Where's God?

[doubtingmerle]

The mature and true Christian does good out of love for God and man, not rewards.

Ok, could it be best for the person to suffer so he get spiritual growth? You seem to be saying that it is.

Again, if God know it is best to suffer because it brings growth, then the doctors are doing the opposite of what is best for him. And when I asked you why they are doing what God knows is not best for him, all you could think of was that they do it because that is what they are supposed to do.

Again, I say to stop suffering, because it is best to stop suffering.

 

[Ed1wolf]

↑ed: No, both the master and the slave are still under lex talonis. The punishment must fit the offense. So they cannot do any permanent physical damage or they face lex talonis.

ia: Wrong. The rule says that the master cannot inflict severe, disabling damage upon a slave, such as the taking of an eye. Within those extremely broad limits, the master is free to punish the slave as much as he likes.

No, lex talonis means the punishment must fit the crime. If the slave inflicted permanent damage then the master had the right to inflict permanent damage. But if the slave only stole something then the master could only take something away from his slave that he valued and etc. He could not beat him.
↑

ed: The husband knew what he was getting into when he took a wife from among the masters slaves.

ia: This is an extremely cold-hearted attitude to take, but seeing your attitude to gay people ("Fine for them to get married, just not to the people they love,") I'm not surprised.

Actually it helped the woman, if he had abandoned her after they both left the master it would be certain death for her, remember there was no police force in the bronze age. Gays can get "married" to each other, it would just not be recognized by the state.
↑

ed: Actually this helps keep the family together in hard economic times. People only sold themselves into slavery during hard times.

ia: Irrelevant. What if the slave wants to be free, and his family also wants to be free? The master would then be able to use this law to keep the slave forever.

No, remember ALL slaves were freed on the year of Jubilee. And if he hated the master, he and his family could escape to a sanctuary city and he could stay there without being sent back.
↑

ed: So if he leaves prematurely they will be on hard times.

ia: Again: what if they want to be free?

See above.
↑

ed: In addition, it will discourage him from leaving his wife thereby keeping the family together. And depending on how many years from the year of jubilee, it may not be for life. He can also escape with his family to a sanctuary city and cannot be sent back to the master.

ia: Do you have any idea how heartless this policy sounds?
"Well, so you can't be free unless you leave your wife and family behind. At least it won't break up the family. And remember, it's just another five or seven years to go. Except the law says that the slave will belong to his master forever in this case, doesn't it? Ah well. Perhaps the slave can escape? And his wife and children too, of course. If they're not willing to try, perhaps they don't really want to be free at all."

Again most other societies at the time were more inhumane and it is also far more humane than American slavery.
↑

ed: Yes, for the bronze age it was far ahead of its time. Remember they didn't have welfare back then.

ia: This is an appalling way to look at it. Perhaps the slave should be grateful he was allowed a wife and child at all?

Actually, he probably would have been better off to already be married prior to indenturing himself or to have waited till after his term was up.
↑

ed: No, there is no evidence for that and it is in conformity with many other teachings such as the Golden Rule and the teaching in Genesis 1:27.

ia: You're the one ignoring what the Bible says. It says you can take slaves. Taking slaves is fine. For you therefore to say that it is a crime is simply incorrect.

Only voluntary slaves as demonstrated earlier. The bible says involuntary slavery is a crime except for POWs and criminals.
↑

ed: First, there is no such state as South California. Second, he ignores all the verses I cited where strangers and foreigners are to be treated equal to the hebrews.

ia: Perhaps there was a "South California" in 1838?

I was just joking with you, obviously it is a typo for South Carolina. That is where Dr. Furman was from. Ever hear of Furman University?

ia: As for the verses you cited, please see my response above. It's all very well and good to say that strangers and foreigners are to be treated well, but when the Bible also says that Israelites are to take slaves from the neighbouring nations, it becomes quite clear that the verse you cited means "unless you enslave them first."

I'm just going on what the Bible says and means, Ed. It's you who's inventing new interpretations for it.

