Sun worship or Son worship?

Originally posted by AshleyD
Exactly. It's a belief. A personal belief that everyone is entitled to so it is kind of hard to debate the beliefs of another or for someone to defend their own beliefs. It all comes down to, "this is my belief." We can debate facts, sources, and evidence but it's rather impossible to debate someone's belief.

It really is. However the difference between religious beliefs and other opinions, is that nobody ever went to war over musical tastes (well, barring east coast / west coast rap rivalries, perhaps?). This is because one man's musical tastes do not purport to invalidate the tastes of another person, much less his very existence - but religion often hinges on this concept. "MY way is the only right way, you are either with us or subhuman"

The works of Paganini were not used to justify slavery in the United States, but the Book of genesis sure as hell was.

The thing is, there are a lot of people that aren't remotely worried about Hell, don't dwell on Hell, and they did not become a Christian out of fear of Hell. We were attracted to God's love and Jesus' teachings of love. I don't know what else to say that hasn't been said a million times before. My choice was based on love- not fear. Others might have but I cannot speak for them.

Fearless or not, there's still no choice. What are your options? You can a) believe in Jesus, or b) go to hell (literally). No matter what your take on hell is, it's never been described as a pleasant place to be. It's not a choice. If I tell you to give me your money or get shot, you're not being presented with freedom of choice, even if you don't mind handing over the money.

Again, and you know it's coming: I cannot speak for someone else. Some believe they should follow the OT dietary laws or celebrate the Sabbath. I do not. It is kind of hard discussing this with you because it's like explaining physics to Einstein. You are obviously very knowledgeable on the subject and you said on another thread you used to be a Christian and have read much of the Bible. You already know the answers to your own questions.

And again, they are subjective views I know you don't speak for anyone, but they speak plenty loud for themselves. And for every Mother Theresa in the religion, there seem to be fifty Fred Phelps.

The OT as in the Old Testament? The OT books were completed over 400 years before Jesus' birth so why would they mention His life, teachings, and ministry? They prophesy His coming in what is known as the "Messianic Prophecies" but why would books written centuries in advance would record his life? Talk about major accusations of interpolations if that was the case.

To re-quote:

Jesus became a human but He existed before that.

How exactly do you know? I would assume that you base this on something from the User's Manual, correct? And before Jesus we have the Old Testament - which many, yourself included if I recall, claim prophecizes the coming of Jesus.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Oops. Missed this comment addressed to me. Sometimes it's hard to see comments from users who don't have avatars when they get squeezed in between those who do.

What's your take on my earlier comment, regarding thebricktestament? Is that representation of the bible, similar to what you believe?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

The works of Paganini were not used to justify slavery in the United States, but the Book of genesis sure as hell was.

Likely the new testament was used as well, as it also mentions and permits slavery, if I recall correctly.

as it also mentions and permits slavery, if I recall correctly.

LoL....and Christians call themselves moral....

Originally posted by Xenogears
What's your take on my earlier comment, regarding thebricktestament? Is that representation of the bible, similar to what you believe?

Brick Testament? First of all, not even sure what that is. Second, I didn't see you mention that in your above comment. Let me know and I will do my best to answer you if I know anything about it.

Likely the new testament was used as well, as it also mentions and permits slavery, if I recall correctly.

Sorry, I can't resist. Just read this today:

"You may be a fundamental atheist if you claim the founding fathers were staunch deists while they wrote the constitution but were born again Bible believing Christians when they traded slaves."

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by Xenogears
What's your take on my earlier comment, regarding thebricktestament? Is that representation of the bible, similar to what you believe?

Brick Testament? First of all, not even sure what that is. Second, I didn't see you mention that in your above comment. Let me know and I will do my best to answer you if I know anything about it.

It was in an earlier post in this thread here's the quote:

Originally posted by Xenogears


This is my latest version of the bible(not yet complete):
thebricktestament


Is this what anyone here believes in any way similar to what is presented there?

