₦airaland Forum

zionmde:
sorry I don't have time for atheists. I always make it clear on this forum. Find someone else to pour ur frustrations on

Nice work buddy. I read a lot of posts of people criticising the Bishop for the statement he made about he being worth more than the quoted figures and I thought to myself, these guys didn't watch the video but just hastily ran with the thread topic.

I wish people would see that the entire revelation of God from Genesis to revelation is relevant to us today. He says, "all scripture is given by the inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and nstruction in righteousness." Even the practices of killing rams and sheeps were significant because they pointed to something that was to come. Whenever we have such an occurrence, the bible always clarifies the meaning and significance of such practices in our context today.

Also, Christ was made poor so that we through his poverty might become rich. Let me quite the entire passage for those who would want to twist the interpretation of these plain words to suit their agenda. The scripture below 2 Corinthians 8:7-9 clearly talks about money, kudi, ego, owo not spiritual riches.

"7But since you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in complete earnestness and in the love we have kindled in you—see that you also excel in this grace of giving.
8 I am not commanding you, but I want to test the sincerity of your love by comparing it with the earnestness of others.
9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich."

You see the Apostles carried on with the sufferings of Jesus because they were commissioned to drink of his cup and that was why most of them died martyrs. Some were beheaded and others were crucified upside down, etc. because it was so ordained that they would have a special place above anyone else in the kingdom of God.

The whole revelation of God to man has been progessive and every step of the way He has never left us in the dark. Bishop was spot on about our worth in Christ and even sold to us the inspired idea that giving in church will never substitute right living. Some people need to give their heads a wobble.

PaChukwudi44:
Yes of course 2 cor 9:7 is the guiding principle behind it

I understand that there's been a lot of argument against tithing. My take is that for all the old testament practices no longer applicable in the new here was always a mention in the bible about the scrapping or doing away with such acts. (Hebrews 9:8-9)

As for tithing, there is no such mention. If you look at the epistles of Paul, you'd notice his general attitude towards collections from God's people as a minister. He acknowleged that it was the minister's right but he always strived never to exercise it. I'm not saying this is a definite explanation of its lack of mention but it is worth noting nonetheless. His attitude towards receiving as an MOG always gave the impression that if it was up to him, he'd rather not mention it.

Except you are insinuating that every commandment given to the Jews in the law should be done away with, we cannot simply assume that because tithing was one of the practices in the law, it became void when Christ died. Paul alluded to principles in the law (Deuteronomy 25:4) in 1 Timothy 5:18 and 1 Cor 9:9 so it's not as if everything about the law was to be scrapped.

The principles in the law that were to be done away with where either a figure of the Christ to come or a pointer to a greater spiritual truth. See Hebrews 9:8-9.

In any case, I find it puzzing that Catholic brothers and sisters would rather criticize the act of tithing rather than such practices as asking Mary to pray for us, belief in purgatory and rosaries, bowing before images of Mary, etc which are even more glaringly unfounded according to scriptures.

KardinalZik:
Lol.
Then don't use phone or computers; don't buy a car; don't build a personal house; don't wear jeans; don't board a plane; don't watch TV...etc BECAUSE Christ never did, the Apostles never did, and the early Church never did.

You must understand the dispensations of God. Christ was called to a life of absolute sacrifice. He was rich but for our sakes He became poor that we through His povery might become rich. The apostles had a similar calling. That was why Jesus asked if they could drink of his cup. See the passages below.

Matthew 20:21: And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
Matthew 20:22: But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.

Most of the apostles died as martyrs. They were beheaded, maimed, nailed on crosses, etc because they were called to that life. Make no mistakes, in God's order, the Apostles have a higher place than any of us would ever attain by design because they have drank of His cup of sufferings.

Consider the following scriptures about sufferings and subsequent glory of the church also:

1 Peter 1:11: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
1 Peter 1:12: Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

Regarding tithing, there has been no single mention in the bible that tithing was to be stopped or that it was a type of a greater spititual truth or a type of Christ, etc. The rock that Moses struck was Christ, circumcision pointed to the 'cutting out' as it were of the old nature, blood sacrifices were to be done away with as they were a type of Christ's shed blood, the Holy of holies pointed to the heart of man where God would now dwell, etc.

