Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Plenty of evidence that he is not worthy of worship"

None from anyone worth attention, assuming you mean the God of the Bible.

---

I mean the biblical god based on his description in the bible.

Clear enough?

---

Clear that you are running on your bias, and are making excuses instead of a cogent argument, sure.

---

No excuses in my post. Not that I can see. I'll continue this dialogue if you can explain your comment.

---

What I mean, starts with your statement of "description in the bible".

God is described hundreds of times in dozens of books in the Bible, so the inference of your comment seems to be that God is one-dimensional, a caricature.

God is described according to HIs glory in the book of Isaiah, and also as Just and Holy in Isaiah and Psalms. He is described according to His love and compassion many places, such as Hosea, Jeremiah, and Psalms. God's desire to have a personal relationship with us is laid out not only in the New Testament, but also in the Old Testament. God was personal friends with Abraham, protected and mentored Joseph, Jacob, Samuel, Elijah, and many other people.

I'd suggest you would do well to study the Bible more, and pay less attention to assumptions.

---

So no excuses, good.

And that inference is all on you. I fully understand that we will get multiple takes on the biblical god from multiple authors.

But I use "biblical god" because that's the one Christians believe in. And he is not worthy of worship. I have better morals than the biblical god.

I know this from extensive prayerful study of the bible.

---

expand please, name specifically in instance Where you feel God was unjust and you have the moral high ground.

---

Sure: Leviticus 25: 42-44.
Under my morals framework chattel slavery is immoral

---

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The basis of your morals come directly from the New Testament.

The sinful rebellion of man is not the failing of God.

---

That's all dodge.

My morals come from the same tradition that produced the morals laid out in the Bible. My tradition continued to evolve. Biblical morals are stuck in, well, the bible.

---

Have you considered what existed prior to Slavery?

---

Have you considered not defending slavery?

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Plenty of evidence that he is not worthy of worship"

None from anyone worth attention, assuming you mean the God of the Bible.

---

I mean the biblical god based on his description in the bible.

Clear enough?

---

Clear that you are running on your bias, and are making excuses instead of a cogent argument, sure.

---

No excuses in my post. Not that I can see. I'll continue this dialogue if you can explain your comment.

---

What I mean, starts with your statement of "description in the bible".

God is described hundreds of times in dozens of books in the Bible, so the inference of your comment seems to be that God is one-dimensional, a caricature.

God is described according to HIs glory in the book of Isaiah, and also as Just and Holy in Isaiah and Psalms. He is described according to His love and compassion many places, such as Hosea, Jeremiah, and Psalms. God's desire to have a personal relationship with us is laid out not only in the New Testament, but also in the Old Testament. God was personal friends with Abraham, protected and mentored Joseph, Jacob, Samuel, Elijah, and many other people.

I'd suggest you would do well to study the Bible more, and pay less attention to assumptions.

---

So no excuses, good.

And that inference is all on you. I fully understand that we will get multiple takes on the biblical god from multiple authors.

But I use "biblical god" because that's the one Christians believe in. And he is not worthy of worship. I have better morals than the biblical god.

I know this from extensive prayerful study of the bible.

---

expand please, name specifically in instance Where you feel God was unjust and you have the moral high ground.

---

Sure: Leviticus 25: 42-44.
Under my morals framework chattel slavery is immoral

---

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The basis of your morals come directly from the New Testament.

The sinful rebellion of man is not the failing of God.

---

That's all dodge.

My morals come from the same tradition that produced the morals laid out in the Bible. My tradition continued to evolve. Biblical morals are stuck in, well, the bible.

---

Have you considered what existed prior to Slavery?

---

Have you considered not defending slavery?

---

so prior to slavery was death. Then came slavery, then came abolishment of slavery, then came equal rights for slaves and women.. all moving toward the fulfillment of "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

All before the second coming of Christ.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Plenty of evidence that he is not worthy of worship"

None from anyone worth attention, assuming you mean the God of the Bible.

---

I mean the biblical god based on his description in the bible.

Clear enough?

---

Clear that you are running on your bias, and are making excuses instead of a cogent argument, sure.

---

No excuses in my post. Not that I can see. I'll continue this dialogue if you can explain your comment.

---

What I mean, starts with your statement of "description in the bible".

God is described hundreds of times in dozens of books in the Bible, so the inference of your comment seems to be that God is one-dimensional, a caricature.

God is described according to HIs glory in the book of Isaiah, and also as Just and Holy in Isaiah and Psalms. He is described according to His love and compassion many places, such as Hosea, Jeremiah, and Psalms. God's desire to have a personal relationship with us is laid out not only in the New Testament, but also in the Old Testament. God was personal friends with Abraham, protected and mentored Joseph, Jacob, Samuel, Elijah, and many other people.

I'd suggest you would do well to study the Bible more, and pay less attention to assumptions.

---

So no excuses, good.

And that inference is all on you. I fully understand that we will get multiple takes on the biblical god from multiple authors.

