Does god make a good parent?

[waitasec]

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.

well, what's your take?
when todays christian/you calls god father, what do you envision?

 

[Pegg]

I know you've directed these questions to Murph, so I hope you dont mind if i reply to your legitimate concerns.

I wonder why a slave who voluntarily remains a slave is to be marked so everyone knows the difference? Exodus 21:6
I mean if all slaves were, as you claim, merely "indentured servants"?

The sign of the mark on the ear was so that people would know that the slave had chosen to remain with the master. It gave the slave the recognition that he was one set free and all would know that that slave was a slave by choice and not one who was paying off a debt or was sold. It basically raised his/her status which was a loving provision rather then anything derogatory.

You seem to be claiming that all slaves were likened to your "indentured servant" claim, however as pointed out to you, the wives and children of your "indentured servants" were not to be turned loose with the "indentured servant" if the Master provided them.[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Exodus 21:1-4[/FONT]

Thats not quite the full story there. Vs 3-4 states: 3 If he should come in by himself, by himself he will go out. If he is the owner of a wife, then his wife must go out with him. 4 If his master should give him a wife and she does bear him sons or daughters, the wife and her children will become her master’s and he will go out by himself"

Notice that if the slave came in 'with a wife' then he could take her and his children with him. But in some cases a slave was given a wife by the master. This could have been another slave that the master owned or it could have even been one of his own family members. If that was the case then the slave could not take that wife or children with him because they belong to the masters household.

But in such cases, the slave had the right to choose to stay with the master and keep the wife that was given to him.

Again its an example of how God considers the rights of all people...those in a higher position and those in a lower position.

You also ignore the fact that if the slaves come from the surrounding nations that your "indentured servant" claim completely falls through.
I mean, you can even leave slaves to you children as inherited property.[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]Leviticus 25:44-46[/FONT]

While this is true that the status of the Hebrew slave differed from that foreign slave, it does not mean that those foreign slaves had no rights. They came under the same rules regarding the way an owner was to treat them as a hebrew slave (the only exception being that they were not set free after 7 years) The reason being was that other nations practiced slavery according to their own standards and they made no provision for the freedom of slaves. The Isrealites were different in that regard because they were practicing slavery which was regulated by a system of fairness according to Gods requirements. It only applied to the Israelite slaves because they were Abrahams children and Gods people...the people he was leading...the other nations were not included in that privileged position at that time.

another example is that foreign slaves were actually in a better position then free foreigners with regards to certain privileges.
For instance, if a priest purchased a foreign slave, that slave could partake in eating the holy food of the temple whereas a free foreigner could never partake of such foods....nor could a free hebrew.

Leviticus 22:10 “‘And no stranger at all may eat anything holy. No settler with a priest nor a hired laborer may eat anything holy. 11 But in case a priest should purchase a soul (slave), as a purchase with his money, he as such may share in eating it. "

 

[MurphtheSurf]

well, what's your take?
when todays christian/you calls god father, what do you envision?

It was you that didn't answer the question, so I ask again;
What kind of fear were you talking about? Anyone that knows what they're talking about should have no problem with an answer.

 

[McBell]

The sign of the mark on the ear was so that people would know that the slave had chosen to remain with the master. It gave the slave the recognition that he was one set free and all would know that that slave was a slave by choice and not one who was paying off a debt or was sold. It basically raised his/her status which was a loving provision rather then anything derogatory.

Actually it merely shows that he loves his wife and children enough to remain a slave in order to stay with them.

Your reply also shows that you have no intention on actually addressing the fact that it is the wife and children who are the point.
You know, the ones who are like the African Slaves of not so long ago.
Nice try though.

Thats not quite the full story there. Vs 3-4 states: 3 If he should come in by himself, by himself he will go out. If he is the owner of a wife, then his wife must go out with him. 4 If his master should give him a wife and she does bear him sons or daughters, the wife and her children will become her master’s and he will go out by himself"

Notice that if the slave came in 'with a wife' then he could take her and his children with him. But in some cases a slave was given a wife by the master. This could have been another slave that the master owned or it could have even been one of his own family members. If that was the case then the slave could not take that wife or children with him because they belong to the masters household.

So I did not leave out anything important, now did I?
I find it rather interesting the way you so totally avoid the part that flat out shows you are wrong.
not the least bit surprised though.

But in such cases, the slave had the right to choose to stay with the master and keep the wife that was given to him.

Yes, the wife that is a slave in the manner you and Murphthesurf are trying so hard to cover up.

Again its an example of how God considers the rights of all people...those in a higher position and those in a lower position.

The rest of your post is nothing more than you ignoring the parts you dislike.