As for the new testament reference here's the link:
instructions_for_slaves

Google Video Link

[edit on 2/7/2008 by XcLuciFer]

Originally posted by Xenogears
This is my latest version of the bible(not yet complete):
thebricktestament

As for the new testament reference here's the link:
instructions_for_slaves

Great. Thanks for clarifying. Did you create that website and the Lego scenes? Very creative! Must have been a lot of work. Now onto the topic. The New Testament never tells us to go out an acquire slaves, how to maintain the practice of slavery, or claims slavery should be a Christian standard.

We know the ancient Romans had slaves and it was pretty commonplace in their society even if it appalls us today. It's just a sad fact of history. Sometimes it was a case of "debtors service" (you could become a slave until your debt was paid) or familial slavery (if you were born into a "slave caste"). Either way, we know many ancient societies used slave labor and that Rome was one of them.

It seems Paul is putting things into their societal context and saying if you are a slave or servant then you should do your job to the best of your ability. Whether it be male or female, freeman or slave, lord or servant, adult or child, etc. It doesn't seem to condone or teach slavery as an instruction but that if you become a slave/servant to pay off a debt or if you are born into this Roman "caste," then do your job for as long as it is required.

Paul's epistles often mention advice on how to handle social standards of the day which have become antiquated for us as our society no longer deals with such concerns. It wasn't a command to keep slavery alive in subsequent generations. It was advice on how to handle such a thing according to Roman society. In essence, he was saying "when it Rome, do as the Romans do."

This is a touchy subject for many in our day so here are some articles that may help: HERE, HERE, and HERE.

I know people like Andre are going to bust in and leave a thousand "'s" all over the place but in the context of the ancient Roman empire, slavery was pretty commonplace so Paul laid down some advice for those who found themselves in such a position. But it was never a commandment to hold slaves or continue the practice. Hope that helps.

[edit on 2/7/2008 by AshleyD]

That site is not mine, it seems to be Brendan Powell Smith's.

But it helps one visualize things better, it lets one take in the 'insanity' of it, if you will. From it, if it is accurate(which it seems to be), I can say the old testament is an unholy text. Not only that, but it is preposterous, barbarish, and just plain inhumane in many many areas.

As for the new testament, I think slavery should have been openly and strongly denounced even if it resulted in persecution and problems spreading the faith. Further acceptance of the old laws and ways of the old prophets, which while not required are not condemned as they should be. Basically means they still remain viable, and one could say even endorsed.

THE LAWS OF the old testament are put simply repugnant:
THE LAW

One example

If someone beats his slave...and the slave dies at his hands...he shall certainly be avenged. But should the slave survive for one day or two...he will pay no penalty because the slave is his owner's property.'-link

reply to post by Xenogears


Hello again, Xenogears. Did you even look at the links I sent you? They pretty much answer the very things you are asking. But here are some specific points I'd like to throw out in response:

While Paul tells us to serve with a happy heart, he also writes in the defense of slaves urging owners to set them free because they are no longer their "slaves" but family in Christ. The New Testament did address the issue and mention moving away from slavery but critics always miss that. Roman society may have allowed slavery but Paul said we as Christians should be above this and not go along with it simply because society deemed it acceptable. Paul's urging was very much before its time.

In your quote above, you also failed to read a little further. If the master injures the slave, the slave is allowed to be set free. Also, slaves were not allowed to be kept longer than six years but to be released with livestock, money, clothing, and food to give them a head start on their new life.

Male and female slaves could also buy their freedom at any time. However, a slave owner could never set a female slave free against her will. Why is this so? Because unlike today she could not walk down the street and get a job. If she became useless to you with age, you can't turn her away. You better be prepared to provide for her until her death bed.

Not to mention it is explicitly mentioned that if anyone was caught taking slaves against their will (like kidnapping them from their homes to be sold as slaves) then that person could face the death penalty.

The Jews are reminded constantly that "you were once slaves in Egypt, too" so do not mistreat others. One thing that is often forgotten is that the OT Law was not imposed on the Jews without request. They rallied Moses and demanded laws and judges so he gave them the laws they had wanted which fit in with cultural norms of the ANE.

