JESUS precludes that TRUE Christians can own SLAVES!

No women dumped me

It's in your confession. You confessed several women dumped you. You also confessed you are a liar too several times already in your last few posts. You just keep sticking your foot in your mouth.

I was lying about women dumping me

You said you lied in your last several posts. That makes you a serial liar. Busted!!!

it was a joke

Has any Christian obtained any slaves of late since this post was initiated? 

Remember, our Jesus says that He condones slavery and can own slaves, and unfortunately, beat them as well, therefore can any Christian tell us their story in acquiring slaves, and how they did this godly act?  

What about getting a group of TRUE Christians together to head south to the US border and taking some of the ungodly illegals coming across said border and making them our slaves in Jesus' name?  Any Christian interested in this godly act? We could rent a cargo box truck for this event and split the costs, along with some Mexican food for them until we get them back to our property. 

.

No, have you

Dr. "C&P" Franklin,

Haven't you realized that you DO NOT have the acumen to discuss anything with me, understood? Now, save yourself any further embarrassment and remain silent to my godly threads, agreed? Thank you.

.

I dont think so!

Damn I thought DART was free from this type of bullshit. Guess I was wrong :/

You are like the anti-backwardseden, and not in a good way

.

I'm an agnostic because it provides literally the only correct answer for the question "Does God Exist?"

.

Definitionally speaking, God exists outside of the observable universe (since acccording to Bible, he created it). Since we have no way of knowing what lays beyond the observable universe, we have no way of definitively proving whether or not God actually exists. It’s like trying to figure out whether Schrodinger’s cat is alive or dead without ever looking into the box.

.

I mean... the God you are referring to created everything in the Universe according to Genesis. So yeah. 

That's not how scientific observations work. In order for something to be proven true, there needs to be enough concrete evidence to support it. There simply isn't enough evidence to prove or disprove God's existence. 

It's not coin flipping, nor is it lacking balls. There's no solid proof of proving or disproving God's existence. Have you ever seen God before? I don't think so. Just because something has never been discovered before doesn't mean that it can't possibly exist. That is my position on religion.

My response is going to be considerably long since I'll be going through the entire Bible. And as the thread has thus far confuzzled me, I'll respond to the original post.

The use of parables use existing ideas already in a society. It doesn't mean it translates exactly as is into reality. You say that's not true because Jesus said it, but the whole point of using parables was to make the Apostles think about what He was saying and, instead, grasp the spiritual meaning behind it. Symbolism has always been massively important in the Faith. Parables were a teaching tool. E.g., in John 15, it doesn't mean Jesus is literally a vine. There's an underlying message to it. Additionally, it's meant to divide the true believing from the lukewarm. 

The point in my saying so is not to negate the reality of slavery. There are verses which dabble with it, like in St. Paul's epistles. But interestingly, St. Paul is also the one that attempted to remove the "master" tones from "slave" tones in equating both as brothers, and therefore should be treated as such.

The idea of slavery, given its prevalence in the era, is used in a lot of figurative senses, and since everyone understood it, was used to emphasise spiritual ideas. St. Isaac the Syrian wrote: "He who is master of possessions, is the slave of passions. Do not estimate gold and silver only as possessions, but all things thou possess for the sake of the desire of thy will" (Six Treatise on the Behaviour of Excellence", IV). So, it being used as a parable is no more indicative of endorsement than if I were to use tragic hypotheticals as if to say I'd support it in reality. 

In the verse you used, it states: "And that servantwho knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more."

It is preceded by "But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers." 

So far, the one that beats his servants is the same servant that will be punished harshly. In reality, this verse deals eschatologically, in that they will be judged, not about slavery, though the attitude applies in that mistreating others is never permissible, no matter the institution. The ones that act out of ignorance (v. 48) will still be punished, but not to the same degree as someone that knew. 

So, it reads altogether as:

"But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more."

This doesn't deal with your overall argument, which I will cover in the next post.

I'll segment this off into sections. First is a sort of introduction. 

Slavery as a concept is notorious, and rightly so. Human beings are kidnapped (condemned in Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10) and sold into slavery. This often resulted in abuse. Even the Israelites themselves, according to Scripture, were slaves. Eventually, they were taken out of it and told to remember this time as slaves (Deuteronomy 15:15). So, if they were to take on slaves, they were to listen to their concerns. In the book of Job, it also shows this. It's written: 

"If I have despised the cause of my male or female servant (could also be slave) when they complained against me, what then shall I do when God rises up? When He punishes, how shall I answer Him?" (Job 31) 

So, compassion was necessitated. Since God is compassionate (Deuteronomy 13:18) and we are to be like God (Deuteronomy 28:9), it is required. We find this quite a bit through the Old Testament alone. Proverbs (3:3-4; 11:7; 12:10). Micah 6:8 states: "He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?" 

Justice is not mistreating others. Presupposing consistency between the Old Testament and New (as that isn't what this discussion is about), we can also see that in the parable you offered and in the various verses you listed.

