26 Mar 14
Since some (insane and cowardly) people continue to defend the OT, i have found another gem. This is from exodus which i ignored in these discussions because i thought it was mostly action movie and less horrible laws.
Exodus 21
7“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.
26 Mar 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziAnd the A. A. Community still wines about the past. 😕
Since some (insane and cowardly) people continue to defend the OT, i have found another gem. This is from exodus which i ignored in these discussions because i thought it was mostly action movie and less horrible laws.
Exodus 21
7“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.
26 Mar 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhen a god tells you something, it must be true, eh.
Since some (insane and cowardly) people continue to defend the OT, i have found another gem. This is from exodus which i ignored in these discussions because i thought it was mostly action movie and less horrible laws.
Exodus 21
7“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.
26 Mar 14
Originally posted by RBHILLAnd the theistic community still finds the most ridiculous excuses for not discussing honestly their own scripture.
And the A. A. Community still wines about the past. 😕
If you think the law was morally good, then be honest and say so.
If you think it was morally bad, be honest and say so.
Sidestepping the issue is a form of dishonesty on your part.
26 Mar 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou can Obviously tell by my post. I have said in the past that I go for slavery. I would rather be a slave myself then die fighting.
And the theistic community still finds the most ridiculous excuses for not discussing honestly their own scripture.
If you think the law was morally good, then be honest and say so.
If you think it was morally bad, be honest and say so.
Sidestepping the issue is a form of dishonesty on your part.
26 Mar 14
Originally posted by RBHILLSo some of god's laws applied only in the past?
You can Obviously tell by my post. I have said in the past that I go for slavery. I would rather be a slave myself then die fighting.
What was their expiry date?
How did anyone know at what moment in time they ceased to apply?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
27 Mar 14
4 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou found another gem? You quote a portion of a passage to have it appear in the worst light and boast that you have found a gem ?
Since some (insane and cowardly) people continue to defend the OT, i have found another gem. This is from exodus which i ignored in these discussions because i thought it was mostly action movie and less horrible laws.
Exodus 21
7“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.
Let's look at the continuation of the passage to get a fairer picture. This passage has to do with a female servant who becomes married to her master while serving to pay off some dept. It could be the dept of her family who has sold her to this temporary servanthood.
"And if a man sells his daughter as a female servant, she shall not go out as the male servants do. (v.7)
If she displeases her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he has not right to sell her to a foreign people, because he has dealt with her unfaithfully. (v.8)
And if he designated her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. (v.9)
If he takes another woman for himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. (v.10)
And if he does not do these three things for her, then shall she go out for nothing, without payment of silver." (v.11)
In ancient Israel every seven years dept servitude was cancelled. This law applied to men and women -
"If your brother, a Hebrew man or woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years; but in the seventh year you shall set him free. And when you set him free, you shall not send him away empty handed; You must supply him richly from your flock and from your threshing floor and from your winepress; as Jehovah your God has blessed you, so shall you give to him." (Deuteronomy 15:12-14)
Though "him" is used in the passage it is clear that male or female is intended - "a Hebrew man or woman, is sold to you ...".
Male or Female dept servants were freed from all obligation further when the seven year cycle completed.
And impoverished woman, who wasn't given by her father as a prospective wife to a (widowed or divorced) man or his son (Exod. 21:7-11), could perform standard household tasks. And she could go free by this same law, just as a male servant could. - Paul Copan
The reference to the woman not going out as the man is related to the previous 6 verses which I will not study tonight. But it appears that the not going out free as the man in verse 7 has more to do with protection of the woman married while in servitude than the oppression of her.
Of course Zahlanzi, eager to show God in condemning accusation, only spliced out the portion which would yielded the most negative effect.
Verses 2 though 6 are about the choice of a servant leaving behind wife and children acquired while in dept servitude - IE. serving to pay off a dept (Exo.21:2-6).
I will look into the passage more closely when it is not so late in the evening. In the meantime some may contemplate if the law is so unfair to woman why is concern expressed for -
1.) the female servant being redeemed rather than just discarded ? " If she displeases her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; HE HAS NO RIGHT TO SELL HER to a foreign people."
2.) the master / employer has dealt with the the woman servant unfaithfully - " ... because he has dealt with her unfaithfully"
This obviously cannot be compared to slavery as it was known in the American South. Who cared if the master dealt with a female slave "unfaithfully" ? No one cared.
3.) the servant women is to have the status of a daughter if she is to be given to the master's son as a wife - " ... he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters."
4.) he must maintain material support of the released woman - "If he take another woman for himself, he shall NOT DIMINISH HER FOOD, HER CLOTHING, OR HER MARITAL RIGHTS."
At first glance there seems to be a lot in her designed to protect the female servant rather than to oppress her. This has something to do with a master marrying one of his female servants.
And it is "This is what you do when this situation arises" kind of law. In other words it is what to do in a far less than ideal situation. It is not an endorsement of poverty or dept servitude.
27 Mar 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziSince you like strange laws, here you will find 101 strange laws from around the world.
Since some (insane and cowardly) people continue to defend the OT, i have found another gem. This is from exodus which i ignored in these discussions because i thought it was mostly action movie and less horrible laws.
Exodus 21
7“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.
http://whoartnow.hubpages.com/hub/101-Strangest-Laws-From-Around-The-World
27 Mar 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe most prominent and indefatigable "defence" [a.k.a. explanation, analysis, contextualization] of the OT offered on a regular basis here is by sonship and he is neither insane nor cowardly.
Since some (insane and cowardly) people continue to defend the OT, i have found another gem. [blah blah blah]
27 Mar 14
Originally posted by RBHILLThat is not an honest answer, it is another attempt to avoid dealing with the question. Do you, or do you not, think the law in question is morally correct?
You can Obviously tell by my post. I have said in the past that I go for slavery. I would rather be a slave myself then die fighting.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
27 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFThankyou FMF.
The most prominent and indefatigable "defence" [a.k.a. explanation, analysis, contextualization] of the OT offered on a regular basis here is by sonship and he is neither insane nor cowardly.
Your objectivity is noted.
27 Mar 14
Originally posted by sonshipheh, i intentionally left the following verses out. i wanted to see who wins the [dubious] honor to be the first to excuse the horrific provision "a man may sell his daughter like property" with the following verses that provide some protection to the now sex slave young girl/woman.
You found another gem? You quote a portion of a passage to have it appear in the worst light and boast that you have found a gem ?
Let's look at the continuation of the passage to get a fairer picture. This passage has to do with a female servant who becomes married to her master while serving to pay off some dept. It could be the dept of her family ...[text shortened]... to do in a far less than ideal situation. It is not an endorsement of poverty or dept servitude.