Pete Hegseth's pastor...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.

We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.

The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.

The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?

Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.

As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?

You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.

I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.

You just proved MY POINT, actually.

You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible

What point is that?

Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.

Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?

Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.

You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.

I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.

What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.

"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."

Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.

PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Response from him:

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun

If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?

Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:

New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:

https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm

Any doubts remaining about my point?

Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.

I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.

First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?

Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.

But you’re not.

As suspected, you have no actual knowledge of the Bible and can’t form a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verse you posted. Any fool can copy/paste passages. Easiest thing in the world. To have a deep, contextual understanding is something entirely different.

As I stated, it’s one, simple passage which requires no explanation or interpretation. You’ve yet to say why it requires one other than that is the only way to rationalize it to fit your narrative.

And you are correct, any fool can quote the Bible, and many often do.

NP. I am not invested in this argument because only a total lunatic would argue that the Bible’s tolerance of slavery means that slavery is ok.

However, “I have come to fulfill the law” is not a simple passage at all. It has extremely deep implications and is most likely talking about Jesus’ fulfillment of the prophecy that he is the messiah, not a broader reading of the Old Testament versus the New Testament. The New Testament did not exist while Jesus was speaking. There could not have been a concept of comparing passages.

In context, Jesus very clearly broke Old Testament “law” several times, such as when he healed on the Sabbath or his disciples peeled wheat to eat on the Sabbath. Jesus clearly abhorred the strict legalism that could lead someone to decide slavery is ok because the Bible did not condemn it, or that women should not vote because of one verse by Paul. Jesus was operating above the individual politics of his time, because the evils of that age were not the same as the evils of our age and he knew that.

Hegseth’s pastor does not appear to be following Jesus, as far as I can tell. Jesus himself predicted this, that there would be many operating in his name and even doing miracles in his name but who would be aligned with the devil. Reading the New Testament is about developing discretion for this.

The bible does much more than "tolerate" slavery. It provides guidelines for who you can enslave, what are the terms for it, which ones you can rape as concubines, how you can beat your slaves without punishment (as long as they don't die witin a vouple of days) and more. It also provides commands for slaves themselves to obey their masters.

"These passages are all pretty straightforward. One could even say that the Bible is clear on this: the institution of slavery is permitted by God, endorsed by God, and owning slaves can even be a sign of God’s blessing. This has in fact been the Christian view through history: it’s only in the last 150-200 years that the tide of Christian opinion has shifted on slavery."

https://michaelpahl.com/2017/01/27/the-bible-is-clear-god-endorses-slavery/

"Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose." is what was said, and not "the old laws are wrong, don't own people as property, ever, under any circumstances" was NOT said.

Why not?

This raises a broader argument. If Jesus was against certain things, why did he not clearly say so? For all the pithy allegory attributed to him, could he not have said a few new "commandments" like, thou shalt not own another human being?

Instead, we're left with interpreting and reading between the lines of words written by multiple authors, across centuries of thinking - all of which hadn't yet come up with the concept that slavery was wrong.

Well, why do YOU think this is, pp? This has been addressed from everyone from Saint Augustine to Thomas Aquinas to all of the 10 year olds in my son’s religious Ed class last week.
If most public school fifth graders who attend church could think of a reasonable answer to this question, then I’m sure that you can, pp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.

We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.

The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.

The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?

Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.

As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?

You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.

I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.

You just proved MY POINT, actually.

You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible

What point is that?

Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.

Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?

Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.

You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.

I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.

What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.

"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."

Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.

PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Response from him:

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun

If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?

Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:

New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:

https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm

Any doubts remaining about my point?

Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.

I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.

First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?

Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.

But you’re not.

As suspected, you have no actual knowledge of the Bible and can’t form a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verse you posted. Any fool can copy/paste passages. Easiest thing in the world. To have a deep, contextual understanding is something entirely different.

As I stated, it’s one, simple passage which requires no explanation or interpretation. You’ve yet to say why it requires one other than that is the only way to rationalize it to fit your narrative.

And you are correct, any fool can quote the Bible, and many often do.

NP. I am not invested in this argument because only a total lunatic would argue that the Bible’s tolerance of slavery means that slavery is ok.

