-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Could have Banned Slavery or Shellfish"
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
I must say your pun was pretty finny.
Until the 19th century slavery was common and typical throughout the world. Classes were inherited. Each person was born into a situation, and that was where they remained. Reforms instituted by the West which have been highly criticized, nevertheless have made life better for a lot of people. There is a worldwide concept of pursuit of happiness now. I think that is nice. Slavery is still common in many parts of the world and is still thought to be legitimate by many people. Many people are still born into slavery.
Perhaps because in that era, shellfish, and the other forbidden foods were known to be carnivores and or scavengers, more easily able to pass on disease ... than herbivores.
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
Serious? This isn't in the jokes section but perhaps it should be! Any wild animal can pick up disease, any flesh can be dangerous to consume if not treated in the right way. Still, Yahweh thought shellfish prohibitions more important than slavery prohibitions? He is a real charmer!
Luciferi Baphomet
Lucifer, is my Liberator
Slavery is still in christianity but it is not the kind of slavery we think of.
Socratic Berean
Occasional thinker, perpetual seeker
Just a few thoughts. I'm sure this will open a can of worms, but I'll throw it out there anyway. (Keep in mind these are from a non-denominational Protestant viewpoint, leaning heavily on applied exegesis, and are greatly simplified for the sake of space.)
1. No shellfish. This is not a simple dietary prohibition for Christian adherents. I'm sure you know many Christians who eat shrimp. Are they just picking and choosing which scriptures to adhere to? No. Once the prophesied Mesiah came and "fulfilled the law," these types of requirements in the Old Testament scriptures no longer stood; the New Testament scriptures dispensed with them. How so?
To understand the issue, you have to go back to before there were Christians and even before Jews were a distinctive group among those walking the face of the earth. To address the fall of man, knowing that he would continue to be a screw up for generations to come, God chose to use a select group of people (descendants of Abraham on one side) to carry a message down through time (the information in the scriptures) and to serve as the genetic line for the Messiah (house of David and all that). To set these people aside, to make them distinctive among nations, they were handed a set of cultural norms that included diet, rituals, holidays, rules for marriage, etc. (As Eliab Ben Benjamin alluded to above, some of these things have been identified by modern medicine and agronomy as insightful practices that carried other, very practical benefits that modern society only understood much later.)
The arrival of the Mesiah marked the end of an era. The next chapters of the message had arrived. The law had been fulfilled. Non-Jews were "grafted" into the "vine" of God's people through Christ. The critical need for distinct cultural practices to define the oracle was over. All people were free from the law, but Jews could continue practicing their rich traditions to the extent they wanted and non-Jews were not required to adopt Jewish custom as a matter of salvation. (Some law was clearly laid out as non-negotiable--no killing, stealing, etc.--but that's a whole other conversation.)
****Brief reminder...simplified Protestant view point here. Put the pitch forks away...****
2. Slavery. As Brickjectivity notes, the institution was prevalent throughout the time of the Bible. Indeed, it persists today (see the cover article in the June 2017 edition of the Atlantic Monthly). The institution was mostly a different animal than the abomination seen in the U.S. (Watch the slaves in the HBO series Rome and then watch those in Roots...no comparison.)
This, of course, doesn't mean there weren't exceptions, as with anything in life, but it was different beastie. Slaves could hold positions of great responsibility--accountants and physicians were often slaves--and, in the later days of Rome, they could even file complaints against their masters. Slaves could work, earn money, and buy their freedom (at which point they gained the right to vote). Those sentenced to slavery as a punishment for some crime had a harsher experience, but it was a subset of the institution meant to be a punishment.
3. Bible on slavery. The scriptures address slavery directly and indirectly in the Old and New Testament scriptures, and instruct slave owners to treat slaves well. Exodus 21 is a good place to look. So...there isn't a clear prohibition on the widely accepted, cross-cultural institution of that day, but there were clear guidelines aimed at protecting slaves. And Revelation 18:13 does come out and disparage the institution as part of the "immoral" trade of luxury goods. The New Testament also uses reprimanding language by lumping slave traders among the "lawless" (possibly for illegal acquisition of slaves). So...scripture was very clearly set against what we experienced in the United States as slavery (it's is poor exegesis or outright isogesis that leads some to argue that the Bible supports slavery).
Anyway...that should give people something to argue about for weeks...
