成人论坛

For any one that is interested the Southern Presbyterian minister who was chaplain of the 18th Virginia regiment in the Confederate army and was chief of staff to Stonewall Jackson during the Valley Campaign produced two books which cover the theology and philosophy of slavery, The Practical Philosophy and A Defense of Virginia and the South, published today by Sprinkle Publications Harrisonburg, Virginia who also publish, Story of the Confederate States by Joseph T. Derry.

I'm not sure that anyone should be surprised that the bible would reflect general attitudes to slavery at the time, nor that the church through the years would do the same. Thankfully we're now living in the most fair and equal period in human history in the West, and, as William points out, the church is reflecting that, too. I wouldn't hold my breath for the church to lead these changes, though.

c hip
I would have though you would be argueing that religion abolished slavery - pointing us to this looney would seem to be counter-productive?
alan

Thank you for acknowledging me William!

And please before anyone else has a go at me, I am NOT saying that all Christians were for the slave trade-I am simply saying that there were a signifigant numbers of Christians who supported the slave trade and these tended to be of the Bible-believing fraternity.

I never intended my argument to be simply thesim bad, atheism good.

On another note William mentions the Bob Jones "university", interestingly this is the place that gave Mr. Ian Paisley his honorary "doctorate" when this place was still racist and segregationist, which speaks volumes...

Regards

DD

Comparing racism to slavery is like comparing the common cold to lung cancer. Racism is merely prejudice based on race, slavery is denial that the slave is even human by asserting that he is instead merely property. Like any property, he can be disposed of by the owner any way he chooses. If you don't like your toaster and decide one day to take a hammer to it, well that's OK, its your loss but it's no crime. When slavery was legal, if you shot your slave because you didn't like him, well he was your property too.

Christians had no problem justifying slavery for well over a thousand years. I'm sure many people who considered themselved good "god fearing Christians" who went to church every sunday, who donated generously to the collection plate were certain that they were not committing any sin holding and trading slaves, that they had not broken any of god's commandments and would go to heaven. And I'll bet their priests and ministers found passages in the bible to reassure them. As I said in the thread about Singer, religions and other philosophies can rationalize anything and that includes whatever we now consider a "crime against humanity." And our philosophy of justice rationalizes any punishment. In the US, that includes the death penalty and...now in the war against terror...torture. Hmmm, perhaps I was too hasty and there is something to be said for philosophy after all.

Dabney and his work have become quite influential among what is known as the Christian Reconstructionist movement, and Neoconfederates alike. (Not to be confused with Neoconservatives...) While no denomination expressly endorses slavery, there are some smaller groups that do endorse or defend it. (Though, since it's illegal now...)

The only book in the bible dedicated to the subject of Slavery is Paul's epistle to Philemon.

Paul asked Philemon to take a runaway slave back but with five qualifications;-

1) He was not to be a slave anymore.

2) He was to be more than a slave

3) He was to be a brother in the flesh.

4) He was to be a brother in the spirit.

5) He was to be treated as though he was Paul himself, an honoured leader in the early church.

Paul's letter was circulated to all churches for them to absorb and became part of the canon of holy scripture to
highlight the importance
of this message.

Small wonder the anti-slavery campaigners in American printed this leaflet out and published it widely as part of their
campaign to abolish the practise.

Ex21:16, Dt 24:7 and 1Tim1:10 condemn outright anyone trading in slaves; the two OT refs actually impose the death penalty for the offence.
Rev18:13 also condemns the practise.

So the bible says clearly nobody was to trade in slaves; people sold themselves as slaves or were made slaves to pay off debts or to make restitution for theft etc, or they were POWs.

Hebrew slaves were to be freed after six years and set up in business by their master though this did not apply to foriegn nationals.

Gal 3:28 makes it clear slaves were considered as equal to freemen in the church and this caused suspiciouns and fear of the church in the Roman Empire and is linked to state persecution of the church at that time.

Paul may well have feared the backlash from Rome for openly calling for abolition of slavery in state but in Philemon he did so within the church; remember even Christ was careful when questioned on taxes not to give any suggestion that people should withhold taxes from the occupying forces of the Roman Empire.

Not easy reading and I am still studying the subject, but some food for thought.

