dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
Then what value does it hold, beyond academic study of an ancient people's belief system?
Does science support the existence of God?
- Thread starter DR.D
- Start date
- Status
Then what value does it hold, beyond academic study of an ancient people's belief system?
AE14
Board Sponsor
that is my point. In essence, even the story of Constantine, and his "adoption" of Christianity is quite questionable.
The changes, hell the throwing out of many books exhibits implicitly that there was some collusion with what the NT's purpose was.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
Tell me...why did god order the slaughter of innocent Egyptian children because of the actions of one man? Why did god punish families and descendents of sinners, when we are supposed to be judged on our OWN actions?
The same fraudulent claims, and the same riidiculous ways of thought, must not be allowed to fester unchallenged and possibly infect unprepared minds. You wil continue to be called on the deceptions and logical fallacies every time you attempt to weild them, because you are no longer attempting to find knowledge but to convert by deception and straight out lies.
/you do Paul proud. ":Roman 3: 7 "But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner? "becomes like the lawless in order to win the lawless" (I Cor 19:21).
//sure...you can win converts by lying..but you have also become a sinner.
Trauma1
Legend
There is so much not yet understoond about the human mind. The human mind most certainly can/will rationalize a given situation into something that makes sense to a given individual.
There are many different theories on how ghosts/spirits manifest themselves; some of the more common include manipulation of the electromagnetic field, or drawing energy from a specific source - Not to mention different types of hauntings (i.e. Residual, Intelligent.) Demonic possession is a different ball game in many ways, but ties into paranormal phenomena.
There are many situations science can't explain - and science isn't perfect in itself; the use of the term "paranormal" is justified overall because science itself can't prove or denounce support of paranormal existence (at least at this point.) Just because we can't objectively prove a theory with hard scientific evidence doesn't discount it being a real possibility. Hell, if that were true, where would we be with modern medicine?
As technology advances, maybe oneday we'll be able to have quantifiable evidence to support it in either regard. There are many tools/instruments used to help support and document "paranormal activity", but i guess until there is hard scientific evidence to correlate that support it will always be open to subjective interpretation of the findings.
I agree matt - probably 90-95% of what is claimed to be "paranormal activity" is false and can be debunked by science and/or medicine, but the other 5-10% that can't be certainly raises questions.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
quite disturbing questions, honestly.
Given that matter and energy are interchangeable I can certainly see how an energetic compound can retain force - but I don't see how memory and cognition to the point of direct, willful manipulation of matter can occur.
Regarding "demonic" possession, that just calls into question too many assumptions to be taken seriously beyond mental illness of the "possessed".
With zero controlled studies, it's just irrelevant until proven otherwise.
DR.D
Well-known member
They were slaves in the sense that they were lazy and chose to be. They liked to b!tch and complain about it (pharaoh sux!) but they were just a stubborn people the Bible says. They weren't happy either way. Even after God freed them, they still complained about their arrangements and food provisions and told Moses they'd rather go back and be slaves again than live in the woods! They had a lazy, slave mentality. They were 'slaves' like gov subsidies work now, like well-fair, food sample, etc.
So yeah, I'm serious. If you don't wanna be enslaved, go get a joby-job and start providing for your own peoples. Quit being reliant on your master in exchange for serving his peoples at the expense of neglecting your own. That's the price one pays for the comforts of 'slavery'. Otherwise, quit b!tching 'cause you get what you get and beggars can't be choosers. No?
What the H does rape have to do with this D? You keep connecting it like it's a prerequisite for slavery or something? I don't agree.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
LEt's see...men slaughtered, young girls kidnapped to become "property" which strongly implies sexual relationship. Since it is kidnap and enlavement that would be rape.
I'm sure all of the African-americans will be very happy to know that it was their own laziness that caused people to slap chains on them, whip them until they are bloody, and force them to perform a lifetime of backbreaking labor. Hell, they deserved it then...GO BibLE!!!
Trauma1
Legend
Yeah - Good ol' physics! Very interesting is the law of matter/mass conservation. I know what you're saying about willful manipulation of any given aspect of matter; i can't explain that myself, but perhaps it's just something not yet understood given our current technology - or maybe not meant to be understood.
Abnormal Physchology was probably one of the most fascinating classes i took in college. I agree with you to a degree that many cases of so called "demonic possession" can be thrown out due to a mental illness factor. However, according to the Roman Catholic "rite of exorcism" (as an example) certain factors need to be present in the first place to support the claim and use of this rite.
Things listed in the Roman Ritual as being indicators of possible demonic possession include: speaking foreign or ancient languages of which the possessed has no prior knowledge; supernatural abilities and strength; knowledge of hidden or remote things which the possessed has no way of knowing, an aversion to anything holy, profuse blasphemy, and/or sacrilege.
As i said before, i'm a skeptic in many regards, but i do believe there are true cases of "demonic possession" - but again, there is no specific scientific proof to support or denounce it either. I wouldn't say that this is irrelevant per se; it's something that is a subjective belief/doubt in the eye of the beholder at this time until specific proof or denial of existence is presented for further evaluation of these theories/beliefs.
DR.D
Well-known member
LEt's see...men slaughtered, young girls kidnapped to become "property" which strongly implies sexual relationship. Since it is kidnap and enlavement that would be rape.
I'm sure all of the African-americans will be very happy to know that it was their own laziness that caused people to slap chains on them, whip them until they are bloody, and force them to perform a lifetime of backbreaking labor. Hell, they deserved it then...GO BibLE!!!
They didn't inhabit the same land, so that situation wasn't very equivalent to the Egyptian/Israeli scenario. It was not fear or laziness that enslaved Africans, it was their own people trying to make a buck! Greed is another motive for slavery, people can be commodities too, so you're right. Laziness is not always the issue, sometime 3'rd party greed can be the driving force. In this case fellow African's that sold their brothers out to Euros!
Besides, you're ignoring the fact that 'slave' doesn't mean today what it did back then, not even in the African slave trade:
"Slavery", as it is often referred to by people, in African cultures was generally more like indentured servitude: "slaves" were not made to be chattel of other men, nor enslaved for life. African "slaves" were paid wages and were able to accumulate property. - Wikipedia
Invalid Link Removed
Wow, looks like Africans are sell selling their brothers out. Maybe it's time you rethink your whole kill whitey mentality, huh?
Invalid Link Removed
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
They didn't inhabit the same land, so that situation wasn't very equivalent to the Egyptian/Israeli scenario. It was not fear or laziness that enslaved Africans, it was their own people trying to make a buck! Greed is another motive for slavery, people can be commodities too, so you're right. Laziness is not always the issue, sometime 3'rd party greed can be the driving force. In this case fellow African's that sold their brothers out to Euros!
Besides, you're ignoring the fact that 'slave' doesn't mean today what it did back then, not even in the African slave trade:
"Slavery", as it is often referred to by people, in African cultures was generally more like indentured servitude: "slaves" were not made to be chattel of other men, nor enslaved for life. African "slaves" were paid wages and were able to accumulate property. - Wikipedia
Invalid Link Removed
Wow, looks like Africans are sell selling their brothers out. Maybe it's time you rethink your whole kill whitey mentality, huh?
Invalid Link Removed
whatever the term you want to use to denote what we use today as slavery -NOWHERE in the bible does it condemn this universally morally repugnant practice.
Sure is strong about not eating shellfish, though.
