The God of slavery… again?

It seems that some people just haven’t learned anything

KIAOctober 27, 2016 at 2:37 am

“Because it’s pretty obvious that “captivity” wasn’t such a bad situation for that bird!”

Of course you can’t ask the bird, but you can ask those humans who have been slaves or any sane and intelligent human his opinion of ‘captivity’ vs freedom. I’m sure most people would gladly choose freedom over bondage, even if that leads to a more unsure life or earlier death.
Nothing justifies slavery. Nothing

If you dare, as much as it will pain me to point you there and you to read it, Check out Antebellum Amanda’s post trying to justify Biblical Slavery as ‘not so bad after all’ by justifying slavery in general as better than dying from too much freedom. What an Amazing crock of Bovine Excrement. While you’re at it, check out my first response post to her part one post. She was trying to equate Biblical Slavery to Parenting, of all things… Cringe!!

The levels one must stoop to in order to answer for and excuse the god of the Bible. It’s a very good thing that no such being actually exists outside of the pages of the Old and New Testaments.



120 thoughts on “The God of slavery… again?

  1. Some people don’t know when to let well enough alone.

    All these pathetic excuse making exercises show is that the apologists admit, tacitly, that slavery is inexcusable.

    In any case Numbers 31 is sufficient on a stand alone basis to show the OT god to be a moral atrocity. The thing about Numbers 31 is that the atrocities were clearly and unambiguously ordered by ‘God’. These atrocities were at least as bad, if not worse, that anything ISIS has done.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. She’s still at it, huh?

    Honestly, I don’t understand why her and her father just don’t show some backbone and simply accept the quite clear fact that they’re deists, not Christians. The amount of anxiety that religion causes them is astonishing. It makes them look like pathetic idiots time after time after time. I guess it’s the case that they’re immersed in it there in middle-America and are terrified of the people around them.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I wrote a long comment on Part I…this was the response I got:

    “Thanks for your perspective.
    Of course, it’s a 21st-Century perspective which has been heavily influenced by your knowledge of American slavery. But, I appreciate you taking the time you write out your thoughts. ”

    And she complains when nobody addresses her arguments directly. It’s like everything went right over her head. Needless to say this is one confused woman.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I am beginning to consider that there are only two alternatives to their behaviour:
    They are either continuing with this entire nonsense as a serious wind-up and believe it is an hilarious method to trawl for material for Daddy’s comedy routine, or, they are simply slightly retarded.

    Liked by 1 person

      • I browsed through the extensive comments on the on the first slavery post of her site. It reminded me somewhat of CS’ site. Argument after argument was carefully made by her interlocutors explaining her fallacious reasoning, but this seemed to sway her little.

        I see something similar in the YEC folk. In essence they start with a conclusion and interpret all evidence from that stance.

        There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

        I see that fanaticism can lead to faulty reasoning. It does not mean the person has some sort of limited reasoning skills or mental ability. Rather those skills are subverted such that they are applied to justify the fanatics world view.

        The key is that they start with the conclusion and are not open to any alternative conclusion.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. You might have removed Satan’s insignia in your header but he’s still with you, whispering into your ears to blaspheme God. I can sure hear him in your writing. You just keeping digging your pit much more deeper.


  6. Hey Killed In Action spiritually (KIA), just messing with except for the first comment that Satan is using you because he is. I see you are trying to curse God again? Look, Killed in action…why attack what you don’t believe in? You don’t see Christians attacking Santa Claus because he is NOT real but you attack God because your conscience tells you He is real. You want to feel good about your sins.


        • Its the rule of biblical interpretation that states that the first mention generally deterjines the interpretation later on. Where is satan first mentioned in the ot?


              • Oh your serious…OK

                Job 1:7-8
                6 One day the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. 7 The Lord asked Satan, “Where have you come from?”
                “From roaming through the earth,” Satan answered Him, “and walking around on it.”

                Remember the Book of Job is one of the oldest Book of the O.T.

                Examples would be money wasn’t in use as much but animals was used as wealth.


              • So… was satan a servant of god or in opposition to Him? This is important to understanding the ot vs the nt portrayals of Satan. Please answer


              • I know I’m asking you to do a hard thing, to think beyond what you have been taught, but please stick with it.
                Who’s adversary was satan in the book of job? And was he a servant of god or in opposition to Him?


              • No… adversary does mean against, but he was serving God, not opposing Him. In the ot, satan was the adversary of mankind, at gods service, to test mankind.


              • saw-tawn’ (Satan) an opponent; especially (with the article prefixed) Satan, the arch-enemy of good:-adversary, Satan, withstand. Strong’s 7854

                Zechariah 3:1-2
                3 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the Lord, with Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The Lord said to Satan: “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! May the Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Isn’t this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?”

                Psalm 25:7-8
                Do not remember the sins of my youth or my transgressions; According to Your lovingkindness remember me, For Your goodness’ sake, O LORD. Good and upright is the LORD; Therefore He instructs sinners in the way.


