Slavery In The Bible- Part 1, Presuppositional Foundations

[cupwithhandles]

Most Christians don't know what the bible is. It is a compilation of writings assembled by Emperor Constantine, and is essentially his creation. To make the leap that it's the word of a god is incredible.

[pyrobryan]

My presuppositions that you must agree to in order to have a discussion

1 If you believe in god, you are delusional.

1.1 If you are delusional, you cannot agree to rational discourse because your perception of reality is questionable and cannot be trusted.

I'm not saying you have to agree with these presuppositions, you just have to accept them for the purpose of this conversation.

Sorry to be rude about it, but this video just pissed me off.

[pyrobryan]

Your presuppositions are ridiculous

4. Man is evil.

4.1 Not believing 4 means you are evil.

That's circular logic. Do you believe that babies lay there & think of ways that they can commit evil? If man is predisposed to be evil, then this must be true because an infant has not been taught how not to be evil.

How can you say that these suppositions aren't meant to stack the deck? They're complete bullshit and leave no room for actual discussion that doesn't agree with your preconceived ideas.

[pyrobryan]

Wait...so

1.1 The scripture is 100% true

1.2 we as non-believers must must look at the scripture for what it says

1.2.1 we as non-believers, by definition, cannot understand the scripture

And you're not stacking the deck? Right.

Ahh, the old "you weren't a TRUE christian." argument. You just lost all credibility. This is the weakest & most transparent fallacy. Christians love to claim the good people as christians, and disavow those who they don't agree with as "not true christians". Weak.

[strikenetter]

Good video and i say this as an atheist as spreading the word is to only spread the gospel as directed. Im fed up with Christians telling me i havn't put in my time in my search for god, or my search for divinity was fallacy. I have read the bible, the gospels. To say i have read it in its entirety would be a lie. I can not conceive morally that all children born at birth are sinners. This to me is asinine to think our children are paying for the sin of the first woman on earth. Much more also.

[Smashkirby]

You are trying to defend a lost cause. This video is like watching a dying nazi making a last stand against the Allies with a stick as his weapon. Stop trying, its ridiculous. The subject of slavery in the bible is clean and simple. There's no denying it. Just live with the imperfection, if that is what you choose.

[edy066]

if only people who turn to god can join him in heaven, then what happens to the slaves themselves!

what happens to the poor children in africa who can barely eat or to my ancestors(native new zealanders who didnt have any access to the bible)

or the children murdered at columbine high

maybe your book of answers can help.

you say all man are sinners, why then does the bible state that there are some perfect men who do not sin

may your god strike me down an bless all beleivers with good health

[bberchin]

@edy066 The Bible deems no man as perfect and sinless.

[edy066]

@bberchin jesus was perfect an so was job, what i dont understand is why so many people can enterprit the bible so differently

[bberchin]

@edy066 Jesus was (is) perfect because He is fully God and fully man; He and the Father are one. Job was not perfect- he was blameless; above reproach. If you knew the Hebrew you would know that.

[peterlabrie1]

@edy066 it is not a sin to never hear the gospil or own a bible. The bible makes it very clear that "if they seek me with there whole heart they will find me" the problem is no one truly seeks Him. I dont know about your new zealander ancestors but God could have absolutly applied the blood of Jesus on there behalf if they sought the tru God of the universe.so again the bible is very clear. its not a sin to never of heard or own a bible.but is most certainly to live life and never such for truth

[strikenetter]

@peterlabrie1 I have to ask, are all other religions inevitably doomed for hell. They believe alternative gods to be their savior. I was just curious. For instance, Islam, children are taught Allah is their savior, this is indoctrinated with the threat of death for apostasy. Are you saying they should risk death to seek the alternative, the bible? There is much controversy in regards.