DR.D
Well-known member
... Sure is strong about not eating shellfish, though.
Well good, that stuff can kill you man.
lolI still have yet to see a verse where God actually endorses slavery though.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
Comin from the supposed MAN HIMSELF King morality, who is perfect, no condemnation is a tacit approval.Well good, that stuff can kill you man.
I still have yet to see a verse where God actually endorses slavery though.
Considering that slavery (modern definition) is considered one of the most morally repulsive practices that has ever existed, you would think it would warrant STRONG condemnation by this perfect being who is "giving us instructions on how to live morally".
Anyone who hates lobster and crab is obviously lacking in perfection.
DR.D
Well-known member
'...If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.' ...
Is that what you're talking about? If so, that's clearly not an endorsement. My claim remains true. God did give rules and protocols for it if a man decided to do this. Man has free will ya know, that's paramount to God mico-managing the do's and don't. The Bible states that ALL things are lawful, yet not all things are beneficial. Once again true to reality. If you can think it, it's possible to do it. That doesn't mean you should though. Man was not designed for slavery, or to sign contracts, or many of the things he now does, but instead of God destroying us for it, he gives grace and offers the best way to handle it if you choose it.
Are you gonna refuse to put your daughter on birth control because you told her not to have sex, even if you know she's doing it anyway? No, not unless you want her to get pregnant, and that would defeat the whole purpose now wouldn't it? Be practical and look at this slavery issue for what it really is. Just like human parents, God knows how immature and rebellious we can be. That doesn't mean he advocates or endorses it. Read those verses carefully and you'll get my drift Reaper.
I challenge you to find any verses where God actually endorses slavery and says something like "men, prostitute your daughters, no really, it's cool..." lol
DR.D
Well-known member
Same thing, Reaper. 44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. It gives a permission, not an endorsement. 'You may' is said. Not you must, or you should because it's a great idea. It just sets protocols if you do. God's grace is great enough to work around our stupid choices.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
DR.D
Well-known member
I never said I hate it, just that it'll kill ya! I eat swine too, sue me why don't ya, lol. Those old mosaic laws are no longer valid though. Reading the Bible, one must be careful not to take things out of context, that becomes invalid as a pretext. Always consider who was being spoken to also, just as important as context. Christ replaced the law as our scapegoat, we are no longer under it as such.
I agree, slavery is repugnant. But the Bible warns that satan is the king of this age, literally, we gave it away with our disqualifying choices over the centuries. We are sent out as sheep among the beast! But yes, slavery is part of this fallen, satanically inspired race we call post-modern humanity. I think God will be fed up with it soon enough (that's a whole other thread), and I'm sure he'll answer these questions of ours when he finally reveals the mystery of inequity. I really believe that, or I would have clocked-out on god years ago.
isoc
Member
Dr D makes a good point, scripture can easily be taken out of context and twisted to fit particular needs. This is done by both believers and non-believers, sometimes on purpose and sometimes not. Taken by itself, the Exodus story can be seen as pretty terrible, however, all scripture must be read in the frame of reference of scripture. This story, and the entire OT, looks forward to the coming of Jesus and His work on the cross, just as the NT looks back at His work. The killing of the Egyptians sons, points to the final judgment where any who have not received salvation will face the second death. Then, just as now, all have the opportunity to accept salvation. The Egyptians had the opportunity to put the mark on their door, same as the Israelites, that was the only condition, the blood on the door, but they did not, and it is sad that many had to die, and that many are still dying today. God is a loving God, but He is also a just God, just like we as parents hate to see our children go astray, to punish, to have us tuned out, and to have them turn their backs on us, God also does not want us to do that to Him. There is only one condition to gain access to Heaven, faith in Jesus and His work for us on the cross. It is not He who turns His back on us, but we who turn it on Him.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
hold on a second there...we are judged as indiv iduals....not "egyptians".
Please show me where a 1 month old had the opportunity to smear blood o protect his own life from the bloodthirsty god.
Please show me why generations of progeny are cursed by god for the sins of one individual that came before.
Tis is a sick excuse for justice from aperfect being.
EESCHMan
Member
If you had read this thread from the beginning, I was one of the main "defenders" of science/logic.
Now, Dsade is...
Please stop preaching and using Bible Verses...
isoc
Member
As far as slavery goes, there is a big difference between the permissive will of God, and the perfect will of God. If God did not have permissive will, we would not be here today, if He did not allow us to make mistakes, to have the time to come to salvation, then we would all be dead, as the punishment for sin is death. It is only because of His love for us, and His mercy and patience that we are here. His perfect will is in Heaven, there is no sin, and therefor no death. Why then does God not force us to be perfect?, free will, He wants us to choose to love Him, not be force someone to do it. I think we can all relate to that. For the One who created all and owns all, our choice to love Him is the only thign we can truly offer.
Getting back to slavery, the law is an example of His permissive will, slavery is permitted, but not amongst the Israelites, themselves. We must look to the NT now, Jesus fulfilled the OT law and a change is marked there. No longer is there a definitive line between Jew and Gentile, and we see this illustrated in the parable of the Good Samaritan, where we are taught that all people are our neighbors, and taken with the commandment of Love your negihbor as yourself, we see that God does not in any way condone slavery.
I dont want to upset anyone, and I am no expert, I only am repeating what I have been taught. I just hope to show the truth of God as best I can, and if only one person reading this is helped and the rest see me as a fool and idiot, then it is worth it. Even if no one is helped and all ridicule me, it is still ok. And by the way, I am not perfect, and probably less moral than most of you, so yes I am a hipocrite unfortunately, I do my best, but it falls far short. Dont put your faith in man, but in God.
Getting back to slavery, the law is an example of His permissive will, slavery is permitted, but not amongst the Israelites, themselves. We must look to the NT now, Jesus fulfilled the OT law and a change is marked there. No longer is there a definitive line between Jew and Gentile, and we see this illustrated in the parable of the Good Samaritan, where we are taught that all people are our neighbors, and taken with the commandment of Love your negihbor as yourself, we see that God does not in any way condone slavery.
I dont want to upset anyone, and I am no expert, I only am repeating what I have been taught. I just hope to show the truth of God as best I can, and if only one person reading this is helped and the rest see me as a fool and idiot, then it is worth it. Even if no one is helped and all ridicule me, it is still ok. And by the way, I am not perfect, and probably less moral than most of you, so yes I am a hipocrite unfortunately, I do my best, but it falls far short. Dont put your faith in man, but in God.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
This will be the final time I make this argument, as it gets old typing and retyping, only to be ignored.
Unless morality ITSELF changes, then there is no permissibility. Morality is SUPPOSED to be what is dictated by the bible, and since there is NO time where slavery is remotely moral, it should have been condemned by an omniscient being WITHOUT AMBIGUITY from word number 1. "he" attempts to distill morality into 10 commandments, certainly feeling "graven images" (an affront to his jealous nature...far from a perfect quality) deserving of its own commandment - but NOT ONE FREAKING WORD about :"thou shalt not take slaves", or "thou shalt not force another to do anything under fear of death", as THIS ACTION IS IMMORAL.
Whether committed against one who is afraid to stand up (and be kiled) or not, the act ITSELF is morally reprehensiblle - and to have ordered it by default makes the being that ordered it morally reprehensible.
