🕯️ Traditions DOES THE BIBLE SUPPORT SLAVERY? (GOOD READ)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tingin ko sinabi ko na na tama ka kung definitions lng pag uusapan natin.


It is a matter of what immorality is attached to slavery, the same immorality we are accusing the bible of. The essence of it.
Cause slavery is immoral… and the bible provides instructions on how to go about it…

When you compared employment as a justified form of slavery eh are u saying that slavery is unjust?
So, it is clear na kung walang laws, employers will likely treat employees not much different from slaves. Ownership does not even matter.
At gaya nga ng sabi ko earlier, ung mga laws lang natin nagpprotect satin sa ganyan practice. Which is derived from the idea na every man is "equal under God"
Not necessarily… bat maltreatment ba agad ang possibility?? Kung walang laws and contract then the employee also have no obligation to fulfill any of his duties… those things are in place to protect both parties… kung iadopt ba yung slavery laws sa panahon now is it “equal” for both sides??
Are we going to subject it to the morality of their time? Or our time?
Oooh.. nice… so sige.. whats the difference if we subject it to the morality then and now??

Are u gonna say that god allowed it kasi its a common practice at the time and therefore its moral??
 
Cause slavery is immoral… and the bible provides instructions on how to go about it…

When you compared employment as a justified form of slavery eh are u saying that slavery is unjust?
What i am saying is, employment can be as unjust as slavery. Hindi porket inabolish na ang slavery, morally superior na tayo sa Bible.

Not necessarily… bat maltreatment ba agad ang possibility?? Kung walang laws and contract then the employee also have no obligation to fulfill any of his duties…
Any employee has the obligation to provide his own needs. How long will dodging duties work? At a certain point, pag wala ka nang choice, you'd accept being treated as slave.
What is the point not being "owned" kung kailangan mo rin ialay lahat ng oras mo sa pagtatarbaho sa employer mo at wala k nmn din tlgang choice?

Oooh.. nice… so sige.. whats the difference if we subject it to the morality then and now??

You have to understand bakit binibigay ng bible yan na instructions para slavery. Only reason i can think of is minamaltrato ng mga slave-owner ang slaves in the first place, even worst sa pineprescribe ng bible na treatment. Which means, some way, ni-lilibirate pa nga nila ang slaves. Binibigyan ng bible ng rights.

Of course, kung sa time natin isusubject, mali tlga treatment ung mga yan gawin sa ibang tao. kasi wala nmn nang slaves. At lahat nmn na tayo, equal na ang rights.
 
What i am saying is, employment can be as unjust as slavery. Hindi porket inabolish na ang slavery, morally superior na tayo sa Bible.
So slavery is unjust?? Yes or no?

If it can be just an unjust then why did u say na its a justified form of slavery?? (Daming “just” hahaha)

Sure agree nman ako na may instances na masama minsan sa employment.

But…. inabolish ang slavery…i dont know of any movement to abolish employment..in fact people want more employment pa nga db??

So sa scale ng moral superiority, u really think yang slavery na pinaglalaban mo totally outweighs employment??
Any employee has the obligation to provide his own needs. How long will dodging duties work? At a certain point, pag wala ka nang choice, you'd accept being treated as slave.
What is the point not being "owned" kung kailangan mo rin ialay lahat ng oras mo sa pagtatarbaho sa employer mo at wala k nmn din tlgang choice?
Wala ngang obligation… ang punto mo kasi na kung walang laws may mistreatment na mangyayari… im just offering another likely scenario na hindi compelled ang employee to do anything kung walang laws and contract.. basically walang mangyayari sa parehong side… ang pov mo kasi na prang ung employer lang ang may total control when thats not how an employment works…

No contract or law that binds the employer to the employee walang any form of obligation….walang dapat iaccept from both sides…walang kailangan bayaran na trabaho..walang kailangan gawing trabaho…

Sa times na merong contract, say i contracted someone to be an engineer sa isang project..can i just simply compel him to work as laborer? Or naghire ako ng isana plumber pero ipapagawa ko sa kanya eh electrical?? Pd ba yun?? Justified ba??

