The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Is the bible the most immoral book ever written ?in Religion

Sand

Since no one can answer the question.

It is understandable that everyone here judges without knowledge.

It is easy to convict people when you do not have factual information.

They are essentially saying people are guilty until proven innocent.

Plaffelvohfen

Sand said:

@Plaffelvohfen

>>>Now, will you answer my question? Do think that owning people as commodities is moral?

No I do not.

Do you believe people are innocent until proven guilty, or do you feel that is irrelevant?

1) If you do not, why do you try so hard to excuse it?

2) Of course I believe people are innocent until proven guilty... But, by definition, slave owners were guilty of, wait for it...: Slavery. 

How they felt about it is irrelevant... How is that not obvious to any sensible person???

Dee

@Sand

You say .....

@Plaffelvohfen Asked you ........will you answer my question? Do think that owning people as commodities is moral?

Your reply ......No I do not.

I say ......Why did you spend a week defending slavery when you agree it’s immoral?

You say ......Do you believe people are innocent until proven guilty, or do you feel that is irrelevant? 

My reply ......A slave owner is automatically guilty as you just admitted owning others as property is immoral 

Why do you admit it’s immoral but keep trying to defend it?  I know it’s because by implication you’ve admitted your god and Bible are immoral because they support slavery 

Dee

@Sand

You say......Since no one can answer the question.

My reply ......All your questions have been answered 

You say .....It is understandable that everyone here judges without knowledge.

My reply .....Incorrect , one can only judge with knowledge which was used to prove biblical slavery was immoral, you agree

You say .....It is easy to convict people when you do not have factual information.

My reply .....But you agree owning people as property is immoral so you agree with the judgement 

You say ......They  are essentially saying people are guilty until proven innocent.

My reply ......No one is saying that accept you , you’ve admitted people owned others as property you’ve admitted owning  people as property is immoral so tell me why are you arguing against what you agree with?

IdolRocks

@Dee

My reply .....Ok , you need to address what you keep refusing to answer ......

Is owning another human ever moral, or not? The relative kindness of a slave owner, though important to the slave, does not enter into the basic moral question of owning other humans as property.

I pretty sure I have already said that In certain cases it is okay like in the Bible case when it because they have to work off a debt that they owe. In that case, it really isn't someone owning someone else as property but someone working for someone to pay off debt and they still have many rights. 

"Often, those who attack the Bible skirt the real crux of the slavery issue. They point to verses in the Old Testament that offer a particular regulation for slavery. From there, they proceed to argue that the Bible is a vile book that does not condemn, but actually condones slavery. And, they argue, since all slavery is morally wrong, the Bible must not be the product of a loving God. However, those who take such a position fail to consider that certain types of slavery are not morally wrong. For instance, when a man is convicted of murder, he often is sentenced to life in prison. During his life sentence, he is forced by the State to do (or not do) certain things. He is justly confined to a small living space, and his freedoms are revoked. Sometimes, he is compelled by the State to work long hours, for which he does not receive even minimum wage. Would it be justifiable to label such a loss of freedom as a type of slavery? Yes, it would. However, is his loss of freedom a morally permissible situation? Certainly. He has become a slave of the State because he violated certain laws that were designed to ensure the liberty of his fellow citizen, whom he murdered. Therefore, one fact that must be conceded by anyone dealing with the Bible and its position on slavery is the fact that, under some conditions, slavery is not necessarily a morally deplorable institution. Taking that into account, we also must ask: Who has the right to determine when slavery can be imposed on a certain person or group of people? The answer, of course, is God. In the Old Testament, immoral nations who practiced unspeakable evils surrounded the Hebrews. In order to rid the world of their destructive influence, the children of Israel dealt with them in several ways. One of those ways included forcing the wicked nations into slavery. Many of the slave regulations in the Old Testament deal with the treatment of individuals and nations who had committed crimes against humanity that were worthy of death. The wicked people were graciously allowed to live, but they were subjected to slavery, much like a lifetime prison sentence in modern criminal cases."

http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1587

Regarding your contention that slaves were merely workers getting paid a wage  that’s nonsense .....

These verses all have explanations and they are merely being taken out of context to make them say something that they do not say.

Leviticus 25:44-46

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/doesnt-the-bible-support-slavery/

Verse 44 discusses slaves that they may already have from nations around them. They can be bought and sold. It doesn’t say to seek them out or have forced slavery. Hence, it is not giving an endorsement of seeking new slaves or encouraging the slave trade. At this point, the Israelites had just come out of slavery and were about to enter the Holy Land. They shouldn’t have had many servants. Also, this doesn’t restrict other people in cultures around them from selling themselves as bond-servants. But as discussed already, there are passages for the proper and godly treatment of servants/slaves.

 A further exception pertains to women whose fathers sold them into slavery, and for whom there was no release after six years (Exodus 21:7). 

https://creation.com/evil-bible-fallacies

Exodus 21:7-11: This is one of the most-cited instances of misogyny in the Bible; apparently, the skeptic crows, the Bible regards women as property, so the father can sell his daughter as a slave if he wants to! But this is more like the following situation: A family is destitute. The father has the choice of letting his teenage daughter starve with the rest of the family, or he can ‘sell’ her to someone better off who can take care of her, and the money he gets can help the rest of the family to survive. This is really a form of giving in marriage, but such that the woman’s children do not automatically have inheritance rights (the husband can give her the status of a full wife, and her children full inheritance rights, at a later time if he wants). It isn’t what one would read in a modern romance novel, but in the ancient world (without any social welfare system), it would mean the difference between survival and starvation for the woman and her family.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/doesnt-the-bible-support-slavery/

"There is a stark delineation between male servants and the female servants in Exodus 21:7. A Hebrew male could sell himself into servitude for his labor (to cover his debts, and so on) and be released after six years. A Hebrew female could be sold into servitude, with permission of her father, not for labor purposes but for marriage. Verse 8 discusses breaking faith with her, which means that they have entered into a marriage covenant (see Malachi 2:14). If God approved of the female leaving in six years, then marriage is no longer a life-long covenant. So God is honoring the sanctity of marriage here."