You make a strong admission, though...you lack understanding, you are simply regurgitating what you were taught without bothering to analyze whether it makes any sense. This mindset will be the demise of at the very least this country, but possibly the entire species. It is the skeptics and scientists standing up against this thoughtless parroting and demanding that people THINK.
isoc
Member
I am sorry that I do not know why, by Adam sin entered the world, and all of us now carry the taint of sin, I do know that all people have sinned, it is unfortunately in our nature. And you are right, the 1 month old did not have the opportunity, but the parents did. You are also right that we are judged as individuals, and all have the same opportunity now, thanks to the sacrifice of Jesus. These questions are too far above my head, I only know what I believe and do my best, but I will never convince anyone as to the existence, or the goodness of God, but I do hope all do come to belief.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
I suppose it depends on how much you reallly want to live by the truth.
If your preacher tells you to blow up innocent people in order to go to paradise, one would hope you would examine the act and decide that anyone who orders such CANNOT be good, and therefore whatever they are trying to make you swallow is more likely poisonous to your soul, rather than holy truth.
The same holds here...examine the root premises and decide if they make sense, are consistent, are full of justice or INjustice, and whether it is really such a trivial matter that you should not think any deeper on it before simply piling belief and adoration onto it.
isoc
Member
Dsade, you are very correct about blind belief, it does take spiritual discernment, because there are many people out there who do hide behind religion and use it for hatred, greed, or whatever their own ends and desires may be. There is absolutely nothing wrong with your questions, or advice about thinking about God, it even shows that you may be seeking Him. I am sorry I cannot answer all your questions. If you are honestly interested, I would suggest trying to get in touch with a local pastor, I am sure they can be or more help than some dude who calls himself Isoc on a bodybuilding board!
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
I could not disagree more. As far as I know, a guy who calls himself Isoc on a bodybuilding board both shows a common drive with me, and does NOT have a vested financial interest in shoving belief down my throat. Your conversation is far more honest, IMO, as seeking truth for truth's sake trumps passing the proverbial plate.
isoc
Member
thanks for your kind words man, seriously much appreciated. You are right, I have no financial interest, I just know it has helped me greatly in this life, and have faith it will beyond and just enter into debates like this to help people, if possible, same way you give out training, diet, supplementation advice, although I am far less credible than you.
AE14
Board Sponsor
Isnt permission an endorsement? As an example, I give my students (trying to show a relationship where one is superior to the other) permission to use their cell phones in class (against school rules) and they get caught by an administrator, I am the one who gave permission, which is in fact an endorsement.
I understand your symantics issue, however I think this biblical quote offers a tougher explanation
TheLastRonin
Active member
whatever the term you want to use to denote what we use today as slavery -NOWHERE in the bible does it condemn this universally morally repugnant practice.
Some people have asserted that God condoned the slave trade. For example, in a speech to the General Conference of the Methodist Protestant Church in 1842, Alexander McCaine stated that the institution of slavery was “ordained by God Himself.” Was McCaine correct? Did God approve of the kidnapping and raping of girls, the heartless separating of families, and the cruel beatings that were part and parcel of the slave trade of McCaine’s day? And what of the millions who are forced to live and work as slaves under brutal conditions today? Does God condone such inhumane treatment?
The Bible states that “man has dominated man to his injury.” (Ecclesiastes 8:9) This is perhaps nowhere more evident than in the oppressive forms of slavery that have been devised by man. God is not indifferent to the suffering that slavery has wrought.
For example, consider a situation that developed with the Israelites. The Bible tells us that the Egyptians “kept making their life bitter with hard slavery at clay mortar and bricks and with every form of slavery in the field, yes, every form of slavery of theirs in which they used them as slaves under tyranny.” The Israelites “continued to sigh because of the slavery and to cry out in complaint, and their cry for help kept going up to the true God.” Was God indifferent to their plight? On the contrary, “God heard their groaning and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” Furthermore, God told his people: “I shall certainly bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians and deliver you from their slavery.”—Exodus 1:14; 2:23, 24; 6:6-8.
Clearly, God did not approve of ‘man dominating man’ through abusive slavery. But did not God later allow slavery among his people? Yes, he did. However, the slavery that existed in Israel was vastly different from the tyrannical forms of slavery that have existed throughout history.
God’s Law stated that kidnapping and selling a human was punishable by death. Furthermore, God provided guidelines to protect slaves. For example, a slave who was maimed by his master would be set free. If a slave died because his master beat him, the master could be punished with death. Women captives could become slaves, or they could be taken as wives. But they were not to be used for mere sexual gratification. The gist of the Law must have led righthearted Israelites to treat slaves with respect and kindness, as if these were hired laborers.—Exodus 20:10; 21:12, 16, 26, 27; Leviticus 22:10, 11; Deuteronomy 21:10-14.
Some Jews voluntarily became slaves to their fellow Jews in order to repay debts. This practice protected people from starvation and actually allowed many to recover from poverty. Furthermore, at key junctures in the Jewish calendar, slaves were to be released if they so desired. (Exodus 21:2; Leviticus 25:10; Deuteronomy 15:12) Commenting on these laws regarding slaves, Jewish scholar Moses Mielziner stated that a “slave could never cease to be a man, he was looked upon as a person possessing certain natural human rights, with which the master even could not with impunity interfere.” What a stark contrast to the abusive systems of slavery that mar the annals of history!
Slavery and Christians
Slavery was part of the economic system of the Roman Empire, under which first-century Christians lived. Hence, some Christians were slaves, and others had slaves. (1*Corinthians 7:21, 22) But does this mean that disciples of Jesus were abusive slave owners? Hardly! Regardless of what Roman law permitted, we can be confident that Christians did not mistreat those under their authority. The apostle Paul even encouraged Philemon to treat his slave Onesimus, who had become a Christian, as “a brother.”—Philemon 10-17.
The Bible gives no indication that the enslavement of humans by other humans was part of God’s original purpose for mankind. Furthermore, no Bible prophecies allude to humans owning fellow humans through slavery in God’s new world. Rather, in that coming Paradise, righteous ones “will actually sit, each one under his vine and under his fig tree, and there will be no one making them tremble.”—Micah 4:4.
Clearly, the Bible does not condone the ill-treatment of others in any form. On the contrary, it encourages respect and equality among men. (Acts 10:34, 35) It exhorts humans to treat others the way that they would like to be treated. (Luke 6:31) Moreover, the Bible encourages Christians humbly to view others as superior, regardless of their social standing. (Philippians 2:3) These principles are totally incongruous with abusive forms of slavery practiced by many nations, especially in recent centuries.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
You could be the nicest slave owner in the world, but by virtue of removing another's freedom by choice you are an evil immoral craphound.
Dr. D would disagree with your above statement, citing that the slaves were happy, joyful volunteers. Perhaps you are not reading the same book?
Condoning, even if the owner is punished for MIStreatment - the very act of taking slaves IS mistreatment.
As for taking a wife...perhaps it would be better if you ASKED her to marry you, rather than kidnap and force her to? Yeah, that would be rape.
Dr. D would disagree with your above statement, citing that the slaves were happy, joyful volunteers. Perhaps you are not reading the same book?
Condoning, even if the owner is punished for MIStreatment - the very act of taking slaves IS mistreatment.
As for taking a wife...perhaps it would be better if you ASKED her to marry you, rather than kidnap and force her to? Yeah, that would be rape.
