Refuting Christians with their Own Bible

[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.