However, “I have come to fulfill the law” is not a simple passage at all. It has extremely deep implications and is most likely talking about Jesus’ fulfillment of the prophecy that he is the messiah, not a broader reading of the Old Testament versus the New Testament. The New Testament did not exist while Jesus was speaking. There could not have been a concept of comparing passages.

In context, Jesus very clearly broke Old Testament “law” several times, such as when he healed on the Sabbath or his disciples peeled wheat to eat on the Sabbath. Jesus clearly abhorred the strict legalism that could lead someone to decide slavery is ok because the Bible did not condemn it, or that women should not vote because of one verse by Paul. Jesus was operating above the individual politics of his time, because the evils of that age were not the same as the evils of our age and he knew that.

Hegseth’s pastor does not appear to be following Jesus, as far as I can tell. Jesus himself predicted this, that there would be many operating in his name and even doing miracles in his name but who would be aligned with the devil. Reading the New Testament is about developing discretion for this.

The bible does much more than "tolerate" slavery. It provides guidelines for who you can enslave, what are the terms for it, which ones you can rape as concubines, how you can beat your slaves without punishment (as long as they don't die witin a vouple of days) and more. It also provides commands for slaves themselves to obey their masters.

"These passages are all pretty straightforward. One could even say that the Bible is clear on this: the institution of slavery is permitted by God, endorsed by God, and owning slaves can even be a sign of God’s blessing. This has in fact been the Christian view through history: it’s only in the last 150-200 years that the tide of Christian opinion has shifted on slavery."

https://michaelpahl.com/2017/01/27/the-bible-is-clear-god-endorses-slavery/

"Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose." is what was said, and not "the old laws are wrong, don't own people as property, ever, under any circumstances" was NOT said.

Why not?

This raises a broader argument. If Jesus was against certain things, why did he not clearly say so? For all the pithy allegory attributed to him, could he not have said a few new "commandments" like, thou shalt not own another human being?

Instead, we're left with interpreting and reading between the lines of words written by multiple authors, across centuries of thinking - all of which hadn't yet come up with the concept that slavery was wrong.

Well, why do YOU think this is, pp? This has been addressed from everyone from Saint Augustine to Thomas Aquinas to all of the 10 year olds in my son’s religious Ed class last week.
If most public school fifth graders who attend church could think of a reasonable answer to this question, then I’m sure that you can, pp.

Dp. The answer is: because the book is not divine because a real god would have done a way better job.

Pretty reasonable answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.

We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.

The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.

The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?

Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.

As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?

You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.

I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.

You just proved MY POINT, actually.

You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible

What point is that?

Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.

Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?

Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.

You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.

I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.

What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.

"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."

Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.

PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17

Response from him:

“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun

If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?

Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:

New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:

https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm

Any doubts remaining about my point?

Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.

I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.

First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?

Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.

But you’re not.

As suspected, you have no actual knowledge of the Bible and can’t form a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verse you posted. Any fool can copy/paste passages. Easiest thing in the world. To have a deep, contextual understanding is something entirely different.

As I stated, it’s one, simple passage which requires no explanation or interpretation. You’ve yet to say why it requires one other than that is the only way to rationalize it to fit your narrative.

And you are correct, any fool can quote the Bible, and many often do.

NP. I am not invested in this argument because only a total lunatic would argue that the Bible’s tolerance of slavery means that slavery is ok.

However, “I have come to fulfill the law” is not a simple passage at all. It has extremely deep implications and is most likely talking about Jesus’ fulfillment of the prophecy that he is the messiah, not a broader reading of the Old Testament versus the New Testament. The New Testament did not exist while Jesus was speaking. There could not have been a concept of comparing passages.

In context, Jesus very clearly broke Old Testament “law” several times, such as when he healed on the Sabbath or his disciples peeled wheat to eat on the Sabbath. Jesus clearly abhorred the strict legalism that could lead someone to decide slavery is ok because the Bible did not condemn it, or that women should not vote because of one verse by Paul. Jesus was operating above the individual politics of his time, because the evils of that age were not the same as the evils of our age and he knew that.

Hegseth’s pastor does not appear to be following Jesus, as far as I can tell. Jesus himself predicted this, that there would be many operating in his name and even doing miracles in his name but who would be aligned with the devil. Reading the New Testament is about developing discretion for this.