Read the entire Malachi 3 and you will see that that passage was really addressed to the nation of Israel after the redemption of Christ, prophetically. People will have us believe that the passage was addressed to non-redeemed Jews but if you read the chapter, it talks about their redemption. In other words, He is saying that He would send John the Baptist to prepare the way of Christ and when Christ finally comes, He will make them redeemed. You see the early Church were first and foremost Jews and then later He extended salvation to the ends of the earth.

People are trying to make themselves feel good that Daddy Freeze "proved" that tithing is not for us. There's nothing farther from the truth.

Ponder on the passages below:

Malachi 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
Malachi 3:2 But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:
Malachi 3:3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.
Malachi 3:4 Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.
Malachi 3:5 And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts.
Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Malachi 3:7 Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?
Malachi 3:8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.

For all we know, he might be an African Voodoo Priest or a Sango Worshiper. Mark the word 'might'. As things stand based on confessions we can say 1) Mark ain't an atheist 2) Sean Osewa is pained by 1 above.
He never threw African Voodoo or Sango Worship under the bus. We all know the line of thought he threw under the bus.

Story Title: Taking the Piss

Thank me later

Mimzyy:
"It's better to live as if there is God and die knowing there isn't than to live your life as if there is no God and die to find out He truly lives."

No don't do this to yourself. He says that "those that come to Him believe that He exists and that He is a rewarder of them that DILIGENTLY seek Him." You really do not need to toe the guesswork path.

Seun:
And we have the right to decide whether we believe him or not, right?

Mark says he's no atheist but you choose to believe he is? Tell you what...that's the definition of delusion

randomperson:
He could have given them small change and they would have become farmers or something... He kept them as slaves... Slave are unpaid laborers, no wages only feeding. That's the difference between slaves and servants.
I can tell that no one will want to be treated as merchandize so not many people will want to be slaves. At that time, there were a lot of wars and the captured prisoners of war usually became slaves... Slaves had no right. They could be sold, beaten even killed.
God did not sanction the rape of Hagar but he did not condemn it either... In fact he blessed the child that came forth from the rape. When David had sex with Beersheba, god condemned the act by punishing him so god keeping quiet about Abraham's rape of Hagar is at the very least tacit acquiescence.
If most of the versions use the word kidnappers and it's equivalent, it's likely that the higher number of versions are correct

Or he used the opportunity to make their lives better. Now does it make sense for a slave to be given the opportunity to be free and yet that slave prefers to continue in enslavement? Does it make sense? No it doesn't. But as I showed you that situation existed. Does that tell you something about this kind of slavery? Now forget semantics. If 'Jane' just came from the village and was given two options: 1) come and do a job as an house girl whilst you go to school; 2) take N100,000.00, go and start your life somewhere. Whilst you can call Jane a house girl in 1) above and call her a business woman in 2) above, I know the option I'd rather that Jane takes given that she has little experience in managing a business. So you've got to look beyond the tag. You say no one wants to be treated as slaves but that passage about a slave wanting to remain one showed that it was a valid proposition even though you say 'no one wants to....'
Please show me where it's clearly stated that the slaves were unpaid laborers and that they received no wages, that it was only feeding they were entitled to.

I noticed that you usually make a wrong assumption. If you didn't see it stated like A,B,C, you assume that something was not there. The deed was done in Genesis 16 when Abraham was 86. Fast forward to Genesis 17 when Abraham was 99. That's good 13 years. What was the first thing He said to him? "Walk though before Me and be thought blameless" clearly showing that that conversation was off the back of a not pleasant act from Abraham. Why the 13 years silence?

If a slave bought with money can have the opportunity to be a commander, then maybe it's not the slavery you'd love it to be

randomperson:
The mere fact that God didn't address the issue shows implied acceptance. Abraham stopped idol worship but didn't stop buying humans as merchandize and God didn't tell him to stop... If God told him, be would have stopped.
And when abimelech gave him slaves he could have set them free if need felt it was wrong to regard human as property.
And plss, how many people will freely become slaves?? Most slaves were captured victims of war and were sold against their will.
And there is a difference between servants and slaves. Servants are like employees, slaves are merchandize bought and sold the same way we sell condom and garri. In fact, Hagar was another slave. When Sarah couldn't give birth, she told Abraham to sleep with her. That was rape because there was no consent.
That a word is derived fun another word doesn't necessarily make them similar. For example, converse and conversion

