one. The slave trader doesn't keep the slaves he steals, he sells them for profit.


edit on 27-1-2015 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Entreri06




When Paul says to obey your master like you would obey god. How is that not condo being slavery.


Any servant has a master. This same man ( Paul) condemned manstealing in Timothy. But bond servants and indentured servants had a master for the duration of their servitude.





What about the slaves who were bought or born??? Those aren't manstealers, but they still existed. You can't omit what is the largest part of the slave population because it doesn't fit your personal moral code.which is probubally ridicuously better then the bibles moral code.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Entreri06




Manstealing is not slavery.....


You can't have the "American model" of slavery without someone capturing an innocent person and selling them to a buyer for the purpose of enslaving them.

That's like saying "drinking is not being drunk". Well, sure, but you can't be drunk without drinking.




He spoke against kidnapping slaves not against buying or keeping slaves.


Keeping a slave/servant was a normal aspect of life. Since the Bible condemns slave traders you can logically take it to the level that if a person (Christian) buys a slave from a slave trader that would be a sin. In the same manner that the NT condemns prostitutes, the logical conclusion is that the person paying for a prostitute is also forbidden.





He only had affirmations for the institution for slavery, he just thought you should buy not steal your slave...


Or purchase one. The slave trader doesn't keep the slaves he steals, he sells them for profit.



Actually American slavery started with African kings selling other tribes to the Europeans. Most were caught in warfare and enslaved the same as in Rome. In America it was illegal to capture slaves, but you could buy slaves born into slavery... Just like in the bible. Now of course people lied and claimed captured slaves were born slaves (see the movie amistad). But the same form of slavery that was acceptable in the bible was legal in America.

The way slaves were treated was the same in either situation.

So in what way was Jewish slavery different? It wasn't! It was exactly the same as American slavery. With atrocities commited by both.

Just like you said. The manstealer is going to sell them not keep them.so the Jew who buys one from him is completely in line with the bible.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06




What about the slaves who were bought or born???


What about them? The NT doesn't address them. And if one became a Christian while a slave they were told not to be rebellious and to serve with honor and distinction. One being a slave or not being one had no bearing on their eternal destiny or their ability to understand the grace of God.



You can't omit what is the largest part of the slave population because it doesn't fit your personal moral code.


I didn't. Show me where I said that type didn't exist in the 1st century. And do you have a source for that, that it was the "largest part", or is that arbitrary conjecture? Indentured servants and bond servants were a normal way of life for virtually everyone who was poor in the first century. I hate sounding like a broken record, but there was no such thing as Visa and Mastercard back then.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

You can't have the "American model" of slavery without someone capturing an innocent person and selling them to a buyer for the purpose of enslaving them.



I love how it is the "American Model" of slavery. It takes two to tango. What about the african tribes that actively wanted to sell the slaves from opposing tribes that they captured? Nahhh....nothing to see there.

That's like blaming Peanut Butter, the only named defendant, for their damning involvement in PB&J sandwiches...



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06




So in what way was Jewish slavery different? It wasn't!


Not true whatsoever. In a Jubilee year all slaves were free. And they could choose to remain with the family or owner who had them. They had a ceremony where they pierced their ear to the doorway with an awl.

But this is OT. I'd kinda like to stay with what you said the NT condones.




Just like you said. The manstealer is going to sell them not keep them.so the Jew who buys one from him is completely in line with the bible.


Slaver traders were condemned in Timothy, not the OT. But if a Jew in the OT bought a fellow Hebrew slave they were freed after 6 years of service, if it was a gentile, every Jubilee year all slaves were free, and all prisoners, and all debts were cancelled.

NOTHING at all like the "American model".


edit on 27-1-2015 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Entreri06




So in what way was Jewish slavery different? It wasn't!


Not true whatsoever. In a Jubilee year all slaves were free. And they could choose to remain with the family or owner who had them. They had a ceremony where they pierced their ear to the doorway with an awl.

But this is OT. I'd kinda like to stay with what you said the NT condones.




Just like you said. The manstealer is going to sell them not keep them.so the Jew who buys one from him is completely in line with the bible.


Slaver traders were condemned in Timothy, not the OT. But if a Jew in the OT bought a fellow Hebrew slave they were freed after 6 years of service, if it was a gentile, every Jubilee year all slaves were free, and all prisoners, and all debts were cancelled.

NOTHING at all like the "American model".



So are slave traders condemned in Timothy or is man stealing condemned? Because they are not the same thing. A slave trader could have gotten his slaves by legal means.

A jubilee year is every 50 years (49)!!! Most people didn't even live that long!!!That's not even counting the fact all Old Testament rules were thrown out in the NT. So what, your keeping the OT rules who match your personal moral code and the rest don't count?'v



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06




So are slave traders condemned in Timothy or is man stealing condemned?


