Refuting Christians with their Own Bible

[SteveII]

You do this a lot. You mix Old and New Testament together.

Um...yeah. So? According to Jesus and the NT, not one word of the law is changed or invalidated by Christ's coming, and all scripture is useful for preaching and teaching. In this case, the Old and New Testament both agree that slaves can be kept and that they should be obedient. There is no version of "but that's the OLD Testament!" that allows you to weasel out of this.

Atheist often forget the second part of the sentence. Jesus said he came "not to abolish the law but to fulfill it". Since you are claiming to know the meaning of the whole verse, what does fulfill mean?

[robvalue]

I guess it means you don't have to do all that immoral stuff anymore.

[Homeless Nutter]

Atheist often forget the second part of the sentence. Jesus said he came "not to abolish the law but to fulfill it". Since you are claiming to know the meaning of the whole verse, what does fulfill mean?

Jack-sh*t. There's no such thing as "fulfilling" the law. It's just pleasantly sounding nonsense meant to impress simple peasants.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Um...yeah. So? According to Jesus and the NT, not one word of the law is changed or invalidated by Christ's coming, and all scripture is useful for preaching and teaching. In this case, the Old and New Testament both agree that slaves can be kept and that they should be obedient. There is no version of "but that's the OLD Testament!" that allows you to weasel out of this.

Atheist often forget the second part of the sentence. Jesus said he came "not to abolish the law but to fulfill it". Since you are claiming to know the meaning of the whole verse, what does fulfill mean?

You can't hide here, Steve. Stop it. You are not changing the subject, and you are not weaseling out of the stark fact that your Bible very clearly contradicts your between-the lines doctrine with both barrels. We are not stopping the whole discussion to parse out what "fulfill the law" means just so you can conveniently ignore the rest of the points in my post.


Besides, the laws about slavery were not related to the atonement of sin, so they're unaffected by your little quibble anyway. According to Christian doctrine, the only laws largely affected by that are sacrificial laws, penal laws, and dietary laws. The laws governing slaves do not fall into any of those categories.


So, once again, you have zero Biblical basis for the assertion that slavery is immoral. Slavery is overtly allowed and regulated by both Testaments, and it is a direct contradiction of scripture to suggest otherwise. You have yet to present a convincing case to the contrary, and every dodge you're trying is just making you look bad. There is no amount of bending that gets you around the parts of your book that say "Slavery is allowed, and here is how slavery is supposed to work."

[SteveII]

Besides, the laws about slavery were not related to the atonement of sin, so they're unaffected by your little quibble anyway. According to Christian doctrine, the only laws largely affected by that are sacrificial laws, penal laws, and dietary laws. The laws governing slaves do not fall into any of those categories.

So, once again, you have zero Biblical basis for the assertion that slavery is immoral. Slavery is overtly allowed and regulated by both Testaments, and it is a direct contradiction of scripture to suggest otherwise. You have yet to present a convincing case to the contrary, and every dodge you're trying is just making you look bad. There is no amount of bending that gets you around the parts of your book that say "Slavery is allowed, and here is how slavery is supposed to work."

Civil laws and their penalties governing a theocracy are very much only for the OT nation of Israel. You admit that 'penal laws' were only for that time. Does it make sense that the detailed law on which the penalty rests is somehow immune to the effect? Since there was not a command to own slaves, we can't transfer that over to the bucket of "moral laws" and have it survive the NT effect that the rest of the law was affected by. 

I will repeat, I think there are good grounds to conclude from Jesus' teachings that forced slavery is immoral.

[Veritas_Vincit]

God still condoned slavery in OT times therefore he is a immoral, he clearly doesn't care about the people who suffered horribly from those laws.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Civil laws and their penalties governing a theocracy are very much only for the OT nation of Israel. You admit that 'penal laws' were only for that time. Does it make sense that the detailed law on which the penalty rests is somehow immune to the effect? Since there was not a command to own slaves, we can't transfer that over to the bucket of "moral laws" and have it survive the NT effect that the rest of the law was affected by. 

I will repeat, I think there are good grounds to conclude from Jesus' teachings that forced slavery is immoral.

Steve. Buddy. Pal. Stop it.


