"Why I hate Barack Obama" Pastor Steve Anderson

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Sonart Ummm... apparently you don't get anything. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to determine what is and isn't lawful according to that constitution, and the Supreme Court has determined that abortion is, in fact, a legal medical procedure, and thus not murder.

The Pentateuch, or the Torah, as it is also called, was to the ancient Israelis the same as our Constitution. It is referred to in the Bible as "the law" or "the books of the law". ergo, if you apply a standard to them, you apply that same standard to other "books of law", like our Constitution. The Torah, from which you unequivocally quoted, was the basis of the Israeli Government for hundreds of years. It was even amended to allow a monarchy.

By all means, have at it. You obviously misunderstand what I hold as standards because it's obviously NOT law codes 'given' to the Israelites.

The term "Torah" (Hebrew: תּוֹרָה, "learning" or "instruction," sometimes translated as "Law"), refers either to the Five Books of Moses (or Pentateuch) or to the entirety of Judaism's founding legal and ethical religious texts. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...tten_Law.html; Philip Birnbaum, Encyclopedia of Jewish Concepts, Hebrew Publishing Company, 1964, page 630.)

According to rabbinic tradition, the Torah contains the 613 mitzvot (מצוות, "commandments"), which are divided into 365 negative restrictions and 248 positive commands. (Eisenberg, Ronald L. The JPS Guide to Jewish Traditions (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2004), pg 515.)

Jewish religious tradition ascribes authorship of the Torah to Moses through a process of divine inspiration. Christian tradition shares this view of Mosaic authorship, including the inspiration of God.

Now, based on the evidence and the culture, instead of applying modern American cultural mindsets to people who have never even conceived of a flying machine, printing press, or many other things, I can tell you that it WAS a law code, and that the Israelites believed that it was GIVEN to them by God. Ergo, because it was used as a code of law by the Israelites, and was assumed to have been given to the people by God via Moses, your entire previous statement is rendered false.

Evidence of what? I'm completely lost to what you're even referring to at this point.

I want evidence that the Bible outright supports slavery. I don't want you pointing out that it has laws that limit it, as such is not a statement of support. I challenge you to use an accurate translation (not a paraphrase version, so no using the Message Version) to show evidence that the Bible supports by way of aiding slavery.

[quote[So what? Since when did YOUR beliefs define Christian moral values in America? If the overwhelming majority of American Christians accept divorce, then apparently they've accepted that 'God's given laws of morality' can, in fact, be "relative" to the times one lives in.... your minority beliefs not withstanding.

.[/QUOTE]

Who are you debating? Me? or the majority of Christians. You are debating me. Ignoring the beliefs of your opponent is about as ignorant as attacking the opponent. Just because the "majority" of "Christians" believe something doesn't mean it's true. The majority of Christians haven't read more than a single book of the Bible, so how can they know what they believe? You are dealing with me. I know what I believe and why I believe it. I suggest you take that into account when debating me, or else you are destined to miss every point I make. You are debating with a Baptist. Here's a quiz. What is the Baptist stance, as declared by the Southern Baptist Convention, on abortion?

I'll tell you exactly what it is:

Quote by: Southern Baptist Convention Resolutions Resolution #8: On Thirty Years of Roe V. Wade, adopted at the SBC convention, June 2003: WHEREAS, Scripture reveals that all human life is created in the image of God, and therefore sacred to our Creator (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 9:6); and WHEREAS, The Bible affirms that the unborn baby is a person bearing the image of God from the moment of conception (Psalm 139:13Ð16; Luke 1:44); and WHEREAS, Scripture further commands the people of God to plead for protection for the innocent and justice for the fatherless (Psalm 72:12Ð14; Psalm 82:3; James 1:27); and WHEREAS, January 2003 marked thirty years since the 1973 United States Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion in all fifty states; and WHEREAS, Resolutions passed by the Southern Baptist Convention in 1971 and 1974 accepted unbiblical premises of the abortion rights movement, forfeiting the opportunity to advocate the protection of defenseless women and children; and WHEREAS, During the early years of the post-Roe era, some of those then in leadership positions within the denomination endorsed and furthered the "pro-choice" abortion rights agenda outlined in Roe v. Wade; and WHEREAS, Some political leaders have referenced 1970s-era Southern Baptist Convention resolutions and statements by former Southern Baptist Convention leaders to oppose legislative efforts to protect women and children from abortion; and WHEREAS, Southern Baptist churches have effected a renewal of biblical orthodoxy and confessional integrity in our denomination, beginning with the Southern Baptist Convention presidential election of 1979; and WHEREAS, The Southern Baptist Convention has maintained a robust commitment to the sanctity of all human life, including that of the unborn, beginning with a landmark pro-life resolution in 1982; and WHEREAS, Our confessional statement, The Baptist Faith and Message, affirms that children "from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord"; and further affirms that Southern Baptists are mandated by Scripture to "speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death"; and WHEREAS, The legacy of Roe v. Wade has grown to include ongoing assaults on human life such as euthanasia, the harvesting of human embryos for the purposes of medical experimentation, and an accelerating move toward human cloning; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, June 17Ð18, 2003, reiterate our conviction that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of the United States Constitution, human embryology, and the basic principles of human rights; and be it further RESOLVED, That we reaffirm our belief that the Roe v. Wade decision was an act of injustice against innocent unborn children as well as against vulnerable women in crisis pregnancy situations, both of which have been victimized by a "sexual revolution" that empowers predatory and irresponsible men and by a lucrative abortion industry that has fought against even the most minimal restrictions on abortion; and be it further RESOLVED, That we offer our prayers, our love, and our advocacy for women and men who have been abused by abortion and the emotional, spiritual, and physical aftermath of this horrific practice; affirming that the gospel of Jesus Christ grants complete forgiveness for any sin, including that of abortion; and be it further RESOLVED, That we lament and renounce statements and actions by previous Conventions and previous denominational leadership that offered support to the abortion culture; and be it further RESOLVED, That we humbly confess that the initial blindness of many in our Convention to the enormity of Roe v. Wade should serve as a warning to contemporary Southern Baptists of the subtlety of the spirit of the age in obscuring a biblical worldview; and be it further RESOLVED, That we urge our Southern Baptist churches to remain vigilant in the protection of human life by preaching the whole counsel of God on matters of human sexuality and the sanctity of life, by encouraging and empowering Southern Baptists to adopt unwanted children, by providing spiritual, emotional, and financial support for women in crisis pregnancies, and by calling on our government officials to take action to protect the lives of women and children; and be it further RESOLVED, That we express our appreciation to both houses of Congress for their passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, and we applaud President Bush for his commitment to sign this bill into law; and be it further RESOLVED, That we urge Congress to act swiftly to deliver this bill to President Bush for his signature; and be it finally RESOLVED, That we pray and work for the repeal of the Roe v. Wade decision and for the day when the act of abortion will be not only illegal, but also unthinkable.

That is the stance of the Baptist beliefs on abortion. Seeing as how it is the largest protestant denomination in America, I suggest you accept that as the view you are contending with in me.

[PlatoNot]

Quote by: samsara15 Can you prove that????

My church organization does not allow anyone who has been married and divorced to become a minister. Most of the individual churches have bylaws prohibiting becoming a deacon if you are in a second or subsequent marriage. Sermons are preached denouncing divorce except for adultery.

Churches don't have the power the Catholic Church once did. What would you expect them to do if one of their members were divorced and remarried, throw them out? Shun them? That would be a violation of other Christian values.

Most Protestants theolgoicans have accepted divorce since the time of Henry VIII. Last heard, Protestants were the majority of American Christians. Lots of people died in Europe over such issues, three or four hundred uyears ago.

I don't know what "accepted" means. I suspect it was a carefully chosen word.

I repeat, the Bible is very specific on the issue, no divorce except in the case of adultery.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: PlatoNot My church organization does not allow anyone who has been married and divorced to become a minister. Most of the individual churches have bylaws prohibiting becoming a deacon if you are in a second or subsequent marriage. Sermons are preached denouncing divorce except for adultery. Churches don't have the power the Catholic Church once did. What would you expect them to do if one of their members were divorced and remarried, throw them out? Shun them? That would be a violation of other Christian values. I don't know what "accepted" means. I suspect it was a carefully chosen word. I repeat, the Bible is very specific on the issue, no divorce except in the case of adultery.