TheLastRonin
Active member
"Sure is strong about not eating shellfish, though."
The Hebrew nouns she′qets (loathsome thing) and shiq‧quts′ (disgusting thing) come from the root sha‧qats′, used in the sense of “loathe” (Le 11:11,*13) and, in the causative form, ‘make loathsome.’ (Le 11:43; 20:25) These Hebrew terms refer to that which is repugnant from the standpoint of God’s true worship. They are commonly rendered by such words as “abominate,” “abominable,” or “abomination” in many translations. This has resulted in the well-known expression “abomination of desolation.” (Da 11:31; 12:11, KJ) The Gospel writers Matthew and Mark used the Greek bde′lyg‧ma to translate the Hebrew shiq‧quts′ (plural, shiq‧qu‧tsim′). (Da 9:27; Mt 24:15; Mr 13:14) This Greek term basically implies that which causes disgust.
The Mosaic Law prohibited the eating of certain creatures, declaring them “unclean” for that purpose (as well as for sacrificing). Therefore, in these respects such a creature was to be viewed as a “loathsome thing” and any person eating one (or using it for sacrifice) would make himself “loathsome,” since he would thereby be showing contempt for God’s commands. (Le 7:21; 11:10-13, 20-23, 41,*42; 20:25; Isa 66:17) That the proscribed animals were not to be loathed in a general way, however, can be seen from other texts. For example, though “unclean” for food or sacrifice, the ass was regularly used by the Israelites for transportation and for bearing burdens (Ex 23:4,*5; Mt 21:2-5); King David had herds of camels, and camel hair was used for clothing (1Ch 27:30,*31; Mt 3:4); and the eagle was used as a fitting metaphor and simile to represent God’s protective care of Israel during the Exodus. (Ex 19:4; De 32:9-12) With the removal of the Law covenant, the injunction to view any of such creatures as “loathsome” for food ended.—Ac 10:9-15; 1Ti 4:1-5.
Whereas the Hebrew she′qets is used exclusively with regard to “unclean” animals, the word shiq‧quts′ is used principally with respect to idols and idolatrous practices. At the time of the Exodus, God instructed the Israelites to throw away “the disgusting things” and “the dungy idols of Egypt,” but individuals failed to obey, thereby profaning God’s name. (Eze 20:6-9) On its way to the Promised Land, Israel passed among pagan nations and saw “their disgusting things and their dungy idols, wood and stone, silver and gold.” They were commanded to “thoroughly loathe” such religious imagery as “something devoted to destruction,” refusing to bring it into their residences. (De 29:16-18; 7:26) The false gods and goddesses of these nations, including Milcom, or Molech, as well as Chemosh and Ashtoreth, were themselves ‘disgusting things.’ (1Ki 11:5,*7; 2Ki 23:13) When Israel practiced such idolatry, it too became repugnant in God’s eyes, and the later defilement of the temple with idolatrous objects brought God’s fury upon that nation, finally resulting in its desolation. (Jer 32:34,*35; Eze 7:20-22; Ho 9:10) By thus “ministering to wood and stone,” they were engaging in “immoral intercourse,” spiritual fornication, cutting themselves off from communication with God.—Eze 20:30-32; compare Jer 13:27.
Health benefits often resulted from observance of the Law. For instance, it required that at a military encampment human excrement be covered over (De 23:9-14), thus providing considerable protection from fly-borne infectious diseases such as dysentery and typhoid fever. Contamination of food and water was guarded against, the Law specifying that anything upon which an “unclean” creature fell in its death was rendered unclean and requiring that certain measures be taken, including the smashing of an earthenware vessel thus contaminated.—Le 11:32-38.
Significantly, it has been stated: “Prophylactic considerations were basic to this legislation, which when followed would go far toward preventing the incidence of food-borne polioencephalitis, the enteric fevers, food poisoning, and the parasitic worms. Insistence on the safeguarding of a clean supply of water was the most effective means of forestalling the rise and dissemination of diseases such as amoebiasis, the fevers of the enteric group, cholera, bilharziasis, and spirochetal jaundice. These prophylactic measures, which constitute a fundamental part of any system of public health, were of particular importance for the welfare of a nation living under primitive conditions in a subtropical region of the earth.”—The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, edited by G.*Buttrick, 1962, Vol. 2, pp. 544, 545.
In his book The Bible and Modern Medicine, A.*Rendle Short, M.D., pointed out that public sanitary law existed, if at all, only in elementary form among nations that surrounded ancient Israel, and stated: “It is the more surprising therefore that in a book like the Bible, alleged to be unscientific, there should be a sanitary code at all, and equally surprising that a nation just escaped from slavery, frequently overrun by enemies and carried away into captivity from time to time, should have on its statute books so wise and reasonable a code of rules of health. This has been recognized by good authorities, even those with no great interest in the religious aspect of the Bible.”—London, 1953, p.*37.
According to the Law, the hare and the pig were among animals the Israelites were not permitted to eat. (Le 11:4-8) Regarding this, Dr.*Short states: “True, we eat the pig, the rabbit and the hare, but these animals are liable to parasitic infections and are safe only if the food is well cooked. The pig is an unclean feeder, and harbours two worms, trichina and a tape worm, which may be passed on to man. The danger is minimal under present conditions in this country, but it would have been far otherwise in Palestine of old, and such food was better avoided.”—The Bible and Modern Medicine, pp. 40,*41.
The Hebrew nouns she′qets (loathsome thing) and shiq‧quts′ (disgusting thing) come from the root sha‧qats′, used in the sense of “loathe” (Le 11:11,*13) and, in the causative form, ‘make loathsome.’ (Le 11:43; 20:25) These Hebrew terms refer to that which is repugnant from the standpoint of God’s true worship. They are commonly rendered by such words as “abominate,” “abominable,” or “abomination” in many translations. This has resulted in the well-known expression “abomination of desolation.” (Da 11:31; 12:11, KJ) The Gospel writers Matthew and Mark used the Greek bde′lyg‧ma to translate the Hebrew shiq‧quts′ (plural, shiq‧qu‧tsim′). (Da 9:27; Mt 24:15; Mr 13:14) This Greek term basically implies that which causes disgust.
The Mosaic Law prohibited the eating of certain creatures, declaring them “unclean” for that purpose (as well as for sacrificing). Therefore, in these respects such a creature was to be viewed as a “loathsome thing” and any person eating one (or using it for sacrifice) would make himself “loathsome,” since he would thereby be showing contempt for God’s commands. (Le 7:21; 11:10-13, 20-23, 41,*42; 20:25; Isa 66:17) That the proscribed animals were not to be loathed in a general way, however, can be seen from other texts. For example, though “unclean” for food or sacrifice, the ass was regularly used by the Israelites for transportation and for bearing burdens (Ex 23:4,*5; Mt 21:2-5); King David had herds of camels, and camel hair was used for clothing (1Ch 27:30,*31; Mt 3:4); and the eagle was used as a fitting metaphor and simile to represent God’s protective care of Israel during the Exodus. (Ex 19:4; De 32:9-12) With the removal of the Law covenant, the injunction to view any of such creatures as “loathsome” for food ended.—Ac 10:9-15; 1Ti 4:1-5.
