For Christians. Was the flood real or just a myth?

[SkepticThinker]

Oh please ...another completely ignorant statement!

What was the Biblical slavery that was was established in Israel and had laws governing it?

Can you comprehend the times and the circumstances of these people's lives?

“Slavery” in Israel was not like the oppressive slavery known in more recent times. It was actually a way of protecting the family who, through financial reverses or calamity, were obliged to sell their land inheritance and who eventually used up the money received from the sale and were destitute. Or, they might get heavily into debt. Then, instead of being self-employed as they had been, the family, or certain members thereof, could go into “slavery.” But this slavery was very much like our modern-day principle of employment, working for another person, which for many is a form of ‘economic slavery.’

For example, the Hebrew “slave” had to be treated, not like property, but as a “hired laborer.” Furthermore, he was to be released after six years’ servitude. (Leviticus 25:39-43) At his release his master or “employer” had to give him material things, as he was able, to help the man and his family to make a fresh start. (Deuteronomy 15:12-15) By this arrangement a family could avoid being destitute and could have food and clothing until such time as they could stand on their own.

Moreover, the person, while in “slavery,” could engage in projects or other business or investments, so that in some cases a man was able to buy himself out of servitude. Or a near relative could pay off any indebtedness he might have, thereby releasing the man as a free person. (Leviticus 25:47-54) A daughter who went into “slavery” often was taken as the wife of her master. She had to be given full dues as was the case with any wife.—Exodus 21:7-11."
A Pattern of Things to Come — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

"Slaves" in Israel were no more "slaves" than employees are in today's world.....all who work for a boss are slaves. Working conditions are largely a matter of geography and government policy.

The cruel slavery that Israel underwent in Egypt was not the kind they experienced later. Why would God release them from one form of harsh treatment, only to inflict the same situation on them again later?

For goodness sake, do some research!

It almost makes me physically ill to see people defend slavery like this. All because you have to make some old book make some kind of sense about things that are so obviously wrong and immoral.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I asked...."Can humans ever know better than the one who created them?"

You replied...."Apparently so, since in the bible God explicitly condones slavery; yet human beings today have concluded that owning others as property is horribly immoral."

I asked "Can you comprehend the times and the circumstances of these people's lives?"

You seem to want to put today's standards on ancient times and practices. Today slavery is considered immoral,
but back then it was common practice. In Israel, a slave's rights were protected under the law.

It was normal practice even to beat an errant son.

Again, remembering the times Solomon wrote...
"Do not hold back discipline from a boy.
If you strike him with the rod, he will not die.
14 With the rod you should strike him,
In order to save him from the Grave." (Proverbs 23:13-14)

So beating your son was considered good parenting. If you remember back in the old days it wasn't unusual for a son to get a good whooping behind the wood shed. It was called discipline and nobody turned a hair. The school system dished out discipline this way too. It seems a bit harsh these days but back then it was considered normal.

"The one holding back his rod is hating his son, but the one loving him is he
that does look for him with discipline.” (Prov. 13:24)

"And you have entirely forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons: “My son, do not belittle the discipline from Jehovah, nor give up when you are corrected by him; 6 for those whom Jehovah loves he disciplines, in fact, he scourges everyone whom he receives as a son.” (Hebrews 12:5-6; Proverbs 3:11-12)

Its a shame really that people are afraid to discipline their children....it has not produced respectful youths or a peaceful environment. Kids do horrible things to each other and film it to put it on social media.

No one is advocating a beating.....but a smack on the behind never hurt anyone.

Pain is something we want to avoid, so if discipline hurts it teaches us something....like the law of gravity, if we defy it, the consequences will be painful and immediate. We will not be in a hurry to repeat the process.

We get all hung up about the violence that the old discipline did to children, only to have them feed on a steady diet of the most graphic violence on their computer screens today and then have it spill over onto the streets in drunken weekend brawls when they get old enough to drink. What is wrong with that picture?

I'll tell you what's wrong with this picture. Human beings today are more moral than your God was all those thousands of years ago. We've progressed, God apparently has not.

 

[metis]

I'll tell you what's wrong with this picture. Human beings today are more moral than your God was all those thousands of years ago. We've progressed, God apparently has not.

If we take the scriptures literally, then God has to be classified as being a genocidal maniac, using the Passover narrative as being just one example. Therefore, I would suggest that we need a differing paradigm about God.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

You have Eve, who has never been lied to and never been deceived, and God decides to allow this deceptive snake aka SATAN into the garden where Eve is the perfectly naive and gullible dupe for an accomplished liar and con man.

