A Christmas Story

[muichimotsu]

I begin with people where they're at too; it's just a part of my education training in Education. I also don't expect everyone to meet certain arbitrary standards, but I definitely to parse out my expectations of other people according to the degree of intelligence I think they have. Not only that, bu the more intelligent I think they are, then the MORE I expect from them, and you, my dear friend, are a highly intelligent person. So, my expectations of you will be applied accordingly.

A discussion involves critical thinking. But that brings us to an interesting thought: What would it mean to have 'flexibility' installed as an aspect of one's 'critical thinking'? And by this, I don't intend to merely mean that we might try to install some degree of Emotional Intelligence into the whole critical apparatus. No, I mean to go beyond just E.I.

Well, then. You've claimed several times here and there on CF that you're no expert. Now you're claiming that you're no teacher, so then, if you're neither of these, then who in your estimation is? (Being that you're highly intelligent, I'm just going to run with the idea that you're no Nihilist either ... )

Flattery won't get you anywhere, I'm not swayed by compliments, particularly online, maybe in person (seriously). You expect more, but you're also expecting the same kind of functionality others have, I don't necessarily

Flexibility in the sense that you understand that the belief in something, however strong, should not be the point of merit for whether it is true or not

Who? I don't necessarily have particular authors I'm going to reference constantly, but I also don't necessarily spend a lot of time reading in regards to that these days, unfortunately. Not that I don't have a library with various well known authors in it.

 

[cvanwey]

No, it's better for them to live under these conditions than being dead after the wars Israel led against the Canaanites.

Again, the Bible does not lay down the ground rules for allowable types of slavery. You are again finding a specific instance, where you can state... "Well, at least they weren't killed. Thanks to God's decree, they were merely made slaves for life."

Of course these verses still stand.

Great, we agree here. Then stop ignoring them. See below

However, it is referring to the then situation.

No sir. Again, you are attempting to have your cake and eat it too. Above, you agree these verses still stand. But then you go on stating such verses are meant for a past situation. You are completely avoiding my point. Which is... Such allowance is still permissible today. Furthermore, such allowances do not distinguish any exclusivity to POWs/other. See below for more detals...

To my knowledge, (entire) nations selling slaves don't exist anymore.

You are again trying to justify only 'specific circumstances'. Again, the Bible does not define 'allowable slavery' and 'not allowable slavery'. Again, The Bible does not lay out exclusive rights for the allowance of the master/slave situation. Again, my point was stated many responses ago. --> If a future leader was able to revoke civil law, and instead put into place Biblical law, you could be a slave. Please again remember, when I brought up the term 'veil of ignorance.' Which essentially means the law maker creates a given law permitting a master/slave scenario, but is unaware if he will be the 'master' or the 'slave' under this law. And in light of verses, like Exodus 21:20-21 and Leviticus 25:44-46, would [you] want to be the 'slave' of such ambiguous law? I somehow doubt it

And honestly to me, "temporary residents" doesn't sound like a long-lasting situation, either.

Please bare in mind the verse in Leviticus 25:44-46 states, "you may also".. Which means, 'in addition to'....

Again, please remember the term 'ambiguous'. Today, under Biblical law, this could mean anyone going to another country on a work visa, having duel citizenship and staying with relatives for a while, foreign exchange students, other, other, other, etc.... Again, ambiguity. Such residences can be bought/sold for the rest of their lives, and God has placed His stamp on such occurrences. God has also placed His stamp on the allowance of their eternal beating.

And since you state you agree with God, you also condone such practices, unless you now wish to change your answer?

There is no direct conflict to Genesis 42:21.

Yes, @thomas_t , there is indeed.

The term 'slave', in the Bible, is ambiguous.

"21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

God condones the beating of unidentified slaves for life, which are apparently demoted to property.

I again ask you... Which option do you adopt?

a) address the contradiction
b) ignore some verses

So far, I have mentioned verse exodus 21:20-21 a handful of times. You have yet to acknowledge that God condones the beating, just short of death, while not clarifying whom can and cannot be classified as a slave.

no need to do this.

Yes, He apparently does need to clarify. See above.

No, she should learn in quietness and full submission.
If she wants equality, men should do the same.
That doesn't mean for the woman to never say anything.
It always matters when a woman disagrees with a Bible study that focuses on one verse only.

Again, God gives reason. The woman sinned first. Hence, they MUST be quiet. This is God speaking. So though you can ask the woman for her opinion, it does not matter to God. If the recipients wish to defy God's direct pronouncement, that's on them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Flattery won't get you anywhere, I'm not swayed by compliments, particularly online, maybe in person (seriously). You expect more, but you're also expecting the same kind of functionality others have, I don't necessarily

It wasn't meant to be flattering, muichimotsu, just a true observation.