 

[waitasec]

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

well i was actually referring to the distance in time...
and it's Ms. to you

 

[waitasec]

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.

physical and emotional abuse is abuse nonetheless...they both leave scares

what do YOU think in regards to a "father" figure?
for me, he was distant, emotionally unavailable, provider, absent, controlling, mostly unreachable
and when we did something wrong, it was "wait til your father gets home..."

i think prior to this young generation, fathers were GENERALLY seen as haughty patriarchs, men who ruled with an iron fist over wives and children.

would you agree?

 

[jonman122]

Well, it seems Jon didn't learn anything from those exchanges either. :no: I have many worldly people I consider friends, including an atheist on this very forum whom I have never even met face to face. But I would like to.
Sadly, you complain of my lack of respect for logic, reason, understanding and morality. I don't know why you threw in the morality thing, but I suppose when one has nothing, one must make up things.
Ironically, it was an appreciation for logic, reason, understanding that convinced me that I was making the right choices when considering my spiritual path.
You might understand that too one day when you have more real life experiences than the typical know-it-all teenager.

I don't see anything here pertaining to any part of this discussion, all you are doing here at this point is throwing around insults and refusing to answer others questions. Why are you even here?

 

[waitasec]

just look at the middle east now, can we say OUR definition, in the western world, of father/husband is the same as theirs? it is suffice to say no. don't you think that is the same image the god in the bible is portraying...is that the heavenly father JC was talking about?

 

[MurphtheSurf]

physical and emotional abuse is abuse nonetheless...they both leave scares

what do YOU think in regards to a "father" figure?
for me, he was distant, emotionally unavailable, provider, absent, controlling, mostly unreachable
and when we did something wrong, it was "wait til your father gets home..."

i think prior to this young generation, fathers were GENERALLY seen as haughty patriarchs, men who ruled with an iron fist over wives and children.

would you agree?

No.
What I see in your post is a generalization based on your perception of the failures of your own father. But I'm not you, so I can't say for sure.
Now, my father was no Ward Cleaver. (probably before your time)
He was firm, he was the undisputed head of the household, and us kids knew the consequences for misbehavior would be swift and unwavering. We didn't fear punishment, we had that reverential fear of displeasing him.
He rarely spanked us, in fact, I can remember my little brothers getting spanked once or twice, ever. As for me, I don't remember ever being spanked by him, but I did have that reverential fear.
My Dad would do anything for us kids but he did have his faults.
I was his favorite and my brothers had to take the backseat to me in that regard. I benefited greatly being the oldest, but looking back it had to be a little sad for the boys, and I wish he could have treated us all with more equality, but my brothers never held that against him even until his dying day. He was loved and respected by us all.

 

[MurphtheSurf]

I don't see anything here pertaining to any part of this discussion, all you are doing here at this point is throwing around insults and refusing to answer others questions. Why are you even here?

Well son, if you're going to throw out crap at people, you should be prepared to back it up. Real life experiences will hopefully teach you that someday.
I'm here to put the heat on the teenage intellectuals, what else?
And why are you even here?

 

[McBell]

Well son, if you're going to throw out crap at people, you should be prepared to back it up. Real life experiences will hopefully teach you that someday.
I'm here to put the heat on the teenage intellectuals, what else?
And why are you even here?

Interesting how you seem to be claiming that you are right and he is wrong simply because you are older than him.
I mean, it is not like you have actually refuted anything he has said.

Even more interesting is your blatant avoidance of posts that clearly show that you are wrong.
Perhaps if you spent as much time honestly studying your Bible as you do attacking teenagers.....

 

[waitasec]

No.
What I see in your post is a generalization based on your perception of the failures of your own father. But I'm not you, so I can't say for sure.
Now, my father was no Ward Cleaver. (probably before your time)
He was firm, he was the undisputed head of the household, and us kids knew the consequences for misbehavior would be swift and unwavering. We didn't fear punishment, we had that reverential fear of displeasing him.
He rarely spanked us, in fact, I can remember my little brothers getting spanked once or twice, ever. As for me, I don't remember ever being spanked by him, but I did have that reverential fear.
My Dad would do anything for us kids but he did have his faults.
I was his favorite and my brothers had to take the backseat to me in that regard. I benefited greatly being the oldest, but looking back it had to be a little sad for the boys, and I wish he could have treated us all with more equality, but my brothers never held that against him even until his dying day. He was loved and respected by us all.

how about looking at the way men have traditionally been treating their wives/daughters in the middle east. i am talking about the extremist.
are women subjected to the mans rule that was given to man in Gen 3:16?

i believe we project the image of god as what we would want our husbands /fathers to be OR we project god to be the husband/fathers we were lucky to have or had.
do you follow?

the god in the bible told adam to rule over her, does that sound like a firm foundation of a loving relationship to you?

 

[MurphtheSurf]

Interesting how you seem to be claiming that you are right and he is wrong simply because you are older than him.
I mean, it is not like you have actually refuted anything he has said.