I am wondering how Eve could be naive when she clearly and correctly answered the serpent at Genesis 3:3 that they should Not eat that forbidden fruit nor even touch it. To answer correctly she would have to have already been educated in that knowledge. Since they were created with human perfection they leaned toward uprightness.
Eve knew she was to be ' God governed ' but deliberately decided she wanted to be ' self governed '.
Eve wanted to be a ' goddess ' in choosing for herself what was right and what was wrong in her own eyes.
Eve could have consulted Adam before eating, instead she chose to do that 'after' she broke the law.
Besides remember Eve was Not blamed, but Adam's deliberate sin brought sin and imperfection into the world.
That is why the blame is placed on Adam at Romans 5:12. Adam did Not have to listen to Eve. 1 Timothy 2:14.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Okay... so actually it's God who was naive and gullible in creating a being that he didn't realize was a liar and the father of the lie that He then allowed to interact with and poison the mind of Eve. Not really sure how that makes it better.

I find Satan was also created with perfection leaning towards righteousness.
In order for Satan to turn himself into a devil and a satan he would have to deliberately go against his God.
Remember: Satan never challenged God's Power nor God's Strength, but rather who can govern best.

At Job 2:4-5 we are all involved Not just Job because we are all challenged by Satan.
' Touch our flesh...' ( loose physical health ) and we would Not serve God.

Adam and Eve lived under paradisical conditions and lost their faith or trust in their Creator/Father.
On the other hand, both Job and Jesus under very adverse conditions kept their faith and trust in their God.
That shows us there was No really good reason for Adam and Eve to do what they did.
Immediately, at Genesis 3:15, God lets us know He is going to undo the damage Satan brought upon us.

 

[74x12]

I am sure that you meant to say "You have come across the close minded. QuestioningMind is clearly not the close minded one in his this discussion.

Very funny. I didn't say that he was close minded; only that he was coming across as close minded. That's constructive. I'm not here to belittle people.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

"Can humans ever know better than the one who created them?"
Apparently so, since in the bible God explicitly condones slavery; yet human beings today have concluded that owning others as property is horribly immoral.

I think you know there was No slavery in Eden.
I think you can reason slavery would have never existed if mankind had not fallen into sin's imperfection.
Unlike surrounding nations, Israel was never in the slave-trade business as the U.S. southern south was.
Since there were No jails a person could be in slavery for six years to pay off debts and be treated as hired help - Leviticus 25:39-40. Leviticus 19:33-37 also tells us how strangers were to be treated.
I wonder what you find wrong with the ' Jubilee Year '

 

[74x12]

I'll tell you what's wrong with this picture. Human beings today are more moral than your God was all those thousands of years ago. We've progressed, God apparently has not.

Who gets to decide what is right and wrong? You? Or maybe the government?

 

[Deeje]

It almost makes me physically ill to see people defend slavery like this. All because you have to make some old book make some kind of sense about things that are so obviously wrong and immoral.

Hilarious! You get to dictate morality to the one who gave you that faculty in the first place?

The most moral Being in existence gets to answer to those who are by comparison, on the level of an amoeba. Yep.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

If you were to ask fallible human beings today what the top 10 most immoral acts you could perform are, I can almost guarantee that aside from murder and stealing that both enslaving someone and raping someone would be near the very top of the list... yet neither rape or slavery are addressed in God's 10 Commandments.

I wonder why you stopped at commandment number 10 when the first 10 were only the beginning of over 600 laws.
I find at Deuteronomy 22:23-27 that a man was to be 'put to death' (executed) for raping.
I find that is Not the punishment for rape in this country, and why not?

Since you mentioned the first ten, I find strangers (Non-Israleites) are included in that rest day at Exodus 20:10 B.
Wasn't the death penalty to be carried out according to Exodus 21:12______

Sure if we were to ask someone today, but I find the 1st-century slavery was part of the Roman economic system.
Christians do Not make the laws, but live under them. So, in the 1st century, Onesimus was to be treated as a ' brother ' would be treated according to Philemon 1:17.
If everyone lived by the Golden Rule (Leviticus 19:18) then man would Not have dominated man to man's hurt or injury as Solomon brought out at Ecclesiastes 8:9 B.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Who gets to decide what is right and wrong? You? Or maybe the government?

In Eden I find it was the Creator who decided what is right or wrong.
Today a theocratic government means: clergy rule or rule by clergy class. That was Not the Theocracy of Eden.
The Theocracy of Eden was the keeping of God's Law, Law directed from God and Not from men.
So, by breaking God's Law then Adam took the Law out of God's hands and placed the Law in man's hands.
Adam thus set up People Rule as being superior to God's Rule or Law.
Only the passing of time would tell who can govern best.
King Solomon at Ecclesiastes 8:9 observed that man dominates man to man's hurt or injury.
Jesus believed in the theocracy of Daniel 2:44 and informed us that the good news (Not bad news) of God's kingdom government would be proclaimed on a grand international scale at Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8 before the start of Jesus' coming 1,000-year governmental rule over Earth begins.

