05 Jan 13
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI raised them because it didnt matter what sexual practice we were talking about
You raised bestiality and child rape, not me. You raised them because I mentioned homosexuality.
the only point in that discussion was that some people would be on one side and
there would be others on the other side. You wanted to go into specifics about
sex I didn't care about for this discussion, still do not. I'm not going to continue
this with you.
Kelly
05 Jan 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayNo one is trying to "force" you to like homosexuality. The question is, what freedom of yours - and of the people on your "side" - is "curtailed" when homosexuals are permitted to lead their lives as they want to?
I raised them because it didnt matter what sexual practice we were talking about
the only point in that discussion was that some people would be on one side and
there would be others on the other side. You wanted to go into specifics about
sex I didn't care about for this discussion, still do not. I'm not going to continue
this with you.
Kelly
05 Jan 13
Originally posted by KellyJayA wise decision. We can not reason with the demon that lurks within him. The demon must be exorcised first.
I raised them because it didnt matter what sexual practice we were talking about
the only point in that discussion was that some people would be on one side and
there would be others on the other side. You wanted to go into specifics about
sex I didn't care about for this discussion, still do not. I'm not going to continue
this with you.
Kelly
05 Jan 13
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd you think debate is not valuable?
I'm saying that unless you have a standard that everyone equally is bound by
all you have is a debate nothing more.
Kelly
We do have standards that everyone is bound by. They are called laws. Many have been created to help encourage people to act in accordance with generally accepted moral values.
Many of these laws have stemmed from the very debates that you seem to think are not valuable. The abolition of slavery is one.
05 Jan 13
Originally posted by whodeyI don't see the relevance of abortion to this discussion; perhaps you should raise a new thread if you wish to consider that particular issue rather than the current subject?
Yes, just like abortion is today, however, to make it palatable enough to allow it to continue in society is another matter.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Jan 13
4 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
In addition to the fact that you've taken some of those verses out of context, you don't seem to be taking into account the fact that there were different rules for actions toward Hebrews vs. non-Hebrews.
For example:
Leviticus 25
44‘As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—[b]you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
You also seem to be ignoring the fact that the Bible gives permission to severely beat slaves:[/b]
Exodus 21
20“If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21“If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
If a man strikes his male servant or his female servant with a staff so that he or she dies as a result of the blow , he shall surely be punished [naqam]. However, if the injured servant survives one or two days, the owner will not be punished [naqam], for he has suffered the loss. (Exod. 21:20-21 NET)
Alledgedly, this treatment of the servant suggests to some that he is owned as a possession. "Slave" to the modern mind would reinforce this more so than if "servant" were used perhaps.
The words "he is his property" is literally better if rendered "he is his money". Some might translate this "he is his loss". The word literally means "money"; so is this person a commodity to exchange rather than a person to value?
The OT affirms the full personhood of this dept-servant as would have been affirmed in passages like (Gen. 1:26-27; Job 31:13-15; Deut. 15:1-18). Exodus 21:20-21 is not an exception to the teaching of the full personhood of the servant.
If the master struck a servant so that he immediately DIED, the master would be tried for capital punishment: "he shall be AVENGED" (Exo. 21:20 ESV) This verb naqam always involvess the death penalty in the Old Testament. So the implication is that judicial vengence is rendered for the master murdering the servant.
This idea is reinforced by the mentioning of taking "life for life" (Exo. 21:23-24) which follows immediately after the servant beating passage.
Do you know of any law in the slavery of the Southern US where a master was charged with capital murder for beating a slave to death ? If not then you should consider a improvement over the slave laws as were prescribed in the South US.
Othe aspects of Exodus 21:20-21 I can discuss latter.
05 Jan 13
Originally posted by Rank outsiderOh I think debate is very valuable! Laws do not always reflex morals, unless you
And you think debate is not valuable?
We do have standards that everyone is bound by. They are called laws. Many have been created to help encourage people to act in accordance with generally accepted moral values.
Many of these laws have stemmed from the very debates that you seem to think are not valuable. The abolition of slavery is one.
want to say that when slavery was lawful it was moral too. Generally accepted
moral laws to you may not be the same to me, so who is right and wrong? Debate
if you cared what I had to say would be meaningful, but if I didn't care what you
had to say would be meaningless. I don't think you can call one group bad or
good if they were acting under the accepted practices of the day if you don't have
a standard that applies to all throughout all time. If slavery comes back into
accepted practice by the majority would it then have to be moral?
Kelly
05 Jan 13
Originally posted by avalanchethecatIt shows that the majority of people at the time accepted it as a norm and do not
Well it does rather clearly show that the moral standard you would have us all adhere to is flawed, does it not?
now. So slavery didn't change, people's views did, and if they changed once they
can again and would that than mean slavery is now okay?
Kelly
05 Jan 13
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, in terms of the subject of this thread it would appear to show that most people now would consider that a biblical standard of morality is an inadequate yardstick against which to judge our behaviour.
It shows that the majority of people at the time accepted it as a norm and do not
now. So slavery didn't change, people's views did, and if they changed once they
can again and would that than mean slavery is now okay?
Kelly