However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

You are an absolute twat, Maqqa.

Quote:


Anyone who has spent time reading the bible understands that slavery was accepted as a natural condition.

Your ignorance makes you cannon fodder for the LNP.

Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do.  Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments.  The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves.



    Many Jews and Christians will try to ignore the moral problems of slavery by saying that these slaves were actually servants or indentured servants.  Many translations of the Bible use the word "servant", "bondservant", or "manservant" instead of "slave" to make the Bible seem less immoral than it really is.  While many slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn't mean that they were not slaves who were bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock.



    The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.



    However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)



    The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated.



    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 NLT)

True Blue... wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2013 at 9:04pm:


bugger off idiot .... anyone who debates marriage equality with the line 'but the bible says' is asking to be belittled.

you didn't even see the show did you?  Grin Grin Grin Grin

You've no idea what you are on about ...

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 12:32am:


Did he.....When???

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 1:22am:


So he never actually made the claim you credit him for.....The bible has nothing to do with politics and is irrelevant to most Australian's.....Neither Abbott or Rudd are worth voting for IMO???



Those who seek consolation in existing churches often pay for their peace of mind with a tacit agreement to ignore a great deal of what is known about the way the world works.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, 1990

John Smith wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2013 at 9:26pm:


Nothing new or remotely surprising about that.

He seldom does.

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 1:18am:


that was his implication when he talked about the Bible 'moving on from slavery etc'

Look, where church is concerned, Rudd is an embarrassment. His knowledge of the Bible I poor and his grandstanding on church doorstops offensive.  He is a clown on almost every topic other than himself. and even then he gets the facts wrong.

Kat wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2013 at 10:11pm:


and funnily I've proved you wrong time and again... then you disappear out of the thread....

like the one where those welfare cheats getting $900 a week of tax payers money and then forcing their kids to live in a car...

ole Kat and his disappearing acts as soon as he realises once again he's 100% wrong... good one kat... 

aquascoot

This is a big problem that would discount me from politics, you have to be either a real Christian or at least pretend you are one like Rudd does, but Rudd's political Mr Hyde says there are possible votes in thinking gay marriage is ok.

Some focus group must of told him he could get some votes out of this ?

The guy is a complete phoney grub.

This is also a big misjudgement, any votes he might of got would be at least cancelled out by the real religious that would be offended by his comments.

In 2007 he got elected because he looked like Liberal Lite, not because he was supporting fringe issues.

Kat wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2013 at 10:11pm:


and funnily I've proved you wrong time and again... then you disappear out of the thread....

like the one where those welfare cheats getting $900 a week of tax payers money and then forcing their kids to live in a car...

ole Kat and his disappearing acts as soon as he realises once again he's 100% wrong... good one kat... 

Dnarubbish

I know most topics are beyond you, like picking an issue which might gain and lose votes, but you need to ask Rudd why he goes down these paths, he is your leader of the party you worship.

RightSadFred wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 9:31am:


The article was just anti Labor or anti gay marrage spin with no substance. Watch the debate and judge for yourself.

The technicalities in the article were all swayed to suite a false conclusion. Rudd had done well to counter the bible quote with another to refute the claim and the quote he used was relevant and correct.

The argument of lining up two quotes from the bible and saying that one was fair dinkum and the other was just a social statement of the day is ludicrous, maybe they were both just a social comment on the day or possibly neither. It is just how the author wants to spin it.

Rudds following statement saying that Human condition and social positions change about sums it up.

I think it obvious that there was nothing of value on this topic in that article. It was someone's view supported by bending biblical meaning to suit his pre conceived opinion.

..Colossians 3:22.

Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.

Dnarubbish

I know most topics are beyond you, like picking an issue which might gain and lose votes, but you need to ask Rudd why he goes down these paths, he is your leader of the party you worship.

Quantum wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 10:25am:



Rudd showed every Christian on Monday that he has not read the bible.

"Paul said in the new testament slaves be obedient to your masters"

It was a real good guess then !!!!

This is enough to show how credible your view of this is.

Quantum wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 10:25am:



Rudd showed every Christian on Monday that he has not read the bible.

"Paul said in the new testament slaves be obedient to your masters"

It was a real good guess then !!!!

