October 24, 2008

Bible Doesn't Condone Slavery

Stan recently said to me "You don't support slavery, but you support a god who regulates slavery." among other things that I will address in time.

I want to get the record straight once and for all about this slavery issue. It gets thrown in my face quite often as an ad hominem to discredit God.

The Bible denounces slavery as sin and goes as far to put slave traders in the same boat as murderers (1 Timothy 1:10)

Plus we have to use our "proper" hermeneutics to see what the Bible actually says about slavery.

Back in the days of Leviticus slavery was sanctioned due to economic reasons. Back then, there were no such thing as bankruptcy laws so people would sell themselves into slavery to rectify debts. A craftsman could use his skills to literally "pay off" a debt. Or a convicted thief could make restitution by serving as a slave. (Exodus 22:3)

The Bible recognizes the reality of slavery, but it never promotes the practice of slavery. It was the biblical principles that ultimately led to the overthrow of slavery, both in ancient Israel and in the United States.

One has to only go far as to think why the Jews left Egypt in the first place to see God's view of slavery. It took some years in America to wake up to the realization of biblical truth that all people are created by God with innate equality. (Genesis 1:27, Acts 17:26-28, Galatians 3:28)

We are all one race, the human race, in God's eyes. Something even Obama couldn't figure out. Back in June, 08 he made some snide comment:

"Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is abomination? ..."

Twisting of the Scriptures was the main source of this post.
UPDATE: A man named Glenn M. Miller wrote about this subject. This rather detailed study connects the fact quite well.

Does God condone slavery in the Bible? OT and Does God condone slavery in the Bible? NT

God doesn't Condone Slavery!


bit.ly/Condone

157 comments:

  1. "Something even Obama, in my opinion a possible candidate for being the Antichrist,...."

    Your credibility just dropped like yesterday's stock market with that gem.

    I can barley contain my hilarity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dan,

    As usual, you are barking up the wrong tree and using flawed logic.

    The southern Christians promoted slavery until the bitter end. In 1845 the Baptist Church and other denominations split into Northern and Southern organizations. The Southern Baptist Convention formed on the premise that the Bible sanctions slavery and that it was acceptable for Christians to own slaves.

    It is obvious that Christians will interpret the bible any way they want to.

    By the way, your hermaneutics is a philosophy and by no means a science. It creates the illusion that you understand a verse.

    The old testmnebt absolutely condones slavery and it is very important to note that Jesus himself never spoke against slavery OR the subjugation of women and that is the reason it took so long for women to granted the right to vote in this country.

    Here is a quote from one of the nice preachers:
    "The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

    Then, you have the "curse of Ham" working against your flawed arguments:
    "The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." James Henry Hammond, 19th century U.S. senator.

    Of course he also uses the bible to argue for slavery.

    Dan, your arguments make no difference. The bible has been used extensively to promote slavery just as it is used by people who spank their kids.

    That brings up another question. I hope you do not spank or use physical violence of any kind on those beautiful choldren of yours.

    If you do you sould stop immediately as it is a totally counterproductive and draconian practice. I do know that many Christians still do beat their kids, citing the bible as their authority for doing so.

    Please do not do physical punishment on those kids.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your comments are so broad sweeping they're ridiculous. Not all actions done by Christian people are dictated by the bible. What faith reaches out to those in need the most? Christians. If Christianity was so pro slavery, why are so many blacks members of some sort of Christian church? The Christian faith has helped more people than any other. Plus, they're tolerant to those that they don't agree with. For example, they aren't killing gay people like the Muslims. And stop the nonsense about "most Christians beat their kids". You're obviously some stupid ass liberal that assumes since a few people do something, every other member of the group does.

      Delete
    2. Did I really just read that you think Christians are tolerant to those they don't agree with? While some are, do you recall a couple of episodes in history called the Crusades, and the Inquisitions? If they tolerate it so well, why do they spend so much time, money, and effort to 'convert' any non-believers? Nope. Sorry. No tolerance from any religion that I am aware. Actually, if pressed, my Jewish friends were the most tolerant people I know (of other beliefs and religions).

      If Christians were so tolerant, why did they have to convert all the Indians? (Heathens)

      I just had to reply to this, because much like most Christians pick and choose which part of the bible is telling the truth, you clearly have a selective memory about religions and Christianity and tolerance.

      Delete
    3. Meg,

      Is it wrong to judge people?

      Delete
    4. "Enslavers", huh? Was that version chosen to best fit your argument? I was always taught in church that you don't alter the word, yet Christians make up new version regularly to best cover up the loop holes and illogical parts (NKJV, Ampl, Living, Holman, etc). All of this and still no Christian can read anything in it's original language. I'm not Muslim but Christians could actually learn something from their dedication to learning their text.

      Delete
    5. Muslim Hafiz i,'be met have no idea what no idea what the text means even though they can recite it

      Delete
    6. So by your logic all evolutions today are racist because Darwin's book was used to show how some races are more evolved than other. I suggest you look at the full title of his book, which we have so conveniently forgotten.

      Delete
    7. @Seeker's House

      Enslavers. Manstealers. Kidnappers [of slaves]. Those to whom Exodus 21:16 is addressed.

      Take your pick. They are all the same.

      Delete
    8. @Meg. You historic illiterates always bring up the Crusades but never the fact that they were a response to 450 years of Muslim Invasion. They were a defensive action. It was only a brief interlude since Muslims have been picking up where they left off every since they Crusades ended.

      Delete
    9. Froggie the question is does GOD condone slavery not mankind that's a different matter because man does not always follow Gods ways plus aren't you going to condemn the non-Christians and the early founding fathers of our nation that was not Christians for owning slaves?

      Delete
    10. Sorry but christians have more blood on there hands than any other group of humans. Imagine how many native americans and indios in south america where killed by nasty christian murderers. They sayed they bring civilization. But they brought death and destruction. Stop to pick and choose what you like you monster. Even today yankees use mexicans as slaves. They tread them like cattle. Man how you cant see all this things happen??

      Delete
    11. I'm a christian and you are correct. Christians have done a LOT of harm indeed along with good which cannot be denied either. The Roman catholic chapter of Christianity, it's origins n how the whole western Europe was made christian is a bloody tale isn't it? If you faithfully look at history you will realise that the eastern church was never imperialistic but more monastic/ritualistic. Having said that the Eastern church did not have a reformation n I would say that the western church both catholic n Protestant did a lot of good too even though they have a bloody history.One does not sense that kind of fervour from the eastern church in their eastern context to bring in social change egg figures like William Wilberforce n others who championed against slavery. Where was that kind of reform in the East n where is the eastern church now!! except trying to maintain ancient traditions!! I say this as someone born into this eastern tradition. They did speak against caste discrimination but not nearly enough to bring about a radical change!!At the end of the day the church is one body n it has always contained imperfect people as well as wolves. I wish Jesus spoke against slavery n a LOT of other things!! but He sowed seeds and the western civilisation would have been very different if not for Christianity in spite of the many evils it committed knowingly and unknowingly . As for the southern Christians in America, they need a good knock on their heads. Unfortunately they seem to be too many. An environment hostile to Christianity will help to purify it. American church needs to be really poked in every way possible with their own beliefs by the rest if the church n outsiders. Very difficult lot to deal with!

      Delete
    12. I'm a christian and you are correct. Christians have done a LOT of harm indeed along with good which cannot be denied either. The Roman catholic chapter of Christianity, it's origins n how the whole western Europe was made christian is a bloody tale isn't it? If you faithfully look at history you will realise that the eastern church was never imperialistic but more monastic/ritualistic. Having said that the Eastern church did not have a reformation n I would say that the western church both catholic n Protestant did a lot of good too even though they have a bloody history.One does not sense that kind of fervour from the eastern church in their eastern context to bring in social change egg figures like William Wilberforce n others who championed against slavery. Where was that kind of reform in the East n where is the eastern church now!! except trying to maintain ancient traditions!! I say this as someone born into this eastern tradition. They did speak against caste discrimination but not nearly enough to bring about a radical change!!At the end of the day the church is one body n it has always contained imperfect people as well as wolves. I wish Jesus spoke against slavery n a LOT of other things!! but He sowed seeds and the western civilisation would have been very different if not for Christianity in spite of the many evils it committed knowingly and unknowingly . As for the southern Christians in America, they need a good knock on their heads. Unfortunately they seem to be too many. An environment hostile to Christianity will help to purify it. American church needs to be really poked in every way possible with their own beliefs by the rest if the church n outsiders. Very difficult lot to deal with!

      Delete
  3. Dan,
    While I am at it, you also mentioned the Exodus Myth. It never happened.

    Exstensive archaeological studies have been done. If three million Hebrews would have roamed the Sainai all those years, with all their animals, foundries for making tools, utensiles, campsites, etc., there would have been evidence and artifacts and features all over the place, yet nobody has ever found as much as a pottery shard.

    Busted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

      You fail.

      Delete
    2. Heard of beyond reasonable doubt? Absence of evidence mean you ain't got a case. With your logic anything could be true, like saying domestic cats fly to warmer climates in winter, or that the rich can go through the eye of a needle to heaven.

      Delete
    3. I just discovered this thread, sorry for the necropost.

      Might I point out that it is called "faith" for a reason? Too much time is spent on trying to prove/disprove the Bible, and as a believer I do not think it can ever be proven. On the flipside, it can also never be disproven.

      Finally, Froggie, I recently ran into this article:
      http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/GTY129/servant-or-slave

      The Bible definitely discusses slavery, and even explicitly acknowledges it. On the other hand, it is never treated in a "condoning" light. Look at Paul's Letter to the Galatians about the reason for the Law: it was created because of the rise of iniquity, and it was not intended to be followed perfectly, but to present us with the fact that we CANNOT follow it perfectly. Essentially we are all going to hell if we rely on our own actions to get us to heaven!

      God uses the picture of slavery to illustrate our position first to Satan, and again to God once we accept Christ's redemptive action of dying on the cross.

      Delete
    4. Please watch Exodus Revealed and Mountain on Fire. Two documentaries about the Exodus and Mount Sinai. It did happen and archeology proves it.

      The evidence are there, people are just looking for things in order to debunk the Bible, they are not lokoing to see if it is true, because if the Bible is true then there is a God to whom we have to give answer for our sins, and we do not want to give up those wonderful sins of ours.

      Delete
  4.      Given your previous criticism of me for blasting an action of Ray, I would like know how you justify including "in my opinion a possible candidate for being the Antichrist."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Froggie,

    I just talked to you are about hypocrisy in the last comment to you. Do you really want to continue down this path?OK then...

    So then by your argument, you then condone slavery. That is your logic right?

    Your god Darwin was very pro slavery, so then you must love it also. Your bible "the Origin of Species" condones slavery in a very open manner. Nothing like your claims of the Bible.

    According to Darwin the favored race were the European whites. As for Asian and African races, they had fallen behind in the fight for survival.

    At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man", 2nd edition, New York, A L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 178

    "The Origin of Species, Darwin saw the natives of Australia and Negroes as being at the same level as gorillas and claimed that these races would disappear. As for the other races which he saw as "inferior," he maintained that it was essential to prevent them multiplying and so for these races to be brought to extinction.

    Furthermore, Darwin's theory's denying the existence of God had been the cause of peoples' not seeing that man was something created by God and that all men were created equal. This was one of the factors behind the rise of racism, the acceleration of its acceptance in the world and the 20th century saw massacres carried out for reasons of racism…!" (Darwin's Racism)

    My poor, poor, student Froggie. When are you going to wake up?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure where you got the idea that Darwin was pro slavery, but all it shows is that you have never read anything Darwin ever wrote on the matter. To be sure his references to the indigenous peoples of the countries he visited are racist by today’s standards,

      “It is impossible to see a negro & not feel kindly toward him; such cheerful, open honest expressions & such fine muscular bodies;”

      Is certainly racist by any modern standard, but Darwin was a man of his time. In fact he was a progressive for his time,

      “I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it. I was told before leaving England, that after living in slave countries: all my options would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the Negros character.”

      Both quotes taken from; Charles Darwin to Catherine Darwin (May 22 - July 14 1833) The Correspondence of Charles Darwin Vol. 1 1821-1836 (1985), pp. 312-313

      However, the god of the bible, who’s teachings are the unchanging moral foundation of Christianity has no such excuse,

      “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 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. 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

      Leviticus 25 44-46

      So just to clarify, Darwin, a mere man living in the time of slavery when it was very much the norm could see the evil of slavery, while the eternal all loving god of the bible openly sanctions it.


      When are you going to wake up? Or at the verry least read up on a subject before commenting.

      Delete
    2. Darwin was anti-slavery for humans, but called slavery among ants and animals 'beneficial' and part of natural selection. So he wasn't against slavery, per se, but that it was barbaric (i.e., a moral judgment) in relation to humans. He was also a racist.

      However, Dan, you committed a fallacy here, because the right or wrong of a thing does not stand or fail on those who support or oppose it. A fallen Christian or a converted atheist has no bearing on the truth of Scripture.

      Some of this is well thought out; you are just kneecapping yourself with some of these errors.

      Delete
  6. Froggie,

    One more thing...you said:

    there would have been evidence and artifacts and features all over the place, yet nobody has ever found as much as a pottery shard."

    Even if that were true, just because no one has found anything as of yet that must mean that it's an... "Exodus Myth. It never happened?" OK then

    Please do us a favor and go back to class about the basic tenets of the scientific method.

    Pvblivs,

    "I would like know how you justify including..."

    I can have opinions right? Well, this is just one of those back of the mind cautious thoughts that I have had about the man. But there is no way I can know it as truth until he shows the fruit of the Antichrist.

    A great way to think of it is kind of like not letting my kids play over at Michael Jackson's house even though he was presumed innocent. Just a cautious awareness.

    ReplyDelete
  7.      Incidently, Lev 25:44-46 decidedly condones slavery (and not to stave off bankruptcy) as long as the slaves are outsiders. In short, it's another double-standard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, you are confusing how outsiders could become bondsmen, indenturing themselves to the owner as property (under contract), but their fellow Israelite must not be treated like property, but rather as a hired hand, since they had already been released from slavery in Egypt. Indentured servitude was regulated, but those that forced labor (manstealers/enslavers) were seen as transgressors.

      Delete
  8. Dan, we've had this discussion before. I know you see Darwin as the Devil incarnate, or at least his helper, but try to stick to the facts. As I've pointed out before: yes, Darwin was a racist. So was just about everyone back then, especially well-off whites. Abraham Lincoln was a racist too. So what? Culture moves on, and most of us are not racists now, just as most of us don't hold slaves.

    And now as to your other claims: no, Darwin did not condone slavery. Show me where he did. On the contrary, he spoke out against slavery- I'll look it up if you like. And to claim that racism originated with Darwin is absurd. There have been racists as long as there have been races. Martin Luther said some pretty nasty things about the Jewish "race", for instance. Do I have to look those up too?

    And your "proper" hermeneutics is nothing other than eisegesis: you, like most basically good people nowadays, are against slavery, but you believe in the goodness of God and the truth of the Bible, so you try to fit it all together. You're right, the Bible does not promote slavery, but it also does not condemn it. 1 Timothy only condemns "menstealers", that is, those who obtain slaves illegally. It says nothing at all about lawful slavery, which is indeed condoned in both the Old and the New Testament. It would have been very easy for Moses, or Jesus, to have simply said "Thou shalt not hold slaves", but it didn't happen. As far as how slavery ended in America, froggie has already covered that: people on both sides used the Bible as support.

    And Obama as the Antichrist? Please.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why, Dan, would you even make this ill-fated attempt?

    Bible Doesn't Condone Slavery

    This is a lie.

    I want to get the record straight once and for all about this slavery issue. It gets thrown in my face quite often as an ad hominem to discredit God

    You again show your failed understanding of just what constitutes an ad hominem.

    The Bible denounces slavery as sin and goes as far to put slave traders in the same boat as murderers

    This is a lie.

    Back in the days of Leviticus slavery was sanctioned...

    But I thought the bible denounces slavery as sin, and wasn't the title of this post "Bible Doesn't Condone Slavery"?

    ...due to economic reasons

    This is a lie.

    The Bible recognizes the reality of slavery...

    You mean it condones slavery?

    ...but it never promotes the practice of slavery

    You mean other than condoning it and regulating it?

    I'm confused.

    It was the biblical principles that ultimately led to the overthrow of slavery...

    This is patently false.

    ...both in ancient Israel and in the United States

    This is a lie.

    Twisting of the Scriptures was the main source of this post

    Ahhh... some truth at last, ironic though it may be.


    I have some questions for Dan, if his intention is indeed to defend the bible's position(s) on slavery:

    1. Is a concubine a slave?

    2. Does the bible make a statement regarding the permanency of slavery?

    3. In addition to your misquote of 1 Timothy, what else does the New Testament say about slavery?

    4. Exactly what do you deny regarding my statement that "You don't support slavery, but you support a god who regulates slavery"?

    5. Are you remotely aware that you cannot win this battle?


    Now, to explain why Dan's statements are lies.

    The title of this topic is, as I mentioned, a lie. If the bible didn't condone slavery, it might have done something other than regulate it as a practice, or explain just how much a slave could be beaten before his owner was guilty of a crime. Regulating a thing is condoning it -- let's not mince words.