Dissapointed William has not linked the issue to 21st century slavery, rather more important than academic debate;-

PB

Pb sounds like you'd rather dodge the bible's attitude about slavery and talk about modern day examples. fair enough, but if u actually listen to the programme on sunday it DOES discuss 21st century slavery ... never let the truth get in the way of a rant, eh?

By 1807 Christianity had been the dominant ethical code in Europe for at least 1000 years.
If the bible and Jesus were so against slavery as the fundies claim why did it take them so long to get the message?

Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
From the Sunday Times
Slavery inspired Darwin's theory

Charles Darwin's fervent belief in his theory of evolution stemmed from a deep-seated opposition to slavery, two of his biographers have claimed in a new introduction to one of his works.

The academics say that the biologist's work was driven by a desire to prove that because all races were descended from the same ape ancestors, none could be superior. The theory is outlined in a new Penguin Classics edition of Darwin's The Descent of Man.

Darwin caused a sensation when he published the work in 1871. It applied to humans the theory of evolution that he had outlined for animals in The Origin of Species 12 years earlier.

The new introduction claims that Darwin felt a "moral imperative" to discredit the opinion that blacks and whites were separate species,. "The book originated in Darwin's worries about slavery and ended in an explanation of racial divergence," says the introduction.

Jim Moore, a reader of science and technology history at the Open University and co- author of the introduction, said: "People have not yet fully appreciated the connection between Darwin's belief in evolution and his belief of the arrogance of people who believed man was superior to animals."

Freddie

Contrary to your comments I have in fact addressed what the bible ACTUALLY says about slavery possibly more than William or I think any of his SS guests in the panel discussion.

I did not hear the whole SS show but I will stand to be corrected on that one.

For example, did anyone on SS mention that the OT bible law carries the death penalty for slave trading?

Or that the NT condemns it?

scripture refs given in my above posting.

So unless you are going to turn me over on that one, factually speaking you are just wholly incorrect to suggest I have tried to avoid discussing what the bible says on the matter.

I know 21st century slavery was mentioned on the show... but not on this blog where Willian has much more time and freedom to express his own views.

PB

errr John

ref post 2

Wilberforce WAS the church leading the changes agains abolition...

Along with former slaver trader John Newtown, author of the hymn amazing grace. The two worked together.

I am no historian, but can you pick out any libertarians from Wiberforce's time who were fighting against slavery?

PB

PB

You can pick and mix the Bible.

The Bible-believing slave traders/supporters could quote Bible chapter and verse to back up their views. THe Bible has shown how easy to twist its words to suit any purpose.

I suggest yo address your comments to your fellow Bible-believers like Christian Reconstructuralists, Christian Identity, The KKK etc and point out to them where they are wrong(they can be found on a google).

what happened here?
all the postings from yesterday have gone?

PB

DD

Many people have carried out horrors in the name of science and various secular philosophies and I am sure you would be the first to disassociate yourself from them.

Horrors have also been carried out in the name of Christ, and no doubt will be again the in future. He will settle up with such people himself.

But in post 7 I have given you four explicit bible references that forbid slave trading; I am not talking about obscure interpretations. Listening???

The Old Testament refs acutally impose the death penalty for the practise of trading slaves.

You dont think the historical slave traders might not have gone ahead and done it whether or not the bible was ever written? Perhaps?

I find it very dissapointing when people just casually dismiss what the bible acutally plainly says in order to guard their own preconceptions.

You say you can pick and mix the bible; but people who do this only do so to suit their agenda, in this case it was slave trading.

In other cases it is to try and discredit what the bible actually teaches.

PB

"The Old Testament refs acutally impose the death penalty for the practise of trading slaves."

The Bible permitted owners to beat their slaves severely, even to the point of killing them. However, as long as the slave lingered longer than 24 hours before dying of the abuse, the owner was not regarded as having committed a crime, because after all the slave was his property.

"The Old Testament refs acutally impose the death penalty for the practise of trading slaves."

The emamcipation of slaves in the OT only referred to Hebrew slaves, not to foreign slaves, indeed the Bible gives detailed references on how to treat these slaves.