The bible does much more than "tolerate" slavery. It provides guidelines for who you can enslave, what are the terms for it, which ones you can rape as concubines, how you can beat your slaves without punishment (as long as they don't die witin a vouple of days) and more. It also provides commands for slaves themselves to obey their masters.

"These passages are all pretty straightforward. One could even say that the Bible is clear on this: the institution of slavery is permitted by God, endorsed by God, and owning slaves can even be a sign of God’s blessing. This has in fact been the Christian view through history: it’s only in the last 150-200 years that the tide of Christian opinion has shifted on slavery."

https://michaelpahl.com/2017/01/27/the-bible-is-clear-god-endorses-slavery/

"Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose." is what was said, and not "the old laws are wrong, don't own people as property, ever, under any circumstances" was NOT said.

Why not?

This raises a broader argument. If Jesus was against certain things, why did he not clearly say so? For all the pithy allegory attributed to him, could he not have said a few new "commandments" like, thou shalt not own another human being?

Instead, we're left with interpreting and reading between the lines of words written by multiple authors, across centuries of thinking - all of which hadn't yet come up with the concept that slavery was wrong.

Well, why do YOU think this is, pp? This has been addressed from everyone from Saint Augustine to Thomas Aquinas to all of the 10 year olds in my son’s religious Ed class last week.
If most public school fifth graders who attend church could think of a reasonable answer to this question, then I’m sure that you can, pp.

Dp. The answer is: because the book is not divine because a real god would have done a way better job.

Pretty reasonable answer.

+1

[Anonymous]

He is not a man of god he is a snake oil salesman.

Alcohol Petey and his POS Pastor are not worth the air they breathe. Worthless to the human race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...defends slavery. This is what American Christian Nationalism is:

https://www.peoplefor.org/rightwingwatch/christian-nationalist-commentator-joshua-haymes-says-slavery-not-inherently-evil

"The institution of slavery is not inherently evil," Haymes insisted. "It is not inherently evil to own another human being."

"It is very important that every Christian affirm what I just said," he continued. "Not only should they affirm it, every Christian in today's society should be able to defend what I just said. Every Christian should be able to defend it ... Christians in America have been led astray on this topic. They've been led to believe things that the Bible doesn't teach, and when we go beyond the Bible, there are dire consequences."

Pete Hegseth’s pastor did NOT say anything of the kind. Read para 2 of what you posted. At least four degrees of separation. Your post is dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.

We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.

The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.

+1 and don't forget that the Bible gives explicit instructions on where to buy your slaves, how to trick them into staying with you for life, and most importantly, how to beat them.

In those days, slaves were needed because labor saving devices (e.g., the fan) had not yet been invented. So, of course the Bible, a human document, condoned slavery.

Understand the difference between need and want. Slaves were not needed, they were wanted.

There is also never an excuse or justification for it.

I'm fine with considering the Bible to be marketing but it's kind of depressing how little the people in this thread actually know about the Bible or the basics of Western civilization beyond what they read about it in a blog post.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but you provide no evidence of it. It sounds like everyone here knows the Bible reasonably well.

But you keep hammering away with ad hominem if that’s all ya got.

You say you know the Bible, but you’ve somehow missed the “what is Christianity” portion of it.

Christianity’s goal has never been perfect justice on Earth or law and order. Criticizing it on those terms is an exercise in making irrelevant arguments.

This is incorrect, and ridiculous as well. I criticize the bible as an immoral book. I criticize those that use passages of it to impose what they consider moral on others. What you say is "the goal of Christianity" is both irrelevant to the topic and to me in general. That's the ridiculous part. This entire thread is about the biblical position on slavery.

What is incorrect is your claim that people here don't know the bible. They have demonstrated they sure do.

I notice that religious people with deep knowledge of the Bible often criticize other people, who may also have deep knowledge of the Bible, but interpret it differently.

These days, there are also lots of atheists with deep knowledge of the Bible, because they acquired it when they were religious.

