Jollybear
Hey
Notice though. If the slave brought his own wife, if that wife was not given to him by his master, THEN that wife was to leave with him at the 7 year mark. Logically, that would mean his children would be his to take too.
-
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!
Whose Side Are You On, God's Or That Of Morality?
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Notice though. If the slave brought his own wife, if that wife was not given to him by his master, THEN that wife was to leave with him at the 7 year mark. Logically, that would mean his children would be his to take too.
Jollybear
Hey
The master had rights. If a slave broke the contract, the master could if he wanted to, to exercise that right and punish the contract breaker. However, if he did exercise the right, there was set boundaries put on the master. He was not allowed to injure in his punishing.
Should contract breakers not be punished?
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Had you notice ( If he comes in single, he shall go out single)
That means (he comes in single) that means he sold himself into slavery. And he shall go out of slavery single. Set free at the 7th year.
(he comes in single) means that he sold himself into slavery.
Last edited:
Yes it is. But there are tax benefits that you can also offset it with (besides opening a corporation). Mileage, a portion of your house and house expenses.
I should say "but" because it takes guts and strength to do it. Congrats.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Considering that, as far as we can know for sure, we humans are basically all each other have in this universe, I would tend to side with trying to work out our human kinks together. God, if He exists, is obviously not going to help - as is consistently demonstrated, day in and day out.
If we're to blame for our problems (as I am sure you would assert in response to the above)... then we are also the best place to look for a solution. If all God is going to do is keep pressing the "reset" button and slapping us and our first-born around, then I say it is high time we tell him to get off.
By the way - this is really the only stance that actually shows care and compassion for your fellow man. Not your claims of "you don't deserve any better." How can God want us to simultaneously care for our fellow man and turn a blind eye to His wanton destruction of that same fellow man?
Anna Therese
Member
Where is morality without God? Nowhere. History and a study of civilizations proves that morals flourished wherever the Catholic Faith was practiced.
Axe Elf
Prophet
Oh no; I do not think that man is capable of usurping God's sovereignty. God is responsible for the universe in its entirety--the things seen as problems and the things seen as blessings (as well as all the other stuff we don't label with a value at all because it simply doesn't concern us). We cannot add anything or subtract anything from God's creation.
There is no "solution"; the universe is what it is, and as the best of all possible universes, why try to fix what isn't broken?
Some were created to show care and compassion, others were not. Some vessels were created for noble use, and others for dishonor. So God doesn't want everyone to care; only those He created to care. God created some to understand this, and others to think they have free will.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
God has no sovereignty. Can you show me the realm that God reigns over? If you answer "the universe" then please do let me know how I can know He is reigning over it. I do not see/feel/hear/sense/taste/need God. And as I have found that my ability to perceive the universe is really all that I have to trust to come to conclusions on matters involving reality (even if it is lacking in some respects) I cannot simply accept that God exists/reigns/does-anything without that actually being demonstrated to me. You want to talk about things without value? God is without value.
So, let me get this straight - are you saying that you take advantage of no technological advances? There are so obviously things now in this universe only because the hand of a human being crafted them specifically to be what they are. A light-bulb, for example. These do not occur in the natural, "it is what it is" universe. Granted, the materials for crafting one are - but without the hand of man, they would not have come to be. Were we all to have taken the stance that you apparently take - that is, that the universe "is what it is" and does not need to be adjusted, then we would have just accepted things as they were, and not contrived any means for making our lives easier.
My point being - of course there are solutions to the various problems that this universe has brought to our attention. This is so obvious it is painful to witness you make such a grand error in judgment and thought-process. Need shelter? We can build it! Need heat, clean water, a way to preserve food stores, transportation, a way to communicate long-distance, etc. etc. etc. - so many things that simply wouldn't be in a universe that "is the way it is." Why do you accept that there are not solutions to even bigger or more abstract problems? Have you given up? Indeed... I believe this is the case. You put it in "the hands of God." Your trust is misplaced friend - and to the detriment of your fellow man. We're a man short every time someone makes the same choice you have.
