13 May 08
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
I've always been interested in this biblical philosophy. Does this mean you can beat your slave with a rod to a pulp and if he survives the beating but dies on day 3 then it's ok with God?
13 May 08
Originally posted by PawnChopYes, for slaves are property.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
I've always been interested in this biblical philosophy. Does this mean you can beat your slave with a rod to a pulp and if he survives the beating but dies on day 3 then it's ok with God?
13 May 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasThat'd make him a good Jew, because it was mostly OT teaching. Jesus himself never said it was OK and the question doesn't seem to come up under his watch. Just because Paul says something doesn't mean it's what Jesus wanted; it just means he wrote things down and someone kept them. It could be that all remaining apostles said that slavery was a horrendous sin, but no one wrote it down.
Even Paul says that slavery is okay. So if you are christian, it's not a big deal to take a slave.
Josef Fritzl in Austria, who had his cellar full of people, is a true christian.
14 May 08
Originally posted by zozozozoI see most of the old testament as a bunch of beduin stories.
i am correct, untill u prove me wrong;
God doesnt exist,
and the bible are just a bunch of storys in a book.
Read the story of Simson and Delilah and tell me that there is anything divine in that.
Even today we have stories like that, read the Grimm brothers tales. Very much like the old testament.
Do you know the story of the origin of the rainbow? Is right there, in the genesis, as a answer to ta childrens question: "What is a rainbow, and why is it there?"
I wonder why Newton wasn't burned by the church as Bruno was. Newton discarded that genesis story and found the true reason of the rainbow.
14 May 08
Originally posted by pawnhandlerIf Jesus thought it was wrong, one would have thought he would have said something definite about it. With Gods foresight he could have cut down on a lot of the slavery that Christians perpetrated. Of course God could have said something to the Jews much earlier via a prophet.
That'd make him a good Jew, because it was mostly OT teaching. Jesus himself never said it was OK and the question doesn't seem to come up under his watch. Just because Paul says something doesn't mean it's what Jesus wanted; it just means he wrote things down and someone kept them. It could be that all remaining apostles said that slavery was a horrendous sin, but no one wrote it down.
One could of course argue that the 'do unto others' verse is infact a direct statement against slavery, but sadly not all Christians seem to take it that way (Paul included).
14 May 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo he didn't he found out how it works not why it exists. However one is left wondering whether light worked differently before the flood. Either God planned it all ahead of time or the fundamental laws of physics were changed quite considerably. 🙂
Newton discarded that genesis story and found the true reason of the rainbow.