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

There are others.

In Leviticus 25:46, which specifically allows that slaves are property who may be inherited by the owner's children and kept for life. This passage makes no sense unless they are discussing slavery — permanent ownership of one human by another — as we know it today.

No. The Slavery that we know of today was based on the color of their skin. IOW, people owned slaves because they were black and they saw them as being less than human. That is condemned in the Bible as the Bible says that we are all equal. 

https://askthepastors.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/why-does-the-bible-seem-to-endorse-slavery/

"Liberation of Israelite slaves was required in the year of Jubilee legislation (Leviticus 25:8-55). Fellow Israelites could not be forced into slavery but could only voluntarily sell themselves to an Israelite to pay off debt and they were to be treated as hired hands (Leviticus 25:39-46)."

Jesus' Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18:23) makes no sense if said "servant" is not a slave, since the master has the power to sell both the "servant", his wife and his children (Matthew 18:25).

https://www.gotquestions.org/parable-unforgiving-servant.html

It is a parable! Do you not know what a parable is?? Please tell me what a parable is. 

It also makes little sense in the case of Matthew 24:51 in which these "servants" may be not only beaten by their master (as in Luke 12:47), but that the master "shall cut him asunder" in the words of the King James translation.

Slavery as a metaphor
Several places in the New Testament, slavery is a metaphor for a more honorable position.
- Prophets (Matthew 21:33-41)
- Believers awaiting the Lord's return (Matthew 24:45-51)
- Ministry workers (Matthew 25:14-30)
- Evangelists (Luke 14:16-24)
- Obedient Christ-followers (Luke 17:7-10)

https://www.compellingtruth.org/slavery-New-Testament.html

Regarding your contention that slaves were merely workers getting paid a wage  that’s nonsense .....

Are you referring to a bunch of verses or are you referring only to 1 Timothy?

"1 Timothy 6:1-2"

"1 Let as many bondservants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and His doctrine may not be blasphemed."

"2 And those who have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren, but rather serve them because those who are benefited are believers and beloved. Teach and exhort these things."

"Writing to Timothy, Paul doesn’t give an endorsement to slavery or servants. He merely gives commands to those who are already either masters or bondservants. Again, bondservants or slaves were paid a wage and, being brothers in Christ, Paul makes it clear that they are equals:"

"Galatians 3:28"
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.

Slavery is not approved of. You skip over the ones condemning it and point to certain ones that you have merely taken out of context. 
I think it is interested that you skipped over Philemon and just ignored all of that, and you want to pretend that Jesus and the New Testament support Slavery.

https://radicallychristian.com/does-the-bible-condone-slavery

Slavery in the New Testament

That being said, the coming of Jesus changed everything. When a first-century Roman slave owner became a Christian, his relationship to his slaves was turned upside down. This is the way His new King, Jesus, tells him to treat his slaves:

• Treat them as he would want to be treated (Matthew 7:12).
• Love them as he loves himself (Matthew 22:39).
• In humility, consider them more significant than he considers himself (Philippians 2:3).
• Truly look out for their interests (Philippians 2:4).
• Rather than threaten them, serve them out of reverence for Christ (Ephesians 6:9).

It seems strange that the New Testament does not command masters to release their slaves; but if you think about it, what it commands is far more radical than that. Slavery is turned upside down, so that the master becomes the servant of his servant.

One of the best pictures of this is Paul’s letter to a slave owner named Philemon. Paul wrote to say he was sending Onesimus back home. Onesimus used to be Philemon’s slave. He had run away to Rome, met Paul, and ministered to Paul in prison. Paul was not sending Onesimus back to be Philemon’s slave.That would seem to violate the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 23:15-16); something Paul was not in the habit of doing. Paul was reconciling two equals, two brothers in Christ (see Philemon 1:16).

The gospel changed a master and a slave into family and that is one of the miracles of Christianity.

https://www.samstorms.com/enjoying-god-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-slavery-in-the-bible

Philemon owned a slave by the name of Onesimus. Many believe Onesimus stole money from Philemon. In any case, Onesimus ran away and made his way to Rome where he became a Christian and came into contact and relationship with Paul. If the Bible were in any sense pro-slavery, it would make sense for Paul to order Onesimus to return to Philemon and make restitution to his master and to obey him. But instead Paul asks Philemon to receive him back “no longer as a bondservant (slave) but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother; . . . so . . . receive him as you would receive me” (Philemon 16-17).

Sand

They run.

This is a lynch mob.

These people will fight you until you walk them through their reasoning.

You ask questions that make sence.

What they are doing is immoral, they are judging people without proof!

Judging not one or two people, judging not one or two groups of people, but billions of people.

This is worse than what was done in Germany, by the Nazis!

They judged a group of people, saying it was 'irrelavant'.

If this is not racist I dont know what is.

Judge, Jury, Executioner. "irrelvant" "no justification"

This is viewpoint is immoral.

Dee

@Sand

@Plaffelvohfen Asked you ........will you answer my question? Do think that owning people as commodities is moral?

Your reply ......No I do not.


You agree slavery is immoral, you agree by implication the Bible gives immoral instructions, you agree by implication god is immoral ......Don’t blame me and others for you trying and convicting slave owners 

TKDB

#1 To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

Harper Lee's novel is considered by many to be among the greatest works of fiction in American literature. Yet the story of young Scout Finch and her father, Atticus, has often been banned. Atticus is a lawyer defending a black man accused of raping a white woman. The novel's frank discussion of rape and central topic of racism have made the book a lightning rod for controversy.