[peterlabrie1]

@strikenetter great question but I think your a little confused about isam.allah is not there savior he is God. muslims believe in the profits in the bible in fact you cannot be a musslim and not belive in the writtings of moses and the profits, and Jesus.in any case just because ur taut something dosnt mean you must believe it all your life. at one point one must be responsible for there own faith and make sure they know why they belive what they believe. i was taught catholic and sought truth.

[peterlabrie1]

@peterlabrie1 as far as death for apostasy,thats as far as i know a little extreme.i know of families disowning there children but death is not what musslims would need to fear,although that has happend.i will say that the power of knowing the lord and not being ashamed to preach it has got many many people stoned and crucified.they willingly testified of Jesus knowing the cost.now that is what the power of the Holy Spirt of truth will do in a believers life.i personaly would die for my faith!

[strikenetter]

@peterlabrie1 Yes Allah is their god and savior. Just as many believe Jesus is god and their savior. When i said savior i didn't mean Allah was a profet as Jesus. I know muhammed is their profet, but not their savior. lol. Thanks for the vids.

[Skindoggiedog]

I'm sorry, bberchin. I'm sure you're a nice guy and all, but your world-view is obviously that of a child.

[Skindoggiedog]

Got to 3:42 and lost hope that the video might be anything worthwhile.

I've read the bible, mate. What you suggest is a logical impossibility. If 'scripture' is inerrant, then blue is green and red is upside-down.

Contradictions. Every-freakin-where.

What you suggest is just not possible.

[igknightus]

I don't have a problem discussing this. During the time slavery was proment. So God had the apostles write so that day people could relate. Antichristian people are mostly ignorant and just chose to hear what they want to, what they can use to justify their own slefish sinful acts. I mean we have modern day slaves in he U.S. Work for example, you don't work you dont eat and you dont have a house. Slavery still exists, we just justify it by saying "I can choose to quit" yes you can chose 2 starve

[RobotzAreAwesome]

Why defend something you know in your heart of hearts is simply what it is? Slavery in the bible is not complicated. It. Simply. Is. Slavery. And. It. Is. Wrong.

[bberchin]

You ignore the complexity of this issue and then claim to know what's in my heart of hearts? For a bunch of people who do not believe in absolutes you sure are absolute when it comes to slavery. Ironic.

[RobotzAreAwesome]

It is only "wrong" in the sense that humans have agreed it is not wise to enslave each other.

However, you are in the awkward position of claiming a male kissing another male is an abomination, yet a male senselessly beating another male is ok. Good luck with that.

[bberchin]

Wait a minute here, friend. When did I ever say that someone beating someone senselessly was ok? Don't put words in my mouth in order to avoid the complexity of this issue. It's too easy to remain ignorant of the complexities and accuse me of barbarism. If you're here just to posture me you're wasting your time.

[RobotzAreAwesome]

If you agree that the Bible is the inerrant word of God then you agree with those statements. If you do not agree that the Bible is the inerrant word of God then there is no use in debating you.

[bberchin]

I do agree with all scripture, but you have twisted these statements and my statements with your biased adverb "senselessly". You may think it senseless, but there is nothing senseless about any of the accounts having to do with slavery in the Bible.

[RobotzAreAwesome]

In certain circumstances it is ok to beat someone. As in, if you are being attacked. However, in the context of slavery, is it NEVER ok to beat your slave. Instead, the only decent thing to do is SET FREE your slave. On the contrary, the slave does have the right to beat its master in order to escape.

Sheesh, why is this so hard to understand? How many years ago did we abolish slavery?

Does it not trouble you sir that your God endorses slavery, polygamy, genocide, and sexism?

[bberchin]

Ok, from this comment I can see you are willing to listen to nothing I have said and your wheels are locked into your own position. I'm not starting again from the beginning with you. Watch the next part and let's see if your listening skills can improve.

[Tobytrim]

@bberchin We are a reasoning sentient species. Sensuality and reason are the only means of enquiry, that we can be sure we have.

