27 Mar 14
Originally posted by sonshipsells
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]... very Version
Amplified
New King James
There are plenty of good English translations.[/b]
what can you sell ?
can you sell free people?
can you sell things you do not own?
that abominable piece of crap doesn't debate whether it is moral or not for a father to sell his daughter to pay for his fukups. it just assumes that as a right, and simply moves on to list the few rights said daughter should have.
they tolerated an evil situation and thought it was made ok by offering some minor concessions to the victim.
27 Mar 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHi don't hate god. i am quite spiritual. i believe in god.
[b]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 ...[text shortened]... roadcast to everyone the true source of your disgust: xenophobia mixed with a hatred toward God?[/b]
what i don't believe in is that piece of crap text made by a patriarchal, barbaric society. a text that condones slavery, justifies genocide, arbitrary punishments for minor offences and so much more.
the law discusses the situation of an innocent girl/woman made sold into slavery. no matter how you try to sugar coat it, she was to serve her master, sexually if he wanted, with no way to get out unless the master was mistreating her in an obvious manner, because who would take her word over his if she would denounce him.
you are defending this abominable piece of crp.
i don't have anything against God. he didn't write this crp.
i don't have anything against those savages. they simply were not enlightened enough.
my beef is with you and people like you who in this current state of civilization defends such a text.
27 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziWell, other than that, it's ok, right?🙂
i don't hate god. i am quite spiritual. i believe in god.
what i don't believe in is that piece of crap text made by a patriarchal, barbaric society. a text that condones slavery, justifies genocide, arbitrary punishments for minor offences and so much more.
the law discusses the situation of an innocent girl/woman made sold into slavery. no matte ...[text shortened]... f is with you and people like you who in this current state of civilization defends such a text.
I totally agree with you. 'nuff said. Except the part where I believe in some god. Maybe there are gods and maybe not, I can't tell, they never talked to me. If they do, after I have a good mental evaluation, maybe I would believe there could be such a being.
If so, I just think they give a crap about the human race or for Earth either.
We are no better than the dinosaurs in that a big enough incoming could wipe us out as surely as what happened 65 million years ago.
It's hard to fight a 3000 mile diameter firestorm.
A god didn't come down to save the dino's and I don't think a god, assuming it or they exist, cares enough to worry about biological outcomes of its pets.
27 Mar 14
Originally posted by Zahlanzii don't hate god. i am quite spiritual. i believe in god.
i don't hate god. i am quite spiritual. i believe in god.
what i don't believe in is that piece of crap text made by a patriarchal, barbaric society. a text that condones slavery, justifies genocide, arbitrary punishments for minor offences and so much more.
the law discusses the situation of an innocent girl/woman made sold into slavery. no matte ...[text shortened]... f is with you and people like you who in this current state of civilization defends such a text.
One can both believe in God and hate Him, or at the very least, hate His ways and means or methods of getting stuff done.
How do you think we ever got to the place where Christianity even became a possibility, if it wasn't for the OT?
How did the Jews ever get out of Egypt, if some eggs hadn't first been broken?
what i don't believe in is that piece of crap text...
Really?
As a Christian, my faith isn't in the Bible; it is based upon the things I read there.
What do you believe in, then?
...patriarchal, barbaric society. a text that condones slavery, justifies genocide, arbitrary punishments for minor offences and so much more.
Let's turn that frown upside down, shall we?
What, in your esteemed perspective as you consider the panoply of human history, is the best order for society, if not patriarchal?
Barbaric?
According to... ?
Slavery is a fact of life since time on the planet began.
I wager a useless bet that you're a slave right this very minute... and you don't even know it.
i don't have anything against those savages. they simply were not enlightened enough.
my beef is with you and people like you who in this current state of civilization defends such a text.
I'm sure you didn't REALLY mean to convey the concept that today's man is so much more advanced as a civilization than in the past.
Did you?
27 Mar 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBH"How do you think we ever got to the place where Christianity even became a possibility, if it wasn't for the OT?"