And even still, comparable to the laws of surrounding cultures of the day, the Jews could not make someone a slave for no reason (they had to owe a debt, for example), they could buy their freedom or have it given to them automatically after six years, had to be sent away with goods once they fulfilled their debt, did not have to leave if they did no where to go, etc. It was in stark contrast to the surrounding cultures that treated slaves like cattle.

Anyways, everything is explained in detail in the links I submitted above. The original topic has kind of drifted into oblivion and I don't want that to happen.

reply to post by AshleyD


Ok, I'll check those links more thoroughly. But as far as I know, the new testament does allow christians to practice the LAW, and the laws as given in the old testament. Those laws are unethical/immoral, unjust, inhumane and unacceptable.

I think while it is deviating a bit from the topic, showing the sharp disturbing and contrasting events that take place throughout the bible do seem not only repugnant, but overall ficticious.

[edit on 7-2-2008 by Xenogears]

[edit on 7-2-2008 by Xenogears]

reply to post by AshleyD

I know people like Andre are going to bust in and leave a thousand "

's" all over the place but in the context of the ancient Roman empire, slavery was pretty commonplace so Paul laid down some advice for those who found themselves in such a position. But it was never a commandment to hold slaves or continue the practice. Hope that helps.

Yep....and here we go....... and a little taste of logic....

While the Roman Empire may have condoned slavery and Paul may have "laid down some advice for those who found themselves in such a position" It still soesn't stop that fact that NO WHERE does it say slavery is worng..........NO WHERE.

It may say in verious places that you must let slaves go after a few years or something like that..... but it never says the actual owning of slaves is wrong.......

If someone beats his slave...and the slave dies at his hands...he shall certainly be avenged. But should the slave survive for one day or two...he will pay no penalty because the slave is his owner's property.

This kind of stuff completely destroys your bible……anything good that comes out of the bible is completely overturned by this sort of content…… I’d love to see how you can even start to justify this above text in a moral way…… Unless you’re blind and you can’t actually see what’s being said in this book I mean bloody hell….. “survive for one day or two he will pay no penalty because the slave is his owner's property.” How do you support this kind of book…… Simply put……Bring it on….

urging owners to set them free because they are no longer their slaves but family in Christ.

Firstly, show me the links in the bible where it specifically says something along the lines of “owning slaves is bad” etc…… it may say after a certain amount of time slaves might be able to be freed, but in never says the law of slavery is wrong…..

mention moving away from slavery but critics always miss that.

Again sho me the verse in the bible that says this….

but Paul said we as Christians should be above this and not go along with it simply because society deemed it acceptable.

again link……? But one more thing……..LOL that is what PAUL said….not Jesus. Jesus still condones slavery and has said nothing against the practise……. so owned……

If the master injures the slave, the slave is allowed to be set free. Also, slaves were not allowed to be kept longer than six years but to be released with livestock, money, clothing, and food to give them a head start on their new life.

Oh yay for the slaves……LOL, all they had to do was wait 6 years…..man….the bible’s so moral aren’t it…..all a slave has to do is get injured….. so if the slave is not injured it has to endure six years……..LOLOL

Male and female slaves could also buy their freedom at any time.”

again verse…….and even if that was so……there would then be no slaves…..why would anyone not buy their freedom the first chance they get…..

Not to mention it is explicitly mentioned that if anyone was caught taking slaves against their will

Verse….? And no one would openly want to become a slave…..LOL


[edit on 7-2-2008 by andre18]

Originally posted by andre18
While the Roman Empire may have condoned slavery and Paul may have "laid down some advice for those who found themselves in such a position" It still soesn't stop that fact that NO WHERE does it say slavery is worng..........NO WHERE.

Er... Yes it does. Explicitly and implied. One of Paul's epistles (Philemon particularly verses 8-16) is nothing but a letter to a slave owner asserting that the practice of slavery is wrong and not Christ like.

Paul even says he "could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do" regarding the freeing of slaves but instead tries to use gentle persuasion by appealing to the fact we are all free in Christ and that slavery was wrong. The book was even used when America was abolishing slavery to provide evidence that slavery was not the Christian ideal.