It’s quite self-righteous and arrogant for athesists today to think they have special insights on religion and the Bible. None of their arguments are new. Jews have always been marginalized back to the time of Egypt. Jesus himself was then rejected by both Gentiles and Jews. All throughout history, there have been people who have said that Christianity isn’t true and have worked very hard to try to prove that — sometimes through violence or oppression. There are volumes and volumes already written about this. The entire Enlightnment movement was based on the core idea that we should leave Christianity behind.

And yet here we are living in a world where Christianity is on the rise globally, and the church bleeding has stopped in the United States. It’s almost like there is something cosmic about the Bible after all ….

Oh yes, there's something so cosmic about the Bible that Christianity must be true! /S

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...defends slavery. This is what American Christian Nationalism is:

https://www.peoplefor.org/rightwingwatch/christian-nationalist-commentator-joshua-haymes-says-slavery-not-inherently-evil

"The institution of slavery is not inherently evil," Haymes insisted. "It is not inherently evil to own another human being."

"It is very important that every Christian affirm what I just said," he continued. "Not only should they affirm it, every Christian in today's society should be able to defend what I just said. Every Christian should be able to defend it ... Christians in America have been led astray on this topic. They've been led to believe things that the Bible doesn't teach, and when we go beyond the Bible, there are dire consequences."

Pete Hegseth’s pastor did NOT say anything of the kind. Read para 2 of what you posted. At least four degrees of separation. Your post is dishonest.

According to the article this is what the guy said:

Haymes proceeded to argue that while there have obviously been many slave owners who treated their slaves terribly, the practice of slavery itself is not sinful and therefore the Founding Fathers were not "living in grave sin" by owning slaves, nor was America birthed in sin because of the practice.

"We must also acknowledge that men like our Founders, men like Jonathan Edwards, who owned slaves, could in fact treat their slaves the way the Bible tells them to treat their slaves and that they weren't living in grave sin," Haymes asserted. "They weren't living in unrepentant grave sin."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.

We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.

The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.

+1 and don't forget that the Bible gives explicit instructions on where to buy your slaves, how to trick them into staying with you for life, and most importantly, how to beat them.

In those days, slaves were needed because labor saving devices (e.g., the fan) had not yet been invented. So, of course the Bible, a human document, condoned slavery.

Understand the difference between need and want. Slaves were not needed, they were wanted.

There is also never an excuse or justification for it.

I'm fine with considering the Bible to be marketing but it's kind of depressing how little the people in this thread actually know about the Bible or the basics of Western civilization beyond what they read about it in a blog post.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but you provide no evidence of it. It sounds like everyone here knows the Bible reasonably well.

But you keep hammering away with ad hominem if that’s all ya got.

You say you know the Bible, but you’ve somehow missed the “what is Christianity” portion of it.

Christianity’s goal has never been perfect justice on Earth or law and order. Criticizing it on those terms is an exercise in making irrelevant arguments.

This is incorrect, and ridiculous as well. I criticize the bible as an immoral book. I criticize those that use passages of it to impose what they consider moral on others. What you say is "the goal of Christianity" is both irrelevant to the topic and to me in general. That's the ridiculous part. This entire thread is about the biblical position on slavery.

What is incorrect is your claim that people here don't know the bible. They have demonstrated they sure do.

Very few actual verses are being discussed here and I suspect the people discussing the verses about slavery have not actually read them beyond the blog post posted earlier.

So what? The whole Bible is open to interpretation. That's one of the reasons that there are so many different Christian religions.

So, I was reading the book "Amusing ourselves to death" and something really interesting about that book, which is about the collapse of knowledge in the face of television, and which predicted a lot of what is happening with the internet, social media, etc., is how much the author hated Christian televangelists. It was so weird that of all the things happening in the 80s Billy Graham and the like were his pet peeve.

And what it came down to is that he saw with this eagle-eyed clarity that when our understanding of everything is so surface level, when Christians don't have an in depth understanding of the Bible, when the population at large has no understanding of history, that creates an opening for people like Trump, like these pastors, to slide in and obtain a bigger and bigger following. And that includes manipulating atheists, and people who don't have any religion.

If you're going to critique the Bible, at least take a few moments to read the verses about slavery and freedom and engage with them. There are verses in the Bible about slavery but there are a lot more verses about freedom and what that means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.

We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.

The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.