Flexibility in the sense that you understand that the belief in something, however strong, should not be the point of merit for whether it is true or not

Please rewrite this sentence because I'm not understanding it. Thanks.

Who? I don't necessarily have particular authors I'm going to reference constantly, but I also don't necessarily spend a lot of time reading in regards to that these days, unfortunately. Not that I don't have a library with various well known authors in it.

... then do you expect us to take what you say as if it has any real weight to it? If you just want to share your own non-political opinion about how Christianity just doesn't do it for you, that's fine with me. But if you're actually here to finesse us into what you've attempted to define as a 'more critical' view of Christianity so that we'll actually relinquish it, then you'll need do more than just offering your own personal feelings on the matter.

 

[thomas_t]

You are again trying to justify only 'specific circumstances'. Again, the Bible does not define 'allowable slavery' and 'not allowable slavery'.

yes.
yes.
no contradiction between these two.

Let the exact definition be missing. They knew who was a slave, I suppose. When someone was bought: slave. Prisoner of war: slave.

Above, you agree these verses still stand. But then you go on stating such verses are meant for a past situation.

they still stand - referring to the past situation. Both.
Your verse clearly mentioned the people in the neighborhood selling slaves. We don't have that as of today.

If a future leader was able to revoke civil law, and instead put into place Biblical law, you could be a slave.

I don't think so. You didn't cite any verse saying that you can sell an Israelite as a slave - or a Christian.
You just posted verses about existing slaves (exept for Leviticus 25:44-46 But here, it's not about Israelites as slaves.). Your "veil of ignorance" does not produce one single slave, I suppose.

this could mean anyone going to another country on a work visa, having duel citizenship and staying with relatives for a while, foreign exchange students, other, other, other, etc.... [...]
You are completely avoiding my point. Which is... Such allowance is still permissible today.

no - it referred to ancient Israel. I'm not avoiding your point. I'm giving you the same answer again and again!
God made all these provisions to Israel - in that specific situation.

a) address the contradiction

There is no contradiction between any passage in the Bible. Even in this topic.

---

Again, God gives reason. The woman sinned first. Hence, they MUST be quiet. This is God speaking. So though you can ask the woman for her opinion, it does not matter to God.

yes.
yes.
yes.
yes.
no.
Again, if the (Christian) woman wants equality, she get's it. If men say "you must be quiet"... then the woman has every right to answer "but equality means, you have to do the same." Galatians 3:28 is true - regardless of who had sinned first.

 

[cvanwey]

no contradiction between these two.

The Bible does not really define what a slave is, and is not. 'Slavery' is a broad term. Hence, since the Bible does not define clear parameters for allowable slavery, humans are then left with their own 'interpretation(s)'. Further, most could use Biblical verses to justify such action(s). In the U.S., it wasn't until the abolition of 'slavery', which placed an end to 'slavery' entire. Now, the U.S. states 'slavery' is not ever allowed again, under (any) circumstances. Which seems to go against the suggestion from God, whom still allows it.

Let the exact definition be missing. They knew who was a slave, I suppose. When someone was bought: slave. Prisoner of war: slave.

From a historical perspective, it would seem whomever was stronger, took the weaker as their 'slave'. I reckon the 'slave' was not allowed to leave. I reckon the 'slave' was forced to do labor. I reckon the 'slave' was beaten.' I reckon the 'slave' was preached to serve their new master as well as their master's God. I reckon a lot of things happening.

Why do I think this? The many Bible verses I have already cited; which instruct as such - see below.

they still stand - referring to the past situation. Both.
Your verse clearly mentioned the people in the neighborhood selling slaves. We don't have that as of today.

We don't have that today because countries decided to put laws into place to abolish 'slavery' entire. Why didn't God?

Instead, God allows slavery, and places no real provisions or parameters for whom can, or cannot be taken as a slave.

I don't think so. You didn't cite any verse saying that you can sell an Israelite as a slave - or a Christian.

I stated from the beginning, that the only restriction was the 'law' excluded the Jews. Likely because it was a Jew whom wrote the law

However, Hebrews were still taken as 'bond servants', and the master could still trick the Jew to be a 'slave' for life (i.e.)

"2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life."

In regards to 'Christians', many verses look to have been written to address the Christian 'slave'. How else would the 'slave' know what to do, as they are being enslaved? (i.e.):

"Slaves and Masters 5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; 6 not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7 Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women, 8 knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free."

It's almost seems such verses were written to keep the slaves in line. Enslave them, read Scripture to them again and again, - to serve their masters well, try not to run, and to treat their slave masters as they would treat this God they are now told to believe. Seems reasonable.