              • However, we were talking about the rule of first mention and it’s application to the first mention of Satan. Please stick to the thought process and don’t allow yourself to be distracted by nt or present interpretation.
                Originally in the ot, satan was the servant of god, used to test mankind. He was not the adversary of god but of mankind, on gods orders and allowances. We get this from the book of job


              • Satan means adversary, against what’s good and I showed you a verse in Psalms that clearly states that God is all good so Satan is against God because God is the standard of goodness. Satan was and is in opposition to Yahweh. My daughter who is 7 knows what Satan is. You want to make me prove you right but I don’t have to do that the text in Job 1 tells you who Satan is proves you wrong. No scholar of any sort will approve of your ridicules on the person of the adversary. If you don’t want to believe it than that is your choose but the name in Hebrew and the passage in Job 1 and in the rest of the O.T. clearly tells you who Satan is and his role in deceiving all whole world like he did you.



  8. Biblically, if a man kidnapped someone to make a slave of them, that was a capital crime.

    “And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.” Exodus 21:16

    It was, however, okay for people to sell themselves into slavery work off their debts. Read all of Leviticus 25 to get the whole picture. This is a far more righteous system than allowing people to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, declare bankruptcy, and never pay back their creditors. It is fair for everyone involved, especially if slave owners treat their slaves with kindness, as commanded.

    Liked by 1 person

      • I think that slavery is immoral except in the case mentioned above. If the person owed me money, yes, I would allow that person to work off their debt.I think it is the decent thing to do, and benefits all parties.

        Liked by 1 person

        • You do realize though that allowing people to work off debt is not the same as slavery? You’re making an equivalency that is not the case.
          Slavery is the selling and owning of another human being, with or without their consent, as property.
          Allowing people to willingly exchange their labor for the paying off of a debt is not slavery, and it’s not implied ownership of them while they do or until their debt is paid. The biblical record on slavery doesn’t even agree with your version.
          Would you sell or own another human being as property if it were still legal today and do you think it is moral or immoral?


          • I think the biblical view of slavery would not be defined as slavery today. I think it is most likely that the terms and definitions have changed. You can see that it was capital punishment for a man to kidnap someone to make them a slave. That means that the only legal kind of “slavery” (I wouldn’t even call it that, as you suggested), would be the kind where someone was working off a debt. I think it would be okay to exchange that person to a different household. Basically, you would be selling their debt as mortgage companies do.

            I am a little unsure of why they were allowed to buy and sell from other nations, but I assume that they were not supposed to buy and sell kidnapped people, but only those working off a debt.

            I think that possibly the Bible translations are at fault for this misunderstanding of terms. I’m not claiming to be right about all of this, but that’s what I would assume.

            To answer your question point-blank, I believe that if said person was working off a debt, that it would be okay to exchange them to someone else who purchased that debt. As soon as their debt was paid, however, or if someone came along (such as a kinsman) and paid their debt for them, that the “owner” (again, terms?) would be obligated to let them go. I think all of this is in Leviticus 25. There’s a verse that says that whatever the rate of a hired man was at the moment, you would multiply that by the amount of time remaining, and that would be the price of the man’s freedom. You see, it all revolved around debt and was a picture of salvation – aka, Christ purchasing our sin debt for us because we cannot do it ourselves.


            • I’m not sure you are being completely honest with yourself as to the nature of biblical slavery. I hope you do some more reading on it. Actually reading the bible rather than apologetics material. I think you will be as shocked and disturbed as I was when I allowed myself to think outside the bubble. Either way, again thanks for your comments and being willing to exchange. Have a wonderful day. -kia


              • I almost never read apologetics. It is almost all wrong. Having a conversation with those who disagree, like you, is a much better exercise because I’m not reading “what I want to hear.” I’m conversing with someone who isn’t afraid to challenge me, and that’s what thinking people need. I always read the Bible to see what it really says, which is why I disagree with my own pastor and friends about a million things, lol.

                Have a great day, and thanks for the interaction.

                Liked by 1 person

  9. Pingback: Conversations | Full Circle Homeschooling

  10. lots in the Bible that reflects a harsh, bellicose society — that’s why the Bible can’t be taken literally, in its every recorded custom. Still the revelation of God at its center — and as it evolves throughout history — can grab us and bring us alive (that’s how i make sense of this). I discuss such matters here :
    and elsewhere on my new blog. Thanks for raising the questions.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. My problem with what you’re saying is, that if you can’t trust the bible to be literally true in what it communicates, how can you trust it in anything it communicates to be True in any real sense of that word?

    Liked by 1 person

  12. That’s a great question. It is tricky and dicey.
    But, there is a vision of God at the center of the Bible, which unfolds. It is a matter of learning to distinguish the vision from its historical packaging. As I see it. And that’s a matter of discernment.
    Example: Sojourner Truth, a slave woman, found in the Bible inspiration to liberate herself from captivity. So , if slaves themselves can find liberation in the Bible, then there can be a liberating vision within it and a proclamation about God.
    I am way radical on these points. Many Christians do not agree with me. But I’m not an atheist either. That’s how I make sense of it.


      • Hi, Thanks for commenting and engaging a conversation. William Blake, Sojourner Truth: two courageous, prophetic people in history who were inspired to freedom by the Bible. I follow visionaries like them. There’s a long art and science of biblical interpretation. You may not agree with it but it’s not just making things up or delusion. If you read my blog, you may get a sense of what I do with the Bible. I’m pretty radical — not a literalist — but there is a spirituality in the Bible that is alive and good.


Please comment Responsibly and Respectfully

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s