Whereas the Hebrew she′qets is used exclusively with regard to “unclean” animals, the word shiq‧quts′ is used principally with respect to idols and idolatrous practices. At the time of the Exodus, God instructed the Israelites to throw away “the disgusting things” and “the dungy idols of Egypt,” but individuals failed to obey, thereby profaning God’s name. (Eze 20:6-9) On its way to the Promised Land, Israel passed among pagan nations and saw “their disgusting things and their dungy idols, wood and stone, silver and gold.” They were commanded to “thoroughly loathe” such religious imagery as “something devoted to destruction,” refusing to bring it into their residences. (De 29:16-18; 7:26) The false gods and goddesses of these nations, including Milcom, or Molech, as well as Chemosh and Ashtoreth, were themselves ‘disgusting things.’ (1Ki 11:5,*7; 2Ki 23:13) When Israel practiced such idolatry, it too became repugnant in God’s eyes, and the later defilement of the temple with idolatrous objects brought God’s fury upon that nation, finally resulting in its desolation. (Jer 32:34,*35; Eze 7:20-22; Ho 9:10) By thus “ministering to wood and stone,” they were engaging in “immoral intercourse,” spiritual fornication, cutting themselves off from communication with God.—Eze 20:30-32; compare Jer 13:27.
Health benefits often resulted from observance of the Law. For instance, it required that at a military encampment human excrement be covered over (De 23:9-14), thus providing considerable protection from fly-borne infectious diseases such as dysentery and typhoid fever. Contamination of food and water was guarded against, the Law specifying that anything upon which an “unclean” creature fell in its death was rendered unclean and requiring that certain measures be taken, including the smashing of an earthenware vessel thus contaminated.—Le 11:32-38.
Significantly, it has been stated: “Prophylactic considerations were basic to this legislation, which when followed would go far toward preventing the incidence of food-borne polioencephalitis, the enteric fevers, food poisoning, and the parasitic worms. Insistence on the safeguarding of a clean supply of water was the most effective means of forestalling the rise and dissemination of diseases such as amoebiasis, the fevers of the enteric group, cholera, bilharziasis, and spirochetal jaundice. These prophylactic measures, which constitute a fundamental part of any system of public health, were of particular importance for the welfare of a nation living under primitive conditions in a subtropical region of the earth.”—The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, edited by G.*Buttrick, 1962, Vol. 2, pp. 544, 545.
In his book The Bible and Modern Medicine, A.*Rendle Short, M.D., pointed out that public sanitary law existed, if at all, only in elementary form among nations that surrounded ancient Israel, and stated: “It is the more surprising therefore that in a book like the Bible, alleged to be unscientific, there should be a sanitary code at all, and equally surprising that a nation just escaped from slavery, frequently overrun by enemies and carried away into captivity from time to time, should have on its statute books so wise and reasonable a code of rules of health. This has been recognized by good authorities, even those with no great interest in the religious aspect of the Bible.”—London, 1953, p.*37.
According to the Law, the hare and the pig were among animals the Israelites were not permitted to eat. (Le 11:4-8) Regarding this, Dr.*Short states: “True, we eat the pig, the rabbit and the hare, but these animals are liable to parasitic infections and are safe only if the food is well cooked. The pig is an unclean feeder, and harbours two worms, trichina and a tape worm, which may be passed on to man. The danger is minimal under present conditions in this country, but it would have been far otherwise in Palestine of old, and such food was better avoided.”—The Bible and Modern Medicine, pp. 40,*41.
TheLastRonin
Active member
Please try reading what I write in its fullness before you betray your ignorance.Perhaps you should open the bible and read where the references I use come from instead of making arbitrary assumptions.
"God’s Law stated that kidnapping and selling a human was punishable by death. Furthermore, God provided guidelines to protect slaves. For example, a slave who was maimed by his master would be set free. If a slave died because his master beat him, the master could be punished with death. Women captives could become slaves, or they could be taken as wives. But they were not to be used for mere sexual gratification. The gist of the Law must have led righthearted Israelites to treat slaves with respect and kindness, as if these were hired laborers.—Exodus 20:10; 21:12, 16, 26, 27; Leviticus 22:10, 11; Deuteronomy 21:10-14."
TheLastRonin
Active member
I am very serious.
Skeptics’ viewpoint is that the Bible is nothing more than a book expressing flawed human thinking. Some clergymen do as well. The late Swiss Protestant theologian Karl Barth wrote in his Kirchliche Dogmatik (Church Dogmatics): “The prophets and apostles as such were capable*of making mistakes in speaking and*in writing.” True, differences in wording can be found in the narratives of an event covered by more than one Bible writer. And statements can be found that, on the surface, appear to differ completely from statements found elsewhere in the Bible. But are these really contradictions? Is the Bible simply the product of men? Indeed, who wrote the Bible?
The answer is simple: “Men spoke from God.” But how did they know what to speak and what to write? The man just quoted, the apostle Simon Peter, goes on to explain that they spoke “as they were borne along by holy spirit.”—2*Peter 1:21.
For a fact, time and time again the Bible stresses that it is “the word of God.” In the 176 verses of Psalm 119 alone this point is alluded to 176 times! What makes this significant is that writers are normally interested in making known that they have written a particular work. But the men who wrote the Bible were not. All honor was to go to God. It was his book, not theirs.—1*Thessalonians 2:13; 2*Samuel 23:2.
How were these men “borne along by holy spirit”? A letter to the first-century Christian Timothy provides an answer: “All Scripture is inspired of God.” “Inspired of God” translates the Bible’s original word of the Greek text the‧o′pneu‧stos, which means, literally, “God-breathed.” God used his invisible active force—his holy spirit—to “breathe” his ideas into the minds of the writers. Thus, God is the Source and Producer of the Bible. His thoughts directed the writing much as a businessman uses a secretary to write letters for him.—2*Timothy 3:16.
Also, this concept of “God-breathed” finds a parallel in the Biblical expression “borne along by holy spirit.” How so? “Borne along” is used in Greek with reference to ships that are moved along on a certain course by the wind. (Compare Acts 27:15,*17.) Thus, as a wind blows and moves a sailing ship, so the Bible writers thought, spoke, and wrote under God’s influence, borne along by his holy spirit as he “breathed” on them.
We have but few autobiographical details about the Bible writers. Far from considering themselves of great importance, they always strove to honor God by keeping themselves in the background. We do know, however, that they included state officials, judges, prophets, kings, shepherds, farmers, and fishermen—some 40 men in all. Thus, the Bible, although a message from God, has the warmth, variety, and appeal of the human touch.
Many of the Bible writers did not know one another. They even lived centuries apart and were extremely different in temperament and experience, as well as in social and educational backgrounds. Yet, whether they were young or old, their writing shows a complete unity. Over a period of some 1,600 years, they wrote until the book was finally finished. After a careful examination, you will find that the Bible’s statements reflect a remarkable harmony. The Bible thus echoes the mind of one Author, though many writers were used.
Should this not prompt us “to pay more than the usual attention” to this extraordinary book, the Bible? Should we not be able to reach the same conclusion as did Peter, who wrote: “All this only confirms for us the message of the prophets, to which you will do well to attend, because it is like a lamp shining in a murky place”?—Hebrews 2:1; 2*Peter 1:19, The New English Bible.
But now, what about the claim that the Bible contradicts itself? Does it? How do you answer?
