For those too lazy to read through the entire thread or don't have the time, here's summary of everything so far

Apologists: Biblical slavery is same as employer Employee

counterapologetics: A type of slavery has certain similarities between employer Employee, enslaving Israelites has the similarities but non Hebrews don't bear any similarity as they can be bought and passed on to children and children's children as inheritance+ their wives and children belonged to the master. also, they can't have any property of their own. This shows the huge difference between chattel slavery of the bible and saying they're the same is akin to saying military Cruise missiles are same as a toy gun

2. apologetics: Passing slaves to children and grandchildren is same as a football club loaning a player to another club

Counterapologetics: Slaves passed to children has no say whereas footballer not only has a say but the FINAL say, no player can be loaned to another club without his express consent

apologetics: biblical slavery is good! Look how portipher treated Joseph!!

counterapologetics: Joseph was an exception and moses even had to liberate the Israelites from Egyptian slavery. also moses killed a someone for treating a slave the way the bible allows! they're ignoring that moses killed the guy for beating a slave which seems okay by Yahweh only that the beaten slave was an Israeli


Apologetics: Bobrisky said he's having sex with a male billionaire and keeps the billionaire identity secret, that's slavery

counterapologetics: That's gibberish and a pant of a fish out of water

I will be updating this post as new arguments come from them but the arguments so far have been disappointing

Explain first...

For the viewers, what brought this discussion?

Dalaman said the missionaries that came to Africa came for their own interest not mainly for to spread the bible.
interests which included taking advantage of our natural and human resources. by "Human Resources" we meant slavery

Spartan117 disagreed with What Dalaman said which prompted Dalaman to talk about the first slave ship to leave Africa being called "Good Ship Jesus". Spartan117 said the Captain might've been "religious" and the ship's name might be correct but that doesn't make them "Christians"

I replied that their having taken part in slavery doesn't make them less of a Christian cuz the Bible never condemned slavery and dare I say it subtly encourage it? Spartan117 and AwesomeJ disagreed and I said we should discuss it on a new thread to avoid derailing the one on which we were on

PastorLucifer:
Explain first...

That is noted but please this thread is between the four mentioned in the title
thanks for your cooperation

CuteMadridista:


That is noted but please this thread is between the four mentioned in the title

thanks for your cooperation

First, I think we should welcome views from anybody else.
It should just be that these four of us commit as much as possible to seeing that we have a sound debate.

So let's start by defining the core features of slavery which makes it bad.

I put it to you that slavery as practised in the Bible is devoid of these features.

awesomeJ:

First, I think we should welcome views from anybody else.
It should just be that these four of us commit as much as possible to seeing that we have a sound debate.

So let's start by defining the core features of slavery which makes it bad.

I put it to you that slavery as practised in the Bible is devoid of these features.

Start by defining the core features of slavery which makes it bad and how those "features" are not shown to be encouraged in the Bible

I want to avoid too much derailing and clutter, that's why I'm making it to be amongst the four of us who were on that thread

Pastor....
Please do well to not litter this thread with your filthy photos. They are totally unrelated to the scope here, so you may want to open for yourself a new thread.

@mynd44, Seun, please help us take them photos out.

awesomeJ:

First, I think we should welcome views from anybody else.
It should just be that these four of us commit as much as possible to seeing that we have a sound debate.

So let's start by defining the core features of slavery which makes it bad.

I put it to you that slavery as practised in the Bible is devoid of these features.

Slavery as practiced in the bible is equally bad as any other form of slavery.

CuteMadridista:


Spartan117 disagreed with What Dalaman said which prompted Dalaman to talk about the first slave ship to leave Africa being called "Good Ship Jesus". Spartan117 said the Captain might've been "religious" and the ship's name might be correct but that doesn't make them "Christians"

I replied that their having taken part in slavery doesn't make them less of a Christian cuz the Bible never condemned slavery and dare I say it subtly encourage it? Spartan117 and AwesomeJ disagreed and I said we should discuss it on a new thread to avoid derailing the one on which we were on

Alright I'm here

Just a little point of correction I never said the Captain of the Good ship jesus admiral John Hawkins wasn't a Christian. I only said he wasn't a Christian missionary. he came to the African coast for the purpose of engaging in slave trade he didn't come to propagate the gospel of christ, which is why history remembers him as a British admiral and not a British Christian missionary.


AwesomeJ, dalaman

AwesomeJ, I made a mistake in my last post and I feel you must've read it so I'm using this one to correct it rather than edit

I want you to list those things that make slavery bad and I'll be the one to show that the bible allows them......

spartan117:

Alright I'm here

Just a little point of correction I never said the Captain of the Good ship jesus admiral John Hawkins wasn't a Christian. I only said he wasn't a Christian missionary. he came to the African coast for the purpose of engaging in slave trade he didn't come to propagate the gospel of christ, which is why history remembers him as a British admiral and not a British Christian missionary.