No, when understanding the Bible or any book, you must interpret in context of the entire book. You are taking verses out of context as I have demonstrated above and earlier. This is not a new interpretation. There have been significant numbers of antislavery Christians because of what Christ and the Bible taught since the first century AD. Read Revelation 18:13 where it is listed as an evil product of Babylon. I dont deny that there have been periods in history when they were a minority but nevertheless they were there. Some were like the Christian founding fathers of the US who felt it was a necessary evil. I am not saying that is correct but nevertheless they knew it was wrong from studying the bible.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

No, remember ALL slaves were freed on the year of Jubilee. And if he hated the master, he and his family could escape to a sanctuary city and he could stay there without being sent back.

You have said this a couple of times and it is not true. In my thread Slavery a Guide I wrote this:

Lev 25:47-55 ESV

“If a stranger or sojourner with you becomes rich, and your brother beside him becomes poor and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner with you or to a member of the stranger's clan then after he is sold he may be redeemed. Lev 25:47-49

God makes provision for Hebrews enslaved to non-Hebrews to be set free. God is playing favorites.

One of his brothers may redeem him, or his uncle or his cousin may redeem him, or a close relative from his clan may redeem him. Or if he grows rich he may redeem himself. He shall calculate with his buyer from the year when he sold himself to him until the year of jubilee, and the price of his sale shall vary with the number of years. The time he was with his owner shall be rated as the time of a hired worker. If there are still many years left, he shall pay proportionately for his redemption some of his sale price. If there remain but a few years until the year of jubilee, he shall calculate and pay for his redemption in proportion to his years of service. He shall treat him as a worker hired year by year. He shall not rule ruthlessly over him in your sight. Lev 25:48-53

Here God is saying a Hebrew slave with a non-Hebrew master can be redeemed and sets rules for compensation.

And if he is not redeemed by these means, then he and his children with him shall be released in the year of jubilee. For it is to me that the people of Israel are servants. They are my servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. Lev 25:54-55

Here it states that only Hebrew slaves with non-Hebrew masters can be released on the year of jubilee. Non Hebrew slaves apparently do not need to be released.

If you read the text it does not allow for all slaves to be freed. Is there another verse you are referring to?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Keep telling yourself this.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[Ed1wolf]

↑
ed: There appears to be a causal link especially the physical health problems.
↑
See above. There are many other studies besides that one. In addition, gay couples have higher domestic abuse rates.

ia: Tell you what. Let's accept that you're right about this, that reliable studies show that gay people have higher rates of physical and mental health problems. I think that the position is, at the very least, a great deal more complicated than that, but let's leave that debate for another time.
Well then, so what? Why on earth should that stop them from marrying? Is it your position that people with mental and/or physical disabilities should not be allowed to marry?

The government has a right to discourage and regulate risky and dangerous behaviors. Just like you must wear a seat belt when driving, follow the speed limits, not use hard drugs and etc.
↑

ed: You can still "marry". Just not be recognized by the government. No big deal. There are many things that people enjoy doing that are not recognized by the government.

ia: It's a big deal to straight couples, so it's a big deal to gay couples.

See above about the government and risky behaviors. In addition, the government is responsible for the ongoing survival of the society and provide the best conditions for future generations. And only biological marriage can produce and raise the next generation under the best conditions, ie having biological parents or the nearest best thing, an adoptive mother and father as scientific studies have shown.

ed: Maybe but it makes no sense as an argument against interracial marriage, because skin color and behavior are two totally different unrelated things.

ia: The similarity is that anti-interracialists argue that people should be free to marry (just people of their own race) just like you are arguing that gay people should be free to marry (just people of the opposite gender).
In both cases, you are arguing that they should not be able to marry the person they love. And, just like them, you have no grounds for saying so.

Gay people cant marry by definition as I have demonstrated earlier. Homosexual behavior cannot unite two persons into a single reproductive unit. They can make a life long commitment to each other but marriage is far more than that. For society and government though, race is irrelevant to accomplish the goals and avoid the risks stated above. While homosexual behavior is a defeater for those goals. Therefore government should have no role in preventing people of different races to marry. And government should not make up an imaginary institution to try to legitimize destructive and risky behavior.