“What a grand book! Stranger than its contents for me is its manner of expression, where the word becomes virtually a natural product like a tree, like a flower, like the sea, like the stars, like man himself. It sprouts, it flows, it shines, it laughs, one knows not how, one knows not why, one finds everything so completely natural. It is truly God’s Word, in contrast to other books that testify of only human wisdom.”—The 19th-century German poet and journalist Heinrich Heine’s comments about the Bible.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
women CAPTIVES could be TAKEN as wives.
PErhaps you should do the reading...captives are not volunteers.
TheLastRonin
Active member
women CAPTIVES could be TAKEN as wives.
PErhaps you should do the reading...captives are not volunteers.
"Captives" are referring to peoples , such as prisoners of war. "Taken" in that scripture is referring to the ability,as in you are ALLOWED to marry her.
When the Israelites moved in to possess the Promised Land, certain cities, including their populations, were entirely devoted to destruction, as, for example, Jericho, the firstfruits of the conquest. (Jos 6:17,*21) When capturing other cities not devoted to destruction, the Israelites, unlike the pagan nations, were not allowed to rape the women. If they desired a captive woman for a wife, certain requirements had to be met first.— De 21:10-14.
TheLastRonin
Active member
I did not say all slavery in the Bible was happy.
"For example, consider a situation that developed with the Israelites. The Bible tells us that the Egyptians “kept making their life bitter with hard slavery at clay mortar and bricks and with every form of slavery in the field, yes, every form of slavery of theirs in which they used them as slaves under tyranny.” The Israelites “continued to sigh because of the slavery and to cry out in complaint, and their cry for help kept going up to the true God.” Was God indifferent to their plight? On the contrary, “God heard their groaning and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” Furthermore, God told his people: “I shall certainly bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians and deliver you from their slavery.”—Exodus 1:14; 2:23, 24; 6:6-8."
BUT
"the slavery that existed in Israel was vastly different from the tyrannical forms of slavery that have existed throughout history."
"Some Jews voluntarily became slaves to their fellow Jews in order to repay debts. This practice protected people from starvation and actually allowed many to recover from poverty. Furthermore, at key junctures in the Jewish calendar, slaves were to be released if they so desired. (Exodus 21:2; Leviticus 25:10; Deuteronomy 15:12) Commenting on these laws regarding slaves, Jewish scholar Moses Mielziner stated that a “slave could never cease to be a man, he was looked upon as a person possessing certain natural human rights, with which the master even could not with impunity interfere.” What a stark contrast to the abusive systems of slavery that mar the annals of history!"
Caferacer
Member
women CAPTIVES could be TAKEN as wives.
PErhaps you should do the reading...captives are not volunteers.
I still don't understand it.
Free will is supposed to be one of god's gifts, right?
So why would a god also endorse something that takes that away?
Just because it was done worse by someone else all of a sudden doesn't make it right. I mean, just replace slavery with another word.
"the torture that existed in Israel was vastly different from torture that has existed throughout history."
Still sounds bad to me.
TheLastRonin
Active member
You can replace any word with another word to make it sound worse, it does not make it accurate and is not what the Bible states. In no way has the Bible EVER condoned torture.Please re-read the following.
" If a slave died because his master beat him, the master could be punished with death. "
"Some Jews voluntarily became slaves to their fellow Jews in order to repay debts. This practice protected people from starvation and actually allowed many to recover from poverty. Furthermore, at key junctures in the Jewish calendar, slaves were to be released if they so desired. (Exodus 21:2; Leviticus 25:10; Deuteronomy 15:12) Commenting on these laws regarding slaves, Jewish scholar Moses Mielziner stated that a “slave could never cease to be a man, he was looked upon as a person possessing certain natural human rights, with which the master even could not with impunity interfere.” What a stark contrast to the abusive systems of slavery that mar the annals of history!"
"Regardless of what Roman law permitted, we can be confident that Christians did not mistreat those under their authority. The apostle Paul even encouraged Philemon to treat his slave Onesimus, who had become a Christian, as “a brother.”—Philemon 10-17."
"Clearly, the Bible does not condone the ill-treatment of others in any form. On the contrary, it encourages respect and equality among men. (Acts 10:34, 35) It exhorts humans to treat others the way that they would like to be treated. (Luke 6:31) Moreover, the Bible encourages Christians humbly to view others as superior, regardless of their social standing. (Philippians 2:3) These principles are totally incongruous with abusive forms of slavery practiced by many nations, especially in recent centuries. "
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
So in this fairy tale world, all the slaves were allowed to leave anytime they wanted top pursue careers on their own, to start families and move away, to start their own businesses, etc thereby basically rendering the term slave as superfluous?
See...as I pointed out above, you can be the nicest slavemaster in the world but you are still evil, by the mere fact that you are taking away another's free will to act and live in pursuit of their own happiness.
TheLastRonin
Active member
I stare at what you write in disbelief. This is not fairytale this is fact. Hebrew slaves were in service to their masters mostly to pay off debt.This is history.I encourage you to check that out since you believe it only is stated in the Bible.Hebrew slaves had rights,plain and simple.You seem to compare Hebrew slaves with others even though I have repeatedly pointed out the differences.
Types of slaves[/U]
The original-language words rendered “slave” or “servant” are not limited in their application to persons owned by others. The Hebrew word ‛e′vedh can refer to persons owned by fellowmen. (Ge 12:16; Ex 20:17) Or the term can designate subjects of a king (2Sa 11:21; 2Ch 10:7), subjugated peoples who paid tribute (2Sa 8:2,*6), and persons in royal service, including cupbearers, bakers, seamen, military officers, advisers, and the like, whether owned by fellowmen or not (Ge 40:20; 1Sa 29:3; 1Ki 9:27; 2Ch 8:18; 9:10; 32:9). In respectful address, a Hebrew, instead of using the first person pronoun, would at times speak of himself as a servant (‛e′vedh) of the one to whom he was talking. (Ge 33:5,*14; 42:10, 11,*13; 1Sa 20:7,*8) ‛E′vedh was used in referring to servants, or worshipers, of God generally (1Ki 8:36; 2Ki 10:23) and, more specifically, to special representatives of God, such as Moses. (Jos 1:1,*2; 24:29; 2Ki 21:10) Though not a worshiper of God, one who performed a service that was in harmony with the divine will could be spoken of as God’s servant, an example being King Nebuchadnezzar.—Jer 27:6.
The Greek term dou′los corresponds to the Hebrew word ‛e′vedh. It is used with reference to persons owned by fellowmen (Mt 8:9; 10:24,*25; 13:27); devoted servants of God and of his Son Jesus Christ, whether human (Ac 2:18; 4:29; Ro 1:1; Ga 1:10) or angelic (Re 19:10, where the word syn′dou‧los [fellow slave] appears); and, in a figurative sense, to persons in slavery to sin (Joh 8:34; Ro 6:16-20) or corruption (2Pe 2:19).
The Hebrew word na′‛ar, like the Greek term pais, basically means a boy or a youth and can also designate a servant or an attendant. (1Sa 1:24; 4:21; 30:17; 2Ki 5:20; Mt 2:16; 8:6; 17:18; 21:15; Ac 20:12) The Greek term oi‧ke′tes denotes a house servant or slave (Lu 16:13), and a female slave or servant is designated by the Greek word pai‧di′ske. (Lu 12:45) The participial form of the Hebrew root sha‧rath′ may be rendered by such terms as “minister” (Ex 33:11) or “waiter.” (2Sa 13:18) The Greek word hy‧pe‧re′tes may be translated “attendant,” “court attendant
Reasons
War, poverty, and crime were the basic factors that reduced persons to a state of servitude. In Israelite society a person who became poor could sell himself or his children into slavery to care for his indebtedness. (Ex 21:7; Le 25:39,*47; 2Ki 4:1) One guilty of thievery but unable to make compensation was sold for the things he stole, evidently regaining his freedom at the time all claims against him were cared for.—Ex 22:3.
