DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
Is divorce evil? Because God made provisions for that as well.
No, divorce is not evil.
Upvote
0
Is divorce evil? Because God made provisions for that as well.
It's not.God could stop one as easily as the other. So yes, it is a valid comparison.
I think this fact is being purposefully ignored.
One big deal is that Hebrew "slaves" were free after 7 years, and all others after 50.
You guys haven't read your bibles. Leviticus 25 spells it out pretty clearly that foreign slaves are not released on jubilee, that they are indeed slaves for life. I've already showed this in #157:
Well, you made the claim that foreign slaves are set free at jubilee. That claim is not supported supported by scripture. What slavery was like in Hebrew culture is irrelevant to the point.You straightaway accuse us of not reading our bibles, but it seems you are ignorant of slavery in the bible altogether - what it means, the culture, and what God says about it.
I've never said they are equivalent. I'm defining slavery are people being owned as property for life, regardless of how they are treated or how they got into that situation. The Bible permits this, do you agree?Slavery (ebed) was not American slavery that raped, murdered, tortured, subjugated and bred persons as well as treating them as regular servants. Stop the false equivalency.
God does not condone slavery
Leviticus 25:46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life,As far as making them "workers" or "servants" forever - when did God ever condone it?
Where does any country get their "servants" if they don't want to use their own people as servants? How many times did God tell the Israelites nkt to deal ruthlessly with these "slaves?" Do you know what ruthless means? In otherwords, wby the false equivalencies?
Why the false equivalence?while at the same time remaining complicit in the "slavery" of modernity, as it were, in your own nation(s). Do you realize everyone who works for a living is a biblical slave?
AsThe form of 'slavery' in the bible is not of the same ilk as the slavery you're thinking of, for example in the USA, based on race. It's more akin to bond-service, a safety net for those falling off the edge of society and had a complicated set of rules to govern it, including the Jubilee year, when all slaves would be released.
Honestly, the way you guys make excuses for the slavery as practised by the Hebrews you would think it was being run by the Salvation Army. As Everybodyknows has already stated, you guys haven't read your bible. The regulations that ostensibly gave "rights" to slaves applied only to Hebrew slaves. Slaves taken by acts of war or from foreign nations could be bought and sold at will and made slaves for life. Hereditary salves were also slaves for life. Kidnapping Hebrews to make them slave was forbidden, but not for people of other nations.The form of 'slavery' in the bible is not of the same ilk as the slavery you're thinking of, for example in the USA, based on race. It's more akin to bond-service, a safety net for those falling off the edge of society and had a complicated set of rules to govern it, including the Jubilee year, when all slaves would be released.
The form of 'slavery' in the bible is not of the same ilk as the slavery you're thinking of, for example in the USA, based on race. It's more akin to bond-service, a safety net for those falling off the edge of society and had a complicated set of rules to govern it, including the Jubilee year, when all slaves would be released.
No, but since you mention property. You should of asked, do you consider it morally acceptable to consider that ancient civilizations incorporated slavery into their economic model? It's rather hard as something for us to project ourselves into and were you and I raised in that time, we would mostly be inclined to believe in its' value or practice capital punishment for enemies of the state. We would be very different people when raised from birth into such a society.Even in the 21st century, it is a sad fact the slavery is still happening in the world. Most people find this disgusting practice to be totally repugnant and immoral. Slavery was very common in biblical times and it seems strange that the biblical god did not condemn the practice of having slaves, but instead gave instructions on the keeping of slaves. The same god that condemned a man to death for simply gathering sticks on the Sabbath, a "crime" hardly in the same league as slavery.
So the question is quite simply this. Do you consider it morally acceptable to consider another human being to be your property?
I would guess to say that the answer for that is along the similar line given for marriage. To paraphrase, '“He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to ...keep slaves...: but from the beginning it hath not been so.' Matthew 19:8
Psalms 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple.Excellent, this is how I am thinking about it also. It seems to me that God hates slavery, yet condones it because of the peoples hardness of heart -- He is not a control freak but works with the people of the time, leading them towards His ultimate goal of love. I think this paraphrase is on the money.
No, but since you mention property. You should of asked, do you consider it morally acceptable to consider that ancient civilizations incorporated slavery into their economic model? It's rather hard as something for us to project ourselves into and were you and I raised in that time, we would mostly be inclined to believe in its' value or practice capital punishment for enemies of the state. We would be very different people when raised from birth into such a society.
However, what makes for a rather puzzling situation is why does the God of Israel decide to end that nations slavery Genesis 15:13-14 and later allow them to continue to keep slaves of their own?
Nowadays western countries allow abortions in the millions where some people try to promote the narrative that pregnancy should be viewed as organ like tissue that has a parasitic relationship with a woman.
Back to your question, I believe that by saying "no" does not by fiat make any person with that view a better person than those that came before us. That there are conditions within our own modern society that elevates us into the same league as those who kept slaves.
Excellent, this is how I am thinking about it also. It seems to me that God hates slavery, yet condones it because of the peoples hardness of heart -- He is not a control freak but works with the people of the time, leading them towards His ultimate goal of love. I think this paraphrase is on the money.
To be objective when reading the Bible or past histories of anything, a person would need to factor in one thing about ethics and morality. That it changes over time. You'll find Christians that were against slavery and you'll find Christians that were for the continuation of slavery in America's history. This didn't magically appear out of nowhere, the world's social, economic, population and technical environment all began to evolve and change.But were are only puny corrupt humans who are in a "fallen state", not benevolent unchanging all-knowing gods defined as the actual standard of moral judgement.
Christians like to offer the bible as the standard of god's unchanging, absolute and objective morality. And what we see in that book, is god not speaking out against slavery in any way and instead, regulating the practice.
