Originally posted by kevcvs57All I am saying is that RJH is really quite harmless as far as i can discern.
No I dont crave respect from anyone, but you seem to want different criteria for RJH for some reason, I do not give his rantings and halleluyas the same respect as I would someone who, however deluded (and I accept this may include me) at least makes the effort to enter into a debate rather than issue a closed statement every time he is faced with reasoned opposition.
I do not have an issue with his world view, just the way he expresses it.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am sure he is, and it is a public forum so he can say pretty much what he likes as long the mods are okay with it.
All I am saying is that RJH is really quite harmless as far as i can discern.
All I said was, He does not get evolution because he does not want to get it, it is just my opinion, I think it would be patronizing to pull our punches for RJH or anyone, and He has never patronized me.
You cannot say God endorsed slavery. You can say that dept servitude was an existing social structure in the ancient Near East which God made accomodations for with quite exemplary fairer statutes that a man or women could get than they could in many surrounding nations.
God made accomodations for dept servitude the same way He made some accomodations for divorce - an intitution which He said that He hated. We've been through much of this before.
It is a poor comparison to make between the servanthood of the Old Testament and the (prewar) slavery of the American South. The dept servitude of the Hebrews was more like the conditions of colonial American where fares to travel to America were too expensive for some people to afford. They contracted themselves out to be household workers or often apprentices until they paid back their depts.
Now, up front, I will say indepted servitude in colonial America could become a very unpleasant experience. And I assume even dept servitude in the Old Testament could be unpleasant as well. I don't mean to whitewash dept servitude.
But the indentured servent in Israel was there to pay off his "boss" or "employer" (adon). The term "master" is often too strong just as the term "ebed" of "servant, employee" is not best translated always as "slave".
It is not always inherently undignified to be an "ebed". We use terms like "buy" and "sell" today concerning sports stars. Ie. the Red Sox "bought" so and so for their team. The Lakers "sold" so and so to another basketball team. So we must not think terms like "buy" and "sell" related to a servant in the OT mean that the servant was only property. Yes they had "owners". But the absolute authoritarian rule over the servants physical life, as practiced in antebellum American Slavery was not parellelled in ancient Israel.
A contractual agreement is seen in the servitude of Jacob to Laban in Genesis. Jacob was to work for Laban seven years in order to obtain the right to marry Laban's daughter Rachal. This was an employer / employee relationship. To be sure it was not always easy. Jacob was glad to get out of it. But it was not the same as the antebellum slavery of the American South.
In Israel, becomming a voluntary servant was at times used to prevent starvation. The person had no collateral other than himself. The choice was between service or death. Service was a logical choice. Critics like Dan Barker then should realize that this servanthood wasn't much different from paid emplyoment experiencially in a modern day cash economy.
To be fair, there were differences between the Hebrew putting into servitude a fellow Hebrew and putting into servitude a foreigner. These differences are not spoken to in this post.
This post concludes with an example of how different God's Law for the "slave" of Israel were for the slave of antebellum American South. The example is the law concerning helping a run away slave.
Deutoronomy 23:15,16 - "You shall not deliver to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you; He shall dwell with you, even in your midst, in the place which he chooses among your towns, wherever he pleases, you shall not oppress him."
This is God's law. And I challenge anyone eager to play the slavery card against the God of the Bible, to produce a similar law instituted south of the Mason Dixon line in America anytime before Imancipation Proclamation.
If God was so much for endorsing slavery, why did He instruct that such a runaway slave would not be oppressed ?
In contrast the code of Hammurabi for another ancient Near Eastern society, demanded the death penalty for those helping runaway slaves.
In other cases of the Lipit-Ishtar, Eshunna, and Hittite laws - fines were exacted for sheltering fugitive slaves. If in the ancient Near East one had to be a slave, it was far better to be one under the more just accomodations of the Law of God in Israel.
A little more to the Dan Barkers and "God endorses Slavery" crowd.
Above I refered to the Mosiac law forbidding the oppression of the runaway slave in Deuteronomy 23:15-16.
We also have to account for the anti-kidnapping laws which made the servitude of Israel much different from the slavery of the Antlantic Slave Trade. We see the prohibition in both the Old Testament and New Testament.
Exodus 21:16 - " And he who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death."
Deuteronomy 24:7 - "If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently or sells him, then that THEIF shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you."
First Timothy 1:9a-10 - " ... that the law is not enacted for a righteous man but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and those who strike their mothers, for murderers, for fornicators, homosexuals, KIDNAPPERS, liars, perjurers, and whatever other thing is opposed to the healthy teaching."
The Apostle Paul therefore echoes the Old Testament. Kidnapping of another human being is against the healthy teaching of the apostles. It is profane, lawless, sinful, and unruly to practice the KIDNAPPING associated with typical American Slavery.
The Hebrews who practiced it were convicted by the Law to be put to death. So one has to take with a huge grain of salt the "God endorses slavery" accusation to make God look pro- slave trade as we usually envision it.
Originally posted by jaywill
You cannot say God endorsed slavery. You can say that dept servitude was an existing social structure in the ancient Near East which God made accomodations for with quite exemplary fairer statutes that a man or women could get than they could in many surrounding nations.
God made accomodations for dept servitude the same way He made some accomodations r the more just accomodations of the Law of God in Israel.
In contrast the code of Hammurabi for another ancient Near Eastern society, demanded the death penalty for those helping runaway slaves.