#2 American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis

Ellis is a frequent target for protests due to the nature of his writing, but none has faced the level of opposition of American Psycho. The story concerns Patrick Bateman, a businessman who may also be a serial killer. The novel contains highly detailed and disturbing depictions of violence, as well as graphic sexual content. Because most of Bateman's victims are women, the novel has most often been criticized as being violently misogynistic.

#3 And Tango Makes Three by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson

This picture book tells the true story of Roy and Silo, two male penguins in New York City's Central Park Zoo. When the penguins were seen trying to hatch an egg-shaped rock, zookeepers gave them an actual egg. Roy and Silo then raised the chick, Tango. Despite the story concerning penguins, it stirred controversy about same-sex marriage and homosexuality, resulting in widespread bans.

#4 The Awakening by Kate Chopin

Chopin's story of Edna Pontellier asserting her independence was a pioneering work of feminism when it was published in 1899. Yet it faced challenges from the moment of its release. This was due in part to its treatment of gender roles, but also for its depiction of female sexuality, a highly taboo subject at the time. As recently as 2011, the book was still being challenged for the sexual image of women on its cover.

#5 The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien

Tolkien's epic fantasy trilogy follows good and evil forces in pursuit of a magical ring. The book has been banned as 'satanic' in some areas and was even burned by members of a church in New Mexico in 2001. The controversy is ironic, though, as Tolkien was a devout Christian and many scholars note Christian the mes in his work.

Dee

@IdolRocks

My reply .....Ok , you need to address what you keep refusing to answer ......

Is owning another human ever moral, or not? The relative kindness of a slave owner, though important to the slave, does not enter into the basic moral question of owning other humans as property.

You say ......I’m  pretty sure I have already said that In certain cases it is okay like in the Bible case when it because they have to work off a debt that they owe. In that case, it really isn't someone owning someone else as property but someone working for someone to pay off debt and they still have many rights. 

My reply ......But you’re talking about something else then as the definition of slavery is to own someone as property, do you agree that people owned others as property in the Bible?

You say “Often, those who attack the Bible skirt the real crux of the slavery issue. They point to verses in the Old Testament that offer a particular regulation for slavery. From there, they proceed to argue that the Bible is a vile book that does not condemn, but actually condones slavery. 

My reply .....The real issue is actually is it morally correct to own people as property the Bible says yes you refuse to give a definite answer why is that?

You say .....And, they argue, since all slavery is morally wrong, the Bible must not be the product of a loving God

My reply ......Owning people as property is morally wrong that is the definition of slavery , what slavery to you is morally right?

. You say ......However, those who take such a position fail to consider that certain types of slavery are not morally wrong. 

My reply ......You agree that owning people as property is correct in certain situations at last , thank you 

You say ......For instance, when a man is convicted of murder, he often is sentenced to life in prison. During his life sentence, he is forced by the State to do (or not do) certain things. He is justly confined to a small living space, and his freedoms are revoked. Sometimes, he is compelled by the State to work long hours, for which he does not receive even minimum wage. Would it be justifiable to label such a loss of freedom as a type of slavery? 

My reply ......No it’s not justifiable to call that slavery the man is serving time for breaking the law he is not the property of another human , so going on this contention are you suggesting instead of jail in the time of Jesus people were sold as slaves?

You say ......Yes, it would. 

My reply .....No , it wouldn’t I’ve just proved the reverse 

You say ......However, is his loss of freedom a morally permissible situation? Certainly. He has become a slave of the State because he violated certain laws that were designed to ensure the liberty of his fellow citizen, whom he murdered. 

My reply .....He has not become the property of the state , so now you’re suggesting all slaves were law breakers and jails didn’t exist so slavery was necessary.....Wow !

You say.......Therefore, one fact that must be conceded by anyone dealing with the Bible and its position on slavery is the fact that, under some conditions, slavery is not necessarily a morally deplorable institution. 

My reply .....Something is not a “fact “ because you say so , so you still agree owning people as property is morally correct 

You say ......Taking that into account, we also must ask: Who has the right to determine when slavery can be imposed on a certain person or group of people? 

My reply .....No moral person has that right 

You say ......The answer, of course, is God

My reply .....Got ya , so if god says owning people as property is right it’s right and you agree

You say ...... In the Old Testament, immoral nations who practiced unspeakable evils surrounded the Hebrews. In order to rid the world of their destructive influence, the children of Israel dealt with them in several ways. One of those ways included forcing the wicked nations into slavery. Many of the slave regulations in the Old Testament deal with the treatment of individuals and nations who had committed crimes against humanity that were worthy of death. The wicked people were graciously allowed to live, but they were subjected to slavery, much like a lifetime prison sentence in modern criminal cases."

My reply.......So now you’re trying yet another defence all slaves were in fact evil  and enslaving them was “gracious “ ....Oh WOW

You say .....These verses all have explanations and they are merely being taken out of context to make them say something that they do not say.

Leviticus 25:44-46

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/doesnt-the-bible-support-slavery/

Verse 44 discusses slaves that they may already have from nations around them. They can be bought and sold. It doesn’t say to seek them out or have forced slavery. Hence, it is not giving an endorsement of seeking new slaves or encouraging the slave trade. At this point, the Israelites had just come out of slavery and were about to enter the Holy Land. They shouldn’t have had many servants. Also, this doesn’t restrict other people in cultures around them from selling themselves as bond-servants. But as discussed already, there are passages for the proper and godly treatment of servants/slaves.