You just posted verses about existing slaves (exept for Leviticus 25:44-46 But here, it's not about Israelites as slaves.). Your "veil of ignorance" does not produce one single slave, I suppose.

Again, God's morality is never changing. God condones slavery practices until the earth's end.

Again, do you (also) condone the beating for life, treating as property for life, all as long as you don't kill them; and maybe also as long as they are not a Jew, in certain instances?

no - it referred to ancient Israel. I'm not avoiding your point. I'm giving you the same answer again and again!
God made all these provisions to Israel - in that specific situation.

Even if you were giving the same answer again and again, you are wrong. I've cited the verses. I've done the work; presented the evidence. It is now your turn to demonstrate that God only allows such practices for 'that situation' exclusively.

There is no contradiction between any passage in the Bible. Even in this topic.

Yes, there is contradiction.

Quick example:

"12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

VS

"21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

Direct contradiction above. The top teaches to treat others like you want to be treated. The second advocates treating some humans as property, beating them, and not being punished.

Again, if the (Christian) woman wants equality, she get's it. If men say "you must be quiet"... then the woman has every right to answer "but equality means, you have to do the same." Galatians 3:28 is true - regardless of who had sinned first.

You have again ignored the verse I provided. Again, the verses is pretty axiomatic. If you wish to cite other passages, you must ignore 1 Timothy 2:11-12. For they would be in direct conflict with one another.

 

[thomas_t]

No, I didn't ignore one single verse you posted.

"21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."Direct contradiction above. The top teaches to treat others like you want to be treated. The second advocates treating some humans as property, beating them, and not being punished.

That's still better than being dead when taken as a prisoner of war. This is my example to show that these passages are in line with each other. They didn't have these fancy prisons for POW back then as they do today. Even if the Israelites bought a slave from the other peoples... those could have been POWs, too.
If I know well, any human of back then knew that if they were to lose a war... they might end up either dead or a slave. They knew these were the options. No people had a prison for POW back then I suppose.

So in these situations the Bible referred to... I condone the Bible verses about how to treat a slave.
So I stay with my opinion, there is no contradiction between 2 Bible verses.

Even if you were giving the same answer again and again, you are wrong. I've cited the verses. I've done the work; presented the evidence. It is now your turn to demonstrate that God only allows such practices for 'that situation' exclusively.

no, in my opinion you failed to show that the slavery verses apply for situations outside the context there were written in.
You've cited a verse saying that the Israelites could buy slaves from other peoples. But as of today... we don't see peoples selling slaves. That's the past as you have acknowledged in your post. So, effectively, the situation did change.

We don't have that today because countries decided to put laws into place to abolish 'slavery' entire. Why didn't God?

Why didn't God in the Bible, you ask? As I said, it wasn't possible back then, it seems.
Moreover, the Bible was long enough, already. There is no way for the average Christian to take in more. I see this in the church I attend. Normally they're already happy if they manage to read the Bible once a day. I love my friends, though. They help me a lot. Condoning slavery costed God some 10 verses. No revolution, things stayed as they were more or less. Some slight improvements for the slaves, though. Condemning it and explaining as to why would have meant much more verses, I think.
It's also a matter of priorities. For God, it helps more when people are saved. But salvation doesn't come from politics. (Worldly) politics doesn't put any emphasis on salvation in a Biblical sense.



----
no there is no conflict between 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and other verses. Note also that Koine Greek doesn't know the "MUST BE" in the verse you cited ("must be quiet"). 1 Timothy 2:12 Interlinear: and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness,

 

[muichimotsu]

It wasn't meant to be flattering, muichimotsu, just a true observation.

I feel like I've striven for more wisdom than intelligence as I get older, which is why my presentation isn't as good as it could be in terms of such things. And my intelligence is not necessarily relevant entirely to whether my position is true in itself, the truth of your claim something I'm not that concerned with anymore than with anyone, at least in terms of me as a person in progress

Please rewrite this sentence because I'm not understanding it. Thanks.

Essentially, however strongly one believes something is entirely immaterial to whether it is true in itself: the common dilemma people bring up with the gospels is a good example: the disciples didn't have to be lying or correct, they could've been genuinely convinced that things happened, but mistaken about the cause behind it, as much as they sincerely believed it to their deaths by martyrdom

... then do you expect us to take what you say as if it has any real weight to it? If you just want to share your own non-political opinion about how Christianity just doesn't do it for you, that's fine with me. But if you're actually here to finesse us into what you've attempted to define as a 'more critical' view of Christianity so that we'll actually relinquish it, then you'll need do more than just offering your own personal feelings on the matter.

The problem with any claim by a Christian that they sincerely looked into the religion in the first place is what even counts to them as convincing evidence in the first place: the lower the standards, the easier they're convinced and even with "strict" standards in some sense, it doesn't mean the person is being intellectually honest and critical by necessity, because sentiment can blind people to fallacious thinking they make and that happens more often with religion across the board, I'd argue.