Even more interesting is your blatant avoidance of posts that clearly show that you are wrong.
Perhaps if you spent as much time honestly studying your Bible as you do attacking teenagers.....

Where am I wrong? Show me. Does your disagreement with me make me the liar?

 

[MurphtheSurf]

how about looking at the way men have traditionally been treating their wives/daughters in the middle east. i am talking about the extremist.
are women subjected to the mans rule that was given to man in Gen 3:16?

i believe we project the image of god as what we would want our husbands /fathers to be OR we project god to be the husband/fathers we were lucky to have or had.
do you follow?

the god in the bible told adam to rule over her, does that sound like a firm foundation of a loving relationship to you?

A serious Bible study could reveal that to you.
There was thread not too long ago about family arrangement and many posts revealed what the Bible says about it and the reponsibilities of all family members thereof.
Go there and ponder those things. It should help you understand.
Here it is; http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/100453-women-men-equal.html

 

[waitasec]

A serious Bible study could reveal that to you.
There was thread not too long ago about family arrangement and many posts revealed what the Bible says about it and the reponsibilities of all family members thereof.
Go there and ponder those things. It should help you understand.
Here it is; http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/100453-women-men-equal.html

Gen 3:16
is not the basis for a loving relationship PERIOD.

as i said before...look at how women are being treated in the middle east TODAY in the traditional extremist islamic tradition...
i would guess that this is the closest thing we can come to in regards to how god wanted men to treat THEIR women as property

remember god is a jealous god...

 

[Autodidact]

this was a practice that had been in existence for centuries and for that reason God imposed restrictions on how those slaves could be treated by the Isrealites.

Well, so was idolatry, but God outlawed it anyway. If He objects to something, he has no difficulty outlawing it. Instead, He specifically authorized it.

Not too darn many restrictions. One is that adult male slaves must be circumcised. Ouch.

God doesnt control what mankind choose to do. He never did and never will. I think we should stop blaming him for slavery and start looking at ourselves.

God has told us we can own slaves. Therefore it is moral. Who are you to contravene Him?

 

[Autodidact]

this was a practice that had been in existence for centuries and for that reason God imposed restrictions on how those slaves could be treated by the Isrealites.

God doesnt control what mankind choose to do. He never did and never will. I think we should stop blaming him for slavery and start looking at ourselves.

God doesn't control what we do; He controls what He commands us. He commands that we may own slaves, if we wish. If we want to own them permanently, they must be foreigners. That is God's law.

 

[Autodidact]

actually there was a huge difference in the slavery of the Isrealites...and other worshipers of Jehovah.

Some Isrealites choose to sell themselves into slavery to repay debts. Some slaves were members of the household as in the case of Abrahams slave Eliezer. Eliezer even became Abraham's heir while Abraham was childless. Slaves were free to marry and raise families and the owner was required to support the slaves family.
And while God imposed the law that all hebrew slaves were to be set free after 7 years of service, some chose to stay with their owners which indicates that slavery amongst the Isrealites was nothing like the African slavery (introduced by greedy westerners) that we are more familiar with.

Correct. The type of slavery that was more analogous to African-American slavery was the slavery of foreigners, which was life-long ownership as property.

 

[Autodidact]

What people fail to comprehend is exactly why God gave the Isrealites his laws. Why he chose a nation to represent him and his standards. Why he chose to set them free and lead them to a land 'flowing with milk and honey'

Yes, and His standards include owning foreign slaves.

the purpose of Gods dealings with the nation of Isreal was to show a visible example of what God would do in the future for all the nations on the earth. The prophecies of the Old Testament were fulfilled on a small scale among the Isrealites, but the reality is that they will also be fulfilled on a much grander scale in the near future.

Which, apparently, will include chattel slavery.

those mosaic laws were to give us some understanding of Gods standards and requirements and while it impossible for us as imperfect people to abide by them 100% now, it wasnt impossible for the perfect man Jesus to abide by them for he fulfilled the law perfectly.

Jesus also endorses slavery, and does not prohibit it.

The 10 commandments are based on the principles of love and if we apply love, then we will naturally abide by those 10 commandments without evening having to think about it.

Where in the 10 commandments do you get love?

 

[Autodidact]

there actually was punishment. If the slave suffered a permanent injury, then the slave was to be compensated which would come at a loss to the slave owner.

Exodus 21:26 “And in case a man should strike the eye of his slave man or the eye of his slave girl and he really ruins it, he is to send him away as one set free in compensation for his eye. 27 And if it should be the tooth of his slave man or the tooth of his slave girl that he knocks out, he is to send him away as one set free in compensation for his tooth.

Only if he broke the eye or tooth. Broken femur--no punishment at all.