Could anyone tell me if this is true?

[HitchSlap]

Do I need to start watching The Three Stooges so I can understand your posts?

I hope not!

Three Stooges might make more sense than two testaments.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Do I need to start watching The Three Stooges so I can understand your posts?

I hope not!

This is supposed to be a reasoned debate.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

Hitler is a negative example, but an effective one.

He is given credit for doing something he ordered others to do.

Except that God never orders people not to keep slaves, in every case slavery is mentioned it is affirmed.

This would be like me giving Hitler credit for riding a unicorn in that it is utterly ridiculous since Hitler never rode a unicorn.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

No. Nowhere in the Bible says that.

Reality disagrees with your assertions. The text clearly states that masters may beat their slaves:

Exodus 21:20-21 – “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”​

 

[juvenissun]

Reality disagrees with your assertions. The text clearly states that masters may beat their slaves:

Exodus 21:20-21 – “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”​

This verse absolute does not say what you said.

 

[HitchSlap]

This verse absolute does not say what you said.

It says you can beat your slave, just don't kill him, 'cause, you know, that'd be really bad.

 

[juvenissun]

It says you can beat your slave, just don't kill him, 'cause, you know, that'd be really bad.

It does not say you can beat your slave. It says: If you beat ...
In OT time, God's people did many things that they should not do.
So is today.

 

[HitchSlap]

It does not say you can beat your slave. It says: If you beat ...
In OT time, God's people did many things that they should not do.
So is today.

The big guy could have said, "hey, don't beat your slaves." Or better yet, he could have said, "hey, you shouldn't own human beings as property." You get the idea.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Do I need to start watching The Three Stooges so I can understand your posts?

I hope not!

The suggestion is beneath someone who otherwise appears able to express himself. There is no reason to assume one's Christian faith is blind and so subject to whatever it is one imagines and accepts to be true in a mental process proceeding from the mind. Christian Faith is from God, not a result of our mental processes. So there is no reason for any Christian to fear or doubt that even considering any proclamation from science could be something that might possibly rock that Gift from God. Am sorry not everyone agrees.

Besides there is too much fossil record indicating some degree of evolving, and no one can logically deny that. So rather than pretend that evolution could ever challenge our Faith from God (which is what gives our firm conviction of belief in all that He has revealed), there is no need to overstate the fact that there are enough issues that the concept remains a theory, simply state that one does not just buy that evolution could EVER explain our reality to the exclusion of God.

That is all I am saying, and I say it for the benefit of those who might question their beliefs should they ever begin to have doubts about taking a stand which says IT MUST BE either or and not both, else our Faith could be seen as in vain. Our Faith is not even on the table in these debates.

I find the stooge icon helps me to lighten up sometimes (the name too) and I think others would do well to try the same.

 

[joshua 1 9]

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ed_where_tax_money_supports_alternatives.html

I know it say so but we all know how some web sites tell lies.

Teachers have to prepare their students for the test developed by the board of education. If they cover the required material then they can teach whatever they want on top of that. But of course the students will not be tested on it. I have talked to homeschooled students that tell me high school only takes a few hours a day and they get better test results then the students that are in school all day long.

 

[AV1611VET]

Reality disagrees with your assertions. The text clearly states that masters may beat their slaves:

No, it doesn't.

Exodus 21:20-21 – “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”​

Exodus 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
Exodus 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Since when are servants and maids considered slaves?

Here's my guess:

Since homosexuals Wescott & Hort interpreted them as such.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The big guy could have said, "hey, don't beat your slaves." Or better yet, he could have said, "hey, you shouldn't own human beings as property." You get the idea.

We have no concept of what it was to be a "slave" in the Bible because of what was going on in the south in this country before the Civil war. Slavery according to the Bible could only last 7 years. They called it indentured servants. Back then it was really more of an issue of the person not wanting to go when their 7 years was up. They really had no were to go and if they had a Bible believing masters then they were well taken care of. Even animals, a good man takes good care of his animals but an evil and wicked man does not provide good care for them.

The point is that the Bible provides legal protection for servants that they would not have apart from the law as we find it in the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Besides there is too much fossil record indicating some degree of evolving, and no one can logically deny that.

I can.

If you take a photograph of every fossil in existence, put them together chronologically, and make an FPS movie out of them; the movie would show the sudden -- not gradual -- appearance of species.

And for the record, faith comes from reading the Bible.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I can.

If you take a photograph of every fossil in existence, put them together chronologically, and make an FPS movie out of them; the movie would show the sudden -- not gradual -- appearance of species.