I'm not claiming some critical view of Christianity as if I'm a scholar in the slightest on it, but the further I looked into it in my studies and still do to a degree, the less I'm convinced of much of any real morality or even truth to be found in the religion, in spite of so many people speaking as if it has some universal appeal, but clearly it doesn't.

 

[cvanwey]

No, I didn't ignore one single verse you posted.

Beg to differ. In my last post for instance, I stated or asked the following. Feel free to either address them directly below, or in subsequent responses further below:

- God condones the beating of slaves, just short of death, for life. Do you?
- Matthew 7:12 and Exodus 21:21 conflict. You must ignore one of the two verses.
- Exodus 21:2-6 and Ephesians 6 demonstrates enslavement of even the Jews and the Christians.
- Leviticus 25:44-46 is ambiguous, not specifying the exclusive enslavement of POWs and beggars
- Under Biblical law, slavery stands forever. Under civil law, they don't.

That's still better than being dead when taken as a prisoner of war. This is my example to show that these passages are in line with each other. They didn't have these fancy prisons for POW back then as they do today. Even if the Israelites bought a slave from the other peoples... those could have been POWs, too.

Again, God sanctions the beating of ANY slave, just short of the point of their death, for life. This would include any 'slave'. And again, under Leviticus 25, the parameters for enslavement are ambiguous. Today, enslavement could include foreign exchange students, people on temporary work visas, etc etc etc... The 'sky' is the limit

Thus, God condones ambiguous slavery, but DOES specify the allowed beating of such slaves, as long as they don't perish, for life.

If I know well, any human of back then knew that if they were to lose a war... they might end up either dead or a slave. They knew these were the options. No people had a prison for POW back then I suppose.

Again, God's moral application is forever. God makes no slavery provisions for this specific situation. Thus, it is okay today and tomorrow, under Biblical law.

So in these situations the Bible referred to...

The Bible's portrayal of slavery is ambiguous. Again, there is no, 'in that time', or 'this specific situation':

“‘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."

As you even agreed, the law still stands.

I condone the Bible verses about how to treat a slave.

Great, you condone the beating of any slave for life, as long as they don't die from the direct beating. You also condone the beating of the slave, if they should die from infection, 3 days later; since this passes the 1-2 day window. And as I'm sure you know, death sometimes takes a while from injury

Please tell me how you square God's rule, in this instance, with Matthew 7:12 again? You must ignore one to uphold the other.

Please also explain how you would reconcile this rationale with the 'veil of ignorance'?

Or maybe [you] like to be beaten often; which poses no conflict with both Matthew 7:12 or the veil of ignorance? If you do, then I must ask... are you someone's slave right now? And if so, your slave master seems to grant pretty descent technology use privileges.

no, in my opinion you failed to show that the slavery verses apply for situations outside the context there were written in.

Oh, but I did. You just skipped over it Explained again above.

You've cited a verse saying that the Israelites could buy slaves from other peoples. But as of today... we don't see peoples selling slaves. That's the past.
As you have acknowledged in your post. So, effectively, the situation did change.

You have missed my entire point. Because of civil law, all 'slavery' has been abolished. Under Biblical law, 'slavery' remains forever. See below...

the Bible was long enough, already. There is no way for the average Christian to take in more.

Which one is it @thomas_t ? Before you stated most don't read the Bible, and now you state they would not read more. How about...?

'Thou shalt not own humans as property' Or even better yet, God does not mention slavery AT ALL in the Bible. Why? Because we would already then assume that God does not favor slavery, keeping in line with Matthew 7:12 and other verses. Just like the commandment 'thou shalt not steal' needs no further elaboration.

But instead, now you have to try and rationalize, like you have been doing for several pages now.

Done Even someone with ADHD could read such a verse. Further, such a verse would eliminate many other unnecessary passages.

no there is no conflict between 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and other verses. Note also that Koine Greek doesn't know the "MUST BE" in the verse you cited ("must be quiet"). 1 Timothy 2:12 Interlinear: and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness,

You can spin it any way you wish @thomas_t . You can 'rephrase' the verse however you like. The gist remains exactly the same, men > women. Reason, God states the woman sinned first. The Bible also says the woman came from the man. 1 Corinthians 11

Hence, women are restricted, until civil law changed this reality.

Essentially, civil law defies the Bible, rather than remains in line with it. Interesting.

 

[thomas_t]

I answered your Bible verses.
Within the circumstances given at that time and that situation, I agree with what is stated concerning slavery.