Yes he could have set them free but remember they would still need to pay their bills and if he just gave them money to start up something, did they have the required expertise to manage the funds? That scripture that talks about slaves requesting to remain slaves rather than being free, I didn't make it up. It was a valid proposition at the time. I cannot tell you how many people would voluntarily accept to be slaves because the Bible didn't mention that. Similarly, you cannot state how many they were. Now the scriptures that show slaves/servants as dignified human beings, you say those are servants whilst the ones that don't portray them as such you say they are slaves even when both words are used interchangeably through out the OT further indicating that the idea of slavery you have is not exactly what was practiced. For a slave to have hope of becoming one of his master's generals indicates that the 'slavery' was not what you would have wanted it to be. That act by Abraham on Hagar, do you realize that God did not sanction it, it was a desperate move from Abraham's wife. I'm waiting for your proof that kidnapping is the more appropriate word because at least I gave you a few. For every example of 'converse' vis a vis 'conversion' there are 10 more examples of 'converse' vis a vis 'conversation' type words. Many thanks.

randomperson:
Why are you doing this?? You are making my points for me. So the process of God orientating Abraham was gradual?? God never told him at any point to stop slavery. God called Abraham at 75 and he died at 175. That's a whole hundred years to tell him but God didn't say anything... And plss, Abraham always had slaves. He even received more slaves from Abimelech...
Now, according to you. God would normally give an instruction but it's left for people to obey or disobey. Well why didn't he give an instruction prohibiting slavery?? People got stoned for adultery. Why couldn't God command that people who bought slaves should be stoned too?
And while am kinda sorry I called u a liar, we can't conclude that Paul actually included slave owners since many of the translations don't have that word. In fact, its more likely he meant kidnappers. So the closest thing the bible came to condemning slavery is not even certainly a criticism of slavery

randomperson:
Why are you doing this?? You are making my points for me. So the process of God orientating Abraham was gradual?? God never told him at any point to stop slavery. God called Abraham at 75 and he died at 175. That's a whole hundred years to tell him but God didn't say anything... And plss, Abraham always had slaves. He even received more slaves from Abimelech...
Now, according to you. God would normally give an instruction but it's left for people to obey or disobey. Well why didn't he give an instruction prohibiting slavery?? People got stoned for adultery. Why couldn't God command that people who bought slaves should be stoned too?
And while am kinda sorry I called u a liar, we can't conclude that Paul actually included slave owners since many of the translations don't have that word. In fact, its more likely he meant kidnappers. So the closest thing the bible came to condemning slavery is not even certainly a criticism of slavery

.
That it was not expressly stated in the Bible where God told Abraham to stop slavery is not enough proof that God never dealt with him in that area just like there was no place where God expressly stated that he should no longer indulge in Idol worship. God said to Abraham, 'walk before Me and be thou perfect' and that instruction clearly shows that there were areas in Abraham's life were he had not yielded to God's perfect will. Okay you say God should prohibit slavery. I showed you a passage the other day of a scenario where a slave would prefer to remain one than be free. So should God override the will of that slave? Additionally I pointed to you that slaves were usually prisoners of war and it wouldn't make sense to conquer a rival nation and allow them regroup and launch a revenge attack. Why would God make a regulation against this?
Now those guys that were handed to Abraham by abimelech, what was the proper/sensible thing Abraham ought to have done? Refuse to have them so they would continue to lavish in a system where there was no iota of the fear of God so that they would continue to be slaves anyway? Now Abraham acquired people to work for him and even though you could tag them 'slaves', the way they were treated was much much dignifying than a common slave. Genesis 14:14 reads as follows: "And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan." They were what you will call slaves but they were 'trained'. Military might in those days was quite similar to education in this day and age. It says 'his trained servants'. It was one of those so-called slaves in his house he asked to go assist hi find a wife for his son and put him in charge of all he had. "And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh" (Genesis 24:2). It was one of those so-called slaves he was going to hand over all his substance to if God did not heed his prayer for a son (not another relative of his). Genesis 15:1-3 "Some time later, the Lord spoke to Abram in a vision and said to him, “Do not be afraid, Abram, for I will protect you, and your reward will be great. But Abram replied, “O Sovereign Lord, what good are all your blessings when I don’t even have a son? Since you’ve given me no children, Eliezer of Damascus, a servant in my household, will inherit all my wealth. You have given me no descendants of my own, so one of my servants will be my heir.”"
Now the same way God would not forbid the Israelites from enslaving the nation's around them because of inherent dangers associated with not doing so, He would not mind a situation where foreigners are bought over, implying depletion of the foreign armies that would definitely stand in the way of His people and enslave them if the slightest opportunity presented itself, whilst improving the standard of the lives of the so called slaves.

