- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ April 03 2014,20:13) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2014,08:09) Kerwin, The bottom line is that God made woman FOR man, and until recently in certain cultures, women remained the PROPERTY of their fathers, and then their husbands.
This is still the case in some cultures.
And owning a PERSON as property is called “slavery”.
Mike,You can sell property. A husband could not sell his wife.
The Israelites were also not allowed to sell their birthright land they inherited. Was that land their “property”?The OT was mostly the ways of the flesh, it was written by men justifying their own history for the followers under their rule.
Quote (Colter @ April 04 2014,14:44) The OT was mostly the ways of the flesh, it was written by men justifying their own history for the followers under their rule.
Colter.And the UB is written by man by the inspiration
of spirit creatures CLAIMING to be what they are.
No one can be certain what they are.
You must only believe, that they are telling us the truth.
There is no proof that, they are what they say they are.
Just accept.The Holy bible has history to proof;and concrete evidence.
But you refuse to see.1.The crossing of the sea.
2.The burned tops of mt sinai.
3.The altars of stone and the dwellings,and wells.
4.The spot of the crucifixion.
5.The blood.
6 The ark of the covenant,and more.You have turned a blind eye to all those.
And you claim that you are a seeker?wakeup.
Quote (kerwin @ April 04 2014,13:11) David, Quote I'm not sure the man “frees her from captivity” by marrying her. In what sense is she free? She can't leave of her own will? More nonsense from modern feminist that seem to envy and hate women.
That is a lot of things my government bans me from doing. Does that mean I am not free? I have had employers that banned me from certain action does mean I am there slave.
From what I know women could not initiate a divorce under the Law of Mosses. Even that depends on interpretation.
Kerwin, your weird ad hominems aside, at least with governments and the unthinking zombie masses of today, the illusion or feeling of freedom exists.
There are of course different levels of freedom. You are arguing that being banned from certain things does not mean you are not free.Well looking at what we are actually discussing, if banning a person from leaving your residence and forcing them to do pretty much whatever you want is freedom, then could you provide an example that isn't freedom? What would make a person not free?
Quote (david @ April 04 2014,09:51) Quote (kerwin @ April 04 2014,04:45) Slavery is a type of employment contract whose terms vary from age to age and culture to culture. Death is sometimes the only way out of it but even then some have escaped by self exile and other ways.
What do you man by:1. Employment
2. Contract
If I and my nation go to your home right now and take you by force take you back to our place and make you our slave, where is the contract in that? Or the employment? Would you consider yourself to be in an employment contract if I took you by force and forced you to do my work?
Kerwin, I noticed you didn't define these words. Let me help you. They don't apply. If I hold a gun to your head (or a large stick) and ask you to tie my shoe, we have not entered a contract and I am not your employer.Or do you think I am?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2014,11:12) Quote (kerwin @ April 03 2014,11:45) Slavery is a type of employment contract whose terms vary from age to age and culture to culture.
It could be, Kerwin. Some poor people sold themselves to others. The agreement is that they would receive room and board, and in turn they would do laborious work for their owner.According to the Bible, a rich relative could buy them out of the contract, and free them.
I think we should SEPArate two words:Slavery (forced labour)
“Hired servant” (the Israelites, employees, workers)No one really is too concerned about the latter, and I keep trying to ask that we here discuss only the former, so if we could make more clear which we are talking about, or perhaps only talk about forced labour.
Quote As I pointed out to David, a man could choose to marry a woman captive bit in doing so would free her and even if he then chose to divorce her she would not return to slavery but was free to make her own choices. Kerwin, could you point out which part of the scripture days this. I'm not sure it says this. I'm not sure it says she becomes “free” upon being taken captive by her master as a wife.
Quote (Wakeup @ April 04 2014,15:39) Quote (Colter @ April 04 2014,14:44) The OT was mostly the ways of the flesh, it was written by men justifying their own history for the followers under their rule.
Colter.And the UB is written by man by the inspiration
of spirit creatures CLAIMING to be what they are.