 A further exception pertains to women whose fathers sold them into slavery, and for whom there was no release after six years (Exodus 21:7). 

https://creation.com/evil-bible-fallacies

My reply ......Nonsense ,this verse proves you’re incorrect again 

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Purchase , own , property, permanent inheritance 

You say .......Exodus 21:7-11: This is one of the most-cited instances of misogyny in the Bible; apparently, the skeptic crows, the Bible regards women as property, so the father can sell his daughter as a slave if he wants to! But this is more like the following situation: A family is destitute. The father has the choice of letting his teenage daughter starve with the rest of the family, or he can ‘sell’ her to someone better off who can take care of her, and the money he gets can help the rest of the family to survive. 

My reply ......So wait you think it perfectly moral to sell a daughter if destitute?

Also where does it mention this ruling in the Bible regards destitution?

You say.......This is really a form of giving in marriage, but such that the woman’s children do not automatically have inheritance rights (the husband can give her the status of a full wife, and her children full inheritance rights, at a later time if he wants). It isn’t what one would read in a modern romance novel, but in the ancient world (without any social welfare system), it would mean the difference between survival and starvation for the woman and her family.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/doesnt-the-bible-support-slavery/

My reply ......Right so god the Bible and you think it perfectly fine to sell a daughter to survive ......WOW !

You say ......There is a stark delineation between male servants and the female servants in Exodus 21:7. A Hebrew male could sell himself into servitude for his labor (to cover his debts, and so on) and be released after six years. A Hebrew female could be sold into servitude, with permission of her father, not for labor purposes but for marriage. Verse 8 discusses breaking faith with her, which means that they have entered into a marriage covenant (see Malachi 2:14). If God approved of the female leaving in six years, then marriage is no longer a life-long covenant. So God is honoring the sanctity of marriage here."

Galatians 3:28 There Is Neither Jew Nor Greek, There Is Neither Slave Nor Free, There Is No Male And Female, For You Are All One In Christ Jesus.

There are others.

My reply ......When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

You say ......In Leviticus

No. The Slavery that we know of today was based on the color of their skin. IOW, people owned slaves because they were black and they saw them as being less than human. That is condemned in the Bible as the Bible says that we are all equal. 

https://askthepastors.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/why-does-the-bible-seem-to-endorse-slavery/

My reply .....So a biblical slave was seen as an equal so why then? ......

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

That’s how you treat an equal......WOW!

You say    “Liberation of Israelite slaves was required in the year of Jubilee legislation (Leviticus 25:8-55). Fellow Israelites could not be forced into slavery but could only voluntarily sell themselves to an Israelite to pay off debt and they were to be treated as hired hands (Leviticus 25:39-46)."

Jesus' Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18:23) makes no sense if said "servant" is not a slave, since the master has the power to sell both the "servant", his wife and his children (Matthew 18:25).

https://www.gotquestions.org/parable-unforgiving-servant.html

It is a parable! Do you not know what a parable is?? Please tell me what a parable is. 

My reply ......Another defence now as in “it’s a parable “ ......Is this a “parable”.......

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

You say ......It also makes little sense in the case of Matthew 24:51 in which these "servants" may be not only beaten by their master (as in Luke 12:47), but that the master "shall cut him asunder" in the words of the King James translation.

Slavery as a metaphor

Several places in the New Testament, slavery is a metaphor for a more honorable position.

- Prophets (Matthew 21:33-41)

- Believers awaiting the Lord's return (Matthew 24:45-51)

- Ministry workers (Matthew 25:14-30)

- Evangelists (Luke 14:16-24)

- Obedient Christ-followers (Luke 17:7-10)

https://www.compellingtruth.org/slavery-New-Testament.html

My reply .....So slaves were now , prophets , ministry workers , evangelists and believers that one could purchase , beat and own ......oh dear 

You say ......Are you referring to a bunch of verses or are you referring only to 1 Timothy?

"1 Timothy 6:1-2"

"1 Let as many bondservants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and His doctrine may not be blasphemed."

"2 And those who have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren, but rather serve them because those who are benefited are believers and beloved. Teach and exhort these things."

"Writing to Timothy, Paul doesn’t give an endorsement to slavery or servants. He merely gives commands to those who are already either masters or bondservants. Again, bondservants or slaves were paid a wage and, being brothers in Christ, Paul makes it clear that they are equals:"

"Galatians 3:28"

My reply ......When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

You say .....Slavery is not approved of. 

My reply .....It is 

You say ....You skip over the ones condemning it and point to certain ones that you have merely taken out of context. 

My reply ......You skip over the one approving of it and point to certain one’s that  you have merely taken out of context.

It’s funny you’re using the Bible to condemn the Bible and cannot see how illogical that is.

You say ......I think it is interested that you skipped over Philemon and just ignored all of that, and you want to pretend that Jesus and the New Testament support Slavery.

My reply ......

Luke 12:47[edit] And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes Jesus on beating slaves ........

You say ......That being said, the coming of Jesus changed everything. When a first-century Roman slave owner became a Christian, his relationship to his slaves was turned upside down. This is the way His new King, Jesus, tells him to treat his slaves:

Treat them as he would want to be treated (Matthew 7:12).

Love them as he loves himself (Matthew 22:39).

In humility, consider them more significant than he considers himself (Philippians 2:3).

Truly look out for their interests (Philippians 2:4).

Rather than threaten them, serve them out of reverence for Christ (Ephesians 6:9).

It seems strange that the New Testament does not command masters to release their slaves; but if you think about it, what it commands is far more radical than that. Slavery is turned upside down, so that the master becomes the servant of his servant.

One of the best pictures of this is Paul’s letter to a slave owner named Philemon. Paul wrote to say he was sending Onesimus back home. Onesimus used to be Philemon’s slave. He had run away to Rome, met Paul, and ministered to Paul in prison. Paul was not sending Onesimus back to be Philemon’s slave.That would seem to violate the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 23:15-16); something Paul was not in the habit of doing. Paul was reconciling two equals, two brothers in Christ (see Philemon 1:16).