Now that word in 1 Timothy 1:10 is 'andrapodistais' and it was derived from the root word 'andrapodon' which means 'a slave' so I'm convinced that 'enslaver' is the more appropriate word compared to 'kidnapper'

randomperson:
My other account was banned, u should have been able to infer that..
And your argument that God merely permitted slavery holds no water. Abraham was ready to murder his only son for God he would have readily released his slaves for God but God never told him to stop buying and owning slaves
Genesis 12:5 Abram took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, and all the wealth and all the slaves they had acquired in Haran, and they started out for the land of Canaan.
God didn't permit the eating of shellfish or pork. He didn't consider freewill at that time but you are claiming it's because of freewill that he couldn't forbid slavery. In fact, if a person at that time was not comfortable with slavery, God made it okay by saying they could purchase slaves. It's dishonest to use the freewill argument when that didn't stop God from forbidding all the small unimportant things he forbade
And the idea that God permits something because of the people obstinate hearts is contrary to the omnipotence of God... It's simply a case of punishing them if they don't comply. The way he did for other sins.
And that bible verse u quoted referred to kidnappers not slave owners. I checked the good news and amplified versions. Even the KJV says man stealers...
I thought u were a Christian why the lies??

Ouch! A ban? Didn’t see any post of yours that would warrant a ban. Well my bad, that’s the effect of not being able to read all posts in a thread. Do you realize that when God appeared to Abraham, he and his household were idol worshippers? (Joshua 24:2). Let me explain something to you. Did you know that God called Abraham initially when he was living in Mesopotamia even before he came to Haaran (Acts 7:1-5). Do you realize that God had just called an idol worshipper and the process involved to give him a new orientation was always going to be gradual and He had only barely started dealing with Abraham when the bible records that Abraham had slaves?
I’m not saying because of freewill God could not forbid slavery. He normally would give an instruction but its left for the people to obey or disobey. That’s were freewill comes in. That passage in 1 Tim 1:8-10 shows that it was not exactly lawful as per God’s standards but He would still work with them because their race would produce the Messiah. I already explained previously the reasoning behind taking of captives in war situations
Now the Jews were wonderful people. They knew how to sieve God’s instructions and adhere to the ones that were favourable to them whilst ignoring the ones that they didn’t like. Jesus scolded them time and again for this attitude. Remember when He said to them, ‘you guys like to pay your tithe and all but you leave out the basics of your faith – truth and justice’ (paraphrased). So non compliance with instruction was hardly any proof that the instruction was not there originally. As I showed you yesterday, there were instances where a slave would rather be one than be freed so in such a situation should He override the will of the slave?
Again I’d say if your definition of ‘God can do all things’ includes doing things outside His character then I’d agree with you that He cannot do all things.
Now you say I told a lie. You quoted from NLT in your original post and I did same and you call me a liar? I did not give you chrmn1 version, I gave you NLT. Well, look up the link below; it shows a list of translations of the particular word

http://biblehub.com/1_timothy/1-10.htm

Additionally, please look at this link below; which translates the words in that verse from the original greek, the word is enslavers:

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_timothy/1-10.htm

randomperson:
It is wrong now and it was wrong at that time... God should have known that then and should have told the humans... Why did men have to arrive at that conclusion themselves? What is God's duty if me can't tell if us what's wrong as at when due

the Bible records that at a certain point in Israel's history that they were killed, had their city ruined and taken captive by the Babylonians. Now if they could do anything possible to prevent that situation including subduing the opposition through slavery. Would it be wrong to do that? I don't think so.

