"Christ agrees with the man."
This is understood, no need to underline/boldface. There was a reason I stated "He didn't actually quote that" (at least not in Luke 10:27)
He DID do such in Matthew and Mark. John as well I believe.
"But, even if that were the case, who was more needful then a helpless black being ripped from his home to be sold into bondage? "
"ripped from his home"?
you obviously have NO CLUE where the slaves came from. They were sold to white men by victorious black tribes! Slavery was their new way of life!
And aside from that, I promise those slaves were fed regularly (unless in punishment I suppose) "Need" of anything but Freedom (Not guarateed in the Bible) is laughable.
"Slavery was a fact of life in the Roman empire. "
Very good. Now, was slavery a fact of life in America at one point?
"And what does that have to do with the morality of slavery? "
Nothing. It merely points out that the Bible does NOT condemn slavery. Man does.
"Again, what has that have to do with slavery, which is taking from a man the fruits of his labor. "
I was addressing your assertion that "Thou shalt not steal" meant slavery was wrong.
If it was wrong, Biblically speaking, why is it seen as a proper means to an end?
"The only one guilty of theft were the white masters who made money of the sweat of the slaves (as did those who sold the slaves)."
Lol, now it's funny.
White masters MUST have been the only ones selling them. They MUST have been bought from other whites in Africa.
Blacks made a profit too.
and what about slave masters? They were slaves given charge over other slaves. They earned favor and rank.
Money is not guaranteed in the Bible. Only provision for Life Eternal.
I only made the point that the meaning was the same as if Christ had said it.
"But, even if that were the case, who was more needful then a helpless black being ripped from his home to be sold into bondage? " "ripped from his home"? you obviously have NO CLUE where the slaves came from. They were sold to white men by victorious black tribes! Slavery was their new way of life!
Yes, and the had been ripped from their homes in Africa!
And aside from that, I promise those slaves were fed regularly (unless in punishment I suppose) "Need" of anything but Freedom (Not guarateed in the Bible) is laughable.
Wow, how kind of the slavers?
And what happened to the slaves if a British ship came near after British had outlawed the slave trade?
All the slaves were dumped overboard.
The death rate for slaves was very high.
"Slavery was a fact of life in the Roman empire. " Very good. Now, was slavery a fact of life in America at one point?
Yes, it was, due to the British empire, not the American view of equality before God.
"And what does that have to do with the morality of slavery? " Nothing. It merely points out that the Bible does NOT condemn slavery. Man does.
No, the Bible does condemn slavery in principle.
"Again, what has that have to do with slavery, which is taking from a man the fruits of his labor. " I was addressing your assertion that "Thou shalt not steal" meant slavery was wrong.
Well, if stealing is wrong,then slavery is wrong.
If it was wrong, Biblically speaking, why is it seen as a proper means to an end?
Where is it considered a proper means to an end?
Sometimes God allows evil to occur to bring good out of it.
He also allowed men to divorce their wives even though that was not suppose to happen.
"The only one guilty of theft were the white masters who made money of the sweat of the slaves (as did those who sold the slaves)." Lol, now it's funny. White masters MUST have been the only ones selling them. They MUST have been bought from other whites in Africa.
And you did not read the parenthesis?
All those who either transported the slaves or used the slaves were profiting off of them.
what they were getting for it?
The 'right' not to be murdered?
Blacks made a profit too.
Ok, and they were wrong also.
and what about slave masters? They were slaves given charge over other slaves. They earned favor and rank.
And that changes the principle of slavery being wrong because it steals from the slave-how?
As for a slave who is given charge over another slave, he is not in control of his own life to refuse what the master orders him to do.
Money is not guaranteed in the Bible. Only provision for Life Eternal.
Oh, my how pious!
Why then did God even put in the Ten Commandements thou shalt not steal?
Again, in Rom.13 (which you cite as referring to the authority of the powers) Love worketh no ill to his neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law
would you like to be made a slave?
I only made the point that the meaning was the same as if Christ had said it.
"But, even if that were the case, who was more needful then a helpless black being ripped from his home to be sold into bondage? " "ripped from his home"? you obviously have NO CLUE where the slaves came from. They were sold to white men by victorious black tribes! Slavery was their new way of life!
Yes, and the had been ripped from their homes in Africa!
And aside from that, I promise those slaves were fed regularly (unless in punishment I suppose) "Need" of anything but Freedom (Not guarateed in the Bible) is laughable.
Wow, how kind of the slavers?
And what happened to the slaves if a British ship came near after British had outlawed the slave trade?
All the slaves were dumped overboard.
The death rate for slaves was very high.
"Slavery was a fact of life in the Roman empire. " Very good. Now, was slavery a fact of life in America at one point?
Yes, it was, due to the British empire, not the American view of equality before God.
"And what does that have to do with the morality of slavery? " Nothing. It merely points out that the Bible does NOT condemn slavery. Man does.
No, the Bible does condemn slavery in principle.
"Again, what has that have to do with slavery, which is taking from a man the fruits of his labor. " I was addressing your assertion that "Thou shalt not steal" meant slavery was wrong.
Well, if stealing is wrong,then slavery is wrong.
If it was wrong, Biblically speaking, why is it seen as a proper means to an end?
Where is it considered a proper means to an end?
Sometimes God allows evil to occur to bring good out of it.
He also allowed men to divorce their wives even though that was not suppose to happen.
"The only one guilty of theft were the white masters who made money of the sweat of the slaves (as did those who sold the slaves)." Lol, now it's funny. White masters MUST have been the only ones selling them. They MUST have been bought from other whites in Africa.
And you did not read the parenthesis?
All those who either transported the slaves or used the slaves were profiting off of them.
what they were getting for it?
The 'right' not to be murdered?
Blacks made a profit too.
Ok, and they were wrong also.
and what about slave masters? They were slaves given charge over other slaves. They earned favor and rank.
And that changes the principle of slavery being wrong because it steals from the slave-how?
As for a slave who is given charge over another slave, he is not in control of his own life to refuse what the master orders him to do.
Money is not guaranteed in the Bible. Only provision for Life Eternal.
Oh, my how pious!
Why then did God even put in the Ten Commandements thou shalt not steal?
Again, in Rom.13 (which you cite as referring to the authority of the powers) Love worketh no ill to his neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law
would you like to be made a slave?