Can anybody that follows the bible explain this?

[thewarrior05]

the bible says lean not to your own understanding or wisdom. Now I know y'all are going to flip that, but ultimately I don't have all the answers but god does. Since yall don't believe in god it doesn't matter what I tell yall because as of now you guys have choose to be angry against god, and white people because of the things that you have went through but at the end of the day either you with god and his son Jesus Christ or you with the world and Satan. Don't let emotions and logic take you to hell because how you feel and your logic because your logic is limited, god is all knowing.

 

[TL15]

God gave folks the rules. Doesn't mean they followed them. For instance, many 'slaves' were POWs. Most every war fought by the Jews in the Bible began with a warning from God to the other people to essentially bow down and when they didn't, they got stomped. Other 'slaves' were folks that owed money even though scripture tells folks to either not borrow or to be very careful when they do. They also outlawed 'usury' or loaning with interest. So to your point if God simply outlawed servanthood there would be other ways people would get their money back. Some societies simply maimed owers or threw them in jail. You're essentially asking why didn't God not only create a perfect system but also force people to abide by it which can only happen through the removal of people's free will. The whole 'well why doesn't a loving God do ....' line of questioning always ignores that people have the freedom to do what they want. Either you want that freedom to choose or you don't.

Well (and I don't want to troll...I'm actually here for a reasonable debate) I guess what makes it weird is that there are things that God does not say he is ok with (through the bible, teachings, etc)

Ten Commandments...

To me if "slavery" is wrong...why would there be a point in the bible to say "hey...if you find yourself as a slave...make sure you serve and love your master as if he were God"

One of the commandments is that you should not covet... so basically God is saying don't yearn for possessions etc. but this passage in question not only allows for a system where human beings are treated as (or nearly as) possessions, but also for human beings to forgive the fact that they are slaves and honor their master..

And in many interpretations of this same text, it is always translated as slave/servant and master. I've never seen it interpreted as "debtor and indebted" it always uses the connotation of servant and master which is pretty direct (even in those times).

In regards to the bolded... you are saying two hugely different things from what my question is. You are saying "God gave people the rules, doesn't mean they follow them" which I completely understand the connotation of free will. You then mention "people have the freedom to do what they want" which again reinforces free will. I'm not talking about free will. I'm talking about why the words that forgive negative behavior are written. We all know that men have free will, but why would God put in a clause that allows men who are exercising free will against his teachings, to be worshipped by those that they are "owning"?

So here is where logic comes into play:

The bible "gives people the rules" (whether or not they follow them)
One of the "rules" is that SLAVES are to be obedient to their masters

So in essence, God's "rules" allow for slavery (which you and I can agree is wrong). Which goes back to the original question: (whether or not men follow his rules is irrelevant) Why would God put a contingency FOR slavery and the behavior of slaves IF owning people is an aberration?

It would be like a passage that said "IF you kill someone make sure that you kill them on a Saturday", the implied notion of that statement is that it is ok to kill someone. So the implied notion of "serve your masters" means that it is ok to be a slave/have a slave.

 

[Won Won]

Good old atheist religion hating coli, thread asked for someone who knows the Bible to answer instead it's a bunch of atheists and Bible bashers.


Y'all demons are disgusting. Keep walking on that broad road

You became religious in like 2010, FOH

 

[Verbal Kint]

You're alive in the year 12 AD.
You're telling me you're okay obeying your masters?
You would be okay with that?
You'd be happy having to submit that way?
You wouldn't view your condition as subjugation and oppressive?
You would love your master?

Dog I'm alive today and I'm not ok with listening to my boss most of the time. If folks were happy to do it there'd be no need for God to instruct people to do so. I'd probably be pissed to be in the situation, whatever the reason. And if dude I was working/serving for wasn't someone I respected or even someone really worthy of respect I wouldn't want to 'submit' to his authority, but that's the entire reason for the passage. That system meant that anyone in that situation was there for some reason, likely often one they may not have had full control over (debt, war, etc) but it's essentially saying now that you're in it, do what you're supposed to do while also instructing those in the position of power to not to abuse that power. Obviously nobody wants to be the 'lesser' in that situation but name a society that didn't have the powerful and the powerless?

 

[Verbal Kint]

Well (and I don't want to troll...I'm actually here for a reasonable debate) I guess what makes it weird is that there are things that God does not say he is ok with (through the bible, teachings, etc)

Ten Commandments...