Eh sa slave..once “owned” ka na may choice ba sya sa pd nya gawin or hindi?? Or need nya na “obey your master” lang?

You have to understand bakit binibigay ng bible yan na instructions para slavery. Only reason i can think of is minamaltrato ng mga slave-owner ang slaves in the first place, even worst sa pineprescribe ng bible na treatment. Which means, some way, ni-lilibirate pa nga nila ang slaves. Binibigyan ng bible ng rights.
Telling people to stop enslaving others… yang ang liberating…

Thats so disgusting to hear na aware sila na may pagmamaltrato sa slaves eh instead of getting rid of it for the sake of “equality” eh ang naisipang gawin eh make slavery more bearable…tsss

And im pretty sure na hindi lang ang mga israelites ang may rules about slaves sa panahon na un…its not as if god founded the idea of “how to treat slaves better”…
Of course, kung sa time natin isusubject, mali tlga treatment ung mga yan gawin sa ibang tao. kasi wala nmn nang slaves. At lahat nmn na tayo, equal na ang rights.
So slavery was okay noong panahon na yon?? Treatment na dinanas nila at that time is okay and acceptable??

Kung ikaw ung nabubuhay nong time na un.. would u want to be a slave under sa conditions written in exodus?? Or would u rather be the master?

Kung issue sayo ung slavery becAuse of our time then and now… ung ibang teachings ba ng bible then di na din natin kailangan now??

And if slavery is no longer relevant sa panahon natin now then why on earth isinama pa yan sa word ni god?? Core message related ba yan?? Tssss
 
So slavery is unjust?? Yes or no?

If it can be just an unjust then why did u say na its a justified form of slavery?? (Daming “just” hahaha)
Slavery is unjust, especially according to our own of standards. Employment is the loophole we have, to satisfy the "necessity"
Na nprovide ng slavery.

Hindi ko pinaglalaban ang slavery, kinukwestyon ko ang validity ng statement na "the bible support slavery"

Nakukuha ko ung pinupunta mo na ang employee ay may karapatan na huwag tumupad sa isang contract. At walang mangyayari.
Pero hindi mo tintignan ung part na pag walang nangayari, employee padin ang talo sa scenario na yan, dahil siya nmn tlga may kailangan ng tarbaho. Para mabuhay.
Employers can always look for someone else.

Telling people to stop enslaving others… yang ang liberating…

Thats so disgusting to hear na aware sila na may pagmamaltrato sa slaves eh instead of getting rid of it for the sake of “equality” eh ang naisipang gawin eh make slavery more bearable…tsss

And im pretty sure na hindi lang ang mga israelites ang may rules about slaves sa panahon na un…its not as if god founded the idea of “how to treat slaves better”…

Im with you on that. Kung ikaw ang author ng bibliya, tingin mo may susunod sayo pag sinabi mo yan? Would you even make a change that way?

Kung ikaw ung nabubuhay nong time na un.. would u want to be a slave under sa conditions written in exodus?? Or would u rather be the master?
That is not even their choice. It just the conditions of the time.

Now that i think about it. Kahit nmn pala ngayon. Pag pinanganak ka mayaman, likely employer ka, pag pinanganak ka mahirap, employee.
Syempre nandoon tayo sa blind faith na pag nagsipag ka at nagtyaga, yayaman ka. Confirmation bias lang basis natin para maniwala dyan. Hindi nalalayo sa faith ng mga theist.


And if slavery is no longer relevant sa panahon natin now then why on earth isinama pa yan sa word ni god?? Core message related ba yan?? Tssss

Medyo kampante ka masyado sa employment system to think na never na ito magiging relevant. History is a cycle, nagkataon lng na nasa comfortable phase tayo na panahon.

The core of the massage was not the literal na iniillustrate nung bible. It was the reasonings behind sa actions na pineprescribe nito.

It will just be wise to keep it there, just in case.

Sa times na merong contract, say i contracted someone to be an engineer sa isang project..can i just simply compel him to work as laborer? Or naghire ako ng isana plumber pero ipapagawa ko sa kanya eh electrical?? Pd ba yun?? Justified ba??