You use the SAME apparatus to "know" about the theistic superstitions that you blindly accept

[Tobytrim]

@bberchinSounds like you are trying to palm the whole deck by asking people to presuppose that the bible is true.

Isn't it better to be open minded in your examination of this book? This done, you will see the god of the bible to sanction slavery, You will also see that it contradicts science, history, reason, commondecency, and itself!

[Tobytrim]

@bberchin Your presupposition that gods will is "perfect" as outlined in the bible, is very dangerous my friend!!

[robertobrian6]

bberchin. There is no complex issue here,you lark lodgic,evidences,science and reasoning,the real problem is you are indoctrinated with irroneous idea and isolated from a mountain of imformation.

Thank you

[igknightus]

We still have slavery today man. Look at working for example, slaves dont work they dont eat, modern day people dont work dont eat. In most cases your boss can say what he wants to and do what he wants to you...thats just how it is.

Slavery in the bible was part of it....do you think eating at msdonalds is any diff? no when your ordering your in sense saying "get you fat as sin the kitchen and cook" same thing. just modernised.

[RobotzAreAwesome]

@igknightus

Do I think eating a Big Mac is different than getting bent over and beat on my butt for not picking enough cotton, or not working 22 hours a day. Call me crazy, but yes, I think its a big difference.

Please mate, critically study your beliefs.

[igknightus]

One im not you mate.

Two my beliefs are my beliefs.

thank you~

[RobotzAreAwesome]

They may be your beliefs, but it doesn't make them right.  I'm disappointed in your rebuttal. I expected more.

[igknightus]

thats your problem you went into something with someone you did not know expecting something out of it..... Go away man...i have enough to worry about.....

[igknightus]

sounds a lot to me like you are the one that needs to rexamine stuff.....what your doing is called spam!

[quebec10000]

bberchin.. Official reason for Servetus being burn alive.Calvin argued for the right to put to death those who oppose him in that same yr. (1554)

1. Accuse of teaching against infant baptism

2. ................of defaming John Calvin

3. of reffraining from marriage for a long time.

4.. ..... of denying the trinity.

among many more ridiculous charges.

Calvinism,how should I say is plain no good.

[quebec10000]

bberchin... Letter wrriten by John Calvin on Feb 13, 1546. If he (Servitus) come here (Geneva) I shall never let him go alive,if my authority has weight..Aug. 20 1553.......I (John Calvin) hope a sentense of death will at least be passed on him.(Servitus) Now I know why slavery is of little importance to you,Your denomination is base on murder from the beginnig.

[quebec10000]

bberchin.. Of course slavery is not immoral to you,why not. Your denomination is name after a man who had his opposition burned at the stake, (Your dear Calvin had a man named Servitus in 1554 killed by burning) Your not quiet honest enought to tell the public that. I know your denomination is evil just like all the others. When I am finished reading his life story . Wheter you like it or not I will oppose you at every turn,I am not afraid of religious dictator like you.

[tyendanega]

"1.2. You must look at scripture for what it says and not what you think it says based on your unbelieving presuppositions."

But this is exactly what most atheists try to do when we debate the Bible! Then we get told we're taking scripture out of context or we get shown a myriad other verses from other parts of the Bible, and then told that's what it really means!

So, we're supposed to take what the Bible actually says, interpreting it literally. Fine, as long as you follow your own rule!

[bberchin]

I understand what you're saying, but you must understand that it is right to bring other parts of scripture to bear in order to understand a text as it agrees with other texts. That principle will be very important in understanding what I'll say about some verses about slavery.

[TheCZMan]

That makes a lot of rules just to approve something that you make sound obvious.

[ProfMTH]

Well, B, I always assume you're in your right mind. As for the bulk of your other "presuppositional foundations," it's not clear to me how they promote an objective look at what the Bible says about slavery; they seem to do precisely the opposite. Nevertheless, given what I know about this issue, I suspect that even if one allows for all or at least most of your "presuppositional foundations," it won't make the biblical position on slavery any better. That said, I look forward to the series.