To me if "slavery" is wrong...why would there be a point in the bible to say "hey...if you find yourself as a slave...make sure you serve and love your master as if he were God"

One of the commandments is that you should not covet... so basically God is saying don't yearn for possessions etc. but this passage in question not only allows for a system where human beings are treated as (or nearly as) possessions, but also for human beings to forgive the fact that they are slaves and honor their master..

And in many interpretations of this same text, it is always translated as slave/servant and master. I've never seen it interpreted as "debtor and indebted" it always uses the connotation of servant and master which is pretty direct (even in those times).

In regards to the bolded... you are saying two hugely different things from what my question is. You are saying "God gave people the rules, doesn't mean they follow them" which I completely understand the connotation of free will. You then mention "people have the freedom to do what they want" which again reinforces free will. I'm not talking about free will. I'm talking about why the words that forgive negative behavior are written. We all know that men have free will, but why would God put in a clause that allows men who are exercising free will against his teachings, to be worshipped by those that they are "owning"?

So here is where logic comes into play:

The bible "gives people the rules" (whether or not they follow them)
One of the "rules" is that SLAVES are to be obedient to their masters

So in essence, God's "rules" allow for slavery (which you and I can agree is wrong). Which goes back to the original question: (whether or not men follow his rules is irrelevant) Why would God put a contingency FOR slavery and the behavior of slaves IF owning people is an aberration?

It would be like a passage that said "IF you kill someone make sure that you kill them on a Saturday", the implied notion of that statement is that it is ok to kill someone. So the implied notion of "serve your masters" means that it is ok to be a slave/have a slave.

You're again ignoring the absolute fact that the type of 'slavery' allowed is very different than the type of slavery we experienced in the Americas and even the type of slavery admonished when the Jews as a people were victims of ethnic/racial based permanent slavery. Slavery is admonished while a system of bondservants/indentured servitude is allowed. 2 different things even though the use of the word 'slavery' (even though in the original Hebrew it wasn't the same thing) holds people up. Again, you can't talk about logic while completely ignoring context when it doesn't support your argument.

 

[ball15life]

It's from the New Testament.

My bad I forgot about the OP lol I was just reading some of the comments and other verses people were putting up.

 

[TL15]

You're again ignoring the absolute fact that the type of 'slavery' allowed is very different than the type of slavery we experienced in the Americas and even the type of slavery admonished when the Jews as a people were victims of ethnic/racial based permanent slavery. Slavery is admonished while a system of bondservants/indentured servitude is allowed. 2 different things even though the use of the word 'slavery' (even though in the original Hebrew it wasn't the same thing) holds people up. Again, you can't talk about logic while completely ignoring context when it doesn't support your argument.

re: ignoring

you seem to ignore the majority of my other comparisons as well because of the use of the word "slavery". You completely failed to address the comparison I brought up about killing but I'll let you cook.

So the crux of your standpoint is that "God did not want people to own other people" but "God was ok with the economic system whereby if I owed you 'money' I could sell myself to you and be indebted to you for X amount of time as your personal servant". I can rock with that from an economic standpoint. It's feasible to believe.

So if this is the case, why then am I (as a slave/servant, indentured employee, etc.) to serve as wholeheartedly a man as I would serve the lord? Why does God almighty call for me (a man who may owe another man Earthly currency which does not matter) to serve another man as if he was my Lord? Isn't that a strict juxtaposition from "false idolatry"

 

[thewarrior05]

Well (and I don't want to troll...I'm actually here for a reasonable debate) I guess what makes it weird is that there are things that God does not say he is ok with (through the bible, teachings, etc)

Ten Commandments...

To me if "slavery" is wrong...why would there be a point in the bible to say "hey...if you find yourself as a slave...make sure you serve and love your master as if he were God"

One of the commandments is that you should not covet... so basically God is saying don't yearn for possessions etc. but this passage in question not only allows for a system where human beings are treated as (or nearly as) possessions, but also for human beings to forgive the fact that they are slaves and honor their master..

And in many interpretations of this same text, it is always translated as slave/servant and master. I've never seen it interpreted as "debtor and indebted" it always uses the connotation of servant and master which is pretty direct (even in those times).

In regards to the bolded... you are saying two hugely different things from what my question is. You are saying "God gave people the rules, doesn't mean they follow them" which I completely understand the connotation of free will. You then mention "people have the freedom to do what they want" which again reinforces free will. I'm not talking about free will. I'm talking about why the words that forgive negative behavior are written. We all know that men have free will, but why would God put in a clause that allows men who are exercising free will against his teachings, to be worshipped by those that they are "owning"?

