Leaderboard

Not the monkey pox! We are living through a full-blown apocalypse and don't even know it!

Maybe that’s how folks get so caught up - lol

If this were a debate, the original poster @Addison's position would be "The bible is holy, slavery is in the bible, then slavery is holy." This syllogism's crux hinges on believing that if the bible is good, it couldn't endorse something horrific as slavery. @Stefanshows that the bible condones slavery but codifies ethical treatment in the rabbinical literature. Condoning slavery is the point where many believers suffer from cognitive dissonance - and try to justify their belief that their God would never justify slavery so they can continue to believe God is good all the time. BUT the very people whose ancestors wrote and lived by the Old Testament with commentary (Talmud) tell us the Hebrew word "ebed" means slave. - "Where real slaves are referred to, the English versions generally use "bondman" for "'ebed," and "bondwoman" or "bondmaid" for the corresponding feminines (Lev. xxv. 49)." When one is referring to the old testament, one must take into consideration Hebrew transliteration. They must also consider the Talmud/oral history (Mishnah) that corresponds to understanding the history of Rabbinical literature. In this case, foreign-born enslaved people couldn't own anything - they had no agency. So, it's a stretch to conclude the bible doesn't endorse chattel slavery. It does. The Hebrew people had to contend with this fallacy, too - maybe right up until the Egyptians enslaved them. "Not until the Greek and Roman period, however, does the emancipation of slaves attain, as an institution, any importance for the Jews. According to a not wholly reliable authority, most of the Jews captured by Ptolemy I., Lagi (322-307 B.C.), were taken to Egypt, where they were ransomed by his son, Ptolemy II., Philadelphus (285-247), for a considerable sum and set free (Aristeas Letter, ed. Wendland, § 22). " So maybe if believers deal with the bible endorsing slavery - they will better be able to understand Jesus ransoming his life to free the Hebrews and others who chose to follow his way of life.

@Mel Hopkins A lot of folks in the U.S. are relying on relatives or friends in Europe or can speak and read different languages so they peruse foreign news Websites. Most in the U.S. who are closely following the Russo-Ukrainian war are using this Website: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates The data from that Website is said to be the most current and its analysis is considered to be the most unbiased and accurate.

Since the thread was based on the Bible, I just employed Bible scriptures during the debate.

Adding to the confusion, scholars wrote, er, interpreted these scriptures filled with *wisdom*.

If you meant temporary servitude to pay off debt, the Bible does call for freeing of Israelites after seven years. However, I pointed out that not all Slaves to Israelites had an option to be freed. Many were prisoners of war and some were treated pretty shabbily. Those scriptures should never be ignored. Nor should the truth that ancient Israelites were at times, ordered to slaughter tribes and people who were living in their "promised land." “However, you must not let any living thing survive among the cities of these people the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. You must completely destroy them – the Hethite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite ….” (Deut. 20:16-18) “Now go and attack the Amalekites and completely destroy everything they have. Do not spare them. Kill men and women, infants and nursing babies, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.” (1 Samuel 15:3) Why would any Israelite want to free someone who had been condemned by their God and could work for them for free forever? Most do not understand the Bible actually contained two different sets of rules for Slaves in ancient Israel. One for Israelites who fell into debt and one was for those who were non-Jews. And they were mostly individuals captured in war. You do some research. But most do not. I really do not like to compare Chattel Slavery with what other races of people suffered. This allows a bunch of folks who really don't like us to add their uninformed and untrue views to any debate in attempts to deny the awful truth or soften what really was dished out to us. I've heard the 'Irish immigrants were slaves, too" canard for decades. Some Irish did become indentured servants. But their lives could not be easily taken at the whims of their owners or overseers. The fact is some Slaves in ancient Israel could not go free under Biblical rules. Myths about Black Slavery in the U.S.

I agree, the Bible did not sanction slavery 'in the traditional sense' however, you are interjecting false statements. NOAH cursed CANAAN, not Ham, the father. Therefore the other three sons of Ham were NOT cursed This statement is NOT in the Bible. The Mongoloid false 'racial construct' ignores the entire Mongolian Empire of which the very origin was a Black African woman! The Mongolian people were a mixture of people that included millions of African-typed people at one point in time. The racial construct of what became 'White Caucasians' stem from the origin of Black Negroes. LOL. The original Caucasians were definitely 'Negroid'. All three patriarchs came from Noah, a Sheth man [Seth] therefore, the three of them were all pure BLACK as Noah was PERFECT in his generations. Noah was NOT a perfect man, but he was perfect in his generation, meaning that his wife was also pure Seth as he had been. GEEZ. lol. Jap-HETH was black, CHAM was black and SHEM was also black. Out of Ham also came White people too. AbraHAM was Hamitic; he was a Ram. He was AB-original. Noah was a captive, himself, under White Cainites. smh. His son, JapHETH brought a White woman on the ark, nevertheless, no one person is to blame for White supremacy, All modern humans stem from goodness, but many chose to be evil, no matter what color they were. White supremacy began way before Cain covered the head of an evil brown woman.