[sgm2005]

You absolutely cannot take any position because you don't want to, "win any arguments..." Humans are rational creatures and by our very nature demand reasonable explanations for everything we encounter. We need reason to understand.

If your argument is that the bible says so, then you win.

[bberchin]

That's not the argument and I don't care about winning. I hope you are open-minded enough to listen objectively.

[sgm2005]

Hi bberchin

Rational people demand reasoned argument to accept anything. Are you not trying to influence anyone? I doubt you want to proven wrong, or *lose* any argument for the position you're so very publicly taken.

If you're going to make extraordinary claims, then the rational demand either extraordinary evidence or extraordinary reasoning; mindlessly quoting from any book doesn't count.

[Zed1967]

1: I used to believe in God but now I don't. I'm an atheist

2: I would vehemently defend the right of ANYONE to believe in their God.

3: I personally believe that ALL supernatural things ARE imaginary.

4: No one can say 100% that supernatural things don't exist but ALL the evidence we have points to them being imaginary.

5: I believe that children should not be exposed to religious indoctrination at all, especially in school. To my way of thinking, that is child abuse.

[bberchin]

I understand why you believe that way, Zed. Are you willing to hold those beliefs in the back of your mind and consider another point of view without arguing those beliefs at every turn? I could argue till the cows come home with your beliefs, but I'm not threatened by them, nor do I think they are directly relevant to a discussion on biblical slavery. I hope you come with an open mind. :)

[jdquarg]

Thank you for the outline I found it helpful

Did you have anyone review this project like a preacher or something similar for feedback?

James Jorden was Christian Reconstructionism and is in with Federal Vision theology, what is up with this?

You cite only one source for material is it you couldn't find any material or you couldn't find any material that supported your view point.

Wouldn't it have been better to cite multiple sources instead of just one and that being a thesis from 1980?

[jdquarg]

Thank you for doing the outline it is helpful.

Did you review this with anyone? You said you are a deacon in your church, would your pastor accept it?

If you had to "look" for the right material does it mean that you were not looking for facts only the facts that fit your view point.

James Jorden was a Christian Reconstructionism then with Federal Vision what is up with that?

You can only cite one person for you presentation? You couldn't find collaborating sources?

Is a thesis a book?

[bberchin]

My pastor turned me on to this source because it was the only source which came at the slavery issue in totality from a theological perspective. Most of the other sources were only historical or were scattered bits and pieces which did not help in reconciling the "slavery" verses in scripture. Dr. Jordan's thesis includes many different resources he used and I'm checking into some of them as supplimentary. I know I don't agree with the totality of JJ's theology, but in this he was helpful.

[valambiguous]

This should be interesting. Looking forward to studying with you. YAH bless you.

[ProclaimHisWord]

Looking forward to the series Brett. This is one subject that the unbelievers like to bring up and throw in the believers face as to why they cannot (will not) believe.

[bberchin]

You're right, Mark. The irony is that as much as it is thrown in our face you would think there would be many apologetical resources written on subject, but there aren't. In fact, there are close to none.

[ranchai100]

continued....this video is on the level and I dont believe he is intentionally trying to decieve anyone.I look forward to the next video

[bberchin]

I hope you can be open-minded enough to at least look at this from an objective point of view. I don't expect you to change your views, but rather be sympathetic to a point of view you will most likely disagree with.

[HonestDiscussioner]

Then your wording is a bit off. "1" is fine, "1.1" "1.2.1" and "1.3.1", however basically says "if you have any problems, just put them aside and pretend they aren't. That isn't how it works, that's the very OPPOSITE of objective.

If you want me to be objective, the phrase, which you do use in some but not all parts, is "you must accept the possibility".

I can and do accept the possibility, but the words you use in many parts imply much more than that.