- God condones the beating of slaves, just short of death, for life. Do you?
- Matthew 7:12 and Exodus 21:21 conflict. You must ignore one of the two verses.
- Exodus 21:2-6 and Ephesians 6 demonstrates enslavement of even the Jews and the Christians.
- Leviticus 25:44-46 is ambiguous, not specifying the exclusive enslavement of POWs and beggars
- Under Biblical law, slavery stands forever. Under civil law, they don't.

see above (in green colour).
see above (in green).
see above (in green).
POW was the example I gave.
under the circumstances of that era only. Lack of good alternatives, as I see it. I stay with my opinion, you failed to show that the Bible verses apply to another context than the one given in the Bible.

You must ignore one to uphold the other.

I suppose the PoW were better off living under these conditions than being dead. That's why I think they might have thought the same. PoW is my example. No conflict that I could see there. Even Joseph was still better off as a sold slave than dead.

Today, enslavement could include foreign exchange students, people on temporary work visas, etc etc etc... The 'sky' is the limit

I don't know of any exchange students, people on temporary work visas, etc etc etc...who are sold by their country as slaves. This was the occasion at which the Israelites could buy or sell slaves.
But I appreciate you being of good humor.

'Thou shalt not own humans as property' [...] Just like the commandment 'thou shalt not steal' needs no further elaboration.

But instead, now you have to try and rationalize, like you have been doing for several pages now.

Done Even someone with ADHD could read such a verse.

'no humans as property' would have meant dead prisoners of war, as I see it. Or, within the Roman Empire, this would have meant an attempted revolution. Nevertheless, revolutions aren't for free. They have a cost. The mother of my grand mother died in from the consequences (weakness because of famine) of an attempted revolution from the Spartakusbund in Germany.
Anyway, this is politics. However, Jesus died for the souls.

Rationalizing is ok, I do that also with other conversation partners.


Most Christians, as I know them, read the Bible rarely but don't know their way around in scripture.

Or even better yet, God does not mention slavery AT ALL in the Bible. Why? Because we would already then assume that God does not favor slavery, keeping in line with Matthew 7:12 and other verses. Just like the commandment 'thou shalt not steal' needs no further elaboration.

oh, you bring a new point
I thought about that one, too. However, no verse concerning slavery means no restrictions possible in the Old Testament.
Whereas in the New Testament, the verses concerning slavery served an example to focus more on the spiritual realm - even as a slave. "Avoid trying to make the political revolution, folks, try to get saved" this is how I understand the verses Paul gave.



-------------
there is always the possibility to have equality between men and women in the New Testament of the Bible.
This is true even if the woman sinned first and the woman came from the man.
The New Covenant also cale later. But it is in no way inferior to the Old.

 

[cvanwey]

I answered your Bible verses.
Within the circumstances given at that time and that situation, I agree with what is stated concerning slavery.

see above (in green colour).
see above (in green).
see above (in green).
POW was the example I gave.

Again, Jesus never rebukes OT slavery. You/yourself state OT law stands forever. Jesus reinforces slavery, never amends any prior verse for slavery, and only adds additional instructions for slavery... (i.e.) for slaves to make sure they worship their master, for slaves not to run away, for slaves to work even harder if the master is a Christian, etc...

Please understand something... You keep stating, 'I agree to slavery at that time.' Well, the verses I addressed are from the OT. Jesus comes along later, reinforces OT verse, and only adds additional 'instructions', as listed above.

So again, if Jesus spoke about slavery, condones slavery, approves of slavery, and never abolishes slavery, then Jesus is all good with slavery, then, now, and forever. What you keep repeating, "that situation, that time" over and over again, results in direct conflict with yourself

you failed to show that the Bible verses apply to another context than the one given in the Bible. I suppose the PoW were better off living under these conditions than being dead. That's why I think they might have thought the same. PoW is my example. No conflict that I could see there. Even Joseph was still better off as a sold slave than dead.

Rinse/repeat

"‘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."

News flash sir... You don't buy POWs.

'no humans as property' would have meant dead prisoners of war, as I see it.

It would mean no human can ever legally own a slave, period, like civil law later put into place here in the U.S.

oh, you bring a new point
I thought about that one, too. However, no verse concerning slavery means no restrictions possible in the Old Testament.
Whereas in the New Testament, the verses concerning slavery served an example to focus more on the spiritual realm - even as a slave. "Avoid trying to make the political revolution, folks, try to get saved" this is how I understand the verses Paul gave.

More rationalization, which is both not accurate, nor true.

OT slavery condones taking slaves for life, treating them as property for life, and beating them for life. OT slavery gives specific instructions that you may beat your slave, and if the slave survives past 48 hours, the slave master is not punished.

Jesus does not rebuke or abolish any OT practices. Instead, He merely adds more verse, as stated above...