But I use "biblical god" because that's the one Christians believe in. And he is not worthy of worship. I have better morals than the biblical god.

I know this from extensive prayerful study of the bible.

---

expand please, name specifically in instance Where you feel God was unjust and you have the moral high ground.

---

Sure: Leviticus 25: 42-44.
Under my morals framework chattel slavery is immoral

---

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The basis of your morals come directly from the New Testament.

The sinful rebellion of man is not the failing of God.

---

That's all dodge.

My morals come from the same tradition that produced the morals laid out in the Bible. My tradition continued to evolve. Biblical morals are stuck in, well, the bible.

---

Have you considered what existed prior to Slavery?

---

Have you considered not defending slavery?

---

Put aside your modern perspective and think:

You are Chieftain or King of a tribe which has just defeated a nasty enemy. Hundreds of the enemy are in your control. So what do you do?

If you simply free them, they will re-arm and attack you again.

If you kill them, then this will outrage the other tribe and likely provoke a new war, and your enemies will fight to the death, knowing they have no reason to surrender. Your wars will be greater in number and bloodier, and your tribe is likely to be ended because of this.

Or, you hold those prisoners. You make them work for you to pay for the cost of their living, and you do not give them rights, but they hold life. This gives you a way to bargain with your enemy, maybe exchange theirs for yours. Maybe you just give incentive for enemies to surrender when they realize the battle is lost, and so you limit the cost and number of your wars. In some cases, like Rome, your slaves can even gain privileges, rank and maybe even buy their freedom.

If you see this issue only from the context of 21st Century USA, you will never understand. You will fail because you impose your perspective on a different world.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Plenty of evidence that he is not worthy of worship"

None from anyone worth attention, assuming you mean the God of the Bible.

---

I mean the biblical god based on his description in the bible.

Clear enough?

---

Clear that you are running on your bias, and are making excuses instead of a cogent argument, sure.

---

No excuses in my post. Not that I can see. I'll continue this dialogue if you can explain your comment.

---

What I mean, starts with your statement of "description in the bible".

God is described hundreds of times in dozens of books in the Bible, so the inference of your comment seems to be that God is one-dimensional, a caricature.

God is described according to HIs glory in the book of Isaiah, and also as Just and Holy in Isaiah and Psalms. He is described according to His love and compassion many places, such as Hosea, Jeremiah, and Psalms. God's desire to have a personal relationship with us is laid out not only in the New Testament, but also in the Old Testament. God was personal friends with Abraham, protected and mentored Joseph, Jacob, Samuel, Elijah, and many other people.

I'd suggest you would do well to study the Bible more, and pay less attention to assumptions.

---

So no excuses, good.

And that inference is all on you. I fully understand that we will get multiple takes on the biblical god from multiple authors.

But I use "biblical god" because that's the one Christians believe in. And he is not worthy of worship. I have better morals than the biblical god.

I know this from extensive prayerful study of the bible.

---

expand please, name specifically in instance Where you feel God was unjust and you have the moral high ground.

---

Sure: Leviticus 25: 42-44.
Under my morals framework chattel slavery is immoral

---

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The basis of your morals come directly from the New Testament.

The sinful rebellion of man is not the failing of God.

---

That's all dodge.

My morals come from the same tradition that produced the morals laid out in the Bible. My tradition continued to evolve. Biblical morals are stuck in, well, the bible.

---

Have you considered what existed prior to Slavery?

---

Have you considered not defending slavery?

---

Put aside your modern perspective and think:

You are Chieftain or King of a tribe which has just defeated a nasty enemy. Hundreds of the enemy are in your control. So what do you do?

If you simply free them, they will re-arm and attack you again.

If you kill them, then this will outrage the other tribe and likely provoke a new war, and your enemies will fight to the death, knowing they have no reason to surrender. Your wars will be greater in number and bloodier, and your tribe is likely to be ended because of this.

Or, you hold those prisoners. You make them work for you to pay for the cost of their living, and you do not give them rights, but they hold life. This gives you a way to bargain with your enemy, maybe exchange theirs for yours. Maybe you just give incentive for enemies to surrender when they realize the battle is lost, and so you limit the cost and number of your wars. In some cases, like Rome, your slaves can even gain privileges, rank and maybe even buy their freedom.

If you see this issue only from the context of 21st Century USA, you will never understand. You will fail because you impose your perspective on a different world.

---

The biblical god had the opportunity to advance morality by ordering his believers not to treat people as property.

Heck, he used three of the ten commandments to order his worship. Could have saved two for Thou shalt not own people and Thou shalt not rape.

Morals

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Plenty of evidence that he is not worthy of worship"

None from anyone worth attention, assuming you mean the God of the Bible.

---

I mean the biblical god based on his description in the bible.

Clear enough?

---

Clear that you are running on your bias, and are making excuses instead of a cogent argument, sure.

---

No excuses in my post. Not that I can see. I'll continue this dialogue if you can explain your comment.