[bberchin]

1.1, 1.2.1, and 1.3.1 are all under "the possibility" in 1. I understand why you would see it the way you do, but I think the tenor of my entire video was clear to "accept the possibility". I suppose this is a test to see how open-minded people are really willing to be in order to see something from a different perspective while admitting their presuppositions without being threatened.

[crazypills2]

"I suppose this is a test to see how open-minded people are really willing to be in order to see something from a different perspective while admitting their presuppositions without being threatened." - bberchin

How do you define being "open-minded?" Would someone who, at one time, believed as you do about the bible be considered open-minded on this subject?

[bberchin]

If they were willing to consider another point of view without being threatened by it then it doesn't matter what their background is. This part 1 video is exposing the ones with the closed minds, the ones who are willing to listen and consider the point of view without posturing and veering off on tangents, and Christians interested in this subject for their own apologetical edification.

[crazypills2]

"If they were willing to consider another point of view without being threatened by it then it doesn't matter what their background is." - Brett

At one time, I wholly accepted that the bible was the word of god. I defended acts of slavery in the bible and was an avid creationist.

My point in all of this is that, if someone doesn't accept your view, you seem to be calling them closed-minded. However, have you returned what you are asking of them? This is starting to sound like rhetoric.

[bberchin]

Come on, Steve, I don't care if no one accepts my view. What I do care about is discussing this slavery issue without people commenting "well, the Bible is full of mistakes so this is rediculous", or bringing up something else from scripture they have a problem with which has nothing to do with the slavery issue. I'm tired of hearing God does not exist, God is evil, and the scriptures are full of contradictions. Ok, I get it! Let's stick to the issue at hand! You video response was dreadful.

[Afrikitty]

Yes, and supecillious.

I see that ad hominem attacks against your person and your intimate beliefs, by both Christian and unbeliever, are being "hoorayed" and encouraged Brett. Keep your unwavering belief and trust in God flying high during this discussion and those who are watching will see a man of integrity and honesty through it all.

"Who shall bring a charge against God's elect?" (Romans 8:33)

May God go with you and may the truth prevail. Remember Isaiah 55:8-11.

[crazypills2]

"Ok, I get it! Let's stick to the issue at hand! " - bberchin

I'm happy to stick to the issues. There is plenty to discuss about slavery in the bible. However, if you try to interpret scripture with scripture to show god in a favorable light, I will hold you to what the passages actually say. We can get into the Hebrew to discuss what the words really mean so there is no misunderstanding of the intent.

[bberchin]

"We can get into the Hebrew..."- Yes, that is one element of a good hermeneutical study, but word studies alone will often times lead to wrong conclusions.

[crazypills2]

"You video response was dreadful." - Brett

Well, if I misrepresented you, then I am happy to hear your case. From reading HD, it doesn't appear that I am the only one who had a problem with your premises.

[HonestDiscussioner]

Like I said, I already am willing to "accept the possibility, and while "1" inserts possibility in there, the rest don't. While I understand your intentions may be different, you may want to switch the wording on there.

The wording for 1.3 seems to imply "when you see a contradiction you must assume it isn't one" The rest of it implies we don't have to accept your explanation, but the former says more than "the possibility". Again, change your wording.

[bberchin]

Forget the wording! This is not the constitution or some legally binding contract. Either realize and accept where I'm coming from, which is clear in the video, or don't bother commenting.

[HonestDiscussioner]

I have already stated at least three times now that I am willing and able to allow the possibility of anything and everything you say being right. I always try to behave like that. My point is that it was in fact NOT clear and I'm trying to help you avoid confusion and bring more people to the table, as I truly believe some of those reading the annotations in your video will not get the meaning you intend. I'm trying to do you a favor. Your words are not as clear as you think they are.