    Ad hominem? Since when is making a factual statement an ad hominem? My statement merely illustrated the fact that your position on slavery is different than the position detailed in your bible, which position you attribute to god. If you don't understand what an ad hominem attack is, I respectfully request that you cease citing it as being used against you or your positions.

    The bible does not denounce slavery as sin -- the 1 Timothy reference concerns illegal slavery: there was a form of legal slavery, which is in fact regulated, from the Torah. Claiming that slavery is denounced is tantamount to claiming that the Torah is no longer part of the canon.

    After you recant, and admit that slavery is in fact endorsed, you claim that the endorsement was due to "economic reasons", yet there is no textual evidence for this whatsoever. Indeed, your attempt to explain this assertion -- that an indebted craftsman could sell himself to pay off debts -- fails miserably when considering the fact that slaves could be willed to one's heirs "as inherited property and make them slaves for life" (Leviticus 25:46). What earthly debt could possibly require a life of slavery?

    Like many apologists, you are desperately striving to square this circle, denying all the while that a circle it is. The ridiculous claim that biblical principles somehow "led to the overthrow of slavery" is absurd. The biblical principles you endear were used to fight the abolition of slavery every bit as much, if not more, than they were used to support it. Indeed, since the bible is so clear that slavery is acceptable when the slaves come from another culture, the reasoning required to combat slavery was necessarily extra-biblical.

    As I noted with delicious irony, the only truth to be found in this article is that the only way you could defend your position -- that the bible doesn't condone slavery -- is to apply "Twisting of Scripture".

    It shouldn't be surprising -- in order to get your notions of a good god to match up with the existence of evil, you must constantly twist scriptures -- specifically, their interpretations -- to get it to appear to be at all coherent. The mental gymnastics apologists perform are truly worthy of gold medals all around, even if the sport is gladiatorial in nature.

    I can't wait to hear you avoid addressing these issues.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you are a slave, what difference does it make if it were legal or illegal?

      Delete
    2. Oh, wow, this just got real.

      Stan, you make some excellent points, but also some rather wrong ones, too.

      You are right - the Bible does acknowledge slavery, and even regulate it. However, this is not condoning. For example, marijuana is legalized in Colorado, and if I were a junior senatorial candidate, I would definitely agree with regulating it, but this by no means indicates that I condone it. Your statement assumes that god INSTITUTED slavery; slavery was happening already (viz. Egypt,) and God merely created controls to prevent it getting further out of hand. He could have put His foot down and squashed human nature entirely, but as I stated in an earlier comment, Galatians shows that the Law was never intended to save people, but to show them that they could not live perfectly enough to redeem themselves. (For further evidence on this topic, study Romans.)

      The Bible does have quite a bit to say about economic slavery separate from other, non-causal laws regulating slavery, but be honest: when has anybody (except possibly those in the world of BDSM) held slaves for any other reason than economic ones? To claim this statement as false is wrongheaded. On the other hand, you are right. The OT does not specify the entry requirements for slave ownership.

      In the defense of "slavery as an economic issue," I can also answer one of your rhetorical questions; the Bible states that slaves could be owned 7 years, or until the Year of Jubilee (a once-every-50-years event,) whichever came FIRST. Further, that master must care for his slave during that period, and if a slave died under bondage, the master was responsible for that death. It was not all whips and chains, the way many portray Bible slavery.

      The Bible also allowed for slaves to attach themselves to a master by the barbaric method of nailing themselves to his door. By doing so, they were required to remain slaves for life, but the master also could not get rid of them for any reason - they became his ward.

      All of this to say, when we speak of slavery nowadays, it is a rather different beast from the slavery discussed in the Bible.

      I would caution one more thing: I am sure, with a little digging, that I could find a person named Stan who was guilty of murder. It would be outright dishonest of me to then state that all people named Stan are murderers. The same goes for all people named Ted Bundy, by the way, unfortunate though that name must feel for people who live under it.

      To claim that ALL Christians act in any way at all is just as disingenuous. The claim that "Christianity" has caused more deaths in history than any other religion is equally disingenuous, because there are more flavors of Christianity than any other religion in existence. You must parse for the individual aspects that went into the version of Christianity that you wish to condemn, and even then you have to parse for the specific individuals that you wish to condemn.

      To do otherwise is disingenuous.

      Delete
  10. Stan,

    "Ahhh... some truth at last, ironic though it may be."

    I didn't even notice that. Your wit is spot on hilarious. Funny man, Stan!

    Your spin, and I do mean spin, was interesting and I reread Leviticus 25, I found something very interesting that I want you to consider, Leviticus 25:42-44 It's talking about Israelites are not to be slaves and it goes on to say:

    "For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen." (In other words God does not condone "His people" as slaves for those times.)

    "Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God." (They are God's people not anyone else's)

    "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids." (If they are atheists then they are to be slaves forever. In the period of Old Covenant Messianic Kingdom of David, atheists were the slaves.) A heathen's punishment is literally to be a slave for his transgression of the Law. Consider it comunity service for the wicked.

    And then Leviticus 25:46 says: "And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

    If this were todays times Christians would own Ahteists! Be very happy that Jesus came to fulfill the Law because you might have been, polishing my shoes, cooking my meals, or fuffing my pillow for me, could you imagine! Christ's New Covenant Church Kingdom, allowed you to be free from all of that! Don't you feel you owe Jesus a thanks for at least this one point. The fact that you are not one of my family's slaves? You owe Him your life literally!

    But since Christ's New Covenant Church Kingdom literally replaced the Old Covenant Messianic Kingdom of David then, as it claims in Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

    So in fact the Bible Doesn't Condone Slavery

    Stan, Are you remotely aware that you cannot win a battle with God?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. if the bible doesnt condone slavery why did you admit that levitcus 25:44-46 says its okay to own people?

      Delete
    2. Dan, I like most of what you say. OTOH, the New Covenant Church Kingdom did not literally replace the Old Covenant Messianic Kingdom of David - we are grafted into the tree of Abraham. (see Romans 11. It also clarifies that Israel has not lost God's promises to them, so while I have no issue with Covenant theology as a timekeeping system, I categorically reject Replacement Theology.)

      Also, look up the Hebrew word for servant in Leviticus 25; you will find that it was softened in translation. The literal meaning is, "Don't make slaves of your fellow Hebrews, because they are already slaves to me. I bought them from the auction block that was Egypt, and they became my slaves. Don't steal my property."

      OTOH, this does not preclude the OT practice of selling oneself into slavery to pay off a debt. Jews could still be slaves, but only voluntarily.

      Also, see my other comments in this topic. The NT mentions slavery over 100 times, but only three are translated "slave." Most are translated "servant," and at least one, referring to Christ coming to earth, says He took the form of a "man." The Greek word is doulos. Look it up - Christ became a slave for us.

      Delete
  11.      Again, you are showing that the bible doesn't condone making slaves of the Israelis, but that it does condone and even encourage enslaving outsiders.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Pvblivs,

    I apologize to you, I should of addressed you also with Stan since you did make the comment first:

    "Incidentally, Lev 25:44-46 decidedly condones slavery"

    Then you said: "but that it does condone and even encourage enslaving outsiders."

    Not true, look at how I put it.

    "But since Christ's New Covenant Church Kingdom literally replaced the Old Covenant Messianic Kingdom of David then, as it claims in Galatians 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

    So in fact the Bible Doesn't Condone Slavery"

    But I may understand what you are getting at. Would it be more satisfactory or more accurate for your liking if I were to title it "Bible Doesn't Condone Slavery Now", is that better?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Zilch,

    "And your "proper" hermeneutics is nothing other than eisegesis"

    Not true, please tell me how using "proper" hermeneutics is not a good exegesis method?

    It just doesn't make sense. Or even better, please show me an example of proper exegesis method.

    I must ask you also, in your opinion, racism isn't a form of (subtle) slavery?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dan:

         I did look at how you put it. "And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." It is rather plain. Enslaving insiders is not allowed. Enslaving outsiders is. And the context shows that the Galatians quote applies only to Christians. Presumably, enslaving outsiders is still permitted.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dan, how many times do you have to be corrected on your own blog? You think that "Darwin" promoted slavery while the bible was against it?

    Name one verse please, where christ explicitly forbade slavery.

    In the meantime:
    I had posted about race in Ray's blog.

    I'll just put a sample here, about what I had said about Darwin:

    =-=-=-
    For some of Darwin's views about "races", check out his "Descent of Man" from 1871

    "But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed. Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory de St-Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke. This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them." (you do realize that all people thought like the first part of the last sentence above in Darwin’s time, but it’s Darwin’s observations that led him to say "it is hardly possible to discover distinictive character between them."

    About Darwin's first book,
    On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, when they talk about "races" it's used as an alternative for "varieties" – the first use in the book refers to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage", and Darwin proceeds to discuss "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants".[10]
    From Wikipedia about The Origin of Species. Read the book yourself if you want.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Your spin...

    My spin? Tell me, Dan, what does a "plain reading" tell you? Is slavery regulated or isn't it?

    Remember your title for this post?

    Bible Doesn't Condone Slavery

    Yes, it does. It regulates slavery, as you are so quick to point out. Your absurd slant on this seems to be that atheists would be the slaves of Hebrews, but the truth is that the bible merely states that Hebrews are not to own their fellow Hebrews indefinitely. In fact, there are many passages which provide structure for the release of Hebrew-on-Hebrew slavery: Jubilee.

    Your zeal to exonerate the bible's statements on this subject is noteworthy, but it is misguided.

    For one, Atheism didn't exist as a concept to the primitive ANE cultures, so no, these slaves weren't "atheists" as you so baldly assert. For two, your whole thesis is shot by this new angle to your claim:

    (If they are atheists then they are to be slaves forever. In the period of Old Covenant Messianic Kingdom of David, atheists were the slaves.) A heathen's punishment is literally to be a slave for his transgression of the Law. Consider it comunity (sic) service for the wicked.

    If they are slaves, and the practice is regulated, condoned, and even endorsed in the bible, then your whole claim to the contrary is absolutely false.

    Who's doing the spinning?

    As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves (Deuteronomy 20:14)

    Is slavery here endorsed? Is it encouraged? Are slaves here not listed among spoils of war? Is this not an incentive to war?

    What about this one:

    Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. (Numbers 31: 17-18)

    Nevermind the wanton slaughter of the boys and non-virgin women (one wonders how they were able to tell the difference) -- were the virgins kept as slaves? Was this not endorsed or otherwise condoned? Is this not tantamount to endorsing rape?

    Spin it, DJ, I want to hear the remix.

    If you feel that your version of morality is superior to that of the bible, then by all means deny slavery, but if you're going to claim that the bible somehow doesn't endorse slavery -- the taking of sex slaves, in this last example -- then I'm calling you out on your bullshit.

    So in fact the Bible Doesn't Condone Slavery

    Seriously -- you can plug your ears and cry, "Nyah, nyah-nyah, nyah-nyah, nyah" all you want, but you're still wrong, and it's been spelled out quite clearly for you.

    If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. (Leviticus 25:39)

    This verse refers to the fact that Hebrew-on-Hebrew slavery is treated differently than Hebrew-on-Gentile slavery -- why the distinction? What does it mean to "not make him work as a slave"?

    Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 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. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

    Your version says "bondservants", mine says "slaves" -- same difference. There is a distinction which carries a startling implication: while ruthlessness toward fellow Hebrews is prohibited, ruthlessness toward Gentile slaves is tolerated completely. Not only does this implicit condition exist, but there is, of course, the explicit condition of condoned slavery in the first place.

    So let's try this, then:

    Bible (Leviticus 25:44): ...you may buy slaves.

    Dan (this article): Bible Doesn't Condone Slavery

    You're up, DJ-Dan.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dan,
    Your response to my comment was both absurd and hilarious.

    You didn't respond to me, you merely went on a rant aout Darwin.
    Darwin was a product of his day.

    It doesn't matter at all what Darwin said anymore than it matters what Mao tse Tung said.
    Altruism, empathy and integrity all win out in the end and that is why your bible is constantly proven wrong.

    The southern Baptists now days like to say that they were instrumental in banning slavery, which is a lie.

    I hope you don't use the ible as an excuse to beat your kids as you used the bible to half starve your wife to death.

    The hilarious part of your comment is how you sidestepped the total lack of evidence for the Exodus, then YOU go on to tell ME to check out the scientific method?

    Ahhhh! What a jokester!

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Froggie
    Your argument against the Exodus is nothing more than an argument from silence BTW. And the Exodus is in dispute with regard to timelines and historicity and it is a rather large controversy so don't expect Dan to be able to cover every issue in depth in the comment section here.In addition there are natural disasters (flood ,volcano ..etc) that could destroy archeological evidence.
    Go look it up

    @ Chris.
    where does that verse in Dieternomy 31 say anything about rape?

    And as to the thing on slavery.
    Can anyone provide an objective standard by which we can say that
    slavery is immoral and explain to me why the biblical writers had to obey this standard?
    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ARE YOU SERIOUS??? "Can anyone provide an objective standard by which we can say that
      slavery is immoral and explain to me why the biblical writers had to obey this standard?"

      No apparently to your GOD it was not which is the reason that I have more morality than this illusion.

      Would you be sold as a slave and held against your will just because you were born in the wrong place, time and to the wrong "believers"

      Sick

      Delete
    2. Wow, an equivocation and an Ecological fallacy-FTW

      First, they were bondservent s back then. But, before we address that you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid. Like Razi Zacharias said, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs.

      Delete
    3. So Josh, what you just did was called "begging the question?" In other words, under whose authority can slavery be declared universally immoral?

      D.A.N., actually the word "bondservant" is a softening of the original concept. The correct translation is, as Josh states, "slave." OTOH, you are right. Without the ability to call on a higher authority, any claim to moral authority instantly implodes.

      Delete
  19. Pvblivs,

    "Presumably, enslaving outsiders is still permitted."

    Excellent argument(spin), you would have a very good point if left alone, but wait not so fast let me explain:

    At this time point, I would be willing to admit "It is rather plain. Enslaving insiders (Israelites) is not allowed. Enslaving outsiders(heathens) is." according to the Bible in the 'Old Covenant Messianic Kingdom of David' days. Yes, this was the practice and guideline back then, valid point. Is this to say that heathens didn't take Israelites, or anyone else, as slaves? We are not speaking of exclusivity are we?

    "And the context shows that the Galatians quote applies only to Christians"

    Another excellent point which forces my clarification.

    Remember, Acts 17:26-28 also claims that we are all of God whether you believe or not. My own children, after all, are still mine no matter what they believe, right? So because there has been a New Covenant, a new priesthood, 'Christ's New Covenant Church Kingdom' literally replaced the Old Covenant Messianic Kingdom of David so old is no longer valid.

    "There is neither bond nor free", which means now and forever, God doesn't condone His people to keep slaves. Heathens will do whatever they want because they feel they are not under God's rule. So essentially the claim now stands "God doesn't condone slavery, but atheists (heathens) might."

    Is that better?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Mrfreethinker,
    It is no surprise that you cite two sites that are done from Christian apologetics perspective.

    The first talks of the "Expulsion of the Hyksos." There is some evidence for this. But your problem is that this would represent a few hundred people(and there is no writing about them roaming the sainai for 40 years) not millions and of course, you cannot allow any part of your bible to be shown in error, or you cannot call it inerrent.

    The second site talks of 'invisible nomads' of which we have found various scattered evidence.

    You state, "Your argument against the Exodus is nothing more than an argument from silence BTW."

    Kinda like the same argument for the existence of God. If there is no evidence, what do you expect?

    The Sainai has been mostly in statis since those times except for blowing sands. Other artifacts and features from that time in Egypt(and much farther back) are readily apparent to this day.

    As I said, if three million people, their animals, foundries, latrines etc had been there all those years, evidence would abound.

    ReplyDelete
  21. MFT,

    "don't expect Dan to be able to cover every issue in depth in the comment section here."

    I only address the issues that Dan brings up. He'll get no free ride from me.

    ReplyDelete
  22. MrFreeThinker,

    Comment @Froggie, great point.

    Comment @Chris, excellent.

    "Can anyone provide an objective standard by which we can say that
    slavery is immoral and explain to me why the biblical writers had to obey this standard?"


    Über brilliant!

    You are invited and more then welcome to become an author on this blog anytime. Just say the word.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dan, you really should try reading the bible you so revere...

    Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. (1 Peter 2:18)

    No mention of slavery being a bad thing, just that slave owners should try to convert their slaves to Christianity if they want them to be docile servants...

    Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them... (Titus 2:9)

    Again, Christian slaves make for docile servants -- but slavery is not once denounced.

    Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything... (Colossians 3:22)

    More of the same...

    Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear... (Ephesians 6:5)

    But wait, there's more!

    And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. (Ephesians 6:9)

    What's this? Not, "Christians, slavery is wrong", but, "...masters, treat your slaves..."?

    I'm confused, Dan -- am I spinning things again, or is this tacit approval of slavery, with the implicit acceptance coupled with an explicit statement regarding how slave holders should treat their slaves?

    Perhaps we need more examples to make a determination...

    Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 4:1)

    Uh oh... More approval of slave-holding? Please, Dan -- I need your help applying "'proper' hermeneutics" to these passages. To my simple mind, it seems that slavery isn't prohibited at all, but instead that slave-holders are given instructions as to how to handle their slaves...