Eh sa slave..once “owned” ka na may choice ba sya sa pd nya gawin or hindi?? Or need nya na “obey your master” lang?
Hindi ba parang kinukumpara mo ang best case scenario ng employment system sa worst case scenario ng slavery?
Siguro kailangan mo tignan ang kabuuan ng systema ng employment, even the worst. Kahit walang label ng ownership, pag desperate ka, you're still at a risk of being treated as such.
Similarly, ung mga tao din nmn tlga nung time nila, kaya tinatanggap nila ang pagiging slave, they have nothing else. Either prisoners of war, criminal, anak sila ng slave, or foreigner, at doomed na din sila kung hindi sila naging slave.
Its not like slave-owners just pick whoever they want. Though not written, meron din silang agreement from the beginning. (Exception dun sa second generation na ng slave)
 
Slavery is unjust, especially according to our own of standards. Employment is the loophole we have, to satisfy the "necessity"
Na nprovide ng slavery.
Employment isnt a loophole.. its a practice, just like slavery was a practice then… its not as if nareplaced ng employment ang slavery which is what ur trying to say… kung walang employment at the time pd pa yan but that’s not the case…

Hindi ko pinaglalaban ang slavery, kinukwestyon ko ang validity ng statement na "the bible support slavery"
How would u put ung context ng slavery sa bible if u think it doesnt support it?

Nakukuha ko ung pinupunta mo na ang employee ay may karapatan na huwag tumupad sa isang contract. At walang mangyayari.
Pero hindi mo tintignan ung part na pag walang nangayari, employee padin ang talo sa scenario na yan, dahil siya nmn tlga may kailangan ng tarbaho. Para mabuhay.
Employers can always look for someone else.
Gets ko yang part na yan… that what makes employment totally different from slavery nga eh…

Kung ang isang employee walang gagawin.. wala sya sweldo.. and maybe even iterminate employment nea…

Pag ang isang slave ang walang gagawin…pd lang ba syang wag bayaran?? Pd bang iterminate ang pagiging slave nea??

Same outcome lang ba sa employee at isang slave??
.Im with you on that. Kung ikaw ang author ng bibliya, tingin mo may susunod sayo pag sinabi mo yan? Would you even make a change that way?
Isnt the point of the bible to be good to people??
So what pala dapat?? God’s word should cater to the practice and norms ng mga tao at the time?? So atleast win win scenario and people will still follow kasi di affected ang practice nila… that’s convenient…

Medyo kampante ka masyado sa employment system to think na never na ito magiging relevant. History is a cycle, nagkataon lng na nasa comfortable phase tayo na panahon.

The core of the massage was not the literal na iniillustrate nung bible. It was the reasonings behind sa actions na pineprescribe nito.

It will just be wise to keep it there, just in case.
Relevance ng slavery is what im pointing at…not employment…

Relevant pa din ba slavery laws sa bible or not?? And just in case what?? We started enslaving people again?? If ever that will happen again do u think na ung prescribe laws sa bible about slave treatment is the best way to treat “slaves”
 
Employment isnt a loophole.. its a practice, just like slavery was a practice then… its not as if nareplaced ng employment ang slavery which is what ur trying to say… kung walang employment at the time pd pa yan but that’s not the case…


How would u put ung context ng slavery sa bible if u think it doesnt support it?


Gets ko yang part na yan… that what makes employment totally different from slavery nga eh…

Kung ang isang employee walang gagawin.. wala sya sweldo.. and maybe even iterminate employment nea…

Pag ang isang slave ang walang gagawin…pd lang ba syang wag bayaran?? Pd bang iterminate ang pagiging slave nea??

Same outcome lang ba sa employee at isang slave??

Isnt the point of the bible to be good to people??
So what pala dapat?? God’s word should cater to the practice and norms ng mga tao at the time?? So atleast win win scenario and people will still follow kasi di affected ang practice nila… that’s convenient…




Relevance ng slavery is what im pointing at…not employment…

Relevant pa din ba slavery laws sa bible or not?? And just in case what?? We started enslaving people again?? If ever that will happen again do u think na ung prescribe laws sa bible about slave treatment is the best way to treat “slaves”
Halimbawa, isa kang smoker. You smoke 20 sticks a day.