See

PB's account of the Bible and slavery is ridiculous, and any biblical scholar will tell him that. the Bible gives rules for slave-trading and imposes penalties (including capital punishment) on anyone breaking those rules. The bible does not criminalise slavery, it simply regulates the practice. No one could defend either position today as morally advanced, but we're dealing with ancient texts from an ancient world where slavery was part and parcel of the social and economic system. You do yourself no favours, Pb, when you try to rewrite history. let's confess that the church, of which I am a member, has blood on its hands and that we should repent of the sin of slavery.

Dylan dog, you seem to have a fixation with the 鈥渃ult鈥� of the movement including the 鈥淜KK鈥� and you try to equate the majority of USA Christianity with 50,000 lunatics out of the USA鈥檚 population of approximately 300,000,000. here in Northern Ireland I would say that the milder version of the , the British Israel movement compared to the extremist USA sort has a following of less than 2,000 out of a population of 1,500,000 and they are not excepted as part of mainstream Christianity, it would seem that what ever your reason may be that you are stuck on the 鈥済lue of the racist right鈥�. Every time Christianity is being discussed on the 鈥淭HIS BLOG鈥� you seem to feed into the thread your gripe with the 鈥淜KK and the C.I.鈥� IF YOU HAVE A GRIPE WITH THEM I SUGGEST THAT YOU TAKE IT UP WITH THEM. They are the ones that speak for themselves they certainly don't speak for ME, for a more balanced Critique on Slavery & Christianity I would suggest to you to check
Maybe William could cover the as a topic some Sunday to enlighten the ignorant.

Christian Hippy,

Please wind your neck in, I have already stated my admiration of Christains like Wilberforce who aided in ending the slave trade. All I am simply saying that there were Bible-believers who supported the slave trade and some who do today and I do know that they do represent a tiny minority.

Got it?

Jeremy Green

You need to look again at the accuracy of what you have written.

I agree 100 % that the bible regulated slavery. But look again at all the scripture references I have given which support what I am saying.

It doesnt matter what ANY bible scholar says when you can read these for yourself. I can tell you I have have spent quite a bit of time on this subject looking at many scholarly sources.

Whatever you think you know about what the bible says about slavery, you must take my bible references into account if you want the whole biblical picture. Otherwise you are working on preconceptions.

I will say it again; the biblical law imposed the death penalty on anybody who forced another into slavery.

read all the refs again in post 7.

Exdous 21:16 - death penalty
Deut 24:7 - death penalty
1 Timothy 1:10 slavetrading condemned
Rev 18:13 slavetrading condemned
Galations 3:28 Slaves equal to free
Philemon - A model appeal for the emancipation of a slave, held up for all the church to read.

Jer, it appears your emotions are getting the better of you because your worldview on this matter has been shaken.

Cool down and read the references for yourself. Then come back again.

It must be said that some scholars have pointed out that slavery in the bible (the term is never used in the bible) contrasted to that in other cultures in that time in that although the slaves were legally property they were still recognised as actual people. I think this is quite evident even when you read through the gospels and the portrayal of servants (slaves) throughout them.

Regarding the beating of slaves, perhaps it may not sound just so severe if you consider a person in enforced slavery for stealing from two dozen widows. Perhaps he might then have refused to obey his master during his community service or even cursed or attacked his master. A beating may not sound just so harsh in those circumstances.

As I said above in post 7, it is not "easy reading" for any Christian to study these matters. It is not simple it is very challenging. I agree.

But at least study the primary sources before attacking me personally.

Whatever else we discuss and debate, the bible clearly condemns enforced slavery, whether that be in ancient Israel or in the modern history of the west; Deut/Exodus/Timothy/Revelation references all given.

PB

This guy PB is way out. I wouldn't trust him to read the Bible and understand it. Quite mad stuff. It's like trying to rewrite history to make it look like the holocaust didnt happen.

Bertie

so I am "way out" and guilty of "quite mad stuff".

Can you actually stand any of that up specifically or do you only do cheap personal attacks?

I suppose they are a lot easier and dont require any study or thought.

PB

An interesting side point here - Christian Hippy points out that 50, 000 KKK nutters merely represent the lunatic fringe in the US population of app 300,000,000 or so. I agree totally (although 50,000 is a worryingly large number).

So how much LESS representative are the much vaunted 400 PhD's who sign up to AiG when set against the World population of academics carrying this level of qualification?

Any thoughts?