[b]i don't hate god. i am quite spiritual. i believe in god.
One can both believe in God and hate Him, or at the very least, hate His ways and means or methods of getting stuff done.
How do you think we ever got to the place where Christianity even became a possibility, if it wasn't for the OT?
How did the Jews ever get out of Egypt, if some eg ...[text shortened]... oncept that today's man is so much more advanced as a civilization than in the past.
Did you?[/b]
We came to christianity exactly because OT was so horrible.
"the best order for society, if not patriarchal?"
not anything. not patriarchal not matriarchal.
but i wasn't advocating for one or the other, i simply mentioned this as one of the explanations why women seem to get the short end in those messed up laws.
"As a Christian, my faith isn't in the Bible; it is based upon the things I read
there."
phrasing like this make you sound like you had a bag of words and had to use them all up. those sentences are equivalent.
"I'm sure you didn't REALLY mean to convey the concept that today's man is so much more advanced as a civilization than in the past.
Did you?"
yes, i did.
we are superior in every possible way. and we are getting better.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
27 Mar 14
5 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i don't hate god. i am quite spiritual. i believe in god.
what i don't believe in is that piece of crap text made by a patriarchal, barbaric society. a text that condones slavery, justifies genocide, arbitrary punishments for minor offences and so much more.
the law discusses the situation of an innocent girl/woman made sold into slavery. no matte ...[text shortened]... f is with you and people like you who in this current state of civilization defends such a text.
the law discusses the situation of an innocent girl/woman made sold into slavery. no matter how you try to sugar coat it, she was to serve her master, sexually if he wanted,
I gave you about an hour or so and you haven't substantiated your accusations against the Hebrews well.
1.) You have not had the decency to confess that your "property" quotation which you submitted as part of the Bible, you have no reputable English translation source for.
2.) You have shown us nothing from the Old Testament showing any master could toy with or fornicate with a slave.
Where is the law permitting that?
Where is the law saying a woman had to tolerate that?
Where is the law saying the slave's parents had to put up with that ?
Dept slavery are often preferable to starvation.
And an impoverished family, knowing that they could not take care of a child, might feel forced to sell their son's or daughter's services to a wealthy family. They at least knew that while serving they would be clothed, sheltered and fed.
There is no reason for me to assume a mother and father had no conscience in considering the offspring that they felt compelled to make her services available.
Today, a family strapped for finance might demand that a youngster in the house of the proper age go out and get a summer job.
I remember the day my mother told me that I had to get a job in order to help with the finances of the house. I considered it one of the days I realized some of the realities of growing up.
There were also the judges in the land of Israel. And it was not impossible for a family to take their case to one of the priest like judges for adjudication. Moses had instituted them for hard cases. And the hardest of the hard cases were to be brought to him.
There was also a dignity in the dept-servant. While it was never ideal to be in poverty or dept, it was honorable to work off the dept. And God so to it that there was no perpetual slavery of His people with the seven year and fifty year dept cancellation program.
Now I challenge you to produce an OLDER human document indicating the respect for a slave or servant than is found in the oldest book of the Bible - Job.
Job 31:13-15 - "If I have despised the cause of my servant or my maid when they contended with me, What then will I do when God rises up? And when He visits me, what will I answer Him?
Did not He who made me in the womb make him? And was it not One who fashioned us in the womb ? "
Job is the oldest book in the Hebrew canon. Can you submit an ancient writing older than this indicating a master's God fearing sensitivity as to how he treated his slaves ?
Genesis 1:26,27 established the God ordained dignity of every single human being whether rich or poor. The Hebrews knew this and it informed their behavior towards people who needed to sell their services to escape poverty.
The servants in Israel were given rights unlike most ancient Near Eastern contemporary societies - legally and human rights wise. We see in the Bible the treating of slaves as human beings for their own sake rather than just decent treatment for the sake of the masters / employer. By comparison, the idea of a slave as exclusively the object of rights and as a person outside of the regular society was apparently alien to the rest of the ancient Near East.