Same thing. Manstealers are slave traders and vice versa. Several translations say "slave traders". I mentioned this much earlier in our back and forth. Anyways, the Greek word is: "andrapodistēs" and it means:




A - slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer
B - of one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery
C - of one who steals the slaves of others and sells them


Strong's #G405





A jubilee year is every 50 years (49)!!! Most people didn't even live that long!!!That's not even counting the fact all Old Testament rules were thrown out in the NT.


Well if you go back up you would see that I mentioned the Jubilee year because you mentioned Jews and the Bible in total:




Jew who buys one from him is completely in line with the bible.






So what, your keeping the OT rules who match your personal moral code and the rest don't count?


Why do you keep mentioning my personal moral code? I'm against unwillful servitude, and can't condemn those who chose it out of necessity either. So what are you talking about?



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Slavery is not loving your neighbour AS yourself so no. If love thy neighbour as thyself is truly The Royal Law of God as the Bible says in James, then God is against slavery, and I DO believe in the Royal Law. The way to Heaven is narrow. Keep it simple and don't confuse yourself. God is not the author of confusion.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Entreri06




So are slave traders condemned in Timothy or is man stealing condemned?


Same thing. Manstealers are slave traders and vice versa. Several translations say "slave traders". I mentioned this much earlier in our back and forth. Anyways, the Greek word is: "andrapodistēs" and it means:




A - slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer
B - of one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery
C - of one who steals the slaves of others and sells them


Strong's #G405





A jubilee year is every 50 years (49)!!! Most people didn't even live that long!!!That's not even counting the fact all Old Testament rules were thrown out in the NT.


Well if you go back up you would see that I mentioned the Jubilee year because you mentioned Jews and the Bible in total:




Jew who buys one from him is completely in line with the bible.






So what, your keeping the OT rules who match your personal moral code and the rest don't count?


Why do you keep mentioning my personal moral code? I'm against unwillful servitude, and can't condemn those who chose it out of necessity either. So what are you talking about?


So there was never a slave trader who didn't mansteal?!? So there were no slave puppy mills in anchient Rome?!? So the vast majority of slaves didn't come from conquering another nation, which would not be manstealing...Lol just lol

Even in your own definition it says some one who got there slaves by kidnapping. Not the dozen legal ways to obtain a slave.


Your personal moral code ( which I don't doubt is pretty much the same as mine) is the reason you are pretending that manstealer is the same as slave trader. Slavetrading was a respected occupation in America and anchient Rome. Kidnapping was illegal in both. You know slavery of any kind is detestable and want the bible to be the pinnacle of morality, so you make excuses and assume all "American type" slaves had to be manstolen because if not, that means the bible said American slavery was ok. Which you know it wasn't. So you keep stretching the meaning of this word and narrowing the meaning of others to fit what you (rightly so) believe to be right and wrong.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06




So the vast majority of slaves didn't come from conquering another nation


No, the vast majority of servanthood in that day was debt repayment or a way of life for the poor who didn't own land with which to farm.




is the reason you are pretending that manstealer is the same as slave trader.


I'm not pretending, I posted what the Greek word means. A manstealer is a slave trader. It's Strong's Greek Concordance #405.




You know slavery of any kind is detestable


So what were the poor and widows of that day to do in order to survive? I only think the American model is detestable, I have no problem with people going into servanthood by their own choice. Why would I?


edit on 28-1-2015 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Entreri06




So the vast majority of slaves didn't come from conquering another nation


No, the vast majority of servanthood in that day was debt repayment or a way of life for the poor who didn't own land with which to farm.




is the reason you are pretending that manstealer is the same as slave trader.


I'm not pretending, I posted what the Greek word means. A manstealer is a slave trader. It's Strong's Greek Concordance #405.




You know slavery of any kind is detestable


So what were the poor and widows of that day to do in order to survive? I only think the American model is detestable, I have no problem with people going into servanthood by their own choice. Why would I?



A manstealer was a slave trader who kidnapped his wares... Not a slavetrade who bred or bought his slaves from the army officers who were returning from battle with there spoils, which were usually slaves. That was a thriving market in those days.


As far as the widows, IDK how about do the Christian thing and give charity or do the capitalistic thing and pay them low wages for there labor?!?! How about not own the person. I've got to look up, the stats on the slave population. I don't think there were only a small amount of American style slaves and the vast majority were indentured servants.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06




A manstealer was a slave trader who kidnapped his wares... Not a slavetrade who bred or bought his slaves from the army officers who were returning from battle with there spoils, which were usually slaves. That was a thriving market in those days.


It's the same word in the Greek, one who deals in slaves. The method they acquired them is irrelevant. The KJV uses the word "manstealers", but many other English versions say "slave traders". They are one in the same man.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join