Again PB the quotes you give are highly selective and when the death penalty is imposed it is only for trading in Hebrew slaves not foreign slaves. Moreover if there are these strict prohibitions then what in the name of Sam Hill is Paul doing returning a slave to a slave-owner?

Ex 21:16 refers to those who steal slaves

Dt 20:10-11
Dt 20:14

Nt deals with how a slave should be treated but does not say their should be no slavery.

1 Pet 2:18

etc etc

There is no outright condemnation of the moral evil that is slavery in the Bible.

Ah DD, but the Bible is a wonderful smorgasbord. Don't like this bit? Set up your own creed...

Not sure about that bit? Don't take it literally. Call it a metaphor.

Can't explain this bit? Call it a model.

But don't even debate this bit right here friend, or burn in eternal damnation!!!!

Kill, torture, rape, pillage, steal. Just be sure to say sorry when you're done.

The Bible - a theist's flexible friend...

DD

Sorry, you are clearly wrong.

Please read all the quotes before you try to draw conclusions.

The Deut ref DOES apply the death penalty to anyone forcing Hebrews into slavery; but the Exodus quote applies the death penalty to anyone forcing ANY man into slavery, regardless of nationality:

Exodus 21:16
"And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death".

There is no context to this verse to suggest it applied to jews only. note:Almost all the information I present is laid out clearly in the in New Bible Dictionary from IVP, two of the main editors of which are JI Packer and FF Bruce, two well known and respected theologians.

You dont appear to have read or understood what I have written.

I have not said the bible forbade slavery, it nowhere does.
I have not said the African slave trade was acceptable, it was clearly almost a type of holocaust.
I have not said churches were not heavily involved, they were.

What I have said is that slavery in the Old Testament was primarily a social security net and a form of community service for criminals and POWs.

BUT PLEASE NOTE THE REFERENCES I HAVE GIVEN FORBID THE CREATION OF A CLASS OF ENTREPRENEURS WHO PROFIT FROM TRADING IN PEOPLE. Can you see the difference?

What the Sam Hill was Paul at returning a slave? I would suggest you would learn something if you actually read his letter and tried to answer that question for the rest of us? What do YOU think he was trying to communicate by writing this letter for circulation around the church? I have already put forward my undertstanding. Let's hear yours, or are you just a cheap critic?

It is established fact that the Graeco-Roman world was constantly paranoid about the possibility of slave-revolutions; Paul did not have the power or freedom to call on the Roman Empire to criminalise slavery. Had he made such a call he would doubtless have been seen as the leader of an attempted empire-wide slave revolt, it was a central part of the economy. Rome had no Human Rights Commission to protect him!

Remember, Jesus was VERY careful when answering the question about whether to pay taxes to Caesar or not for exactly the same reason. Rome was complicit in executing him simply because he was seen as a rabble rouser. When Rome was condemned in scripture it was done in code, as in "Babylon".

What Paul did instead was to teach the church that slaves were fully equal to freemen and should be treated as such in the church Galations 3:28. This in itself drew suspicion upon the church (Dr H Halley's Bible Handbook). But Paul also said slaves should take any legal opportunity to gain their freedom 1Cor 7:21.

As a statement of FACT, there was a world of difference between this and the African slave trade were people were treated worse than animals. In Proverbs 29:21 King Solomon notes that anyone who brings a slave up well will eventually find him become his son. in Proverbs 17:2 he says a wise slave will rule over the son of a household and have a share of the family inheritance. The Law allowed for slaves who became free after the statutory six years, to sign a lifelong contract with their masters if they were happy.

In fact the term slave in the bible was how Paul, Peter, James and Jude all described themselves, slaves of Christ. The word doulos is normally translated "servant" and this underlines an important point. You would never realise when you read the bible that servants are actually slaves. Read about all the slaves coming through the live of Christ and you assume they are servants because they are treated as such. But in fact they are slaves.

You can check this out for yourself here;-

There is no suggestion in the gospels that it was normal or acceptable to kidnap people for slavery and transport and sell them like cattle. They were obviously treated with human dignity, and this is underlined by many scholars, including the works quoted above. Kidnapping and trading slaves is forbiddne throughout the bible.

One other point worth noting is that William Wilberforce wrote a great treatise on the Christain faith;-
A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians in the Higher and Middle Classes of This Country Contrasted With Real Christianity.