    Let's see what else we can find:

    All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. (1 Timothy 6:1)

    Whew -- this passage is an innocent requirement for Christian slaves to be agreeable in their enforced servitude.

    What? No, it can't be...

    Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them. (1 Timothy 6:2)

    Oh, dear. Not, "Those who have believing masters will be set free because slavery is unacceptable"? I don't understand...

    Dan, please help me grasp the truth of this -- clearly, you cannot be mistaken in your claim that "Bible Doesn't Condone Slavery", or even in your modified version, "Bible Doesn't Condone Slavery Now", so tell me, Mr. DJ, how should this record be spun so that you are not made into a hypocrite, or so that the bible is not shown to endorse an immoral practice?

    C'mon, Dan, use your words and "'proper' hermeneutics". Give me the proper interpretation from the "plain reading" that somehow twists "...masters, treat your slaves..." into "...Christians, free your slaves..."

    ...or is slavery endorsed in the bible?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mr. Freethinker:

    I presume you were speaking to me when you directed a comment toward "Chris" -- I am the only one to have introduced the topic of rape, and I saw no comment by anyone named "Chris".

    Unfortunately, your 'freethinking' seems also to apply to 'freereading', or perhaps 'freewriting' -- because the passage I referenced wasn't Deuteronomy 31, but Numbers 31, and, in case you missed it, the passage says the following:

    And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man

    If that doesn't imply an endorsement of rape, then I don't know what does. Find a hot little Canaanite girl after the battle? Have your way with her. Afterward, since she's now "slept with a man", you're obligated to kill her. Find one that you want to take home? Go right ahead -- rape her every night as your war-spoil concubine. Lucky you!

    Not rape? Sure. I suppose you'll also deny that this edict encouraged Israelite warriors to disrobe Canaanite women to "verify" that they were or were not virgins...

    ...or are you seriously suggesting that each of the hot Canaanite girls taken by the Israelites consented?

    If you're still not convinced, it doesn't matter -- the verse is equally damning to Dan's bullshit position that the bible doesn't condone slavery.

    Oh, and for the record, slavery and rape are the same kind of crime. Each is about controlling another human being without the victim's consent.

    Get real, man. The bible endorses slavery. Your half-assed "answer", which Dan thought so "brilliant", didn't address the bible's mentions of slavery at all. In case your reading comprehension issue is chronic rather than incidental, the main point here is that the bible does endorse slavery, and that Dan maintains that slavery is immoral, and that the bible does not endorse immorality in any way.

    I don't need an objective standard to say that slavery is immoral -- I am not arguing the existence of such a standard. Dan, on the other hand, does argue for the existence of such a standard, and he claims that the bible is this standard. Furthermore, Dan claims that the bible is the inerrant, inspired word of god, so if it contains the endorsement of an action which Dan considers immoral, then it fails to survive a simple logical test, and everything in it, pertaining to Dan's position(s), is suspect.

    If Dan would merely admit that certain aspects of the bible are metaphorical, that its stories are not strictly historical accounts, and that its moral code evolved with the societal morality of the time, then this particular argument has no teeth, but because of the position(s) he does maintain, this argument is potentially devastating.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Froggie.
    "Kinda like the same argument for the existence of God. If there is no evidence, what do you expect?"
    Come on Froggie. We have provided evidence before. At least be intellectually honest and say you do not find the evidence for god "compelling" or "sufficient".

    @ Stan (sorry about the misnomer)

    "Go right ahead -- rape her every night as your war-spoil concubine."

    Again the passage never says this.

    "suppose you'll also deny that this edict encouraged Israelite warriors to disrobe Canaanite women to "verify" that they were or were not virgins"
    "disrobe"?? the passage never says this. I suppose you are reading a different bible from me.
    Again back then women who were married would wear special robes or have some special identification( like wedding rings today).
    It would be easy to check their robes to see if they were married or not(back then they didn't really have sex outside marriage).I don't see why they would need to disrobe anyone.

    "I don't need an objective standard to say that slavery is immoral"
    So saying the bible is immoral is just the result of your own subjective opinion?

    ReplyDelete
  26. MFT,
    "We have provided evidence before."

    You are the one that needs to learn about the scientific method, as Dan would say.

    Or, better yet, learn what evidence is.

    ReplyDelete
  27. MFT - you are right. The passage doesn't mention rape.

    So why does it explicitly instruct them to take virgins? Are virgins better at dishwashing? Does their sexual purity make them more skilled at ironing? Sweeping?

    I'm desperatly trying to think why victorious soldiers would consider virginity a prize.....

    I know. They would treat these young girls like princesses and eventually they would come to love and respect them and then take them honourably in marriage.

    That must be it. froggie and stan you are wicked for thinking that the young girls were picked for any other reason.

    The passage never says rape. Dan and MFT can read hidden meanings into other verses, but THIS one must be taken at face value.

    Give me an H give me a Y give me a P... ah the word's too long.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Stew
    Most likely some of the girls were put to work in the temple and the rest were kept as servants.There is nothing to suggest anyone had sexual relations with the girls.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I see. So you would hide behind some bullshit claim of ignorance, basing your entire position on precisely what the text actually says, and yet no sooner do you make this suggestion than you apply outside reasoning to assert that there was no sex outside marriage, and that married women would be readily identifiable.

    WTF?

    Read the passage. If it doesn't endorse rape and/or forced enslavement of Canaanite girls, then tell me, oh wise one, just what does it suggest?

    And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man

    Oh -- I almost forgot; you asserted that married women were easily identifiable, and that sex outside marriage was extremely rare.

    For what culture? For Hebrews, or for the Canaanites? For both? Remember, genius, we're talking about Canaanite women, who, it should be safe to assume, didn't follow the Torah.

    Oops -- did I mention the Torah? What does it say about how common extramarital sex is?

    If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

    For something so uncommon, it's odd that a special rule addresses it... Note that the woman in question is forced to relive her victimization forever, or at least as long as her rapist husband lives.

    Do not defile yourselves in any of [about 20 different sexually deviant] ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. (Leviticus 18:24)

    But I thought sex was rare outside of marriage? Isn't this passage explicitly stating that sexual deviance was common amongst Canaanites?

    True, the text doesn't explicitly state that the taken girls should be raped, nor does it explicitly state that they should be disrobed in order to determine the status of their hymens, but I wonder, do you know the difference between explicit and implicit?

    If you do, then kindly inform us precisely what methods, aside from disrobing or raping, might've been employed to determine hymenal status.

    If you do, then also please inform us precisely what sort of future might await a girl who was kept by an Israelite warrior?

    So saying the bible is immoral is just the result of your own subjective opinion?

    Look, if you're going to jump in and post off-topic rants designed only to incense the other respondents here, then kindly go away.

    If this is instead some attempt at engaging my argument(s), then you have failed miserably, because you have a) inserted a red herring, and b) erected a straw man.

    a) I am not employing my own subjective opinion -- I am employing Dan's. He is the one who, by the title of this very post, claims that the bible does not condone slavery. That this claim is meant to defend the notion that the bible endorses various immoral acts is, at this point, immaterial, but even if it were relevant, it would be so only because Dan claims that slavery, etc., is immoral, while simultaneously maintaining that god (and the bible) does not endorse immorality.

    b) I have not stated in this thread that the bible is immoral, nor have I even stated that slavery is immoral. Rather, I have attempted to show that the bible does endorse slavery, despite Dan's denial.

    Kindly stand aside, now, or engage the relevant points made regarding the bible's explicit, implicit, and tacit endorsement of slavery.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  30. OK, I'm not too concerned about Biblical Slavery, but I do admire Darwins compassion and humanity, which comes across in his writings.

    Dan, please do not accuse him of supporting slavery. This is a lie, and his words have to be taken severely out of context for him to come across in such a fashion. Here are his true feelings on the issue of slavery:

    "I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it. I was told before leaving England, that after living in slave countries: all my options would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the Negros character. It is impossible to see a negro & not feel kindly toward him; such cheerful, open honest expressions & such fine muscular bodies; I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Haiti; & considering the enormous healthy looking black population, it will be wonderful if at some future day it does not take place."
    -- Charles Darwin to Catherine Darwin (May 22 - July 14 1833) The Correspondence of Charles Darwin Vol. 1 1821-1836 (1985), pp. 312-313

    "While staying at this estate, I was very nearly being an eye-witness to one of those atrocious acts which can only take place in a slave country. Owing to a quarrel and a lawsuit, the owner was on the point of taking all the women and children from the male slaves, and selling them separately at the public auction at Rio. Interest, and not any feeling of compassion, prevented this act. Indeed, I do not believe the inhumanity of separating thirty families, who had lived together for many years, even occurred to the owner. Yet I will pledge myself, that in humanity and good feeling he was superior to the common run of men. It may be said there exists no limit to the blindness of interest and selfish habit. I may mention one very trifling anecdote, which at the time struck me more forcibly than any story of cruelty. I was crossing a ferry with a negro, who was uncommonly stupid. In endeavouring to make him understand, I talked loud, and made signs, in doing which I passed my hand near his face. He, I suppose, thought I was in a passion, and was going to strike him; for instantly, with a frightened look and half-shut eyes, he dropped his hands. I shall never forget my feelings of surprise, disgust, and shame, at seeing a great powerful man afraid even to ward off a blow, directed, as he thought, at his face. This man had been trained to a degradation lower than the slavery of the most helpless animal."
    -- Charles Darwin, Voyage of the Beagle (1839), Chapter II

    "I feel glad that this happened in the land of the Brazilians, for I bear them no good will - a land also of slavery, and therefore of moral debasement...On the 19th of August we finally left the shores of Brazil, I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave-country. To this day, if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful vividness my feelings, when passing a house near Pernambuco, I heard the most pitiable moans, and could not but suspect that some poor slave was being tortured, yet knew that I was as powerless as a child even to remonstrate. I suspected that these moans were from a tortured slave, for I was told that this was the case in another instance. Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have stayed in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten, and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal. I have seen a little boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horse-whip (before I could interfere) on his naked head, for having handed me a glass of water not quite clean; I saw his father tremble at a mere glance from his master's eye. These latter cruelties were witnessed by me in a Spanish colony, in which it has always been said, that slaves are better treated than by the Portuguese, English, or other European nations.

    ...

    I will not even allude to the many heart-sickening atrocities which I authentically heard of; nor would I have mentioned the above revolting details, had I not met with several people, so blinded by the constitutional gaiety of the negro as to speak of slavery as a tolerable evil. Such people have generally visited at the houses of the upper classes, where the domestic slaves are usually well treated; and they have not, like myself, lived amongst the lower classes. Such inquirers will ask slaves about their condition; they forget that the slave must indeed be dull, who does not calculate on the chance of his answer reaching his master's ears."

    -- Charles Darwin, The Voyage of the Beagle (1839), Chapter XXI .

    "Great God how I should like to see the greatest curse on Earth Slavery abolished. "
    -- Charles Darwin to Asa Gray (June 5, 1861) The Correspondence of Charles Darwin Vol. 9 1861 (1994), p.163

    For more such quotes, and to ensure I haven't quotemined, you can visit this site.

    It is for sentiments such as this in a very pro-slavery society that I truly admire the man, and profoundly false accusations such as the ones you have made tend to frustrate me. Charles Darwin was a humanitarian, and deserves better than to be attacked and demonized with sheer falsehoods.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Stan,

    "Dan, you really should try reading the bible you so revere..."

    I try daily but admittedly, I do miss some days. What I find frightening is how much you

    1 Peter 2:18 and the rest you pointed out were instructions for saved "servants". It's pointing to "servants" that are Christians correct?

    KJV, a more conservative translation, uses the term servant-a person working in the service of another (especially in the household), a handmaid if you will. One who serves another, providing help in some manner; One who is hired to provide regular household or other duties, and receives compensation. As opposed to a slave. A study of the Greek language to find the etymology of the word that translates to servant might be in order for me to be clear.

    1 Timothy 6:1 does talk about a slave because of the use of "servants under the yoke" within the meaning.

    "If Dan would merely admit that certain aspects of the bible are metaphorical,"

    In the past, on my blog, I make it clear the Bible is to be taken literally unless it is obvious a hyperbole or a parable or a song. I don't read the Bible literally, I read the Bible plainly. It is quite clear when the Bible is using a parable, hyperbole or literal expression.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 1 Peter 2:18 and the rest you pointed out were instructions for saved "servants". It's pointing to "servants" that are Christians correct?

    No, they spoke of how slaves should behave toward their masters, if those slaves happen also to be Christians.

    KJV, a more conservative translation,

    Why? Because it seeks to avoid the term "slave"?

    uses the term servant

    You mean the greek 'doulos' (Strong's 1401)?

    -a person working in the service of another (especially in the household), a handmaid if you will. One who serves another, providing help in some manner; One who is hired to provide regular household or other duties, and receives compensation.

    Did you make this up yourself, or did you get it from a dictionary (it looks like a combination of definitions from a few different dictionaries)?

    As opposed to a slave.

    ...or so you assert

    A study of the Greek language to find the etymology of the word that translates to servant might be in order for me to be clear.

    Oops! Did I already do that when I mentioned 'doulos'? Perhaps I should follow your advice and go further down the rabbit's hole...

    Before we get too far, however, I'd like to note your claim:

    1 Timothy 6:1 does talk about a slave because of the use of "servants under the yoke" within the meaning.

    So... that one means slave because of the context it's given when translated into English?

    Perhaps it's because in this example, the term is "slavery", as opposed to "slave"...

    ...but let's look at the Greek. In each of the examples I cited, with the lone exception of 1 Peter 2:18, the Greek word was 'doulos' -- even 1 Timothy 6.

    Come now, Dan, tell me what the Greek says. Tell me what it means. Since the term is the same in all cases (except the one), then what makes it different?

    In the case of 1 Peter 2:18, your argument is no better off, for in that passage, Peter says that servants should submit to their "masters", and a quick glance at each of the passages I outlined will show that there are two words which are translated as "master": 'kyrios' (Strong's 2962), and 'despotes' (Strong's 1203). Note that the frequency of each is roughly half.

    Worse still, the second term, 'despotes', "relates only to a slave and denotes absolute ownership and uncontrolled power" (per Blue Letter Bible -- "Click for Synonyms") -- and this is the one Peter uses when describing his "domestic servants".

    I didn't realize that hired servants were ruled by employers who wielded "absolute ownership and uncontrolled power".

    Nice try with your eisegesis, but the "plain reading" of each of these passages shows that the slave-master relationship was totalitarian (you may have recognized the common root for the modern term "despot"), and that this sort of social "arrangement" was commonplace, tolerated, and, because of the OT texts, endorsed.

    These "servants" were slaves. Paint a turd gold, and it's still a turd.

    So let's get back on-point. Given your newfound knowledge of what the bible says regarding slavery, are you here prepared to recant, and admit that the bible does indeed endorse it as a practice?

    If not, I'm sure you'll be prepared to explain why you continue to deny the mountains of evidence I've shown you -- including direct criticism of the Hebrew and/or Greek used in the "original" text.

    What say you?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  33. @Stan
    "The word >ebed, however, denoted not only actual slaves occupied in production or in the household but also persons in subordinate positions (mainly subordinate with regard to the king and his higher officials). Thus the term >ebed is sometimes translated as “servant.” Besides, the term was used as a sign of servility in reference to oneself when addressing persons of higher rank."
    Anchor bible dictionary

    Here's a bit on slavery in the ANE
    http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html
    and apostolic era
    http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslavent.html

    ReplyDelete
  34. WOW, Mr. Freethinker, that is interesting. That you are so dexterous as to be able to simultaneously hold the "Control" key while typing the "C" key, and then the "V" key, is amazing.

    ">ebed", you say? Hmm. Perhaps we are using different bibles, because none of the passages I cited contain that word (phrase?).

    Seriously -- next time you chime in on an existing conversation, perhaps you should make sure that your statements are relevant. Your thoughtful discourse -- excuse me -- your random quote, regarding ">ebed" concerns the Hebrew terms for slave, not Greek, and you failed to make any point whatsoever.

    The word you cite (Strong's 6560), has a few different connotations, true, but if you're insinuating that the intended meaning in the OT references may have been one of a paid employee, and not the "bad" version of slavery, then you'll also have to use your amazing powers of deduction to explain away the term translated as "possession" (Strong's 272), in Leviticus 25:46, which has as "slaves" not ">ebed", but Strong's 5647.

    So if you want to be part of the conversation, do your homework.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  35. Sigh. What can I say? Quasar, thanks for tracking down Darwin's words about slavery- I remember his saying that stuff, but I couldn't remember where. Dan, at least admit you were wrong about Darwin condoning slavery- or do you have some eisegesis for him too? Merely removing what you said from your original post without comment strikes me as a bit, well, underhanded.

    And I know this is probably hopeless, but give it a whirl. Dan and MrFreeThinker: imagine that all these Scriptural passages about slavery and keeping virgins were taken from the Koran, or the Communist Manifesto. How would you interpret them then? By any reasonable kind of "plain reading", the meaning is plain, as Stan has plainly shown.

    But thanks to the ideals of democracy, the Enlightenment, and equal rights for all, none of which come from the Bible, today even most fundamentalists can't swallow slavery, sexism, and racism. This creates a cognitive dissonance, however, if they continue to regard the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. To negotiate this dissonance requires a dance. To parapharase Macbeth:

    Oh what a tangled dance we step
    To prove the Bible is still hep

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The bible also condems atheism. Do atheists accept that as wrong?

