God’s glory abandoned the temple and was given back to Jesus when he rose and ascended on resurrection Sunday as per Zec 3.
I was asking the poster who evidently doesn’t fully grasp the time periods of The Law they were referencing, who it applied to and why?
A bit of a nonsequitor but I can help your understanding. Here is a good reference for you to refresh your knowledge.
The reason you labeled it that was your lack of understanding. When you can answer the question, you’ll then have a partial understanding of why your inquiry into the slave is the nonsequitor to Christianity.
It’s amazing that not one single Christian was upset in this thread regarding the OP and as a Christian, that’s understandable.
Well, “upset” is kind of a strong word. But, as a Christian, I felt it was my responsibility to point out that Trump’s tariffs are going to start affecting Christian ministries such as the Gideons now.
Those Bibles that they pass out aren’t free to them.
Then allow me to share a way to help them. Years ago, I stopped sending flowers to funeral homes and instead issued a check for approximately the same amount to the Gideons in the name of the lost loved one. The Gideons then send a card to the family stating as such and how that gift will be used to spread The Lord’s Word. I may have to consider a tad more now if…Gideons are negatively affected.
You seem confused. I am not talking about Christianity when discussing slavery. I am discussing slavery as outlined by God in the Old Testament. God was kind enough to provide nice rules for slavery including enslaving for life and how to beat your slaves.
Paul thinks this was perfectly moral.
the may read them but they then go on to ignore what it says
[quote=“Borgia_dude, post:66, topic:200586”]
And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:/quote]
Does that sound like he was being oppressed by his master?
You cherry-pick sentences from the Bible wrested out of context, and then build a whinging complaint around them. You are a cultural bigot
You consider your own particular culture superior to all others, and despise as * immoral* the ethical codes of cultures that do not mesh perfectly with your own culturally imposed ethical sense.
Not everything permitted by Moses was ideal, but it reined in what would have been common harsher excesses within the surrounding cultures. For instance, when the Pharisees argued that Moses commanded that a woman [who finish NO grace in her hisband’s eyes] be given a bill of divorce, and be sent away. Jesus said,
“For your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce but it was not so from the beginning.”
The purpose of the law was not to produce righteousness, but to expose the weakness of those who could not even manage the lowest level of performance described in the law. People were not commanded to keep slaves.
But if they did choose to do so, there was a safety net of minimum standards that needed to be met by the owner. The owner was not required to live out the minimum legal standard. He was allowed to, and encouraged to perform more mercifully than the legal minimum.
And what if he doesn’t love his master but does love his wife and children? Can he take his family and go free? No.
Nobody forced God to institute permanent slavery. I should also add that only Hebrew male slaves had the option to go free after the seven years. Non-Hebrews and all females did not have that option.
As for cherry picking, aren’t you the one who quoted from this leaving out the part on slavery for life? I have provided the full verses for everyone to see.
Regardless, it sounds like you, Paul, are now saying slavery would not be moral today. Is that correct or do you still support the notion of debt-slavery and being able to beat your slaves like disobedient dogs?
Has your position evolved?
I can’t reason with an unreasonable man. Enjoy wallowing in your Christophobic bitterness.
Before you go, what happened if the Hebrew slave had a harsh master that he didn’t like at all yet couldn’t bring his wife and children with him into freedom (because during his slavery the master gave him a wife)? God dictated that the slave had to choose between freedom for himself and permanent slavery for his family OR permanent slavery for him and his family. That’s God’s rule. Can you comment on that?
One only had to read the article to see that the Bible was not the target of the tariffs. Just a bit of sensationalism for reasons unknown.
I always love the cultural argument.
Them about slavery: “It was the culture back then, so you can’t make normative claims based on our current culture’s morality!”
Also them: “The Bible says same-sex relationships are immoral. Those trying to say it was just a cultural thing are heretical!”
You just don’t listen. That’s your problem.
The law allowed the master to keep the wife he gave and the children. It did not require him to. The law set minimum standards but a careful study of the whole law taught followers to regard all slaves as brothers, and to treat them so * voluntarily*, rather than by coercion.
Not all slaves. Hebrew slaves. Foreign slaves were considered property. Seems like a pretty ■■■■ law.
Ok. So if a harsh master is not merciful, the man STILL has to choose between freedom and his family as dictated by God.
You certainly spend a lot of time imagining slavery as a bucolic existence with amazingly kind masters.
If it was just too much for God to say slavery was wrong, couldn’t he at least have said the man can take his family into freedom with him? Forcing a man to choose between freedom and his family seems a bit warped to me.
Yes, Paul never really addresses that foreign slaves were permanent slaves. But he knows it was the moral thing to do. As was beating them like dogs (yes, he used that analogy!).