randomperson:
That was many years later... Why didn't he do it earlier?? He had the time to forbid eating shell fish

You really did not need to use another monkier but it's okay.
Now if you scan through the old testament from beginning to end, you will never find any portion where it was stated that God discouraged the Israelites from the act of divorce. But in the NT, Jesus' testimony clearly demonstrates that that conversation had been ongoing between God and the Jews.
Even Jesus said there were a lot of His deeds that were not recorded. That if they were all recorded, we'd struggle to put them all together. That said, in that time, there was constant fighting amongst nations and if a nation did not fight back they would be killed and enslaved.
Point I'm making is that not every thing God permitted the Israelites to do that He necessarily sanctioned. Do you know that at the time when God gave the nation a king in the person of Saul, that was not His perfect will for them at the time but again, He permitted them to go ahead because of their obstinate hearts (Read 1 Samuel chapter eight).

If you read the passage in 1 Timothy 1 carefully, Paul was warning against certain men who wanted to teach the law (old covenant) . Paul made a remarkable statement that the law was not made for the righteous but the unlawful implying that in the new dispensation, it was not appropriate trying to teach the law since Jesus had made the people righteous and had introduced a new order. This clearly shows that the idea of slave trade (mentioned as one of the unlawful acts) being an unsound practice was not a new concept.

Seun:
chrmn1: Would it have been morally acceptable for the Americans to take Iraqis as slaves after defeating their leader? If not, why not?

@hopefulLandlord: hope they listen to you.

Okay. It would be wrong in my opinion. The reason is that there are more organised systems and UN regulations, signed pacts, etc that guide the behaviour of nations today unlike in those days. Then it was basically the survival of the fittest. So if a nation was stronger than its rivals it would simply overthrow and enslave them. At the time, it might not have been a wrong thing to do because it was a time of conquest and if a nation overpowered another nation, the victim nation would naturally plot a comeback to salvage their families that had been taken as spoils of war and return their Kingdom and economy back to normalcy. So if the victim nation were not placed in a subdued position that would fight back. It's quite different today.

randomperson:
So tell me why God failed to forbid slavery?? Was it not important or did he forget?

For an answer to your question see 4everGod's response in page 5. That's the last post on page 5. Additionally, I'd say it's a false assumption to say that God didn't forbid slavery. Look up 1 Timothy 1:9-10. It reads: "For the law was not intended for people who do what is right. It is for people who are lawless and rebellious, who are ungodly and sinful, who consider nothing sacred and defile what is holy, who kill their father or mother or commit other murders. The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders, liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching"

4everGod:
Sharrap. Onesimus ran to Paul and Paul kept him and got him saved. However he still was legally bound ti Philemon so Paul also got Philemon saved before now asking Onesimus to return to Philemon and charged Philemon to see him as a free man and this demand by Paul was meant to make Philemon LEGALLY set Onesimus free from slavery which was why Paul said IF YOU SAY YOU ARE MY PARTNER THEN DO THAT WHICH IS RIGHT.

Never ever try to twist scripture to your own gain.

Got to give it to you here Forever God. You explained this more succinctly than I ever could

foladara777:
But when Onesimus escaped and came to him, he didn't tell him that he had a right not to be enslaved, instead, he first returned him back to his master. What if the master had decided he would not grant onesimus freedom?? Then he would have been a slave for the rest of his life... Paul didn't forbid slavery but he remembered to tell Christians that women should not function in church and should always cover their heads... Christianity is a joke

Please read these passages carefully:

Philemon 1:8-19:

"That is why I am boldly asking a favor of you. I could demand it in the name of Christ because it is the right thing for you to do. 9 But because of our love, I prefer simply to ask you. Consider this as a request from me—Paul, an old man and now also a prisoner for the sake of Christ Jesus.[b]
10 I appeal to you to show kindness to my child, Onesimus. I became his father in the faith while here in prison. 11 Onesimus[c] hasn’t been of much use to you in the past, but now he is very useful to both of us. 12 I am sending him back to you, and with him comes my own heart.

13 I wanted to keep him here with me while I am in these chains for preaching the Good News, and he would have helped me on your behalf. 14 But I didn’t want to do anything without your consent. I wanted you to help because you were willing, not because you were forced. 15 It seems you lost Onesimus for a little while so that you could have him back forever. 16 He is no longer like a slave to you. He is more than a slave, for he is a beloved brother, especially to me. Now he will mean much more to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord.