      Delete
  36. @Stan
    Yes I know I am very dextrous. It would still do you good to browse the links I posted.

    With regards to property-
    "The definition of slaves as property runs into conceptual as well as empirical problems. 'Property' is a shorthand and abstract term for a bundle of very specific and relatively exclusive rights held by a person (or group) relative to a thing (or person). To say that in any given society, something (say, a person) is 'property' has meaning only to the extent that the rights involved are specified and understood in the context of other rights prevalent in the society. For example, in many precolonial African societies, the kin group had the right to sell equally its slave and nonslave members, it had equal control over the wealth acquired by either of them, it extracted (or failed to extract) as much labor from one as from the other, and the majority of slaves were quasi-relatives or actual relatives, and, if prosperous enough, could acquire slaves of their own. [NS:ECA:4:1191, s.v. "Slavery"]
    A less dramatic illustration of this might be in a modern acquisition of one business by another business. I the employee--a 'bundle' of all my workplace obligations, the contract under which I work, the values I am supposed to uphold, the relationships I have with co-workers at the office, my skills, my organizational knowledge, and my career path in the firm--is 'sold' to other owning group (e.g., competitor, private investor, Wall Street, etc). There is, in this case, a 'property' aspect to my life-at-the-office. This does not mean, of course, that my family status as a dad is changed, or that I cannot vote in my country. My role and/or identity as a worker could thus be 'sold', 'transferred', and even 'inherited' (e.g., if the firm was privately owned, and the owner died with a successor).

    ReplyDelete
  37. @Zilch.
    I think I am fairly consistent in my reading of the Quran and the bible wen I engage in talks with muslims.Same with the stuff about slavery in their books.
    I don't engage in presumptious readings (addng in my own perverted readings about hymens and disrobing and such)

    ReplyDelete
  38. Freethinker, you're all over the map.

    We're not talking about well-documented pre-colonial African tribes, we're talking about the ANE concept of slavery. We're not talking about a hostile takeover, either, unless you are suggesting that a slave sold to a new master has the right to quit.

    Stop copying and pasting irrelevant nonsense and actually address the arguments -- you've obviously drawn your own conclusions about slavery in the bible, and you've obviously done some extreme mental gymnastics to somehow justify the fact that slavery is condoned in the bible, but the failures in your reasoning are being exposed even as you type it out.

    You accused Froggie of being intellectually dishonest for suggesting there was no proof of god's existence -- who is guilty of intellectual dishonesty now?

    Most likely some of the girls were put to work in the temple and the rest were kept as servants.There is nothing to suggest anyone had sexual relations with the girls.

    This is eisegesis. The text nowhere suggests what you here claim, and the inclusion of "for yourselves" denies your interpretation quite clearly. You are clearly projecting your own beliefs into the text, which is eisegesis, and you haven't only done it with this verse, but with every passage discussed regarding slavery thus far.

    You cannot apply 18th century African values to 30th century BCE Near East cultures, and you likewise cannot apply the same to 1st century Near East cultures.

    Indeed, your absurd notion that slaves could sell freemen (in the ANE cultures we are actually discussing) is impossible given the context of any of the passages I've cited -- OT or NT.

    Get with the program and show me how the passages cited somehow hold up to scrutiny with your proposed interpretations. Stop dancing around the issue(s) -- slavery (the complete control of another human against his will) either is condoned, or it isn't. Which is it?

    Don't argue by copying/pasting someone else's tired apology -- especially when it fails to address the passages in question -- but engage the argument, engage the text in question, and defend your position -- or surrender.

    I don't engage in presumptious (sic) readings (addng in my own perverted readings about hymens and disrobing and such)

    You lie. If my "presumptious" reading added information concerning hymens and disrobing, it was by implication -- or didn't you bother to look up those words whose meanings you so clearly don't understand?

    In order to determine the virginity of the girls they discovered, they must either have been amazing gynecologists (which requires disrobing and hymen-inspection), or they must have merely asked the women -- they cannot have had any visual method available to them, and any woman desiring to live would obviously have claimed herself to be a virgin.

    You know what? It doesn't matter. If my "perverted reading" was "adding information", then so, too, was yours, by claiming they went to the temple as servants. At least my "presumptious readings" fit with the description...

    It's funny, really, how you never address points (or counterpoints), but you merely paste some irrelevant and anachronistic garbage, and claim that it holds some profound meaning. When shown otherwise, you just ignore this and paste some "new" drivel.

    Dan has shown more integrity than you have.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  39. A lot of verses in Duet. and Lev. can be misconstrued in today's reading. But God meets us where we are. Back then slavery was indeed commonplace. There are three kinds of laws in the Bible - Civil Law (the way the governments were running their counries), Ceremonial Laws (customary laws regarding worship, sacrifices, etc), and Moral Law (God's laws)
    The first two are used in the OT as examples; used in that time by God to demonstrate obedience. He was speaking to them in their own language so to speak.
    But if you want to hold God accountable to any laws - you can only look to the Ten Commandments. Only hose are His.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Only "those" are His.

    sorry - typing too fast.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @Froggie


    "You are the one that needs to learn about the scientific method, as Dan would say.

    Or, better yet, learn what evidence is."
    Froggie
    Are there valid ways to know if a proposition is true outside of the scientific method?(If no, tell me how you used the scientific method to answer this question)
    I know what evidence is froggie.
    I suggest you read up on what it is

    ReplyDelete
  42. MFT,

    That is a very comprehensive article to say the least, but my main criteria for evidence when it comes to supernatural phenomenon is falsifiability, same as the scientific method.

    If you make a claim such as, "there is an invisible force at work, then it is up to you to show the evidence for the claim.

    You may claim the bible is evidence that there is a God, but the concept of God is not falsifiable.

    You ask,
    "Are there valid ways to know if a proposition is true outside of the scientific method?"

    To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  43. A lot of verses in Duet. and Lev. can be misconstrued in today's reading.

    Agreed. They can be misconstrued such that they seem to say that after a battle, women honestly wore t-shirts that said "virgin" or "non-virgin", and lined up peacefully so that the victors could walk by and select their paid hand-maidens from the bunch, or send them to the temple to be there employed.

    Not only can Deuteronomy and Leviticus be thus misunderstood, but so, too, can Genesis -- e.g. Noah's flood, the six days of creation, etc. -- and even the vast majority of the New Testament -- Jesus' resurrection, John's acid trip on Patmos, etc.

    Strange how you are so prone to rationalizing something like slavery without applying the same principles to the parts of the bible with which you more strongly agree...

    How are we missing the "plain reading" of these passages (OT and NT, listed in my previous posts)? Show me how what you're doing is not eisegesis as opposed to exegesis.

    MFT has absurdly asserted that the virgin girls taken after the battle in Numbers 31 were obviously marked as virgins (or not obviously marked as non-virgins), and that they were taken into peaceful custody by the Israelite warriors, generally to work at the temple.

    Jenny is absurdly asserting that some rules are transitory, and others are permanent, based on some post hoc application of modern values.

    Dan has blithely stated that the bible doesn't condone slavery.

    You guys really need to hold a meeting or something so you can all get your stories straight.

    When anyone reads the bible without preconceptions, they'll clearly see that slavery is both endorsed and even expected. We all recognize that today slavery is viewed as a "bad thing", but that is not [yet] being discussed. We are merely attempting to determine whether or not slavery was explicitly, implicitly, or tacitly endorsed by the bible -- in both the Old Testament and the New.

    Re-read the passages cited if you must, and check your concordance for the actual text and meaning, and return here with your studious explanation of what is or is not being endorsed. Don't copy/paste some irrelevant piece of apologetic eisegesis, or some anecdote concerning 18th century African culture, but something that actually pertains to the question at hand:

    Does the bible endorse slavery, or does it not?

    Have your meeting, get your answers straight, and get back to us.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  44. Stan,

    Oops let me finish my thought since reading your last post

    "Dan, you really should try reading the bible you so revere..."

    I said "I try daily but admittedly, I do miss some days. What I find frightening is how much you"

    know about the Bible.

    "You mean the greek 'doulos' (Strong's 1401)?"

    See what I mean.

    I didn't realize that hired servants were ruled by employers who wielded "absolute ownership and uncontrolled power".

    Valid, but it still cannot be proven that the arrangement wasn't voluntary to pay off debts or something of that nature.

    'and that this sort of social "arrangement" was commonplace, tolerated, and, because of the OT texts, regulated.' It was regulated as well as many of the other things of this Israelite nation. If you are to have slaves then this is how you will treat them, and so on. I don't believe either one of us has proven, without reasonable doubt, each others points.

    I did like what IronJenny said "A lot of verses in Duet. and Lev. can be misconstrued in today's reading. But God meets us where we are..."

    For now, I will stand on "One has to only go far as to think why the Jews left Egypt in the first place to see God's view of slavery.'

    If your logic stands then this would be a plain reading of the Bible correct? God did not want His people to be slaves. God did not condone slavery and we are now neither Greek nor Jew but all in Christ.

    "Does the bible endorse slavery?"

    Endorse? No!

    Psalm 149:6-8 "Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand; To execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron;"

    Was it mistakingly used as a punishment for a nonbeliever like in the U.S.? A cautious possible, but I need more study on it.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Zilch,

    " Dan, at least admit you were wrong about Darwin condoning slavery"

    After posting what I posted I found that same website that Quasar pointed to. My limited information on the subject won't let me conclude my claim as fact. I will accommodate you this way, Darwin, although had the appearance of outwardly objecting to slavery, lead the way to great racism and slavery in the world, especially by Hitler and others. Racism itself is a form of slavery, and at the very least racism leads to slavery, Imho. I should of rephrased it to "Your god Darwin was very pro slavery by his actions..."

    ReplyDelete
  46. Dan,
    Darwin's theory led to the questioning of many things, just as scientific discoveries of the pastdid.

    Settle down. Altruism always kicks in. When we rid ourselves of the desires of supernatural beings, we open society to the altruism that we have evolved.

    All we have is each other.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Dan wrote:
    " I will accommodate you this way, Darwin, although had the appearance of outwardly objecting to slavery, lead the way to great racism and slavery in the world, especially by Hitler and others. Racism itself is a form of slavery, and at the very least racism leads to slavery, Imho. I should of rephrased it to "Your god Darwin was very pro slavery by his actions...""

    I'm sorry Dan, but these sort of objections are still completely false.

    Darwin was extremely anti-slavery, calling it "the greatest curse on Earth". He didn't view other races as equal, but I doubt you could show me a single upper class european from those times who did. In fact, he was markedly less racist than his contemporaries, often speaking favorably of other races, "negroes" in particular.

    He showed no interest in applying his theory of biological evolution to anything: eugenics and social darwinism were invented by other people (Herbert Spencer, for example), and have nothing to do with him. He was merely describing a process that he felt had clearly occured.

    Throwing Hitlers name into the mix seems frankly dishonest, given a naumber of facts about him.

    - Hitler claimed Christianity as his faith, and often used biblical reasoning to justify his actions.
    - Nowhere in Mein Kampf does Hitler mention Darwin, natural-selection or even the word "evolution" (in the context of natural selection).
    - Hitler viewed progeny, not in regards to evolution but in terms of blood lines (as evidenced by the way he spoke often of 'bloodlines' and the 'best blood' of germany).


    "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."
    -- Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

    The final point I would like to address is the implicit accusation that Evolutionary theory somehow promotes racism.

    A few facts
    - There is far more genetic variety amongst most other species than there is amongst humans (i.e: all humans are one "race" by any reasonable genetic definition of race).
    - Evolution indicates that all animals, even insects, are equally 'evolved' to their environment.
    - Evolution promotes cooperative behavior and pacifism amonst social creatures.
    - Evolution is a scientific theory: it has nothing to do with how we should make our morals.
    - Evolution happens whether we like it or not. All Darwin did was describe it.

    ReplyDelete
  48. What I find frightening is how much you know about the Bible.

    What I find frightening is how little you know about it.

    It's not that I'm any sort of bible scholar, but that before I start tapping madly away at my keyboard I consider what it is that I have to say, and I research the very topic I plan to address. I don't make things up as I go along (cue quote from Dan):

    ...it still cannot be proven that the arrangement wasn't voluntary to pay off debts or something of that nature.

    In which case? In the case of hot little Canaanite girls being claimed by post-battle Israelite warriors (as in Numbers 31)? In the case of the purchased slaves from surrounding nations (as in Leviticus 25)? In the case of the beaten-half-to-death slaves who got up after a couple days (as in Exodus 20:21)? In the case of the slaves with "harsh" masters (as in 1 Peter 2:18)?

    Get real, Dan. Use your "'proper' hermeneutics". Does a plain reading in these passages indicate a slave who was in an arrangement of voluntary servitude, or was he an unpaid, forced, prone-to-being-beaten, slave?

    Given the fact that slavery was endorsed, encouraged, and condoned, in the Old Testament, and the fact that the practice of slavery was in no way prohibited at any point in the New Testament, and given the fact that the practice of slavery was given tacit approval by way of the New Testament passages I have provided -- given these separate but compounding facts, a "plain reading" necessarily extracts the fact that you are wrong when you say "Bible Doesn't Condone Slavery".

    As I have said, anyone reading the bible, even presupposing its truth, but without having been prepared with respect to this subject, would draw the clear conclusion that slavery was explicitly (in the OT) endorsed and regulated, and that this explicit endorsement was implicitly continued (in the NT) by further regulation.

    Not once do we see any biblical statement explicitly prohibiting slavery, or even approaching something like a denouncement of its practice. Quite the contrary, we see multiple passages encouraging the forced enslavement of others, describing the acceptable circumstances under which a slave can be purchased, beaten, or bequeathed, regulating the slave trade, and providing instructions for the "ideal" master-slave relationship.

    Your eisegetical cherry-picking notwithstanding, the bible endorses, condones, regulates, and generally approves of slavery -- even the "bad" kind.

    What's more, your efforts to dilute the bible's statements, by transparently twisting passages to suggest that slavery 'wasn't that bad', or that it was somehow 'justified', or that it was meant as a 'punishment for heathens' -- all of these efforts are wasted, and only further serve my purposes.

    Given the fact that my conclusions regarding the bible's treatment of slavery are true, if your eisegetical statements are also true, then the bible has contradicted itself.

    Much as you try, you cannot have it both ways.

    Trust me on this, Dan -- you cannot retain any semblance of intellectual honesty or integrity while claiming, especially in the face of the evidence I have supplied you, that the bible doesn't support slavery. You would be far better off swallowing the bitter pill that smacks of racism, and claiming -- in accordance with the bible -- that slavery is an acceptable practice.

    One last thing: I agree with you in one respect -- racism begets slavery (or, at the least, the two are more closely related than Seth and his wife). I should think that this is considered a given, but I wonder if you noticed a similar correlation I had made: slavery and rape are different manifestations of the same crime -- unmitigated control of a human being without his (or her) consent. I imagine your conscience would urge you to agree, but your intellect should resist that urge, if you have any foresight about you at all...

    Back to the primary thrust -- I'm starting to get concerned here, Dan. You're beginning to mimic an ostrich and/or a turtle, by retreating further and further into eisegetical hyperbole, and it's both frustrating and extremely telling. The bible's position on slavery has been pretty fully exposed, and it must make you feel pretty silly to advocate a "plain reading" of the bible when you deny Evolution, while denying the application of the same "plain reading" to passages concerning slavery.

    I hope the cognitive dissonance doesn't cause you to lose sleep, but I do wish you'd confront it honestly.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  49. I' m sorry, I just happened to stumble upon this site the other day and have been reading up on the stories and comments that follow and I am curious as to why all of you are actually allowing yourselves to give this man, Dan, a chance to stroke his uneducated ego.it is quite apparent that he knows how to use the bible in whatever way he sees fit. what he fails to grasp and what all of you, in-so-far as I can tell, have failed to point out, is his total lack of knowledge of the recorded history of this planet.
    It seems to me that in every post, all any of you do is chase each other around in circles, arguing about who said what about whom and why or in what context without any regard for the fact that the bible itself is nothing more than a compilation of myths and pagan stories dating back thousands years.
    Why you are giving this man any credence at all is beyond me. It appears that no one in here can see the forest for all the trees. I realize that most of you are frequent posters on other sites, or have your own sites. But lets not allow this poor man to corrupt other uniformed minds that what he states is in any way true by responding to his fantasies.
    If you must respond, do so in historical fact instead of "The bible says this, not this" mentality. Do not give this book anymore credence than the fictional work that it is.
    Aseops fables are based more in fact than this piece of...

    ReplyDelete
  50. Nomdeplume wrote:
    "I' m sorry, I just happened to stumble upon this site the other day and have been reading up on the stories and comments that follow and I am curious as to why all of you are actually allowing yourselves to give this man, Dan, a chance to stroke his uneducated ego."

    First off: pleased to meet you nomdeplume.

    Secondly: I like Dan. As much as I realise and accept that nothing I could possibly say or do would convince him that he is wrong about the bible, and at times his statements or actions do come across as... errr... anyway, there is an honesty to him that I have found is rare amongst fundimentalists. He might be able to run rings around plain text readings, and he does occasionally demonstrate ignorance and gullibility on subjects that might challenge his preconceptions, but he doesn't actually lie.

