613 O.T. + 1,050 N.T. = 1,663 Commands

Originally posted by sonhouse
If that is the case, why do you include the OT in your bible, since you clearly don't follow the rules there? Christians should only have the NT as their bible.

I still think the OT is used by Christians as a rationale to condone the treatment of women and slavery which is still very much with us.

There is no 'thou shalt not own slaves' anywhere in either book.

That's right, yet we still know it is wrong. Why must God state the obvious? Also, I would think that not owning other humans would fall under "love your neighbor as yourself", no? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

The OT is included in our Bible because there is much to be learned there. It holds the foundations of the New Testament. You cannot know Christ without knowing what came before. It's all one large tapestry woven by God to show us the way. The way, the truth and the life.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Nice response 😀 ... I love it.

You love it??

You love provoking other people into outbursts of frustration?

Doesn't sound very "Godly" to me.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
And where did you get your doctorate in "Quick Wit and Repartee" ?

Same place Rajk got his "love for his Christian brothers".

Originally posted by Suzianne
That's right, yet we still know it is wrong. Why must God state the obvious? Also, I would think that not owning other humans would fall under "love your neighbor as yourself", no? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

The OT is included in our Bible because there is much to be learned there. It holds the foundations of the New Testament. You cannot k ...[text shortened]... It's all one large tapestry woven by God to show us the way. The way, the truth and the life.

Well, it is clear the OT didn't ban slavery, but made rules about them. The NT pretty much says nothing, love thy neighbor aside. "God" stated the opposite of obvious in the OT so why would it be any different in the NT, there were and still are slaves, why was there no ban put on owning them in the NT.

Could it be the writers did not want to upset the apple cart too much?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well, it is clear the OT didn't ban slavery, but made rules about them. The NT pretty much says nothing, love thy neighbor aside. "God" stated the opposite of obvious in the OT so why would it be any different in the NT, there were and still are slaves, why was there no ban put on owning them in the NT.

Could it be the writers did not want to upset the apple cart too much?

Yes, this is entirely possible. Slavery was considered completely normal back when huge armies battled and many prisoners were taken, mostly to become slaves to the ruling class back in the winners' capital city. 'Spoils of war' they called it. It was practiced by nearly every nation in history until recently. Even Abraham Lincoln said that if he could end the war without freeing the slaves, he would, and if he had to free them, then he would. Ending the war was paramount, ending slavery, not so much. This, even as late as the 19th century.

One clear thing to remember is that back in Biblical times, there were conventions one followed even among slave-holders. This is why there were rules about it written into the Mosaic Laws. It was considered wrong to mistreat your slaves, to the point of starvation or inadequate housing or clothing. Many slaves entered slavery voluntarily to work off debt, knowing they would only be indentured a short time. This was common in America in the 1600s, 1700s and into the early 1800s to pay for your crossing to America by agreeing to a period of 'servitude'. Slavery was considered a normal fact of life for thousands of years, until the southern plantation owners took it to an extreme, considering their slaves even as 'less than human'. It was precisely this mistreatment which precipitated the movement to finally ban slavery in this country.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, this is entirely possible. Slavery was considered completely normal back when huge armies battled and many prisoners were taken, mostly to become slaves to the ruling class back in the winners' capital city. 'Spoils of war' they called it. It was practiced by nearly every nation in history until recently. Even Abraham Lincoln said that if he could ...[text shortened]... cisely this mistreatment which precipitated the movement to finally ban slavery in this country.

So we could still have slavery if the plantation owners had treated the slaves like they did 3000 years ago.

So with the end justifies the means......

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well then, it should be part of a history book and not part of your bible.

The Holy Bible includes several different kinds of literature. We have no right to limit God.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So we could still have slavery if the plantation owners had treated the slaves like they did 3000 years ago.

So with the end justifies the means......

They had rules to set them free after so many years unless they wanted to remain slaves. But like you, many people misunderstood those rules or that Christ had set the slaves free with His new covenant. The Roman government thought they knew better than Christ and the Christians, and began feeding the Christians to the Lions for sport.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So we could still have slavery if the plantation owners had treated the slaves like they did 3000 years ago.

So with the end justifies the means......

I don't know. I suppose it's possible. The end justifying the means doesn't even enter into it. The turning point here is what is socially acceptable becoming socially unacceptable. This is what drives most social change in America, at least.

Originally posted by RJHinds
They had rules to set them free after so many years unless they wanted to remain slaves. But like you, many people misunderstood those rules or that Christ had set the slaves free with His new covenant. The Roman government thought they knew better than Christ and the Christians, and began feeding the Christians to the Lions for sport.

Unfortunately, many governments feel they know better than the people.

Also unfortunately, it was the people of Rome who supported what went on in the Coliseum.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Holy Bible includes several different kinds of literature. We have no right to limit God.

You do it every day when you limit God to a 6 day creation, all done by magic.

Originally posted by Suzianne
You do it every day when you limit God to a 6 day creation, all done by magic.

God limited himself to a 6 day creation because he wanted to show His power by doing it fast. Any god could do it with a lot of time. Evolutionists would agree with that, in fact, they believe a god is not needed at all, for if there is enough time, it has to happen.

Originally posted by RJHinds
God limited himself to a 6 day creation because he wanted to show His power by doing it fast. Any god could do it with a lot of time. Evolutionists would agree with that, in fact, they believe a god is not needed at all, for if there is enough time, it has to happen.

And therefore we have the free will to choose between these options. Isn't that a good thing?

Originally posted by Suzianne
And therefore we have the free will to choose between these options. Isn't that a good thing?

It is good to choose to be on God's side, not so good to choose the other side.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is good to choose to be on God's side, not so good to choose the other side.

Yeah, you can see how well THAT turned out. What's a few million dead? Your god didn't give a crap about that, so why do you think it is going to come down and fix all our boo boo's?