 

[74x12]

In Eden I find it was the Creator who decided what is right or wrong.
Today a theocratic government means: clergy rule or rule by clergy class. That was Not the Theocracy of Eden.
The Theocracy of Eden was the keeping of God's Law, Law directed from God and Not from men.
So, by breaking God's Law then Adam took the Law out of God's hands and placed the Law in man's hands.
Adam thus set up People Rule as being superior to God's Rule or Law.
Only the passing of time would tell who can govern best.
King Solomon at Ecclesiastes 8:9 observed that man dominates man to man's hurt or injury.
Jesus believed in the theocracy of Daniel 2:44 and informed us that the good news (Not bad news) of God's kingdom government would be proclaimed on a grand international scale at Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8 before the start of Jesus' coming 1,000-year governmental rule over Earth begins.

Man's deluded into thinking that he will decide for himself. Remember it wasn't Adam's idea but the serpent manipulated him. So even now satan who is an angel is stronger than man. (2 Peter 2:11) And may always prevail over men. God's Law is freedom because it is stronger than satan.

 

[QuestioningMind]

How did the "black servants" get to be in the South in the first place? Capturing humans with the intent to treat them badly was against God's law. So the reasons why there were black slaves kidnapped and taken into forced slavery were nothing to do with God. For an Israelite, the treatment of an errant slave was the same as the treatment for an errant son. Different times and different expectations...you have been told this repeatedly, but continue to rail against God....do you think he cares about your opinion? Shaking your fist at him will accomplish what? You want him to go back and change history for you? Really?



Well I don't agree with any of it because of why the slaves were there in the first place. I condone nothing. I was merely trying to explain it....but you have your ears and your mind closed. How appalling!



For many slaves, it was preferable to poverty. You can believe whatever you like.



In Israel, that was the law for an Israelite slave. They had to be released after 6 years. That is what I wrote.

As far as I am aware no Christians have slaves...although some people treat their wife and mother that way....

My morality is the same as God's.....you can entertain whatever morality suits yourself. I don't think God is going to change just to make you feel better.....do you?

You will have to continue your rant with someone else...

"How did the "black servants" get to be in the South in the first place?"

Of COURSE you bring up something that has NOTHING to do with the matter at hand. Hebrews owned non-Hebrews as slaves for their entire lives and could beat them to the verge of death. Southern slave owners owned slaves for their entire lives and beat them to the verge of death. The Southern slave owners tried to claim that their slaves were BETTER OFF being slaves. That they had food, and housing and jobs! Now YOU use the EXACT same pathetic argument to try and justify the Hebrews owning their slaves by claiming that they were BETTER OFF and were provided food, housing and JOBS! I KNOW you don't think that black slaves were BETTER OFF being owned as property, yet for some inane reason you're willing to believe that for non-Hebrew slaves 'it was preferable to poverty.' I don't think that ANYONE would prefer to be owned for life by someone who could beat them at will, instead of merely being poor.

"In Israel, that was the law for an Israelite slave. They had to be released after 6 years. That is what I wrote."

Yeah, we established that fellow Hebrews could only be owned for 6 years. But of course what I said was that God condones slavery in the bible and your response was that it was a kind of slavery where they had to be let go after 6 years. But we know from the quotes I provided that what you said is a bald faced LIE, because God DOES condone owning slaves for their entire lives.

Sadly this went EXACTLY as I expected. Every time I point out to a Christian that God condones slavery, I get the exact same answers.
FIRST you blatantly lie and try to suggest that the ONLY kind of slavery God condones was indentured servitude.
SECONDLY, once your LIE is pointed out you do some ethical gymnastics and try to claim that the people who were enslaved during that time actually LIKED being slaves, as if the Hebrews were doing them some huge FAVOR by taking them as property.

Do you imagine that the Hebrews first ASKED the people they were about the enslave if that's what they WANTED? And if they said: "No thanks, I'd rather stay poor," the Hebrew told them "No problem! I certainly wouldn't want to enslave you AGAINST YOUR WILL."

Not surprised that you're done listening to my 'rants'. It must be terribly difficult to continue deluding yourself into believing that God doesn't condone slavery when constantly presented with your God's own words indicating that he most certainly does.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I wonder why you stopped at commandment number 10 when the first 10 were only the beginning of over 600 laws.
I find at Deuteronomy 22:23-27 that a man was to be 'put to death' (executed) for raping.
I find that is Not the punishment for rape in this country, and why not?

