VIDEO LINK
Posted on 12/24/2013 9:19:25 AM PST by montag813
Great clip showing a side of ‘Duck Commander’ Phil Robertson that many don’t know: when he was teammates with future NFL Hall of Famer Terry Bradshaw…
bookmark for later
A person could murder someone not knowing that person had cancer saving that person a lot of suffering but that doesn’t make murder OK.
Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God
You continue to confirm what I said. No slavery.
Nope. Forced slavery is theft of a person and his services. There's a commandment against that.
You continue to read meaning that is not there, into my replies and I assume the Bible itself, but reading the Bible would highlight the errors in your assumptions. Enslaving God’s chosen people was condemned. Extending that to all humanity goes against passages elsewhere in the Bible, therefore it is a mistake to do so.
Exd 21:16 ¶ And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
This describes plantation slavery to a tee. Tyre and Sidon destroyed for it, the south lost a war for it. It is wrong, as Jesus said, love your neighbor as yourself, and a fellow Christian is a neighbor. If the Good Samaritan was a neighbor, then fellow Christians are neighbors and are not to be slaves.
This is all about neo-Reb revisionism to say that plantation slavery was OK. It wasn't, as the Exodus passage proves. We had no business in Africa except to steal humans for slavery, and it was wrong, and the south lost a war for it.
Forced slavery is theft of a person and his services.
But I didn’t say “forced” slavery. I said “slavery”.
No, this is about what the text in toto actually says, as opposed to what anyone wants it to say.
That makes no difference! So if a perv couple would rent their children for sex that would make it OK??? Hell, no. They were stolen, we knew they were stolen, it was totally wrong.
There appears to be a lot that you “know” that just isn't so. While it may be convenient for you to label anyone in disagreement with your many historical misunderstandings and Biblical misinterpretations as “Neo-Reb” or whatever in order to try to shut down any further discussion, that does not change the errors that you've made, it doesn't change history and it doesn't change the Bible. I'm no advocate of human bondage, here. I'm glad I'm not in it and don't want anyone in this country to be, either. That does not change how the practice was actually viewed, up to the Civil War in the south, border states and even some others, it doesn't change how it was viewed in practically all the British North American colonies and it certainly has no bearing upon it in antiquity. The practice was widespread and accepted as a status some people held. Rome was that way, Greece was that way, Phoenicia was that way, ancient Israel was that way, the world was that way. You reject the practice, good for you, but that doesn't mean you get to rewrite everything in recorded history in order to accommodate your exquisite sensibilities.
I'm not rewriting anything. The question was what does the bible say about slavery. Exodus is clear about stealing a human, anf Jesus was clear about how to treat a neighbor. Slavery became extinct for Christians as of the crucifixion.
The text itself shows you wrong about this but the debate is getting tiresome. You’ll believe what you want to believe regardless of what is written, that much is clear. Understand that what you’re saying, laudable though it may appear to modern ears, results in other Biblical passages appearing to be “wrong.” As a Christian you accept scripture as truth however, therefore it is not scripture that is “wrong,” but you. Remember that, it will serve you well in other, less controversial matters. I’m sure you’ll want to have the last word, so feel free. I’m done with this, though. Have a nice day.
I just don’t see the ambiguity of Exodus. It means what it says.
No, I think you are just committed to arguing. . .so go get your Greek commentary and knock yourself out. . . you can argue until the cows come home. What is that, a homework assignment for your online Higher Criticism 101 course?
The point I'm making is not about whether or not the sin of slavery is heinous in all its forms, but that Paul was focused on the imminent return of Christ, which he anticipated would take place within in own eartly lifetime. . i.e. 1Thess. 4:16 . .and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, WE WHO ARE STILL ALIVE will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
Paul was not a social critic, nor was he condoning slavery. . .he was focused on the imminent return of Christ. period, end of story. . .that's my point.
Paul was a prophet, he knew it would be a while. A lot of the New Testament concerns itself on how to live your life in relationship to other people, governments, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.