It is no wonder than that Methodist, Quaker, and Mennonite theologians were so instrumental in the American Abolition movement. These Christian denominations argued from the Bible against the slave trade and eventually prevailed on the consciences of enough Americans to want to end Slavery.
But to the problem at hand. You, Zahlanzi, are going to prove to me that the master had a God ordained right to commit forncation or otherwise sexually abuse his female servant.
You're going to get your Bible out and prove that to me.
And I do not mean show me a record of something that happened.
I mean show me the divinely instituted right of sex slavery from Mount Sinai.
27 Mar 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziI'm going to go deep into the archives of some with whom you share a kindred spirit, the folk (yes, that is singular for folks) at Evil Bible.com.
"How do you think we ever got to the place where Christianity even became a possibility, if it wasn't for the OT?"
We came to christianity exactly because OT was so horrible.
"the best order for society, if not patriarchal?"
not anything. not patriarchal not matriarchal.
but i wasn't advocating for one or the other, i simply mentioned this as one ...[text shortened]...
Did you?"
yes, i did.
we are superior in every possible way. and we are getting better.
Good ol' misguided Chris "Ali Baba" Thiefe has sooooo much to say on all topics Old Testament-y, so it only seems fitting to offer some of his "sage wisdom" to help counter some of your misguided notions.
We came to christianity exactly because OT was so horrible.
There is an inference within this phrase which suggests that Christianity is based on a setting aside of the OT; as though the Lord Jesus Christ Himself felt that this (OT) just wouldn't do, something more palatable needs to be offered.
Mr. Thiefe (holy carp, is that an incredibly appropriate name for this feller, or what) demands to differ.
He offers no less than 33 separate passages of New Testament denouncements of such thinking, ten of which are direct quotes from the person on whom Christianity is based... the Lord Jesus Christ!
linkage: http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm
So, there goes that idea.
Drats.
not anything. not patriarchal not matriarchal.
Poor simpleton.
Poor, naïve Zahlanzi.
Imagine, if you will, the following scenario.
Three competing gunslingers decide to meet with an eye on détente within their mutual territory of terror.
In a show of trust, they each place their weapons on the meeting table in full view of the others.
Q.: Who will now 'rule' the territory?
A.: Whichever of the three is quickest to pick up their gun.
Moral of the story: someone/something is going to rule.
Figure it out before you put your gun on the table, or before you ask others to do the same, numbnuts.
phrasing like this make you sound like you had a bag of words and had to use them all up. those sentences are equivalent.
Then my phrasing was wrong.
I intended to say that my faith is in what the Bible talks about.
I obviously have faith in the Bible, in the sense that I believe it is the written word of God, but I don't worship it--- rather, I worship the Person of whom the Bible speaks.
Does that clear it up?
yes, i did.
we are superior in every possible way. and we are getting better.
The hopelessness of your world view is staggering.
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBH"The hopelessness of your world view is staggering"
I'm going to go deep into the archives of some with whom you share a kindred spirit, the folk (yes, that is singular for folks) at Evil Bible.com.
Good ol' misguided Chris "Ali Baba" Thiefe has sooooo much to say on all topics Old Testament-y, so it only seems fitting to offer some of his "sage wisdom" to help counter some of your misguided notions ...[text shortened]... possible way. and we are getting better.
The hopelessness of your world view is staggering.[/b]
perhaps we should ask all the past victims of polio, small pox, and other diseases we found a cure for if they wouldn't rather live today.
perhaps we should ask the victims of the black plague if they wouldn't have rather know how diseases spread, and instead of killing all the cats, they killed the rats.
perhaps we should ask the earth bound peasants of medieval times, the cotton plantation blacks, the slaves of ancient nations, if they wouldn't rather live in modern times.
our society is objectively better. any problem we had in the past, we reduced or eradicated today. there is not one thing in the past (from the dawn of civilization until the 19th century) that was better than what we have today.
this assertion is easily falsifiable. try to think of one thing that is better.