See extracts here;-

This was an explicitly attack on what he called "nominal" Christianity, the type of religion held by those who pay lip service to Christ but had no time for the risen Christ in their private lives; these were the "Christians" that opposed him in his lifelong battle to outlaw slave trading and profited from African slavery.

PB

Again you are being selective.

If slavery was so explicitly forbidden as you cited in Exodus 21:16(the passage refers to stealing slaves), then why was Paul doing returning a slave to a slave-owner 1000's of years later? These were part of the laws that related to Jews and if this passage so explicitly condemned the slavery then it contradicted by scores of other passages that condone this practice.

Eg. Lev 25:44-46

"I have not said the bible forbade slavery, it nowhere does. "

Thank you.

"I have not said the African slave trade was acceptable, it was clearly almost a type of holocaust."

I know you didn't and I never said that you did.

"I have not said churches were not heavily involved, they were."

Thank you

"What I have said is that slavery in the Old Testament was primarily a social security net and a form of community service for criminals and POWs.

BUT PLEASE NOTE THE REFERENCES I HAVE GIVEN FORBID THE CREATION OF A CLASS OF ENTREPRENEURS WHO PROFIT FROM TRADING IN PEOPLE. Can you see the difference?"

A social security net oh please!

Deut 20:13-14 and 10-14

So your god orders all the males to be murdered but to spare the women and children(thats of course if they were lucky because later in the chapter the OT god says that if cities do not obey him to destroy everyone)ahh isn't that awful good of him! watch all the males get brutally murdered then get taken in!also the women captured get their heads shaved , allowed to mourn their loved ones for a month then you can rape her and if she "displeases" kick her out-charming!

There are so many references to slave in the Bible(Hebrew and otherwise) there must have been a trade system in operation.

The refs in the NT do not forbid slavery rather they tell slaves that they must be good and obedient slaves.

PB: Throw the towel in or should I say spade the hole is getting bigger and deeper.

DD

You have a lot of assumptions in your comment.

It appears you assume that the nations Israel were attacking were like civilsed modern western european nation states.

Lets not dance around the matter; it is there in black and white that God had judged these nations as evil and he was using Israel to wipe them out in judgement, even though he was royally cheese off with Israel too.

The bible says the national religion of the states concerned routinely involved;-

-burning babies to death as a sacrifice to devils
-communing with devils
-trying to contact the dead
-sex with any and all your next of kin
-sex with animals
-anyone sleeps with anyone else's spouse
etc etc

Leviticus 18
Deut 9
Deut 18

Your assumptions about human rights are actually based on a judeo-christian worldview which was not shared by these nations.

Children were also often killed because otherwise they would have grown into another generation of warriors bent on destroying Israel.

Its not pretty, but Im just telling you what it says

pb

...by the way, have you any evidence for assuming there was a slave trading system in israel like the one you suggest.

Right now I cant say there wasnt, only that it was forbidden to kidnap people to sell them into slavery.

People DID sell themselves as slaves to other citizens to gain secure employment and pay off debts; I am not making this up; it absolutely was a social security net, as well as community service for criminals, pows etc.

I will stand to be corrected, but I understand the passage you are talking about ref taking wives in war explicitly FORBIDS making a slave out of her.

It certainly doesnt sit well with my 21st century sensibilities, or yours, but I havnt studied this subject as yet. Will have a look at it.

Of course the major conflict here is simply this; I believe the Bible to be the word of God and that one all powerful and good being wrote it.

All you guys dont believe this.

One position tries to make sense of the bible from one assumption while the other does exactly the opposite.

PB

"Your assumptions about human rights are actually based on a judeo-christian worldview which was not shared by these nations."

No actually based on my own morality. What I don't get is if your god is so powerful then why not say...appear before these other nations, click his fingers and make them change instead their ways.

In this matter we have the BIble as reference and as you know history is written by the winners and winners usually degenerate their beaten opponents and say all sorts of nasty things about them. In this instance I would view it as propoganda and likewise you could view the Hebrew nation as being bloodthirsty and violent. But then again it is pointless to argue this with you as believe that evey word of the Bible is true.

"Children were also often killed because otherwise they would have grown into another generation of warriors bent on destroying Israel.

