2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauder1. There are tribes with worse laws even today.
1. The law I mentioned is sooooooooo stupid, I can't imagine it "bridging" from an even stupider one.
2. Where is Deutronomy 6 does it say any such thing? Here's the first couple of lines:
1 Now this is the commandment, the statutes, and the ordinances, which Jehovah your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye y life; and that thy days may be prolonged.
Where is this supposed differential?
EDIT: Okay, maybe there aren't. But, considering slavery was legal less than two centuries ago in our most developed nations, I don't see why you think it unbelievable that worse laws existed 3,500 years ago!
2. Sorry - it was Dt 5. Read from v.22 on.
Just to clarify, No1 is likely referencing Exodus 21:20,21.
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."
Correct me if I am sooooooooooo wrong.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOf course, but I'm not really interested in the question of slavery per se. I'm interested in this particular law which seems completely insane and self-contradictory (if he's "your money" sufficient to warrant no punishment at all if he crawls away why is he not "your money" o that you should be punished if he does under your hand?).
Although you are clearly driving at something which will be eventually revealed to hold no water, let me divert the inevitable long enough to throw one your way.
Do you believe slavery to be wrong?
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, that's just a counterexample (but it also shows why the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative is better than the Golden Rule). Anyway, it's doubtful that Jesus originated the Golden Rule anyway.
I'm guessing that's because of the "What would a masochist do?" question?
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHObviously that is one of the new, "improved" translations. Hold on a sec and I'll get the ASV.
Just to clarify, No1 is likely referencing Exodus 21:20,21.
"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."
Correct me if I am sooooooooooo wrong.
20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall surely be punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
A bit different, ain't it? "Continue a day or two" clearly means dies in that period as a direct result of the rodding.
Originally posted by lucifershammerLaws enabling slavery in the modern era aren't purported to come from the Christian God. Those of the Bible are. That's why it's unbelievable.
EDIT: Okay, maybe there aren't. But, considering slavery was legal less than two centuries ago in our most developed nations, I don't see why you think it unbelievable that worse laws existed 3,500 years ago!
Originally posted by no1marauderThe question of slavery, per se, is germane to the issue. While in our sanitized 21st century, we are aghast at the mere thought of the brutality of slavery, our shock is only due to our ignorance of reality.
Of course, but I'm not really interested in the question of slavery per se. I'm interested in this particular law which seems completely insane and self-contradictory (if he's "your money" sufficient to warrant no punishment at all if he crawls away why is he not "your money" o that you should be punished if he does under your hand?).
The reality is, the degree to which your work is the claim of another is equal to the degree of your slavery. Death grips (mortgages) are slavery. What is more humane: to be the property of another for an entire span of seven years (maximum penalty within Jewish law), or the property of your mortgage company for 15-30 years, or worse, of your government for your entire adult life? Just my opinion, but if slavery is inevitable (and it most decisively is), I'd take the old system over our current one in a heartbeat.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHCan you say "off on a tangent"?
The question of slavery, per se, is germane to the issue. While in our sanitized 21st century, we are aghast at the mere thought of the brutality of slavery, our shock is only due to our ignorance of reality.
The reality is, the degree to which your work is the claim of another is equal to the degree of your slavery. Death grips (mortgages) are slav ...[text shortened]... table (and it most decisively is), I'd take the old system over our current one in a heartbeat.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo offense, but your exegetical treatment leaves much to be desired. "He continue" might as well be applied to the person doing the beating, if you aren't going to follow the language as it was intended.
Obviously that is one of the new, "improved" translations. Hold on a sec and I'll get the ASV.
20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall surely be punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
A bit different, ain't it? "Continue a day or two" clearly means dies in that period as a direct result of the rodding.
"He continue" refers to the slave not suffering permanent injury. Proof? We could pull out the Hebrew, but why not just read a few sentences further in the passage to obtain the tenor of the ordinances relative to slave ownership. If a slave loses a tooth (!) due to a beating, the slave goes free. Like I said before, your argument (alas! again!) holds no water.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBS. "Continue a day or two" means no permanent injury???? I won't even dignify that "interpretation" by characterizing it as anything but complete and utter BS.
No offense, but your exegetical treatment leaves much to be desired. "He continue" might as well be applied to the person doing the beating, if you aren't going to follow the language as it was intended.
"He continue" refers to the slave not suffering permanent injury. Proof? We could pull out the Hebrew, but why not just read a few sentences further ...[text shortened]... ing, the slave goes free. Like I said before, your argument (alas! again!) holds no water.
EDIT: I do like the stoning to death of an ox in verse 28. Another completely rational law.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammer1. I said the law was stupid, not "bad" (though it surely is that). Please find me a stupider one in ancient times.
1. There are tribes with worse laws even today.
EDIT: Okay, maybe there aren't. But, considering slavery was legal less than two centuries ago in our most developed nations, I don't see why you think it unbelievable that worse laws existed 3,500 years ago!
2. Sorry - it was Dt 5. Read from v.22 on.
2. I stand corrected. But why aren't the Ten Commandments also undone by the "New Covenant"? What makes these particular provisions that much different from the others? Their vagueness?
Originally posted by no1marauderAgain, no offense, but your arguments are boring. Akin to something you'd expect from a junior high school student who figured they'd 'get to the bottom of all this.'
BS. "Continue a day or two" means no permanent injury???? I won't even dignify that "interpretation" by characterizing it as anything but complete and utter BS.
EDIT: I do like the stoning to death of an ox in verse 28. Another completely rational law.
You'll have to do better than this if you expect to engage me.