This is enough to show how credible your view of this is.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 10:33am:


Rudd also said that the bible says slavery is a natural condition, hence his reference to Paul. But the quotation from Paul is not saying slavery is good. The argument Paul is making is that now that you have been saved in Christ, be content in that and live your life for God. Whatever your postion in life, live it in a way that reflects the love you have in Jesus. It was not in itself a comment on slavery.

You can pretend that Rudd is a biblical expert, but most Christians and certainly those who study the bible are not going to be convinced by his answer. He really showed his ignorance of it when he gave his understanding of the gospel. If Rudd can get the main focus of the bible wrong, then that gives the impression that he has not read it at all.

I think the fact that you will simple takes Rudd's word for it over those who are calling him out on his comments says more about your credibility. Your pro Rudd view in the face of any opposition to his comments only makes one believe that had Rudd even said that the bible claims that Muhammad is to be worshiped, you would still defend his comments to the end.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 11:02am:


Yes, he really got this one wrong. I know for a lot of non Christians his answer was good, and that in fine and understandable. If you are not a Christian the bible is surely irrelevant so who cares if his answers fit with it. But I'm sure many Christians picked up on the fact that he essentially took Christ out of Christian in a response to a question as to why Christians can trust him. For someone like him who confesses to be a Christian (plus as a politician in an election week of a nation that has millions of Christians), that was madness. Yes polictians should not let their beliefs get in the way of politics, but as you said, he has let politics get in the way of his own beliefs. Very disappointing.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 10:21am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 10:50am:



Wow 12 guys to slander a billion people eh?

I could highlight the excessive amounts of homosexials who are pedophiles if I were inclined to do so but it would be unfair.

Your hatred and dislike of the Church is very clear through and completely unwarranted.

Quantum wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 11:40am:


and that is the key point.  And we all know that in a couple months when rudd has quit parliament that these same people who are supporting him now will come to similar conclusions.  What does Rudd believe in?  Just himself. 

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 11:45am:


Rudd made his position very clear.  He considers homosexuality a normal condition.  By considering it normal, he believes it should be recognised as equal, as people dont get to choose who they fall in love with, and that should be recognised the same.

Why was this lost on you?

It was probably the most clear message he has delievered on anything.

Or was it because Rudd said something, and you distrust him that you automatically assume he was saying something else or he didnt really believe what he said?

The only person bending the bible is Rudd, and most Christians know that.

The bible is like any other topic; it has a mainstream view, then it has many smaller alternative views. Does every scientist believe in climate change? Does every scientist believe that vaccinations are safe? Does every scientist believe that fluoride in water is good for you? No matter the topic, there will always be someone who has a different opinion. Usually most people hold to the mainstream view that the majority of experts support. However, many people who will believe the experts on other issues will happily dismiss the mainstream when it comes to biblical studies. Several people may spend 50 years doing bible reaserch, trying to understand the historical context and looking at all possible views, yet people will happily dismiss that reaserch by finding a verse through google and saying that their interpretation is as good as anyone else's. Rudd totally missed what Paul was saying, but since Rudd also missed what the gospel is on about in his next sentence that is hardly surprising.

Rudd showed every Christian on Monday that he has not read the bible. He complelty misquoted it, and gave one of the weakess summaries of the gospel ever made. He is clearly trying to walk a line of saying "I'm a Christian" while grabbing votes from the non Christians as well. And isn't that what the real question was about? It had nothing to do with gay marriage, but instead was about Christians in Australia not sure anymore on what he actually believes. He says one thing, but he also says and does another and people are now confused on where he stands. His answer on Monday only highlighted these two sides of Kevin. Until Monday he seemed like a Christian trying to win the non Christian vote. After Q&A he seems like a non Christian trying to keep the Christian vote by simply saying "I'm a committed Christian, I just don't follow Christ or believe the bible". His response would have lost him as many votes as he picked up.

Quantum wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 10:25am:

Complete nonsense.

Rudd did not directly "quote" the Bible - he said "the Bible also says that slavery is a natural condition."

Which is perfectly true.  THere are many references to slavery in the Bible indicating that it was a perfectly normal condition at the time the Bible was written.

He raised this to show how stupid people are to cherry-pick parts of the Bible and take them literally.