1. No shellfish. This is not a simple dietary prohibition for Christian adherents. I'm sure you know many Christians who eat shrimp. Are they just picking and choosing which scriptures to adhere to? No. Once the prophesied Mesiah came and "fulfilled the law," these types of requirements in the Old Testament scriptures no longer stood; the New Testament scriptures dispensed with them. How so?
To understand the issue, you have to go back to before there were Christians and even before Jews were a distinctive group among those walking the face of the earth. To address the fall of man, knowing that he would continue to be a screw up for generations to come, God chose to use a select group of people (descendants of Abraham on one side) to carry a message down through time (the information in the scriptures) and to serve as the genetic line for the Messiah (house of David and all that). To set these people aside, to make them distinctive among nations, they were handed a set of cultural norms that included diet, rituals, holidays, rules for marriage, etc. (As Eliab Ben Benjamin alluded to above, some of these things have been identified by modern medicine and agronomy as insightful practices that carried other, very practical benefits that modern society only understood much later.)
The arrival of the Mesiah marked the end of an era. The next chapters of the message had arrived. The law had been fulfilled. Non-Jews were "grafted" into the "vine" of God's people through Christ. The critical need for distinct cultural practices to define the oracle was over. All people were free from the law, but Jews could continue practicing their rich traditions to the extent they wanted and non-Jews were not required to adopt Jewish custom as a matter of salvation. (Some law was clearly laid out as non-negotiable--no killing, stealing, etc.--but that's a whole other conversation.)
****Brief reminder...simplified Protestant view point here. Put the pitch forks away...****
2. Slavery. As Brickjectivity notes, the institution was prevalent throughout the time of the Bible. Indeed, it persists today (see the cover article in the June 2017 edition of the Atlantic Monthly). The institution was mostly a different animal than the abomination seen in the U.S. (Watch the slaves in the HBO series Rome and then watch those in Roots...no comparison.)
This, of course, doesn't mean there weren't exceptions, as with anything in life, but it was different beastie. Slaves could hold positions of great responsibility--accountants and physicians were often slaves--and, in the later days of Rome, they could even file complaints against their masters. Slaves could work, earn money, and buy their freedom (at which point they gained the right to vote). Those sentenced to slavery as a punishment for some crime had a harsher experience, but it was a subset of the institution meant to be a punishment.
3. Bible on slavery. The scriptures address slavery directly and indirectly in the Old and New Testament scriptures, and instruct slave owners to treat slaves well. Exodus 21 is a good place to look. So...there isn't a clear prohibition on the widely accepted, cross-cultural institution of that day, but there were clear guidelines aimed at protecting slaves. And Revelation 18:13 does come out and disparage the institution as part of the "immoral" trade of luxury goods. The New Testament also uses reprimanding language by lumping slave traders among the "lawless" (possibly for illegal acquisition of slaves). So...scripture was very clearly set against what we experienced in the United States as slavery (it's is poor exegesis or outright isogesis that leads some to argue that the Bible supports slavery).
Anyway...that should give people something to argue about for weeks...
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
Care to share with us what is "insightful" about not eating shellfish, an important and healthy source of protein? No offence mate, but that sounds like hogwash, and on the subject of hogs what was insightful about not eating pork? Tell that to Revoltingest!
Your claim puts me in mind of an African tribe I heard about where pregnant women don't eat fish because they fear the baby will be born with gills, so they lose out on a very important source of protein when it is needed more than ever because of silly religious superstition.
Hoo ha. Not the first time I've heard that tired old attempt to make biblical slavery seem like a "nice thing" really. Biblical slavery meant the slave owner was allowed to own human beings, that is immoral in itself dude wouldn't you agree? You see no problem in a man owning other people as property, even owning their children? Of course it is, so lets not pretend otherwise shall we?
As for slavery persisting today, so what? Of course it does, and of course it is still immoral and has to be opposed. Or do you think there is a moral case to be made for slavery? Just asking mate, Christians perform some incredible mental gymnastics when it comes to this subject.
Do you think there is a moral case for killing witches, anyone who has had "relations" with animals, or anyone who makes a sacrifice to a god other than Yahweh? The deity commands us to do that as well in Exodus. Maybe I'm just not seeing how potentially "insightful" it might be to kill other human beings based on superstitious hogwash?
