-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Oh, I see. So you'd agree that "[w]hen a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod...[and] the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property." (Exodus 21:20-21.) Right?
#i2#ethics#meded#WhenCuttersAppealtotheBible2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @GarrettGarcia32 and
Because if God thought owning a slave and beating him (or her) to within an inch of his (or her) life was really that bad, he wouldn't have told Moses to do it. As someone who serves God and not man, you'd agree, right? Shouldn't you be campaigning to repeal the 13th Amendment?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Why don't we focus more on these words: "As for the male and female slaves whom you may have...they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property." (Leviticus 25:44-46.) Just gotta respect the word, right bro?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
What do you mean by "my version"? I'm quoting NRSV, Catholic ed. In which version does it say "servants people who served people of higher wealth so they may benefit as well"? In which version is there a suggestion that the reference is to hired, voluntary servants?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.