Sabi ng doctor mo, para maka quit ka, bawasan mo unti unti. Sabi nya tommorow smoke 19 sticks.
Then next 18 sticks.
So on and so forth.

Tapos successful ka naka quit ng smóking.

Tpos may third person. Somehow nalaman nya na sabi ng doctor mo sa 15th visit mo na mag smoke ka ng 5 sticks that day.

Is it a valid statement na ung doctor mo ay nag aadvocate for smőking?

Isnt the point of the bible to be good to people??
So what pala dapat?? God’s word should cater to the practice and norms ng mga tao at the time?? So atleast win win scenario and people will still follow kasi di affected ang practice nila… that’s convenient…
Maraming layers ng misunderstanding ang statement mo na ito.
Una sinusubject mo ang bible sa morality na alam mo ngayon. Yung concepto mo ng "good" ngayon would just be called "stupid" sa time nila. Wala kang macoconvince. Wala ka susunod sayo kung yan ang gagawin mo rules.
Second, you view "god's" followers nung time nila na interested lang sa pagpapadami ng members, na kagaya ng ngayon. It is their identity. Lahi nila yun, and politics, not a membership.
Actually meron pang iba na i still cant put my finger on para maipaliwanag sayo.


Hindi ko sinasabi na relevant ang slavery perse. The bible is the archeology of human psychology. Hindi mo alam kung saan mo magagamit mga knowledge na ito sa future. Marahil sayo walang value, pero hindi sinulat ang bibliya para lang sayo. Sinulat yan para sa mga tao mula nung panahon nila hanggang sa mga tao sa hinaharap. Hindi din natin alam, baka bumalik ang slavery sa future.

Employment isnt a loophole.. its a practice, just like slavery was a practice then… its not as if nareplaced ng employment ang slavery which is what ur trying to say… kung walang employment at the time pd pa yan but that’s not the case…

Just nagcoexist ang slavery at ang employment hindi mo tlga matatanggap ung comparison? Samantalang parehas lng nmn yan means to extract labor from someone lower in the heirarchy.
 
Halimbawa, isa kang smoker. You smoke 20 sticks a day.

Sabi ng doctor mo, para maka quit ka, bawasan mo unti unti. Sabi nya tommorow smoke 19 sticks.
Then next 18 sticks.
So on and so forth.

Tapos successful ka naka quit ng smóking.

Tpos may third person. Somehow nalaman nya na sabi ng doctor mo sa 15th visit mo na mag smoke ka ng 5 sticks that day.

Is it a valid statement na ung doctor mo ay nag aadvocate for smőking?
This analogy does not work at all… sa example mo both u and the doctor agreed for you to stop *******… was there any indication sa bible that god wants to stop any form of slavery?? Alin jan ung eventual freedom nila?? So some slaves will be eventually be freed.. pero meron ba utos to “quit” slavery at all??

And even ung mga ibang pagbabawal.. god didnt have any problem giving direct instructions on what type of food not to eat…what type of fabrics u cant mix..not to worship other gods… hindi ba part din ng culture ng mga tao noon yan??

So again..u said ayaw mo that people are saying that bible supports slavery… so sa pov mo ano ang portrayal ng bible sa slavery and why is it part of his message sa tao?

Hindi ba parang kinukumpara mo ang best case scenario ng employment system sa worst case scenario ng slavery?
Siguro kailangan mo tignan ang kabuuan ng systema ng employment, even the worst. Kahit walang label ng ownership, pag desperate ka, you're still at a risk of being treated as such.
Similarly, ung mga tao din nmn tlga nung time nila, kaya tinatanggap nila ang pagiging slave, they have nothing else. Either prisoners of war, criminal, anak sila ng slave, or foreigner, at doomed na din sila kung hindi sila naging slave.
Its not like slave-owners just pick whoever they want. Though not written, meron din silang agreement from the beginning. (Exception dun sa second generation na ng slave)
Di ko nabasa to knina so balikan ko lang…

Would u agree na the worst case scenario sa isang employee is to be treated like a slave??