Judging by Paul's wording in the original Greek it is also implied that the early Christians were trying to phase out the practice.

This kind of stuff completely destroys your bible……anything good that comes out of the bible is completely overturned by this sort of content……

"Arguments via outrage" don't "destroy the Bible."

Jesus still condones slavery and has said nothing against the practise……. so owned……

Show me with a link where Jesus condones slavery. Be careful: I've already explained on multiple threads what the "jot and tittle" and "abolishing the law" means so don't even dare use it unless you want 100 links to my comments here and from other apologetic sites tearing this argument apart. We're not under the OT Law any longer.

Oh yay for the slaves……LOL, all they had to do was wait 6 years…..man….the bible’s so moral aren’t it…..all a slave has to do is get injured….. so if the slave is not injured it has to endure six years……..LOLOL

You obviously did not read anything posted in above comments or links.

again verse…….and even if that was so……there would then be no slaves…..why would anyone not buy their freedom the first chance they get…..

Verse….?

If you know the Bible so well (and you apparently think you do) why do you keep asking me for Biblical references and links? Possibly six times in that one comment alone. I was expecting you to practically have the Bible memorized with the way you constantly [mis]quote it. Anyways, here they are:

Freeing slaves: Deuteronomy 15:1-18 and 23:15-16
Death penalty for forced slavery: Deuteronomy 24:7

It was such a grave offense that it could resort to the death penalty. That's pretty strict. There are dozens more but I don't see a need in looking them all up for someone so studied in the Bible. Several verses and chapters mention how a slave can obtain their freedom, how they must be freed after six years regardless of whether or not their debt was paid, how they must be compensated once they leave, can be freed if the debt is paid early or by a kinsman redeemer, the forced support of slave or else you have to release them, you can't "fire" them if they are incapable of taking care of themselves, etc. And if any of these were violated? Watch out. The consequences got pretty severe as mentioned in Deuteronomy.

[edit on 2/8/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by AshleyD


Just read philemon, he starts praising him and then suggest he sets Onesimus free. Normally one would think he's talking about a particular christian slave he's grown fond of, but seems Onesimus also means useful, it is a bit ambiguous to me. From your first link it does appear he is an individual runaway slave, and not a metaphorical representation for all slaves owned.

Parables involving slaves and torture of said slaves and equating them to the kingdom of heaven by Jesus, is also questionable:

jesus tortured slave parable

We're not under the OT Law any longer.

I understand that you're not obliged to follow it, but are you saying one can't practice the law of the OT? That Jesus said one was required to stop practicing the OT law? Saying it is not required is not the same as saying it cannot be practiced at all or required to stop practicing it. I'm not talking about slavery perse but all the other laws and carrying out their penalties.

It was such a grave offense that it could resort to the death penalty.

Not in the context of the OT if the brick testament is accurate. Many many things even trivial ones for us seem to have demanded the death penalty.

Originally posted by Xenogears
Just read philemon, he starts praising him and then suggest he sets Onesimus free. Normally one would think he's talking about a particular christian slave he's grown fond of, but seems Onesimus also means useful, it is a bit ambiguous to me. From your first link it does appear he is an individual runaway slave, and not a metaphorical representation for all slaves owned.

Yes, Onesimus was an actual slave and not a metaphor. According to the early church writings outside the Bbile, Philemon released him and Onesimus subsequently became a church leader.

But something is important to note. What the Epistles essentially are, are letters written to individuals, church leaders, churches, or cities that contain doctrine and offer advice on the Christian life. So, Paul was only talking to one person in this case but because the Epistles were always passed around to other Christians, they were meant for doctrine and teachings. Pretty cool stuff that we have the book of Philemon today to make it clear slavery was a no-no for Christians.

Parables involving slaves and torture of said slaves and equating them to the kingdom of heaven by Jesus, is also questionable:

jesus tortured slave parable

You pretty much answered your own question. It was a parable- not an approval of slavery. In fact, once you see my explanation you will notice it actually looks like Jesus is criticizing slavery in a round about way:

All people were in spiritual bondage (slavery, if you will) but Jesus came to "set the captives [slaves] free." This parable is about us forgiving each other because God forgave us. He "freed us from our debt" and "slavery to the debt" so we should "free others from the debt" they owe us. If He forgives us for the countless sins we commit, then we have no right to "call in the lesser debt" of our fellow man when they sin against us. We are forgive them. And because slaves often became slaves due to an owed debt, we are to say, "You owe me nothing. Move along."