The Bible says in several places that homosexuality is wrong.  But true Christians acknowledge that this is not at all consistent with the teachings of Jesus - the dude that Christians are supposed to follow more than anyone.

The Pastor said to Rudd:
"I just believe in what the Bible says and I'm just curious for you, Kevin, if you call yourself a Christian, why don't you believe the words of Jesus in the Bible?"

Weher exactly did Jesus ever say gay marriage was wrong?!?!

What Jesus DID apparently say was:

"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them,"
Matt7:12

It seems like Rudd has a far more Christian attitude than Abbott who forced his party members to vote in favour of discrimination

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:


Jesus said that He absolutely supported the law and the Prophets which both unequivocally condemned homosexuality.  To claim that Jesus was pro-gay is absurd.  Any student of the bible would conclude the exact opposite. and obviously by extension He would oppose gay marriage.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 12:03pm:


Explain to me again why Rudd doesnt believe in anything when his position was very clear?

Because you dont believe his motives?

This is nothing more than a personal attack on Rudd.  You dont like the guy, and dont trust him.  Thats fine, but to claim that his position means nothing because he only believes in himself is laughable.  Talk about a stupid position for you to take.

You are playing the man, and not the ball.  You are letting your obvious distain and dislike for a man cloud your judgement.

Quantum wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 10:25am:

Complete nonsense.

Rudd did not directly "quote" the Bible - he said "the Bible also says that slavery is a natural condition."

Which is perfectly true.  THere are many references to slavery in the Bible indicating that it was a perfectly normal condition at the time the Bible was written.

He raised this to show how stupid people are to cherry-pick parts of the Bible and take them literally.

The Bible says in several places that homosexuality is wrong.  But true Christians acknowledge that this is not at all consistent with the teachings of Jesus - the dude that Christians are supposed to follow more than anyone.

The Pastor said to Rudd:
"I just believe in what the Bible says and I'm just curious for you, Kevin, if you call yourself a Christian, why don't you believe the words of Jesus in the Bible?"

Weher exactly did Jesus ever say gay marriage was wrong?!?!

What Jesus DID apparently say was:

"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them,"
Matt7:12

It seems like Rudd has a far more Christian attitude than Abbott who forced his party members to vote in favour of discrimination

Verge wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 12:54pm:


his position on boat people is the opposite of his previous position.  His position on gay marriage is the opposite of what it used to be. and on and on it goes.  But this is a BIBLICAL question.  Rudd doesn't get the option as a Christian to choosing what he does and doesn't agree with in the Bible.  ?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 1:00pm:





Then neither do you.

Which must mean as verge said ;

"... Jesus believed you cant cut your hair, wear clothing of different materials, put cattle of different breeds in the same paddock and people can be put to death."


and that slaves should obey their masters
saturday morning stick gatherers should be put to death
daughters can be sold.

and an endless list of ridiculous, barbaric dos and donts.



Can YOU choose which ones to believe and which ones not?

After all as YOU said;

"Jesus said that He absolutely supported the law and the Prophets"

darkhall67 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 1:45pm:


simplistic nonsense taken out of character.  For instance the hair garbage. Jesus was a Nazarene and as such took a vow not to cut His hair.  the rest of the Jews of His time however did.  You don't know much about the Bible and so bring your ignorance here and impose your one-dimensional thinking onto it.  It is a COMPLEX book full of history and so on.  you seek to interpret it outside of its historical and cultural contexts and is why you come up with the wrong answers.

But the point has been about RUDD and the Bible not you.  Rudd has shown that his beliefs are flexible depending on which one gets the most votes.  For a politician that is almost excusable.  But for a Christian, it is a disgrace.

Quantum wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 1:23pm:


so here we go again. Obviously what he meant is clear but you have to try to look smart with your semantics. Doesnt work.

SOB

http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

Quantum wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 1:23pm:


so here we go again. Obviously what he meant is clear but you have to try to look smart with your semantics. Doesnt work.

SOB

http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg

darkhall67 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2013 at 2:48pm:


I'd say I am completely right about your cursory knowledge of the Bible.  Your posts which are full of simplistic observations confirm it.

which says nothing about your Biblical knowledge - which in case you didn't notice IS the topic.