Since you mentioned the first ten, I find strangers (Non-Israleites) are included in that rest day at Exodus 20:10 B.
Wasn't the death penalty to be carried out according to Exodus 21:12______

Sure if we were to ask someone today, but I find the 1st-century slavery was part of the Roman economic system.
Christians do Not make the laws, but live under them. So, in the 1st century, Onesimus was to be treated as a ' brother ' would be treated according to Philemon 1:17.
If everyone lived by the Golden Rule (Leviticus 19:18) then man would Not have dominated man to man's hurt or injury as Solomon brought out at Ecclesiastes 8:9 B.

I stopped at 10 because I was talking about what people would consider to be the TOP TEN worst moral offenses someone would commit, NOT the top 300. From what I recall it's the TEN Commandments, not the THREE HUNDRED Commandments.

Okay, slavery was part of the Roman economic system. So what? Why is God prohibited from pointing out immoral behavior that's part of an economic system? I suspect that there were those who made their livings catching shellfish, but God didn't hesitate to proclaim eating shellfish to be a sin. Not only can't he condemn slavery, for some bizarre reason He felt compelled to CONDONE it

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you know there was No slavery in Eden.
I think you can reason slavery would have never existed if mankind had not fallen into sin's imperfection.
Unlike surrounding nations, Israel was never in the slave-trade business as the U.S. southern south was.
Since there were No jails a person could be in slavery for six years to pay off debts and be treated as hired help - Leviticus 25:39-40. Leviticus 19:33-37 also tells us how strangers were to be treated.
I wonder what you find wrong with the ' Jubilee Year '

This is not correct. Many Christians make the he error of how follow Hebrews were treated with how all slaves were treated at that time. Slavery for non-Hebrews was for life, and not that different from the Old South.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wonder why you stopped at commandment number 10 when the first 10 were only the beginning of over 600 laws.
I find at Deuteronomy 22:23-27 that a man was to be 'put to death' (executed) for raping.
I find that is Not the punishment for rape in this country, and why not?

Since you mentioned the first ten, I find strangers (Non-Israleites) are included in that rest day at Exodus 20:10 B.
Wasn't the death penalty to be carried out according to Exodus 21:12______

Sure if we were to ask someone today, but I find the 1st-century slavery was part of the Roman economic system.
Christians do Not make the laws, but live under them. So, in the 1st century, Onesimus was to be treated as a ' brother ' would be treated according to Philemon 1:17.
If everyone lived by the Golden Rule (Leviticus 19:18) then man would Not have dominated man to man's hurt or injury as Solomon brought out at Ecclesiastes 8:9 B.

Another thing that most Christians are confused about are the Ten Commandments.

Let's first define them. Would you agree that this is a proper definition of the Ten Commandments:

They were given to Moses by God.

They were carved in stone.

And they are called the Ten Commandments in the Bible.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I stopped at 10 because I was talking about what people would consider to be the TOP TEN worst moral offenses someone would commit, NOT the top 300. From what I recall it's the TEN Commandments, not the THREE HUNDRED Commandments.[/QUOTE"]
Even if people only consider the top ten does Not excuse them from numbers 11 to 600 plus.
Often the dietary regulations were for health purposes.
They did Not have a way for refrigeration so they were protected from parasites, including from under-cooked pork.
As far as I know Christians do Not condone slavery, so since Christians are under Christ s Law, and Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law. I find there is No place where Jesus will have a slave-trade business. I find at Revelation 22:2 there will be healing for earth's nations. So, Jesus will undo the damage that was done in the past.
For just as it is written at Ecclesiastes 8:9 that MAN has dominated MAN to MAN's hurt or injury.
Jesus Not only believed in the Golden Rule Jesus gave a NEW commandment at John 13:34-35 to have the same self-sacrificing love for others as he has. We are now to love others 'more' than self.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

This is not correct. Many Christians make the he error of how follow Hebrews were treated with how all slaves were treated at that time. Slavery for non-Hebrews was for life, and not that different from the Old South.

I don't know of any eye witnesses to the non-Hebrew slavery as to how they were treated.
What passages do you have in mind as was carried out in the Old South.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Another thing that most Christians are confused about are the Ten Commandments.
Let's first define them. Would you agree that this is a proper definition of the Ten Commandments:
They were given to Moses by God.
They were carved in stone.
And they are called the Ten Commandments in the Bible.
Does that sound reasonable to you?

The Decalogue is often referred to as the Ten Commandments but that does Not mean there were only ten.
The Constitution of the Mosaic Law contract has about 613 commandments of which the first ten are part of those 600 plus commandments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know of any eye witnesses to the non-Hebrew slavery as to how they were treated.
What passages do you have in mind as was carried out in the Old South.

Leviticus 25 44-46 tells you how slavery for non Hebrews was for life.
Exodus 21 20-21 tells you that as long as a slave does not die within a day or two from a beating that there is to be no punishment. There is even a verse that tells an owner how to make a fellow Hebrew a slave for life.

Eyewitnesses are not needed when the Bible condemns itself.