He apparently assumes that since liberal Christians accept something, it must be biblical.

[Sonart]

Quote by: dthmstr The Pentateuch, or the Torah, as it is also called, was to the ancient Israelis the same as our Constitution. It is referred to in the Bible as "the law" or "the books of the law". ergo, if you apply a standard to them, you apply that same standard to other "books of law", like our Constitution. The Torah, from which you unequivocally quoted, was the basis of the Israeli Government for hundreds of years. It was even amended to allow a monarchy.

That's nice.... so what?

Quote by: dthmstr The term "Torah" (Hebrew: תּוֹרָה, "learning" or "instruction," sometimes translated as "Law"), refers either to the Five Books of Moses (or Pentateuch) or to the entirety of Judaism's founding legal and ethical religious texts.

Cool. And the Upanishads refers to the 5 books that compose the core teachings of Hindu Vedanta.

Once again, so what? None of it bears in any way on the U.S. Constitution or the laws of the United States, one which clearly states that abortion is legal and therefore not murder.

Quote by: dthmstr I want evidence that the Bible outright supports slavery. I don't want you pointing out that it has laws that limit it, as such is not a statement of support.

Moving the goalposts again, are we?

"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever." - Exodus 21:2-6

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment." - Exodus 21:7-11

That's "The Law" according to the Old Testament

"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them." - 1 Timothy 6:1-2

That's from the New Testament, the 'Christian Bible'.

What, do I need to show you the original manuscripts now???

Quote by: dthmstr Who are you debating? Me? or the majority of Christians. You are debating me.

That's interesting... so if Christians can't even agree with each other, and you don't agree with the majority of Christians on a major principle, why on earth should we listen to ANYTHING you have to say on the topic of religion?

I mean, are you now claiming to be speaking for God?

.

[PlatoNot]

Quote by: dthmstr254 He apparently assumes that since liberal Christians accept something, it must be biblical.

Not liberal, conservative. (She thinks)

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Sonart That's nice.... so what? Cool. And the Upanishads refers to the 5 books that compose the core teachings of Hindu Vedanta. Once again, so what? None of it bears in any way on the U.S. Constitution or the laws of the United States, one which clearly states that abortion is legal and therefore not murder.

Ok, let me put it in simple terms for you, since apparently you aren't able, or are refusing to understand what I put out in 6th grade level english.

The Torah is the Ancient Israeli equivalent of a history and law book.
The Constitution is the American base of law.
You judged the Torah by the standard that if it doesn't condemn something, it must then support it.
Therefore, I judge the Constitution by the same standard, since it is used as a book of law.

It clearly states that God values ALL life, including that of the unborn. Therefore, his law of "Do not murder" applies to the unborn as well.

Moving the goalposts again, are we? "If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever." - Exodus 21:2-6

Can't move the goalposts when you aren't even on the field.

As I said before, these are servants paying off a debt. The maximum time of service for debt was 6 years. This transferred if they were sold to other masters. Therefore, if he had served for 3 years before he was sold, he could only work for 3 years with the new master. It is the same as you doing dishes at a small-town restaurant if you eat there and don't have money. In the Torah, it states that only a willing servant can be bought, excepting prisoners of war.

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment." - Exodus 21:7-11

Read again.

7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

Remember that this was in a culture of arranged marriages. The grand majority of these were dowry payments. This allowed the poorer families to pay the dowry for their daughters.

That's "The Law" according to the Old Testament

"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them." - 1 Timothy 6:1-2 That's from the New Testament, the 'Christian Bible'.

This is useless. It acknowledges that slaves can become Christians, and it tells them to respect authority. As for the master part, refer back to the first quoted verse I responded to.

That's interesting... so if Christians can't even agree with each other, and you don't agree with the majority of Christians on a major principle, why on earth should we listen to ANYTHING you have to say on the topic of religion? I mean, are you now claiming to be speaking for God? .

