Pete Hegseth's pastor...

[Anonymous]

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.

So some kinds of slavery are…defensible?

Oh yeah, all kinds of things are defensible if you take the bible as god's word and the earth's truth. Kill your daughter, kill your wife, enslave your neighbor, require a widow to choose between marrying her brother in law or being stoned to death... The bible is just a terrific model for a kind and productive society.

+1

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe we should go back to polygamy too, that was in the Bible. Lots of kinky sex stuff in the Bible. As well as keeping concubines.

There are Christians that practice polygyny. Mainly in Africa, but also Utah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe we should go back to polygamy too, that was in the Bible. Lots of kinky sex stuff in the Bible. As well as keeping concubines.

There are Christians that practice polygyny. Mainly in Africa, but also Utah.

I'm sure Doug Wilson would love a few more wives, especially if they were under 18, like all of the other good Christian Mormons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe we should go back to polygamy too, that was in the Bible. Lots of kinky sex stuff in the Bible. As well as keeping concubines.

There are Christians that practice polygyny. Mainly in Africa, but also Utah.

I'm sure Doug Wilson would love a few more wives, especially if they were under 18, like all of the other good Christian Mormons.

+1

[Anonymous]

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.

He is a racist, white supremacist who is bastardizing the Bible in order to subjugate women and non-whites.

You can subjugate women and non-whites without bastardizing the Bible.

Using the bible to justify misogyny and racism is much worse, because it gives the appearance of sacralizing abuse and exploitation. The men in Doug Wilson's church are taught that to be a good Christian man, they must force their wives do what they want. They condone marital rape, and twist it into something they call holy.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.