But on the other hand, he goes out of his way to make sure that people don't work on a certain day of the week or don't eat specific types of food on certain days of the week. That, apparantly, is hugely important on moral terms.
But treating humans as your private property? Nope, that is just fine.
All this tells me, that our 21st century secular morality, is superior to your god's morality.
Because apparantly, he is a racist who thinks hebrews are better then the others and deserve extra special privileged treatment?
Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I'm not quite sure what else I can conclude from that.
It doesn't really sound that different from what a, for example, white supremacist would say concerning the treatment of whites versus non-whites.
Don't try to derail the subject. The subject is slavery, not abortion.
It's not about human morals. It's about your supposed god's morals.
Yes indeed, all the things you mentioned have evolved and changed, but Christians tell us that their god is unchanging which a Christain site, www.SermonCentral.com, is at pains to tell us with an article titled, "An unchanging God in a changing world." The article talks about peoples attitudes changing, but that "We can trust in God who does not change." So are we to take it that when the biblical god said that a person is the property of another, then an unchaning god would still hold fast to that attitude? Perhaps we will get that old chestnut that Christians roll out when faced with a biblical "dfficulty", "Oh I know it says that, but that's not what it actually means."To be objective when reading the Bible or past histories of anything, a person would need to factor in one thing about ethics and morality. That it changes over time. You'll find Christians that were against slavery and you'll find Christians that were for the continuation of slavery in America's history. This didn't magically appear out of nowhere, the world's social, economic, population and technical environment all began to evolve and change.
What should be done is to find out whether the God of Israel commanded and instituted slavery world wide or was the written record we find in the Bible actually a reaction to that ancient world which used it as a means to build their civilizations? Basically when people Christian or not decide to read the Bible, how can you tell He wasn't just managing something mankind decided to already do thousands of years ago?
Psalms 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple.
Romans 7:12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.
How do you understand these verses that hold the law as holy and perfect? It seems in your view that the law is a compromise between God's ideals and the human condition. Indeed what Jesus himself says about marriage would seem to support this view.
Not all christians agree on what it means that "God doesn't change". Some say His character is unchanging, that is, He is consistently loving and caring and this can be expressed in different ways at different times. Others say He doesn't change at all in any sense, ever, that all of the Old Testament applies to us as much now as it did back in the day; that God doesn't change in the strongest sense of the meaning -- see immutability for a philosophical discussion, or wikis immutability for the brief overview.Yes indeed, all the things you mentioned have evolved and changed, but Christians tell us that their god is unchanging which a Christain site, www.SermonCentral.com, is at pains to tell us with an article titled, "An unchanging God in a changing world." The article talks about peoples attitudes changing, but that "We can trust in God who does not change." So are we to take it that when the biblical god said that a person is the property of another, then an unchaning god would still hold fast to that attitude? Perhaps we will get that old chestnut that Christians roll out when faced with a biblical "dfficulty", "Oh I know it says that, but that's not what it actually means."
Yes, we humans do change and that includes our idea of morality, but as Dogma Hunter has already said, "It's not about human morals. It's about your supposed god's morals."
To be objective when reading the Bible or past histories of anything, a person would need to factor in one thing about ethics and morality. That it changes over time.
You'll find Christians that were against slavery and you'll find Christians that were for the continuation of slavery in America's history.
This didn't magically appear out of nowhere, the world's social, economic, population and technical environment all began to evolve and change.
What should be done is to find out whether the God of Israel commanded and instituted slavery world wide or was the written record we find in the Bible actually a reaction to that ancient world which used it as a means to build their civilizations?
Basically when people Christian or not decide to read the Bible, how can you tell He wasn't just managing something mankind decided to already do thousands of years ago?
Psalms 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, refreshing the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple.
Romans 7:12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.
How do you understand these verses that hold the law as holy and perfect? It seems in your view that the law is a compromise between God's ideals and the human condition. Indeed what Jesus himself says about marriage would seem to support this view.
I think this applies to the writing on slavery.
I think it applies to every part that you personally don't agree with at face value.
What makes it change from being perfect? Is it because the world has changed?Is it possible that the law was holy perfect and good for a set time, but not for all time?
A better analogy relevant to this topic would be more like if I told my kids they were allowed to punch another kid in the face if they didn't like them, because they're young and don't understand these things. We don't generally allow our children to violate our moral standards without consequence. It's probably the most important part of parenting, teaching your children how to behave towards others and what behaviour is good and bad.Similar to how we tell kids "Do not go on the road" but that doesn't apply to them their whole lives. We train them up with perfect-holy laws that serve a purpose for a specific time based on what they can understand.
Well, that's a tricky one. For example the book would lead us to believe that the law was directly dictated by God, Leviticus 25 which we have been discussing ends with "I am the Lord your God" to leave us in no doubt who is speaking. This phrase is continually repeated throughout the law, It doesn't say "I am Moses stating my biased view".One more thing, I still think it's important to take that step back and see the bigger picture. What I mean is, how was the bible written? Did God write it Himself? Is there any part of Moses in the Law? Or is it entirely God's directive? How about David? How about Paul? As you know from our discussions previously, I'm of the opinion that there is some of the writers personality and biases in the bible. That is, the bible is not the "Word of God" as most christians promote. Rather, I see it as our best option in learning about Who God is, and that each author was "inspired" by the Spirit of God to write. So the heart of the message is where I'm looking, rather than the specifics. I realise this undermines the bibles full authority, but from my perspective, it doesn't remove it's authority entirely. It is still the best thing we have to learn about God from history. I think this applies to the writing on slavery.