17 So if you consider me your partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18 If he has wronged you in any way or owes you anything, charge it to me. 19 I, PAUL, WRITE THIS WITH MY OWN HAND: I WILL REPAY IT. AND I WON’T MENTION THAT YOU OWE ME YOUR VERY SOUL!"

Note the bolded part, he says he could have made a demand as it was the right thing for him to do but preferred to go the diplomatic way which was astutely brilliant on the part of Paul. He knew how difficult humans can be and that if he made a demand, there might have been a clash of egos.

Please read patiently. Thanks.

foladara777:
So they had no other choice then to enslave them??

Okay maybe they should have killed all of them. You think that's the better option? Now if Nation A conquered Nation B, it's only natural that Nation B would be planning a revenge mission so anything that would Nation A could do to place Nation B in a subdued position, would be the logical thing to do to prevent them from rearing up their heads and staging a comeback

hopefulLandlord:
and you're able to say this with a straight face?

Say what with a straight face? I didn't really get your point but that scripture clearly points slave trade as a lawless act

foladara777:
No, he didn't. He only sat back and allowed them be devoured by bears... God is good! All the time!!

If the thought that the young lads did what they did in knowledge and rebellion, they have themselves to blame. No one sees fire and walks into it but if anyone chooses to do this it's only fair that they bear the consequences.

foladara777:
I read it... No forbidding slavery

Read it very well. It places slave trade on the same category as crimes/ills such as lying, rebellion and every other things that are "contrary to wholesome teaching"

foladara777:
Does this still justify slavery... U need to do better than this

Good morning. Hope you rested well. Just like with killing people in a war, slavery is not good. But had they not done these, they would have been killed and taken captive. It was a war situation.

foladara777:
So where is slavery forbidden in all of this. A slave ran to Paul, that was a great opportunity to forbid slavery but he didn't. Jesus had the time to forbid slavery and he didn't. But he had the time to forbid swearing and divorce

Read from NLT, the very version you quoted in your OP

foladara777:
So how does your supposed explanation make slavery right or fair?? U are doing a very bad job of defending God on this account... But maybe it's not you, maybe the acts and omission of God have put you in an impossible position...
The point is Israelites enslaved people against their will... How is that fair??

If they had not they would have lost their lives and their people would have been taken captive. It was a war situation and trust me, they were actually taken as slaves by the Medo Persians as well as the Babylonians

foladara777:
Stop lying?? People didn't go into slavery mainly because of famine... There were a lot of wars at that time and the people captured were sold as slaves. So when God says Israelites could purchase slaves from foreigners, those slaves were victims of those wars
And the new covenant didn't forbid slavery either... Two chances to forbid slavery and the bible failed on both counts

Regarding condemning of slavery in the NT, see 1 Timothy 1:9-10 as follows: "We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers–and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.". Many thanks

foladara777:
Stop lying?? People didn't go into slavery mainly because of famine... There were a lot of wars at that time and the people captured were sold as slaves. So when God says Israelites could purchase slaves from foreigners, those slaves were victims of those wars
And the new covenant didn't forbid slavery either... Two chances to forbid slavery and the bible failed on both counts

Okay me thinks it was not really that way. It was indeed a time of war when nations would come up against one another and then just like it is with every war, if you don't defend tourself or if you don't strike the opposition you'd be struck. Yes some of the opposition were killed whilst others were disarmed retained as slaves (a lesser punishment than the former). In this situation, the slaves were supposed to serve as such because it was basically a time of conquest among nations. Remember the story of the people that pretended to Joshua to make them slaves that they came from a far country? Indeed there was no 'agreement' in such cases however, it was a war situation so it was a lesser punishment than having them die.

foladara777:
What are u saying?? How many slaves will insist to continue as slaves?? Even maids are still being abused in the 21st century... And stop using the phrase mutual agreement in a discussion about slavery... Slaves were merchandize... God said Israelites can buy slaves from foreigners...
And that part about god not overriding freewill?? That doesn't stop God from forbidding slavery, at least he had the time to forbid shellfish

That term 'buy' suggest there was some sort of agreement. People usually offered themselves to be slaves to escape the pangs of famine.