    So, my opinion is that even though I can't convince him that his opinions are wrong, I can at least help him improve his arguments in favor of them by pointing out the bad ones.

    Nomdeplume wrote:
    "But lets not allow this poor man to corrupt other uniformed minds that what he states is in any way true by responding to his fantasies.
    If you must respond, do so in historical fact instead of "The bible says this, not this" mentality. Do not give this book anymore credence than the fictional work that it is."


    Ah, but many christians will accept the bible over historical fact any day. As an example, I believe it is a historical fact that the ancient egyptions didn't keep hoardes of slaves (I'm not certain about this: I may need to do some research). But the bible says they did, so they did. Period.

    This is why demonstrating internal contradictions is a more powerful debate tactic: to most fundimentalists, the difference is Mans word against Gods.

    Nomdeplume
    "Aseops fables are based more in fact than this piece of..."

    I disagree: if you can seperate the fact from fiction, correlate it with evidence from reality and aren't blinded by preconceptions, the bible can tell us a lot about life and culture 2000 years ago.

    But no more than any other writing from that era, and probably a lot less since it's mostly written in mystical, metaphorical, religous language.

    Man, I feel like I'm shooting at my own team. Hey Dan, say something stupid so I can stop TKing!

    ReplyDelete
  51. Quasar,

    "Darwin was extremely anti-slavery,"

    You know this how? By what he said in a public forum? This from a man that doesn't believe in the Word of God even?

    Look even a Klan member has a very quiet and nonjudgmental public face at work for example, catch them in private though and watch a different viewpoint. My point is how are you "so sure" about a man's thoughts?

    "Hitler claimed Christianity as his faith"

    So, Ted Haggard did also, what's your point? No matter how much you wrap it, with even a cute bow, living in sin is not the fruit of a Christian, period.

    "Throwing Hitlers name into the mix seems frankly dishonest"

    I'm being dishonest about Hitler?

    In a memorandum submitted to Hitler on June 4, 1936, the German Evangelical Church questioned whether the Chancellor was trying "to dechristianize the German people." (Hitler had little place in his heart for a religion that worshipped a Jew.) Of even more significance is the statement:

    "When, within the compass of the National Socialist view of life, an anti-Semitism is forced on the Christian that binds him to hatred of the Jew, the Christian injunction to love one's neighbor still stands, for him, opposed to it."

    The world today, for the most part, despises Hitler-Stalin, also. Both rejected the ethics of loving neighbors as set forth in the Bible, and both slaughtered millions. Stalin self-consciously chose Darwin. Hitler tried to ram survival-of-the-fittest down the world's throat. Entomologist Vernon L. Kellogg, mentioned by Gould, summarized the position held, "That human group which is in the most advanced evolutionary state...should win in the struggle for existence..."

    And I am sure you remember this quote from Chris Hedges:

    "That's what leads Hitler to try and breed humans and apes to try to create an oversized warrior or to send expeditions to Tibet to find a pure, Aryan race. I mean, that's not science. It's the cult of science, and I think the New Atheists also make that leap from science into the cult of science, and that's a problem."

    " and often used biblical reasoning to justify his actions."

    If you believe Hitler was a Christian, maybe this is what the Bible was refering to in 2 Thessalonians 2:11 because you would believe anything, as long it isn't the Bible. Besides the people that enact God's will puts them in a very bad spot.

    So please spare me the dishonest accusation I am trying my best with the, according to Stan the very limited, knowledge I have about the subject. It isn't dishonest at all, it's discovery.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Man, I feel like I'm shooting at my own team. Hey Dan, say something stupid so I can stop TKing!

    Ask and you shall receive.

    You know this how? By what he said in a public forum? This from a man that doesn't believe in the Word of God even?

    For fuck's sake, Dan, drop it and get back to the subject of slavery in the bible. Talk about ad hominem -- this is outright slander, and it serves no purpose whatsoever.

    Hey, jackass, I'm claiming in this public forum that I think raping babies is a vile, reprehensible practice performed only by the most heinous and evil individuals. Are you prepared to claim that I am actually a super-secret baby-rapist who "has a very quiet and nonjudgmental public face at work for example".

    I'm being dishonest about Hitler?

    Yes, but you can drop the "about Hitler" part if it makes you feel better. You're being generally dishonest. You're tossing about red herrings, you're slandering a dead man, and you're very, very guilty of the ad hominem attacks you so gallantly oppose, despite your documented inability to accurately identify them.

    With all due respect, with regard to Darwin, slavery, racism, and Hitler: Shut the fuck up.

    If you want to talk about what the bible says regarding slavery -- and if you want to have that discussion honestly, then by all means. But if you're going to hijack your own thread with this "Darwin was a racist and he was pro-slavery and his name should be synonymous with Hitler and Stalin and they're all evil because they don't believe in god or the bible"...

    If you're going to hijack your own thread with this insane vitriol, I'm guessing we'll follow Nomdeplume's advice and leave. If you want to take your medication and get back on topic, then we may be able to yet salvage some reasoned discussion on this topic.

    I am trying my best with the, according to Stan the very limited, knowledge I have about the subject. It isn't dishonest at all, it's discovery.

    Don't mistake my meaning, and don't take me out of context. You expressed (or feigned?) surprise at my apparent biblical scholarship, and I laughed and noted that my scholarship was nothing more than responsible research into a subject so as to be informed, and have my point(s) have a greater impact. I also lamented the apparent fact that you don't perform this responsible research, and that this is why you sound so uninformed on subjects you bring up...

    If you want to sound informed, do some basic research. If you want to sound honest, quit being dishonest.

    Seriously.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  53. Stan,

    In the case of the beaten-half-to-death slaves who got up after a couple days (as in Exodus 20:21)?

    Does it mean you are fallible to link to Exodus 21 when misquoting Exodus 20? Or was that your conscience speaking to you of a possible 'Freudian slip' to cross the 20 with 21? So please let's include Exodus 21:20 also:

    20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

    So God values innocent life and doesn't condone murder.

    John Calvin said some brilliant things about it also.

    "I should think that this is considered a given, but I wonder if you noticed a similar correlation I had made: slavery and rape are different manifestations of the same crime -- unmitigated control of a human being without his (or her) consent."

    I did notice but I can't agree about slavery and rape being even close. If what is posed true...

    "Back then, there were no such thing as bankruptcy laws so people would sell themselves into slavery to rectify debts. A craftsman could use his skills to literally "pay off" a debt. Or a convicted thief could make restitution by serving as a slave. (Exodus 22:3)"

    ...Then your point has no merit because people were used as currency or bargaining goods. Then rape is a whole other animal.

    Cognitive dissonance, ouch but wrong. More accurate would be the Monty Hall paradox, because I just don't want the solution you are offering but my probability to be correct increases if I chose another door. Not eluding to your door being correct either. So let me think (insert George Carlin here "Door 3, no 2,no 1, wait 2, Oh, Monty!")

    Admittedly your conversation comes off as a jackhammer to my skull instead of a civil conversation but that is what I have grown to love about you. You are a one unique individual. Keeping honest is a goal, even though brutal at times. It's one of the reasons for the post, and I just knew the "in my opinion a possible candidate for being the Antichrist" would of increased the fervor.

    Nomdeplume,

    Spoiler, you meanie! I'm curious, would you just let someone walk out the door with spinach between their teeth or would you tell them?

    At least a friend would tell a friend, that they stink. We have fun with each other and I think we all understand the stalemate we are all in, but why can't we at least discuss matters with our best arguments. Everyone here would admit to the pounding they receive, minus this one subject. Was that a stretch? Most atheists here are masochistic and like the knuckle raping they receive. Again? Anyway welcome and bring your "A" game if you have one, because most people here do.

    "Hey Dan, say something stupid so I can stop TKing! "

    By rigidly excluding Intelegent Design from science, Darwinists themselves impede scientific progress. (Working on the next post, umm good enough?)

    Take care all

    Before I post this you posted another one Stan? Man, I need a raise.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Stan,

    Meow, you angry atheist, you.

    I give good back rubs, you want one?

    ReplyDelete
  55. "If you wish to know God, you must know His Word. If you wish to perceive His power, you must see how He works by His Word. If you wish to know His purpose before it comes to pass, you can only discover it by His Word." C.H. Spurgeon

    I am trying my best, the Bible cannot be just read to understand it, we must study it for a long time. Forgive me Stan, I am trying to understand knowing both our presuppositions on the subject. If I agree with "everything" you claim then I would be an atheist. True?

    It isn't cognitive dissonance, intellectual dishonesty, or absurdly wanting to "sound informed", I am trying to understand His Word.

    You play a wonderful 'devil's advocate' and for that I thank you. You keep me thinking and do me, and all of us, a great service. You are cherished.

    ReplyDelete
  56. It isn't cognitive dissonance, intellectual dishonesty, or absurdly wanting to "sound informed", I am trying to understand His Word.

    See, right there, that's a big problem I have withe the Bible as the word of God.

    In line with this topic, slavery, why should the will of God, as expressed through his word the Bible, require study?

    Slavery. The owning of another human being. Should be clear right? But no, we have plenty of verses to chew over.

    Mind you, for me, I must admit that in this case the word of God is clear and easily understood. Slavery is OK, and the Bible gives me guidelines as to how to treat my slaves, and under what conditions I may obtain them.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Meow, you angry atheist, you.

    I give good back rubs, you want one?


    As long as we understand each other regarding your implication that I might be a baby-rapist, it's all good.

    You had that coming.

    If I agree with "everything" you claim then I would be an atheist. True?

    True, but I'm not asking that -- I'm simply asking that you honestly approach the bible's explicit endorsement of slavery (in the OT), and the implicit continuance of that endorsement (in the NT), and the fact that in each case not only was the "good" kind of slavery included (e.g. selling oneself to repay some debt) but also the "bad" kind (e.g. the forcible taking of captives into indefinite slavery, spanning generations and including beatings and/or rape/concubinage).

    You don't have to accept my entire conclusion regarding the bible, but if you believe what you claim to believe -- if you read the bible "plainly" and accept it as truth on that basis -- then you must admit that I am right concerning slavery.

    I will absolutely admit that special rules existed for Hebrew-on-Hebrew slavery, and that this was the "good" kind of slavery. Indeed, it was extremely progressive at the time! But the passages are clear regarding the existence, tolerance, endorsement, and even encouragement of the "bad" kind of slavery, too.

    Nowhere in the NT is this "bad" kind discouraged, and as I have shown, it is given tacit approval by way of implicit continuance of the "old law".

    Regarding the similarity between rape and slavery, I beg to differ:

    I can't agree about slavery and rape being even close. If what is posed true... Then your point has no merit because people were used as currency or bargaining goods. Then rape is a whole other animal.

    Ahh. Are you forgetting the Oldest Profession in the World? I daresay you're commenting on the second oldest profession in the world...

    Which nicely gets us back to slavery:

    So [because the Exodus passage calls for punishment if a slave dies within two days following a particularly severe and completely condoned beating] God values innocent life and doesn't condone murder.

    Right. I'm not arguing here that murder is condoned, I'm arguing that slavery is condoned, and that this endorsement includes the "bad" kind of slavery, whereby slaves may be subjected to severe beatings, the likes of which might leave the slave in question bed-ridden for a couple days...

    It's all good, remember? Because after all, "the slave is his property."

    Before I post this you posted another one Stan?

    Did I mention I am particularly interested in this topic?

    You keep me thinking and do me, and all of us, a great service. You are cherished.

    I love you, too, but don't start picking out curtains.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  58. Oh yeah:

    Or was that your conscience speaking to you of a possible 'Freudian slip' to cross the 20 with 21?

    It was just a case of keyboard dyslexia. I'm normally a real fart smeller. I did indeed intend Exodus 21:20-21.

    As to Freudian slips...

    Most atheists here are masochistic and like the knuckle raping they receive.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  59. Stan,

    Your October 27, 2008 10:29 PM comment was spot on.

    Very low integrity displayed by the owner of this blog.
    He uses arrogance and smugness to hide the cognitiver disconnects that struggles with.

    ReplyDelete
  60. @Froggie
    You agree that there are other kinds of evidence besides scientific evidence.
    What if I presented a strong argument for god's existence based on cosmology or ontology or something else. would you consider that valid evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Stan
    Do you have any evidence that the Hebrews raped their captives? As far as I know they didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Do you have any evidence that the Hebrews raped their captives?

    Fine, MFT, I will humor you, even though this is not the topic under discussion. As it turns out, I do have evidence that slaves/concubines were raped/mistreated:

    1) As seen in Leviticus 19:20, there was sex with slaves, and it was only punished if the slave-girl had been promised to another man, and it didn't constitute adultery because she wasn't free.

    2) From the Numbers 31 reference, we see that "virgin" girls were the only ones left alive following certain battles, and they were forced into slavery -- free for the taking by the warriors involved.

    3) From Exodus 21:20-21, we see that slave-holders were free to mistreat their slaves, with nothing in the way of punishment unless the slave couldn't walk two days later.

    4) From 1 Peter 2, we see that slave-holders may be either "good and considerate" or "harsh".

    5) From Judges 19:25, we have an example of a man offering his concubine to be gang-raped by a throng of men. They obliged.

    6) From Zechariah 14:2, we see that god is planning to have the women of Jerusalem raped.

    7) From Deuteronomy 22:28, we see that the punishment for raping a free-woman (who is not pledged to be married) is merely 50 shekels and marriage. The victim in question is stuck being married to her rapist for as long as he lives.



    This compiled evidence paints a pretty clear picture that being a Gentile slave to a Hebrew master was no picnic, and that being a female Gentile slave to a Hebrew master meant you were the sexual property of your master(s). Some of the references above explicitly note sex with slaves, others explicitly note general mistreatment of slaves. Some illustrate the fact that rape wasn't necessarily punished, at least not in a way we would recognize, and these don't even necessarily apply to slaves.

    Perhaps the most damning of the pieces of evidence above is the fact that the man from Gibeah offered both his virgin daughter and his concubine to the throng (although only his concubine was actually given). As it turns out, this isn't the first time a man has offered his virgin daughter(s) to a throng of potential rapists -- Lot does the very same thing in Sodom, remember?

    It's no secret that sexism was the norm, and this collection of passages shows that even a woman's right to justice in the aftermath of rape was suppressed. It should come as no surprise, then, to see the evidence of women being treated as sex objects -- especially slaves, for whom there were no restrictions on their "use".

    I submit to you that the very term "concubine" denotes a slave with whom the master (including his sons) has sexual relations. I challenge you to show that a concubine was in the position to deny her master's sexual advances, and I further challenge you to somehow color this process as something other than rape.

    If you are so certain that the "virgin" women (you still haven't explained how they were so identified) in the Numbers 31 passage enjoyed a peaceful transition from free-woman to hand-maiden, and that this transition involved nothing we would describe as "rape", then enjoy your delusions.

    I have shown you that Hebrews held slaves, that some of these were concubines, and that a concubine's master controlled her sexual destiny. I have also shown that raping an unbetrothed free-woman was effectively unpunished.

    Just what were you disputing?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  63. Stan,

    "Did I mention I am particularly interested in this topic?"

    I know when I am on to something when people get mad, which is usually a sign that you struck a vital nerve. Your knowledge on this particular subject is spinning my head. You are forcing very intense consideration on this matter which is fine. I am glad the post was made to reveal our passion about the Bible. I want you on my side of the fence because of that passion of yours, but that will remain a wish for now.

    I can see clearly though, you have based your disbelief on certain truths that you believe, and one in particular. Because your presupposition of God condoning slavery, It will be very difficult to show you truth because of your firm grasp onto your views. After all, if I can show you that God doesn't condone slavery, then that might just unravel your entire thinking of God and to you, could be quite difficult. If you became an atheist because God condones slaves, among other things, then a disproof of that might get you back? One could only hope but the fight is still worth it.

    "Indeed, it was extremely progressive at the time! But the passages are clear regarding the existence, tolerance, endorsement, and even encouragement of the "bad" kind of slavery, too."

    I just don't see this evidence. What I see is a reluctant God bending to accommodate the free will of man. It's a command of "If you are to have slavery then this is how you must act."

    Are you at least willing to admit the very basic logic of 'One has to only go far as to think why the Jews left Egypt in the first place to see God's view of slavery,' as a start to understanding Him?

    If not then how could I possibly show you anything else? Your presupposition are firmly in place and I fully admit mine are also. But this doesn't have to be a stale mate either. One of us doesn't have to be necessarily wrong. We were not there and the culture back then was quite different, as you called it progressive. Because, taking your current beliefs, placed back then, you would be my slave. That is a frightening realization for anyone. But you could be rest assured that I would follow God's humane Laws and treat you right as a human and certainly not beat you to death. OK, maybe a little, as long as you get up in a day or so all would be good, right?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Pandora's box opened again?

    1) KJV "20And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free."

    carnally: fornication, appetites and passions of the body (as in willingly), then she shall be scourged: whipped.

    Not rape, Fail

    2) Not rape, Fail. eisegesis interpretation

    3) Not rape, Fail. Different subject: A master cannot beat with rage until dead, if the slave could get up in two days, which is one french toast of a beating mind you, then there would be no repercussions. The infraction could be theft to vague to come to conclusion of rape.