You are now putting words in my mouth. I am telling you what major denomination I am from, and you tell me I am claiming to "speak for God"? If this is your idea of logic, no wonder I have to say things three times. I speak as a Southern Baptist. Please debate with that point of view if you want to debate me.

[PlatoNot]

Quote by: dthmstr254 Ok, let me put it in simple terms for you, since apparently you aren't able, or are refusing to understand what I put out in 6th grade level english. The Torah is the Ancient Israeli equivalent of a history and law book. The Constitution is the American base of law. You judged the Torah by the standard that if it doesn't condemn something, it must then support it. Therefore, I judge the Constitution by the same standard, since it is used as a book of law. It clearly states that God values ALL life, including that of the unborn. Therefore, his law of "Do not murder" applies to the unborn as well. Can't move the goalposts when you aren't even on the field. As I said before, these are servants paying off a debt. The maximum time of service for debt was 6 years. This transferred if they were sold to other masters. Therefore, if he had served for 3 years before he was sold, he could only work for 3 years with the new master. It is the same as you doing dishes at a small-town restaurant if you eat there and don't have money. In the Torah, it states that only a willing servant can be bought, excepting prisoners of war. Read again. 7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money. Remember that this was in a culture of arranged marriages. The grand majority of these were dowry payments. This allowed the poorer families to pay the dowry for their daughters. That's "The Law" according to the Old Testament This is useless. It acknowledges that slaves can become Christians, and it tells them to respect authority. As for the master part, refer back to the first quoted verse I responded to. You are now putting words in my mouth. I am telling you what major denomination I am from, and you tell me I am claiming to "speak for God"? If this is your idea of logic, no wonder I have to say things three times. I speak as a Southern Baptist. Please debate with that point of view if you want to debate me.

Here is one who understands what you are saying and agrees. Preach on, brother.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: dthmstr ...refusing to understand what I put out in 6th grade level english.

My, aren't we pleased with ourselves. But I'm afraid putting something in 6th grade English doesn't make it correct.

Quote by: dthmstr The Torah is the Ancient Israeli equivalent of a history and law book. The Constitution is the American base of law.

Yeah, yeah... and so is the Qu'ran a "law book".

The Torah is Holy Scripture supposedly inspired by God, defining the laws of conduct outside of government, as determined by God. So is the Qu'ran. So are the Upanishads. So are the sacred texts of Buddhism. So what!

The U.S. Constitution is a legal document created by men after lengthy debate at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, for the purpose of replacing a flawed plan of governmnet - the Aritcles of Confederation - with a revised plan for the conduct OF government, and which makes no mention of God whatsover.

Comparing the two simply because they both hand down laws is contrived nonsense, like a declaration that hummingbirds and humans are the same because they're both animals.

Quote by: dthmstr You judged the Torah by the standard that if it doesn't condemn something, it must then support it. Therefore, I judge the Constitution by the same standard, since it is used as a book of law.

And once again.. in terms even you can understand...

SO... FRIGGING... WHAT!?!?

Like the Bible, the original Constitution also condoned Slavery -- for example in Article I, Section 2 and Article IV, Section 2. The difference being that the Constitution has the built in capacity to be amended, to change with the evolution and 'moral relativity' of our society, as it has been 27 times so far.

The Bible, on the other hand, cannot be amended, because it's apparently the work of God, not men, and therefore can't ever be considered fallible and thus in need of amending. So instead you choose to re-INTERPRET and rationalize what it actually says.

So bottom line... YES, if the Bible states clearly that the institution of slavery is to be respected, and does not condemn that institution, then it is, in fact, condoning it.

condone: - 2. to give tacit approval to:

tacit: - 1. understood without being openly expressed; implied:

That enough 6th grade English for you?

Quote by: dthmstr Remember that this was in a culture of arranged marriages. The grand majority of these were dowry payments. This allowed the poorer families to pay the dowry for their daughters.