AwesomeJ, dalaman

That's fair enough but you also disagreed that the Bible is against slavery so its all good

spartan117:

Alright I'm here

Just a little point of correction I never said the Captain of the Good ship jesus admiral John Hawkins wasn't a Christian. I only said he wasn't a Christian missionary. he came to the African coast for the purpose of engaging in slave trade he didn't come to propagate the gospel of christ, which is why history remembers him as a British admiral and not a British Christian missionary.


AwesomeJ, dalaman

Who told you he wasnt a christian missionary? You can not separate the imperialist and the missionaries at that time because even pastors and head of churches were slave owners at that time so what are you saying? Most of them owned slaves and even those that were evengalizing were also part of the imperial structure.

CuteMadridista:


Start by defining the core features of slavery which makes it bad and how those "features" are not shown to be encouraged in the Bible

I want to avoid too much derailing and clutter, that's why I'm making it to be amongst the four of us who were on that thread

Don't forget bro, your side is "it's bad" my side is "it isn't".
So, obviously, it should be you mentioning why it's bad.

dalaman:


Slavery as practiced in the bible is equally bad as any other form of slavery.

In what specific ways?

awesomeJ:
Don't forget bro, your side is "it's bad" my side is "it isn't". So, obviously, it should be you mentioning why it's bad.

I've made another post to correct the first post, do check it out

dalaman:


Who told you he wasnt a christian missionary? You can not separate the imperialist and the missionaries at that time because even pastors and head of churches were slave owners at that time so what are you saying? Most of them owned slaves and even those that were evengalizing were also part of the imperial structure.

Of course you can.

My MD could be a pastor in his church.

The things he does as an MD are not things you'd say he does as a pastor.

For instance, a line manager who is a Muslim could have been consistently delivering poor results on the job, and after hunting for a replacement, my MD decides to let this former manager go.

If you draw a conclusion that "A pastor fired a Muslim worker". It'd be a wrong one.

The actual happening is that " an MD fired a line manager'

CuteMadridista:


I've made another post to correct the first post, do check it out

Still, it's you saying slavery is bad, so tell me in what ways.

If you say X is bad car.
And I say X isn't.
It's you who will tell me the specific things you've seen in X that make you term it a bad car.

awesomeJ:

In what specific ways?

Let me drop just a few biblical verses on slavery and how slaves are to be treated to show you that it is not different from any other form of slavery.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)


However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

Slave's according to the bible were properties and could be inherited. They could be beaten and branded. They had no right to own any property. They weren't paid any wages. Their kids were also owned by their masters. How is this any different from other forms of slavery?

awesomeJ:

Still, it's you saying slavery is bad, so tell me in what ways.

If you say X is bad car.
And I say X isn't.
It's you who will tell me the specific things you've seen in X that make you term it a bad car.

My own statement is that the bible didn't forbid slavery

you however said the type of slavery endorsed in the Bible isn't bad. I'm of the opinion that its bad even when practised that way

I need you to stick out your neck a bit by telling us how the type of slavery as endorsed in the bible is different from the type the Whites did to us Africans, how they deviated from the biblical version. when you tell us I would then use the bible to show that its infact no different from the biblical one

dalaman:


Let me drop just a few biblical verses on slavery and how slaves are to be treated to show you that it is not different from any other form of slavery.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)


However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

Slave's according to the bible were properties and could be inherited. They could be beaten and branded. They had no right to own any property. They weren't paid any wages. Their kids were also owned by their masters. How is this any different from other forms of slavery?

exactly why I wanted him to stick his neck out by telling us how its different from the ones the whites did to us.

dalaman:


Let me drop just a few biblical verses on slavery and how slaves are to be treated to show you that it is not different from any other form of slavery.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)


However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

Slave's according to the bible were properties and could be inherited. They could be beaten and branded. They had no right to own any property. They weren't paid any wages. Their kids were also owned by their masters. How is this any different from other forms of slavery?

The slaves did have their rights until it was sold by themselves or by someone of influence over them for MONEY.

The slave masters did not kidnap those slaves, they paid to have their services for a stipulated timeframe.

How's that different from modern day employment?

You choose to give up years of your time for your employers pay. Should you then complain that you don't have the liberty to do the things you'd actually want with your time?

And in case you want to say that, at least people can resign from their jobs now, then too slaves could be redeemed. So please, have the right perspective, it was just employment.

awesomeJ:


The slaves did have their rights until it was sold by themselves or by someone of influence over them for MONEY.

The slave masters did not kidnap those slaves, they paid to have their services for a stipulated timeframe.

How's that different from modern day employment?

You choose to give up years of your time for your employers pay. Should you then complain that you don't have the liberty to do the things you'd actually want with your time?

And in case you want to say that, at least people can resign from their jobs now, then too slaves could be redeemed. So please, have the right perspective, it was just employment.

