The bible and slavery - please post direct passages from the bible that you believe support slavery.

[Subduction Zone]

Do you have a copy of the entire paper? Are you just going by the abstract?

At risk of derailing, I want to respond to the issue of the Torah as word of God. In Judaism, our prophets aren't perfect. Part of reading the text is determining which parts might be negative role-modeling. And that answers "Why doesn't God change the text, remove parts, and make it perfect?"

I can read a good read at least the first two pages on my PC. I sometimes use a PC and sometimes just a tablet. If I get more serious I will use my PC. I do not know how much shows up on a phone or tablet.

And what do you mean by "negative role modeling"? That seems to be God doing something bad or evil to show that others cannot do it. Not the best argument.

 

[dybmh]

I can read a good read at least the first two pages on my PC. I sometimes use a PC and sometimes just a tablet. If I get more serious I will use my PC. I do not know how much shows up on a phone or tablet.

So, to be clear, you didn't read the paper. You are only going by the abstract. And it seems odd to claim you are limited to 2 pages of a PDF download for those who have a login or for those who pay.

And what do you mean by "negative role modeling"? That seems to be God doing something bad or evil to show that others cannot do it. Not the best argument.

Ummmm... not sure what you're talking about, Sub. Nowhere is God doing anything in these verses about slavery. A law is given, and then whether or not the people follow the law as directed is important to determine. For example, Numbers 31, God does not command what Moses commands. Moses becomes angry and takes it too far. Eleazer steps in, changes the subject, redirects the soldiers to the material treasures, speaks in the name of God, and Moses' command to kill all but the virgins is not executed. That's the story. In Judaism anger is idol worship. That's codifed in the law. Each time Moses becomes angry, he botches God's commands. It interferes with his connection to God and to his prophecy. Angry-Moses is a negative role model.

For a religion where idol worship is prohibited, including idolizing a prophet, it is extremely important to demonstrate in the text that prophets are not perfect. So, we have an imperfect text, we have imperfect stories, we have imperfect prophets. But all of that can be coming from God. Still word of God, intentionally imperfect. If God magically changed the text into something perfect, or, delivered something completely perfect, then a person would be inclined to worship the person who transcribed it as a god.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, to be clear, you didn't read the paper. You are only going by the abstract. And it seems odd to claim you are limited to 2 pages of a PDF download for those who have a login or for those who pay.

Ummmm... not sure what you're talking about, Sub. Nowhere is God doing anything in these verses about slavery. A law is given, and then whether or not the people follow the law as directed is important to determine. For example, Numbers 31, God does not command what Moses commands. Moses becomes angry and takes it too far. Eleazer steps in, changes the subject, redirects the soldiers to the material treasures, speaks in the name of God, and Moses' command to kill all but the virgins is not executed. That's the story. In Judaism anger is idol worship. That's codifed in the law. Each time Moses becomes angry, he botches God's commands. It interferes with his connection to God and to his prophecy. Angry-Moses is a negative role model.

For a religion where idol worship is prohibited, including idolizing a prophet, it is extremely important to demonstrate in the text that prophets are not perfect. So, we have an imperfect text, we have imperfect stories, we have imperfect prophets. But all of that can be coming from God. Still word of God, intentionally imperfect. If God magically changed the text into something perfect, or, delivered something completely perfect, then a person would be inclined to worship the person who transcribed it as a god.

No, I read more than just the abstract. How could you misinterpret that post. An abstract is a long paragraph at best. They are not two pages in length.

EDIT: I checked with my tablet, click Download PDF of the Preview.



And that is some bent logic trying to defend a flawed text.

You are not reasoning rationally or consistently.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, war brides. We in fact do know what sort of romance happens on the battlefield. According to the story, these other nations were despicable. Murderers, rapists, thieves, engaging in incest and child sacrifice. If the women were universally abused, gang raped, impregnated, and their children murdered, they might see the Israelite army as liberators.

So, we know that rape on the battlefield is outlawed. We know that rape off the battlefield is outlawed ( approx 20 verses later Deuteronomy 22:25 ). We know that marriage requires consent ( Genesis 24:58 ). We know that these other nations were despicable. We know that in order to marry a captive-bride it requires 3 individual acts showing consent and a waiting period where she is free to leave. This is the opposite of rape. The captive bride is the opposite of a sex-slave. And I am not the only person to read and understand these verses this way.

If we are going strictly by the text, there is no way to read this any other way. The only way to see this as rape is to:

1. Ignore the story of Rebecca consenting to marriage
2. Ignore the story about the practices of these other nations
3. Ignore that rape is punishable with death
4. Ignore the 3 forms of consent
5. Ignore the waiting period
6. Ignore that she is free to leave

We have to save these heathens from child sacrifice by killing all their kids!
Eesh.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

So basically you're saying that two token posts in response to the op entitles you to make several subsequent posts consisting of nothing but sanctimonious, off topic moralizing.

Got it.



Now you're just purposely missing the point.

Do you really think people can't see right through this kind of shady, passive-aggressive nonsense?

"I can't refute anything you said so I'm going to get even with you by blatantly twisting everything you said in order to make you look bad. Snicker snicker snicker."

Only making yourself look bad.



The fact that you can so blatantly and purposely misrepresent someone's position without any apparent pangs of conscience is mind boggling.

And kind of creepy.

You may be right. Have a nice day!

 

[Quagmire]

You may be right. Have a nice day!

Thanks, you do the same.