Sentences with phrase «biblical slavery»

Because Biblical slavery was an agreement between the parties.

So just to be perfectly clear, Topher and Russ would be 100 % ok with the return of biblical slavery?

I am absolutely staggered by all these apologists for biblical slavery crawling out of the woodwork.

Despite the best efforts of apologists to refer to biblical slavery as merely indentured servitude or as bf does here as merely «volunteers,» the plain language betrays these interpretations.

@EMail Biblical slavery came in two flavours.

Lastly, you refer to biblical slavery in the past tense and then switch to «servant» in the present tense.

Maybe the biggest load has to be the reimagining of biblical slavery as some kind of benign indentured servitude, and nothing like the brutal slavery of our past.

I became aware of this kind of thing when I heard the apologetic that Biblical slavery was just indentured servitude.

Do I agree with biblical slavery?

I invite readers of this post to participate in a discussion of biblical slavery on my blog: http://pathofthebeagle.com/2011/09/10/invitation-to-a-dialog-on-biblical-slavery/

I've seen a lot of silliness on the belief blog, but on the Joel Osteen topic, I was gobsmacked by the number of apologists for Biblical slavery coming out of the woodwork.

Not exact matches

Where as (following the suffrage and civil rights movements) they have taken Biblical references regarding women and slavery and rightly applied cultural context to them, they have not done the same regarding gays and lesbians.

By abolishing slavery and ordaining women, millions of Protestants have gone far beyond biblical literalism.

What preachers once taught as biblical truth — slavery is sanctioned by God; women aren't allowed to preach; gambling and dancing are sin — is now rejected by many churches.

Also, if you are going to suggest that the patriarchal system that was so prevelant in biblical times must be enforced for all times then you should show a little consistency and insist that slavery is still acceptable as well.

I would constantly bring to the forefront that significantly small percentage of biblical passages (the majority within the framework of Levitical Law) that speak about slavery, selling of daughters, and God commanding the destruction of various tribes.

Christian opponents of slavery elevated biblical principles of justice and equality above individual passages that approved exclusion, Brinton says.

Loki, his «church» was quite literally FOUNDED on the principle that Southern slavery was Biblical and just; further, that «church» has NEVER issued a binding, formal apology for its support of slavery, racial etiquette, and Jim Crow; in fact, they were their most ardent supporters.

As if I'd give ANY credence to a mouthpiece for a so - called «church» which was LITERALLY founded for the purpose of providing Biblical justification of slavery.

Mike, Slavery was wrong then (Jefferson's time) earlier (Biblical Times) and Now.

Certainly Equiano became an eloquent critic of slavery; nevertheless, for him, Noll writes, biblical religion meant «the nearly total application of Scripture to the liberating effect of the Christian gospel for the individual person.»

The result was a new consensus that repents of and rejects the practice of slavery and any biblical interpretation that tries to defend slavery.

Historical events — a bloody Civil War — forced us to look more closely at how exactly the Bible talks not only about slavery but the biblical meaning and value of a human being.

«In particular, those who saw in Scripture a sanction for slavery were both more insistent on pointing to the passages that seemed so transparently to support their position and more confident in decrying the wanton disregard for divine revelation that seemed so willfully to dismiss biblical truths.»

As you can see, Christians advocating for the preservation of slavery did not characterize their abolitionist opponents as simply disagreeing with them on the interpretation of the biblical text, but instead tended to accuse them of not taking the Bible seriously at all.

With respect, you did not directly respond to the morality of the chattel slavery expressly condoned by the biblical deity in Lev 25:44 - 46.

The fact is, most of the defenses of American slavery were written by clergy who quoted Scripture generously and appealed to a «clear, plain, and common - sense reading» of biblical passages like Genesis 17:2, Deuteronomy 20:10 - 11, 1 Corinthians 7:21, Ephesians 6:1 - 5, Colossians 3:18 - 25; 4:1, and I Timothy 6:1 - 2.

What if one day we come to regard biblical teachings about homosexuality the same way we regard teachings about slavery, or dietary laws, or women covering their heads in church?