U kept on comparing employment to slavery kasi as equal when even the bible itself eh may distinction between a slave and a servant… an israeli slave and a foreign slave…
Maraming layers ng misunderstanding ang statement mo na ito.
Una sinusubject mo ang bible sa morality na alam mo ngayon. Yung concepto mo ng "good" ngayon would just be called "stupid" sa time nila. Wala kang macoconvince. Wala ka susunod sayo kung yan ang gagawin mo rules.
Second, you view "god's" followers nung time nila na interested lang sa pagpapadami ng members, na kagaya ng ngayon. It is their identity. Lahi nila yun, and politics, not a membership.
Actually meron pang iba na i still cant put my finger on para maipaliwanag sayo.
Kung sa political pov lang titingnan then walang problema… understable ung slavery sa bible in that aspect of convincing, if not pleasing, people…

If rampant ang human sacrifice non should the bible give standards for that as well to be more convincing? Kung rampant ang pillaging ganon din ba?

Kasi lahi nila un.. politics nila…

So whats the point of the bible nga?? To please ung society and politics nila?? Is it a handbook for politics or a moral guide?
Just nagcoexist ang slavery at ang employment hindi mo tlga matatanggap ung comparison? Samantalang parehas lng nmn yan means to extract labor from someone lower in the heirarchy.
Exactly.. they co exist.. one is not the same as the other… extracting labor from someone for a fee or payment.. sure.. tama.. but thats all they have in common… they co existed but with completely different conditions…
Hindi ko sinasabi na relevant ang slavery perse. The bible is the archeology of human psychology. Hindi mo alam kung saan mo magagamit mga knowledge na ito sa future. Marahil sayo walang value, pero hindi sinulat ang bibliya para lang sayo. Sinulat yan para sa mga tao mula nung panahon nila hanggang sa mga tao sa hinaharap. Hindi din natin alam, baka bumalik ang slavery sa future.
Lets say that happens nga… na may slavery na ulit… would u want people to treat their slaves the way slaves were treated in the bible or would u oppose slavery just like others did in the past?

Why are u trying to even downplay ung slavery?? Ayaw mo lang kamo na sinasabi na “bible promotes slavery” …if its as simple as employment lang for you eh then whats the issue if it promotes something which is not that bad for you?
 
This analogy does not work at all… sa example mo both u and the doctor agreed for you to stop *******… was there any indication sa bible that god wants to stop any form of slavery?? Alin jan ung eventual freedom nila?? So some slaves will be eventually be freed.. pero meron ba utos to “quit” slavery at all??
Yan nga ang reason kung bakit specifically sinabi ko 3rd person sa analogy at 15th day lng ang nakikita na view. The 3rd person does not know about the agreement. The clear agreement is not apparent to the one judging.
Ganyan din tayo sa bible. We are quick to say they support this and that, whitout even considering that it was JUST A STEP to a certain direction.

Meron lang tayo clue sa part nung kay Moses (exodus) na meron movement towards a goal wherein "god's people should not be slaves". Na isa siya din naman sa mga dahilan kung bakit sa panahon natin ngayon na abolish na natin ang slavery, except, non-exclusive na sa "gods people".

Exactly.. they co exist.. one is not the same as the other… extracting labor from someone for a fee or payment.. sure.. tama.. but thats all they have in common… they co existed but with completely different conditions…
So kung halimbawa isa akong mapangabuso na costumer, o employer, just because ρáíd a fee, instead of owning the people, that i would have the moral grounds to say the bible is immoral?

Why are u trying to even downplay ung slavery?? Ayaw mo lang kamo na sinasabi na “bible promotes slavery” …if its as simple as employment lang for you eh then whats the issue if it promotes something which is not that bad for you?
You are trying to paint a picture that i like slavery. I am not emotionally attached to this argument as you think. Im just trying to make you see kung gaano kahina ang argument na "bible supports slavery". It is cherry picking.. i mean same thing could be said sa critics na nagsasabi nyan. "Sinasabi lang nila yan tungkol sa bible kasi tamad sila mag aral ng bible"

Siguro nmn din alam mo na nagppractice din tayo ng slavery sa Pilipinas bago pa dumating ang kristiyanismo. Can u you imagine kung pano society natin kung hindi dumating ang kastila. Would you even view the slavery on the bible as immoral?
Owning slaves used to be viewed as a "right". A disgusting one at that. It was impossible to abolish that "right" as it is impossible to abolish any of our right now.
Pra sakin there is no one to credit sa pagkaka abolish ng right to own slave kungdi ung principle ng christianity din, na lahat ng tao pantay, sa ilalim ng Diyos.