But it is quite amusing to watch, as you navigate this topic in the way that you are doing

If God never mentioned the topic of slavery; if God never placed His stamped approval upon this topic, you would not be left trying to 'defend' it

there is always the possibility to have equality between men and women in the New Testament of the Bible.
This is true even if the woman sinned first and the woman came from the man.
The New Covenant also cale later. But it is in no way inferior to the Old.

Yes, as long as you ignore 1 Timothy 2:11-12, and maybe others

 

[thomas_t]

Actually, the verse saying you can buy slaves from other countries... means that there needs to be countries to sell them to begin with.
This is evidence for the fact that this verse applied to a specific situation in time. As you said, today we don't find these nations any more.
so what I keep repeating, "that situation, that time" over and over again, does not result in direct conflict with myself. This is how I think.

News flash sir... You don't buy POWs.

I appreciate your sense of humor, Sir, but I don't understand this.
Are you saying the other nations did NOT have prisoners of war? can you back this up by something? This would be totally new to me...

OT slavery condones taking slaves for life, treating them as property for life, and beating them for life. OT slavery gives specific instructions that you may beat your slave, and if the slave survives past 48 hours, the slave master is not punished.

This didn't make my comment wrong.

It would mean no human can ever legally own a slave, period, like civil law later put into place here in the U.S.

In my opinion, you can't compare the U.S. that had an industrialized North by then ...to ancient Israel. The former U.S. slaves could work in the north in the industrial plants, for instance

Well, the verses I addressed are from the OT. Jesus comes along later, reinforces OT verse, and only adds additional 'instructions', as listed above.

... for the Roman Empire.
But still: 19th century USA isn't the same as the Roman Empire. Opting for the abolition of slavery would have meant a huge crisis there, I guess.
(I'm not 100% firm in American History I must admit.)

But it is quite amusing to watch

If you like it in a good sense, I take it as a compliment .


---
I didn't ignore 1 Timothy 2:11-12; my stance is: you can have both equality and apply this verse.

 

[cvanwey]

Actually, the verse saying you can buy slaves from other countries... means that there needs to be countries to sell them to begin with.
This is evidence for the fact that this verse applied to a specific situation in time. As you said, today we don't find these nations any more.
so what I keep repeating, "that situation, that time" over and over again, does not result in direct conflict with myself. This is how I think.

Again, we both agree 'God's law' stands forever. Why, because Jesus never abolishes it later, and reinforces the entire topic, by only adding additional verse related to master/slave behavior. The verses I quoted has many areas highlighted in bold red; which you ignored. This means God condones the selling of slaves forever.

"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."

If God's law still stands, then the above verse was not merely written for a 'very specific situation' alone, but is written for all time.

This didn't make my comment wrong.

The point being, is if you were to see a slave master beating their slave, day in and day out, it's likely you would not agree with such condoned tactics. But apparently, this does not align with God's feelings. Otherwise, God would not have placed a special sanction to allow for such specific activity.

Hence, I have a hunch your moral compass, and God's moral compass, do not actually align on this topic. Which then contradicts your prior statement, that [you] think Jesus is perfect

In my opinion, you can't compare the U.S. that had an industrialized North by then ...to ancient Israel. The former U.S. slaves could work in the north in the industrial plants, for instance

Let me clarify even a bit more @thomas_t Under civil law, slavery practices are completely abolished. Under Biblical law, they are not. Civil law disagrees with God on this matter. God allows such practices, while many countries disallow such practices. Further, if such a particular country were to again experience economic collapse, I hardly doubt slavery would ever again be on the forefront, as a 'solution'. And even if it was, I sincerely doubt provisions would again be put into place, for the allowance of their uncensored beating, just short of death.

Thus, God's allowances, which seem to want to stand forever, have been rejected by much of society. So either you a) agree with society on this one, or, b) you are with God - that it's a-okay to beat a slave, as long as they survive the beating passed the 48 hour window. Which one is it? It cannot be both

I didn't ignore 1 Timothy 2:11-12; my stance is: you can have both equality and apply this verse.

One verse instructs the woman not to have authority over men, and to remain quiet. The other does not. Pretty axiomatic, regardless of being read in Greek, Aramaic, German, English, other... You either a) ignore one of them, or, b) you 'spin' one. Which one do you choose?

 

[thomas_t]

I didn't ignore any verse you gave, be sure. My last post was about the verse you cite in bold red.

Let me clarify even a bit more @thomas_t Under civil law, slavery practices are completely abolished. Under Biblical law, they are not. Civil law disagrees with God on this matter.

Let me give you a comparison. In Germany, 3rd of October is a holiday. In America it's not. German law and American law disagree on this matter. Yet American companies operate in Germany, they simply also take a day off, while German companies in America let their staff work on 3rd of October.
This is an example of disagreeing law systems - still no problem at all.