The gospel changed a master and a slave into family and that is one of the miracles of Christianity.

https://www.samstorms.com/enjoying-god-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-slavery-in-the-bible

Philemon owned a slave by the name of Onesimus. Many believe Onesimus stole money from Philemon. In any case, Onesimus ran away and made his way to Rome where he became a Christian and came into contact and relationship with Paul. If the Bible were in any sense pro-slavery, it would make sense for Paul to order Onesimus to return to Philemon and make restitution to his master and to obey him. But instead Paul asks Philemon to receive him back “no longer as a bondservant (slave) but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother; . . . so . . . receive him as you would receive me” (Philemon 16-17).

My reply ......So Jesus changed everything in the New Testament? Nonsense.....

Ephesians 6:5-8(NASB): 5Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.

Christian slaves were told to obey their masters "for the sake of the cause" and be especially obedient to Christian masters:

1 Timothy 6:1-2(NASB): 1All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. 2Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.

ZeusAres42

Sand said:

@ZeusAres42 ;

A great deal.

Egypt, Israel, Greece, China, Africa, America, Asia, Korea, Europe, England all had slaves.

Thousands of years of slaves.

Thats billions of people.

Fair enough, it is possible that could equate to billions over so many years.

If you cannot provide proof that they reconized what they were doing was immoral.

How can you hold this act against them?

Everyone recognizes slavery is immoral now.

But what was the thinking thousands of years ago?

If we do not know or we do not have proof, we are essentially saying they are guilty until proven innocent.

When it should be innocent until proven guilty.

This is at least a step up from defining slavery in different ways when there is only one definition of it. I don't know if that was you or someone else but here I will say you do at least have a good point.

However, I will respond to this by saying that there have been people doing horrible things of more recent times and falsely believed they were doing something good. Regardless of what they believe/d, this does not change the fact that slavery is and was the wrong ethically, morally, and thankfully now illegal in at least most developed countries. Furthermore, contemporary and/or faulty beliefs do not alter the universally accepted definition of slavery.

Let me ask you this question: If someone currently commits a brutal crime today does it make the crime an innocent act just because the perpetrator believed they were doing a good thing?

Sand

@Dee

>>>You agree slavery is immoral, you agree by implication the Bible gives immoral instructions, you agree by implication god is immoral ......Don’t blame me and others for you trying and convicting slave owners 

I mentioned this before, slavery is immoral now because of the treatment of people was bad.

During the Bible time slavery was not immoral.

Therefore God is not immoral.

I didn't blame you or others, I asked about your thinking.

Sand

@Plaffelvohfen

>>>1) If you do not, why do you try so hard to excuse it?

I am not trying to excuse modern day slavery.

Why are you trying so hard to attack it?

>>>2) Of course I believe people are innocent until proven guilty... But, by definition, slave owners were guilty of, wait for it...: Slavery. 

Is that definition for now or back then?

What was the defintion of slavery back then?

Give me the proof that they knew it was immoral back then.

If you do not have the proof then they are innocent and therefore not immoral.

>>>How they felt about it is irrelevant... How is that not obvious to any sensible person???

How they felt is very relevant because you are treating them without compassion.

Your treatment of their situation is detached just like modern day slave owners.

You are guilty of what you are condemning them of.

Sand

@Dee

>>>My reply ......All your questions have been answered

How about these questions:

>>>My reply .....Show me contracts where people volunteered for slavery?

Show me proof that they did not volunteer.
>>>My reply ...... Because they were as bad as Christian nations , does that make slavery right , if so why?
So everyone in the world was Christians? Where is the proof?
>>>My reply .....There is no such thing as an atheist nation
All of China is Christain? Where is the proof?
>>>My reply ......What does that even mean?
You do not know what the word coulture means?
How can you not know what coulture means and make an informed decision what is right or wrong?
>>>My reply .....Why not ask a Historian?
So you do not know. Yet you judge people based on lack of knowledge?
Innocent until proven guilty, where is your proof?
>>>My reply ......Christians followed instructions and did not care about whether it was immoral remember the crusades?
The crusades were instructions by God? Where is the proof?
>>>My reply .....It’s been given to you over 29 times now remember how to treat and purchase slaves
You do not believe the Bible is an accurate textbook, where is your proof these things occured?
Are you saying the Bible can be considered accurate?
>>>My reply .....I don’t know ask them
So you don't know again! Yet you judge without knowledge!
Innocent until proven guilty, where is your proof?
>>>My reply ......There no such thing as an atheist nation
So the whole world is Christian? Where is your proof?
>>>My reply ...Were Who?
Try to keep up. Where Christians knowingly immoral in making slaves?

Plaffelvohfen

@Sand

1) So, by the same logic, murder was not immoral back then either right? God ordered many and committed quite a lot himself...
2) You are also implying that the source of morality is not god, but man... Not that I disagree on that mind you but it's strange coming from someone who thinks the bible is a highly moral guide...

Sand

@ZeusAres42

>>>If someone currently commits a brutal crime today does it make the crime an innocent act just because the perpetrator believed they were doing a good thing? 

Good question. No. Violation of the Crime is a violation if they knew about or not.

Nevertheless, this is not what I am saying.

What I am saying is something is not immoral before the law was given.

If the Government passes a law that all vehicles that use gasoline is illegal.

And everyone in that country turn to using battery operated vehicles.

Would it be ok to incarcerate everyone who used gasoline vehicles in the past?

I would say no, because at the time they were using the gasoline vehicles it was not considered immoral.

Someone could reason that gasoline vehicles were always immoral.

They polluted now and they polluted back then, and the people using them knew this so all of them were immoral.

Nevertheless, for over 132 years it was not considered morally wrong, that is why everyone worldwide used them.

So it would be wrong to classify these people as immoral because at the time of use it was not considered immoral.

It only became immoral after the law was passed, now everyone can reason why such a law makes sense.

