Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That was a good post!! Then when I read the part above I actually spit my drink up a little laughing lol, that was pretty clever. Although I wouldn’t blame the problem on his interpretation of Exodus, I would blame it on the rain
When you 'weave and bob', make sure to even them out accordingly. You appear to be 'weaving', when it may be better to 'bob.'ROFL!.....if there's one thing I learned from that video, it's to never trust a board of stick-men. Their logic might tend to be two dimensional. What a riot!
Y'now, you're the only one who is using the phrase "beating them for life." The text doesn't actually say that is permitted, and the Torah on the whole wouldn't really condone that kind of treatment since the psychopathic urge that you seem to insert into the text isn't a conclusion that can be coherent with the rest of Scripture. No, I'm going to assume that 'beatings' were occasioned up disorderly servants who were not conforming to the many tenets of the Law of God. You do know that servants and maidservants weren't 'free' in Israel to just worship foreign gods or bounce around with various antics like they did in their own former countries, right? It only makes sense that if they thought they'd defy the social and spiritual status quo, they'd get a beating. And it couldn't be too severe since...........if they were brutalized, it might very well mean that they'd be given their freedom, right? [Not like in the Antebellum Southern Unites States of yesteryear. Oh no sir! The slaves, I'm sure, got beatings, but I'm thinking it didn't have much to do with their behavior but rather with the ill-disposition and bad moods of their white masters who, apparently, hadn't taken very many Hermeneutics classes----I'm guessing none of any real substance, if truth be told. Otherwise, a truly biblical Antebellum South would have had a whole bunch of freed African-American men and women just going about their business ... ]
No. Is it a sin to discipline one's child with a moderate spanking every once in a while? [oh, you say it is becoming illegal these days? Egads! ]
I hate to digress, but a simple yes or no will not suffice since to try to break it all down in such an over-simplified binary state is to gloss over the many social factors that can be at play in any one instance.
No, it's not a contradiction, it's you're misreading in thinking that Christian gentleness and meekness means to become, essentially, and spineless milksop. Yeah, that ain't it! Try again!
I've already addressed this little come back you keep push'n at me.You may be, but 'weaving and bobbing' isn't very productive
I'm not sure. Shall I make a list for you?
I'm waiting for your K.O., cvanwey. Waiting, waiting, waiting.Might I make a suggestion - (tongue and cheek)
And who be these fine folks? Because if they'd like to show up and put their two cents in, I'll be more than happy to accommodate them into my already busy schedule and take them to task as well.
No, I'm not the only one. It happens to first come from the very Book in which is the backbone as to why people claim what they are here (i.e.) Christian, in this forum arena; and the title of this website. Without the Bible, Christianity would have no said platform from which to assert their Words
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
and
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
So apparently, Lev. 25 even agrees that such actions are ruthless, and that is why you 'must not' when you are a Hebrew
Nice 'weave' there.
Let's try yet again...
Does God consider it sin to beat your slave? Yes or no? Remember, you are not allowed to be given your own 'interpretation', as we already have direct council from the almighty Himself. If it did not mention as much, then yes, I 'might' be interested to maybe ask what you 'think' God's stance 'could' be on such a hypothetical topic, in which He never elaborated upon. But He apparently did, and now you are stuck. Had He not chimed in on it specifically, you would have free reign to assert whatever you wish, like you are still doing here, as if such verses are not right in front of everyone to freely read.
It's simple, because it is simple. Does God consider the slave owner, whom beats their slave, a sin or not? I know you can do it
Even the 'Word of God' renders such acts 'ruthless'. Hence, the reason He orders not to do as such to the Hebrews.
For someone whom 'prides' them self on interpretation, you appear to have severely missed the mark on this one. The correct answer was, 'it's an axiomatic conclusion', that we have contradictory statements presented in the Bible, which now causes many to be confused as to which verses are 'real' and which verses we must ignore, if wanting to support the ones we like, in opposition. You know, that 'ol chestnut...
So lemme add.... How many books might I need to read to learn to overcome contradiction?
These passages have absolutely nothing to do with the topic. We are speaking about passages which instruct how non-Hebrews may be taken as slaves, for life, and be beaten for life, and be considered the property of their slave owners, for life.
But nice try in attempting to 'hornswaggle' metaphorical passages, using the word 'slave' in a differing light
Dewey, Pierce, and James have done great work for pragmatism, and the fact that simple pragmatics and pragmatic ethics are perhaps interchangeable is precisely my point. What more does morality bring to the table? As you said, this question might not be suited for this thread.