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by sonship"You have not had the decency to confess that your "property" quotation which you submitted as part of the Bible, you have no reputable English translation source for."the law discusses the situation of an innocent girl/woman made sold into slavery. no matter how you try to sugar coat it, she was to serve her master, sexually if he wanted,
I gave you about an hour or so and you haven't substantiated your accusations against the Hebrews well.
1.) You have not had the decency to confess that your "pr ...[text shortened]... g that happened.
I mean show me the divinely instituted right of sex slavery from Mount Sinai.
let me rephrase my previous post because it seems you could not grasp it properly.
you cannot sell what you do not own. by selling something, it means it is your property. that is why no matter what translation you want to use, the father is deemed to own his daughter, because he is allowed to sell her.
do you finally get it? or do you want me to google the definition of the verb "to sell"?
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by sonshipJob is the oldest book in the Hebrew canon. Can you submit an ancient writing older than this indicating a master's God fearing sensitivity as to how he treated his slaves ?the law discusses the situation of an innocent girl/woman made sold into slavery. no matter how you try to sugar coat it, she was to serve her master, sexually if he wanted,
I gave you about an hour or so and you haven't substantiated your accusations against the Hebrews well.
1.) You have not had the decency to confess that your "pr ...[text shortened]... g that happened.
I mean show me the divinely instituted right of sex slavery from Mount Sinai.
oh, so as long as one treats his slaves well, it is ok? it is for their own good to be slaves, right? they are taken care of, fed, clothed. what more could they possibly want? do you find these familiar? because you should, they are the same justifications used by the american slave owners to justify slavery.
oh and don't quote Job when trying to portray how well slaves were treated.
those slaves were murdered by god or whoever did the smiting just to test job. they were props in the story of job. and when god was finished punishing job for his amusement, he gave him other slaves, like you replace the toys of your child, essentially saying slave lives have no value and they are interchangeable. like objects.
that is how the slave is viewed in the old testament. that is what you defend.
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziCurious that you would focus your improvements on things that have all happened from medieval times forward...
"The hopelessness of your world view is staggering"
perhaps we should ask all the past victims of polio, small pox, and other diseases we found a cure for if they wouldn't rather live today.
perhaps we should ask the victims of the black plague if they wouldn't have rather know how diseases spread, and instead of killing all the cats, they killed ...[text shortened]... we have today.
this assertion is easily falsifiable. try to think of one thing that is better.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
28 Mar 14
5 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
oh, so as long as one treats his slaves well, it is ok? it is for their own good to be slaves, right? they are taken care of, fed, clothed. what more could they possibly want? do you find these familiar? because you should, they are the same justifications used by the american slave owners to justify slavery.
Many American slavers would never agree that their slaves were created in the image of God. Many argued that the black African was subhuman and had no human soul. With the assistance of some ad hoc evolutionary science they tried to argue that the African was designed to be a beast of burden.
Genesis 1:26,27 made all men and women divine image bearers.
And God reminded the Israelites to treat their slaves well remembering thier own suffering in Egyptian slavery:
Deuteronomy 15:14 - "You must supply him richly from your flock and from your threshing floor and from your winepress; as Jehovah your God has blessed you, so shall you give to him.
And you shall REMEMBER that you were a slave in the land of Egypt and that Jehovah your God ransomed you; therefore I am commanding you this thing today. " [my emphasis]
American slavers would have had nothing to do with the kind of law God instituted RELEASING all slaves every seven years.
Deuteronomy 15:1 - "At the end of every seven years you shall issue a release. And this is the manner of the release: Every creditor shall release from his hand that which he has lent to his neighbor; he shall not exact it from his neighbor or his brother, for Jehovah's release has been proclaimed." (v.1)
"You shall not view it as a hardship when you set him free; for he served you for six years, saving you double the wages of a hired hand, and Jehovah your God will bless you in all that you do." (v.18)
Could you point to me an equivalent law pertaining to slavery in the pre-Civil War American South ?