Funny how the deity wants people to do his killing in those instances, he was quite happy to carry out genocide on his own on other days!
Yes, lets look at Exodus shall we?
Exodus 21:20-21 : 20If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
Exodus 21:26-27 : 26If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. 27And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.
There you go, entitled to knock seven shades of sh*t out of your slaves, as long as they don't die soon after you're off the hook. Alternatively you could just knock their teeth out, or cause them to lose an eye, at the heavy penalty of having to give them freedom to walk. Praise the Lord!
I'm sure the above practices are actually "insightful" only I'm missing the point with my poor exegesis. Looking forward to you opening my eyes to the truth! I have two eyes btw, never been a slave mate.
Divine inspiration is experienced only by the mystic who receives it and in turn interprets through and for his culture. The Abrahamic covenant is a good example. God does not speak words, only humans do. Slavery was a normal part of that culture.
Augustus
…
For the people who wrote them, a world without slavery was pretty much unimaginable. It was just part of the natural order of things like sun and rain. There was no real concept of individualism, let alone individual rights.
Also, with Christianity, it appears that they were expecting the eschaton in the not too distant future so changing the entire social order probably wasn't the most pressing concern.
Although religion has been used to justify slavery, some of the earliest abolitionists, such as Gregory of Nyssa (4thC), based their objections in theology.
"God said, Let us make man in our own image and likeness. If he is in the likeness of God, and rules the whole earth, and has been granted authority over everything on earth from God, who is his buyer, tell me? Who is his seller?
To God alone belongs this power; or, rather, not even to God himself. For his gracious gifts, it says, are irrevocable. God would not therefore reduce the human race to slavery, since he himself, when we had been enslaved to sin, spontaneously recalled us to freedom.
But if God does not enslave what is free, who is he that sets his own power above God’s? "
Fast forward 1400 years, most of the major players the abolitionist movement were mostly Quakers and Evangelicals, again based on religious beliefs.
While it has always been about the actions of humans, religion did play a significant role in the abolition of slavery.
Shellfish on the other hand have remained an abomination and are illegal throughout the civilised world on pain of death. Only the most depraved of individuals relish feasting on their succulent and flavoursome flesh. Some people see the Molotov cocktail as being an emblem of the hooligan, but those of a more cerebral nature realise it is fact the prawn cocktail that is the true threat to society.
Shellfish are banned by kosher laws because they are scavengers and considered the cockroaches of the sea. Everything that dies in the sea or dies and ends up in the seas are consumed by shrimp, lobster, scallops, crabs, oysters, and mussels. This specially designed fish also is charged with the duty to clean up contaminated waters.
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
So what? You and I eat dead flesh as well, it hasn't stopped some groups of humans becoming cannibalistic! Ever eaten shellfish btw? I'm guessing you have. Mmm, shellfish...
Do you mean some shellfish are filter feeders, and will concentrate heavy metals within them in contaminated waters for example? That is true, but at the time the bible was written our oceans and rivers were not as nearly contaminated as they are today, therefore it would be a safe thing to eat at that time. Certainly as safe as many berries, fungi or root vegetables, that will poison you and possibly kill you if you pick the wrong one. Yahweh didn't give us a handy guide on those foodstuffs though did he? A few words about germ theory may have been helpful as well! Almost as though he wasn't aware of those things...
Socratic Berean
Occasional thinker, perpetual seeker
I'm not a toxicologist and I don't claim to know the mind of God, but I love shellfish. Eat them all the time. My favorite chain restaurant in the U.S. for shellfish is called Legal Seafoods. They are famous for two things: 1) their clam chowder has been served at the presidential inaugural balls for years and years; 2) they have onsite laboratories that test all their shellfish shipments before they are served to customers. Why does a nationally famous restaurant chain feel compelled to test shellfish before they are served? Because many people get really sick from shellfish each year. If you look at the Australian Department of Health website (health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/CSA-cdi3701e.htm) there is a good article on paralytic shellfish poisoning being a modern worldwide problem stemming from bio toxins that trace back to microalgae.
I'm not sure what "Biblical slavery" is. Are you referring to the slavery addressed by the Bible that was a histiorical institution practiced by many societies during the lifetime of the audience that the scriptures were originally written for? Or maybe the Biblical account of Jews being under the yoke of Egyptian slavery?
I have not characterized slavery in any form as a "nice thing," so I'm a little puzzled by your use of quotes on that point.