+1 and don't forget that the Bible gives explicit instructions on where to buy your slaves, how to trick them into staying with you for life, and most importantly, how to beat them.

In those days, slaves were needed because labor saving devices (e.g., the fan) had not yet been invented. So, of course the Bible, a human document, condoned slavery.

Understand the difference between need and want. Slaves were not needed, they were wanted.

There is also never an excuse or justification for it.

I'm fine with considering the Bible to be marketing but it's kind of depressing how little the people in this thread actually know about the Bible or the basics of Western civilization beyond what they read about it in a blog post.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but you provide no evidence of it. It sounds like everyone here knows the Bible reasonably well.

But you keep hammering away with ad hominem if that’s all ya got.

You say you know the Bible, but you’ve somehow missed the “what is Christianity” portion of it.

Christianity’s goal has never been perfect justice on Earth or law and order. Criticizing it on those terms is an exercise in making irrelevant arguments.

This is incorrect, and ridiculous as well. I criticize the bible as an immoral book. I criticize those that use passages of it to impose what they consider moral on others. What you say is "the goal of Christianity" is both irrelevant to the topic and to me in general. That's the ridiculous part. This entire thread is about the biblical position on slavery.

What is incorrect is your claim that people here don't know the bible. They have demonstrated they sure do.

Very few actual verses are being discussed here and I suspect the people discussing the verses about slavery have not actually read them beyond the blog post posted earlier.

So what? The whole Bible is open to interpretation. That's one of the reasons that there are so many different Christian religions.

So, I was reading the book "Amusing ourselves to death" and something really interesting about that book, which is about the collapse of knowledge in the face of television, and which predicted a lot of what is happening with the internet, social media, etc., is how much the author hated Christian televangelists. It was so weird that of all the things happening in the 80s Billy Graham and the like were his pet peeve.

And what it came down to is that he saw with this eagle-eyed clarity that when our understanding of everything is so surface level, when Christians don't have an in depth understanding of the Bible, when the population at large has no understanding of history, that creates an opening for people like Trump, like these pastors, to slide in and obtain a bigger and bigger following. And that includes manipulating atheists, and people who don't have any religion.

If you're going to critique the Bible, at least take a few moments to read the verses about slavery and freedom and engage with them. There are verses in the Bible about slavery but there are a lot more verses about freedom and what that means.

And yet you keep denying the words, the actual words in the actual book, which are both 1) clear enough for anyone to understand 2) not refuted at any point. With zero evidence to support your claims.

If you're going to critique the critical posters, at least take a few moments to post evidence of your claim that people are misunderstanding the verses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.

We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.

The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.

+1 and don't forget that the Bible gives explicit instructions on where to buy your slaves, how to trick them into staying with you for life, and most importantly, how to beat them.

In those days, slaves were needed because labor saving devices (e.g., the fan) had not yet been invented. So, of course the Bible, a human document, condoned slavery.

Understand the difference between need and want. Slaves were not needed, they were wanted.

There is also never an excuse or justification for it.

I'm fine with considering the Bible to be marketing but it's kind of depressing how little the people in this thread actually know about the Bible or the basics of Western civilization beyond what they read about it in a blog post.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but you provide no evidence of it. It sounds like everyone here knows the Bible reasonably well.

But you keep hammering away with ad hominem if that’s all ya got.

You say you know the Bible, but you’ve somehow missed the “what is Christianity” portion of it.

Christianity’s goal has never been perfect justice on Earth or law and order. Criticizing it on those terms is an exercise in making irrelevant arguments.

This is incorrect, and ridiculous as well. I criticize the bible as an immoral book. I criticize those that use passages of it to impose what they consider moral on others. What you say is "the goal of Christianity" is both irrelevant to the topic and to me in general. That's the ridiculous part. This entire thread is about the biblical position on slavery.

What is incorrect is your claim that people here don't know the bible. They have demonstrated they sure do.

Very few actual verses are being discussed here and I suspect the people discussing the verses about slavery have not actually read them beyond the blog post posted earlier.

So what? The whole Bible is open to interpretation. That's one of the reasons that there are so many different Christian religions.