    4) 1 Peter 2:11 "...abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; " (don't lust and rape)

    1 Peter 2:13 "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;" (follow the laws set by man, be a good citizen, even slaves)

    1 Peter 2:17 "Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God." (Do the right thing even while being oppressed, it is the 'Christ like' thing to do)

    Not rape, Fail

    5) You remember Lot did the same thing to his daughters. The rights of hospitality were sacred in the East, and most highly regarded. That a man would defend, at the expense of his life, the stranger whom he had admitted under his roof, is true; but how a father could make such a proposal relative to his virgin daughter, must remain among those things which are incomprehensible. The woman would not go out to them, but her graceless husband forced her to go, in order that he might save his own body. He could have but little love for her, and this was the cause of their separation before.

    We are talking about God condoning rape and just because a man does doesn't mean it's of God.

    Rape yes, but not condoned by God. Fail

    6) Admittedly a very difficult verse. Calvin said "And he says, that the day would come to Jehovah, that they might know that they would suffer a just punishment when the Lord treated them in this manner; for men, we know, indulge themselves and seek pleasures, and when God seems not to deal kindly with them, they raise a clamor as though he were too severe."

    This was the detestable common practice to take the "spoils of war" back then, when taking over a city. These are the common calamities of war; in the lawless violence whereof those three commandments, "Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal," as they are ranked together in the law, so they are usually violated together; hence Isaiah 13:16

    Rape yes, directed by God. inconclusive (hey, that is what science does right)

    7) What I don't get is when it says "and they are discovered," so if they aren't then he is free? His word against hers? But you do see that if a man should commit a crime of rape then his punishment will be to marry that woman. Is that God condoning? No

    The message back then: You better be sure of who you rape because she will be your wife for life and that may be plenty of punishment, in itself. That was rude humor, sorry.

    Rape yes, but not condoned by God. Fail

    I see you pointed out Lot also, yea that is hard to grasp. Condoned by God?

    Concubines were a reality and I have no clue as to why. Convienience for population increase? no clue. The culture back then is so forign to me I couldn't even begin to give excuses for it. But condoned by God? I don't believe so. I have questions also I guss these comments will spare the "God doesn't condone rape" post.

    "I have shown you that Hebrews held slaves" I see that is what this was all for now, duh. Too much written now not to post this. I thought it was to prove that God condones rape, Oops. Yes free will of men was held as sacred and that might change after what we showed God how we abused that gift. I don't know if free will be a real part in the future. If these passages are any indication of how we treat each other given that freedom, I would fully understand if God removes all free will from us, for eternity. We are pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Damn. I had a post get eaten by the internet...

    I just don't see this evidence.

    Then open your eyes.

    The evidence for biblical endorsement of slavery -- "good" slavery and "bad" -- is undeniable. The fact that there are rules and regulations describing the acceptable practice of slavery, the fact that Israelites are given explicit instruction to commit genocide with the specific exception of keeping the virgin girls "for yourselves", and that there exist "concubines" all point to this undeniable truth.

    Your preferred method of gathering meaning from the bible -- reading it "plainly" -- can come to no other possible conclusion than the one I have repeated: the bible endorses slavery.

    If you still claim that your conclusions are due to "plain" readings, then I challenge you to explain your "reasoning".

    What I see is a reluctant God bending to accommodate the free will of man. It's a command of "If you are to have slavery then this is how you must act."

    Really? I didn't realize god was prone to "bending to accommodate the free will of man..."

    Even you must recognize just how preposterous this assertion is, and how you are clearly not applying a "plain" reading if you do indeed draw this conclusion.

    [Dan's thoughts]

    I don't like slavery, and I don't want the bible to endorse it, so what if god was just letting us do something we insisted on doing, and gave us some guidelines to make it a little more bearable to my conscience?

    [/thoughts]

    Strange that god would make this concession, but don't even think about having a blanket with no tassels, or weaving a jacket with two different threads, or eating meat with milk...

    Get real.

    Eisegesis.

    Are you at least willing to admit the very basic logic of 'One has to only go far as to think why the Jews left Egypt in the first place to see God's view of slavery,' as a start to understanding Him?

    Your premise is false. Your logic is not "basic", and is arguably not logic at all. For one, there is no evidence that the Exodus ever occurred, at least not in anything approaching the numbers we see in the bible (read: off by about four orders of magnitude, at the least). Even if we grant the Exodus as you would describe it, however, this says nothing for god's view of slavery, just for his view of the enslavement of his "chosen" people.

    If you really want to know what god evidently thought about slavery, read the damned passages that regulate, condone, and encourage slavery.

    Oh, right. I forgot. "Plainly" reading those passages, god isn't endorsing slavery, he's pandering to our desires.

    Honesty.

    I'm still waiting to see some from you in this discussion.

    One of us doesn't have to be necessarily wrong.

    Sorry, but it's too late to call, "truce". When your claim is that the "Bible Doesn't Condone Slavery", and mine is that the bible does condone slavery, somebody wins and somebody loses. We're not in kindergarten here.

    We were not there and the culture back then was quite different, as you called it progressive.

    We were not there, true. The culture was quite different, also true. I called it progressive? No. Read it again. I said that the rules regulating Hebrew-on-Hebrew slavery were progressive, and they were, but the rules regulating Hebrew-on-Gentile slavery were every bit as Draconian as every other backward-ass primitive culture around at the time.

    I just don't see this evidence.

    Are you blind, illiterate, or both? Or are you being dishonest and claiming a disability so you can get a better parking space?

    Perhaps some simple questions will make things easier. Each of the following are yes/no questions concerns "Bob", a fictitious Jew living in Israel during the period of the Judges. Each is based on the supposition that the bible is true, and each uses the bible as the answer key:

    1) Is Bob allowed to own slaves?

    2) Is Bob allowed to own concubines?

    3) Is a concubine a sex slave?

    4) Is Bob allowed to beat his slaves?

    5) Do Bob's slaves have legal recourse to his beatings, if they survive and can walk two days later?

    6) Is Bob allowed to rape his slaves?

    7) Is Bob allowed to offer his slaves to be raped by throngs of men more interested in having sex with a male guest?

    8) Is Bob encouraged to take concubines in the wake of a battle?

    9) If Bob rapes an unbetrothed free-woman, will that woman see justice?

    10) If Bob's "punishment" for raping the woman in (9) is minimal, is it unreasonable to expect that he wouldn't be punished for raping a slave?

    11) Does the bible condone slavery?


    Is that not enough?

    Can your "plain" reading of the bible answer these questions?


    --
    Stan










    (Answers: YYYYNYYYNNY)

    ReplyDelete
  66. Regarding my evidence supporting the contention that slaves were raped, your entire analysis fails.

    First, it is a cumulative case. I am showing that rape occurs, that the punishment for raping a free-woman is minimal (for the guy -- the poor girl is forced to live with her rapist for the rest of her life), and that mistreatment of slaves was commonplace and understood -- no punishment unless you basically kill the slave.

    With all of this in tow, and given the fact that slavery is encouraged, especially the enslavement of "virgin" Canaanite girls (while the rest of the survivors were slaughtered), a strong case looms that yes, female slaves were typically raped by their owners. It cannot fairly be argued that the sex was consensual, and it is absolutely true that concubines existed.

    What of Gibeah and Lot? These two accounts are further examples of the totalitarian control -- even over the sexual activity of his daughters -- a man had, and unless you're prepared to argue that Lot's daughters or the man from Gibeah's daughter and concubine consented to being gang-raped, I'd say the social rule was clearly that the master has control over his subjects -- including when and with whom they have sex.

    This cumulative case shows, much beyond a reasonable doubt, that female slaves and/or concubines were indeed raped, often enough that if it were considered socially or morally objectionable it should have been outlawed explicitly.

    Remember, there were laws forbidding sex with animals, laws forbidding the mixing of cotton with linen, laws forbidding sex with one's mother, daughter-in-law, and sister -- but nothing explicitly forbidding rape in all cases, and nothing forbidding non-lethal slave-beating.

    If you still insist that the "virgin" Canaanite girls enslaved in the aftermath of the Numbers 31 battle weren't raped or forced into concubinage (what's the difference?), then please explain what your "plain" reading suggests might be their fate.

    The silence on this subject is deafening. The cumulative case illustrates that sex with one's female slaves was one of the benefits of having female slaves. It shows that slave-holders were prone to having concubines, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that in this extremely sexist society the woman -- free-woman or not -- had any right to withhold sexual favors. Clearly, any woman so brave would be subjected to the Deuteronomy 21:20-21 rule...

    Yes, the bible condones slavery, and yes, female slaves were raped. Is this second practice also condoned? Not explicitly, or you probably wouldn't be a Christian today (either that, or you'd have a harem). The implicit statement, however, is that a slave-holder is well within his right to dictate the sexual fates of his daughters -- his daughters! -- much less his slaves/concubines.

    Remember, too, that in the story of the man from Gibeah, following a wonderful night full of sex, the concubine was killed, cut into twelve pieces, and the pieces were sent throughout Israel.

    I'm sure she consented to all of that.

    The unspoken, tacit approval of this man's actions indicates that a) the woman's sexual fate was his to determine, and b) murdering her was not subject to the sixth commandment, nor the law outlined in Deuteronomy 21:20-21. If either of these were false, then it's reasonable to expect the bible to say so.

    Can I prove definitively that slave-girls were raped?

    Yes, in the case of Gibeah.

    Can I prove that slaves were frequently mistreated?

    Yes, due to the explicit lack of punishment for non-lethal slave-beating, and supported by the phrasing of Hebrew-on-Hebrew slave regulations which entreat slave-holders to not rule over fellow Jews ruthlessly (implying that ruthless rule is allowed for non-Jew slaves).

    Can I prove that rape went unpunished in certain situations?

    Yes, by way of the law requiring a rapist to pay 50 shekels, and his victim to enjoy a lifetime of marriage to the asshole -- and this was a free-woman, not a slave-girl.

    Can I prove that the "virgin" girls taken in the Numbers 31 story were raped or forced into concubinage?

    No, but I can "plainly" read that passage.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  67. Quasar said
    "Hey Dan, say something stupid so I can stop TKing! "
    Dan replied:
    "By rigidly excluding Intelegent Design from science, Darwinists themselves impede scientific progress. (Working on the next post, umm good enough?)"

    Heh heh, more than good enough. I'll wait for the next post to respond: don't want to derail this one.

    Stan: Linked to Judges 19, New International Version.

    I think I'm going to be sick. This passage is not suitable for children. It is not suitable for anyone. I sincerely hope that awful story is a work of fiction.

    I can't begin to express how disgusted I am right now.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "Yes, due to the explicit lack of punishment for non-lethal slave-beating,"
    Exodus 21: 26"If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye.
    "And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.
    Seems to me that if they did any permanent damage the slave would earn his freedom

    "which entreat slave-holders to not rule over fellow Jews ruthlessly"
    So if I tell you to be nice to the employees in the building that means you can be cruel to everyone else?
    Just wow.

    1)there is nothing in the passage that says it was not considered adultery
    2)I agree. they probaly kept the virgins as servants
    3)And we see elsewhere in Exodus 21 that if the slaves got any permanet damage they were allowed to go free
    4)
    5)
    6)
    Were answered by Dan
    7)read properly: "HE must marry the girl" HE and not SHE.This is the privilege of the girl to demand marriage. She or her father can refuse to marry .

    I found this from some Jewish source.
    First of all, [the] raper should pay 50 shekels of silver (quite big amount of money) - Deuteronomy 22:28. Then girl can demand him marriage and he could NEVER DIVORCE HER (note HE and not SHE), if she will refuse to marry, then raper should pay money that [is] used to write Ketuba- marriage contract - Ex 22:17 (in modern Israel it's for example average is about 100 - 200 thousand $).

    Wow "merely 50 sheckels"

    ReplyDelete
  69. Seems to me that if they did any permanent damage the slave would earn his freedom

    So we agree that there is no punishment for non-lethal beatings which produce only temporary wounds. How noble.

    So if I tell you to be nice to the employees in the building that means you can be cruel to everyone else?
    Just wow.


    So if you take things completely out of context and twist them, and end your trite non-statement with false exasperation, it's profound?

    Just wow.

    Since you evidently have never read the bible you are defending, I'll requote it for you:

    You can will [Gentile slaves] to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

    To put this into the same analogy you pushed, this would be like saying that 'you can mercilessly work the mail-room attendants until they pass out, but don't over-work your fellow engineers.'

    Yes, ruthlessness toward these acceptable slaves is implicitly approved. Learn to read.

    As to your "answers" to my evidence, you, like Dan, failed to address them as cumulative. Try again.

    Regarding the nature of your "question" regarding rape of slaves, what was your point? Are you still denying that slavery is endorsed in the bible, or are you still trying to sell us a red herring?

    Now, one thing I loved about your "answers" was the way you pretended that your answer to (1) didn't apply to your answer to (7). In fact, I recall your first response to me, in which you countered your own argument for (7):

    Again the passage never says this.

    Item 1 of the list in question illustrated the fact that the sex with slaves was common enough that a rule was put into place to protect men to whom a particular slave had been promised. The sex was clearly extramarital in nature, and if it was considered adultery, then why a second rule? Adultery was already prohibited...

    Your answer hides behind the ambiguity stemming from the absence of discussion regarding adultery: you deny the implicit.

    Item 7, at the other end of the list, illustrates the fact that rape was not especially punished, at least in certain circumstances. In addition to your scoffing at a "mere 50 shekels", you quickly violated your own principle by asserting that the woman had some magical right to refuse a marriage to her rapist.

    Again the passage never says this.

    Indeed, everything we know about this culture says that women had no effective rights. Remember Gibeah and Lot? Are you saying, with what I must assume is a straight face, that a woman subjected to rape has rights after her rape that she doesn't have before it?

    Heh. I'm laughing just trying to picture you squirming your way out of that.

    As to your scoff regarding how amazingly expensive 50 shekels was, you apparently believe that instead of prison, a rapist should instead be subjected to a $100-200k fine, and the woman should be given the opportunity to demand a divorce-free marriage?

    No?

    I'm laughing just trying to picture you squirming your way out of that.

    Incidentally, your suggestion that a shekel of silver was worth $20-40k is off by five orders of magnitude. At least. What? That's just what you wanted us to think? No? Is that what you thought?

    Your uncited source is describing the price stipulated in the Ketuba -- not the value of 50 silver shekels. Perhaps that's just my ability to "plainly" read...

    If you really want to go down this road, I'm sure we can find some biblical passages that identify prices for certain objects, and we can compare them against the price of rape...

    Regarding the actual value of the shekel, a secular source I found (here) claims that the biblical value of the half-shekel cannot be known, but that the modern value of that amount of silver would be ~$5 -- which would put 50 shekels at ~$500.

    A Christian site I found (here) states that the shekel's value can be determined, and puts 50 silver shekels at 12 GBPs -- about $19.

    Whatever the value of the shekel, I daresay that fifty of them is a small price to pay for the crime of rape. Or did you want to look up prices?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  70. Stan,

    "Remember, there were laws forbidding sex with animals, laws forbidding the mixing of cotton with linen, laws forbidding sex with one's mother, daughter-in-law, and sister -- but nothing explicitly forbidding rape in all cases, and nothing forbidding non-lethal slave-beating."

    Excellent and touché. How I can possibly defend against this, is beyond me. It's a culture with reasoning that is absolutely foreign to us. Keep in mind a culture that did not survive the times. Rome and Egypt's Empires crumbled also. I give credit to God for all of that. I have questions also, like we discussed in the past, the difference is that I trust God to explain things at a later time and I trust Him to do the right and just thing to all.

    Mankind has learned from some of it's mistakes, we shouldn't be faulted for that. We are constantly trying to improve ourselves in being humane and more Christ like. We can see clearly in those Old Testament days how foreign it really was, and that kind of world no longer exists because of God's constant intervening and guiding us to Him. (although atheists may credit mankind for that) Even in that very foreign world we read about, we see how alive the Bible is and how relevant it is to this very day and that billions these days are literally being changed because of that very supernatural book. Logic would tell all of us that the Bible is a very positive book for mankind. The second greatest gift for all of us.

    As far as your brilliant questions about good ol Bob, I see out of the 11 questions most are a soft yes. It's unfathomable and unexplainable, and for me, quite frustrating to explain. That, again, I cannot explain but God can and will, I have faith in that, and for now I can only stand on faith.

    You are absolutely correct one of us is wrong. I perfectly understand that there is always someone that loses on the other side of truth but I have said many times that it takes far more love to confront then to ignore the situation, perfect love is a constant confronter. So I see us both confronting with love and there could be nothing but good that comes from that.

    MrFreeThinker,

    Wow "merely 50 sheckels"

    Exactly. I didn't know how much that was until now, so thanks. No money could cover that type of behavior, at all ever, but I would imagine since some dude that did that, and that couldn't pay the specified amount of 50 shekels, he would become an immediate slave to the father of that girl.

    Stan again,

    " like Dan, failed to address them as cumulative"

    Please explain your logic behind this accumulative insistence? I don't see the need for it, but I am curious. These were separate situations and separate rules for each, separate times even. They, if deemed problematic for the Bible could easily be omitted but they were not. I understand how the cumulative would convince you but what's the logical reasoning behind it?

