Right! I appreciate your time and comments. This is the third of a 4-part series we are doing. The rest are on the historical accuracy of the bible, feminism and misogyny in the bible and the last one (yet to be written) the deiry of Jesus. Do give them a read. Thanks

I won’t be able to comment on it in it’s entirety at this very moment, but I will say it is very well written and it will be one I will share with non-believers, as well as Christians, who need a thorough explanation on how God viewed slavery. I agree fully that he was against Chattel slavery.

@sharinalr hi, so we edited the blog post and made it more specific. Do read it and share your view with us. Thanks. Your comments have been helpful.

You are creating a position that I do not have and then rewording and repeating some things I already said as if I never said it.

“This act, man stealing, that you said God was against was a FORM of SLAVERY”—Please quote where I said God was against it? I never said he was for or against it. I stated clearly over and over again my position is and remains that God did not promote slavery, but he also did not condemn it. That one scripture that you keep holding on to does not support the idea that from a general standpoint he was against slavery “in general”. As such this need to say “but he was against man slaving” does not support or change the idea that slavery as a whole was not something he condemned . I am not then saying it promotes the idea that he was for it either, but to try to use one example (erroneously) to support that is not better than the opposition using one to promote the idea that he is. My whole entire point centers around that this post is doing the exact same thing they are doing and calling it correct.

“So to say He was against stealing another man’s slave and profiting(a form of slavery called man stealing)…what did it mean then?”– Was it or was it not the point of your post to show that God was against slavery? If so pointing out one form of slavery is not a sign he is against slavery. That was my point. Another way to look at that scripture is to say God was not against slavery, but did not condone stealing (regular thing in the scriptures) or Selling (stolen goods). Not saying that is correct, but…..

“If someone is against something, please what does it mean? “—They are in opposition of it, but again. One scripture is not supporting he is in opposition of slavery.

“The same happened back then and we’ve read from scripture that God was against it.”—But we have not read that God was against it. We read one scripture that seems to be the foundation of the idea that he was against slavery. Yet that one scripture does not support a general stance that he was.

“”We would only succeed in misinforming our readers.”—But you are misinforming in other ways. When you title a post that God was against human slavery, then gloss over different forms only to point out one you believe he is against, then you are falsely saying to them that he condemns it because this one scripture speaks for all forms.

I am not really sure what else can be said without repeating my position over and over again. The Scripture does not support the stance that he condemned slavery. Granted it also does not support the idea that he was for it either. As I originally stated, it was the times, but it really does Christians no favors when we have to manipulate scriptures to make a point. This is the main reason I spoke up. Non-believers constantly manipulate the scriptures to say it says something it does not, but as followers of Christ we should never stoop to that level and then excuse it or see it as okay. The idea that after several posts, you guys are still making an excuse on why taking that route is okay and acceptable tells me this is not the type of site I wish to follow or make further comments on. I wish to simply agree to disagree and good luck on your endeavors, but I pray that in future post you employ honesty and not tactics of the adversary.

Good night.

