Does god make a good parent?

[Autodidact]

well yeah, it says you can own slaves in the bible so it must be moral

MsDana is a Muslim. I don't think she gets her morality from the Bible. MsDana: Is slavery moral?

 

[MurphtheSurf]

well yeah, it says you can own slaves in the bible so it must be moral

Well, it seems as a self proclaimed atheist Bible expert you have failed to understand why certain ones of God's people came about to having "slaves" and the laws regarding such.
If you had, I would have hoped that you would have included that aspect also.

 

[McBell]

Well, it seems as a self proclaimed atheist Bible expert you have failed to understand why certain ones of God's people came about to having "slaves" and the laws regarding such.
If you had, I would have hoped that you would have included that aspect also.

It seems as a self proclaimed theist bible expert you are most dishonest about that in which the Bible contains.

Tell me, do you apply the same count the hits, ignore the misses cherry picking approach to your whole life, or just the Bible?

 

[jonman122]

Well, it seems as a self proclaimed atheist Bible expert you have failed to understand why certain ones of God's people came about to having "slaves" and the laws regarding such.
If you had, I would have hoped that you would have included that aspect also.

you realise that those laws were immoral? You were allowed to beat your slave nearly to death regardless of whether they were male or female, or so it says in the bible. As long as they didn't die, you were in the clear. Sounds super moral to me :\

 

[waitasec]

you realise that those laws were immoral? You were allowed to beat your slave nearly to death regardless of whether they were male or female, or so it says in the bible. As long as they didn't die, you were in the clear. Sounds super moral to me :\

as long as they didn't die for 2 or 3 days...
how merciful, to the slave owner that is :beach:

 

[Misty]

Well, it seems as a self proclaimed atheist Bible expert you have failed to understand why certain ones of God's people came about to having "slaves" and the laws regarding such.
If you had, I would have hoped that you would have included that aspect also.

Owning slaves was totally immoral, there can be no excuses!

 

[Pegg]

you realise that those laws were immoral? You were allowed to beat your slave nearly to death regardless of whether they were male or female, or so it says in the bible. As long as they didn't die, you were in the clear. Sounds super moral to me :\

not quite right jonman,

God did not control the isrealites any more then he controlled other nations who kept slaves. It was a practice common to all cultures and it was practiced long before God came on the scene and gave laws to the Isrealites.

What the mosaic laws did were put restrictions on slave owners...they were not laws which encouraged slave ownership and the law you speak about was certainly not a law given by God that said its OK to beat your slave. The law you speak about was a law that said if an owner beat his slave and the slave died, then the owner was to be put to death....but if the slave does not die, then that is an indication of the owners innocence with regard to his intent on killing the slave and therefore death would not be imposed on the owner. HOWEVER, if the slave became permanently injured such as he lost a tooth, or an eye, then the slave was to be set free.

The mosaic laws regarding slavery were in no way promoting slavery as acceptable. They were designed to uphold and protect the rights of slaves in such societies....societies that God had no control over. It is man who dominates man...not God.

 

[waitasec]

not quite right jonman,

God did not control the isrealites any more then he controlled other nations who kept slaves. It was a practice common to all cultures and it was practiced long before God came on the scene and gave laws to the Isrealites.

What the mosaic laws did were put restrictions on slave owners...they were not laws which encouraged slave ownership and the law you speak about was certainly not a law given by God that said its OK to beat your slave. The law you speak about was a law that said if an owner beat his slave and the slave died, then the owner was to be put to death....but if the slave does not die, then that is an indication of the owners innocence with regard to his intent on killing the slave and therefore death would not be imposed on the owner. HOWEVER, if the slave became permanently injured such as he lost a tooth, or an eye, then the slave was to be set free.

The mosaic laws regarding slavery were in no way promoting slavery as acceptable. They were designed to uphold and protect the rights of slaves in such societies....societies that God had no control over. It is man who dominates man...not God.

so, if god is merciful, why wouldn't he say something against slavery in the first place...or does the god in your bible bend to the will of man?

are you insinuating that slaves have no human rights? i thought god was a champion for the weak and feable...oh yeah, they have to BOW DOWN TO HIM...i forgot god is a jealous god

 

[Autodidact]

Well, it seems as a self proclaimed atheist Bible expert you have failed to understand why certain ones of God's people came about to having "slaves" and the laws regarding such.
If you had, I would have hoped that you would have included that aspect also.

You don't think jonman is entitled to have opinions about the Bible?
Was his statement false? If so, refute it.

So it's moral to have slaves if you're Jewish?

Does this approach apply to the whole Bible, you have to read it in the context of the mores of the people of the time? Or only the parts you don't like?