    Remember that Lot's daughters raped Lot also, which is as equal of a disturbing situation as Judges 19. As Quasar, I too am sick at some of these images from those situations. I absolutely agree, it is not suitable for anyone. So why were they kept in there? Integrity of truth, that is what happened so that is what was written. Any of us could think of better ways to sway people towards God with our keyboards but that would not be the truth as in the Bible. Intact without apology, perfect. It sure keeps us all, 2000 some odd years later, still inquiring the reality of this Book. The Bible is, after all, Supernatural.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Stan,

    "Regarding the actual value of the shekel,..."

    I would like to know the amounts if that would be possible. A large amount that couldn't be repaid would be a very fitting punishment for someone that rapes a girl only to become her fathers slave. That also would explain the two day period for beating a slave. If a man raped my daughter and became my slave I would beat him close to his death also. Keep in mind I have issues, but it poses a great question that warrants real good research. Anyone know the truth on this one?

    Thanks both of you for this epiphany moment.

    How much is a shekel?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Stan: good work. Kudos for your persistence.

    Dan: bravo. Keep thinking. It's the believers- and the atheists- who blindly follow authorities, and don't open their eyes, who are a danger to what is good in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  73. First, Dan, I applaud your change in tone -- you are obviously wrestling with what the bible says versus what you believe it should say, and while it is absolutely true that there are some good qualities to the bible, it is also absolutely true that there are some very dark qualities as well.

    In any case, you are beginning to display the honesty which, when it chooses to come out of hiding, is what keeps many of us around.

    Thanks.

    You said:

    A large amount that couldn't be repaid would be a very fitting punishment for someone that rapes a girl only to become her fathers slave.

    But think a little more about what you're saying, and think about what that says about the culture under discussion.

    What is the punishment for being a rebellious drunkard of a son?

    What is the punishment for adultery?

    What is the punishment for kidnapping?

    --> Death, in each case.

    Why is the rape of an unbetrothed virgin treated differently?

    Think, too, on the fact that you're providing a method by which the very rich could escape punishment for this most vile of crimes, yet the not-so-rich could not.

    Consider your favorite actress/supermodel. Let's assume she's unwed, and not engaged, and that you encounter her somewhere, with 50 shekels burning a hole in your pocket. Since polygyny (one man, multiple wives) is common and acceptable, your own marital status is immaterial. You could rape her, pay the fine, and there even exists the off-chance that you might gain her as a wife.

    Doesn't that encourage the rape of hot unwed girls by rich playboys? Do you really think that's "a very fitting punishment for someone that rapes a girl"? As a father, would your demand for justice be satisfied if a poor man raped your daughter versus a rich man?

    Don't worry, I'm not pressing this, but I would recommend that you think a little harder about just what your thought process implies. In a culture where certain relatively minor offenses could incur the death penalty (by stoning, no less -- not quick and painless, I'd wager), to have this offense be subjected only to a fine is pretty striking.

    If the goal is to enslave the rapist because the fine is too high, then remove the fine, and enslave the rapist.

    That clearly is not the goal.

    Anyway...

    The shekel's actual value may not be possible to determine, in terms of dollars or any other modern currency, but we can make some inferences based on the values of other objects/people in the OT.

    Genesis 23:15-16: A small field with a cave is worth 400 shekels (land value was based on the cost of planting it with seed).

    Genesis 37:28: Joseph was sold for 20 shekels.

    Exodus 21:32: A killed slave is worth 30 shekels.

    Leviticus 27: Dedicating a person to god's service ranges in price from 3 to 50 shekels, depending on age and gender. Also in this passage, a plot of land's value is based on the amount of seed required to plant it -- 50 shekels of silver per homer (listed in this bible as ~6 bushels of seed).

    Deuteronomy 22:19: A man who lies about his new wife's virginity is fined 100 shekels of silver, and forbidden from divorcing her.

    Deuteronomy 22:29: The verse in question -- a man who rapes an unbetrothed virgin must pay a fine of 50 silver shekels, and must marry the girl.

    Judges 16:5: Delilah is offered 1100 silver shekels each from the rulers of the Philistines for the secret to Samson's strength.

    1 Kings 10:29: A chariot imported from Egypt cost 600 silver shekels, and a horse to drive it cost 150 shekels.


    Now, I'm no Econ major, but I know plenty of people who own multiple horses, and they didn't pay $100k for any of them, and they likewise don't sell them for that much. It stands to reason that a man could afford a horse in those days, or that it was at the least an attainable goal. Raping a girl cost 1/3 the price of an imported horse -- that fine could be paid by most men.

    Likewise, a slave was worth less than the cost to rape a girl, and we know lots of people owned lots of slaves.

    We can also assume there were land-owners, and by virtue of the price assigned to dedicated land in the Leviticus passage, we can safely assume that most land was valued at much more than 50 shekels -- especially at the harvest.

    The one that stands out the most to me is the one which immediately precedes the fateful verse in question -- the one where some guy marries a girl, sleeps with her, and then lies about her virginity so he can get out of it. Notice the presumption of guilt on the part of the bride, and that if the man is proven wrong, he is fined 100 shekels -- twice the amount he would have paid if he had merely raped her, and in either case he's stuck married to her.

    It really sounds like guys who rape unbetrothed virgins get off pretty lightly...


    Dan, my cumulative case wasn't meant to say that raping slaves was explicitly endorsed, or even that it was implicitly endorsed -- just that it happened, it was pretty common, and that if it were a crime, given the weird laws we see throughout the OT, we should have seen this outlawed as well.

    MFT had requested, for reasons only he knows, that I provide evidence of slave-raping if I had any. I did, and I offered it. Some of that evidence is explicit, as in Gibeah, and some of it doesn't strictly apply to slaves, as in Lot and this passage in Deuteronomy, but all of it together paints a pretty clear picture that slave-girls were raped by their masters, if their masters so chose, and that this was well within the rights of the master.

    Any modern jury would find that slave-girls were raped, and that at the least this society turned a blind eye to it. If you're still not convinced, look at the reaction to the Gibeah story -- no remorse for the concubine whatsoever. The offense was at the notion that the man was threatened, and even if we claim that the girl's fate fueled that anger, no one spoke up regarding the man's actions: offering her to the horde, and killing her after the inevitable outcome was realized.

    So...

    I have shown that:

    1) The bible endorses slavery.

    2) Slaves were prone to mistreatment, with no recourse.

    3) A female slave's sexual fate was determinable by her master.

    4) Raping an unbetrothed virgin free-woman was cheaper than buying an imported horse. One could rape three such women at that price.

    5) There was something special about virgin girls in the aftermath of a battle, such that they were spared and enslaved, while all other survivors were slaughtered.

    6) Not once were any of these denounced.

    Think about it however you like. I don't have to have any presuppositions in place to draw the conclusions I have, I only have to apply a technique involving "plain" reading of the text.

    What is it you are applying?

    MFT claims that I'm applying eisegesis and "perverted readings" to say that the girls taken in the Numbers 31 account were probably raped and/or disrobed, but you know that this is untrue. Recalling our conversation regarding incest, it is not perversion, but reality. In order for untrained warriors to identify women as virgins -- especially when it was in the woman's best interest to proclaim her virginity -- these warriors had to perform some sort of inspection. Look, I didn't write it. It's there, and that's the sick reality if we are really to believe such a thing took place.

    Eisegesis? No, that's when you claim that the women probably went to the temple, or when you insist that they couldn't have been raped because it isn't explicitly stated in the text.

    Whatever. I rest my case, reserving the right to call rebuttal witnesses and/or dispute new evidence.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  74. Stan,

    "Think, too, on the fact that you're providing a method by which the very rich could escape punishment for this most vile of crimes, yet the not-so-rich could not."

    Seems like status quo these days. Nothing new here.

    "Doesn't that encourage the rape of hot unwed girls by rich playboys?"

    Valid, I hate you.

    "If the goal is to enslave the rapist because the fine is too high, then remove the fine, and enslave the rapist."

    Agreeable basic logic, but difficult to know the why's.

    "but we can make some inferences based on the values of other objects/people in the OT."

    Possibly, but there were different shekels gold, silver, etc. which does make it difficult.

    So...

    we conclude:

    1) The bible "regulates" slavery.
    2) Valid
    3) False, there were consequences set forth by God.
    4) Inconclusive
    5) Valid
    6) Inconclusive, God not wanting His people enslaved, intervened.

    "Whatever. I rest my case"

    Compelling case it was also. I am uncertain if the jury would side with me at this point and you have shown some reasonable doubt in some points. This by all means doesn't mean your claims are fact or trustworthy. You still could be very mistaken and I just am missing the truth. As in a real court case the winner is the one that does their homework. You have shown that you actually have, to back up your worldview. Facts are relevant to the case, if only they are discovered. It's obvious I need to do more research and will probably appeal this at a later date. I am not sure at this point if you are a formidable opponent or if I failed to gather the facts correctly. I may have been my worst enemy here. Either way, you did a good job and I didn't.

    I failed to debunk you. Now, is there a revolver in the house?

    ReplyDelete
  75. I think stan is failing to acknowlege the society at that time. Let's say a girl gets raped, her rapist is killed. Nobody wants to marry the girl as she is dishonored and her father doesn't want her around.The girl has no support.
    This way the girl gets married, her father gets his dowry paid,the girl has support and she can refuse marriage or divorce him is she doesn't like him.
    If you were such a rich playboy ,couldn't you just pay the dowry and avoid the hassle and get married?

    ReplyDelete
  76. "If you're still not convinced, look at the reaction to the Gibeah story -- no remorse for the concubine whatsoever. "
    No remorse -stan did you read the passage
    Look at Judges 19 and 20
    Even at the end of Judges 19 they strees that such cruelty had not happened since they left Egypt.
    All the tribes of Isreal gathered to punish these rapists for their crime.

    "No remorse".......

    ReplyDelete
  77. MFT, you, sir, are an eisegetical liar.

    In one foul breath you have ignored the fact that a woman who is raped was killed if she didn't scream, and asserted that the reason her rapist wasn't killed was to retain some semblance of the primitive notion of "honor".

    Remember what happens if the woman is raped out in the sticks? She isn't killed because no one was around to hear her screams. Nevermind that screaming while being raped doesn't bode well for your survival rate, and just ignore completely your ignoble proclamation -- justice is not served.

    You have added this notion that the woman could refuse the marriage, or that she could later divorce the man. These additions are unsupported by any means available -- marriages were arranged in many cases, and what you claim is never stated in the text.

    You jumped down my throat for suggesting that the warriors in Numbers 31 may have disrobed or raped their virgin captives, despite the fact that my exegesis was based on reality, and you immediately applied eisegesis by claiming that the girls were taken to work at the temple.

    I'm not adding to the text -- you are.

    The text is clear.

    Dan, you asked about the different shekels, which is a valid question, but fortunately it is one I considered when identifying those examples. Each of the examples I cited involved shekels of silver. Obviously, gold shekels were even more valuable, so I suppose I could've included examples of those as well, but I didn't even look for them, so I don't know if they exist. Suffice it to say that one imported Egyptian horse is worth three raped Jewish maidens.

    Back to MFT. You still haven't directly addressed any of the points I've yet made, and as even Dan has admitted, they are compelling. Even with his admitted bias, he could not outright deny any of my six final statements (the third one doesn't count -- I wasn't talking about god's later judgment), much though he undoubtedly tried.

    Furthermore, you continue your lies by claiming Judges 20 is about the rape -- it is not. That story is clearly about hospitality, and the only remorse (in the form of vengeance) was concerning the sleight on the man. I'd suggest that you re-read it, but I'm guessing that won't help in your case. You tend to just assign whatever meaning you want and claim that any contrary conclusion is adding to the text...

    What the hell did he expect would happen to the concubine when he offered her to them to be raped? How the hell can you possibly defend that story?

    Even at the end of Judges 19 they strees (sic) that such cruelty had not happened since they left Egypt.

    Their shock was due to the man's dismemberment of his concubine. You bore me.

    All the tribes of Isreal gathered to punish these rapists for their crime.

    Why was the woman raped? Did no one fault the man who offered her, and later cut her into little pieces?

    As I noted, you may claim that the desire for vengeance was fueled by the rape, but the fact is that the man who cast his concubine into the throng was never rebuked, and it didn't seem to bother the assembled posse that the man himself is the one to have killed and carved up the poor girl.

    Don't piss down my neck and tell me it's raining. Nobody gave a rat's ass about that slave girl. If they had, she may have survived the ordeal -- she may even have avoided the rape.

    Now did you have a point, MFT, or are you just playing my befuddled patsy? Do you make arguments, or do you peddle red herrings and interject?

    Cheers.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  78. Because I hate to lose I want to leave it this way

    I don't let my feelings guide what I want to be true, or hope to be true. I let the Word of God speak to me.

    I just read something unrelated to this subject I I will fit it for this purpose also.

    "Therefore, we can see that God foresees man's sinfulness, and even uses evil in His divine plan. This is not to say that God approves of the evil people do. It is just that God is not surprised by people's sinful choices, and He is able to use them to His glory and purpose."(carm)

    Plus, in my search I found this article that was very thorough and contemplated humbly. This gentleman came to the same conclusion that I have but in a more educated and exhaustive study. I knew, just knew I wasn't wrong but I didn't have all the facts. This rather detailed study connects the fact quite well.

    Does God condone slavery in the Bible? OT and Does God condone slavery in the Bible? NT

    God doesn't Condone Slavery!

    ReplyDelete
  79. Dan: Big copngrats on your honesty. It's a wonderful thing to see. Although I admit, I may just be congratulating you because you conceded to some of the things "my side" said. Even so: ability to accept your own limitations, especially in debate, is something I respect.

    Personally, I think that the bible must be taken in context. No matter whether it's devine or not, it's various books were written by and for members of a racist, sexist, violent and ignorant civilisation, and they reflect that.

    This is why I oppose fundimentalism. Not questioning and simply obeying the writings of such a civilisation is foolish at best, evil at worst. I have nothing against faith, and think religon has a lot to offer, and it may even be party to some 'spiritual' truths that my skeptical mind is not privy to. But it must be interpreted in the context of modern society.

    In modern society, slavery, racism and sexism are all wrong. This is an example of us accepting modern ethics over ancient ethics, or if you prefer, interpreting the ancient in light of the modern. But modern society is also coming to accept other practices such as homosexuality, premarital sex, etc... and many of the same type of people who opposed the abolution of slavery, equal rights for women, etc. are now again refusing to accept the changes in society and calling upon the ethics of that ancient, violent civilisation to support their position.

    Despite my atheism, I don't think it's impossible to reconcile faith with modern ethics: if Jesus had said that women should have equal rights, he would have been crucified a whole lot sooner, and probably by his own followers. He wasn't stupid: maybe hiding his words in parables allowed us mortals to grow our own ethics, and come to a true understanding of right and wrong, rather than just doing as we are told?

    I don't know: I'm not a bible scholar, I'm not even a theist. But I think that Jesus, were he raised in todays society, would not be the sort of man to follow the beliefs of those 2000 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Valid points, Quasar.

    The last line of the article agree's with you I believe and claimed:

    "So, it is incorrect to say that the bible "condones slavery" (in the modern connotation of that phrase)."

    ReplyDelete
  81. Sorry, Dan, I read the two links you posted, which try to make the case that the Bible does not condone slavery, and I was not convinced. There are several problems with Miller's approach. One- he spends a lot of time quoting non-Biblical sources for information about what various kinds of slavery were like, as MrFreeThinker also did here. This is not pertinent- while interesting, it has nothing to do with what the Bible says is allowed and not allowed. Two- Miller made elaborate excuses for why Paul and others did not condemn slavery, none of which hold water- if Paul can find time to say that women should not be allowed to speak in church, and Leviticus found time to condemn wearing linsey-woolsey, then it would have been a snap to say something like "Thou shalt not hold slaves". As far as the "not wanting to rock the boat" excuse goes, this is plainly ridiculous: cannot God tell it like it is? He said all kinds of unpopular and uncomfortable things through His prophets- what about Jesus telling us to give all we have to the poor? And third- Miller simply makes outrageous comparisons.

    Here's an example: Miller quotes Exodus 21:26-27:

    "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth."

    He then goes on to say:

    And the above prescription is also instructive, in comparison to today: whereas typical insurance programs will pay 50% of maximum disability for 'loss of a single eye', they pay nothing for the loss of a tooth…(smile).

    Hello? We're not talking about accidents on a job here, but assault and battery. Today, if your employer hit you and knocked out a tooth, he would have more to worry about than paying for the tooth: he would go to jail. How can you take this guy seriously?

    Sorry, I'll stick with the plain reading of the Bible, as so well laid out by Stan: slavery existed in both the Old and the New Testament, and it was regulated, but most certainly condoned. And while it was not the same as the kind of slavery we had in the American South, it was slavery nonetheless, and something that no good person nowadays would condone. No excuse for God here.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Zilch,

    "Comment?"

    lol, sorry.

    We have each others opinions what more is there to say. Both give compelling arguments.

    Would it be fair as to what Miller said at the end:

    "So, it is incorrect to say that the bible "condones slavery" (in the modern connotation of that phrase)."

    ReplyDelete
  83. Dan- depends on how wide or narrow your definition of "slavery" is. For me, "slavery" means "working without being allowed to quit" and "being the property of someone". Biblical slavery qualifies on both counts.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Zilch,

    Would it also be fair to say that words of today have completely different meanings or depths.