So, regardless what I do, I am a puppet of God - is that what you're saying? It's your claim. Prove it. Go ahead... I'll wait.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Please reread my posts. God's fault only extends to his immoral condoning and abetting slavery.
This only applies to Hebrew slaves. And so what? A slave is a slave is a slave. Hebrew slaves were just as subject to dehumanization, forced unpaid work and beatings as all the other slaves.
But the population slaves included more than just the few who sold themselves into slavery. Captured enemies were almost always taken as slaves. and as Leviticus 25:44-45 tells you,
44 Regarding male or female slaves that you are allowed to have: You can buy a male or a female slave from the nations that are around you. 45 You can also buy them from the foreign guests who live with you and from their extended families that are with you, who were born in your land. These can belong to you as property.
And all of them, Hebrew slaves included, were open to the obliteration of self-governance and sovereignty
Yup. As far as I know nowhere in the Bible does it say that god took anyone as a slave. HOWEVER, as I've pointed out, God's fault lies in his immoral condoning and abetting slavery. By laying down rules of ownership god sanctions slavery. Do you think that condoning, abetting, and sanctioning slavery is moral? Sure you do, because your god does.
Would you condone and sanction slavery, and even abet it if necessary, in the USA? Of course you would because your god does.
.
Last edited:
Axe Elf
Prophet
You seem to have gone off-topic with most of your post, so I won't address those portions, other than to explain why they are off-topic.
You see, this isn't a thread about proving that the Christian God exists, or has value, or has influence in the natural world--this thread assumes those things to be true, and asks a question couched in that assumption--do we side with God, or do we side with morality (in the sense that anything that harms a human is bad)?
If you don't wish to make that assumption, that's fine, but then you have disqualified yourself from discussing the topic. You can't just come in and say that my reason for siding with God is fallacious because I haven't established that God exists--no discussion of this topic is POSSIBLE without conceding that God exists.
All technological advances that have been made--lightbulbs, shelter, air conditioners, reverse osmosis filters, transportation, cell phones, etc.--all DO exist in the universe "the way that it is." Those things are a part of our universe as is. They are not supernatural interventions. They, like everything else in it, are a part of this, the best of all possible universes.
At least, if we concede that the Christian "omni" God exists, then we are logically constrained to conclude that we live in the best of all possible universes. But even if you don't believe that God exists, and don't want to participate in the original topic of this thread, you still have to believe that lightbulbs and cars and so on are a part of the universe that we have, anyway.
I would say you are a creation of God, rather than a puppet, but the sentiment is essentially the same, even if yours sounds less grateful. Obviously, it can only be proven within the assumption of this thread, that the Christian "omni" God exists. You don't appear to be someone who was created to accept that premise, or someone who was created to understand your lack of free will, so I doubt if you would find such proofs convincing.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Chapter and verse please because Exodus 21:20-21 only says:
20 If 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.
"It is moral to beat your slave, just make sure he doesn't die right away."
........................................................................................................Love, God
.
........................................................................................................Love, God
.
.
Last edited:
Cacotopia
Let's go full Trottle
As an artist, I think I will always be alone in my craft. unless I want to be a hack like Damien Hirst and employ artists to make work for me only to have me sign my name on it and take all the credit. That guy is a scumbag.
Cacotopia
Let's go full Trottle
I find it truly enraging how people try to justify this bit in the bible.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Fine. If God exists, He has shown that He doesn't have to care for our fellow man. Therefore He has proven himself to be, at the very most, amoral with respect to what humans must necessarily deem "moral". Unless our version of the set of all things that are "moral" includes things like genocide, infanticide, slavery, condoning war and the "taking" of women. Last I checked... those types of things are not considered "moral" by human standards. Perhaps they are by God's standards however?