 

[Autodidact]

not quite right jonman,

God did not control the isrealites any more then he controlled other nations who kept slaves. It was a practice common to all cultures and it was practiced long before God came on the scene and gave laws to the Isrealites.

What the mosaic laws did were put restrictions on slave owners...they were not laws which encouraged slave ownership and the law you speak about was certainly not a law given by God that said its OK to beat your slave. The law you speak about was a law that said if an owner beat his slave and the slave died, then the owner was to be put to death....but if the slave does not die, then that is an indication of the owners innocence with regard to his intent on killing the slave and therefore death would not be imposed on the owner. HOWEVER, if the slave became permanently injured such as he lost a tooth, or an eye, then the slave was to be set free.

The mosaic laws regarding slavery were in no way promoting slavery as acceptable. They were designed to uphold and protect the rights of slaves in such societies....societies that God had no control over. It is man who dominates man...not God.

Heretic. God has given us the right to buy slaves, and you are perjuring his holy word.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

 

[MurphtheSurf]

you realise that those laws were immoral? You were allowed to beat your slave nearly to death regardless of whether they were male or female, or so it says in the bible. As long as they didn't die, you were in the clear. Sounds super moral to me :\

Book, chapter and verses please?
Are we talking about slavery in the Mosaic Law, or the slavery of Africans in the new world?

 

[McBell]

Book, chapter and verses please?
Are we talking about slavery in the Mosaic Law, or the slavery of Africans in the new world?

no difference really.
Other than the time of happening.

 

[waitasec]

Book, chapter and verses please?
Are we talking about slavery in the Mosaic Law, or the slavery of Africans in the new world?

the bravery of being out of range
ha ha ha

 

[Autodidact]

Book, chapter and verses please?

Exodus 21:20-21 (English Standard Version)

20"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the(A) slave is his money.

Are we talking about slavery in the Mosaic Law, or the slavery of Africans in the new world?

Doesn't the Bible apply to all times and places?

 

[jonman122]

really awesome video on just how moral god is:

[youtube]hCovYF51qHE[/youtube]
YouTube - Morality Without God


i was running around and found this, i figured it fit in here perfectly to help explain some of the things in the bible god has condoned or even commanded be done.

 

[waitasec]

i just thought of something interesting

the word father does not mean the same today as it did then

think about it...christians claim they have a "heavenly father"
back then a father was feared...
today the image of a good father is a man that spends time with their children nurturing them with love and care and not only seen as the sole provider and disciplinary figure, remember...
"wait til your father gets home"?

i think that is why non-believers say green and believers say orange

 

[MurphtheSurf]

no difference really.
Other than the time of happening.

Very well then, now I know where you're coming from.

 

[MurphtheSurf]

Exodus 21:20-21 (English Standard Version)

20"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the(A) slave is his money.

From the book "Insight on the Scriptures", an encyclopedia on Biblical issues and understanding;

A Hebrew slave owner was permitted to strike his slave man or slave girl with a stick if the slave was disobedient or rebellious. But if the slave died under the beating, the slave owner was to be punished. If the slave lived for a day or two afterward, however, this would be evidence tending to indicate that the slave owner did not have murder in his heart. He had the right to mete out disciplinary punishment, for the slave was “his money.” A man would be very unlikely to want to destroy completely his own valuable property, thereby suffering a loss. Also, if the slave died after the passage of a day or more, it might not be certain whether death was from the beating or from some other cause. So if the slave continued alive a day or two, the master would not be punished.—Ex 21:20, 21

As anyone can see, the slave owner was accountable to his fellow human whether slave or free man. A much different situation here from the days of the imported African slaves in the New World.

Doesn't the Bible apply to all times and places?

It does in spirit (spirit of the law)
Do you apply it in your life and everyday dealings?

 

[MurphtheSurf]

i just thought of something interesting

the word father does not mean the same today as it did then

think about it...christians claim they have a "heavenly father"
back then a father was feared...
today the image of a good father is a man that spends time with their children nurturing them with love and care and not only seen as the sole provider and disciplinary figure, remember...
"wait til your father gets home"?

i think that is why non-believers say green and believers say orange

What kind of fear are we talking about here?
Are we talking about a fear where one could be punished mentally or physically? Or are we talking about the reverential fear of displeasing our father, Heavenly or otherwise?

There is a difference.

 

[MurphtheSurf]

the bravery of being out of range
ha ha ha

I would savor the chance to go face to face with any one of you guys.
If ever in San Diego County, give me a heads up, and I'll arrange a meeting with you.
Especially you Mr. Waitasec.



hahaha