So, I was reading the book "Amusing ourselves to death" and something really interesting about that book, which is about the collapse of knowledge in the face of television, and which predicted a lot of what is happening with the internet, social media, etc., is how much the author hated Christian televangelists. It was so weird that of all the things happening in the 80s Billy Graham and the like were his pet peeve.

And what it came down to is that he saw with this eagle-eyed clarity that when our understanding of everything is so surface level, when Christians don't have an in depth understanding of the Bible, when the population at large has no understanding of history, that creates an opening for people like Trump, like these pastors, to slide in and obtain a bigger and bigger following. And that includes manipulating atheists, and people who don't have any religion.

If you're going to critique the Bible, at least take a few moments to read the verses about slavery and freedom and engage with them. There are verses in the Bible about slavery but there are a lot more verses about freedom and what that means.

One could argue that most Christians throughout history have never had an in depth understanding of the Bible, nor of history. Hence the reason they continue to revere and believe a fictional story is real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.

We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.

The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.

+1 and don't forget that the Bible gives explicit instructions on where to buy your slaves, how to trick them into staying with you for life, and most importantly, how to beat them.

In those days, slaves were needed because labor saving devices (e.g., the fan) had not yet been invented. So, of course the Bible, a human document, condoned slavery.

Understand the difference between need and want. Slaves were not needed, they were wanted.

There is also never an excuse or justification for it.

I'm fine with considering the Bible to be marketing but it's kind of depressing how little the people in this thread actually know about the Bible or the basics of Western civilization beyond what they read about it in a blog post.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but you provide no evidence of it. It sounds like everyone here knows the Bible reasonably well.

But you keep hammering away with ad hominem if that’s all ya got.

You say you know the Bible, but you’ve somehow missed the “what is Christianity” portion of it.

Christianity’s goal has never been perfect justice on Earth or law and order. Criticizing it on those terms is an exercise in making irrelevant arguments.

This is incorrect, and ridiculous as well. I criticize the bible as an immoral book. I criticize those that use passages of it to impose what they consider moral on others. What you say is "the goal of Christianity" is both irrelevant to the topic and to me in general. That's the ridiculous part. This entire thread is about the biblical position on slavery.

What is incorrect is your claim that people here don't know the bible. They have demonstrated they sure do.

Very few actual verses are being discussed here and I suspect the people discussing the verses about slavery have not actually read them beyond the blog post posted earlier.

So what? The whole Bible is open to interpretation. That's one of the reasons that there are so many different Christian religions.

So, I was reading the book "Amusing ourselves to death" and something really interesting about that book, which is about the collapse of knowledge in the face of television, and which predicted a lot of what is happening with the internet, social media, etc., is how much the author hated Christian televangelists. It was so weird that of all the things happening in the 80s Billy Graham and the like were his pet peeve.

And what it came down to is that he saw with this eagle-eyed clarity that when our understanding of everything is so surface level, when Christians don't have an in depth understanding of the Bible, when the population at large has no understanding of history, that creates an opening for people like Trump, like these pastors, to slide in and obtain a bigger and bigger following. And that includes manipulating atheists, and people who don't have any religion.

If you're going to critique the Bible, at least take a few moments to read the verses about slavery and freedom and engage with them. There are verses in the Bible about slavery but there are a lot more verses about freedom and what that means.

One could argue that most Christians throughout history have never had an in depth understanding of the Bible, nor of history. Hence the reason they continue to revere and believe a fictional story is real.

That’s the thesis of the whole book- before the advent of telegraphs, television, etc., you HAD to have a better understanding of place, of history, of theology. Everything was more in depth because there was no alternative. There was no such thing as a 30 second sound bite, or a two minute video summary.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.[/quote]

We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.

The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.[/quote]

+1 and don't forget that the Bible gives explicit instructions on where to buy your slaves, how to trick them into staying with you for life, and most importantly, how to beat them.
[/quote]

In those days, slaves were needed because labor saving devices (e.g., the fan) had not yet been invented. So, of course the Bible, a human document, condoned slavery.[/quote]

Understand the difference between need and want. Slaves were not needed, they were wanted.