@sharinalr, you just said in your reply: ‘You pointing to that scripture is not supporting the idea that he was against slavery in some way. It really only shows he was against stealing another man’s slave and profiting from it.’ This act, man stealing, that you said God was against was a FORM of SLAVERY. So to say He was against stealing another man’s slave and profiting(a form of slavery called man stealing)…what did it mean then? If someone is against something, please what does it mean? The kidnapping and enslaving of Africans in the 15th to 19th century is a very clear example of this involuntary slavery I’m talking about. Men and women were stolen and were forced against their will to work on a master’s plantation. The same happened back then and we’ve read from scripture that God was against it. You even agreed to that. The reason we make distinctions when talking about slavery is because the characteristics of slavery mentioned in the bible is very complicated. You can’t universalize it and once you can’t universalize it, you can’t afford to give a simple answer. Once you mention slavery with respect to the bible, careful examination reveals a cocktail of economic-based slavery, chattel slavery, sex trafficking, apprenticeship-internship,etc. it’s all mixed up in there and it takes painstaking efforts to line them up well to avoid a categorical error. To promote or abolish ‘slavery’, someone from the Old/New Testament time would ask ‘Which of them are you referring to?’ That’s what we’ve been trying to say. The Bible doesn’t promote or condemn slavery altogether. For example the Bible didn’t promote or condemn economic-based slavery; it heavily regulated this form of slavery because needs had to be met as described in scripture. And that was the only form of ‘governmental aid’ then. Then we have few examples like chattel slavery and man stealing…God was against those forms. In Exodus 23, God told His people through Moses that they weren’t to oppress any foreigners. The reason? Because they themselves knew how it felt to be oppressed when they were slaves in Egypt. I wish the apostles came out really strong on their denouncement of the other forms of slavery disapproved by God. But I’m not surprised neither should anyone be because these people weren’t hot-headed revolutionists. Their aim wasn’t to reform societal policies. The purpose of the Gospel and even the Bible at large was and has always been the regeneration of dead hearts. ‘Jesus didn’t come to make bad people good but dead people alive’ as Dr. Ravi Zacharias said. To influence society and to transform people entirely, their focus was the heart. To cause a change inside out. And once the heart can be regenerated and the mind transformed, we will have a lot of people thinking alike like Philemon who will come to understand that a slave is a fellow brother/sister in the Lord. For us to just write on slavery without going into details to reveal the forms the Bible speaks of will be a wrong academic exercise. We would only succeed in misinforming our readers. And thank you too

@icygold311

Thanks for the reply.

” Concerning the issue of slavery, I believe it was quite clear in the article that different forms of slavery existed back then.”—I did not say it was not clear on this matter as this is not my concern. If you take this as a concern of mine the you misrepresent my position on the matter.

“Referring to the Exodus 21, do you know that the scripture was describing a form of SLAVERY in which people stole other people’s slaves and forced them to work for them? “—Which is actually what I mentioned above.

“Kidnapping or stealing one man’s slave was a very early and very widespread crime…a crime that was not supported by God. It was punishable by death like we said. So yes, there were forms of slavery strongly disapproved by God because it demeaned men and women who had been made in His image and after His likeness.”—I never once made the claim that anything was “supported” by God. I simply stated he did not promote it, but he also did not condemn it. You pointing to that scripture is not supporting the idea that he was against slavery in some way. It really only shows that he was against stealing another man slave and profiting from it. You are interpreting based on what you feel he would mean and that is not what the scripture is indicating act all. It is a stretch to say he was against it. Same as it is a stretch to say he was for it.

“As we said, any slavery that dehumanized and abused men and women is never supported by the Bible. “—I’m sorry but you have yet to support that claim. You wrote a lovely paragraph on thinks and belief, but anyone can interpret scriptures on that same merit and it should be taken at equal point. If this is your supported stance, then those who believe the bible promotes slavery have an equally as sound leg in the fight considering Exodus is clear on the treatment of slaves. To pick and choose what slavery is acceptable and not acceptable is a fallacy and then dives into goal post shifting. Was the point of the post to say God does not promote slavery? Or is it not he does not support all slavery?

My whole point is very simple. The bible does not promote, but it also does not condemn. So far you have not shown otherwise.

Thank you again.

It has nothing to do with me being or not being satisfied.

@Sharinalr so elvis, a quo-writer of this blog post has dealt with the issue. Hope you are satisfied…

I am aware of the other you pointed out, but it still does not support the stance you claim it does. Taking versus and assuming what it means to support your stance is wrong and a fallacy. Not once did God or Jesus make the position of being for or against it. So while those who claim it promotes slavery are wrong, so are those who claim it does not.

I understand the reason for your post, but it was greatly clouded by your own erroneous claims of bible versus meanings.