Jefferson, unlike Lincoln, did not often resort to biblical language, but the injustice of slavery called it forth in him.

These «conservative» Christians think they represent all Christian, but their school of Christianity is the same one that claimed a biblical justification for black slavery.

The biblical promise of liberation, for example, was clearly resonant during the period of American slavery.

For the British, it was the actual experience of slavery in some of its most brutal forms in the West Indies that precipitated thinking hard about slavery, which then precipitated biblical and theological arguments against it, which then led to political action.»

A few misleading accusations against the Bible» on slavery or women's rights, for example» are enough to cause modern conservatives to abandon Biblical arguments altogether.

For analyses of the biblical interpretation on both sides, see Willard M. Swartley, Slavery, Sabbath, War, and Women: Case Issues in Biblical Interpretation (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1983), pp. 152 - 191; Robert K. Johnston, Evangelicals at an Impasse: Biblical Authority in Practice (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1979), PP. biblical interpretation on both sides, see Willard M. Swartley, Slavery, Sabbath, War, and Women: Case Issues in Biblical Interpretation (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1983), pp. 152 - 191; Robert K. Johnston, Evangelicals at an Impasse: Biblical Authority in Practice (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1979), PP. Biblical Interpretation (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1983), pp. 152 - 191; Robert K. Johnston, Evangelicals at an Impasse: Biblical Authority in Practice (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1979), PP. Biblical Authority in Practice (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1979), PP. 48 - 76.

During this time period, only a few Quakers made biblical arguments against slavery.

Jesus keeps it simple plus we can avoid judgments and speculation about biblical accounts of war, slavery etc. that related to a specific nomadic tribal people or at a minimum require taking into account a people, time and place some say never existed.

Christians could invoke biblical justifications for slavery just as easily as they could proclaim that all men are created equal.

The biblical and classical Christian perceptions of the slavery and freedom of the self in all their ambiguous interplay and of the social implications of such selfhood continue to be the most adequate I know, as articulated masterfully in the writings of Reinhold Niebuhr.

But since the New Testament itself contains various kinds of social witness — as its use both for and against slavery and patriarchy, for example, shows — debate can degenerate into mere thrust and parry of proof - texts with no possibility of resolution, or of even honest concession that both sides can claim biblical warrant.

«Biblical» slavery was either a method to allow a person to retire a financial debt (voluntary servitude) or to manage peoples in the land of Canaan that were otherwise not destroyed — though God instructed Israel to do so.

I'm glad the U.S. legislates the biblical morality of civil rights for African Americans after a shameful history of oppression and slavery.

From that biblical lesson, Lincoln asked whether such a woe had indeed come on the nation because of slavery — and was being paid for in blood.

The most significant schism was undoubtedly Martin Luther's, but earlier ones had involved the Coptics and Eastern Orthodox; subsequent ones are too numerous to mention, but spectacularly include the Southern versions of the Baptists and Methodists, whose adherents of nearly 2 centuries ago were more persuaded by the Biblical passages endorsing slavery than by the COMPETING Biblical passages commanding love of one's fellow man.

One of the fairest and most rigorous wrestles with biblical ambiguity known to me is Willard M. Swartley's Slavery, Sabbath, War and Women (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1983).

In biblical times, slavery was not a sin, poligamy wasn't a sin, pedophilia wasn't a sin, nor was spousal rape.

The abolition of slavery is demanded by biblical principles.

Are you saying that the biblical acceptance of slavery is only applicable to the ancient Hebrew and that the passages allowing and instructing on slavery are null and do not apply today?

It shouldn't be surprising that apologists will defend biblical chattel slavery given they are equally willing to defend the slaughter of children and infants; completely disregarding any notion of judgment based on an exercise of free will, completely disregarding any notion of empathy for their suffering, and with complete rejection of any personal moral culpability in offering their various incarnations of a Nuremberg defense by placing their self - serving deference to perceived authority over any and all other moral considerations.

Given that we have been discussing biblical rules for the treatment of slaves, do you agree that the bible condones slavery in general?

believerfred — We have been discussing for a week biblical text that very specifically instructs in, allows and sets rules around slavery.