Originally posted by GSWILL
I (sonship) did not take any passage "out of context". I simply did not quote EACH AND EVERY PASSAGE on the subject.

I (sonship) did not DENY that the Bible mentions slaves and slavery.
Quote me where I DENIED that Israel had slaves.

So then what DID I (sonship) write? I wrote that KIDNAPPING was punishable by the death penalty. And I DID write ding [b]Is God A Moral Monster ?- Making Sense of the Old Testament God by Paul Copan.[/b]

I (sonship) did not take any passage "out of context". I simply did not quote EACH AND EVERY PASSAGE on the subject.

Let's look at what you did say:

Do you think that the "slavery" as practiced by the Atlantic Slave trade would have been possible if these Levitical laws had been adhered to ?

Anti -Kidnapping Law - "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be out to death." (Exodus 21:16)

Does the Bible mention slavery? Yes. Do you think this law of punishing the kidnapper with the death penalty encourages or discourages the KIND of slavery practiced in the Atlantic Slave Trade ?

I think the stealing of people and the selling of people to be slaves is here, commanded by Moses as a crime punishable by death.

See also Deutoernony 24:7 and see Paul New Testament reference to "kidnappers" being contrary to "healthy teaching" - (1 Tim. 1:10)

What's of importance here is the verse you cite from the Deuteronomic Code. An explanation of the Deuteromic Code follows:

The Deuteronomic Code, found in Deuteronomy, chapters 12–26, is a reinterpretation or revision of Israelite law, based on historical conditions as interpreted by the 7th-century-bc historians known as the Deuteronomists.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/159728/Deuteronomic-Code

From what I gather, the passage you mentioned from Deut. 24:7 is generally accepted as a clarification of Exodus 21:16.

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 thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you.

Deuteronomy clarifies that what was meant by "man" in Exodus is "countrymen", which is a much narrower definition than what you presented above. It seemed like you were claiming that the verse from Exodus is speaking agaisnt the "KIND of slavery practiced in the Atlantic Slave Trade." However, that doesn't hold water since in that "KIND of slavery" the slaves were not "countrymen". They were foreign imports. What you presented was misleading at best.

The passage you cited to prop up what you call "Slave Refuge Laws" is also generally accepted as having a narrower meaning than what you presented. Once again what you presented was misleading at best.

Originally posted by sonship

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that the Bible gives permission to severely beat slaves:
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 ...[text shortened]... bed in the South US.

Othe aspects of Exodus 21:20-21 I can discuss latter.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. The fact remains that the Bible gives permission to practice a brand of slavery that, for all intents and purposes, was not all that different from that which was practiced in the US including severely beating slaves - even to death (just not within 1 or 2 days).

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Well, 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.

What standards have people not rejected, simply having people reject some
thing does not mean it was a bad one.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you accept people who have different views on sex, some feel somethings
are okay others everything is. If you side with either you stand against the
other, so how are you not discriminating?
Kelly

I can have completely different views on sex to my neighbour
but still abide by the same laws and have the same morals.
There does not have to be any discrimination! Can you give an
example, as I am struggling to see what the problem iss.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
So you're not advocating the bible as an arbiter of morality?

Any standard you come up with will be rejected, even scripture talks about
that, after all, the Law brings death, but the Spirit brings life. If what we
require is something internal to guide us, then simply following a 'book' even
the Bible will never be enough.
Kelly

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I can have completely different views on sex to my neighbour
but still abide by the same laws and have the same morals.
There does not have to be any discrimination! Can you give an
example, as I am struggling to see what the problem iss.

You show restraint which is outstanding, not all do.
Kelly

Originally posted by kd2acz

For many, one's moral compass is their faith. For others a moral compass is values that are passed down from parents, grandparents, etc. (which may be faith based or not). Still others, a moral compass is more culturally based, or what is based on the given law were one lives. What do you claim to be your moral compass, is it any of the above or something else?

Conscience (norms and standards acquired and resident in the human soul).

Originally posted by KellyJay
You missed the discussion completely, we are done.
Kelly

I believe you started this side-track by asserting that a non-discriminatory common morality (in some distant future) was impossible because not everyone would agree.

You have not given any concrete examples to support this except the trivial example of discriminating against people with different opinions.

All I am suggesting is that at some time in the future there may be a shared morality whereby all the citizens of the earth agree on what is morally right and what is morally wrong. That would not preclude arguments on where to build a new space port or the artistic merits of Damien Hirst!

Originally posted by KellyJay
You show restraint which is outstanding, not all do.
Kelly

Your wrong.
Most people accept differences.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I believe you started this side-track by asserting that a non-discriminatory common morality (in some distant future) was impossible because not everyone would agree.

You have not given any concrete examples to support this except the trivial example of discriminating against people with different opinions.

All I am suggesting is that at some time i ...[text shortened]... ot preclude arguments on where to build a new space port or the artistic merits of Damien Hirst!

Yes, you have a few billion people with different views...what could go wrong?
Kelly

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Your wrong.
Most people accept differences.

You say most as if that is a meaningful word here, the fact remains that even
if 90% do accept it 10% don't. Look at the gun law debate, it does not matter
that legal law bidding people are not doing the crimes, those are the ones that
people want to change their rights, abortion debate where unborn are killed
each time. Accepting laws and changing them because you disagree is common
place, there isn't anything that binds us together where we are not pulling
away in one place or another.
Kelly

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Your wrong.
Most people accept differences.

So beheadings, people getting their hands cut off, people going to prison is
just an acceptable agreement result among those in agreement on what we
can and cannot do?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
What standards have people not rejected, simply having people reject some
thing does not mean it was a bad one.
Kelly

Are you saying that you don't think slavery is necessarily a bad thing? Or are you trying to cloud the issue with some hypothetical subject which may or may not be bad but which people have agreed is bad? Because, frankly, either way all this sidestepping is getting a bit boring now; the OP was about where we get our moral guidance from and the discussion polarised between a scriptural basis and an agreed subjective alternative. You seem unwilling to declare your own feelings, and yet compelled to argue against opinions expressed by others. Are you just trying to wind somebody up?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Conscience (norms and standards acquired and resident in the human soul).

Well, "mind" anyway. You'd have to demonstrate the existence of the soul before you claim it as the seat of conscience, it would seem to me.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Well, "mind" anyway. You'd have to demonstrate the existence of the soul before you claim it as the seat of conscience, it would seem to me.

We Christians take the word of the Son of God that the soul exists. We make no effort to prove or disprove the soul's existence. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!