 

[HitchSlap]

You didn't answer my question.

It was less a question and more of a loaded strawman with a question mark at the end. Meanwhile you conveniently avoided the fact that so often those who rail against homosexuality, are themselves gay, and they overtly preach hate against it to suppress who they really are.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Matt. 27:3 When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders.

We were discussing the golden calf event approximately 1400 years before the betrayal of Christ. But if you want to talk about Judas, remorse is just the first step. After remorse you have to repent, Judas never did.

 

[com7fy8]

God makes Himself present in many ways, even through us.

That doesn't sound a whole lot different from an atheistic view of the universe, where the forces of the universe are present in people as they work good.

God is not only material forces of the universe. God is our Father; He is personal with His children. Material forces are not personally caring and sharing in love, like God is in His children >

"Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5:5)

In Christian America, 125,000 people have died of Covid. And yet you say Christians have a lot better chance of getting something from God? Why didn't the dying get the help they needed?

Jesus says, "He who loves his life will lose it," in John 12:25. A number of people die because they have loved their own lives and have lived selfishly.

Others have loved for Jesus and they die because it is time for them to leave this evil world and share with Jesus and His people who are no longer on this earth. But they have stayed here because they have obeyed how Jesus wants us to be here for people who do not want Him, to have hope for them.

Now, for just one example > there are people who have smoked and acted like they were cool to do so, and their example has helped children to grow up hooked on nicotine so they spend even ten dollars a day on their habit and then suffer for years during cancer and efforts to save them, while also torturing ones who love them. So, ones who help to so destroy children and their lives can then get into medical trouble, themselves, and then suffer. This can be partly because they refused God and how He would have them stop smoking.

So, God did do what He did, and people refused, in such a case. And such children likely were warned not to follow the bad example.

So, I mean, we humans can help to make sure we do not get God's help. And ones can cleverly then claim that God does not help anyone. But, to my knowledge, no one is stopping anyone from digging a hole under their house-trailer, in case a tornado comes along; but when one does come and kill a lot of people . . . who did not prepare holes under their trailers . . . then is when certain ones claim that God should be blamed.

This is how certain people do things. And He knows who has been playing games, and who is really innocent. If someone really innocent dies, God does what is right with him or her.

 

[com7fy8]

Meanwhile you conveniently avoided the fact that so often those who rail against homosexuality, are themselves gay, and they overtly preach hate against it to suppress who they really are.

I can do something like this.

I tend to specialize in self-righteously criticizing others . . . looking down on others.

But this does not have to continue to be who I am. God is able to change my character so I become like Jesus. @doubtingmerle > And this helps the most, for any good or problems. Just getting help to stay alive, so I can live selfishly, is not really helping, at all . . . unless, I consider, at least it keeps me alive long enough to know God and find out how to love.

 

[Ed1wolf]

↑ed: Love and sex are not the same thing. You are free to love anyone you want, but since sexual behavior can produce contagious diseases it becomes the governments concern.

ia: So what? Are you therefore proposing that any straight married couple should have their marriage dissolved if they contract a sexual disease? If they are likely to do so, based on their past history? That people who have sexually transmitted diseases should be unable to get married?

Actually IIRC there was a time in the past that you did have to have a doctor examine and clear you medically before marriage. The government should discourage marriage if you have STDs. Not outlaw it though. Then there is also the problem with higher rates of domestic abuse among gay couples.
↑

ed: Well hopefully just as more and more people are changing their views on legal abortion as the science gets out, so the same will happen with homosexual behavior and return to biologically based marriage.

ia: Hopefully not. Also, what science is this that shows that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry?

The scientific studies I mentioned above in previous posts about how the behavior causes physical and mental illnesses and higher rates of domestic violence.
↑

ed: For successful societies that has always been the foundation of marriage.
ia: First: of course it hasn't.

Evidence?

ia: Second: so what? Marriage has undergone many changes over the course of history. Your "we can't do it because we've never done it before" argument is invalid.