No one can be certain what they are.
You must only believe, that they are telling us the truth.
There is no proof that, they are what they say they are.
Just accept.The Holy bible has history to proof;and concrete evidence.
But you refuse to see.1.The crossing of the sea.
2.The burned tops of mt sinai.
3.The altars of stone and the dwellings,and wells.
4.The spot of the crucifixion.
5.The blood.
6 The ark of the covenant,and more.You have turned a blind eye to all those.
And you claim that you are a seeker?wakeup.
The crossing of the sea by the fleeing remnants of Abrahams progeny, led by Moses did in fact happen, it's just that they did it without the exaggerated water parting stories, sticks turning yo snakes of God killing people's children. Many elements contained within the Hebrews story books did occur but the went on a national ego trip while in Babylon and recast their entire history, something scholars have discovered before the UB revelation ever occurred.Some people seek signs, wonders and miracle working rather than discerning the spirit of truth content.
Colter.
The UB can not proof anything they have claimed.
And you just believe.
That was a sea they crossed over; were they using boats,
rafts?They have found the spot where three crosses stood.
Three square holes chiselled into the rock.There was also a crack in the rock made by the earth quake
at His death. Then another earthquake closed it up.Quote (Wakeup @ April 05 2014,06:19) Colter. The UB can not proof anything they have claimed.
And you just believe.
That was a sea they crossed over; were they using boats,
rafts?They have found the spot where three crosses stood.
Three square holes chiselled into the rock.There was also a crack in the rock made by the earth quake
at His death. Then another earthquake closed it up.
We have proved things stated in the UB.The UB has Jesus crucified on Golgotha as well, so I don't know what your point is there.
No earth quake occurred, that's another exaggeration.
They didn't need to cross a large ocean, the Hebrew writers added that as part of their miraculous theme.
But the UB does validate Melchizedeks agreement with Abram, Egypt, the exodus of a much smaller clan, Moses a great leader etc.
As a moderator I'm going to have to insists that we keep this discussion focused on slavery.
(Fine print: I'm not a moderator)
Quote (david @ April 05 2014,14:33) Again, please attempt to stay on topic! A non-MODERATOR
Sorry david;I shall be silent from now.wakeup.
Quote (david @ April 05 2014,13:53) As a moderator I'm going to have to insists that we keep this discussion focused on slavery. (Fine print: I'm not a moderator)
Ok, the people who wrote parts of the Bible owned slaves in an age when that was more acceptable. So their religious rules and regulations reflect the practice. It's not rocket surgery!But the problem is, latter generation took those written traditions and claimed God inspired them, so the obvious inconsistency between what was moral then but immoral now requires a whole bunch of mental gymnastics and helps of apologetics since people consider the writings of church government to be infallible.
It's just human evolution.
David,
My “weird “ad hominem” serve a purpose as they are addressed at the modern feminist doctrine which is based on the principle of this world and not the principles of God.
There doctrine is clearly false as these creatures claim women were the slaves of men and yet men could not legally sell them. It would be more true to say they were slaves of the lawmaker.
This doctrine seeks equality with men but to be equal to a man requires one to be a male. Equivalency is the best that can be accomplished for a woman.
In the God created woman to be a helper opposite her husband. I am not sure when he gave males the authority over their women but I have read his curse was that woman would have their desire be their mate but it does say that later.
My question is the person under authority a slave to the person whose authority they are under?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2014,08:35) Quote (kerwin @ April 03 2014,20:13) Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 04 2014,08:09) Kerwin, The bottom line is that God made woman FOR man, and until recently in certain cultures, women remained the PROPERTY of their fathers, and then their husbands.
This is still the case in some cultures.
And owning a PERSON as property is called “slavery”.
Mike,You can sell property. A husband could not sell his wife.
The Israelites were also not allowed to sell their birthright land they inherited. Was that land their “property”?
Mike,I do not believe it was. Basically they were given the use of it by God and could sell that use though I believe the limited the length of that.
David desires we keep to slavery so we can not wander away from that point too far.