Seun:
Gosh! Are you suggesting the Almighty God has poor communication skills? That he couldn't explain his intentions properly? How dare you.


God's failure to condemn slavery overrode the free will of millions of people worldwide, especially Africans like us, who were forced into slavery.

Under what terms would you agree to become my property, to be used and bred as I please, and sold or passed on to my kids later?

1. By revealing that God never sanctioned divorce, He showed a principle that God would work with man even in imperfect contexts. And this principle is applicable to the subject at hand.

2. See the scripture below: Leviticus 25:39-42 I “If your brother with you becomes so poor that he sells himself to you, you are not to make him serve like a bond slave. Instead, he is to serve with you like a hired servant or a traveler who lives with you, until the year of jubilee. Then he and his children with him may leave to return to his family and his ancestor’s inheritance. Since they’re my servants whom I’ve brought out of the land of Egypt, they are not to be sold as slaves.

3. I never lived in that time and neither did you. If you tell a slave, 'go home. You're free' and he says 'no' what do you call that. Well it's a mutual agreement in my book

Deuteronomy 15:16 But suppose a male slave says to you, “I don’t want to leave you,” because he loves you and your family and is happy with you

jcross19:
sir !!!!! Evil is evil even from the beginning , it has no different name than evil. The act of slavery is evil even from the bible . If the bible writers did not condemn it , it meant something is wrong with the bible and the bible remain imperfect. I am a christian too but I stand and I condemn the act of slavery from the bible . Slaves were created by who? Who made them? Huh so those slaves don't have choice to live on their own Wow!!!!! That's pathetic from the writers of bible. To tell you that we human were the one that made this rules and regulations in the bible and God ordained it for us. Thank God for thomson something like that, that fought the fight and liberate men from slavery I respect him more than many people in the bible. See I am pastor but am not blind one.

Twale baba how markeet? Well, in those times, people went into slavery primarily because they wanted to escape the pangs of famine. Was it an ideal situation? No! Does the Bible say it was a good thing? No! Just as with a case like divorce, God tried to give them a sort of regulation for them to live amicably in that imperfect situation. It's even stated in the new testament that the old covenant was not faultless. Would you ever know whether the Bible condemned divorce or not in the old covenant if Jesup wasn't tasked about the subject in the NT. It was when He was queried that He revealed that God permitted the practice because they stubbornly refused to heed any instruction against it. So my dear pastor, you really don't have the full picture.

realmindz:
@bolded, I can't believe someone will type this.

Do u have any idea what slavery is at all?

KingEbukasBlog what do u 've to say about this., this guy just insulted common sense

You should be ashamed of yourself

Friend, I never lived in that time and neither did you. If you tell a slave, 'go home. You're free' and he says 'no' what do you call that. Well it's a mutual agreement in my book

Deuteronomy 15:16 But suppose a male slave says to you, “I don’t want to leave you,” because he loves you and your family and is happy with you

foladara777:
Really, kids are supposedly rebelling and the first thing is to condemn them to gruesome deaths?? He's God not a good god anymore?? Can u as a human being with flaws even throw one kid into a cage with a lion?? Answer this question
The length u Christians go to defend your God, u look like very wicked people. So because of some past events the death of children by hunger is okay... Your God is a sadistic serial killer, deal with it

Brotherly, God never killed the lads

foladara777:
U are comparing divorce with slavery?? And are u implying that God couldn't make a law against slavery because the people liked it?? Because that idea is against the notion that God is omnipotent.
And why did Jesus, the cooler version of his father fail to forbid slavery the same way he forbade divorce?? Or he considered divorce worse than slavery?

You see you wouldn't know anything about God's original intent as regards divorce if the Jews did not task Him on the issue. He detailed to them how they must live together (slaves and masters) if there was a mutual agreement in that respect. If you read through that passage you'd see that there was a portion where it was stated that if the master wishes to allow the slave to be free and the slave preferred to remain a slave, then the master would bore the ear of the servant. If you tell a slave to go free and he insists that he'lllike to continue in the slavery then maybe the terms were not so harsh on the slave. God's omnipotence will not override human free will else we'd become robots.