I like to be intellectually fair minded. And I feel to mention that the code of Hammurabi may have had a shorter period of time in which a slave could go free. I just read that the Law Moses demanded that the slaves be freed to become independent if he or she wished after 7 years - the Seventh Year of Jubilee. Apparently there could be a shorter 3 year period in which a slave could go free under the code of Hammurabi. The procedure seems, however, to be completely in the hands of the masters.
I'll study this more. It should be evident to the "God endorses Slavery" crowd that had the American South instituted similar laws as were found in the Old Testament, their institution of slavery simply would not have survived.
Ie. Anti- Kidnapping laws, anti-harm laws, and anti-slave-return regulations of Exodus 21:16, 20, 26-27; Deuteronomy 23:15-16; 24:7 .
Originally posted by jaywillYes, I can.
You cannot say God endorsed slavery.
You are simply ignoring the worst aspects of Biblical slavery. It was legal to sell your own daughter as a sex slave. It was legal to beat a slave within an inch of their life as long as they did not die within a day or two. There were provisions to set Israeli slaves free after 6 or 7 years, but it was legal to keep the slave's wife if he married her after becoming a slave.
Sorry, but I just don't see how this was any better than early American slavery.
Originally posted by SwissGambit
Yes, I can.
You are simply ignoring the worst aspects of Biblical slavery. It was legal to sell your own daughter as a sex slave. It was legal to beat a slave within an inch of their life as long as they did not die within a day or two. There were provisions to set Israeli slaves free after 6 or 7 years, but it was legal to keep the slave's wife if he ...[text shortened]... g a slave.
Sorry, but I just don't see how this was any better than early American slavery.
Yes, I can.
You are simply ignoring the worst aspects of Biblical slavery. It was legal to sell your own daughter as a sex slave.
Challenge accepted. Please site example of selling daughter into SEX slavery. I need chapter and verse.
It was legal to beat a slave within an inch of their life as long as they did not die within a day or two. There were provisions to set Israeli slaves free after 6 or 7 years, but it was legal to keep the slave's wife if he married her after becoming a slave.
Let's look at these one at a time. First please site me your specimen of God ordained selling of daughters into sex slavery.
Originally posted by SwissGambitMan has made many bad things legal over these many years. That does not mean God says these bad things are good, even if some people in the Holy Bible say they are legal. It is ridiculious for you to blame God. It is also stupid. Even Jesus said that divorce was not meant to be in the beginning by God, but due to the hardness of the peoples hearts, Moses made rules allowing divorce.
Yes, I can.
You are simply ignoring the worst aspects of Biblical slavery. It was legal to sell your own daughter as a sex slave. It was legal to beat a slave within an inch of their life as long as they did not die within a day or two. There were provisions to set Israeli slaves free after 6 or 7 years, but it was legal to keep the slave's wife if he ...[text shortened]... g a slave.
Sorry, but I just don't see how this was any better than early American slavery.
Not everything in the Bible is written from the point of view of God. The Devil has his say too. And the book of Ecclesiates is not the point of view of God, but the point of view of a very knowledgeable man for that time.
Originally posted by jaywillclearly you have no idea what the bible says about slavery. or rather you do, but choose to feign ignorance.
You cannot say God endorsed slavery. You can say that dept servitude was an existing social structure in the ancient Near East which God made accomodations for with quite exemplary fairer statutes that a man or women could get than they could in many surrounding nations.
God made accomodations for dept servitude the same way He made some accomodations ...[text shortened]... r the more just accomodations of the Law of God in Israel.
at no time does biblegod say do not practice slavery. he is not making concessions for the culture of the times, his laws are eternal and unchanging (a slap in the face of jesus, that one). to suggest that biblegod makes concessions in his law to conform with human standards is ridiculously absurd.
not only does biblegod not forbid slavery, he actually has laws (eternal and unchanging mind you, it says so in the bible) governing the treatment of slaves (different depending on weather or not they are from the "chosen" race) and how to trade for slaves.
biblegod represents the early moral standards of ancient civilization. you can see the pearls of goodness emerging from that civilization, but they have a good long ways to go to reach the advanced moral status of modern civilization.
the appearance of jesus christ is a fulcrum. jesus christ represents the more advanced (for those times) eastern moral standards migrating to the west. he is the jewish buddha bringing enlightenment to a people stuck in a dank world of abusive patriarchal gods, but he is not yet able to completely let go of those abusive patriarchal gods.
and that infection has lasted to the modern times. the abusive patriarchal gods are still here, still menacing civilization with their absurdities. they still have supporters who refuse to see the light and move on.
The depth of VoidSpirit's unteachability and ignorance is just about fathomless. For this reason I do not like to waste my time engaging him.
For anyone else's sake though, who wants me to respond to this last post ?
Preferably someone whose mind is not on total padlocked and closedness like VoidSpirit's.
I do not like to go down that road with this poster because eventually he may be insultive and blasphemous against God thinking that this is his way of winning an argument - Argument by Repulsing and Sickening the other.
Does anyone want me to address this last diatribe of this poster ?
Originally posted by jaywillExodus 21
SwissGambit,
Please site example of selling daughter into SEX slavery. I need chapter and verse.
7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter.
10 “If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. 11 If he fails in any of these three obligations, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou don't know what you are talking about, as usual, even when it comes to your own holy book.
Man has made many bad things legal over these many years. That does not mean God says these bad things are good, even if some people in the Holy Bible say they are legal. It is ridiculious for you to blame God. It is also stupid. Even Jesus said that divorce was not meant to be in the beginning by God, but due to the hardness of the peoples hearts, Moses ...[text shortened]... s not the point of view of God, but the point of view of a very knowledgeable man for that time.
Read Exodus 21 and tell me who is speaking, please.