I understand that you're not obliged to follow it, but are you saying one can't practice the law of the OT? That Jesus said one was required to stop practicing the OT law? Saying it is not required is not the same as saying it cannot be practiced at all or required to stop practicing it. I'm not talking about slavery perse but all the other laws and carrying out their penalties.

When the apostles asked Jesus what "works" they needed to perform, Jesus replied, "The work of the God is this: to believe in the one He has sent." They were Jews who were heavily ingrained in the law and assumed Jesus would be setting up new laws and rituals. But the only "laws" He gave were to love Him, love our fellow man, and "believe in Jesus."

In Paul's epistles (and I think Peter's, too) we are told not to criticize or make an issue out of those who worship on the Sabbath or Sunday, choose to maintain the OT dietary laws, or pass on circumcision. Not sure if it explicitly states other things but I know those three issues are to be overlooked. I want to say the Nazarenes still lived by the OT law after they converted to Christianity but don't quote me on that. Most of the NT states that we are not under the Law and we are told to obey the laws of our current government unless they are opposed to Jesus' three "laws." Since it mentions the fact we are not bound by the OT Law and because the Law was not used after the dispersion in an organized government, it would seem silly to do so. Just my two cents.

Not in the context of the OT if the brick testament is accurate. Many many things even trivial ones for us seem to have demanded the death penalty.

As creative and well done as that site is, it is not the Bible. See what I'm saying? The Brick Testament seems to pick and choose the verses they display in order to criticize certain things mentioned in the Bible but not the context of such things. It is a biased site that takes things out of context and purposely uses unflattering images of the Lego characters but I'm not going to worry about that right now. In the context of the Bible, it is forbidden to sell someone into slavery without cause. And, yes, the death penalty was a possible consequence.

[edit on 2/8/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
In Paul's epistles (and I think Peter's, too) we are told not to criticize or make an issue out of those who worship on the Sabbath or Sunday, choose to maintain the OT dietary laws, or pass on circumcision.

Read Acts 15. That's the passage you're thinking of. It speaks to the need of converted Gentiles to follow all the Old Testament laws. Basically, Paul said that if none of the Jews could follow all of the laws, then why ask the new believers to do what they couldn't do. A short summary....

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.

reply to post by dbates


I was actually thinking of Colossians 2 but Acts 15 is a great confirmation of this and basically says the same thing that we are no longer under the Law. Thanks, Dbates.

[edit on 2/8/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD

As creative and well done as that site is, it is not the Bible. See what I'm saying? The Brick Testament seems to pick and choose the verses they display in order to criticize certain things mentioned in the Bible but not the context of such things. It is a biased site that takes things out of context and purposely uses unflattering images of the Lego characters but I'm not going to worry about that right now. In the context of the Bible, it is forbidden to sell someone into slavery without cause. And, yes, the death penalty was a possible consequence.

[edit on 2/8/2008 by AshleyD]

The Brick Testament is the largest, most comprehensive illustrated Bible in the world with over 3,600 illustrations that retell more than 300 stories from The Bible.

Rev. Smith has stated that the goal of The Brick Testament is to give people an increased knowledge of the contents of The Bible in a way that is fun and compelling while remaining true to the text of the scriptures. To this end, all stories are retold using direct quotes from The Bible.

is based on a number of different public domain Bible translations and occasionally a translation from the original Hebrew or Greek suggested by colleagues.

I believe it uses verses to showcase the events as they happened, and tries to use accurate verses. Things like stoning, ordering genocide, dismembering, murdering babies, etc. Are quite clear and I'm not sure how context could save these things and make them anything but repugnant.