That is not my argument, a small part of my argument is that it is an oxymoron. But also much more than that as I have explained.

ia: And your implication that men marrying women - and not men marrying men or women marrying women - is beneficial to society is entirely unfounded.

Read the September 2014 article in Scientific American called the Power of Two, where the author demonstrates that early humans would not have survived if they had not paired off into heterosexual monogamous couples. And there are many other studies showing how societies that condone homosexual behavior and other sexual immoralities dont advance and generally start collapsing not long after that occurs.
↑

ed: How do you know there is nothing wrong with it? And why cant you marry your daughter if you abstain from sex or are sterilized? Or your son? Or your dog if you don't have sex with it? Or whatever?
ia: How do I know there's nothing wrong with polygamy? Well, apart from the reservations I have about its in practice, I can't see anything wrong with it. There may well, of course, be things that I am unaware of which would show polygamy to be wrong. So what?
As for your other questions - why can't a man marry his sister, or son, or dog, or whatever - well, turn the question around, and you'll find that exactly the same questions might be asked by people who wanted to outlaw straight marriages: "Where does it stop?"if a man can marry a woman, why can't he marry his sister, or son, or dog? The answer is, of course, that we are not talking about dogs or plants or computers. We are talking about two people in love, and how there is no reason from banning them from getting married.

No, we are talking about the destruction of marriage, ie where it means nothing. No sane government would outlaw true biological marriage. It would be societal suicide. Because only heterosexual behavior can unite two persons into a single reproductive unit which all societies need to survive. What is your rationale for limiting it to two people and if it is love a father loves his daughter what is wrong with that? I notice you provided no rational answer for not allowing those marriages I mention above and restricting it to two people. You also gave no rational basis for restricting it to humans either. We are talking about all those things if it is just based on the irrational subjective standard of love.
↑

 

[doubtingmerle]

Jesus says, "He who loves his life will lose it," in John 12:25. A number of people die because they have loved their own lives and have lived selfishly.

Ah, so we tell the grieving widow it was his fault he died of Covid? If he had not been so awfully selfish, God would have spared him? I don't think so.

Statistically, I don't think you will find a correlation between death from COVID and selfishness.

Others have loved for Jesus and they die because it is time for them to leave this evil world and share with Jesus and His people who are no longer on this earth. But they have stayed here because they have obeyed how Jesus wants us to be here for people who do not want Him, to have hope for them.

And it just so happens that a lot of people had their time be up in 2020? And it just so happens that people who are in crowds without masks, by some odd coincidence, happen to have their time be up more often? What a coincidence!

If "time being up" is the determining factor, why are the doctors even bothering to help?

But, to my knowledge, no one is stopping anyone from digging a hole under their house-trailer, in case a tornado comes along; but when one does come and kill a lot of people . . . who did not prepare holes under their trailers . . . then is when certain ones claim that God should be blamed.

Ah, so it comes down to doing what we can to protect ourselves and others. Yes, I agree. We live in a world that is sometimes hostile. We should do what we can to help.

But one wanders, when all else fails, where is God?

This is how certain people do things. And He knows who has been playing games, and who is really innocent. If someone really innocent dies, God does what is right with him or her.

COVID not only kills, it maims people apparently for life. And one would wonder why a loving God would allow that.

 

[Ed1wolf]

↑ed: Who made up that rule? That is just your subjective opinion. How do you know that is not a real marriage? There have been many arranged marriages that were conducted without consent that turned into very happy and long marriages. Who are you to condemn them?

ia: I'm sorry - are you saying to me that if two people get married without one of them consenting, it's a real marriage? You mean, one party can be forced to marry, and you're okay with that? Ugh. Yes, there are such things as arranged marriages. No, they are not necessarily the same thing as forced marriages. I am not insulting people who did have forced marriages and managed to find happiness in any way when I say that forcing a person to marry is an immoral act, any more than the fact that a person may fall in love with their rapist means that rape is okay. Can I point out that your reasoning is not only flawed, but frequently morally reprehensible?