And for the record, faith comes from reading the Bible.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Well one can say a thing is true or fact, but what matters here is what conclusions one draws from that truth and not overstating what that fact/truth means. The fact there are indeed jumps, gaps, leaps, and pop-ups from no where found in the fossil record does not refute that a lot of the fossil record we have shows things evolving in to higher ordered forms.

While true they exists, the presence of gaps merely indicates the theory as presently stated undoubted does not cover/explain all we can see and we could also for many possible/imagined reasons not have a complete record - which is part of why the concept remains a theory. The concept of evolution however can be seen to explain a GREAT deal about the structure of life/species which do see in the fossil record, so well that it cannot be denied. However it would be just as wrong for the atheist to suggest that inability to deny that things indeed appear based on fossil records that we do have (not talking about gaps or jumps or pop-ups) to have evolved and they think this means God is not needed to explain our reality. Both positions are just as wrong and for the same reasons.

So both stances, the one just given by a Christian above and an atheist suggesting God can be dismissed because things evolve are both overstatements by both parties to these discussions. That is all I am saying. If one wants to have a blind faith that says no fossil record shows anything evolving, be my guest - it is a false and dangerous stance for a Christian to take.

 

[AV1611VET]

If one wants to have a blind faith that says no fossil record shows anything evolving, be my guest - it is a false and dangerous stance for a Christian to take.

Pardon me, chief, but it seems to me that the ones exhibiting "blind faith" would be the evolutionists.

They scientifically believe in things that science cannot scientifically provide; viz., missing links.

And if their philosophy of evolution explains things to your satisfaction ... well then, you're entitled to your set of standards.

I set my standards much higher (as did Frances Kelsey).

Evolution is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots, witchcraft edition.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

No, it doesn't.
Exodus 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
Exodus 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Since when are servants and maids considered slaves?

Oh, so you are going to argue this is a translation issue? Fantastic. Which translation would you like me to use to show you that you are still wrong?

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

We have no concept of what it was to be a "slave" in the Bible

Sure we do - just look at the text: Your master could beat you with a rod as long as you did not die, you were considered property, and if you married another slave then your children were considered the property of your master.

Slavery according to the Bible could only last 7 years. They called it indentured servants. Back then it was really more of an issue of the person not wanting to go when their 7 years was up.

This is innaccurate. Hebrew debt slaves could only be held for seven years, but non-Hebrew slaves could be owned forever. Moreover, the Bible offers a loophole for masters to keep their Hebrew slaves forever because the Bible considers the children of slaves as property of the slave's master. If a Hebrew debt slave had children during this time with another slave then they had to either leave them behind or agree to be a slave for the rest of their lives.

The point is that the Bible provides legal protection for servants that they would not have apart from the law as we find it in the Bible.

Yet it fails in the most fundamental and obvious way: it condones the practice of owning other people as property.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Pardon me, chief, but it seems to me that the ones exhibiting "blind faith" would be the evolutionists.

They scientifically believe in things that science cannot scientifically provide; viz., missing links.

And if their philosophy of evolution explains things to your satisfaction ... well then, you're entitled to your set of standards.

I set my standards much higher (as did Frances Kelsey).

Evolution is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots, witchcraft edition.

If any of my replies here were read, it would be clear that I have repeatedly indicated there are always some folks exhibiting blind faith on both sides of this discussion, even in this thread. I would and have in this thread objected equally whether the blind faith was being shown by a Christian or an atheist.

Stating the truth is not a matter of my satisfaction, neither is pointing out when someone is overstating their position in a discussion. Personally I would not be proud of or suggest that overstating one's position represents holding a high standard, which is why I have politely and repeatedly tried to point out where folks are doing it so they can save themselves the embarrassment of continuing to do so.
Obviously not everyone is willing to sit back and chill and re-evaluate their statements, and that is especially true in sensitive topics where emotions can get heated. Good luck with the attitude currently displayed and with fighting those windmills in La Manchaville.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, so you are going to argue this is a translation issue? Fantastic. Which translation would you like me to use to show you that you are still wrong?

I believe someone already used a wrong translation.

I quoted it in my post, did I not?

 

[joshua 1 9]

This is innaccurate. Hebrew debt slaves could only be held for seven years, but non-Hebrew slaves could be owned forever.

Not forever, all slaves were to be released at the 50 year jubilee. So you could not own a slave from one generation to the next. This was a big issue with the abolitionists is that the child of a female slave was considered to be a slave no matter how much white blood they had in them. Under Moses all the slaves were set free at the golden jubilee and that means they could be free or renegotiate their contract.