Its not pretty, but Im just telling you what it says"

I'm shocked! I wish that you would stand back and look at what you have just wrote, that is a horrible, despicable thing to say. Read this quote from SS Corporal Oskar Gr枚ning who was at Auschwitz(talking about Jewish children)

"The enemy is the blood inside them. The enemy is growing up to be a Jew who could become dangerous."

Do you see any difference between what he said and you said because I don't. I really do not think that you are a bad person PB, in fact far from it but to me you are a great example of what Stephen Weinberg was saying when he stated:"Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things -- that takes religion."

"People DID sell themselves as slaves to other citizens to gain secure employment and pay off debts; I am not making this up; it absolutely was a social security net, as well as community service for criminals, pows etc.

I will stand to be corrected, but I understand the passage you are talking about ref taking wives in war explicitly FORBIDS making a slave out of her.

It certainly doesnt sit well with my 21st century sensibilities, or yours, but I havnt studied this subject as yet. Will have a look at it."

But the passage does say to shave her head then rape her. Pb you are the one using 21st sensibilities to try and defend the indefensible ie., social security net etc

"Of course the major conflict here is simply this; I believe the Bible to be the word of God and that one all powerful and good being wrote it."

Which raises the question why your god did not expressely forbid or condemn the practice of slavery but does condemn eating shellfish and wearing clothes of mixed fibres.

DD

Are you are really, seriously, trying to equate the Bible to the writings of Nazis?

I have not given you an interpretation, what I said is lifted directly from the three chapter references given.

Is the bible as evil as Nazi writings then?

The assessment of the nature of the nations opposing Israel which I have given is substantiated by secualr history and archeology.

And by the may you are totally mistaken in suggesting exodus 21:16 is only forbidding the stealing of slaves. Did you really read this passage?

The quote is there for all to read in post 25.

It says "...he that stealeth a MAN..." and sells him will be put to death.

It does not say slave!!!

why did you try to put that spin on the passage?

PB

DD

I am saying that I see no difference in your comment and that of the the SS Corporal, both you are trying to excuse the murder of children in the belief that when they grow up they will get revenge-that is despicable and I pity you that you cannot see that.

"Is the bible as evil as Nazi writings then?"

In your interpretation...yes.

"The assessment of the nature of the nations opposing Israel which I have given is substantiated by secualr history and archeology."

Really, did you not take in anything that I said?
Ex 21:16
It relates to stealing other slaves

DD

I am saying that I see no difference in your comment and that of the the SS Corporal, both you are trying to excuse the murder of children in the belief that when they grow up they will get revenge-that is despicable and I pity you that you cannot see that.

"Is the bible as evil as Nazi writings then?"

In your interpretation...yes.

"The assessment of the nature of the nations opposing Israel which I have given is substantiated by secualr history and archeology."

Really, did you not take in anything that I said?
Ex 21:16
It relates to stealing other slaves

OK DD

You see no difference between "my comment" and the SS Corporal?

There is your entire problem; I am pointing out bible passages to you and you are portraying them as my comments.

Deut 9
4"(A)Do not say in your heart when the LORD your God has driven them out before you, 'Because of my righteousness the LORD has brought me in to possess this land,' but it is (B)because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is dispossessing them before you.
5"It is (C)not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm (D)the oath which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
6"Know, then, it is not because of your righteousness that the LORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are (E)a stubborn people."

Lev 18 and Deut 18 list in detail the sexual and witchcraft perversions that these nations practised.

The jews werent sacrificing their children to devils as part of their national religion, there's one difference between the SS and the Jehovah for a start.

For the record, you believe the best selling book in history, the bible, and in particular the historical part owned by the Jews, is equal to the worst writings of the Nazis. That is some intellectual feat.

And when Exodus 21:16 forbids kidnapping a "man" you, under your own secret logic read "slave".

That is another.

PB

PB

there is no difference between what you said and the SS Corporal and I really pity you that you cannot see how disgusting and vile the justification that you gave the the murder of children was.

"Lev 18 and Deut 18 list in detail the sexual and witchcraft perversions that these nations practised."]

So kill the children? that is disgusting.

"The jews werent sacrificing their children to devils as part of their national religion, there's one difference between the SS and the Jehovah for a start."

However according to you they both advocate murdering children.