If someone afterwards violates this law then that act would be considered immoral.

Laws was passed abolishing slavery 153 years ago.

We all can reason why such a law makes sense, that owning people as property is morally wrong.

Nevertheless, for over 4 to 5000 years or so it was not considered morally wrong, that is why everyone worldwide used them.

So it would be wrong to classify these people as immoral because at the time of use it was not considered immoral.

It only became immoral after the law was passed, now everyone can reason why such a law makes sense.

If someone afterwards violates this law then that act would be considered immoral.

Sand

@Plaffelvohfen

Murder was considered immoral.

The law Exodus 20:13, "You shall not murder."

Before that law was given it was not considered immoral, unless stated by God.

>>>God ordered many and committed quite a lot himself...

God is the creator of man, since he has given life, he has the right to take it away.

Plaffelvohfen

@Sand

Of course, excuses...

How about 2?

2) You are also implying that the source of morality is not god, but man... 

Sand

@Plaffelvohfen

Man and God.

Since God tells us to be subject to the governing authorities.

Unless they conflict then God.

Dee

@Sand

You say ...

Show me proof that they did not volunteer.

My reply .....What a typically childish reply 

You say .....

So everyone in the world was Christians? Where is the proof?

My reply ......Show me where I said that?

You say .....

All of China is Christain? Where is the proof?

My reply .....Show me where I said that?

You say .......You do not know what the word coulture means?

My reply .....I don’t as there’s no such word 

You say .....How can you not know what coulture means and make an informed decision what is right or wrong?

My reply .....So knowing what’s right or wrong is dependent on me knowing the meaning of a non existent word , you do say some very stupid things 

You say ......So you do not know. Yet you judge people based on lack of knowledge? 

My reply .....I don’t know the History of every country on the planet I judge people in biblical times on what’s written in the Bible , why how do you do it does god whisper in your ear?

You say ....The crusades were instructions by God? Where is the proof?

My reply .....Read a History  book about the  crusades along  with one explaining what that American word Couture means  

You say ......You do not believe the Bible is an accurate textbook, where is your proof these things occured?

My reply ......But you spent a week explaining biblical slavery now you’re asking me for proof it occurred are you really this stupid?

You say ......So you don't know again! Yet you judge without knowledge!

My reply ......I don’t know what every non Christian was doing in times past what has that got to do with me judging biblical slavery as immoral something you agreed on?

You say .....

So the whole world is Christian? Where is your proof?

My reply .......Show me where I stated that Doofus?

You say ......

Try to keep up. Where Christians knowingly immoral in making slaves?

My reply ......It is hard keeping up with you as you’re possibly stoned as most of what you say is childish in the extreme 

Of course they were immoral St Paul talks about it in First epistle of Paul to Timothy but of course you wouldn’t know this as you’ve never read the Bible and display complete ignorance of its contents 

Dee

@Sand

You say .....I mentioned this before, slavery is immoral now because of the treatment of people was bad.

My reply ......Right , so it’s only immoral now 

You say ......During the Bible time slavery was not immoral.

My reply .....So why did St Paul think it was immoral in the New Testament?

You say ........Therefore God is not immoral.

My reply ......So God is moral for allowing slavery and St Paul is therefore immoral for condemning it?
 
So why would an all powerful loving god think slavery moral in the times of Jesus but immoral now?

You say .....I didn't blame you or others, I asked about your thinking.

My reply ....My thinking is fine it’s yours that’s all over the place 

Dee

@Sand

You say ......

So you avoided the question.

My reply.....I’ve avoided nothing you clown I’m in a different time zone 

You say .......How is it this completely immoral act go on for over 4000 years with no justification whatsoever? 

My reply ......What has this got to do with anything?

Sand

@Dee

Good point

ZeusAres42

Sand said:

@ZeusAres42

>>>If someone currently commits a brutal crime today does it make the crime an innocent act just because the perpetrator believed they were doing a good thing? 

Good question. No. Violation of the Crime is a violation if they knew about or not.

Okay, take the word "crime" away and answer me this: If a group of people hijack a plane, fly it into a building and kill hundreds of people is that an innocent act just because they believed they were doing it in the name of a diving being?

Sand

@ZeusAres42 ;

>>>If a group of people hijack a plane, fly it into a building and kill hundreds of people is that an innocent act just because they believed they were doing it in the name of a diving being?

There are a lot of assumptions in this senario.

It is innocent (or not morally wrong) if it is within their governing laws.

What are their governing laws?

In their governing laws is it wrong to kill?

By taking the word "crime" out it denotes that it was not determined what the law was.

Take for instance the assumption - this is two countries.

If the building was in a country 'A' and it was a governing law against killing

But the country 'B' who hijack the plane it was not a governing law against killing and they kill in country 'A'.

They were morally wrong whether they knew about it or not.

Nevertheless, assumption - it was one country.

It was not a governing law against killing.

Then no it is not morally wrong to kill.

Of course this is with the assumption that they didn't "hijack" the plane.

Because "hijack" means unlawfully seize.

Meaning they broke the governing law against taking a plane.

The way your scenario is written they are morally wrong.

ZeusAres42

Sand said:

@ZeusAres42 ;

>>>If a group of people hijack a plane, fly it into a building and kill hundreds of people is that an innocent act just because they believed they were doing it in the name of a diving being?

There are a lot of assumptions in this senario.

I'm simply asking you this: Is that this act an innocent act based merely on the premise that the people believed they were doing it in the name of something that is not falsifiable?

Sand

@ZeusAres42

>>>I'm simply asking you this: Is that this act an innocent act based merely on the premise that the people believed they were doing it in the name of something that is not falsifiable?

No it is not innocent, evidence is needed.

Sand

During the time it was written, many nations had slaves. Egypt, Israel, Greece, China, Africa, Asia, Korea, Europe, England all had slaves.