No, I am saying on what basis besides subjective emotion are you restricting marriage to only those who consent? Actually, requiring consent for marriage is a Christian principle borrowed by the secular humanists. But they have knocked out the rationally objective foundation to the principle.

ia: Also, here: Marriage Requirements Basics: Consent, Age, and Capacity - FindLaw
"Before a marital union is recognized by a state, there must be consent or agreement between the parties of the union to be married. For consent to exist, both parties must agree to the marriage and there must be no mistake as to the nature of the union; no force must be used upon either party to enter into the union."

Yes, that is a Christian principle. So that Christian principle you are going to arbitrarily keep but not the other principles about marriage being only a man and a woman because you feel sorry for gays.
↑

ed:Real marriage is based on biology and the nature of humans. Why are all humans anatomically heterosexual? What they think may count legally but it doesn't count as an objective reality. Nazi law said that jews were subhuman, but that doesnt mean that they really were. Laws of governments cannot create reality.

ia: Okay. So shall we annul the marriages of any man and woman who wed but then don't have children within, say, five years? Or by the time they are no longer fertile? Or after they've stopped having sex regularly? Shall we ban infertile people from getting married at all? Perhaps we should require that every married couple produces at least three healthy babies (you know, in case one or two of them die accidentally).

Of course not, an apple is still an apple even if it has a worm in it.
↑

ed:No, marriage has had the same meaning just as long as the word bachelor. So calling gay marriage a marriage is an oxymoron.

ia: Well, let's accept that they've both had their meanings for the same length of time. So what? A married bachelor is impossible because the two words are mutually exclusive. If, for some reason, we were to change the meaning of the word "bachelor" from "man who is not and has never been married" to, say, "man who has never been married before now" then a married bachelor would be quite possible (simply a man in his first marriage). And now that we've changed the definition of marriage from "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman as partners in a personal relationship" to what it currently is ("the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship") we find that it's not only possible but rather anticlimactically simple.

No, the definition of marriage goes beyond just a personal relationship. For society marriage has always had a functional aspect to it. Gays cannot engage in sexual intercourse. Legally in the past, a marriage was annulled if it wasn't consummated by sexual intercourse. Gays cannot perform that act, which also involves a real union of persons. Two homosexuals cannot form a true union, only a heterosexual couple can joint together biologically to form a single reproductive unit, irrespective if the unit actually produces children. Only the heterosexual union is actually recognized by biology.
↑

 

[com7fy8]

Ah, so we tell the grieving widow it was his fault he died of Covid? If he had not been so awfully selfish, God would have spared him? I don't think so.

No, even if people have helped themselves to get and die of COVID-19, you have compassion and comfort and encourage the ones left behind. And you have compassion on ones who have helped themselves to get sick and die. But indeed ones have helped cause themselves to have preexisting conditions, which they could have avoided by taking right care of themselves, plus others just do not want to obey guidelines which can help them and others.

And if you disobey how God would take care of you, Jesus says, "He who loves his life will lose it," in Mark 12:15. And >

"She who lives in pleasure is dead while she lives." (1 Timothy 5:6)

So, yes selfish living can hurt a person and others.

There are people who are on purpose not being considerate of themselves and others, and this is included in why there are more cases and deaths than there could be, by now. There are ones who have been only and mainly about themselves, so they are incapable of following directions which mean some sort of sacrifice. And I explained a little about this in the above Post #208.

Statistically, I don't think you will find a correlation between death from COVID and selfishness.

Cases are not all alike. But I think we can see in our lives how people have hurt themselves by living in a selfish manner. It's not about statistics, but we simply can see how certain people do not take good care of themselves and do not consider others, and the coronavirus can take advantage of how they are vulnerable. But if some number had obeyed how they were advised to take care of themselves, they would have been healthier against COVID-19, plus possibly more trained to be considerate so they might have not gotten it because they followed directives.

Actually, it seems a number of secular people clearly are saying ones are not being considerate and this is helping to keep the numbers up. So, I would say this does mean ones know selfishness helps to make things worse.

 

[com7fy8]

In the picture below, where's God?

Well, God is blessing those people to care about the patient and have hope for the person.

God has people of different color, if this is the way to put it; so this is good, how there are people of different ethnic groups helping with one another.