Special note: Pay special attention to the external quotes you cited. They make it pretty clear the site is not the entire Bible but excerpts. Excerpts do not provide the context. Again, it is a clever website but what is more important: An illustrated website using Legos or the Bible itself? Reality check.

This is the last time I'm going to explain these types of questions then I'll be moving on since we've totally demolished the original topic. lol I'm not interested in debunking Lego Bible websites. Threads like this always come down to bringing up the exact same criticisms of the Bible over and over again even when they have been answered a million times. No one stops to say, "Hm. There are answers to problems I didn't know about. Maybe I should look into it and see what is actually going on before jumping to any more conclusions due to looking at Lego excerpts."

Originally posted by Xenogears
I believe it uses verses to showcase the events as they happened, and tries to use accurate verses. Things like stoning, ordering genocide, dismembering, murdering babies, etc. Are quite clear and I'm not sure how context could save these things and make them anything but repugnant.

Stoning: Horrendous, yes, but that was the method used at the time. It seemed to be very rarely performed, though. Even today OT law abiding Orthodox Jews (even in Israel) don't do such things. But yes, they did have a death penalty. Many U.S. states have a death penalty. As horrible as this is, this is still an argument based on outrage. It has more to do with your sentiments of the death penalty than the Bible being "wrong." Then when Jesus came, He gave us a progressive revelation when He stopped the imminent stoning of an adulteress.

Genocide: The context is almost always missed and I have explained this possibly over a dozen times in my two months on ATS. The other tribes were at war with the Jewish tribes, kidnapping the Jews for slavery, killing the Jews, committing acts of cannibalism, human sacrifice including children, bearing children for no other purpose than to use them in sacrifices or for cannibalistic purposes, etc. It was not a case of harmonious little communities living in peace minding their own business when they were suddenly invaded for no reason. There's also something that was going on that you have to read in between the lines to see but I don't want to open up the can my mentioning it. Then Jesus came and gave another progressive revelation. Love our enemy as ourself, turn the other cheek, and be bold against wickedness but loving and longsuffering with the individual.

Killing Babies: The most famous example given by critics is in the Books of Kings when a Jewish king is mentioned as killing pregnant women and children. They don't go down two more verses where it explicitly states, "And he did evil in the eyes of the Lord." It wasn't a commandment to do so- it was documenting the actions of this king and shaming him. Or when Babylon/Assyria (don't remember which) was invaded by its enemies where many men, women, and children were killed. Everyone forgets it was due to them just doing the same thing to surrounding kingdoms when they invaded and killed men, women, and children. It was war between several different kingdoms (not just Israel and sometimes they weren't even involved at all). Then Jesus came with a progressive revelation of passiveness.

The list goes on. Yes, there are some dastardly deeds mentioned in the Old Testament that are appalling at first (and second and third) glance but nothing ever occurred arbitrarily. Some laws offend our modern senses but lucky for us they have been replaced by Jesus' progressive revelations as society progressed, we were released from the bondage of the law, and as we were to be called to a higher standard of peace.

And that's all I have to say on the subject. There are oodles of apologetic websites that go into massive detail, often breaking down individual passages to examine the context, original Hebrew, and any external sources to collaborate their conclusions.

[edit on 2/8/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by AshleyD

Er... Yes it does. Explicitly and implied. One of Paul's epistles (Philemon particularly verses is nothing but a letter to a slave owner asserting that the practice of slavery is wrong and not Christ like.

Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9yet I appeal to you on the basis of love. I then, as Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus— 10I appeal to you for my son Onesimus,[a] who became my son while I was in chains. 11Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me

12I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favour you do will be spontaneous and not forced. 15Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good— 16no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord.

WOW…WTF……WOW……????.......he talks about himself as “a prisoner of Christ Jesus” I wonder what that means…. LOL….? “I appeal to you for my son Onesimus,[a] who became my son while I was in chains.” So he talks about his son and being is chains, while being Jesus’s prisoner, “Formerly he was useless to you” So his son was also Jesus’s slave/prisoner while he himself was in chains as a prisoner… “no longer as a slave, but better than a slave” thus proving he was before a slave of Jesus……

So hang on what…..? Jesus supports slavery….lol….having both himself and his son as slaves / prisoners for Christ……what….? How can you see this as anything else…it’s like you want to be owned……lol…you gave me a link that supports me instead of you…

Show me with a link where Jesus condones slavery.