The fact that the Bible does not outright condemn the institution of slavery is an interesting topic of conversation, as is the fact that the Bible stepped in and provided previously unknown protections for the people who happened to fall into this societal instution.
I do not support slavery and cannot see a "moral case" to support this historic, worldwide practice. If you are implying that some Christians you know have used scripture to support the institution, please elaborate on their argument and I will (try to) show you the faulty exegesis.
Context is a fundamental principle in the analysis of literature, poetry, or other forms of communication (including religious scripture). I'd encourage you to look at who wrote those lines, for whom were they written, why were they written, when were they written, under what conditions were they written. After that, we can have an informed conversation on the issue.
The definition of "genocide" (the killing of a large group of people) is fairly narrow; it usually focuses on a nation or ethnic group. What are you referring to?
Your highly selective use of isolated passages out of context belies a much deeper and favorable treatment of the issue in the Bible. If you want to cite specific passages, I'd encourage you to be fair and address them all (like how all slaves must be set free after a certain time). Before the Biblical protections for slaves were written, what other source or power advocated for the rights of people who fell into this man-made institution?
Last edited:
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
What does that prove? How many people suffer illness from improperly cooked chicken each year? How many suffer from eating poison berries or fungi, or improperly cooked kidney beans each year? The bible didn't put a blanket ban on any of those foods though did it?
You are the one talking about a difference with what is described in the bible and the "abomination" of slavery in the U.S. as though they are two different things. I'm happy to call it all an abomination.
See above, you have tried to distinguish what is described in the bible from the "abomination" of American slavery. Shall we just say slavery is an abomination regardless? Pity your deity didn't see it that way, it may have told the ignorant goat herders to stop practicing it.
You mean the fact that the bible condones slavery is an "interesting topic of conversation"? No, not "interesting" any more than any other form of human cruelty and exploitation of other human beings is "interesting". Pretty damn sure you wouldn't describe it as "interesting" if you or someone close to you was made a slave.
Would you like to take a guess at who wrote those passages in Exodus - slave owner or slave? What do you think more likely?
Glad to hear you don't think there isn't a moral case for slavery, if only the bible agreed with you right? The deity could have just made it a command "do not own another human being, it is immoral, slavery is immoral". It made a command about shellfish, it made a command about wearing mixed fibres (I'd love to hear why you think the mixed fibres thing is "insightful"), but it thought it would leave slavery well alone. You see no problem there?
I was being ironic about "faulty exegesis", it doesn't matter what spin you try and put on it slavery is an abomination, can we agree on that.
Really? You're not pulling my chain? Just explain the verses from Exodus I quoted then. Under what "context" is it okay for one human being to beat another with a rod, knock their teeth out, or take their eye out? That will be a good starting point.
How about the whole population of the planet apart from Noah and his family? Do you think that might qualify?
If you want to set yourself up as someone who can see beyond "faulty exegesis" at least get to know your holy book a little better:
Leviticus 25:44-46 44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession.46You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.
Well that was about pagans right though? Damn pagans, of course it's okay to keep them as slaves permanently correct? They don't even worship the right deity, they deserve it. Correct? Don't tell me - all about context right?
Socratic Berean
Occasional thinker, perpetual seeker
Great questions. Back to shellfish and your original question... The Bible steers early peoples away from shellfish in early days, and modern food science shows it can be on the risky side even for those under current medical regimens, as I pointed out with citations. Respectfully, I ask that we stick to the argument at hand.
The differences between the institution of slavery as practiced in the classical western world and as practiced in the early United States history is quite clear. This is not a religious debate or my independent thesis; it is a secular historic fact.
I do not believe that men should own men. I doubt that God believes that men should own men any more than he believes in the human-created institution of prostitution. Let's place the blame where it belongs...with men. The Bible simply aims to put in place some protections for those subject to a man-made, and vile, institution.
When the Bible clearly aims to protect people who find themselves in the man-made institution of slavery, I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that the scriptures (Old Testament and/or New) "condone" the institution. I can see how the lack of an outright condemnation could be considered "condoning," and if that is the position you take, I am sympathetic to that argument.