There is also never an excuse or justification for it.[/quote]

I'm fine with considering the Bible to be marketing but it's kind of depressing how little the people in this thread actually know about the Bible or the basics of Western civilization beyond what they read about it in a blog post.[/quote]

Yeah, you keep saying that, but you provide no evidence of it. It sounds like everyone here knows the Bible reasonably well.

But you keep hammering away with ad hominem if that’s all ya got.[/quote]

You say you know the Bible, but you’ve somehow missed the “what is Christianity” portion of it.

Christianity’s goal has never been perfect justice on Earth or law and order. Criticizing it on those terms is an exercise in making irrelevant arguments.[/quote]

This is incorrect, and ridiculous as well. I criticize the bible as an immoral book. I criticize those that use passages of it to impose what they consider moral on others. What you say is "the goal of Christianity" is both irrelevant to the topic and to me in general. That's the ridiculous part. This entire thread is about the biblical position on slavery.

What is incorrect is your claim that people here don't know the bible. They have demonstrated they sure do.[/quote]

Very few actual verses are being discussed here and I suspect the people discussing the verses about slavery have not actually read them beyond the blog post posted earlier.[/quote]

So what? The whole Bible is open to interpretation. That's one of the reasons that there are so many different Christian religions.[/quote]

So, I was reading the book "Amusing ourselves to death" and something really interesting about that book, which is about the collapse of knowledge in the face of television, and which predicted a lot of what is happening with the internet, social media, etc., is how much the author hated Christian televangelists. It was so weird that of all the things happening in the 80s Billy Graham and the like were his pet peeve.

And what it came down to is that he saw with this eagle-eyed clarity that when our understanding of everything is so surface level, when Christians don't have an in depth understanding of the Bible, when the population at large has no understanding of history, that creates an opening for people like Trump, like these pastors, to slide in and obtain a bigger and bigger following. And that includes manipulating atheists, and people who don't have any religion.

If you're going to critique the Bible, at least take a few moments to read the verses about slavery and freedom and engage with them. There are verses in the Bible about slavery but there are a lot more verses about freedom and what that means.[/quote]

And yet you keep denying the words, the actual words in the actual book, which are both 1) clear enough for anyone to understand 2) not refuted at any point. With zero evidence to support your claims.

If you're going to critique the critical posters, at least take a few moments to post evidence of your claim that people are misunderstanding the verses. [/quote]

Where did anyone deny the words? And what words are they denying, exactly? What verses do you take issue with?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.

We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.

The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.

+1 and don't forget that the Bible gives explicit instructions on where to buy your slaves, how to trick them into staying with you for life, and most importantly, how to beat them.

In those days, slaves were needed because labor saving devices (e.g., the fan) had not yet been invented. So, of course the Bible, a human document, condoned slavery.

Understand the difference between need and want. Slaves were not needed, they were wanted.

There is also never an excuse or justification for it.

I'm fine with considering the Bible to be marketing but it's kind of depressing how little the people in this thread actually know about the Bible or the basics of Western civilization beyond what they read about it in a blog post.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but you provide no evidence of it. It sounds like everyone here knows the Bible reasonably well.

But you keep hammering away with ad hominem if that’s all ya got.

You say you know the Bible, but you’ve somehow missed the “what is Christianity” portion of it.

Christianity’s goal has never been perfect justice on Earth or law and order. Criticizing it on those terms is an exercise in making irrelevant arguments.

This is incorrect, and ridiculous as well. I criticize the bible as an immoral book. I criticize those that use passages of it to impose what they consider moral on others. What you say is "the goal of Christianity" is both irrelevant to the topic and to me in general. That's the ridiculous part. This entire thread is about the biblical position on slavery.

What is incorrect is your claim that people here don't know the bible. They have demonstrated they sure do.

Very few actual verses are being discussed here and I suspect the people discussing the verses about slavery have not actually read them beyond the blog post posted earlier.

So what? The whole Bible is open to interpretation. That's one of the reasons that there are so many different Christian religions.

So, I was reading the book "Amusing ourselves to death" and something really interesting about that book, which is about the collapse of knowledge in the face of television, and which predicted a lot of what is happening with the internet, social media, etc., is how much the author hated Christian televangelists. It was so weird that of all the things happening in the 80s Billy Graham and the like were his pet peeve.