If you cannot then you should admit that the Old Testament slavery practiced in Israel with associated laws given by God is certainly NOT like the American Slave Trade in all respects.
Please refer me to the statue of American Law in the antebellum South outlawing kidnapping to make slaves. But in the Law of Moses such an anti-kidnapping law existed:
Exodus 21:16 - "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death."
Was kidnapping black African men and women and children a capital offense in the the US ? If not then stop trying to make the accusation of equivalent cultures.
Again the New Testament echoes that such a kidnapper was a thief. And Paul reminds Timothy that it was a crime worthy of death. Compare First Timothy 1:10 to 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 thief shal die; so you shall purge the evil from among you." (Deut. 24:7)
" ... the law is not enacted for a righteous man but for the lawless and unruly, for the unglodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane ... For fornicators, homosexuals, KIDNAPPERS, liars, perjurers, and whatever other thing that is opposed to the healthy teaching." (see 1 Tim. 1:9-10)
How do you think the American slave trader and plantation master would have reacted to hear that his kidnapping humans was "lawless and unruly ... ungodly [sinful] ... unholy and profane" and "opposed to the healthy [Christian] teaching" ?
So the dept servitude made provision for in Israel was not lawless, unruly, ungodly, etc. It was not and never is ideal to be in poverty. But the essential dignity of being created in the image of God was not robbed from the impoverished person who was working off his or family debts.
Also in the Law of Moses it was forbidden to rule over a slave with rigor.
That means it was forbidden by God to treat with oppression and harshness a slave with cruel punishments.
The Hebrews had served in Egypt with oppressive rigor -
"And the Egyptians made the children of Israel serve with harshness [rigor], and they made their lives bitter with hard labor ... and made them serve ... with harshness [rigor]." (See Exodus 1:13,14)
God's commandment forbade the Israelites to do so with their Israelite slaves -
"Like a servant hired year by year he shall be with him; he shall not rule with severity over him in your sight ... For the children of Israel are My servants; they are My servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; I am Jehovah your God." (See Leviticus 25:53-55)
The Israelites masters were not then to rule with severity, rigor, or harshness by God's command.
Along with these commands there were commands NOT to restore runaway slaves to their masters.
Deut. 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," [my emphasis]
" ... we've primarily referred to Israelite servants, not foreign ones. But this particular law reveals just how different Israel's laws were from the antebellum South - despite the Confederacy's claims of following the Bible faithfully.Also, this fugitive-harboring law would have applied to Israelite servants who left harsh employers for refuge. Another unique feature in Israel's "slave laws" was this: Israel was commanded to offer safe harbor to foreign runaway slaves (Deut. 23:15-16). The Southern states' Fugitives Slave Law legally required runaway slaves to be returned to their masters. This sounds more like the Code of Hammurabi than the Bible. Hammurabi even demanded the death penalty for those helping runaway slaves." - Paul Copan
Looks like your dream of guilt by association will not work. Slavery under the Law of Moses was quite more just than that in the American Slavery institution.
More latter.
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by sonshipwall of text to explain how you completely missed the point.oh, so as long as one treats his slaves well, it is ok? it is for their own good to be slaves, right? they are taken care of, fed, clothed. what more could they possibly want? do you find these familiar? because you should, they are the same justifications used by the american slave owners to justify slavery.
Many American slavers would ne ...[text shortened]... aw of Moses was quite more just than that in the American Slavery institution.
More latter.
i have never said the israelite slavery system was better or worse than the american one. nor will i ever care to. they are both abominable and shameful. nor have i tried to shame you into something as if you have anything to do with slavery and with what your ancestors did.
i merely pointed out that many slavers justify the system with "but look how well we're treating the slaves, they should be grateful".
that is besides the point. the point in this thread is that not only does slavery exist, but FREE women can be sold into slavery if their father wishes to. the point of this thread is that you defend such a system
if i would have presented this debate to a normal person, the debate would have been over in 10 seconds. any normal person would agree that this is abominable and believe me weird for bringing it up, as if it would be up for debate.
you are not a normal person. you seek attenuating circumstances. you seek excuses. you try to find loopholes. mistranslations. you try to find anything that would improve slightly an evil thing.
you would not do this if i presented something horrible from the Quran. you would not do this if i presented actions of the nazi party.
you believe the bible and events presented in it deserve special circumstances. all this effort to preserve something unworthy of preservation.
christianity would be so much simpler if one would simply acknowledge that some parts are not worth keeping.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
28 Mar 14
7 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
wall of text to explain how you completely missed the point.