It's also a much more complex and nuanced [SET] of issues [plural] that have to be identified and sorted through; it's not just a simple, binary matter of RIGHT/WRONG, which is what I've been alluding to through my hopping and skipping while on this particular thread. When I say it's more complex, I'm referring to the fact that whatever YOUR moral and metaphysical, even epistemological, position may be, it's not a given BY WHICH you can then "simply" measure and criticize the ethical framework and moral value of the God of the Bible. No, for you to truly criticize the biblical position, as far as we can understand what it is in that it is distanced from us in time, people and culture, you have to fully justify your own ethical and moral stance, along with the metaphysics and epistemology that buttresses it or makes it seemingly cohere. On my part, I have to attempt to do the same, and the problem here is that neither of us will likely be able to pull that off; all of our respective ethical and moral positions can be taken to task. No one gets a free ride based merely upon their intuitive harboring of modern notions of 'freedom,' especially not through some faulty modern day notion that it's just "all common sense" and requires no further work or deeper analysis.
And I won't disagree with this, but what I would bring to your attention is that, even if you are correct, we won't actually come to this conclusion as easily as you may surmise that we will or should.
Gaara, I'll just refrain for the moment from contending with the dichotomy you've offered in conclusive fashion,and for the reasons that I've already alluded to above. However, what I will say briefly is that I appreciate your intelligent approach to this issue, especially since I know it's a tough one for everyone to wrestle with, and I can see that you intend to give this issue the best of your efforts and honest sensibilities as we discuss it for as far as we actually decide to discuss it.
You’re not wrong, Philo, and this is what gets me about Christian apologetics. We can look at biblical texts through the lens of our own cultural values and biases and find all kinds of disturbing and jarring declarations, and it’s easy enough to say why we prefer our culture over theirs. But if the issue at hand is whether one culture is truly more enlightened than another, we have to do a lot more work, some of which may very well be impossible. So while an atheist can point to slavery in the Bible and feel justified rejecting it as a moral authority, Christians can point to cultural differences and metaphysical questions and feel justified not rejecting it, and in the end neither side gains ground. This is what most of apologetics feels like to me. Everyone frames the opposing worldview such that it’s not a threat to the one they’ve chosen, and it’s very difficult to break out of that structure in a discussion forum setting when both camps are already entrenched.
I think we’ve attempted to broach this topic before and you introduced me to Hobbes, with whose work I immediately became enamored, but we stopped there. We can try again, if you want, but due to recent dramatic exchanges I’ve taken part in I’m now hypervigilant about staying on topic, so you can decide if discussing moral ontology and epistemology is appropriate in this thread.Gaara, I'll just refrain for the moment from contending with the dichotomy you've offered in conclusive fashion,and for the reasons that I've already alluded to above. However, what I will say briefly is that I appreciate your intelligent approach to this issue, especially since I know it's a tough one for everyone to wrestle with, and I can see that you intend to give this issue the best of your efforts and honest sensibilities as we discuss it for as far as we actually decide to discuss it.
So, if you want to continue to discuss this here, we can do so ...
I think this is where we are speaking past one another....
Please let me clarify further, without the possibility of 'Chinese H20 torture'
Again, if you look at the OP, I'm not addressing the 'moral' implications. I gladly admit morality is subjective. And like I eluded to later, maybe some people are into 'slavery/bondage/etc.' Heck, I would imagine there even exists clubs, websites, and others exclusively devoted to such.
But when you state we will likely not agree, this is where I must intervene. As I stated prior. It's highly unlikely (YOU) desire being placed into such a role for life. It's highly unlikely (YOU) would desire being beaten for life, (even if you were 'lazy' like the Canaanites). And as stated, if you did SO desire such a role, then why have you not seeked out as such? As I stated prior, it would not be hard to arrange for such. And furthermore, you are most likely NOT in such a role now, as I would doubt your slave master would allow such lenient media privileges, as you would seem to have (i.e) 'freedom'.
So please, once again, please tell me WHY such a case is NOT binary? Meaning, Mark 12:31 states that one of the greatest commands is to 'love your neighbor as yourself.' ASSUMING, you do not seek our lack in your freedom, assuming you do not seek out beating, assuming you do not seek out forced labor, I again ask, if you were held in such a condition, against your own will, please answer this simply BINARY question.....
Does God consider as such sin? Yes or No?
Alright. So Jewish slavery wasn’t the same as American slavery, and those Americans who defended slavery with the Bible weren’t justified in doing so. These are the sort of responses we’re all used to seeing whenever this issue pops up, and while they’re worth noting, I don’t think they manage to resolve the tension between modern and ancient views on slavery. Both you and the article you posted grant that there are certain permissions masters have over their slaves that allow for truly inhumane treatment, and for me, that’s the kicker. If you can’t justify that, I feel that my aforementioned dichotomous conclusion is appropriate.Ok. I'll approach this in a more Wittegensteinian style, and in the attempt to have some solidarity with you in the thought strategy that you're employeeing (or feeling), I'll agree with you to a limited extent and say that, obviously, it appears that for the God of the Bible it's NOT a sin to own a slave, at least not as slavery manifested itself in the overarching political milieu of life such as existed in ancient Israel.