LOLOL!!! My, aren't we being selective. Number one, PROVE that the "grand majority" were dowry payments. Or are you just making that up? And number two, you've once again chosen to ignore the clear fact that they're talking about SLAVES who are bought and paid for.

Quote by: dthmstr In the Torah, it states that only a willing servant can be bought,...

Where does it say that?

Quote by: dthmstr excepting prisoners of war.

"...EXCEPTING PRISONERS OF WAR"! There you are, dthmstr, in "6th grade level english". By your own admission, slavery is condoned in the Bible. I won't even go into the other clearly stated exceptions to your point that you simply chose to ignore.

Quote by: dthmstr This is useless. It acknowledges that slaves can become Christians, and it tells them to respect authority. As for the master part, refer back to the first quoted verse I responded to.

It's not useless at all. It states very clearly that slaves should respect their "Masters", and even more so if their masters are Christian, which in itself 'tacitly' acknowledges that God sees no problem with Christians keeping slaves.

Unless you can point out some Biblical text that declares that Christians should NOT keep slaves.

Quote by: dthmstr You are now putting words in my mouth. I am telling you what major denomination I am from, and you tell me I am claiming to "speak for God"?

And why shouldn't I? You are apparently a Christian who openly declares that the religious beliefs of other perfectly sincere Christians is wrong. Care to explain how that is NOT claiming to speak for God?

Quote by: PlatoNot Here is one who understands what you are saying and agrees. Preach on, brother.

Indeed..


.

[PlatoNot]

Quote by: Sonart Indeed..

Your link is to a definition: a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite.
Is this the way you characterize all those who agree with the party you are debating? If so is it fair to say those who agree with you are subject to the same definition?

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Sonart . My, aren't we pleased with ourselves. But I'm afraid putting something in 6th grade English doesn't make it correct. Yeah, yeah... and so is the Qu'ran a "law book".

The Qu'ran isn't used as a code of law for an entire nation, plus I don't believe it is any use as one. The Torah, on the other hand, was used as the code of law.

The Torah is Holy Scripture supposedly inspired by God, defining the laws of conduct outside of government, as determined by God. So is the Qu'ran. So are the Upanishads. So are the sacred texts of Buddhism. So what!

*BUZZ* Wrong!

The Torah describes everything in Ancient Israeli life from how they were to offer sacrifices to how the government itself was organized. In fact, the idea of a house of Congress was inspired by the representatives ELECTED by each tribe to speak to Moses on inter and intratribal issues. In fact, that passage is found in Exodus 18, and was used by Israel throughout the time of the Judges. There were also representatives for each clan in a tribe, and each family inside a clan. Issues generally started at clan/family level, and if it was found that the issue effected several clans, it moved up the chain of government. If it was found to effect several tribes, then it moved up to the next chain. Aside from that, they had a Judicial branch in the form of the Sanhedrin, which was their version of the Supreme Court. The same system used in the representative branch was used in the judicial branch, with judges for different levels and types of issues through clan and family groups as well as in the tribes.

The U.S. Constitution is a legal document created by men after lengthy debate at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, for the purpose of replacing a flawed plan of governmnet - the Aritcles of Confederation - with a revised plan for the conduct OF government, and which makes no mention of God whatsover. Comparing the two simply because they both hand down laws is contrived nonsense, like a declaration that hummingbirds and humans are the same because they're both animals.

Read above.

And once again.. in terms even you can understand... SO... FRIGGING... WHAT!?!? Like the Bible, the original Constitution also condoned Slavery -- for example in Article I, Section 2 and Article IV, Section 2. The difference being that the Constitution has the built in capacity to be amended, to change with the evolution and 'moral relativity' of our society, as it has been 27 times so far.

The Torah was amended in the book of Samuel to allow for a monarchical system of government, and it was voted for by popular opinion, just like in our government.

The Bible, on the other hand, cannot be amended, because it's apparently the work of God, not men, and therefore can't ever be considered fallible and thus in need of amending. So instead you choose to re-INTERPRET and rationalize what it actually says.

*BUZZ* Wrong again!. The New Testament clearly amended the majority of the Torah Law, such as the need for sacrifices, the replacement of punishment by religious officials to forgiveness by the same in response to repentance. This did not remove the consequences under the law system of the area, but it did remove the punishments prescribed by Torah law.