"For the record, you believe the best selling book in history, the bible, and in particular the historical part owned by the Jews, is equal to the worst writings of the Nazis. That is some intellectual feat."

You pull this feat off with aplomb.

"And when Exodus 21:16 forbids kidnapping a "man" you, under your own secret logic read "slave"."

It refers to slaves and Israelites.

GW, DD

I have been crossexamined by you both for a few days, you have had your fun, I am turning the tables;-

As you have studied Psychology and Ancient History in University can you answer two questions;

1) The U-turn by the American Psychiatric Association (ASA) in the 1970s on homosexuality was a landmark
case that saw the begining of a sea change in the profession on the subject; was the change based on new research (citations please!) or political activism? Which should it have been?

2) Historians Plutarch and Gibbons both saw widespread sexual libertinism as a symptom of a society in steep decline;
In what time and place of history was homosexuality socially accepted by any advanced civilisation that was not
approaching sociological meltdown?

pb

A BIBLE STUDY ON SLAVERY (non-exhaustive);-

Sources of slaves allowed under Old Testament law;-

1) Children of owned slaves, Gen15
2) Thieves who could not make restitution Exodus 22:3
3) Defaulters on debts 2 Kings 4:1
4) Self-sale out of poverty Lev 25: 39-43, 47
5) POWs 2 Sam 21:31, 1Kings9
6) Purchasing people from other nations Lev 25

Kidnapping a man and selling him as a slave brought the death penalty
whether he was hebrew or any other nationality Ex21:16, Deut 24:7
Commercial slave trading is condemned by Paul in 1 Tim 1:10 and by John in Rev 18:13

Hebrew slaves were to be freed after six year and financed
for a new start Exodus 21:2-6, Deut 15:12-18 but this was not the right of non-hebrew slaves.

Non-hebrew slaves were included in all community festivals and celebrations
Ex12, Deut16, and also had the Sabbath rest every week Ex20:10

Relationship between master and slave could be of trust Gen24,39:1-6
Affection Deut 25:16
But discipline could be harsh even fatal Ex21:21*
Though to kill a slave outright carried a penalty Ex21.20
Doubtless death Lev 24:17,22
* Note Ex21:21 appears to make a distinction between penalties for murder and manslaughter; the law explicitly
recognises that the financial value of a slave to his owner mitigates against the motive to kill him.

Women taken in war as wives were not slaves Deut 21.

IVP New Bible Dictionary notes in Palestine in the parables of Jesus slaves were employed in administrative positions,
the labour being recruited on a casual basis. It adds that in domestic slavery they were purchased as an index of wealth.
Where only one or two were owned they worked beside their masters at the same occupations.
Surprisingly, all "servants" mentioned in the gospels are actually slaves, according to the greek.

Jesus used the master slave relationship to illustrate his relationship to his disciples Matt 10:24 and John 13:16
He embarrased them by taking on the slave role John 13

Paul taught slaves were equal to free men in the church Gal3:28 which was "perceived as dangerous to the social and economic
stability of Rome": Dr H Halley's Bible Handbook.

Paul also said slaves were to take their freedom if offered 1 Cor 7:21

In Paul's letter to Philemon, an open letter to the church, he wrote to the slave owner describing the slave as "my son"
and "my own heart" and appealed for him to take the slave back on several conditions. He was to be;-

1) "No longer as a slave"
2) "but more than a slave"
3) "a beloved brother"
4) "both in the flesh" [spiritually]
5) "and in the Lord" [physically]r
6) The slave was to be received as the owner "would receive me [Paul]"

The letter of Philemon is the only book in the bible on slavery and the only subject in the book is slavery.
It is only one chapter long.
It was widely published as a stand alone booklet in the US to campaign for an end to slavery.

Paul did not have the freedom or power to have slavery outlawed in the Roman Empire. To have openly called for it
would likely have been seen as attempting to instigate a slave revolt, about which the Graeco Roman world was eternally
paranoid. Even Christ was very careful how he answered the trap question about whether to pay taxes to Rome or not because
the Pharisees wanted to bring the wrath of Rome down on him.

But some scholars see Paul's approach of creating equality in the church and circulating the letter of Philemon as pressing
forward as much as he could and sowing the seed for changes.

-FIN-

Already been answered on the other thread.