Tektonics and errors in the Bible

[Soundsurfr]

No

Ok, so my definition of slavery in Hebrew times is correct and you believe it to be morally acceptable.

[Pitchforkpat]

Little Shepherd,

I noticed you’ve started posting in this thread again and making arguments about slavery. There are some important questions that you have still failed to answer from my post # 124. I asked you to cite the passages that prohibit mistreatment of slaves. I have cited the passage that I believe you refer to and stated why that doesn’t prohibit mistreatment. If you have different passages you must produce them or stop saying that the laws prohibited mistreatment.

[Pitchforkpat]

Your point was that the unjust shouldn't suffer because they'd leave loveds ones behind. Why not apply the same to locking someone away for life imprisonment?

Really Nick I’d like to understand why you have so much trouble understanding my points when I state them in plain English, but I can't. I really can't. You restate them in what amounts to gibberish and believe that you are refuting my claim.

I NEVER said “the unjust shouldn’t suffer because they’d leave loved ones behind.” You can’t find that quote on this thread because I never said it and don’t believe it. What IS wrong with you?

Ok..try to focus. I’ll give you one last chance to see if you can actually read a sentence and understand it. My claim is the following (focus now…I know it’s hard for you but try): I claim that it was drastically disproportional punishment to kill 70,000 people because they had been counted, and therefore unjust. This doesn’t mean that I believe prisoners should be set free because they have loved ones that are suffering. If you are simply too ignorant to understand the difference and proceed to make this clumsy assertion one more time, I’m done with you.

JP already told ya. You're not liking the answer doesn't make it any less valid.

Your buddy has also fallen into the trap of having to make the absurd assertion that “ancient people” would prefer to be killed instead of being a little ill for a little while. Do you back him up on this nonsense too?

Simple. It went against nature. Nature shows that a male belongs with a female and vice-versa.

Two questions for you: First, how do you think people become “gay”? Second, why do you think they do it?

Furthermore, you still haven't refuted the point of nature showing that a male and a female do belong together.

Your point seems to be that homosexuality is wrong because it’s ‘natural’ for males to be with females. Please define ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ for me, so that we can better know what’s moral and what isn’t.

I'd really need to see the hard evidence to go against a simple punnett square.

I give you an explanation about how hormones can affect sex-specificity in the brain and you give me a punnet square? Ok, I guess we’ll leave the science out of it. You’re young, so you’ll have to eat your words at some point. As more science emerges about the causes of homosexuality, even YOU won’t be able to plead ignorance for ever.

Now frankly, I tire of arguing with someone about morality who doesn't even believe in objective morality.

You have made a very big deal out of my saying that morality is not objective so I think this is worth delving into a little deeper.

First, it is quite clear that morality IS subjective. Just because you think it shouldn’t be doesn’t make it so.

In India it’s considered by some immoral to kill a cow. Some people consider it immoral to eat meat of any kind. People have advocated the killing of people born with handicaps because they water down the gene pool. A Nazi would have considered it moral to kill a Jew. In some societies there is nothing immoral about infanticide.

Now you seem to believe morality is objective. I daren’t ask you what your objective standard is because I’m going out on a limb and predicting you’ll say the Bible. The problem with this is that people using the Bible as an objective moral standard committed atrocities such as the Witch Hunts, the Crusades, and the Inquisition. So how can we trust it as an ‘objective moral standard’?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

First off Soundsurfr, I don't believe you've adequately described Hebrew slavery. LS has done a much better job and I agree generally with what he has said.

And Pat, sorry, but morality is NOT subjective simply because people disagree on it. Now, you say in some societies, X is moral so we shouldn't complain.

Therefore, in society of the biblical time period, what God did is moral. Who are you to say otherwise by moral relativism?

And no, the standard is not the Bible. The standard is the nature of God himself. The Bible is a work that reveals that nature, but so does reason itself. Ever read Aquinas?

[Pitchforkpat]

I'm an atheist's worst nightmare.

More like his wet dream

[Pitchforkpat]

And no, the standard is not the Bible. The standard is the nature of God himself.

Aaahh but Nick. People disagree strongly on what the nature of God is, so how can the nature of God be the objective standard of morality?

[Little Shepherd]

I noticed you’ve started posting in this thread again and making arguments about slavery. There are some important questions that you have still failed to answer from my post # 124. I asked you to cite the passages that prohibit mistreatment of slaves. I have cited the passage that I believe you refer to and stated why that doesn’t prohibit mistreatment.