And what it came down to is that he saw with this eagle-eyed clarity that when our understanding of everything is so surface level, when Christians don't have an in depth understanding of the Bible, when the population at large has no understanding of history, that creates an opening for people like Trump, like these pastors, to slide in and obtain a bigger and bigger following. And that includes manipulating atheists, and people who don't have any religion.

If you're going to critique the Bible, at least take a few moments to read the verses about slavery and freedom and engage with them. There are verses in the Bible about slavery but there are a lot more verses about freedom and what that means.

One could argue that most Christians throughout history have never had an in depth understanding of the Bible, nor of history. Hence the reason they continue to revere and believe a fictional story is real.

That’s the thesis of the whole book- before the advent of telegraphs, television, etc., you HAD to have a better understanding of place, of history, of theology. Everything was more in depth because there was no alternative. There was no such thing as a 30 second sound bite, or a two minute video summary.

Considering that until the invention of moveable type, books were expensive and rare, with vernacular versions of the Bible even rarer. And, until relatively recently, most of the general population was illiterate, how did people "HAVE to have a better understanding"?

[Anonymous]

There is nothing to discuss
The Pastor is a con man.
He said women should not have the right to vote.
He is a racist
He is an anti semite
He is a POS get it now??

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.[/quote]

We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.

The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.[/quote]

+1 and don't forget that the Bible gives explicit instructions on where to buy your slaves, how to trick them into staying with you for life, and most importantly, how to beat them.
[/quote]

In those days, slaves were needed because labor saving devices (e.g., the fan) had not yet been invented. So, of course the Bible, a human document, condoned slavery.[/quote]

Understand the difference between need and want. Slaves were not needed, they were wanted.

There is also never an excuse or justification for it.[/quote]

I'm fine with considering the Bible to be marketing but it's kind of depressing how little the people in this thread actually know about the Bible or the basics of Western civilization beyond what they read about it in a blog post.[/quote]

Yeah, you keep saying that, but you provide no evidence of it. It sounds like everyone here knows the Bible reasonably well.

But you keep hammering away with ad hominem if that’s all ya got.[/quote]

You say you know the Bible, but you’ve somehow missed the “what is Christianity” portion of it.

Christianity’s goal has never been perfect justice on Earth or law and order. Criticizing it on those terms is an exercise in making irrelevant arguments.[/quote]

This is incorrect, and ridiculous as well. I criticize the bible as an immoral book. I criticize those that use passages of it to impose what they consider moral on others. What you say is "the goal of Christianity" is both irrelevant to the topic and to me in general. That's the ridiculous part. This entire thread is about the biblical position on slavery.

What is incorrect is your claim that people here don't know the bible. They have demonstrated they sure do.[/quote]

Very few actual verses are being discussed here and I suspect the people discussing the verses about slavery have not actually read them beyond the blog post posted earlier.[/quote]

So what? The whole Bible is open to interpretation. That's one of the reasons that there are so many different Christian religions.[/quote]

So, I was reading the book "Amusing ourselves to death" and something really interesting about that book, which is about the collapse of knowledge in the face of television, and which predicted a lot of what is happening with the internet, social media, etc., is how much the author hated Christian televangelists. It was so weird that of all the things happening in the 80s Billy Graham and the like were his pet peeve.

And what it came down to is that he saw with this eagle-eyed clarity that when our understanding of everything is so surface level, when Christians don't have an in depth understanding of the Bible, when the population at large has no understanding of history, that creates an opening for people like Trump, like these pastors, to slide in and obtain a bigger and bigger following. And that includes manipulating atheists, and people who don't have any religion.

If you're going to critique the Bible, at least take a few moments to read the verses about slavery and freedom and engage with them. There are verses in the Bible about slavery but there are a lot more verses about freedom and what that means.[/quote]

And yet you keep denying the words, the actual words in the actual book, which are both 1) clear enough for anyone to understand 2) not refuted at any point. With zero evidence to support your claims.

If you're going to critique the critical posters, at least take a few moments to post evidence of your claim that people are misunderstanding the verses. [/quote]

Where did anyone deny the words? And what words are they denying, exactly? What verses do you take issue with? [/quote]

Oh please a book written years ago by men for one purpose to control people is a book for indoctrination into a cult.