Quote (david @ April 04 2014,11:08) Quote (david @ April 04 2014,09:51) Quote (kerwin @ April 04 2014,04:45) Slavery is a type of employment contract whose terms vary from age to age and culture to culture. Death is sometimes the only way out of it but even then some have escaped by self exile and other ways.
What do you man by:1. Employment
2. Contract
If I and my nation go to your home right now and take you by force take you back to our place and make you our slave, where is the contract in that? Or the employment? Would you consider yourself to be in an employment contract if I took you by force and forced you to do my work?
Kerwin, I noticed you didn't define these words. Let me help you. They don't apply. If I hold a gun to your head (or a large stick) and ask you to tie my shoe, we have not entered a contract and I am not your employer.Or do you think I am?
David,According to natural law theory we have indeed entered into a contract as I have free choice such as resisting you to the point of death. My choice not to resist is implied consent though in making my choice I have counted the cost and decided the choice not to resist is my best option.
Scripture does condemn slave trading in one place but strangely enough does allow for slave taking though war. It would possibly fall under banditry in most other cases. People could sell themselves into slavery and criminals might have been subject to slavery.
Quote (kerwin @ April 06 2014,09:00) Quote (david @ April 04 2014,11:08) Quote (david @ April 04 2014,09:51) Quote (kerwin @ April 04 2014,04:45) Slavery is a type of employment contract whose terms vary from age to age and culture to culture. Death is sometimes the only way out of it but even then some have escaped by self exile and other ways.
What do you man by:1. Employment
2. Contract
If I and my nation go to your home right now and take you by force take you back to our place and make you our slave, where is the contract in that? Or the employment? Would you consider yourself to be in an employment contract if I took you by force and forced you to do my work?
Kerwin, I noticed you didn't define these words. Let me help you. They don't apply. If I hold a gun to your head (or a large stick) and ask you to tie my shoe, we have not entered a contract and I am not your employer.Or do you think I am?
David,According to natural law theory we have indeed entered into a contract as I have free choice such as resisting you to the point of death. My choice not to resist is implied consent though in making my choice I have counted the cost and decided the choice not to resist is my best option.
Scripture does condemn slave trading in one place but strangely enough does allow for slave taking though war. It would possibly fall under banditry in most other cases. People could sell themselves into slavery and criminals might have been subject to slavery.
Kerwin, I find this logic weird.You are saying we are in a contract because being free to kill ourself, we have decided not to?
A slave is free to kill themself, but choose not to, therefore they are in a contract? A contract is an agreement. If I hold a gun to your head to get you to agree, yes, you may say you agree, but would the contract be valid?
It's like you are saying: he chooses to be beaten because he doesn't kill himself. This is just bizarre. Isn't it?A person who is being raped is not in a contract (agreement) merely because they don't jab a pen into their own throat killing themself.
Quote (Colter @ April 06 2014,07:33) Quote (david @ April 05 2014,13:53) As a moderator I'm going to have to insists that we keep this discussion focused on slavery. (Fine print: I'm not a moderator)
Ok, the people who wrote parts of the Bible owned slaves in an age when that was more acceptable. So their religious rules and regulations reflect the practice. It's not rocket surgery!But the problem is, latter generation took those written traditions and claimed God inspired them, so the obvious inconsistency between what was moral then but immoral now requires a whole bunch of mental gymnastics and helps of apologetics since people consider the writings of church government to be infallible.
It's just human evolution.
Colter,Let's assume that's true. Great. End of discussion. No point discussing it then is there.
But, I'm having a discussion with people who believe the bible is inspired and believe god was behind the rules about slavery. This discussion presupposes those things. You could actually inject that thought I to many forums here. But the people in this forum presuppose what I stated. An athiest could say: there is no hellfire because god doesn't exist. But the people who believe god does exist will continue the discussion as though he does exist. Whether god exists or not is a different discussion. Similar with the idea that the bible wasn't inspired. Those ideas should perhaps be in a thread on the bible.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