No, that is the passage. Of course, your hyperliteral reading of the passage fails in light of other passages of the Bible. I'm sure you're familiar with the punishment systems "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc." verse. Do you believe this is simply a list of examples given to illustrate a point, or do you believe the principle only applies to the 5 or 6 different body parts listed? Likewise, when Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek if one cheek is struck, does it only apply to cheeks, or is it an example illustrating a greater point?

Likewise, the verse concerning treatment of slaves lists a couple examples of the types of injuries that are grounds for immediate release. In light of other verses used to illustrate greater points, it's downright stupid to claim that "it doesn't mention feet, so you can break their feet and it doesn't count." This isn't the anal retentive American penal system we're talking about, wherein every possible circumstance is accounted for(though it is still quite thorough). Please get that through your head.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Aaahh but Nick. People disagree strongly on what the nature of God is, so how can the nature of God be the objective standard of morality?

First off O great reader. It's not my quote to say that I'm an atheist's worst nightmare. That's VFarris's sig.

Secondly, you never told me if you've read Aquinas. People do disagree on God's nature so that proves what? That proves he doesn't have one? Nonsense. He has one, and he has revealed it in the moral law, in Scripture, and in nature itself. This is the start of C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" even.

Now I knew you were a moral relativist. I hope you're not an epistemological one also.

[Pitchforkpat]

In a nutshell, slavery in Israel didn't devalue people.

I think that may be one of the funniest things I’ve read on Tweb, or in fact on the Internet! That’s great. I now get to use this statement as an example of how far Christians are willing to let themselves go with self delusion. I for one know how full of dignity and self respect I would feel while being beaten with a rod by my MASTER.

Perhaps we should replace instances of "slavery" in the OT with terms that fit better such as "servitude" and "indentured servitude."

An indentured servant is a labourer under contract to work (for a specified amount of time) for another person or a company/corporation, often without any monetary pay, but in exchange for accommodation, food, other essentials, training, or passage to a new country. – Wikipedia

Please explain how a FOREIGN slave in Israel would qualify as indentured servitude.

There is nothing to indicate that a servant could be resold to someone else once purchased,

It wasn’t forbidden was it?

Hebrew slaves were still to be set free at the appointed time, and foreign slaves on the jubilee.

Cite me the passage that says foreign slaves were to be set free on the jubilee please.

[Soundsurfr]

First off Soundsurfr, I don't believe you've adequately described Hebrew slavery.

If you "believe" my description is inaccurate, you need to show how and why. I offer (in response to your challenge) a detailed definition of slavery as I understand it in Hebrew culture and your answer is "Nah, that's not right." How lame.

LS has done a much better job and I agree generally with what he has said.

LS has made nothing but unsupported assertions, and in many ways has substantiated what I said. Your apologetics on this issue are severely lacking, IMO.

[Soundsurfr]

Why don't we get to a point where we can agree on what exactly Israel slavery was first.

And you've failed to show that they did. If you can make baseless assertions, then so can I.

Here's how it works, LS. First, I gave you biblical citations regarding the rules for slavery in Israel. Even in this post you concede that some of them are accurate, such as the ability of a master to physically punish his slave. Second, slavery, as a human concept is historically brutal and at best, demeaning in ALL known cases, so if you're going to claim that it was neither brutal nor demeaning in ancient Israel, the burden is on YOU to provide evidence for an ostensibly preposterous position.

That would involve HISTORICAL data to whit, neither you nor any of your apologist brethren in this forum appear willing or able to provide.

So your position remains highly suspect, especially since you have particular motivation as a biblical objectivist to favor such a position.

Surprisingly little, actually. The more I look into this, the more I'm convinced it's one of those oddities of translation that you expect to find in a KJV Bible.

And where have you "looked into it"? On Christian apologist websites?

So your position, as I am now led to understand it, is that the Hebrews did not actually practice slavery and that the word "slavery", as used in the KJV is a mistranslation?

Perhaps we should replace instances of "slavery" in the OT with terms that fit better such as "servitude" and "indentured servitude."

I think you'll need a lot more backup before you can make such a recommendation to whomever makes those decisions.

False. There is nothing to indicate that a servant could be resold to someone else once purchased, and certainly nothing to indicate the servant could simply be disposed of. Not in either of those chapters(and I assume you mean Lev. 25 since it only has 27 chapters). In other words, your purchase -- your responsibility.

Now, rather than argue with your interpretations of my true-false statements, let me remind you where we stand in agreement with regard to my original defintion of slavery - the one you said was not accurate:

Someone whose basic human rights have been compromised.