At times slaves held a position of great trust and honor in a household. The patriarch Abraham’s aged servant (likely Eliezer) managed all of his master’s possessions. (Ge 24:2; 15:2, 3) Abraham’s descendant Joseph, as a slave in Egypt, came to be in charge of everything belonging to Potiphar, a court official of Pharaoh. (Ge 39:1, 5, 6) In Israel, there was a possibility of a slave’s becoming wealthy and redeeming himself.—Le 25:49.
A Hebrew who sold himself into slavery to an alien resident, to a member of an alien resident’s family, or to a settler could be repurchased at any time, either by himself or by one having the right of repurchase. The redemption price was based on the number of years remaining until the Jubilee year or until the seventh year of servitude. (Le 25:47-52; De 15:12)
Although slavery also existed in ancient Israel, the Mosaic Law ensured that Hebrew slaves received protection. For instance, the Law required that an Israelite could serve as a slave for no more than six years. In the seventh year, he was to “go out as one set free without charge.” But the regulations concerning the treatment of slaves were so fair and humane that the Law of Moses made the following provision: “If the slave should insistently say, ‘I really love my master, my wife and my sons; I do not want to go out as one set free,’ then his master must bring him near to the true God and must bring him up against the door or the doorpost; and his master must pierce his ear through with an awl, and he must be his slave to time indefinite.”—Exodus 21:2-6; Leviticus 25:42,*43; Deuteronomy 15:12-18.
The provision of voluntary servitude provided a foregleam of the type of slavery that true Christians are under. For example, the Bible writers Paul, James, Peter, and Jude identified themselves as slaves of God and of Christ. (Titus 1:1; James 1:1; 2*Peter 1:1; Jude*1) Paul reminded the Thessalonian Christians that they had “turned to God from [their] idols to slave for a living and true God.” (1*Thessalonians 1:9) What moved those Christians to become willing slaves of God? Well, what was the motivating force in the case of the Israelite slave who renounced his personal freedom? Was it not love for his master? Christian slavery is based on love for God. When we come to know and love the true and living God, we are moved to serve him “with all [our] heart and all [our] soul.” (Deuteronomy 10:12,*13)
EVIL
That which results in pain, sorrow, or distress. In order to convey the correct thought in English, the very comprehensive Hebrew word ra‛ is variously translated as “bad,” “gloomy,” “ugly,” “evil,” “calamitous,” “malignant,” “ungenerous,” and “envious,” depending upon the context. (Ge 2:9; 40:7; 41:3; Ex 33:4; De 6:22; 28:35; Pr 23:6; 28:22) The Greek word ka‧kos′ may be defined as that which is (1) morally evil and (2) destructive; among the ways it has been translated are: “bad,” “evil,” “hurtful,” “injurious,” “wrong.” (Ro 7:19; 12:17; Col 3:5; Tit 1:12; Heb 5:14) The Hebrew verb qa‧lal′ means “call down evil upon.
As first used in the Scriptures, the word ra‛ is the very antithesis of good. Adam was commanded not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad (ra‛) and was also warned of the consequences for disobedience. Hence, it is evident that God sets the standard as to what is good and what is bad; it is not within man’s prerogative to do so apart from God. Although Adam transgressed God’s express law, this transgression is not chargeable to God, “for with evil things [form of ka‧kos′] God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone. But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire.”—Jas 1:13,*14; Ge 2:16,*17; 3:17-19.)
Since they did so willingly or as a way to pay back a wrong they had done I fail to see the connection to bieng evil.It is just, if anything.
Did God purpose for free will to be without limits? Imagine a busy city without any traffic laws, where everybody could drive in any direction at any speed. Would you want to drive under those conditions? No, that would be traffic anarchy and would surely result in many accidents.
So too with God’s gift of free will. Unlimited freedom would mean anarchy in society. There have to be laws to guide human activities. God’s Word says: “Behave like free men, and never use your freedom as an excuse for wickedness.” (1*Peter 2:16, JB) God wants free will to be regulated for the common good. He purposed for us to have, not total freedom, but relative freedom, subject to the rule of law
People in those times had the free will to have slaves and to sell themselves into servitude,although God set out strict boundaries as to how it was done.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
and you seem to misunderstand...are the moral rules set forth ONLY applicable to jews living at that period of time?
And again, you are telling me that israelites ordered by god to go pillage other tribes and slaughter the men, taking the women for themselves...somehow those women were NOT slaves in the classic definition?
I mean, you are like a strawman factory.
And surely Standard Slavery existed in the world since time began, and existed SOMEWHERE in the world at that time...once again WHERE IS THE CONDEMNATION in this "perfect book" that is meant, for once and for all, to set forth the moral guidelines of life?
And again, you are telling me that israelites ordered by god to go pillage other tribes and slaughter the men, taking the women for themselves...somehow those women were NOT slaves in the classic definition?
I mean, you are like a strawman factory.
And surely Standard Slavery existed in the world since time began, and existed SOMEWHERE in the world at that time...once again WHERE IS THE CONDEMNATION in this "perfect book" that is meant, for once and for all, to set forth the moral guidelines of life?
TheLastRonin
Active member
A strawman factory ..please. You're arguments are arbitrary and capricious not based on the Bible(or history for that matter..pick up a book and read for once please), for which you obviously pick and choose what you read and want to believe happened or attack. You can find no holes in my arguments because you lack the depth of understanding for the words I write to actually sink into your brain.Try and actually read what I write instead of just skimming and actually look up the scriptures I reference. I find it funny how someone with an obvious void of Biblical knowledge can condemn a book he is not completly familiar with.
CONDEMNATION? For what?Slavery in general?Harsh slavery? I already stated the purpose and method of Hebrew slavery.
God’s Law stated that kidnapping and selling a human was punishable by death. -Ex 21:16 Women captives could become slaves, or they could be taken as wives. But they were not to be used for mere sexual gratification.Deuteronomy 21:10-14.
"When capturing other cities not devoted to destruction, the Israelites, unlike the pagan nations, were not allowed to rape the women. If they desired a captive woman for a wife, certain requirements had to be met first.— Nu 31:9-19, De 21:10-14."
Women were to be treated kindly whether they be Jew or foreigner.
All slaves were to be set free in the year of the Jubilee.-Lev-21:10
Among the Israelites the status of the Hebrew slave differed from that of a slave who was a foreigner, alien resident, or settler. Whereas the non-Hebrew remained the property of the owner and could be passed on from father to son (Le 25:44-46)
"The Bible does not condone the ill-treatment of others in any form. On the contrary, it encourages respect and equality among men. (Acts 10:34, 35) It exhorts humans to treat others the way that they would like to be treated. (Luke 6:31) Moreover, the Bible encourages Christians humbly to view others as superior, regardless of their social standing. (Philippians 2:3) These principles are totally incongruous with abusive forms of slavery practiced by many nations, especially in recent centuries."