Easy as pie... Considering the OT laws, you underline their irrelevance to today’s modern culture..... that's fine..... But then, Jesus neither says whether slaves ownership is good or bad.... for example, if Jesus condoned slave ownership it would have been written in the bible clearly it has not If Jesus was against slave ownership it would have been written in the bible. The fact that it Jesus says nothing positive or negative about slaves proves he doesn't have an opinion unless you look at the OT laws which you debunk...... This shows that he never says slave ownership is good or bad, for all you know Jesus could have been for it, it is only when Paul expresses his view that slave ownership is bad that the bible is shown to slightly be against slave ownership.....

Simply put, if Jesus himself was against slave ownership, it would clearly be in the bible.....Because he is never said to be against it, we can only assume he was for it, as slavery is such a controversial subject, if Jesus was really against slavery he would have clearly said his opinion about it in the bible.... and so.....because he says nothing...I can only logically assume he is for slavery.....

If you know the Bible so well (and you apparently think you do)

I don't even have a bible and yet I'm able to debate you at this level..... Just shows how resourceful I am...

Originally posted by andre18
WOW…WTF……WOW……????.......he talks about himself as “a prisoner of Christ Jesus” I wonder what that means…. LOL….? Jesus supports slavery….lol….having both himself and his son as slaves / prisoners for Christ……what….? How can you see this as anything else…it’s like you want to be owned……lol…you gave me a link that supports me instead of you…

Are you serious? Apparently you are. Paul was in prison by the Roman government at the time of writing this letter. He was in "chains for Jesus" because he had been imprisoned for spreading the Gospel. Please tell me you knew this. Paul was trying to use an analogy of him being an imprisoned "slave" in the Rome just for being a Christian and was comparing his imprisonment with the injustice of slavery in order for Philemon to release his slaves. Context, Children

Um. Owned?

But then, Jesus neither says whether slaves ownership is good or bad.... for example, if Jesus condoned slave ownership it would have been written in the bible clearly... This shows that he never says slave ownership is good or bad... I can only logically assume he is for slavery.....

So basically it all comes down to you assuming. You said Jesus condoned slavery. I asked you to provide evidence of this but all it boils down to is an assumption on your part that since He didn't say it He must have been for it. This is what is known in the apologetics world as "an argument from silence" and it never holds any water.

Read the last verse of John for an answer to your view that really hits home. You will be super owned. John admits Jesus said/did many more things but to record them all would take enough books to fill the whole world. John wanted to get the message of salvation across in His gospel and used his epistles for other things. We can assume He opposed slavery for all that matter. Going by the early Christian view against slavery and my next two paragraphs, my assumption has more backing than yours.

Jesus also never explicitly mentioned suicide, child molestation, spousal abuse, drug abuse, etc. So we can assume He approves of them all because He never technically spoke out against them? Absolutely not. Come on Andre. You can judge by His other teachings and logically deduce such things. He came to "set the captives free," "children were precious to him," "love your wives like I love the church," "the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit." The list goes on. And since the Epistles are also part of the Holy Bible, they also expound on His teachings. Philemon is one of them. Wake up Andre. It's all there. No need to assume.

And read this to see the answer to another commenter who asked about the parable of the master and slave: "All people were in spiritual bondage (slavery, if you will) but Jesus came to "set the captives [slaves] free." This parable is about us forgiving each other because God forgave us. He "freed us from our debt" and "slavery to the debt" so we should "free others from the debt" they owe us. If He forgives us for the countless sins we commit, then we have no right to "call in the lesser debt" of our fellow man when they sin against us. We are forgive them. And because slaves often became slaves due to an owed debt, we are to say, 'You owe me nothing. Move along.'"

Owned again?

I don't even have a bible and yet I'm able to debate you at this level..... Just shows how resourceful I am...

What level? You've shown me nothing but nonsense, word twisting, assumptions, and misunderstanding.