You really need to read the post you quoted again, carefully this time

there's no such thing as "Stipulated timeframe" in that verse. its written you can pass a a slave you buy to your children and children's children

Only Israelites were exempted from such so you're concentrating on the Israelites part and ignoring the slaves that are bought part

awesomeJ:


The slaves did have their rights until it was sold by themselves or by someone of influence over them for MONEY.

The slave masters did not kidnap those slaves, they paid to have their services for a stipulated timeframe.

How's that different from modern day employment?

You choose to give up years of your time for your employers pay. Should you then complain that you don't have the liberty to do the things you'd actually want with your time?

And in case you want to say that, at least people can resign from their jobs now, then too slaves could be redeemed. So please, have the right perspective, it was just employment.

Again from the bible:


However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

Where is the stipulated time you are talking about when the bible says they are to be passed as permanent inheritance to a person's children? The slaves are bought as can be clearly seen from the verse. Is this what you are referring to as "Just employment "?

It even says that they are oly to treat their slaves that way but not their fellow people of Israel.

And about masters beating their own slaves.
The verse their was to just to add a note to the broader law which spells a death penalty for murder. That's a law that still holds in most societies today.

The point that was being noted there is that "attempted murder should not be judged as murder"

Look at a similar instruction. This is not even between a slave and a master, it's between two men. To show that the beating issue wasn't something unique to slaves.

The very instruction before the one you quoted in Exo 21 says:
18. When .end quarrel, and one strikes the other with a stone or his fist, and the injured man does not die but is confined to bed,
19 if he can later get up and walk around outside leaning on his staff, then the one who struck him will be exempt from punishment. Nevertheless, he must pay for his lost work and time and provide for his complete recovery.

So obviously, you see, it was the people of those times who had all sorts of funny lifestyles, and these instruction were basically to regulate their excesses as much as possible.

CuteMadridista:


You really need to read the post you quoted again, carefully this time

there's no such thing as "Stipulated timeframe" in that verse. its written you can pass a a slave you buy to your children and children's children

Only Israelites were exempted from such so you're concentrating on the Israelites part and ignoring the slaves that are bought part

The Hebrew slaves were also bought.

The verse also didn't state whether the time of service of those slaves was infinite.

awesomeJ:

The Hebrew slaves were also bought.

The verse also didn't state whether the time of service of those slaves was infinite.

Wrong!

Exodus 21:2-6 (NASB):
2 If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. 3 If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him.
4 If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to
God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.

6 years for Hebrew slaves and non Hebrews are to be passed on to children and children's children as property

awesomeJ:
And about masters beating their own slaves.
The verse their was to just to add a note to the broader law which spells a death penalty for murder. That's a law that still holds in most societies today.

The point that was being noted there is that "attempted murder should not be judged as murder"

Look at a similar instruction. This is not even between a slave and a master, it's between two men. To show that the beating issue wasn't something unique to slaves.

The very instruction before the one you quoted in Exo 21 says:
18. When .end quarrel, and one strikes the other with a stone or his fist, and the injured man does not die but is confined to bed,
19 if he can later get up and walk around outside leaning on his staff, then the one who struck him will be exempt from punishment. Nevertheless, he must pay for his lost work and time and provide for his complete recovery.

So obviously, you see, it was the people of those times who had all sorts of funny lifestyles, and these instruction were basically to regulate their excesses as much as possible.

Bro.
These people know the truth already.
You may just go through archives to see how this issue has be thrashed repeatedly yet they keep repeating it to themselves.

My advice is for u to leave them.
God will visit them at the right time.

Shalom

felixomor:


Bro.
These people know the truth already.
You may just go through archives to see how this issue has be thrashed repeatedly yet they keep repeating it to themselves.

My advice is for u to leave them.
God will visit them at the right time.

Shalom

would you be so kind to post those threads on which its been "trashed repeatedly"? do that and let's see or just bump those threads and I'll attend to them

dalaman:


Again from the bible:


However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

Where is the stipulated time you are talking about when the bible says they are to be passed as permanent inheritance to a person's children? The slaves are bought as can be clearly seen from the verse. Is this what you are referring to as "Just employment "?

It even says that they are oly to treat their slaves that way but not their fellow people of Israel.

This is how you should look at it:
There were those who were bought for seven years-the Hebrews.
There were those who were perhaps bought for their lifetime.
And there were those who were bought for some other time frames.

In any case, there must have been a seller for there to be a buyer.

For someone to decide to sell himself or his relative to slavery, such person's conditions must have been so terrible as to imply that the buyer probably did them the biggest favour.

Think about this. During the slave trades orchestrated by the Britons. If it was able men who chose on their own to sell themselves or their kids to slavery, would you have blamed the Britons?

CuteMadridista:


would you be so kind to post those threads on which its been "trashed repeatedly"? do that and let's see or just bump those threads and I'll attend to them

Use the search bar.
Thanks