BUT...........and I will assert that there is a big BUT here which should intercept not only our own tendencies to jump to conclusions, but should have long ago intercepted in the minds of white American two to four hundred years ago. One such “but” for us to recognize is that the disturbed thinking of even the most vociferous, religiously oriented white racist slave owner of the Antebellum South mistakenly thought that the "owning" of another human being, specifically of fellow human beings of African descent, was easily justified by the Bible. The truth was, and still is, it was not. In fact, the typical justification that took place in the minds of Euro-American slavers during the 1600s to the 1800s was anything but fully justified (see Davis and also Kolchin on this issue, references below).
....to then say that one can be a Christian slave holder post-Christ (i.e. in our now A.D. era) and that a Christian could somehow do this quite easily via simple references to Scripture is, and always has been, a delusion on a large scale, one that seems to rely upon an eisegetical process of biblical interpretation versus an fully harnessed exegetical process such as is illustrated on both counts in that little confrontation Jesus had with Satan in the wilderness, as presented in the New Testament Gospels. Let's just say there is such a thing as a 'Satanic Hermenuetic' that a number of people may attempt to resort to in order to buttress their own wishful thinking, usually one with political investments which are themselves supported by financial investments. And it's usually this last one that is the moral linchpin in why some people, such as the white slavers, have attempted to use the Bible in order to justify their predatory activities. As Paul the Apostle mentioned, “...the love of money is the root of all evil.”
So, like the social arrangement of ancient polygamy, ancient Jewish 'slavery' was indeed condoned by God. However, in saying this, I'd like to offer up the additional caveat and qualifier by specifying that by my use of the term “condone,” I ONLY mean to refer to that denotation whereby some human act is allowed even though it may not be ultimately preferred morally. In the case of what we 'witness' in modern history, we might allow Orlando Patterson to give us a few additional insights as to why and how Freedom, as an ultimate political notion, gained the advocacy and the status of “common sense” as it …............................. I stopped abruptly here, because, in wanting to say “as it has,” I know very well there are still countless white racists who still exist in our society and who would love nothing more than to be allowed to again install a political structure that relies upon what I see as a more or less “Satanic Hermeneutic” when handling the legal concepts of the Bible. And as a Christian, that is something we cannot allow.
As for your inquiry about whether or not I'd want to be either a slave who is subject to being beaten, I'll readily admit flat out that it isn't an idea I've enjoyed entertaining. In fact, I never have. On the flip-side, neither have I ever enjoyed entertaining the thought of being a slave owner who could deliver such beatings on a lifetime scale, let alone even 'owning' another human being. Both notions are rather disheartening, to say the least, and I say this not only as a person who feels he knows what the Bible “really says,” but also as a person who has worked along side in parity and in social enjoyment with fellow African-American employees for quite a lengthy time, a few of whom have even been supervisors over me.
One more BUT comes to mind: Canaanites as portrayed in the Bible, however mythically we may think they're described (if indeed the biblical description of them is mythical), were not African people(s) by any stretch of the imagination …
In closing, I'd like to ask a question: Did you get a chance to read that article I posted previously?
References
Davis, David Brion. Slavery and human progress. New York, NY. Oxford University Press, 1984.
Kolchin, Peter. American Slavery: 1619-1877. Macmillan, 1993.
Patterson, Orlando. Freedom in the making of western culture. Vol. 1. IB Tauris, 1991.
I think it's more than simply worth noting because, from my experience, most skeptics and atheists don't seem to really think that Americans who have defended slavery in the past weren't biblically justified in doing so, or skeptics think the converse applies, that Americans of the past--even those who were Christian abolitionist--were not justified in refuting the claims of the white American slavers. So, with this mind, it's worth a further appraisal because it's not something that anyone seems to really believe, despite occasional lip-service to the contrary.
First off, by what we find in the article (assuming some here have indeed read it in full), and being that we don't know the extent to which an earlier Israelite/Jewish Oral Torah played an auxiliary part in the day by day adjudications of the Law of Moses by which decisions of mercy for the slaves and/or judgements upon the harsher slave owners were enacted, then it really does come off to me on the part of skeptics/atheists to be special pleading by way of inferences made upon the THINNEST of literary evidence, which in this case seems to be the lazy citations of...........oh............about 3 or 4 verses that just don't 'sit well' with the average intuitively oriented citizen today.
Doesn't work like that, I'm afraid. Christians believe that the God of the Old Testament is the same person as the God of the New Testament. So, quite simply, we have evidence that God approves of slavery, endorses it and set down specific rules for capturing, selling, owning and punishing human beings.