And I can't assume how bad the patient's situation is. The person could be about to die, or the person lying down could be a student posing for a medical training session.

 

[Ed1wolf]

↑Ed: No, there is no evidence for that interpretation.

ia: Of course there is. It's the obvious interpretation of the Bible saying "you shall take slaves from the lands around you" and "kidnapping or man-stealing is a crime."

No, it is obvious that taking slaves from the lands around you involuntarily violates the second verse you reference. So combined with the verses about treating foreigners like Hebrews means that it has to be voluntary servitude.
↑

ed: There are no captured slaves except in war. I don't deny that POWs can be involuntary slaves, just like the US Constitution allows.

ia: Of course there are captured slaves outside of war. How do you think the black slaves were taken to America?

I didnt say there wasn't, but that plainly violates Exodus 21:16 among others.
↑

ed: If it is early in the 50 year Jubilee period then yes it would be for life. Hebrew slaves could be freed every 6 years, but ALL the inhabitants of the land were given liberty in the year of Jubilee to quote the actual verse.

ia: Except the other verses say that slaves shall belong to the master for life.

He can be for life in the situation described above. The Torah is not an exhaustive law book, some laws are just case studies that guided the judges.
↑

ed: Yes and cutting a slaves back to ribbons produces permanent scars so that was forbidden.
It actually just says "if he loses an eye". So you want to take that as meaning "any mark upon his body"? Proof, please.

Lex talonis means any permanent damage.
↑

ed: Most communist nations were founded by atheists.

ia: True, because most communists were atheists. So what? Did they declare their new states in the name of atheism or Communism? Communism? Right, then, the fact that they were atheists is irrelevant.

No, atheism is an intrinsic component of Communism, read Marx.

ia: Being an atheist says just as much about you as being a theist: it has nothing to do with your morality. An atheist could be an anarchist, a communist or a humanist. A theist could worship God, Allah or Satan. You'll find that humanists have a very active conscience and believe in freedom of speech very strongly -

Yes, but they dont have an objective foundation for that belief and that causes a slippery slope. That is what happened in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, among other nations that abandoned their Christian founding principles.

ia: and there were not a few nontheists involved in the creation of the USA.

Name one. The overwhelming majority were Christians. 50 out of the 55 signers of the DOI and Constitution were Christians.

ia: The Founding Fathers were motivated by humanist ideals. Which is why they very deliberately did not establish the USA as a Christian nation.

No the overwhelming majority of thinkers they utilized were Christians and the Bible. While it was not founded as officially a Christian nation, they did deliberately found it on many Christian principles. This can be seen in the DOI and the Bill of Rights.

 

[doubtingmerle]

we simply can see how certain people do not take good care of themselves and do not consider others, and the coronavirus can take advantage of how they are vulnerable.

Yes, I agree. People that are careless make themselves more vulnerable to disease.

But some people have been very careful, and yet they are still in the ICU with COVID. These are the people I am asking about. In their situation, where is God?

 

[com7fy8]

But some people have been very careful, and yet they are still in the ICU with COVID. These are the people I am asking about. In their situation, where is God?

I offer that already I knew you might make this stipulation. Understood.

I don't spend time on why God does or does not do things for me and others. I pray to work with whatever I've really got to deal with. So, I'm not really trying to get an answer to your question; because I'm more concerned about how I need to answer to God, rather than try to get Him answer to me! But I'll offer >

Each person is different. God's plan for each of us is different. So . . . for each one who is "innocent" and in I.C.U. . . . I can't speak for each person.

I do accept that I can take precautions and be trusting God, but I don't assume I won't be in I.C.U. I pray to be ready for whatever really happens. That's how I handle this. And I love my lady friend dearly and she is about eighty-three with preexisting; so I trust her to God, but I don't assume. And we have talked about this, including how we might not be allowed to be with each other, at the end.

So, now I simply trust God to do what He pleases with us, and we have loving to do, now. And my opinion is we can't do real loving and be perfectly risk-free > but we need to trust God about how He has us taking risks or not.