It doesn't matter who the OT law was for. Paul's teachings are New Covenant teachings. Both the Old and New Covenants allow and regulate slavery. Neither condemns it. Jesus tells a few parables with slaves in them as characters, but at no time does Jesus himself actually condemn slavery or teach against it.


Now, if you think slavery is immoral, that's fine. I agree with you. Owning people as property is inherently abusive and wrong. What I want you to admit is that you don't really get that attitude from the Bible. I get what you're saying about all the lovey-dovey stuff going against the grain of what we generally think of as slavery, but to get from there to "don't do slavery" you have to loosely interpret those parts to mean that, AND you have to take them completely out of context because both testaments say "here's how to do slavery/be a slave in a moral and godly way."


You're reading between the lines to find a passage that says "don't own slaves" when both of the lines you're reading between say "you may own slaves." That isn't going to work, Steve. Regardless of whatever else it says, it still also says "you may own slaves." No amount of back-bending will obscure that fact. The Bible does not say slavery is wrong. Jesus never says it, nor does Paul, nor Moses, nor anyone else in the Bible. You are pulling that out of thin air (or your ass, or both).

[Mr.wizard]

I'm not sure he even knows what he is arguing anymore.

We have seen:

1. Cherry picking scripture to say the bible was against slavery.
2. Trying argue that god was only regulating slavery because he couldn't stop it.
3. God commanded slavery so we could come to the conclusion that slavery is wrong, on our own.
4. Morality is subjective so slavery was moral .

[SteveII]

Civil laws and their penalties governing a theocracy are very much only for the OT nation of Israel. You admit that 'penal laws' were only for that time. Does it make sense that the detailed law on which the penalty rests is somehow immune to the effect? Since there was not a command to own slaves, we can't transfer that over to the bucket of "moral laws" and have it survive the NT effect that the rest of the law was affected by. 

I will repeat, I think there are good grounds to conclude from Jesus' teachings that forced slavery is immoral.

Steve. Buddy. Pal. Stop it.


It doesn't matter who the OT law was for. Paul's teachings are New Covenant teachings. Both the Old and New Covenants allow and regulate slavery. Neither condemns it. Jesus tells a few parables with slaves in them as characters, but at no time does Jesus himself actually condemn slavery or teach against it.


Now, if you think slavery is immoral, that's fine. I agree with you. Owning people as property is inherently abusive and wrong. What I want you to admit is that you don't really get that attitude from the Bible. I get what you're saying about all the lovey-dovey stuff going against the grain of what we generally think of as slavery, but to get from there to "don't do slavery" you have to loosely interpret those parts to mean that, AND you have to take them completely out of context because both testaments say "here's how to do slavery/be a slave in a moral and godly way."


You're reading between the lines to find a passage that says "don't own slaves" when both of the lines you're reading between say "you may own slaves." That isn't going to work, Steve. Regardless of whatever else it says, it still also says "you may own slaves." No amount of back-bending will obscure that fact. The Bible does not say slavery is wrong. Jesus never says it, nor does Paul, nor Moses, nor anyone else in the Bible. You are pulling that out of thin air (or your ass, or both).

Thank you for being polite. I appreciate it.

I understand your point. I think the difference in our interpretations is that I do not think mentioning slavery (a universally present system) is the same as condoning it. Jesus commanded very little in the way of dos and don'ts. Paul was all about the Christian life. We do get from Philemon the message that to do the right thing was to free the slave. But I understand your point that Jesus and Paul did not take the opportunity to condemn it.

My answer to that would be what if they had specifically said "Christians are not to own slaves because slavery is wrong". There would have been consequences (at the least political/law/possibly illegal repercussions, at the most resulting in loss of life) to such statements.

Anyway, I would characterize "reading between the lines" more like changing from the inside and seeing things through Jesus' eyes. It seems like we will have to agree to disagree.

[SteveII]

I'm not sure he even knows what he is arguing anymore.

We have seen:

1. Cherry picking scripture to say the bible was against slavery.
2. Trying argue that god was only regulating slavery because he couldn't stop it.
3. God commanded slavery so we could come to the conclusion that slavery is wrong, on our own.
4. Morality is subjective so slavery was moral .

You managed to mis-characterize every single point. I will have to try to be clearer next time.