So bottom line... YES, if the Bible states clearly that the institution of slavery is to be respected, and does not condemn that institution, then it is, in fact, condoning it. condone: - 2. to give tacit approval to: tacit: - 1. understood without being openly expressed; implied: That enough 6th grade English for you?

A. You havent proven that the Bible commands you to respect slavery. It commands servants to respect their masters, but not for people to respect the institution. Respecting authority is not the same as respecting what they do. The obvious authority in the life of an "A Doulos" (Person who does not wish to leave the servanthood of his master) is his master.

B. Because the first issue is an assumption that is not proven on your part, the second part cannot be true, since it depends on the first.

LOLOL!!! My, aren't we being selective. Number one, PROVE that the "grand majority" were dowry payments. Or are you just making that up? And number two, you've once again chosen to ignore the clear fact that they're talking about SLAVES who are bought and paid for.

If you actually read your history when you were in school, it was a common practice in arranged marriages for a father to pay a dowry by sending the bride-to-be to work at the groom's family's house. It was sometimes referred to as bridal training or marriage training. During this time, the daughter would learn what was needed to care for the groom. This practice spread into the far east over time, as well, and can still be found in uber-traditional Japanese and Chinese families.


Where does it say that?

"...EXCEPTING PRISONERS OF WAR"! There you are, dthmstr, in "6th grade level english". By your own admission, slavery is condoned in the Bible. I won't even go into the other clearly stated exceptions to your point that you simply chose to ignore.

Excuse me, but what do you think keeping an enemy soldier in jail is basically? Prisoners of war were kept in a jail-like environment, and are generally released only to exile from Israel. Since they came from outside Israel, this wasn't so much punishment as the obvious response.

It's not useless at all. It states very clearly that slaves should respect their "Masters", and even more so if their masters are Christian, which in itself 'tacitly' acknowledges that God sees no problem with Christians keeping slaves. Unless you can point out some Biblical text that declares that Christians should NOT keep slaves.

Generally, by this point in their history, the only servants were A Doulos, or people who have declared themselves bonded to their masters. As a recognizable example, a person who serves as a butler in a person's house for the remainder of his/her life, living in the house and participating in family activities is an A Doulos.

And why shouldn't I? You are apparently a Christian who openly declares that the religious beliefs of other perfectly sincere Christians is wrong. Care to explain how that is NOT claiming to speak for God?

Um, I speak for my denomination. I do not believe the only saved people are Southern Baptists, but my beliefs line up closest with the Southern Baptist traditions and beliefs. Therefore, I stand as one of them in this debate. Obviously, with as many differing beliefs as there are in Protestant denominations, you should know to tailor your responses. But apparently you are a cookie cutter debater. If you can't adapt to an OBVIOUS difference in beliefs of your opponent, then the Wizard of Oz is going to have to write a whole bunch of diplomas for your strawman army.

[The Black Ghost]

The fact that a preacher is teaching something about Hate already makes his words meaningless.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: The Black Ghost The fact that a preacher is teaching something about Hate already makes his words meaningless.

Bingo, Pastor Anderson is way out of line

[PlatoNot]

Quote by: dthmstr254 Bingo, Pastor Anderson is way out of line

Pastor Anderson has done more damage to Christianity than all the atheists combined. The man is deranged.

[Jack]

Anderson's not the only one: Hey Secret Service, what about Wiley Drake? | Radical Atheist

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Jack Anderson's not the only one: Hey Secret Service, what about Wiley Drake? | Radical Atheist

I personally think that Wiley should be stripped of his support from the SBC.

Edit:

from the very article linked by your link, and claimed to be the opinion of Baptists by your article:

Sing Oldham, vice president for convention relations with the SBC Executive Committee, was unavailable for comment until late on May 4.

He said that while Drake served one year as second vice president of the SBC, he is not now nor has ever been a spokesman for the convention.