Of all the nations with slaves, Israel was the only nation that stipulated good treatment.

Protection from the killing of slaves.

Protection from sexual promiscuity with slaves.

Protection from serious injury of slaves.

Release after 6 to 7 years.

Proper payment after release.

Consequence of violation of those laws was death to the slave owner.

Nevertheless, the Bible never tells individuals to get slaves. It only stipulates how the slaves are to be treated if they are acquired.

Is the bible the most immoral book ever written? No it is not. It has the highest morals and standards of our age.

Because people do not follow the Bible, or they use it as an excuse to do badness, does not mean they are following the book's instructions.

Religious leaders have lead people to do very immoral things. This makes those people immoral, not the book.

The Bible has also influence some of the highest moral people in history.

Dee

@Sand

You  say ......During the time it was written, many nations had slaves. Egypt, Israel, Greece, China, Africa, Asia, Korea, Europe, England all had slaves.

Of all the nations with slaves, Israel was the only nation that stipulated good treatment.

My reply ......But you admitted owning people as property was immoral didn’t you? 

Is good treatment beating slaves?

You say ......Protection from the killing of slaves.

My reply .....Wow ! How very moral don’t kill your property but you may beat your slave once they don’t die .....

female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

You say ......Protection from sexual promiscuity with slaves.

My reply .....Really women sold into slavery were not used sexually those slave masters sound like lovely people 

You say ......Protection from serious injury of slaves.

My reply ......Beat them as much as you want once they don’t die according to your  Bible 

You say ......Release after 6 to 7 years.

 .....However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

You do understand what permanent inheritance means right? See that special exemption for Israelis only?

You say .....Proper payment after release.

My reply ......But permanent inheritance means for life

You say .....Consequence of violation of those laws was death to the slave owner.

6Ifa manstrikesthe eyeof his manservantormaidservantand blinds it,he must let the servant gofreein compensation forthe eye.27And if he knocks out the tooth of his manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free as compensation for the tooth.…

You say ......Nevertheless, the Bible never tells individuals to get slaves. It only stipulates how the slaves are to be treated if they are acquired.

My reply ......You get a slave by buying one people don’t need to be told how to buy something ......

21 The Lord gave Moses the following laws for his people:

2 If you buy a Hebrew slave, he must remain your slave for six years. But in the seventh year you must set him free, without cost to him. 3 If he was single at the time you bought him, he alone must be set free. But if he was married at the time, both he and his wife must be given their freedom. 4 If you give him a wife, and they have children, only the man himself must be set free; his wife and children remain the property of his owner.

5 But suppose the slave loves his wife and children so much that he won’t leave without them. 6 Then he must stand beside either the door or the doorpost at the place of worship,[a] while his owner punches a small hole through one of his ears with a sharp metal rod. This makes him a slave for life.

7 A young woman who was sold by her father doesn’t gain her freedom in the same way that a man does. 8 If she doesn’t please the man who bought her to be his wife, he must let her be bought back.[b] He cannot sell her to foreigners; this would break the contract he made with her. 9 If he selects her as a wife for his son, he must treat her as his own daughter.

You say ......Is the bible the most immoral book ever written? No it is not. It has the highest morals and standards of our age.

My reply .....Owning people as property is immoral you’ve admitted this your Bible , and god are deeply immoral as they sanction and condone it 

You say ......Because people do not follow the Bible, or they use it as an excuse to do badness, does not mean they are following the book's instructions.

Religious leaders have lead people to do very immoral things. This makes those people immoral, not the book.

My reply .....Owning people as property is deeply immoral you agree therefore any book that tells how to beat and abuse people as property is deeply immoral

You say ......

The Bible has also influence some of the highest moral people in history.

My reply .......It has influenced some of the most immoral people in history who were deemed model Christians in their time 

Sand

During the time it was written, many nations had slaves. Egypt, Israel, Greece, China, Africa, Asia, Korea, Europe, England all had slaves.

Of all the nations with slaves, Israel was the only nation that stipulated good treatment.

Protection from the killing of slaves.

Protection from sexual promiscuity with slaves.

Protection from serious injury of slaves.

Release after 6 to 7 years.

Proper payment after release.

Consequence of violation of those laws was death to the slave owner.

Nevertheless, the Bible never tells individuals to get slaves. It only stipulates how the slaves are to be treated if they are acquired.

Is the bible the most immoral book ever written? No it is not. It has the highest morals and standards of our age.

Because people do not follow the Bible, or they use it as an excuse to do badness, does not mean they are following the book's instructions.

Religious leaders have lead people to do very immoral things. This makes those people immoral, not the book.

The Bible has also influence some of the highest moral people in history.

Dee

@Sand

That was so easy you have no defense yet again, you really ought to read what’s in the Bible if you or your family ever get around to owning one 

Sand

@Dee

Do you believe the Bible is an accurate textbook?

Dee

@Sand

You say .....Do you believe the Bible is an accurate textbook 

My reply .......It’s an inaccurate contradictory book of mainly nonsense as I keep demonstrating 

Sand

@Dee

Do you have proof of your claims?

Dee

@Sand

Contradictions sure......“… 

I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” — Genesis 32:30

“No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18

Here  is Just one example of biblical nonsense .......children mocking a bald man two bears attack and maul 42 children as “punishment”

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria

Sand

@Dee
That is a different discussion.
Do you have proof of your claim that the Bible is an immoral book?

Dee

@Sand


You say ......That is a different discussion.

My reply ......Do you even know what you type anymore? You asked for contradictions I gave you one , you asked for examples of nonsense I gave you one.



You say ......Do you have proof of your claim that the Bible is an immoral book?

My reply ......Yes , owning people as property is immoral you agreed so what are you arguing about?