Nevertheless, because of this, slavery arose as a practice. The Hebrews/Israelites would sell themselves for economic purposes. So, they'd be treated akin to hired labourers. (Leviticus 25:39-42, 46) While working off debts or poor, they would be taken care of, and after six years  the slave owners would be required to free them (as debts would be cancelled). (Deuteronomy 15:1-2) They would be given resources to start anew. (Deuteronomy 15:12-14) The only way they could be kept indefinitely is at the choice of the Hebrew/Israelite. Some chose not to leave because of the benefits of the situation or care that would occur with the family. (Deuteronomy 15:16)

In some cases, he had the potential to marry. Most Jews, if not all of them, would understand the regulations to marriage. If, through the master, they are wedded, then he could not leave with them if he chose to leave, because the wife would have been provided by the master for his sake. (Exodus 21:3-6) However, if a man entered with his wife, he would leave with her also. They would not be ignorant of the consequences, and marriage was their choice as it is a sacramental decision, and the Torah is studied on the Sabbath by everyone. 

The practice of slavery was also used as restitution. (Exodus 22:23)

Slaves could be taken from surrounding nations, not through kidnapping and may be kept indefinitely, rather than released by governmental force after six years. (Leviticus 25:44-45) When being brought into Israel, they would be circumcised to enter into the Lord's covenant. (Genesis 17:13; Exodus 12:40-46) This would make them brothers of the Israelites and subject, especially, to the same treatment. They could participate in religious festivals, (Deuteronomy 16:11) like Passover. (Exodus 12:44) They would even partake of the Sabbath rest. (Exodus 20:10)

Because of the practice of slavery, there were civil laws put in place. It was spiritually condemned to mistreat slaves, socially condemned, and governmentally condemned. So, for example, a man could not beat his slave to death; if he were to do so, he would be put to death since slaves were also made in the image of God. (Exodus 21:20-21) Damaging the slave, such as stabbing of the eye or even knocking a tooth out (meant to express the spectrum of injury; severity to not as severe), would result in the slaves being set free. (Exodus 21:26-27) 

This does not mean that, should the slave survive, that they would be given back to the master; the slave had the opportunity to be provided sanctuary anywhere, and this applied universally. (Deuteronomy 23:15-16) When rulings applied only to specific demographics, it'd state so; this does not. 

On the other side of things, regulations sometimes varied. For example, slavery for females were another form of arranged marriages. They stop being "slaves" and become wives or daughter-in-laws usually. (Exodus 21:7-11) There is a fornication sin which occurs with a man having sexual relations with a woman, who is a slave and could not otherwise choose, that is betrothed. (Leviticus 19:20-21)

So, finally, there is also a case that can be made in the New Testament. What it tells us is that the era in question—through the Old Testament, that is—is one of moral ignorance. A lot of acts were permitted but regulated.

It states in Acts of the Apostles, 17:30-31, "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

It also says in the Gospel of Matthew, albeit regarding divorce, "“He said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so’” (Matthew 19:8). It made divorce, previously permissible, impermissible. In a similar manner, St. Paul states: "Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord's freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called." (1 Corinthians 7:23)

While he said this to those that were slaves or could become slaves, since Christians were becoming slaves to proselytise and serve others, this also applied to everyone: Being the slave of another meant dedicating themselves to someone else instead of God, and restricted us that were made in the Image of God. This was not how we were made to be nor how things were intended to be.

Continuing, in Philemon 1:8-16, Paul makes a plea for a slave named Onesimus, and noted that Philemon, the slave owner, should see Onesimus as more than a slave, but a brother. The reason being is, yes, so Onesimus could help Paul’s ministry, but also because it is, indeed, true that Onesimus became a “beloved brother” in Christ. 

However, additionally, since the time period the ministry began permitted and had in commonality slaves and masters, regulations were still maintained on how slaves should act (for various reasons, like appealing to their masters through behaviour and saying). So, slaves were to, yes, obey their masters, because the ultimate master of them was God. Masters were not to threaten or treat them harshly because God has no favouritism. Masters were to treat them well. (Ephesians 6:5-9) Colossians 4:1 gives the same message concerning God having no favouritism. Galatians 3:28 reinforces the notion that God has no favouritism. 

Slaves, given that they are part of the same church as the ones they are serving, should do so respectfully and with enthusiasm because they are giving help, thus showing brotherly love according to 1 Timothy 6:2. According to 1 Clement 55:2, an early church writer, Christians had started giving themselves into slavery as a means of providing for others. 

Titus 2:9-10 specifies the behaviour of a slave. Not pilfering, not argumentative, harbouring good faith. Colossians 3:22 gives the same notion. 

.

YOUR CHOSEN GOD CONCEPT QUOTE: I mean... the God you are referring to created everything in the Universe according to Genesis. So yeah. 

Okay, so you are referring to Yahweh/Jesus/Spirit of the Trinity Doctrine of the Christian faith. Why did you choose this god over the many others in the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Ages?  I was hoping that you were going to pick the King of All Gods, ZEUS, but instead you picked Yahweh/Jesus who was a brutal serial killer of His creation in its historical writings, of which being a TRUE Christian, I have to accept this fact.

When you purported “outside the universe,” then do you want to take that notion back for another because outside of what is known is Metaphysics where there can be no objective facts, and at the same time you want to use science? Correct my confusion.



When you state there is no proof of proving or disproving your chosen god, this is in fact COIN FLIPPING!  Either Yahweh/Jesus/Spirit exists or not! GET IT? Huh?


YOUR QUOTE: “Just because something has never been discovered before doesn't mean that it can't possibly exist."

I am sure you’ve heard this one before, if your chosen God concept cannot be determined to exist or not under Agnostic pretensions, then in turn, at your laughable expense, Tooth Fairies can possibly exist as well. Wait, it gets better, Lepreachauns cannot be counted out as well in possibly existing under your quote shown above.   Here lies the comical rub when one is a “fence sitter” Agnostic.  

.