This means God condones the selling of slaves forever.
[...]
that it's a-okay to beat a slave, as long as they survive the beating passed the 48 hour window.

... under the specific circumstances of that time, as I said.

A beaten slave is better off than a dead prisoner of war. My example.
If the situation would never have changed... it would still be ok. Even forever, if nothing changes at all.

The point being, is if you were to see a slave master beating their slave, day in and day out, it's likely you would not agree with such condoned tactics.

Depends on what the alternative is. If the alternative would have been death under the circumstance given at that time... I would stay neutral if I saw this.
Jesus is still perfect in my view. There is no disagreement between him and me I'm aware of.


------------

One verse instructs the woman not to have authority over men, and to remain quiet. The other does not. Pretty axiomatic, regardless of being read in Greek, Aramaic, German, English, other... You either a) ignore one of them, or, b) you 'spin' one. Which one do you choose?

... to remain quiet the moment she is learning (my interpretation). Men could do the same.
I choose c) regarding both as truth at the same time. As axiomatic as 1 Timothy may be.

 

[cvanwey]

I didn't ignore any verse you gave, be sure. My last post was about the verse you cite in bold red.

This is not true @thomas_t , see below...

Let me give you a comparison. In Germany, 3rd of October is a holiday. In America it's not. German law and American law disagree on this matter. Yet American companies operate in Germany, they simply also take a day off, while German companies in America let their staff work on 3rd of October.
This is an example of disagreeing law systems - still no problem at all.

Just like here in the states, we have President's day, Columbus day, Veteran's day, Martin Luther King holiday, etc... . Not all companies, within the same state even, honor these holidays the same, or if at all. Of course this is 'not a problem.'

However, see what happens if someone were to find out one of these same companies were keeping slaves, and beating them

Again, most countries have abolished slavery. This goes against God's law, which is to continue allowing the taking of slaves, and also permitting the beating of them, as long as they live passed the second day of that beating.

So again @thomas_t , the 'law' would do little to nothing, if the 'law' found out that one company did not 'properly' observe 'Columbus day'. However, what might you think the 'law' would so, if they found out that same company was keeping slaves and beating them just short of death? Remember, slavery has been abolished. Meaning, there exists no circumstance for it's continuance. And even if the state/country reversed the law, due to emergency, I doubt a special clause would also be added, to allow the beating of such 'property', just short of death.

And to address how you state you are not 'ignoring any responses', here is additionally where you are doing so...

OT law was written, according to you, for a specific time. Well, Jesus wrote the NT many 100's of years later. Jesus never revokes OT law, and only adds additional provisions for master/slave behavior (i.e.) 'work harder', 'don't run', etc.

So please, once and for all, stop stating, 'under the specific circumstances of that time, as I said.' This is not what Jesus believes. You are inventing your own conclusion to avoid reality. Slavery is forever, under the rule of Jesus. And yet, many societies have instead opted to abolish slavery forever, moving forward. Which beg the question...

Many countries are moving away from God's 'moral standard', rather than towards them. Why is this? If God's morals align with human morals, seems strange that laws are being put into place, which defy God's? (examples):

- No to slavery entire (maybe still in process)
- Women's equality entire (in process)
- Same sex unions (in process)

... to remain quiet the moment she is learning (my interpretation). Men could do the same.
I choose c) regarding both as truth at the same time. As axiomatic as 1 Timothy may be.

No sir. You have opted for option b), to 'spin.' I hope you are not too dizzy

 

[cvanwey]

Whether you are aware or not @thomas_t , we have been dealing with the Euthyphro dilemma the entire time The point that @InterestedAtheist raised, is quite relevant here.

A) Whatever God commands, IS 'good' <- You say you want to agree with this...

(or)

B) God does something because it IS already deemed 'good' for other reason(s) <-- You seem to demonstrate this version as well...

****************

A) Would be arbitrary for two fundamental reasons:

1. Whatever God says IS 'good', which means we humans are merely to follow orders.
2. God could merely change His mind about what IS 'good.'

Philosophers of both sides, (believers and non-believers in a 'top god'), both conclude such an option is arbitrary. This is why I posted a 3 minute video with Frank Turek, whom spends a majority of his professional career 'proving' God, for example. - To show that believers must concede that if the Euthyphro dilemma is the only two options available, using 'god' for your 'objective moral stands' is arbitrary. Hence, why he tries to 'invent' a third choice.

B) Would be arbitrary because if OTHER reasons exist, for the 'rightness or wrongness' of something or some act, why do we need God to tell us?

