Another OT law

Originally posted by 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.

the kind of insane people defending homeopathy have. or astrology.


cowardice because he cannot allow himself to think and form an opinion besides what his pastor/priest/minister/witch doctor tells him to, for fear that he would go to hell. that is cowardice. standing up for what is obviously wrong, for fear of what would happen to oneself.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
the kind of insane people defending homeopathy have. or astrology.


cowardice because he cannot allow himself to think and form an opinion besides what his pastor/priest/minister/witch doctor tells him to, for fear that he would go to hell. that is cowardice. standing up for what is obviously wrong, for fear of what would happen to oneself.

cowardice because he cannot allow himself to think and form an opinion besides what his pastor/priest/minister/witch doctor tells him to, for fear that he would go to hell. that is cowardice. standing up for what is obviously wrong, for fear of what would happen to oneself.

If YOU do not want to appear cowardly, then you will stick to the subject of your thread. I detect you wanting now to hop off like a grasshopper to another complaint.

"Get em about hell and priests, and ministers, and clergy laity, etc."

Stay with your complaint, your "another gem" and see it through and don't cowardly run off to another criticism, and another, and another, ... ad infinitum.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
the kind of insane people defending homeopathy have. or astrology.


cowardice because he cannot allow himself to think and form an opinion besides what his pastor/priest/minister/witch doctor tells him to, for fear that he would go to hell. that is cowardice. standing up for what is obviously wrong, for fear of what would happen to oneself.

No, sorry. It's just counterproductive hyperbole on your part. You can't even set up a discussion about this topic on a spirituality forum without trying to poison the well within the first five words of your OP.

Originally posted by sonship

cowardice because he cannot allow himself to think and form an opinion besides what his pastor/priest/minister/witch doctor tells him to, for fear that he would go to hell. that is cowardice. standing up for what is obviously wrong, for fear of what would happen to oneself.

If YOU do not want to appear cowardly, then you will stick to th ...[text shortened]... ugh and don't cowardly run off to another criticism, and another, and another, ... ad infinitum.

But the fact remains, your so-called god condoned slavery and sex slavery to boot. Just more proof it was men who wrote those verses and all the rest of the verses in their attempt to make it look like the words were inspired by a god.

A god like that we don't need, not now, not in the past, not in the future.

Originally posted by sonship

cowardice because he cannot allow himself to think and form an opinion besides what his pastor/priest/minister/witch doctor tells him to, for fear that he would go to hell. that is cowardice. standing up for what is obviously wrong, for fear of what would happen to oneself.

If YOU do not want to appear cowardly, then you will stick to th ...[text shortened]... ugh and don't cowardly run off to another criticism, and another, and another, ... ad infinitum.

have a chill pill. i was responding to a point made by someone else. i already responded to you and your nauseating excuse of daughters being sold as sex toys/slaves without any input from the daughter.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi

heh, 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.

What are you quoting exactly when you wrote - "a man may sell his daughter like property".

WHAT are you quoting ?

Originally posted by sonship

heh, 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.

What are you quoting exactly when you wrote - [b]"a man may sell his daughter like property".

WHAT are you quoting ?[/b]

Maybe from here, Evil bible:

http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

Originally posted by Zahlanzi

have a chill pill. i was responding to a point made by someone else. i already responded to you and your nauseating excuse of daughters being sold as sex toys/slaves without any input from the daughter.

The passage has absolutely nothing to do with selling a daughter as a sex slave. You're ignorant.

The passage has to do with debt servitude which was an unfortunate part of ancient near eastern culture.

Today in the sports world we talk of one team "owning" certain player or of someone being "sold" from one team to another. This does not mean they are dehumanized property does it ?

Compared to the ancient Hebrew laws given by Moses, the treatment of slaves was far less humane in other surrounding cultures.

In this passage an impoverished family hires out a daughter as a temporary dept servant. In the process of her service the master desires to MARRY her. That is not rape her and that is not toy with her. That is he desires to follow other laws about Hebrew marriage and take her for a wife.

Got that? A slave or servant who becomes a master's WIFE. Now divorce was also a sad fact of life then as it is today. So God made provision for divorce, which God says He hates (Malachi 2:16).

This portion of Exodus is instructions in the complicated case in which a husband of his servant wife he decides he wants to divorce. There is a provision included in case he decides that he wants to give the former wife / servant to his son.

While it would take more time to study the case more fully, I can see the essence of it. It is more about protecting the woman in that situation.

You say you quoted a portion of the passage on purpose. I like to think that there are some people who are seeking explanations to honest problems they have in the Bible. In your case I think you only wish to establish criticism. And your approach to do so is not commendable. It is more like dirty politics.

Anyway, the law appears to be more concerned with preserving the dignity and rights of the female servant.

This is a case law describing what to do in a complicated situation. It is not God's command to go off and get into that situation.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Maybe from here, Evil bible:

http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

I don't know. But if the poster boasts that OTHERS are cowardly and he is not, then he should confess up HIMSELF what he is quoting.

Originally posted by sonship

heh, 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.

What are you quoting exactly when you wrote - [b]"a man may sell his daughter like property".