It seems "wall of text" is becoming a popular phrase on the Forum meaning, perhaps, "something that I don't want to read but just totally ignore." But I am not above missing people's points though I made some signigicant ones TO the discussion on "Another OT law."
i have never said the israelite slavery system was better or worse than the american one. nor will i ever care to. they are both abominable and shameful. nor have i tried to shame you into something as if you have anything to do with slavery and with what your ancestors did.
I say that you are flat wrong on characterizing the indentured servitude of ancient Israel as abominable. And my "wall of text" gave some reasons why it was not "abominable."
Not ideal is not "abominable" to me. God had promised the nation prosperity IF they would obey His law. God knew that there would be plenty of times when they failed. And instead of prosperity there would be poverty. When poverty arose many ways of coping with poverty would be LIKE the surrounding societies. The laws God gave provided guidelines as to how and how far they were to be like OTHER nations in having a system of indentured servitude.
While it was not utopian it was not "abominable". It was exemplary for the time and a worthy example which lifted Israel above the other heathen societies that had slavery systems.
i merely pointed out that many slavers justify the system with "but look how well we're treating the slaves, they should be grateful".
If that was your main point, I of course agree that American Slavers ATTEMPTED to justify their slave trade and institution, which was "abominable" by saying they were obeying God. And that point I referenced in the quotation from Paul Copan repeated in part here -
"But this particular law reveals just how different Israel's laws were from the antebellum South despite the Confederacy's claims of following the Bible faithfully ..." [my emphasis]
Compared to the Old Testament prohibition against turning a runaway slave back to an oppressive master, the Southern States' Fugitive Slave Law was an abomination.
Of course no one in his right mind wants to be a slave.
But if you had no choice, which society would you rather have had to be a slave in - the Confederate American South or ancient Israel under the Mosaic Law ?
I think you would choose, if you had to, the nation of Israel. You could not suffer the abomination of kidnapping, or at least had legal recourse to protest it. You would not suffer the abomination of cruel and harsh service, or at least would have had holy and legal recourse to protest it. And you could run away and be harbored by a sympathetic person assisting you who did so legally.
that is besides the point. the point in this thread is that not only does slavery exist, but FREE women can be sold into slavery if their father wishes to. the point of this thread is that you defend such a system
I will turn my attention to the rights of the women next. You see "no kidnapping" according to the law of God should include forceful turning over a family member to another person against the family member's will.
So while I DO acknowledge the passages about selling a work age youngster into servitude, I do not see that this entails a kind of "kidnap" by forceful induction into slavery.
But I will give your concern some more backround study since you just assume it without giving backround passages to prove it.
These are parents whom we may safely assume had the welfare of their own children at heart. If they could not afford to shelter and feed the family, dept servitude at least assured them that their child would be cared for and the dept would be serviced. And of course the year of release would prevent them from having to be slaves perpetually for the rest of their life.
I do not yet see in my mind the daughter kicking and screaming as she is being dragged out of the tent to be a slave, forced by her unloving parents. That is the picture I think you are concerned with. But it may not be so just because you desire to score points against Yahweh and Israel.
if i would have presented this debate to a normal person, the debate would have been over in 10 seconds. any normal person would agree that this is abominable and believe me weird for bringing it up, as if it would be up for debate.
I think a "normal person" to you is someone who is going to say "Yes, Yes, Yes whatever you say" as you launch your skeptical diatribes and "gems" against the Scriptures of God.