Sand

@Dee

You know what they call people with unfounded statements, a liar.

Are you a liar?

Because I believe your goal is confusion.

That is why you bring up the same statements over and over in different discussions.

I believe you do not care what people say.

I believe you do not care what you say.

You just keep making unfounded statements.

Dee

@Sand

You say .....

You know what they call people with unfounded statements, a liar.

My reply .....I gave you a clear contradiction and a bit of biblical nonsense then you switched your question and asked for an example of immorality , I pointed out biblical slavery you agreed owning others as property was indeed immoral now you’re accusing me of being a liar because you cannot defend your position 

You say ......

Are you a liar?

My reply .....I’m not but you are as I’ve just proved 

You say .....Because I believe your goal is confusion.

My reply .....Why are you blaming me because you’ve been trapped by your own stupidity?

You say ......That is why you bring up the same statements over and over in different discussions.

I believe you do not care what people say.

I believe you do not care what you say.

You just keep making unfounded statements.

My reply .....You're a coward who calls himself a Christian you agreed slavery was immoral now you’re attempting to weasel your way out because you’re  embarrassed by  your genetic stupidity 

Sand

During the time it was written, many nations had slaves. Egypt, Israel, Greece, China, Africa, Asia, Korea, Europe, England all had slaves.

Of all the nations with slaves, Israel was the only nation that stipulated good treatment.

Protection from the killing of slaves.

Protection from sexual promiscuity with slaves.

Protection from serious injury of slaves.

Release after 6 to 7 years.

Proper payment after release.

Consequence of violation of those laws was death to the slave owner.

Nevertheless, the Bible never tells individuals to get slaves. It only stipulates how the slaves are to be treated if they are acquired.

Is the bible the most immoral book ever written? No it is not. It has the highest morals and standards of our age.

Because people do not follow the Bible, or they use it as an excuse to do badness, does not mean they are following the book's instructions.

Religious leaders have lead people to do very immoral things. This makes those people immoral, not the book.

The Bible has also influence some of the highest moral people in history.

Dee

@Sand


Sand the “Christian “ liar caught in his own web of lies 

You say ......Do you have proof of your claim that the Bible is an immoral book?

My reply ......Yes , owning people as property is immoral you agreed so what are you arguing about? 

Sand

During the time it was written, many nations had slaves. Egypt, Israel, Greece, China, Africa, Asia, Korea, Europe, England all had slaves.

Of all the nations with slaves, Israel was the only nation that stipulated good treatment.

Protection from the killing of slaves.

Protection from sexual promiscuity with slaves.

Protection from serious injury of slaves.

Release after 6 to 7 years.

Proper payment after release.

Consequence of violation of those laws was death to the slave owner.

Nevertheless, the Bible never tells individuals to get slaves. It only stipulates how the slaves are to be treated if they are acquired.

Is the bible the most immoral book ever written? No it is not. It has the highest morals and standards of our age.

Because people do not follow the Bible, or they use it as an excuse to do badness, does not mean they are following the book's instructions.

Religious leaders have lead people to do very immoral things. This makes those people immoral, not the book.

The Bible has also influence some of the highest moral people in history.

Dee

@Sand



Sand the “Christian “ liar caught in his own web of lies, Sand doesn’t know what’s in the Bible as he never read one 

You say ......Do you have proof of your claim that the Bible is an immoral book?

My reply ......Yes , owning people as property is immoral you agreed so what are you arguing about? 

Sand

@Dee

You call names because you have no morals or proof.

Plaffelvohfen

@Sand

- It (the Bible) only stipulates how the slaves are to be treated if they are acquired.

What you fail to (or rather intentionally choose no to) recognize is that it (the Bible) allows for the owning of other human beings (which is slavery)... This alone, is immoral in itself...

It's completely irrelevant how you treat your slaves:
- Intentionally killing someone is wrong (whether free or slave)... 
- Sexual intercourse without consent is rape, and rape is wrong (whether free or slave)...
- Intentionally injuring someone is wrong  (whether free or slave)...
- Etc...

Dee

@Sand

You call names because you have no morals or proof.

My reply .....Ahhhh still crying are you , you admitted slavery was immoral , you admitted your god was immoral therefore I’m against slavery you admit I’m more moral than your god .........Ouch 

By the way you accepted my proof regarding slavery or do you want to change your mind and say it’s moral now? It’s ok you’re getting good at lying 

Sand

@Plaffelvohfen

>>>It's completely irrelevant how you treat your slaves:

- Intentionally killing someone is wrong (whether free or slave)... 

- Sexual intercourse without consent is rape, and rape is wrong (whether free or slave)...

- Intentionally injuring someone is wrong  (whether free or slave)...

You say two different things here.

On one hand you say it is irrelevant, then you say "is wrong"

Injuring, killing, rape is treatment.

irrelevant means - not connected

So you are saying with the word "irrelevant"

That you can kill, rape, or injuring people and it has no effect on morals.

But ownership of people is directly connected to morals.

You must not mean it is completely irrelevant.

So is treatment relevant to morals or not?

Plaffelvohfen

@Sand

Either you do it on purpose or you have serious comprehension problems....

All those things are irrelevant to the moral status of slavery... 

Sand

@Plaffelvohfen

Ok, ok

Just trying to get your perspective..... So is owning someone worst than killing them?

Plaffelvohfen

@Sand

Oh? So we're scaling now, are we? Is a kilo of sheit heavier than 2lb of sheit? 

I don't care about the weight of the pile of sheit, it's sheit... And it's the only point I'm debating... 

Let's assume for the fun of it, that it (owning someone) is indeed much much worst than to kill someone, would that assumption make murder any less wrong???
Is that what you're hinting at? Is stealing $200 worst than stealing $500?? Does it makes one any less a thief?? 

Sand

@Plaffelvohfen

Is owning a pet immoral?