One thing na nakakainis para sakin sa argument mo, yung part na "dapat tinuro ng bible sa tao na bad mag slave"
You make it sound so simple.
Ngayon nakikita mo ang kamalian within sa catholic practice, you dont even have a clue kung pano ayusin. If it was that easy , why is it, all you did was save yourself from it. If catholic followers were the current "slaves", you simply abandoned them.
 
Lets say that happens nga… na may slavery na ulit… would u want people to treat their slaves the way slaves were treated in the bible or would u oppose slavery just like others did in the past?
You are missing the point. I dont know if on purpose.
But to answer the question, i would oppose.
 
25aa.png

DESCRIPTIVE VERSUS PRESCRIPTIVE. Hindi natin matatanggi na may mga passages na naglalahad ng realidad patungkol sa slavery pero hindi makatwiran na i-assume na ina-approve ng Diyos o ng Biblia ang gawaing ito. The passages only record (descriptive) the practice but never promote (prescriptive) it. No biblical text endorses slavery. The Bible faithfully records the identity of Hagar, the slave of Sarah (Gen 16:1), but it in no way instructs the readers to get their own slaves. The Bible also narrates Joseph being sold into slavery (Gen 37:28), but the story doesn’t promote human trafficking.

---
ang tanong what happened with Hagar and his son Ishmael??? Hindi ba ni tolerate ng Diyos ng bibliya na sila ay i vanish.. The righful heir of Abraham is Ishmael dahil siya ang first born son, pero mas pinili ng diyos ng bibliya na sila ay palayasin at maging heir ay si Isaac.. Why??? the answer is so simple at malalaman natin by the 2 facts base on biblical nareatives
(1) Hagar is just a slave (2) Hagar is a gentile (non jewish) she is Egyptian.

Kaya base sa naratibo mismo ng bibliya masasabi natin hindi lang ni totolerate ng diyos ng bibliya ang slavery, hindi din patas ang pagtangi nya sa mga alipin, and makikita natin ang kung gano din ka racist ang diyos ng bibliya sa mga hindi hudyo, after all from the very beginning palang ng history ng jewish people sa OT ang diyos ng bibliya ay tribal and jewish god, siya ay diyos lamang sa mga Hudyo.

Ang nasabi din kwento sa bibliya (Hagar and Ishmael) ang isa sa dahilan kung bakit very divided ang Islam at Christianity.. in the story of the bible Ishmael is the first born bastard son from a Gentile woman, tinuturing naman sa Quran si Ishmael as the righful hair of Abraham and Hagar the slave as one of the early mother of the believers
 
God of the Jews, whoever the hell he is, is a murderer so being pro slavery is not a big surprise. Just saying.
 
God of the Jews, whoever the hell he is, is a murderer so being pro slavery is not a big surprise. Just saying.
I don't even know who the hell are you, but this is very absurd sir. What would be the connection of being murderer in the topic? I can murder you but I can be also against slavery. Just saying.
 
God of the Jews, whoever the hell he is, is a murderer so being pro slavery is not a big surprise. Just saying.
Have you read the post?

ang tanong what happened with Hagar and his son Ishmael??? Hindi ba ni tolerate ng Diyos ng bibliya na sila ay i vanish.. The righful heir of Abraham is Ishmael dahil siya ang first born son, pero mas pinili ng diyos ng bibliya na sila ay palayasin at maging heir ay si Isaac.. Why??? the answer is so simple at malalaman natin by the 2 facts base on biblical nareatives
(1) Hagar is just a slave (2) Hagar is a gentile (non jewish) she is Egyptian.