---

What I mean, starts with your statement of "description in the bible".

God is described hundreds of times in dozens of books in the Bible, so the inference of your comment seems to be that God is one-dimensional, a caricature.

God is described according to HIs glory in the book of Isaiah, and also as Just and Holy in Isaiah and Psalms. He is described according to His love and compassion many places, such as Hosea, Jeremiah, and Psalms. God's desire to have a personal relationship with us is laid out not only in the New Testament, but also in the Old Testament. God was personal friends with Abraham, protected and mentored Joseph, Jacob, Samuel, Elijah, and many other people.

I'd suggest you would do well to study the Bible more, and pay less attention to assumptions.

---

So no excuses, good.

And that inference is all on you. I fully understand that we will get multiple takes on the biblical god from multiple authors.

But I use "biblical god" because that's the one Christians believe in. And he is not worthy of worship. I have better morals than the biblical god.

I know this from extensive prayerful study of the bible.

---

expand please, name specifically in instance Where you feel God was unjust and you have the moral high ground.

---

Sure: Leviticus 25: 42-44.
Under my morals framework chattel slavery is immoral

---

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The basis of your morals come directly from the New Testament.

The sinful rebellion of man is not the failing of God.

---

That's all dodge.

My morals come from the same tradition that produced the morals laid out in the Bible. My tradition continued to evolve. Biblical morals are stuck in, well, the bible.

---

Have you considered what existed prior to Slavery?

---

Have you considered not defending slavery?

---

Put aside your modern perspective and think:

You are Chieftain or King of a tribe which has just defeated a nasty enemy. Hundreds of the enemy are in your control. So what do you do?

If you simply free them, they will re-arm and attack you again.

If you kill them, then this will outrage the other tribe and likely provoke a new war, and your enemies will fight to the death, knowing they have no reason to surrender. Your wars will be greater in number and bloodier, and your tribe is likely to be ended because of this.

Or, you hold those prisoners. You make them work for you to pay for the cost of their living, and you do not give them rights, but they hold life. This gives you a way to bargain with your enemy, maybe exchange theirs for yours. Maybe you just give incentive for enemies to surrender when they realize the battle is lost, and so you limit the cost and number of your wars. In some cases, like Rome, your slaves can even gain privileges, rank and maybe even buy their freedom.

If you see this issue only from the context of 21st Century USA, you will never understand. You will fail because you impose your perspective on a different world.

---

The biblical god had the opportunity to advance morality by ordering his believers not to treat people as property.

Heck, he used three of the ten commandments to order his worship. Could have saved two for Thou shalt not own people and Thou shalt not rape.

Morals

---

Sounds like you gave my explanation no thought at all.

Thanks for confirming your position.

People historically sold themselves into slavery, a practice known as voluntary slavery or debt bondage, from the dawn of early civilizations in the 3rd millennium BCE through the 19th century CE.

While modern historical discussions heavily focus on the brutal Transatlantic slave trade, which relied entirely on violent kidnapping and racial caste systems, ancient and medieval legal systems worldwide explicitly permitted individuals to sell their own freedom.

Timeline of Voluntary Enslavement

Ancient Mesopotamia (c. 2000 BCE): Under the Code of Hammurabi and ancient Near Eastern traditions, destitute individuals or desperate parents frequently sold themselves or their children to wealthy creditors to clear massive agricultural debts.

Ancient Egypt (c. 200 BCE): Archaeologists have discovered Demotic script contracts showing that poor Egyptians voluntarily signed up to become temple slaves. They paid a monthly fee to the temple in exchange for food, shelter, and protection from harsher civic forced labor.

Ancient Greece and Rome (c. 500 BCE 500 CE): In Ancient Rome, freeborn citizens facing extreme poverty or starvation could enter into contractual slavery. Some strategically sold themselves to elite masters to secure stable imperial employment, specialized business training, or a higher standard of living than they could achieve as free beggars.

Medieval Europe and Asia (c. 500 CE 1500 CE): During massive famines in medieval Europe, Russia, and China, the practice of "selling oneself for bread" was common. Individuals surrendered their legal autonomy to local lords or monasteries just to guarantee daily meals and survival.

Pre-Colonial Africa (Pre-19th Century): Various African societies practiced internal systems of pawnship or temporary servitude. A person could pledge themselves or a family member as collateral to another family to cover a debt or severe judicial fine.

Antebellum United States (1850s): In a late historical anomaly, several Southern states passed laws allowing free Black individuals to petition courts to voluntarily enslave themselves to a chosen master. This was rarely out of "choice" but rather a desperate attempt to avoid forced expulsion laws or to remain legally united with enslaved family members.

In ancient Greece and Rome, people who performed specialized or professional work such as doctors, teachers, accountants, architects, and estate managers were frequently enslaved or bound in servitude. Rather than being chattel-free wage earners, many practitioners of high-level intellectual and technical jobs were legally the property of wealthy masters.