Don't be stupid. I don't like these biblical debates because they're tedious as balls, but this isn't even a point of debate.

It doesn't sanction racial slavery. Rather, certain offenses under the mosaic law were punishable by sentences of slavery. Likewise, certain nations captives were taken as slaves. There were sanctions and rules in place about how one was to treat a slave - and after so many years of service they were allowed to either be set free, or stay with their master for an indefinate amount of time. This isn't the cotton pickin', southern pride slavery we're talking about here.

Besides this - the Old Testament is mostly a historical record of the physical nation of Isreal. Although the principals of the laws can be discerned, things like slavery sanctions, certain "unclean" foods, and the like aren't the principals that founded Christianity.

Just a heads up.

It's also quite anti-slavery in tone if you examine the chapters on Moses in any detail whatsoever.

I have only one thing to add to this topic, from the perspective of a devout Christian:

Romans 13:9 - "For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

I love how this "refutation", in addition to rationalizing slavery, actually just ends up confirming what RVCA was saying. :laughing:

what

I'm not refuting anything. I'm just telling you straight the fact that biblical slavery and our modern perceptions of it aren't exactly one and the same. no personal opinions or rationalization - just information, jack.

My perception of slavery is people owning other people. How exactly is that not the same as "biblical slavery"?

Slavery is slavery.
The whole argument here was that if things are accepted or not accepted by progenitors of a religion, then it stands to reason that followers of that religion could be influenced by that fact. Everyone knows that's the case with religious anti-homosexual perceptions, which is the entire point here.

Making a distinction between racial and biblical slavery achieves absolutely nothing here.

Because that's an over simplification. Holding someone against their will is wrong, wouldn't you agree? What about imprisonment as a punishment for crimes a person has committed? Seems to be a reasonable solution.

What if you're a nomatic society? Imprisonment is a bit difficult since you're always moving. Slavery as a punishment or a means to pay off debt seems (to me) more reasonable than enslaving people simply to do your bidding.

To be honest though, I don't care in the slightest anyone's opinion of this. But I did want to kill an ignorant point of argument because it disregards the fact of the matter.

Tonight in this thread: Conan attempts to justify slavery.

Well at least you're humble and open minded. :laughing:

There's no room for opinion, is my point - when you're literally just being explained facts. It might sound like i'm justifying something or what have you, but my original post was just intended to correct an incorrect school of thought. I can give you scriptual references if you want.

This is exactly why I don't post on these things. When it comes to the bible there's too much emotion on both sides and the second I throw my hat into the ring with an unpopular viewpoint, I'm trying to "justify" something immoral. I've told you my opinion that the slavery sanctioned in the bible (what I described in my first post) is to me less severe then what most people think of as slavery. I feel the same way about certain things in the Koran that people blow out of proportion. But that's my opinion.