[ranchai100]

that is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard.thats like saying you must look at ted bundy as just a misunderstood guy instead of a serial killer,as for what the bible says,its in plain english so irregardless of what 1 thinks it says,the english interpretation reads innacurate compared to the original hebrew,as for contradictions,genesis 1 and 2 contradict 1 another in the english translation.I do agree however that everyone has evil in them.its our nature and at least with the man in

[HonestDiscussioner]

I thought you said you WEREN'T going to stack the deck?

While some of these are fair, many of them basically equate to "I need you to pretend your a bible beleiving Christian".

It doesn't work like that . . how about I have a discussion . . now first let's establish the possibility the bible is wrong.

Now you have to come from it with the understanding that these were just men writing stuff down and it has no divine inspiration. You also have to acknowledge there's many contradictions.

[bberchin]

I'm not saying you have to accept what the Bible teaches as being true, I'm saying you need to look at it at face value taking into account it's whole of teaching. I'm also asking you to look at it from a different perspective other then your own unbelieving perspective- they may not be possible, but it would help you to be more objective. I'm merely attempting to create a more productive and respectful venue for discussion. Perhaps this series won't be good for you.

[Afrikitty]

Okay,

Here's the truth of the matter, hopefully in simple English, so's you might understand the rules.

This is YouTube! This is bberchin's video and this is his website. He is presenting a discourse to you and he has asked you - not told you but asked you, to stick to his "rules", - if you want to put it that way.

...continued...

[Afrikitty]

...continued...

How about this - if you want to take part in this discussion on his video on his site on his page, you listen to his requests and abide by them. You might just learn something.

[HonestDiscussioner]

But I WON'T take part in the discussion if the rules are as unfair as they seem given the wording. I'm pointing our issues, not making demands.

Would you come to my channel and for a discussion on slavery with these rules:

1. Accept the possibility the bible is wrong.

2. come from it with the understanding that these were just men writing stuff down and it has no divine inspiration.

3. You also have to acknowledge there's many contradictions.

Try it, you might just learn something.

[Afrikitty]

HonestDiscussioner,

Thank you for your reply. You said "But I WON'T...."

How can you learn something if you will not submit to the other person's way of putting his point across, nomatter how impossible and idiotic his rules might seem to you? All I am saying is, give his way a chance. Personally, I think Brett is being extremely brave for even thinking of this subject matter, never mind voicing it and putting it onto video for all the world to see.

I will continue in another box...

[HonestDiscussioner]

I'm not criticizing how he displays his points, but his rules that we suspend disbelief anytime we come to anything that is troublesome. That's something you do when discussing fiction, not reality.

He literally said, if you see a contradiction, just assume it isn't. He has since attempted to correct his position, but I don't see how anyone would come to the conclusion he claims to have intended for his audience.

You cannot set as a rule "no criticizing anything" and call it a discussion.

[bberchin]

You are the kind of "listener" I hope to filter out in comment sections in this series. I don't expect you to suspend disbelief. I'm asking you to have an open mind and leave your posturing and preconceived biases aside.

[HonestDiscussioner]

And like I said before, that is what I normally try to do. I'm merely criticizing your word usage in your "foundations" because they imply much more than that.

"You must, when faced with an apparent contradiction in evolutionary theory, understand that this process works and happens and consider it not a contradiction"

That isn't a fair statement, but it uses your words. What it should say is "When faced with a contradiction, hear the entirety of the story first before making a conclusion"

[Afrikitty]

Allow me to appeal to your sense of reason from another angle here, please.

What is your opinion of Brett Berchin as a person? Do you think he is an honest man? Do you admire him as a person, despite what he stands for? Do you think you could trust him to tell you the truth, nomatter how painful it might be? Would you trust him with your life, perhaps, if you were in a foxhole?

I will continue...

[HonestDiscussioner]

Given I've only seen him through Youtube and probably less than an hour, I do not have enough information to go on whether I would trust him with my life.