Because we are not guaranteed how long we will live, anyway. So, as well as I can, I pray for God to guide me, in detail. And I trust Him with her.

I pray to be ready, in case I were to get to having the burning lungs and suffocating, and what to do, and be good about it. Be ready to die well . . . is an ambition lolololol

 

[Ed1wolf]

↑ed: There are no captured slaves except in war. I dont deny that POWs can be involuntary slaves, just like the US Constitution allows.

cw: The Bible allows for buying of slaves that are not POW's. Lev. 25 says they can buy slaves from the nations around them. That is not a POW.

Lev 25: 44-46 ESV

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

Yes, they can buy voluntary slaves from the nations around them. I am not denying that. Just make sure you dont leave out all the verses that state that foreigners and strangers are to be treated just like hebrews, so the slavery must be voluntary servitude.

ed: If it is early in the 50 year Jubilee period then yes it would be for life. Hebrew slaves could be freed every 6 years, but ALL the inhabitants of the land were given liberty in the year of Jubilee to quote the actual verse.

cw: Then quote the verse. It does not say all slaves are freed in the year of Jubilee, only Hebrew slaves as I showed in my original post. Read Lev 25 again.

Lev. 25:10 "proclaim liberty throughout ALL the land and unto ALL the inhabitants thereof" ALL means ALL, Hebrews and gentiles.

ed: Yes and cutting a slaves back to ribbons produces permanent scars so that was forbidden.

cw: Is beating someone moral as long as they don't leave a permanent scar?

If they commit a crime judged deserving of a beating by a lawfully chosen judge.
↑

ed: Most communist nations were founded by atheists.

cw: Atheism is only a non belief in a god or gods. There is not any further worldview that goes with it. Atheists can be communist, humanist, capitalists, anarchists, conservatives or liberal etc. Communist nations were not operated by humanist concepts.

Yes, but atheism is intrinsic to communism, read Marx. Technically humanist morality is just morals derived from other humans and so is communist morality so in an ultimate sense there is no difference.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Yes, they can buy voluntary slaves from the nations around them. I am not denying that. Just make sure you dont leave out all the verses that state that foreigners and strangers are to be treated just like hebrews, so the slavery must be voluntary servitude.

Can you quote those verses?

Lev. 25:10 "proclaim liberty throughout ALL the land and unto ALL the inhabitants thereof" ALL means ALL, Hebrews and gentiles.

Lev. 25 is written to the Israelite's.

The Lord said to Moses at Mount Sinai, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you enter the land I am going to give you, the land itself must observe a sabbath to the Lord. 3 For six years sow your fields, and for six years prune your vineyards and gather their crops. 4 But in the seventh year the land is to have a year of sabbath rest, a sabbath to the Lord. Do not sow your fields or prune your vineyards. 5 Do not reap what grows of itself or harvest the grapes of your untended vines. The land is to have a year of rest. 6 Whatever the land yields during the sabbath year will be food for you—for yourself, your male and female servants, and the hired worker and temporary resident who live among you, 7 as well as for your livestock and the wild animals in your land. Whatever the land produces may be eaten.

8 “‘Count off seven sabbath years—seven times seven years—so that the seven sabbath years amount to a period of forty-nine years. 9 Then have the trumpet sounded everywhere on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the Day of Atonement sound the trumpet throughout your land. 10 Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you; each of you is to return to your family property and to your own clan. 11 The fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you; do not sow and do not reap what grows of itself or harvest the untended vines. 12 For it is a jubilee and is to be holy for you; eat only what is taken directly from the fields.

13 “‘In this Year of Jubilee everyone is to return to their own property.

14 “‘If you sell land to any of your own people or buy land from them, do not take advantage of each other. 15 You are to buy from your own people on the basis of the number of years since the Jubilee. And they are to sell to you on the basis of the number of years left for harvesting crops. 16 When the years are many, you are to increase the price, and when the years are few, you are to decrease the price, because what is really being sold to you is the number of crops. 17 Do not take advantage of each other, but fear your God. I am the Lord your God.