"Mr. Drake does not represent Southern Baptist actions, resolutions, or positions in his interpretation and application of 'imprecatory prayers,'" Oldham said. "Any comments made by Wiley Drake on this subject represent his personal views, not those of the Convention."

Oldham said most Baptists view the imprecatory prayers found in the Psalms as private, heartfelt conversations between oppressed people and God, and reflect confidence that God will eventually vindicate the innocent. He said they generally close with a conscious decision not to bear malice and leave final judgment up to God.

"I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of Southern Baptists reject any call to pray imprecatory prayers of death over any individual," he said.



Umm...Your article shows the bias of the author clearly, given the omission of something directly contrary to his statement in the end of the article, namely:

Now you might suspect that a story about this bat-shit crazy religious extremeist who has threatened the life of the president has to come from The Onion (”Abortion Doctor’s Murder Sparks Waves Of Calm, Rational Discussion“) or maybe The Landover Baptist Church (”guaranteeing salvation since 1620″). Nope. This exposé appeared on the Associated Baptist Press website. Lends a certain credibility to the tale.

[Jack]

I think you misunderstood the comment you quoted. That was my own commentary intended to forestall claims that this was a fabricated story by an anti-religious website. I wasn't implying his views were accepted by the Baptists at large, only that by reporting this story themselves they add credibility to the story.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Jack I think you misunderstood the comment you quoted. That was my own commentary intended to forestall claims that this was a fabricated story by an anti-religious website. I wasn't implying his views were accepted by the Baptists at large, only that by reporting this story themselves they add credibility to the story.

no, I was clarifying that for people so that those who only read the article can't assume that what he says at the end is true.

[PlatoNot]

Quote by: Jack Anderson's not the only one: Hey Secret Service, what about Wiley Drake? | Radical Atheist

The stupidity and subsequent depravity of some religious leaders never seems to amaze me. Wiley Drake reminds me of the pastors who proclaimed native Americans had no souls so a bounty could be placed on them and they could be wantonly killed and then demanded those who killed them tithe the bounty to the church.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: PlatoNot Your link is to a definition: a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite. Is this the way you characterize all those who agree with the party you are debating?

"Preach on, brother"??

It certainly is when you insist on uncritically high-fiving posts that, despite their length, are essentially little more than "Is so" and "Is not".

Do you honestly believe that the U.S. Constitution and the Old Testament are the same things?

Do you honestly believe that the Bible is not chock full examples of moral relativism? Poor dthmstr complained when I added additional examples, claiming I was moving the goalposts. But considering that he'd never rebutted my original examples, how can my adding even MORE examples be considered unfair? Piling on, maybe, but unfair? Not hardly.

In his response to dthmstr's pathetic rebuttal of the Biblical condoning of slavery, I was reminded of Han Solo's great 'rebuttal' to Princess Leia in 'StarWars'.

Princess Leia: " Why, you stuck up, half-witted, scruffy-looking Nerf herder."
Han Solo: "Who's scruffy-looking?"

Selecting one more benign definition of slavery out of the many stated does NOT rebut the premise that the Bible condoned slavery in all it's forms.

Quote by: dthmstr The Qu'ran isn't used as a code of law for an entire nation, plus I don't believe it is any use as one. The Torah, on the other hand, was used as the code of law.

LOLOLOL!!! The hell it isn't. You do understand the concept of Shariah, don't you?

"Law, seen as deriving from the Koran, hadith, ijmaʿ, and qiyas."

It is the EXACT code of law for, among other nations, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the former Taliban government of Afghanistan. You can't possibly be that provincial, can you?

And please, where has the Torah been used as the "code of law" anywhere recently? Do you accept that "If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death." - Leviticus 20:9

Or is that perhaps YET ANOTHER example of moral relativity?

Quote by: dthmstr The Torah describes everything in Ancient Israeli life from how they were to offer sacrifices to how the government itself was organized.

How about that. The Constitution, on the other hand, does not. It simply defines the architecture of our government and defines how it will go about creating, enforcing and interpreting laws.

And as I stated, it provides the means to AMEND those laws... something the Torah is incapable of. Which probably explains why, as I've pointed out, the Torah is NO LONGER the "code of law" anywhere... even in Jewish Israel.

