Christian Explanation

[Samson]

Just wanted to let you guys read a post from a Christian who did everything they could to make up excuses for slavery within the Bible...Talk about trying to ribbon bow tie.....And yes, I've already replied, just haven't received anything back yet....

Sink your teeth into this one and tell me what you think:

Jesus himself considered himself a servant, and commanded US to serve, so the whole idea of God condoning slavery in the sense you're talking about is false.

Slavery was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world. It existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered. God allows many things to happen in the world such as storms, famine, murder, etc. Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it is allowed. Where many nations treated their slaves very badly, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. So, even though it isn't the best way to deal with people, because God has allowed man freedom, slavery then exists. God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly.... Read More

•The Bible acknowledged the slave's status as the property of the master (Ex. 21:23; Lev. 25:46).
•The Bible restricted the master's power over the slave. Ex. 21:20).
•The slave was a member of the master's household (Lev. 22:11).
•The slave was required to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14).
•The slave was required to participate in religious observances (Gen. 17:13; Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11).
•The Bible prohibited extradition of slaves and granted them asylum (Deut. 23:16-17).
•The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12).
•When a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive economically (Deut. 15:14).

And regarding the bible. The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten. Take the New Testament, for example. The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament in Greek and though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. That means that there is only 1/2 of 1% of of all the copies that do not agree with each other perfectly. But, if you take that 1/2 of 1% and examine it, you find that the majority of the "problems" are nothing more than spelling errors and very minor word alterations. For example, instead of saying Jesus, a variation might be "Jesus Christ." So the actual amount of textual variation of any concern is extremely low. Therefore, we can say that we have a remarkably accurate compilation of the original documents.

[Mr Camel]

mmm that's called taking the easy way out and leading a civilisation on fear.
So why, I ask, do we not have crude slavery in First World Countries hm? Oh wait.. that's wrong and considered immoral now.. we can't take the Bible literally can we?

Notice how we've adapted over the past 2,000 years since the New Testament. Those who say they get their morale's from the Bible clearly have not read it. We used to take the Bible literally but that changed as we discovered more more how injudicious it really is.

Where did you find this?

[fr0d0]

The reason for the bible & Christianity's success is it's perspective of the slave/ underdog in the form of the Jews which happens to reflect the development of civilisation over the past 2000 years.

Slavery in the bible is descriptive and not prescriptive.

[Samson]

Fr0do and Scott...This is from a hardcore Evangelical literal Bible follower. It's on another forum I post on from time to time...About half of the people feel this way, right along with a few Preachers that post as well..The other half are mixed....

[Ryft]

Either you're debating Matt Slick, or someone is plagiarizing his work.

[Dotard]

Accusations of plagiarism does not detract from the points made.

Accusations of plagiarism actually piss me off. Sometimes.

If I had never heard the phrase "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." and just came up with it within my own mind, then state it there is always that one ass who will try to discredit the point merely by accusing me of plagiarism or not giving credit to someone in the past who happened to think of the same thing and got it published somewhere.
Just because you got a phrase or an idea published does not mean no one else can come up with that same idea or phrase on their own. Hell, we don't know for a fact the person accredited with it didn't hear it from some unpublished person and plagiarised the idea.

Two people having a simular or same idea does not automatically mean one plagiarised it from the other.

Accusation of, or blatent, plagiarism does not discredit any points made.

[Mr Camel]

Accusations of plagiarism does not detract from the points made.

Accusations of plagiarism actually piss me off. Sometimes.

If I had never heard the phrase "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." and just came up with it within my own mind, then state it there is always that one ass who will try to discredit the point merely by accusing me of plagiarism or not giving credit to someone in the past who happened to think of the same thing and got it published somewhere.
Just because you got a phrase or an idea published does not mean no one else can come up with that same idea or phrase on their own. Hell, we don't know for a fact the person accredited with it didn't hear it from some unpublished person and plagiarised the idea.

Two people having a simular or same idea does not automatically mean one plagiarised it from the other.

Accusation of, or blatent, plagiarism does not discredit any points made.

I second that

[Samson]

Either you're debating Matt Slick, or someone is plagiarizing his work.

Is Matt Slick which you are referring to a Calvinist? If so, then you would be correct in that they are the extreme side of "Literal Bible Reading". Along with a few more very distasteful breakdown definitions of what they believe the "Bible" is saying to them.

I often ask people that extreme if they need the "Bible" to believe in the "God" from which they follow so blindly.....

Yes, I get back a million hell bound responses from that simply question....

[Ryft]

Is this Matt Slick you are referring to a Calvinist?

Yes, he is. So, is that who you were having a discussion with? Because what you cited actually comes from articles Matt Slick has published at CARM (i.e., not a discussion). Contrary to the sensitive knee-jerk reaction from Dotard, I had nothing to say (either good or bad) about the point being made in that piece. Wasn't even interested in its point. As you were probably able to figure out, I simply noted that it was Matt's work and wondered whether or not you were having a discussion with Matt himself.

I often ask people that extreme if they need the Bible to believe in the God they follow so blindly.

Curious: What answer do you generally receive? Mostly "yes"? Mostly "no"? Sort of evenly split? Ignoring the question asked?

[solarwave]

I dont see what the problem is with the post? lol

Obviously the slavery in the bible isn't the same as we think of it (africans being made slaves). And nor does it say slavery is ok.