18 “‘Follow my decrees and be careful to obey my laws, and you will live safely in the land. 19 Then the land will yield its fruit, and you will eat your fill and live there in safety. 20 You may ask, “What will we eat in the seventh year if we do not plant or harvest our crops?” 21 I will send you such a blessing in the sixth year that the land will yield enough for three years. 22 While you plant during the eighth year, you will eat from the old crop and will continue to eat from it until the harvest of the ninth year comes in.

23 “‘The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers. 24 Throughout the land that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land.

25 “‘If one of your fellow Israelites becomes poor and sells some of their property, their nearest relative is to come and redeem what they have sold. 26 If, however, there is no one to redeem it for them but later on they prosper and acquire sufficient means to redeem it themselves, 27 they are to determine the value for the years since they sold it and refund the balance to the one to whom they sold it; they can then go back to their own property. 28 But if they do not acquire the means to repay, what was sold will remain in the possession of the buyer until the Year of Jubilee. It will be returned in the Jubilee, and they can then go back to their property.

29 “‘Anyone who sells a house in a walled city retains the right of redemption a full year after its sale. During that time the seller may redeem it. 30 If it is not redeemed before a full year has passed, the house in the walled city shall belong permanently to the buyer and the buyer’s descendants. It is not to be returned in the Jubilee. 31 But houses in villages without walls around them are to be considered as belonging to the open country. They can be redeemed, and they are to be returned in the Jubilee.

32 “‘The Levites always have the right to redeem their houses in the Levitical towns, which they possess. 33 So the property of the Levites is redeemable—that is, a house sold in any town they hold—and is to be returned in the Jubilee, because the houses in the towns of the Levites are their property among the Israelites. 34 But the pastureland belonging to their towns must not be sold; it is their permanent possession.

35 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend them money at interest or sell them food at a profit. 38 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.

39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.

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.

47 “‘If a foreigner residing among you becomes rich and any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to the foreigner or to a member of the foreigner’s clan, 48 they retain the right of redemption after they have sold themselves. One of their relatives may redeem them: 49 An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in their clan may redeem them. Or if they prosper, they may redeem themselves. 50 They and their buyer are to count the time from the year they sold themselves up to the Year of Jubilee. The price for their release is to be based on the rate paid to a hired worker for that number of years. 51 If many years remain, they must pay for their redemption a larger share of the price paid for them. 52 If only a few years remain until the Year of Jubilee, they are to compute that and pay for their redemption accordingly. 53 They are to be treated as workers hired from year to year; you must see to it that those to whom they owe service do not rule over them ruthlessly.

54 “‘Even if someone is not redeemed in any of these ways, they and their children are to be released in the Year of Jubilee, 55 for the Israelites belong to me as servants. They are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

God is speaking to the Isrealites. You have other passages that I have quoted that state that the non Hebrew slaves are not to be released on the year of Jubilee. These verses are in contradiction. Why do you get to pick the ones that say they are to be released (which I disagree with) over the verses that say they are not?

If they commit a crime judged deserving of a beating by a lawfully chosen judge.

This is not what it says does it. Nowhere in the text doe sit say a judge has to order the beating. You are reaching and denying what the text actually says.
↑

Yes, but atheism is intrinsic to communism, read Marx.

Nope. Read Marx if you want his take on things but you don't get to then say that any other atheist agrees with him just because both are atheists. Theists perform terrorism in the name of their God, I don't assume you agree with them.

Technically humanist morality is just morals derived from other humans and so is communist morality so in an ultimate sense there is no difference.

That is absurd. Then in the ultimate sense christian morality is the same as all other religions morality. That is ridiculous. Humanists and communists have different goals for morality. Communism as actually practiced are not humanists and do not have the same moral goals. Show me one communist country ever that put humanist morals into practice.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Yet it is a big deal. Being recognized by the government has advantages that they would be denied without a good reason. This is discrimination and the Supreme Court said was not allowed by any state.

Homosexual "marriage' does not contribute to the ongoing production and raising of children in an optimum way. The Government would want to encourage real marriage which does those things otherwise the society could greatly weaken and eventually even die out. Sociological studies of different societies has shown this to be true.