True. By basic human rights I mean those inalienable rights as set forth in the Constitution of the United States, including "LIBERTY". If you think that even holding someone as an indentured servant doesn't violate basic human rights, then we are working from a different set of rights. Certainly disciplining them by physical means is a violation of human rights.

Someone who is considered the property of someone else, and who can be bought, sold or traded accordingly as property.

True.

Someone who is forced to work without compensation.

True, at least in the case of foreign slaves.

Someone who is physically restrained, and/or restricted to a location and/or physically disciplined without due process of law (i.e. - a fair trial).

True.

Someone who is captured in battle and indentured for life.

True. ("sort of", according to you)

A woman who is captured in battle and sold off as a wife.

True.

So from my original definition, you have refuted nothing. On the contrary, and despite the disengenous (and frankly, ludicrous) apologetic fluff that attempts to portray this institution as being for the ultimate benefit of the slave, you have corroborated my contention that the institution was slavery. Whether or not it was as violent or destructive as other forms of slavery practiced by other cultures is immaterial.

To those of us who cherish freedom and human rights, your pleadings are disheartening. Tell us - which aspects of the Hebrew practices (whatever you want to call them) would you advocate for our society today?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

If you "believe" my description is inaccurate, you need to show how and why. I offer (in response to your challenge) a detailed definition of slavery as I understand it in Hebrew culture and your answer is "Nah, that's not right." How lame.



LS has made nothing but unsupported assertions, and in many ways has substantiated what I said. Your apologetics on this issue are severely lacking, IMO.

I would say that I view what happened then the same way I view an employer-employee relationship. I'm curious what your references are for the ancient civilizations of the past. I see you've referred to the constitution with LS and I really don't think that's the way to go. We have to understand the ancient culture by their own standards. They were more community oriented. We're more individually-oriented.

[Pitchforkpat]

People do disagree on God's nature so that proves what? That proves he doesn't have one? Nonsense.

There you go misstating what I’ve said once again? I didn’t say it proves he doesn’t have one. Now I’ll restate the point for you and see if you can follow it this time.

You say that your objective moral standard is “God’s nature”. You’ve now agreed that people differ on what God’s nature is. So my question to you is:

How can we use God’s nature as an objective standard of morality if people disagree on what it is?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

There you go misstating what I’ve said once again? I didn’t say it proves he doesn’t have one. Now I’ll restate the point for you and see if you can follow it this time.

You say that your objective moral standard is “God’s nature”. You’ve now agreed that people differ on what God’s nature is. So my question to you is:

How can we use God’s nature as an objective standard of morality if people disagree on what it is?

The same way we use anything else that people still disagree on. An objective standard of morality does not mean "everyone agrees on it." It means, "This is the standard whether you agree with it or not." If God is the objective moral standard, which he is, and everyone on Earth was an atheist and moral relativist, that still would not change the fact that there is an objective moral standard.

All I'm saying at this point is that the standard exists, and most of us know the standard anyhow through the moral law implanted on our hearts. Let me ask an example.

Suppose I had a live baby in my hands and I decided to cut it up and torture it just for fun. Could you say I had objectively done something immoral while at the same time espousing moral relativism?

[Pitchforkpat]

An objective standard of morality does not mean "everyone agrees on it." It means, "This is the standard whether you agree with it or not."

“This is the standard whether you agree with it or not”?? Oh the arrogance. Where do YOU get off telling everyone that this is the moral standard whether we like it or not? In your own words you said this is “THE” objective moral standard. If you take the entire population of the world, the majority would not agree that the god Jehova’s nature is THE objective moral standard. See where the problem is?

That’s just one of the problems too. The second one is that you haven’t even defined it. You use rather vague terms like “God’s nature” and say that’s an objective standard, but we don’t really know what that is? What is God’s nature exactly? Is this ‘objective moral standard’ of any use to us? If so how? How do we use it? What do we do with it? If we can’t actually use it, is it of any practical value?

If God is the objective moral standard, which he is, and everyone on Earth was an atheist and moral relativist, that still would not change the fact that there is an objective moral standard.

But that is purely your opinion. It’s only a “fact” in your mind. You’ve just demonstrated the definition of narrow-mindedness. Prove to me that the Hebrew god’s nature is THE objective moral standard? You can’t do it, so what good is it?

All I'm saying at this point is that the standard exists, and most of us know the standard anyhow through the moral law implanted on our hearts.

What moral law is this that’s been “implanted on our hearts”? If we all have it implanted on our hearts, why do we disagree about what is moral?

You have a lot of work to do here before we can consider anything you’ve said above of any value.