02-16-2007, 12:40 PM
|
 | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,692
Thanks: 433
Thanked 444 Times in 266 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul manata  Not if they didn't profess.
Even in the OT, is the slaves in the house didn't profess, if they denied that they wanted to follow Jehovah, if they wanted to continue to worship false God, etc., they were not circumcised.
Now, I guess you could argue that this idea isn't true. | Paul, I wouldn't argue with you, I've seen/heard you debate.  Quote:
That, even granting all of the above, the slaves would be circumcised. So, we'd have, say, Moses, circumcising unwilling participants. Now, if you weren't willing, how would you feel about someone cutting parts of your member off with an ancient knife? So, was Moses running around like a manican, trapping running slaves, tying them down, and then cutting their members while they were kicking and screaming?
And then, these God haters were forced to take offerings to the priest? They were forced to repent, partake of the passover, etc?
Wow, what an interesting view baptists have of the OT.
Seems odd to me. But I think my paradigm makes more sense and is more plausible: Adults have always had to profess, children have not..
| I always thought a slave did the will of his master, especially in the Biblical sense? What would happen if a slave didn't do what was asked of him?  |