However I do not see any evidence that he is lying or attempting to deceive, I just feel he has a warped sense of logic and fairness. He THINKS he way of discussion is fair, from what I can tell, he doesn't seem to be a liar, but I still disagree with his methods of establishing discussion or what constitutes evidence.

[Afrikitty]

I hear what you are saying HonestDiscussioner and I believe I understand what you are trying to convey. Nonetheless, put away your feelings that Brett has a warped sense of logic and fairness, just for a season, in order to allow him to make his case for his subject matter. I only ask that you do so for a short season.

[HonestDiscussioner]

Call me HD ☺.

My general attitude is to take each point or overarching theory\story\hypothesis\ or idea on its own individual merits. I have complemented bberchin on a previous video of his, I am not as biased as he believes me to be.

An idea stands on its own merits, who says it doesn't really matter. You may take slight note if they are a chronic liar, like perhaps VFX (shawn), but otherwise no.

If Hitler says the sky is blue, as evil as he was, that doesn't make the sky not blue.

[bberchin]

Ok, HD, this comment is much better. I'm trying to figure out here who is willing to look at these issues with an objective, dispassionate eye even if certain root issues (such as biblical inerrancy) drive them nuts. My goal is to discuss the slavery issue and NOT the inerrancy issue. Get my meaning?

[HonestDiscussioner]

I understand completely . . now at least. It originally sounded as though you were saying "if I claim something on the basis of biblical innerrancy you cannot claim it isn't true because the Bible isn't innerrent, just accept that it is at least for this discussion".

I understand that wasn't what you were trying to do, but that is the first impression I got.

[Afrikitty]

Hello there again HD, :-}

Now we are going to get somewhere in this debate. I was just worried that people were going to spend hours discussing the rules laid down by Brett (a bit like grabbing hold of the strawman, so to speak) and the actual subject matter was going to be thrown into the ditch along the wayside. The subject matter is sticky and sensitive enough as it is and you men are going to find out what hot flashes are like during this discussion. I am looking forward to it. :-}

[HonestDiscussioner]

I'm overweight and live on the third floor with wall units for A\C. I think I can relate.

[crazypills2]

"I was just worried that people were going to spend hours discussing the rules laid down by Brett..." - Afrikitty

Hey Liz, do you think Brett's premises were fair? Would you be willing to live with them if an atheist presented similar ones which favored his/her argument?

[Afrikitty]

Steve,

I was an unbeliever once and, trust me, nothing a Christian ever said to me was fair. Christians offended my fragile, self opinionated sensibilities to the nth degree back then. I was a shrew that no-one wanted to contend with. But, there were those brave ones that laid down the law to me and took their punishment like men, so to speak.

Had they not done so, I might still be wallowing in the muck and mire of the darkness I was trapped in. I praise God for brave men like Brett. .

[bberchin]

"I was an unbeliever once and, trust me, nothing a Christian ever said to me was fair."- Excellent point, Liz. I was the same way. I used to think that Christians were all just fanatical wimps. Today I am proud to say that I am just fanatical. :) lol

[Afrikitty]

I hear you Brett, but I want to tell you something, even if they call me a wimp, and they have on numerous ocassions, I will wear that mark with pride and joy. My wimpiness is covered by His extraordinary power and one day they will see that and mourn.

[Afrikitty]

If you can answer yes to those hypothetical questions, then take a step back for a moment and accept his proposals, otherwise you will go into this discussion with preconceived disgruntlement and you will learn nothing.

Wait until he has done his videos on this subject and look at the facts he is going to present to you.

THEN separate his facts from your angst towards his rules and you might see it all in a whole new light.

Observe his rules to allow him to put his point across.

[gondorking86]

And I look forward to this series!

[FillTheirVoid]

Enslavement of enemies.

Indentured servitude (aka debt)

Not to mention there is an important lesson and language which is derived from our observation of slavery. If slavery didn't exist Jesus couldn't have told us about our "enslavement" to sin etc.

Thanks for the information brother.