In conclusion, you say you agree with God. But then when I probe a bit, and ask if you agree with beating a slave, as long as they don't die, you then give reasons outside God's direct command.

You are demonstrating, in virtually every bit of your response, that you are attempting to have your cake, and eat it too. Meaning, you state it's good because God commands it, and you agree. And yet, you then qualify God's command with special circumstance, which God never provides as exclusive reason.

 

[thomas_t]

Rest assured, I don't ignore responses.

OT law was written, according to you, for a specific time. Well, Jesus wrote the NT many 100's of years later. Jesus never revokes OT law, and only adds additional provisions for master/slave behavior (i.e.) 'work harder', 'don't run', etc.

I did address this all the time.
Again, the Old Testament referred to a specific situation. Paul's words on slavery, also. So we have Bible passages referring to two different points of time.

So please, once and for all, stop stating, 'under the specific circumstances of that time, as I said.' This is not what Jesus believes. You are inventing your own conclusion to avoid reality. Slavery is forever, under the rule of Jesus.

But it is my conviction. Just because you telling me I should stop posting my conviction, I'm still entitled to state my opinion here in this thread. I also think, this is what Jesus believes. I don't invent my own conclusion to avoid reality.

Nations abolishing slavery as of today does in no way go against the Biblical rules, in my opinion.
If there aren't nations selling slaves anymore and if there aren't people selling themselves as slaves and if it's outlawed... all Bible passages concerning the buying of slaves can't be applied as of today.

Moreover, Bible never said to anyone you MUST sell slaves.
Bible never said you MUST take bond servants, either.

And yet, you then qualify God's command with special circumstance, which God never provides as exclusive reason.

it's implied in the text, though. When it says "you may buy from the surrounding nations" this implies there is at least one nation selling slaves. It's allowed to think while reading the Bible, I think.

Meaning, there exists no circumstance for it's continuance.

My point was to show that under present law, Christians can easily live. They just don't have slaves.

I stay neutral to the eutyphron dilemma as I said. This does not mean I eat my cake and have it, too.
----

No sir. You have opted for option b), to 'spin.' I hope you are not too dizzy

actually, I opted for c). I'm not dizzy, be sure.

Thomas

EDITED

 

[cvanwey]

Rest assured, I don't ignore responses.

I did address this all the time.
Again, the Old Testament referred to a specific situation. Paul's words on slavery, also. So we have Bible passages referring to two different points of time.

But it is my conviction. Just because you telling me I should stop posting my conviction, I'm still entitled to state my opinion here in this thread. I also think, this is what Jesus believes. I don't invent my own conclusion to avoid reality.

Nations abolishing slavery as of today does in no way go against the Biblical rules, in my opinion.
If there aren't nations selling slaves anymore and if there aren't people selling themselves as slaves and if it's outlawed... all Bible passages concerning the buying of slaves can't be applied as of today.

Moreover, Bible never said to anyone you MUST sell slaves.
Bible never said you MUST take bond servants, either.

it's implied in the text, though. When it says "you may buy from the surrounding nations" this implies there is at least one nation selling slaves. It's allowed to think while reading the Bible, I think.

My point was to show that under present law, Christians can easily live. They just don't have slaves.

I stay neutral to the eutyphron dilemma as I said. This does not mean I eat my cake and have it, too.
----


actually, I opted for c). I'm not dizzy, be sure.

Thomas

EDITED

I'm growing tired of reiterating the same points... So instead, I invite you watch a 10 minute video. As the other initial video, you may not watch this one either... But it probably does not matter.

(The video has been furnished in other thread)

 

[thomas_t]

This video pretty much summarizes your points of this thread.
But I'd like to distance myself from this claim made here:

there is no such thing as a good theft in the Bible.

if it's clear that the owner throws something away considering it waste, then you can steal it, in my opinion.
If it's a good and usable bike, for instance, it's good for the environment to still use it.
Moreover, everything we have is a gift from God, I think. However, if in an economy good and usable stuff gets disregarded and thrown away it's against God, the giver of good things.
Thomas

 

[Tom 1]

They rationalize away contradictions in the Bible, the oddity of a hidden God, or why so much bad happens to the people God loves.

Do they? I don't. Personally the whole argument seems a bit lazy to me, to make it worthwhile you'd have to clarify what you are comparing much more thoroughly to have a useful starting point, useful in the sense of having some bearing on actual ideas rather than surface impressions.
What is your rational for considering things that can't be seen as 'oddities'? People obviously do or don't believe in God, but could you explain what you mean by an 'oddity' and the process by which you arrived at this idea.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Do they? I don't.

Such has been my experience with all the Christians I've read in the past. Perhaps you're different. But this thread's got a bit old, and I have other things to take care of now. So excuse me; I'm sure we'll have the chance to discuss these things another time.