LGBTQ

[vantexan]

Yes is absolutely does.
You’re very deep in denial over this.
God endorses and condones slavery all through out the Bible and slaves are even viewed as a sign of blessings from god in Judaism.

New Testament reaffirms master’s rights over slaves. It is up to the slave master to free Onesimus and Paul returns a slave to his master. He would not oppose slavery or make the act of freeing a slave compulsory the same way Americans did.

There are passages teaching slaves to be obedient to their masters as they would god. Fear and trembling, even to brutal or perverse masters.


It is a pro slavery religion to it’s core of Judaism to the New Testament.

It was the system of the day. Christians were a small minority in Paul's time and had no power to overturn anything. By the time the Catholic Church was in power Christianity had been coopted to work hand in hand with the elite and powerful. As I've stated before, they'll all be judged for their actions. Christianity today does not advocate for slavery and the Christian world has moved well past those times. You refuse to see that because you hate and want to destroy Christianity.

 

[BrownFlush]

Great biblical principles are taught with slaves in mind. We have been purchased by the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 1:18-19). The position of one who has been purchased is not that of doing his own will, but the will of the one who paid the price for his freedom. The benefactor is Christ. So, belong to him.
Paul said, "And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again" (2 Cor. 5:15). Paul also said, "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service" (Rom. 12:1).
Christ paid the purchase price (his blood) for each one of us, we can understand why he expects us to serve him with our bodies, our souls, and our strength.

 

[El Correcto]

Christianity today does not advocate for slavery and the Christian world has moved well past those times. You refuse to see that because you hate and want to destroy Christianity.

No I absolutely accept that as reality, none of the Christians I know personally like slavery or own slaves. They are on board with this but not due to the Bible, due to cultural change in society and human progress.

 

[El Correcto]

You will not find many good arguments for anti-slavery in the Bible.
There are a couple but you have to ignore the scripture in it’s entirety to reach those conclusions about slavery being wrong and not part of god’s natural order.

 

[BrownFlush]

 

[bottomups]

And you the only one calling it a pro slavery religion. Just more of your hatred for Christianity because it calls homosexuality a sin.

Maybe he sins to honor his sacrifice. Otherwise he died for three days for nothing.

 

[El Correcto]

I just see being anti-lgbt and anti-slavery at the same time as paradoxical if you understand the Christian abolitionist stance on why slavery is wrong and how they overcame all the pro slavery rhetoric of scripture.

You could make those same arguments for lgbt civil rights and respecting lgbt people.
Ignoring big portions of the Bible as just a product of the day like you do with slavery and focusing on the loving messages of the Bible that are not divisive.

Like this one, that abolitionists used.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

You could make an argument for trans rights with the passages abolitionists used for slavery.

 

[vantexan]

I just see being anti-lgbt and anti-slavery at the same time as paradoxical if you understand the Christian abolitionist stance on why slavery is wrong and how they overcame all the pro slavery rhetoric of scripture.

You could make those same arguments for lgbt civil rights and respecting lgbt people.
Ignoring big portions of the Bible as just a product of the day like you do with slavery and focusing on the loving messages of the Bible that are not divisive.

Like this one, that abolitionists used.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

You could make an argument for trans rights with the passages abolitionists used for slavery.

The difference is enslaving another human being to do your bidding is morally corrupt. Homosexuality is just unnatural. There's no parallel.

 

[BrownFlush]

Otherwise he died for three days for nothing.

Admitting to the resurrection.

 

[El Correcto]

The difference is enslaving another human being to do your bidding is morally corrupt.

That’s not what the Bible teaches.

Homosexuality is just unnatural. There's no parallel.

Slavery and serfdom were seen as the natural order of things. Two of the most influential Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato both view slavery as natural and some people only fit to be slaves. These two were very influential to Christian philosophers.

That’s why I told you, you would not be a Christian abolitionist with your natural order views. You argue strongly from a slave holder’s point of view on the Bible when it comes to other things, you just know better than to do it with slavery because it isn’t a debate you grew up with.

 

[vantexan]

That’s not what the Bible teaches.

Slavery and serfdom were seen as the natural order of things. Two of the most influential Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato both view slavery as natural and some people only fit to be slaves.

That’s why I told you, you would not be a Christian abolitionist with your natural order views. You argue strongly from a slave holder’s point of view on the Bible when it comes to other things, you just know better than to do it with slavery because it isn’t a debate you grew up with.

It's morally corrupt because when machines were developed to do the work of many men there could be no further justification for owning another human being. You like to think you are morally above it all but if you lived in a time where everything was done manually it's highly likely you would not only participate in that system but would think of it as just the way things are.