From my view, men are going to do what men want to do, and there are plenty of examples in history and the Biblical account to support that position. Otherwise, we would not need salvation (again, I'm speaking from a non-denominational Protestant perspective, for those who have just entered the fray). In my view, the Bible is saying "Hey! You morons who I created and fail to listen to any of my guidance...if you insist on owning other humans, you will give them some rights and you will take care of them..." (Maybe that is overly simplistic. I hope that one day I can better understand God's position on the issue.)
Tradition tells us that Moses authored Exodus. He was of an enslaved people, secreted among the family of the leadership of the time, and led an entire nation out of slavery and into freedom.
Yes, "the diety" could have commanded that people not practice slavery. I don't know why he didn't, but I'm glad that He put in place protections for those who have fallen into this terrible man-made institution, and I look forward to the day when I have the opportunity to ask him, "Why?" in regards to the lack of a complete prohibition. That said, God has commanded many things that men do not honor, from covetousness to idolatry, but you see plenty of examples of rebellion against those commands up unto this day. I'm certain that man would no more adhere to an edict against slavery than they would a clear order against sex outside the confines of a marital covenant.
I do not know why God instructed the Jews--as part of a broader set of cultural parameters to set them apart as the oracle for the transmission of salvinic information and the seed of the Messiah--to not use mixed fibers any more than I fully understand why He commanded that animals being prepared as food must be killed in a certain way (as is still practiced by Jews (kosher) and Muslims (halal)). (I also do not fully understand how the combustion engine of my car works, but I gladly get into my car every day expecting that it will get me to work.) As a believer, I accept that God tells us, "...my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways..." (Isaiah 55:8). I'm not too proud or arrogant to say, "I'm cool with that."
As noted earlier, and by other contributors too, it has taken many hundreds of years for modern society to understand the side benefits of some of these edicts, Levitical or otherwise. Look at the rates of transmission of veneral disease among circumcised and non-circumcised males. Look at the edict to allow fields to "rest" after 6 years of planting and harvesting versus the problems faced by modern farmers trying to employ intensive monocropping. Look at the basic sanitation-related edicts.
Again, I cannot pretend to know the full reasons behind God's edicts for the Jews--other than to set them apart--but medicine keeps finding interesting reasons to support some of these things. You ask about pigs and pork...swine are one of the few animals that are widely eaten by peoples across the globe that carry trichinosis. (Maybe that has something to do with it, maybe it doesn't. I just don't know).
I'm not clear on what you were referring to by "faulty exegesis," but, yes, we can agree that slavery is an abomination.
Does the Bible convey an overarching message that says it is okay to beat someone, knock their teeth out, or take their eye (a common form of punishment up through the Tudor rule of England), or does the preponderance of scripture (not a few verses out of context and removed from their historical legal setting in an Old Testament time that was absent any legal codex) teach compassion, "turn the other cheek," "love they neighbor as they self," "do unto others as you would have them do to you" (the so-called "Golden Rule")? The Old Testament set down some early laws for a disorderly and violent human race, absent any over structure like that provided by Rome (as did Hamarabi's edicts), but if you look at the preponderance of scripture, and after the law was fulfilled by the Messiah, you will see a bigger (different) picture that moves not only away from "eye for an eye," but in a wholly different direction. Context.
Again, genocide is a targeted eradication of people based on their ethnic or national identity. If you want to use Noah's flood as an example, God did not select people to perish based on ethnicity or nationality, but on depravity. If you want to follow along with the story, he spared one family that listened to his law. Lawbreakers were subject to the lawyer and judge and faced the law enforcer. It would be hard to make a case of prejudice against an ethnic or national identity behind God's judgement there.
Again, I'm a little unclear why--if you want to use scripture to support your argument--you are picking and choosing only passages (out of context) that seem to support your stance and neglecting the larger body of scripture that leans against that stance. I very much admire your effort to dig into the scriptures to try to figure out what is going on, though, and I look forward to further dialogue with you.
Last edited:
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
Socratic, I knew you weren't going to come up with anything persuasive or compelling in your misguided attempt to absolve your deity of any responsibility when it comes to slavery, but Jeez mate that was weak. Most of the time you don't even attempt to answer my points, you just make assertions about context, shrug your shoulders, or divert to "well look at all the nice stuff the bible says" as though slavery is something trivial. However, I'll have another go, though I suspect this will be futile.
As for putting protection around slaves, how is hitting one with a rod to an inch of his or her life "protection"? Have a go at answering that without making an assertion about context please.