“If you will remove from your midst the yoke bar [of harsh, unjust slavery], the poking out of the finger [possibly in scorn or false accusation] and the speaking of what is hurtful; and you will grant to the hungry one your own soulful desire, and you will satisfy the soul that is being afflicted, your light also will certainly flash up even in the darkness, and your gloom will be like midday.” -Isaiah 58:9b, 10
Compare the normal treatment of captives of other nations at the time during that time period ;
"The treatment of captives varied a great deal, depending on many circumstances. Sometimes they were permitted to remain in their own land on condition that they pay tribute and not rebel against their new master. (Ge 14:1-4; 2Sa 8:5,*6; 2Ki 17:1-4) A conquered monarch was sometimes permitted to continue reigning as a vassal king, or he might be replaced. (2Ki 23:34; 24:1,*17) In some instances great numbers of captives were put to death, like the 10,000 who were thrown down from a crag so “they, one and all, burst apart.” (2Ch 25:12) Some conquerors were very cruel and fiendish in their treatment of captives, hanging them “by just their hand” (La 5:12), cutting off their noses and ears (Eze 23:25), blinding them with red-hot irons or boring out their eyes with spears or daggers (Jg 16:21; 1Sa 11:2; Jer 52:11), or “slitting open the pregnant women” of a captured town. (Am 1:13) The sadistic Assyrians, particularly noted for their extreme cruelty, are depicted in monuments as tying captives down and then skinning them alive.
Captives were often led away to forced labor (2Sa 12:29-31; 1Ch 20:3), taken into slavery, or sold as chattel (1Sa 30:1,*2; 2Ki 5:2; Isa 14:3,*4). Often conquerors delighted in roping captives together around the neck or head (compare Isa 52:2), or binding them in fetters (2Ki 25:7), and leading them off “naked and barefoot, and with buttocks stripped,” to their humiliation and shame.Isa 20:4.
The rules were set for for the Jews who followed the Hebrew god.When Christ died as a ransom sacrifice his death"
It doesn't sound very nice in comparison.The Jews in all rights could have killed their captives. I would take Hebrew slavery anyday.So,no they were never slaves in the classical defintion of those or any times. Gods "Moral codes" also only applied to his chosen people as the rest of the world marched to their own beat and did not follow him.If you want me to find a verse that says slavery is wrong its not in there as are many specific things. Treating people unjustly,unfairly and unmercifully is however(Harsh slavery).
The perfect book you speak of is based on Gods perfect laws.Please find if you can, a law in the Bible that is not just,reasonable or perfect.
TheLastRonin
Active member
Sadly I must go to bed as I leave on a trip for the weekend early tomarrow morning.This is enjoyable. Please keep posting questions/responses so I have something to do when I get home on my one day off this week.G'night for now.
samva777
Member
Why so hostile , why the Moniker Desade
I dont think your at peace with your self. Remember what I tell you , one day you will be faced with insurmountable hardship the nature of I dont know but life is like this , when this happens you can rely on your intellect or you can pray. Take it from an old sinner you will be glad if you pray.
I dont think your at peace with your self. Remember what I tell you , one day you will be faced with insurmountable hardship the nature of I dont know but life is like this , when this happens you can rely on your intellect or you can pray. Take it from an old sinner you will be glad if you pray.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
Hey idiot...I told you address slavery as an overall concept encompassing all of its iterations...amd after hurling insults what did you do? yep...try to address it only in the context of hebrew slavery.
I specifically expanded the concept, you then proceeded to rerect the same strawman and knock it down.
At this poiNT I believe the readers of this thread have to assume you are being purposely deceptive because you are unable to justify the objection.
You can sit there and assign meanngs to obscure passages and claim "no, this is what they really meant" but that then brings the question of "how in the hell do you know what they are really saying"? Do you pretend to have direct access to the truth where so many others disagee?
and as a warning point to those who claim that their god is perfect, why would such a being offer as an essential guide a flawed, contradictory ambiguous and confusingly written text with full foreknowledge of the war and bloodshed and confusion it would cause?
And Ronin...are we to assume that you in full agreement with Dr' D's mutant Dna making wholesale slaughter of thousands necessary? If not feel free to skin back a few pages and address the points brought up.
I specifically expanded the concept, you then proceeded to rerect the same strawman and knock it down.
At this poiNT I believe the readers of this thread have to assume you are being purposely deceptive because you are unable to justify the objection.
You can sit there and assign meanngs to obscure passages and claim "no, this is what they really meant" but that then brings the question of "how in the hell do you know what they are really saying"? Do you pretend to have direct access to the truth where so many others disagee?
and as a warning point to those who claim that their god is perfect, why would such a being offer as an essential guide a flawed, contradictory ambiguous and confusingly written text with full foreknowledge of the war and bloodshed and confusion it would cause?
And Ronin...are we to assume that you in full agreement with Dr' D's mutant Dna making wholesale slaughter of thousands necessary? If not feel free to skin back a few pages and address the points brought up.
AE14
Board Sponsor
please refer back to earlier posts I made directly from the ot, that dispute your statement
isoc
Member
Wow, very interesting stuff, Ronin your knowledge is astounding with the historical background, etc., shows a lot of commitment to study. The entire thread is very cool.
I have to say Dsade brings up some intresting points. Now, I am a Bible believer, fundamental, independant Baptist, KJV loving, born again, old school Christian, live by faith, not by sight, and 100% believe in the perfection and goodness of God. However, I can see from a non-believers standpoint some of the questions that arise by the passover killing of first borns, why the destruction of all living things in Jericho, the deaths of the husband and wife in the early church for the lying about the sale price of their goods, etc. From the outside it would seem there is a disconnect between these things and the loving and completely moral God we know, not to mention this topic of slavery. For me, many times I think of the Bible passage that (paraphrased) states who can know the mind of God?, or His ways are higher than our ways, and rely on my faith that God is great and good and my own experience of His mercy towards me. But that is not enough for some people.
It would be great if someone better versed than myself could explain even in general terms about why the necessity of some of the violence seen, especially in the OT. I have my own thoughts, based on the teachings I have learned, but I would like to hear others as well. I did not read the entire thread, but I think some of what Dsade is questioning is the perceived immorality of some of the acts of a perfectly moral God.
I have to say Dsade brings up some intresting points. Now, I am a Bible believer, fundamental, independant Baptist, KJV loving, born again, old school Christian, live by faith, not by sight, and 100% believe in the perfection and goodness of God. However, I can see from a non-believers standpoint some of the questions that arise by the passover killing of first borns, why the destruction of all living things in Jericho, the deaths of the husband and wife in the early church for the lying about the sale price of their goods, etc. From the outside it would seem there is a disconnect between these things and the loving and completely moral God we know, not to mention this topic of slavery. For me, many times I think of the Bible passage that (paraphrased) states who can know the mind of God?, or His ways are higher than our ways, and rely on my faith that God is great and good and my own experience of His mercy towards me. But that is not enough for some people.
It would be great if someone better versed than myself could explain even in general terms about why the necessity of some of the violence seen, especially in the OT. I have my own thoughts, based on the teachings I have learned, but I would like to hear others as well. I did not read the entire thread, but I think some of what Dsade is questioning is the perceived immorality of some of the acts of a perfectly moral God.
AE14
Board Sponsor
In essence I think this series of questions sort of sums it up:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
- Status