Pat Robertson says it's ok to ignore parts of the Bible.

[Ziploc Surprise]

remember Slavery in the OT is not what was being labeled as Slavery in America.
(Despite how some wish to trivialize and dismiss The Recorded Law of the OT Jew, and Historical facts about Pre civil war America.)
So why is biblically based slavery not always bad? Because, Biblically based slavery establishes the paradigm between believer and our Lord and Master. To understand How OT Jews were to treat their slaves is to understand how to balance this life with what is expected of us, Verses how it is we have been freed. Otherwise if you simply say all slavery is bad, then you simply give up one master for another (who's more oppressive than the last/Sin for Legalistic Religions of Man. Which have little to do with God.)

We are slaves to sin. the Majority of you who have any Christian experience i would say that ALL Slavery is Bad all of the time. Yet you only know of an oppressive God who's yoke is more oppressive than the sin you believe you can control. But the opposite is true. Because you believe that all Slavery is always bad none of you have learn to submit as a (OT) slave to God. It is only as a slave (God's definition of the word, not ours) that we will ever know true freedom. But because we are a slave to sin (and do not know it) we can only see the oppression of the religions that choose to represent God, and think they are one in the same. Why? Because we have taught ourselves to cast off all Masters, and by doings so have sold ourselves into true slavery.(But because you do not know what true slavery is you can not identify it) If you can not identify it you can not free yourself from it/sin (If you believe this to be false try living one day without sin) and you can not turn to God for help because you have mis identified Him as a Oppressive Master. Thus dooming you for an eternity, simply because you have closed your mind to a single word and it's true meaning.

Drich, you are mixing several separate concepts in the Bible. I also suspect that you are doing this on purpose to confuse people and also as an opportunity to preach to people.

First, the statement "of slaves to sin alive in Christ" is an analogy used to explain a theological concept - that's all. We on this thread are not talking about that analogy and theological concept and you know this. We on this thread are talking about the physical practice of slavery, how this physical practice was condoned in the Bible, and how human beings have morally evolved to a point where we now know that the practice of slavery is wrong. I expect in the future that you drop your attempts to confuse these ideas.

Second, as I said before, I am familiar with the spiel about how slavery was ok in the Bible because it was different from the slavery that was practiced in the southern states of the U.S. before abolition. I also said it was a bullshit argument from bullshit apologetics invented to make the bullshit in the Bible relevant to today's morality. I gave brief reason why it was a bullshit argument. Your response to this was to dance around the issues and to also repeat the same bullshit idea as if no one had previously corrected you. Are you afraid to address the issue? Let me get into this issue in a bit more detail (though this shouldn't be necessary, the comments from the other members should have been sufficent).

The moral argument: though slavery exists today it doesn't make it right. Though some aspect of slavery, like for example being forced to work a dead end job, exist today it doesn't make it right. Wrong things are still wrong things.

The argument that slavery wasn't as bad as slavery as that practiced in the Southern U.S. before abolition. For those who aren't aware of the argument it essentially goes along the lines that slavery was somewhat equivalent to a below minimum wage job. They cite the barter system. Slaves were "paid" in food, clothing, shelter, and sometimes a little something more than that -the things that a below minimum wage job could buy. The buying and selling of slaves (as the theological argument goes, please don't think I agree with this bullshit) back then was equivalant of a work contract. There were some negatives to how the "contract" bound people to certain responsibilities but there was also positives in that it provided security for both (again please don't think I agree with this shit). There were rules about how slaves were to be treated (beating them and whatnot). Southern slave owners disobeyed these rules by the savage treatment of their slaves. Biblical slavery wasn't supposed to be like this, blah blah blah. I could go on a point by point argument about this but that would take too long. To shorten things up I will point out that to believe the argument that the daily conditions of slavery (as to how they were treated) were so different from the situation that happened in the Southern U.S. that these two things can be treated as a different, one must cherry pick the Bible. Things were marginally better. But still the Bible condones mistreatment that would be considered horribly unacceptable by our morally evolved standards. As for sex slavery, I'd say that it's a fair argument to say that married women were sex slaves also. They were bought and sold like a commodity against their will. They were considered property and the product they produced (children) were also considered, by Biblical law, as property. I say that the marginal rights a woman got from marriage vs the conditions of a sex slave do not change anything. Both fall under the definition of sex slavery.

The argument from the context of time. It matters not that most people had to work hard every day just to survive and that starvation was a real threat back then. The setting does not make slavery any less slavery. It does not change the definition of slavery. We are talking about the value of human lives and what intrinsic rights a human ought to have. Similarly you could say that the world back then was brutal. You could say "what difference does it make to the average individual if he gets beaten because of _____ verses he gets beaten due to permissions in the slave contract?" I say who cares, if it's wrong to beat someone it's wrong to beat someone. More importantly a contract that allows you to legally beat someone is still wrong. The Bible should not condone such things.