I agree that slavery is a man made institution, just like religion, just like the deity is man made. People made up deities then, they continue to make them up today. However, in these enlightened times we should be consigning the deities to the annals of human history rather embracing ancient superstitions as something valuable in the 21st century.
Please don't make an assertion about "context" without even attempting to answer my point. If I quote that whole chapter does it make that the bit about knocking sh*t out of someone with a rod sound any better?
Mate, you have said you "don't know" why god didn't outright oppose slavery from the start, so maybe there is nothing more for us to discuss. Christians hold that "God is Love", though this would seem to be one of many occasions where "God is Love" only applies to people in his little coterie, not the poor buggers who were slaves for example. Thanks for the exchange, but I think you need to revisit your exegesis!
What I said was entirely relevant, I was trying to make a broader point that there are other foodstuffs that are risky to human health, some will kill you if you are not aware of the poison nature like berries, leaves, fruit that is toxic etc., some flesh will harm you if not prepared in the right way or if eaten raw. The deity thought it only worth mentioning shrimps and pork though? It may have been more "insightful" of the deity to give those ancient goat herders a text book on poisonous flora and fauna than a prohibition on eating shrimp! A few pointers on germ theory would have saved a few lives as well no doubt.
You don't get away with making assertions like that dude! Yes, they were different times and places but owning people is owning people. The bible codified slavery and made it legitimate, American pro slavery advocates used the bible to justify owning other human beings. I think they had a more honest interpretation of the bible than you, the bible condones slavery.
What sort of nonsense is that? You doubt that god believes men should own men? You seem so certain about what the deity thinks with your expert exegesis, I'm surprised you shrug your shoulders here. The whole point of the bible is, supposedly, the revelation of a deity and divine decrees to humanity, a deity that is supposed to help keep us on the "straight and narrow". It tells us so much about what we are allowed, and not allowed to do, but it didn't see fit to tell us "Do not own another human being"? You see no problem there?
As for putting protection around slaves, how is hitting one with a rod to an inch of his or her life "protection"? Have a go at answering that without making an assertion about context please.
I agree that slavery is a man made institution, just like religion, just like the deity is man made. People made up deities then, they continue to make them up today. However, in these enlightened times we should be consigning the deities to the annals of human history rather embracing ancient superstitions as something valuable in the 21st century.
Sure, it says "Hey! You morons who own slaves! You can hit them with a rod, until they are unconscious, just as long as you don't kill them! Oh the joy of the Lord!
Yeah, "tradition" tells us Mark, Luke, Matthew and John wrote the gospels but biblical scholarship says different. The authorship of the Pentateuch is thought likely to come from four different sources, not one, if you have an NIV bible it should mention this in the authorship section.
Have you read the OT? It is incredibly violent and barbaric! The deity commands tribes to attack other tribes, it says it will "give over" the enemy, it is largely a warrior god. That early society sounds like a deeply unpleasant and brutal existence, I'm glad I'm alive today and not then when ignorance and superstition were rampant.
Please don't make an assertion about "context" without even attempting to answer my point. If I quote that whole chapter does it make that the bit about knocking sh*t out of someone with a rod sound any better?
Semantics dude, it is just killing isn't it? I'm not really bothered if someone trying to kill me is doing so because of my ethnicity, my material wealth, my beliefs, or just because they are lunatics; I'd just rather not be murdered thanks!
Mate, you have said you "don't know" why god didn't outright oppose slavery from the start, so maybe there is nothing more for us to discuss. Christians hold that "God is Love", though this would seem to be one of many occasions where "God is Love" only applies to people in his little coterie, not the poor buggers who were slaves for example. Thanks for the exchange, but I think you need to revisit your exegesis!
Socratic Berean
Occasional thinker, perpetual seeker
I appreciate your enthusiasm for your position. You seem focused on picking a fight rather than holding a conversation; I'm not confident that there has been much "exchange," here. Thank you for your comments and I look forward to hearing more about your world view in other discussions.
I mainly make sense of these sorts of rules as cultural markers: "our society alone has been given a special status by God, so to keep this status, we should keep ourselves distinct from the cultures around us and not adopt their practices."
Also, I don't know about ancient shrimp fishing practices, but oysters and clams are raised in constructed beds at the same location year in, year out, so they have the same issue as pigs: raising them is incompatible with a nomadic shepherding lifestyle.