More normal would be just to "Yes" you to death while you let off steam about the Bible in an often ignorant way. Well then I guess I am not "normal" enough for you in that regard.
I think it is normal to regard history as being nuanced in many matters. And a normal approach to history is to consider similarities and differences carefully rather than just quickly accept blanket statements.
you are not a normal person. you seek attenuating circumstances. you seek excuses. you try to find loopholes. mistranslations. you try to find anything that would improve slightly an evil thing.
I have already said I don't think the word "abominable" or "evil" is appropriate to the guidelines God gave to Israel in the slave laws.
There are laws that I do not like at all. But some people like you do not consider that whole picture. That is that for offenses, sins, and trespasses there were also provided by God offerings of redemption.
The case of the woman's hand being cut off is disputed. Some Hebrew language scholars say it is a public shaving. They do so based on the meaning of the translation issues.
No, I do not like either an amputated hand or a public shaving. But as a Christian, I realize that the law of God was as a school master leading man to grace. But this is another discussion.
Now you have analyzed my supposed motives. Let me speak to your motives.
You come here to essentially say "At least I AM not so bad." Your complaint against the Bible, I think, is mainly to show that you are more righteous than God. Of course if you think God needs to come to YOU to learn about good behavior than that absolves you from any obligation to be saved by Him from your sins.
Basically, your mentality is that God needs to be saved from HIS sins by coming to YOU. There is real comfort to the sinner in imagining that God requires the sinner's justification rather than the other way around.
So now we both have had a turn in a little psycho analysis. Shall we get back to the discussion ?
you would not do this if i presented something horrible from the Quran.
I am not a Muslim.
I am not one who has read the Quran all the way through to date.
I am not an apologist for Islam.
And I might not come to the defense if you also railed against Colonel Sander's Southern Fried Chicken either.
So my interest is the Christian Spirituality and the Bible, and comments upon that cause my enthusiastic participation. So what ?
I don't present Islam as the ultimate truth. I proclaim Christ the Son of God as the ultimate truth. And Christ is connected with the whole Bible. So I sat up and took notice to your accusations against the Bible.
I do not LIKE everything I read in the Bible. I don't think anyone does.
But I will exercise caution against the railings of the skeptical like yourself.
you would not do this if i presented actions of the nazi party.
you believe the bible and events presented in it deserve special circumstances. all this effort to preserve something unworthy of preservation.
The Law of Moses as a means to be justified forever before God HAS not been preserved.
God came and made a NEW COVENANT. And that is why I am thankful we have a New Testament.
You think you're doing a significant thing by combing through the Old Testament for things to jeer at. I am not saying we should go back and live in theocratic Israel in the land of Canaan.
I'll consider your diatribes point by point fairly. And I would remind you that the Christians is not called to preserve the old slave system of Israel as practiced in Canaan. Rather he is to avail himself of the NEW COVENANT God promised to make.
I will remind you of just the most crucial points about this promised new covenant.
" Indeed, days are coming, declares Jehovah, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, NOT LIKE THE COVENANT which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by their hand to bring them out from the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was their Husband, declares Jehovah.
But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares Jehovah: I will put My law within them and write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they will be My people.
And they will no longer teach, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah; for all of them will know Me, from the little one among them even to the great one among them, declares Jehovah, for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sins I will remember no more." (Jeremiah 31:31-34)
So I may seem to you to be doing "knee jerk" defense of the Old Testament. Maybe it is because I sense you are doing "knee jerk" hunting for things to be bothered about in the "ministry of condemnation" - the old covenant - the Law.
I'm examining some of your bones to choke on and now ....
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
28 Mar 14
1 edit
So I may seem to you to be doing "knee jerk" defense of the Old Testament. Maybe it is because I sense you are doing "knee jerk" hunting for things to be bothered about in the "ministry of condemnation" the old covenant - the Law.
I'm examining some of your bones to choke on and now reminding you that God made a new covenant in the Son of God Jesus. You no longer have to worry about living in Canaan in strict adherence to slave laws handed down from Mt. Sinai.