Kaya base sa naratibo mismo ng bibliya masasabi natin hindi lang ni totolerate ng diyos ng bibliya ang slavery, hindi din patas ang pagtangi nya sa mga alipin, and makikita natin ang kung gano din ka racist ang diyos ng bibliya sa mga hindi hudyo, after all from the very beginning palang ng history ng jewish people sa OT ang diyos ng bibliya ay tribal and jewish god, siya ay diyos lamang sa mga Hudyo.

Ang nasabi din kwento sa bibliya (Hagar and Ishmael) ang isa sa dahilan kung bakit very divided ang Islam at Christianity.. in the story of the bible Ishmael is the first born bastard son from a Gentile woman, tinuturing naman sa Quran si Ishmael as the righful hair of Abraham and Hagar the slave as one of the early mother of the believers

It does not change the fact that it was a narrative (descriptive) of what happened. It was unique only in that particular passage. None of it commands anything about a particular subject unless you put your meaning unto it.

1. God's original plan was for Abraham's wife, Sarah.
2. That's another post to be discussed. Although He is the God of the Jew in the OT, many times, He showed mercy unto the gentiles. Just like, He still blessed Hagar.

I said that all that accusations were just a narrative of what happened. It was not prescribed to follow but a story or history passages to learn from what happened. God sometimes does allow some things to happen if it's not His will to show how hardened and rebellious humans have always been.

Christianity and Islam are others that need a separate post.
 
Have you read the post?



It does not change the fact that it was a narrative (descriptive) of what happened. It was unique only in that particular passage. None of it commands anything about a particular subject unless you put your meaning unto it.

1. God's original plan was for Abraham's wife, Sarah.
2. That's another post to be discussed. Although He is the God of the Jew in the OT, many times, He showed mercy unto the gentiles. Just like, He still blessed Hagar.

I said that all that accusations were just a narrative of what happened. It was not prescribed to follow but a story or history passages to learn from what happened. God sometimes does allow some things to happen if it's not His will to show how hardened and rebellious humans have always been.

Christianity and Islam are others that need a separate post.
Enough with that descriptive and prescriptive thingy, the fact that the Jews themselves practiced slavery shows their god favored it. It was not even written in the commandments not to do so...and the only thing god approved with a heavy heart is divorce..eveything done by these people is approved by their god or punished, and never in the entire bible was a jew punished for slabery. Therefore their god allowed it a 100%.
 
Kaya base sa naratibo mismo ng bibliya masasabi natin hindi lang ni totolerate ng diyos ng bibliya ang slavery, hindi din patas ang pagtangi nya sa mga alipin, and makikita natin ang kung gano din ka racist ang diyos ng bibliya sa mga hindi hudyo, after all from the very beginning palang ng history ng jewish people sa OT ang diyos ng bibliya ay tribal and jewish god, siya ay diyos lamang sa mga Hudyo.

Kung ilalagay mo sa scrutiny ang moralidad ng isang gawa, hindi nmn yata wasto na moralidad ng dalawang magkaibang panahon ang gagamitin mo.
Hindi ka pupwede hulihin dahil sa jaywalking kung ngayon lang pinagbawal ang pag tawid, at noong nakaraang taon ka tumawid sa naturang kalsada.

the fact that the Jews themselves practiced slavery shows their god favored it. It was not even written in the commandments not to do so...
Ang ginamit na salita diyan sa slavery, bago isalin sa ingles ang Bibliya ay hebrew word na "ebed", which means position na nag pprovide ng service sa tao mas mataas sayo sa heirarchy. Ibig sabihin ppwede mo ipalit dito ang salitang "servant", "employee" at syempre ung salitang pinaguusapan natin ngayon "slave", na sobrang recent history lang nmn ginawang immoral at nagkaroon ng negative connotations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

About this Thread

  • 47
    Replies
  • 2K
    Views
  • 12
    Participants
Last reply from:
Gildarts Tale

Online now

Members online
626
Guests online
1,311
Total visitors
1,937

Forum statistics

Threads
2,272,643
Posts
28,944,309
Members
1,237,304
Latest member
xhianis
Back
Top