WHAT are you quoting ?[/b]

Exodus 21:7

Originally posted by sonship

[b]have a chill pill. i was responding to a point made by someone else. i already responded to you and your nauseating excuse of daughters being sold as sex toys/slaves without any input from the daughter.

The passage has absolutely nothing to do with selling a daughter as a sex slave. You're ignorant.

The passage has to do wit ...[text shortened]... to do in a complicated situation. It is not God's command to go off and get into that situation.[/b]

" hires out a daughter as a temporary dept servant."
wrong. not temporary since it is stated she may not go free like male slaves do.
the only way she can ever go free is if the master has sex with her AND mistreats her. other than that, we have a woman made a slave for ever, that can be given as a wife to another slave, in order to settle a debt her father had.
she is a commodity and you find this excusable.


"A slave or servant who becomes a master's WIFE"
only if the master is having sex with her.


" This is a case law describing what to do in a complicated situation."
yes, and the solution to this complicated situation is to have an innocent, the daughter, be sold into slavery and never be able to free herself unless very specific circumstances , for no fault of her own.

rather than have the father, the one who was indebted in the first place, go to prison, or become a slave himself. that would have been a less evil solution to this "complicated situation"

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
Exodus 21:7

What English version of the Old Testament are you quoting ?

I don't see any English rendering of "property".

New International Version
"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.

New Living Translation
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.

English Standard Version
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.

New American Standard Bible
"If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.

King James Bible
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she is not to leave as the male slaves do.

International Standard Version
"When a man sells his daughter as a servant, she won't go out as the male servants do.

NET Bible
"If a man sells his daughter as a female servant, she will not go out as the male servants do.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
"Whenever a man sells his daughter into slavery, she will not go free the way male slaves do.

Jubilee Bible 2000
And if a man should sell his daughter to be a maidslave, she shall not go out as the menslaves do.

King James 2000 Bible
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

American King James Version
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

American Standard Version
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do.

Douay-Rheims Bible
If any man sell his daughter to be a servant, she shall not go out as bondwomen are wont to go out.

Darby Bible Translation
And if a man shall sell his daughter as a handmaid, she shall not go out as the bondmen go out.

If you were really interested to know what is in the Bible you should consult loose paraphrases last. Especially, loose paraphrases done by enemies of either Judaism or the Christian faith.

I recommend a few good translations for those with honest questions. Dirty politician types, doesn't matter.

1901 American Standard
Darby's New Translation
Recovery Version
Amplified
New King James

There are plenty of good English translations.

Originally posted by sonship
What English version of the Old Testament are you quoting ?

I don't see any English rendering of "property".


[quote] [b] New International Version
"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.

New Living Translation
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the en ...[text shortened]... Darby's New Translation
Recovery Version

There are plenty of good English translations.[/b]

I am surprised how many fancy name for 'slave' is used: servant, maidservant, maidslave, and handmaid only in these translations. At least one, or probably all but one, of these bibles are lying, or at least sloppy translated. How can we trust the rest of the black book? I would say we should be very cautious when we read all other passages from it. From Genesis 1:1 to Relevation 22:21.

And what is the moral in this (because it is from the bible all christian base their morals)? That it is okay to sell your daughter as a slave if only you know that she cannot go out as her male colleges do?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi

" hires out a daughter as a temporary dept servant."
wrong. not temporary since it is stated she may not go free like male slaves do.

It cannot mean there is no going out free or else the rest of the passage doesn't make sense.

It must mean not go out in exactly the same manner in some respects.

The law in Deuteronomy 15:12 about seven year liberation, I already proved to you, was for both men and women.

There was no permanent servitude in this theocratic society. They had seven years cycles and a 50 year "Year of Jubiliee" liberation.

In fact we read how God disciplined the Jews for failing to obey the liberation clause and taking their servants back, in the book of Jeremiah.

the only way she can ever go free is if the master has sex with her AND mistreats her.

He is not allowed to JUST have sex with her. He is allowed to MARRY her.

Prove from the Old Testament that a master has the right to have sex with his female slave.

other than that, we have a woman made a slave for ever, that can be given as a wife to another slave, in order to settle a debt her father had.
she is a commodity and you find this excusable.

I want your quotations from the Bible supporting your claims. You're going to bear some burden of the research and heavy lifting here. No more all day long chasing chit chat, off the cuff comments.

I am not going to play whack-a-mole with chit chat comments.
We will first see if you tell me where you quote "property" in any reputable English translation. Let's see if you can get through that first.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
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.

Since some (insane and cowardly) people continue to defend the OT...
There is no defense possible for doing the wrong thing.
There is no defense necessary for doing the right thing.

When you set yourself up as the arbiter of what is right (or sane and brave, for that matter), you run the risk of looking the fool when the words are put back into context.
You know, kinda like how this whole thread splattered all over your cream-colored polyester slacks?
Word to the wise: poop stains are very hard to get out of polyester, so you shouldn't go around hitting it with your very impressive stick.

And, incidentally, there is not a single word anywhere within the passage of verses seven through 11 which could be transliterated anything near the term "property" as you so quote.

Gem, indeed.

You've clearly made up your mind on the topic without so much as anything resembling objectivity, so why don't you do the sane and brave thing and just broadcast to everyone the true source of your disgust: xenophobia mixed with a hatred toward God?