It took time for people in Europe to say we can no longer justify enslaving each other. It was then that they turned to enslaving other races. And that wasn't peculiar to Europeans. Muslims had a long history of enslaving non-Muslims. The Mongols and other who rolled across the steppes did the same. You're trying to make it all about Christians.

 

[El Correcto]

It's morally corrupt because when machines were developed to do the work of many men there could be no further justification for owning another human being.

Where is your scripture for that?

You like to think you are morally above it all but if you lived in a time where everything was done manually it's highly likely you would not only participate in that system but would think of it as just the way things are.

Never said I wouldn’t, I also hold a lot of natural order world views, one of them is that we are mostly a product of our environment and genetics.

It took time for people in Europe to say we can no longer justify enslaving each other. It was then that they turned to enslaving other races.

You aren’t familiar with the conflict England had with Scots and the Irish are you?

And that wasn't peculiar to Europeans. Muslims had a long history of enslaving non-Muslims. The Mongols and other who rolled across the steppes did the same. You're trying to make it all about Christians.

Yes because the point I’m making is that the Bible supports slavery, you bringing up Muslims, they are basically just different sects of Judaism worshipping the same god through different prophets, of course their religion supports slavery, you’re all people of the book.

 

[El Correcto]

It really is silly how in denial you are about this.
The Bible supports slavery, you’re absolutely right that industrialization was one of the driving force behind ending it, not your Bible.

You people view some of god’s teachings as reprehensible and you can’t really justify it in the modern day. So you go into this weird nope didn’t happen mental gymnastics of denial and deflection.

 

[vantexan]

Where is your scripture for that?

Never said I wouldn’t, I also hold a lot of natural order world views, one of them is that we are mostly a product of our environment and genetics.

You aren’t familiar with the conflict England had with Scots and the Irish are you?

Yes because the point I’m making is that the Bible supports slavery, you bringing up Muslims, they are basically just different sects of Judaism worshipping the same god through different prophets, of course their religion supports slavery, you’re all people of the book.

I'm very familiar with the conflict England had with the Scots and the Irish. I'm Scots-Irish, Irish, and Cherokee.

It's a philosophical argument. There could be no justification for owning another human being with the development of machines. Exactly what abolitionists in England and the U.S. were arguing.

How could you possibly consider Islam a sect of Judaism? Mohammad drew from his familiarity with other religions when creating his own but what he invented was very different.

 

[vantexan]

It really is silly how in denial you are about this.
The Bible supports slavery, you’re absolutely right that industrialization was one of the driving force behind ending it, not your Bible.

You people view some of god’s teachings as reprehensible and you can’t really justify it in the modern day. So you go into this weird nope didn’t happen mental gymnastics of denial and deflection.

God demanded things of Israel that we wouldn't do as Christians. Much of why I see a lot of the Old Testament as Jewish mythology.

 

[El Correcto]

I'm very familiar with the conflict England had with the Scots and the Irish. I'm Scots-Irish, Irish, and Cherokee.

It's a philosophical argument. There could be no justification for owning another human being with the development of machines. Exactly what abolitionists in England and the U.S. were arguing.

I don’t think there is was much justification for owning them to begin with besides might makes right. Are you saying you feel slavery would be moral if the machine were gone?

That isn’t scripture, god didn’t say serve your masters well until your masters get a machine.

 

[El Correcto]

God demanded things of Israel that we wouldn't do as Christians. Much of why I see a lot of the Old Testament as Jewish mythology.

Yes and the New Testament defended it.
Serve your master even if he is some violent pervert is basically what one of the apostles said.

Do you feel that is proper and good?
Paul said we shouldn’t force people to free their slaves, is that also morally good? That isn’t the stance the Christian abolitionists took on the matter.

 

[Gotta Go]

 

[vantexan]

I don’t think there is was much justification for owning them to begin with besides might makes right. Are you saying you feel slavery would be moral if the machine were gone?

That isn’t scripture, god didn’t say serve your masters well until your masters get a machine.

I'm saying if the machines hadn't been invented and agriculture was still very labor intensive, among everything else, the powers that be would still be enslaving people to do the heavy labor.

 

[vantexan]

Yes and the New Testament defended it.
Serve your master even if he is some violent pervert is basically what one of the apostles said.

Do you feel that is proper and good?
Paul said we shouldn’t force people to free their slaves, is that also morally good? That isn’t the stance the Christian abolitionists took on the matter.

The Christians in Paul's day didn't have the power to free slaves. They had to work within the system until it could be changed. We've gone around in circles on this many times now. You hate Christianity. Got it.