So here is where logic comes into play:

The bible "gives people the rules" (whether or not they follow them)
One of the "rules" is that SLAVES are to be obedient to their masters

So in essence, God's "rules" allow for slavery (which you and I can agree is wrong). Which goes back to the original question: (whether or not men follow his rules is irrelevant) Why would God put a contingency FOR slavery and the behavior of slaves IF owning people is an aberration?

It would be like a passage that said "IF you kill someone make sure that you kill them on a Saturday", the implied notion of that statement is that it is ok to kill someone. So the implied notion of "serve your masters" means that it is ok to be a slave/have a slave.

You got me on that man

 

[Verbal Kint]

re: ignoring

you seem to ignore the majority of my other comparisons as well because of the use of the word "slavery". You completely failed to address the comparison I brought up about killing but I'll let you cook.

So the crux of your standpoint is that "God did not want people to own other people" but "God was ok with the economic system whereby if I owed you 'money' I could sell myself to you and be indebted to you for X amount of time as your personal servant". I can rock with that from an economic standpoint. It's feasible to believe.

So if this is the case, why then am I (as a slave/servant, indentured employee, etc.) to serve as wholeheartedly a man as I would serve the lord? Why does God almighty call for me (a man who may owe another man Earthly currency which does not matter) to serve another man as if he was my Lord? Isn't that a strict juxtaposition from "false idolatry"

Honestly I missed your point about killing on my first read but still its apples to oranges because there is no nuance when someone is killed. They're always dead. With this slavery discussion we're talking about 2 separate things as you laid out. Regarding your last point, I believe essentially God is instructing us to work to the best of our abilities. The Bible talks about doing everything 'unto the Lord', essentially saying you're honoring God by doing things to the best of your ability. We're also called to love our spouses like Christ loves us and to submit to our spouses like we do to God, essentially saying to esteem them above us. So this passage is telling people to serve and obey well and to do so as if they were serving the Lord because the Lord rewards and blesses those who do what is right and good. It never says to worship, praise or anything like that, simply to give your best efforts to those you owe it to, ie your boss

 

[Kane]

Even if you say that slavery back then wasn't as bad as American slavery, at the end of the day slaves were on the bottom rung of society and undeniably opressed.

And here the Bible is, telling them to accept their subjugated status and please their massa like a good little pet.

Don't demand better for yourself, be happy doing someone else's bidding against your will

This is obviously blatant propaganda to keep the peons in line.

This is the exact passage they used on our ancestors, and we got nikkas in here defending it

 

[Slang]

Negroid Africans and Asian Mongoloids were the only races on "Earth" (we are not really on nor in earth but oh well) who do not originate in the Oceans. Niggas started out as possums, ferral animals and vermin, Asians as bugs and bacteria, hence the reason why the bible goes over most of your heads. Take the bible from a nautical perspective such as a mariner, a sea captain or scuba diver.

It's a book about "your" domination. A retrospective look at the fuckup Africans and Asians have become.

Even the Arabs knew to start out in the oceans.

Had to drop a couple of nukes on the Japs just to illuminate them. They finally saw the light.

And the worst part about it is y'all were given a chance to join the human family in the oceans and refused Gods word. SMH



Karma is a bitch ass nigga!

 

[el_oh_el]

This is ignoring significant context. Surrounding this verse is also written many rules that say one can own slaves. Exodus 21:16

• Exodus 21:2 - allows one to buy a Hebrew servant for 6 years
• Exodus 21:4 - any wife given to the slave by the master, and and children born of the wife, remain as slaves when the above slave is freed
• Exodus 21:5-6 - Allows the husband slave to keep his wife/children if he stays a slave of the master

Upon reading the surrounding context, by sampling King James Version, the Standard Version and New International Version, it's readily understandable that references to "a person" or "a man", is talking about an existing slave, and what the slave does, or what's done to the slave. In this reading, "stealing a man" is talking about stealing someone else's slave. The problem here is not slavery, but stealing.

Not necessarily. There chapter goes through explaining different things with differing contexts. What it fails to do is fully signal the transition from one context to the next.

the bible says lean not to your own understanding or wisdom. Now I know y'all are going to flip that, but ultimately I don't have all the answers but god does. Since yall don't believe in god it doesn't matter what I tell yall because as of now you guys have choose to be angry against god, and white people because of the things that you have went through but at the end of the day either you with god and his son Jesus Christ or you with the world and Satan. Don't let emotions and logic take you to hell because how you feel and your logic because your logic is limited, god is all knowing.

The non-believing of the Bible (written and edited by humans over hundreds of years) does not equate to not believing in God itself..