Quote by: dthmstr In fact, the idea of a house of Congress was inspired by the representatives ELECTED by each tribe to speak to Moses on inter and intratribal issues.

Or by the English Parliament... or the Iroquois Nation... or Athenian democracy... take your pick.

You have any sources from the writers of the Constitution that acknowledge your thesis?

I didn't think so.

Quote by: dthmstr Read above.

Yeah, yeah. Like I said, even in 6th English doesn't make it correct.

Quote by: dthmstr *BUZZ* Wrong again!. The New Testament clearly amended the majority of the Torah Law,

Oh really?

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” - Matthew 5:18-19

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." - Luke 16:17

"Do not think that I (Jesus) have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." - Matthew 5:17

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." - 2 Timothy 3:16

"He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." - Jesus rephrasing Leviticus in Matthew 15:4-7

"Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" - John7:19

Or do you mean we can ignore the constantly referenced Biblical argument against homosexuality, since it is all contained within the Old Testament.

Quote by: dthmstr Excuse me, but what do you think keeping an enemy soldier in jail is basically?

"Excuse me" but It's not lifetime slavery. Nor do we keep the women and children of enemy soldiers in prison forever. Nor is prisoners of war the ONLY example of justified slavery in the Bible, not to mention that you're clearly confusing prisoners of "war" with prisoners of "conquest".

Your silly word games trying to rationalize the Biblical condoning of the leqal institution of slavery is pretty pathetic.

Quote by: dthmstr Generally, by this point in their history, the only servants were A Doulos, or people who have declared themselves bonded to their masters.

Liar.

How Come the Bible Doesn’t Condemn Slavery? - "The institution of slavery was so deeply rooted in ancient culture that it could not be dismantled overnight. Old Testament scholar Gleason L. Archer notes: “As to the moral status of slavery in ancient times, it must be recognized that it was practiced by every ancient people of which we have any historical record: Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Syrians, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Greeks, Romans, and all the rest.”1 Furthermore, Christian apologist Paul Copan states: “During the first century A.D., approximately 85 to 90 percent of Rome’s population consisted of slaves.”2 Slavery was viewed as playing a critical economic role for society."

Simply because the Bible often states that masters should treat their slaves humanely doesn't change the fact that the institution of slavery was condoned. Nor were "the only servants Doulos". Invented, rationalizing nonsense.

Quote by: dthmstr Obviously, with as many differing beliefs as there are in Protestant denominations, you should know to tailor your responses.

Why? There's either the one true word of God or there isn't... right?

.

[PlatoNot]

Quote by: Sonart . "Preach on, brother"?? It certainly is when you insist on uncritically high-fiving posts that, despite their length, are essentially little more than "Is so" and "Is not". Do you honestly believe that the U.S. Constitution and the Old Testament are the same things? Do you honestly believe that the Bible is not chock full examples of moral relativism? Poor dthmstr complained when I added additional examples, claiming I was moving the goalposts. But considering that he'd never rebutted my original examples, how can my adding even MORE examples be considered unfair? Piling on, maybe, but unfair? Not hardly. In his response to dthmstr's pathetic rebuttal of the Biblical condoning of slavery, I was reminded of Han Solo's great 'rebuttal' to Princess Leia in 'StarWars'. Princess Leia: " Why, you stuck up, half-witted, scruffy-looking Nerf herder." Han Solo: "Who's scruffy-looking?"

You do understand the constitution and star wars are seperate things, don't you.

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” - Matthew 5:18-19 "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." - Luke 16:17 "Do not think that I (Jesus) have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." - Matthew 5:17 "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." - 2 Timothy 3:16 "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." - Jesus rephrasing Leviticus in Matthew 15:4-7 "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" - John7:19

I know you don't even begin to understand the Bible, but your selection of scriptures here disproves your point not substantiate it.
Nothing in the law was to pass until all be fulfilled. Matt. 5:18,19.
Christ came to fulfill the law. Matt. 5:17.
Christ's death on the cross was the fulfilling of the law. He was the final and everlasting sacrifice for sin.