Of course I understand that those things are possible within the framework of the universe as it stands - and I said as much, but should have been prepared for you ignoring that to try and skew what I said into an untenable position. So we'll just pretend that you missed my point. Were the people who invented those things to have just considered the universe to be "the way it is" and figured, as you stated, that is was perfect, then why would they have invented those things in the first place? Because the universe isn't just fine "the way it is", and we are still working toward more and more solutions to the difficult aspects we find ourselves up against. And my point was that this may very well include certain abstract pain-points that we don't have adequate solutions to yet - things that you apparently throw your hands up in the air and say "it is the way it is" about.
Even if I assume that God exists, there is no proof that God is instructing my every move, that He is aware of my every action and thought, or that He is capable of discerning my future. This thread topic covers none of that.
Last edited:
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I disagree with this statement:
The story only speaks to the morality of hospitable action, not the immorality of genocide.
With regard to your thoughts on slavery, where slavery is concerned, I agree wholeheartedly. However, with the caveat that the Bible is written within the context of the cultures that created it, and from those cultural contexts. Therefore, the admissibility of slavery isn’t a reflection on the morality of God, but rather a reflection of the cultures that produced the texts — for good or ill.
Therefore, your premise that God, by virtue of these textual examples, is immoral, is incorrect. The texts do not reflect an immoral God, but rather illustrate the importance of hospitality and reflect the cultural mores of the times. No reasonable person today believes that God condones the violence of slavery, based on these outdated cultural examples. Your post is a straw man.
Bible scholars would explain that, in the theology of the ancient Hebrews, the father/husband embodied the honor of all his clan or family. Therefore, if the father acted shamefully, his whole family would be in shame. Since the story is a polemic against the shame of inhospitality, it uses the literary device of hyperbole to illustrate the utter destructiveness of inhospitality to the social order. Children are included in that utter destructiveness. The fathers neglected, through their inhospitality, the welfare of their progeny — their future.
The story only speaks to the morality of hospitable action, not the immorality of genocide.
With regard to your thoughts on slavery, where slavery is concerned, I agree wholeheartedly. However, with the caveat that the Bible is written within the context of the cultures that created it, and from those cultural contexts. Therefore, the admissibility of slavery isn’t a reflection on the morality of God, but rather a reflection of the cultures that produced the texts — for good or ill.
Therefore, your premise that God, by virtue of these textual examples, is immoral, is incorrect. The texts do not reflect an immoral God, but rather illustrate the importance of hospitality and reflect the cultural mores of the times. No reasonable person today believes that God condones the violence of slavery, based on these outdated cultural examples. Your post is a straw man.
Last edited:
Cacotopia
Let's go full Trottle
I call bull on this statement. Morality has existed LONG LONG LONG before the Abrahemic gods were invented. You fail to account for the 1000's of religions that came before it, and the hundreds that popped up afterwards. Not to mention the 100's of millions enslaved and murdered in the name of your god. God is a tool to justify horrible human behavior because god "commands it" And those that defied the will of your religion? Only in the last couple hundred years was this punishable by torture and eventually death unless they 'repented their sins.'
It's a joke.
Cacotopia
Let's go full Trottle
Only if he is Hebrew, screw the rest, they don't count as people. I'm willing to wager the 'masters' could beat to death their non Hebrew slaves without fear of any kind of punishment.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Valjean is correct.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
This only works if you’re asserting that God condoned slavery in the first place. Which is only possible if you treat the texts literalistically. Which pure reason suggests is nonsense.
Cacotopia
Let's go full Trottle
This nitpicking business doesn't mean jack really. It's slavery. Slavery is wrong, I don't give a hoot if they could only be slaves for 7 years. It is still slavery. does the bible say indentured servitude?
No.
It.
Does.
Not.
It says slaves. Slavery.
It blows my mind that people are still defending slavery in the bible. They must think that it's fine in certain situations which can lead me to the conclusion that these apologist Christians are as morally bankrupt as their forebears.
Where's that user that said there is no morality without Christianity? Well there isn't any morality in defending slavery in any form whatsoever!.