    The word science today has a whole host of different connotations then back in the OT days. I believe that is the crust of what Miller was saying.

    Because we have an American history of slavery we view those situations of African slavery and associate it with the OT meaning of slavery. Where we view slavery as barbaric ownership in the OT days it was the slave himself that initiated the transaction to pay of debts.

    As to your comment:
    "Hello? We're not talking about accidents on a job here, but assault and battery"

    California recently tried to pass a bill that stated if I spank my child it would be assault and battery but thankfully it was shot down. Otherwise we would have different viewpoint on the same subject. So logically couldn't we come to the same conclusion about the OT slavery days? We view it as wrong as they view it as just another everyday thing.

    A thought of Lucifer effect came to mind but I just don't know if that would apply to slavery in those days, but it bears mentioning.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Thanks for the link, Dan. It looks interesting, and I'll watch the video when I get time.

    You say:

    So logically couldn't we come to the same conclusion about the OT slavery days? We view it as wrong as they view it as just another everyday thing.

    The question is, if slavery is wrong today, was it not also wrong in the past? Does God change His mind about what is wrong, or about how fast He can expect people to change their wrongdoing? Either way, it seems a strange position for the Father of Creation.

    It's much more plausible to see right and wrong as evolved entities, and we have evolved culturally to the point where much that was considered acceptable in the past is now considered unacceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  86. And Dan: I know you've retracted your claim that Darwin condoned slavery, but I was just rereading The Voyage of the Beagle (highly recommended, by the way) and came across another passage I thought you should hear. Darwin is describing a place near the Lagoa Marica, in Brazil:

    This spot is notorious for having been, for a long time, the residence of some runaway slaves, who, by cultivating a little ground near the top, contrived to eke out a subsistence. At length they were discovered, and a party of soldiers being sent, the whole were seized with the exception of one old woman, who, sooner than again be led into slavery, dashed herself to pieces from the summit of the mountain. In a Roman matron this would have been called the noble love of freedom: in a poor negress it is mere brutal obstinacy.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Dan, if you're going to link to Glenn Miller's eisegetical lies, you should at least read what he says, and compare it with what I've outlined -- using not only sparse references to the bible, Jewish scholarship, etc., but actually using a concordance.

    Miller lies repeatedly by conflating the treatment of Hebrew slaves with the treatment of Gentile slaves. He constantly suggests that the laws which explicitly apply only to Hebrew slaves somehow also apply to Gentile slaves.

    Furthermore, his claims regarding women's rights -- as slaves or as free-women -- as being anything approaching progressive is easily shown to be false, especially considering the way a Hebrew woman was provided "justice" if she were raped while unbetrothed. There were no women's rights worth mention, and no, women didn't get a vote in a given arranged marriage.

    The facts are -- given a "plain" reading of the text -- that Gentile slaves were bought and sold with explicit endorsement of Mosaic law, that they were slaves indefinitely (including across generations of owners), that they were prone to beatings, that they were ruled over ruthlessly, that their sexual fates were under the control of their masters, and that no matter what bullshit rainbow-paint Glenn Miller colors it with, it was awful.

    Given the fact that the bible finds the time to regulate some truly silly shit -- linen with cotton, as a simple example -- and given the theocratic state of Israelite government, there is absolutely no valid reason for god to have avoided giving a rule forbidding slavery. None. This was god's chosen people, remember? The laws were dictated directly to Moses, remember?

    Why was the eating of pork forbidden? Some (including Dan, if I remember correctly) would erroneously suggest this is related to the likelihood of succumbing to trichinosis, but due to the fact that every other ANE culture ate pork, and survived, we can be fairly certain that proper cooking practices took place. Anyway, trichinosis is no less a danger than e. coli or salmonella, and I don't see any restrictions on beef or chicken...

    The prohibition on eating pork, the prohibition on mixing linen with cotton in clothing, and the various other absolutely ridiculous rules (up to and including god's bloodlust with respect to "sin" -- as if killing an animal has any real value to god whatsoever) all illustrate that this god had ample opportunity to have definitively decreed slavery to be a forbidden practice. Likewise, actual justice in the case of rape should have been offered, and women's rights -- equality of the sexes -- should have been embraced.

    Instead, we see no such thing, and we even see the opposite.

    Miller's efforts at twisting scripture to support his personal disgust toward the practice of slavery succeeds only in duping those who want to be duped: Dan and his friends.

    Read the scripture yourself and respond. Miller's bullshit eisegesis proves nothing more than the lengths to which Christians will go in order to defend a vile practice their god could just as easily have forbidden, but instead endorsed.

    The "Bible Doesn't Condone Slavery"? Fine. It doesn't "condone" it, it outright endorses it.

    What do you call a Jew in Moses' era who didn't own slaves? Poor.

    I've demonstrated in this very thread that not only is slavery endorsed, regulated, and encouraged, but owning a slave was cheap.

    Miller's article is great at showing how full of rainbows and unicorns the life of a slave may have been, but it doesn't remotely resemble the reality as described in the bible.

    As I said: read it yourself. Read not only the text in whatever translation you prefer, but look also at a concordance, and see just what is being said. I really thought we had settled this, and as you continue to deny the reality, you also shrivel what amount of integrity you yet have.

    Remember, too, that where Miller makes claims that allegedly agree with scripture, so do Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. Anyone can perform eisegesis, but to uncover it, you actually have to read, not just note that the conclusion agrees with your presupposition.

    Slavery not condoned in the bible? You, sir, have been truly and thoroughly debunked. I think you should change your blog's title to "Atheists Debunking".

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  88. "Read the scripture yourself and respond. Miller's bullshit eisegesis "
    So when informed writers like Glenn Miller take the time to read the relevant scholarship and understand ANE cultural backgrounds and sociological data it is "bullshit eisegesis". But when you read it plainly you get the proper reading right...

    ReplyDelete
  89. Zilch,

    Thanks for the quote from Darwin. It was a beautiful point made by the man. But what struck me was the last part

    " In a Roman matron this would have been called the noble love of freedom: in a poor negress it is mere brutal obstinacy."

    Even this act would be considered the complete opposite in a different time and culture than that of Darwin's (and others) viewpoint. So what does that tell us? Cultures were viewed differently back then. What was once noble and fair would be detestable these days. Just a mere 40 years ago by having a president that was black would of caused riots in the streets for years. We as a people are evolving (did I say that) to attempt a more humane culture that strives to do what is right and fair and civil although we are even failing to this very hour. I wonder how the people back then would view abortions. Would they be considered barbaric in certain cultures in the past?

    The RCC considered the crusades to be perfectly in line with God's will or doing the "right" thing. How can we even comprehend those acts as humane and righteous and Godly at any point of any cultures time!? It comes down to justification to ourselves. When we compare each other by each others standards we all seem to be good "at least I am not as bad as he is" mentality. We must be compared to the righteous and eternal standard of God's Law.

    Stan,

    I disagree with you, I also fully understand your points. If we are to compare today's society to the past societies we must ask ourselves, are we being fair? How easy it is today to consider slavery wrong and yet less then 145 years ago it was widely accepted. Like the Bible, American slavery wasn't even considered slavery back then. It was called indentured servitude and it was a means of using labor to pay the costs of transporting people to the colonies. (Sound familiar?) We even have photo's in 1863 of the depiction of Exodus 21:21. People fought to the death for the belief that slavery was perfectly fine. Some experts say the death toll reached 700,000 in the Civil War so we cannot stand here holier then the Bible (Stan) and say we know better and are wiser. People get it wrong and we move on. The mentality hasn't changed much from 4000 years ago (Biblical Days) and 40 years ago. (American mentality) Are we really much better then those Biblical days? Logically?

    MrFreeThinker,

    Bless you and thank you for that level head of yours.

    ReplyDelete
  90. So when informed writers like Glenn Miller take the time to read the relevant scholarship and understand ANE cultural backgrounds and sociological data it is "bullshit eisegesis". But when you read it plainly you get the proper reading right...

    Strange... I thought reading the scripture plainly was Dan's mantra...

    Anyway, to answer your "question": No. Taking the time to read and understand the scholarship, history, and sociological data is not eisegesis -- bullshit or otherwise. Using that data to insert one's belief into what is plainly stated in the bible, however, is eisegesis. Inclusion of the descriptive adjective is up to you.

    Read his article, and read it alongside the scriptures I've cited.

    Miller's conflation of the treatment of Hebrew slaves with the treatment of Gentile slaves is inexcusable, considering his alleged "informed" status.

    I don't care if you don't believe me -- just do your own research. Making an uninformed claim is in bad taste, and sticking by that uninformed claim in the wake of countervailing evidence is obstinacy, but Miller's actions go further -- they are outright lies.

    Need proof? Check it out for yourself:

    Freedom could be bought by relatives

    Not true -- this only applied to Hebrews who had voluntarily sold themselves to wealthy aliens.

    The servant could buy his own freedom, whether the master WANTED to let him go or not

    Note two things here -- Miller has cited the same verse in successive arguments (Lev. 25:49), and the problem with the first statement remains.

    Every 7th year (the Sabbath year), all servants were to automatically go free--without ANY payment of money to the master

    No. Miller either cannot read, or is willfully deceiving his readers. "All" servants, Glenn? Try Hebrew servants, and try being honest.

    Minor injuries due to abusive treatment automatically resulted in immediate freedom (this is actually labeled as 'to compensate', implying rights/duties/debt)

    This one I'll grant -- but Miller sets himself up for failure in light of Exodus 21:21, which "implies" that slave-holders may beat their slaves without punishment, so long as the slave can walk two days later (and, apparently, as long as the slave has no visibly "permanent" damage). Of course, Miller's idea of "minor" injury is a bit more liberal than mine... Losing an eye is minor? A tooth? Surviving such an injury would be no small miracle -- an abscessed tooth was a death sentence through the Dark Ages.

    When freedom was granted at the Sabbath year or Year of Jubilee, the master was obligated to send them out with liberal gifts--to allow them to occupy the land in sufficiency again

    Dear Glenn: Your repeated pretense when depicting the lives of slaves as rainbows and unicorns is dishonesty. The passage above, like most of the "happy" slavery passages you cite, applies only to Hebrew slaves -- not Gentile slaves.

    Please stop lying, and as an aside, I really wish your peers would critically assess your article rather than accepting it based on its conclusions.

    Love, Stan.

    Summary: In the OT we have NO REASON to believe that God condoned chattel slavery, and indeed, we have substantial bodies of data and argument to support the contrary--that God desired the freedom of all men and women within the covenant community ruled by Him.

    Really, Glenn? I wonder why your article conveniently only quotes the last part of Leviticus 25:46 -- the part after the inheritance clause...

    Read it.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  91. Stan- thanks for your fisking of Miller. Don't you have a day job?

    Dan- you say:

    The RCC considered the crusades to be perfectly in line with God's will or doing the "right" thing. How can we even comprehend those acts as humane and righteous and Godly at any point of any cultures time!?

    Have you ever read 1 Samuel 15? I'd love to hear your exegesis of it. Or are you saying that you can't comprehend God's orders as being "humane and righteous"? I can't either.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Stan,

    " Miller's actions go further -- they are outright lies.

    Need proof? Check it out for yourself:

    Freedom could be bought by relatives"


    He claims right before "Freedom could be bought by relatives"

    He said: "OT: One of the more amazing things about Hebrew servant-status was how 'easy' it was to get free!"

    He said this to counter the claim of "Slavery was forever. There were never any means of obtaining freedom stipulated in the arrangement. In the cases of an owner granting freedom, it was generally a 'bare bones' release--no property went with the freedman."

    Isn't that what Leviticus 25:47-50 claims to be truth? Or am I missing a point your making? Miller did not lie about Leviticus 25 that I can see.

    Zilch,

    I will get back to you about 1 Samuel 15.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I'm waiting on tenterhooks, Dan.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Zilch

    About 1 Samuel 15:

    Nothing could justify such an exterminating decree but the absolute authority of God. This was given: all the reasons of it we do not know, but this we know well: The Judge of all the earth doth right. Keep in mind that this war was not for plunder, God commanded that all the property as well as all the people should be destroyed.

    (Verse 10-11) "Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying, It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king:"

    That is, I placed him on the throne I intended, if he had been obedient, to have established his kingdom. He has been disobedient, I change my purpose, and the kingdom shall not be established in his family. This is what is meant by God's repenting by changing a purpose according to conditions already laid down or mentally determined.

    We determine the course that will follow. God sets things up both good and bad. If we defy Him we get punished, If we listen and follow Him we get rewarded. Just like any good father to his children would. Although I cannot fully understand the why's. I can definitely see the anger that God has.

    "but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

    Now that is very angry indeed. Lot's wife along with Sodom and Gomorrah comes to mind. If they only listened to God this wouldn't of happened. Even in our own military, the punishment to disobey a direct order during a war is death.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Sorry I was going to put the emphasis on "all the property" instead of "should be destroyed."

    ReplyDelete
  96. Dan, Miller's lie in that case was by omission and by improper association. In the section in question, he is ostensibly answering the following objection:

    Slavery was forever. There were never any means of obtaining freedom stipulated in the arrangement. In the cases of an owner granting freedom, it was generally a 'bare bones' release--no property went with the freedman.

    Miller's responses do well to defend against this claim in the case of Hebrew slaves, but they fail completely when considering Gentile slaves. That Miller cites the Leviticus verse which actually stipulates that Gentile slaves can be owned and inherited -- that they can be slaves "forever" -- yet conveniently fails to quote that portion of the verse, is why his statements in this case constitute lies.

    Really, Dan. If you can't see how Miller has selectively included only the "good" slavery passages, while simultaneously excluding the "bad" slavery passages -- even though he partially quotes some of the latter -- then you are either blind or willfully deceiving yourself.

    I'm perfectly willing to engage honest criticism of my own positions, and honest exploration of Christian positions, and I think you have seen that. Unfortunately, Miller's article here is anything but honest.

    The only way you can recognize Miller's lies and deceit is to read it, and to have read the relevant biblical passages -- with the assistance of a concordance.

    I disagree with you, I also fully understand your points.

    So you've said, but you haven't explained why you disagree with me, especially if you really do understand my points. Miller lies and/or distorts the truth (which is lying), and I've shown that the bible does endorse a particularly cruel version of slavery. Show me how I'm wrong, if that is your claim.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  97. Even in our own military, the punishment to disobey a direct order during a war is death.

    Colossally stupid, Dan.

    Of course you know that this death sentence would only follow a Court Martial, and that in order to condemn a soldier to death, 100% of the panel must agree. Furthermore, the code stipulates that the order given must be a lawful order. I'm pretty sure that an order to commit genocide (especially infanticide) is an unlawful order.

    What's more, in the U.S., if a soldier refuses even a lawful order because he believes it to be unlawful, he will not be subjected to a death penalty under any circumstances, so long as it is understood that his refusal was indeed a matter of sound principle, even if he was ultimately incorrect. Lifetime imprisonment, perhaps, but not a death sentence.

    Killing the Amalekites as demanded by god through Samuel is exactly analogous to gassing Jews in World War II, or committing any other war crime and proclaiming the "just following orders" excuse.

    Recall that a soldier is ultimately responsible for his own actions. If an unlawful order is given, and the soldier follows it, the soldier is as guilty as the commander -- including a possible death sentence if the order involved annihilating the Amalekite non-combatants. If a lawful order is given, but the soldier believes it to be unlawful -- including making a declaration as such -- the order-giver is obligated to show that the order is indeed lawful, or the matter will move to a higher chain in the command structure. If a soldier fails to follow a lawful order in wartime, he may be sentenced to the death penalty, as you have noted, but this is only applicable if the order given is never disputed on the grounds that it might be unlawful.

    It may seem complicated, but it's not. Soldiers are protected from an impossible catch-22 situation, so that if he objects to an order he believes to be unlawful, he will not face a death penalty.

    So I suppose all you have accomplished by bringing up the UCMJ is illustrating that god gives unlawful orders occasionally, and that any soldier following such an order should receive the death penalty. Likewise, since you also believe in the supreme authority of god, any soldier not following god's unlawful order would also receive the death penalty.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  98. Stan,

    We must keep in mind Miller, or Miller's article, has nothing to do with the Bible not condoning slavery. If you are trying to prove that since Miller possibly lied in his article that the whole thrust is false, then what you are doing is called an ad hominem fallacy attack and will not stand.
    "Of course you know that this death sentence would only follow a Court Martial, and that in order to condemn a soldier to death, 100% of the panel must agree."

    "in the U.S., if a soldier refuses even a lawful order because he believes it to be unlawful, he will not be subjected to a death penalty under any circumstances, so long as it is understood that his refusal was indeed a matter of sound principle, even if he was ultimately incorrect. Lifetime imprisonment, perhaps, but not a death sentence."

    Sounds great on paper student, but it is not true my friend. My very first question to you Stan the student is, and I know the answer, Have you ever served in the military? We must get, in the open, this part first. Because first hand experience far exceeds perceived book knowledge or secondhand knowledge. This may shed light on this comment I made earlier:

    Remember, the atheist asked the Christian, how do you know there is a God? The Christian answered, "I know there is, because I know Him." The atheist responded, "But how can I know that you are not in error?" The Christian said, "Knowing someone is not proven. It is experienced."

    Or even Ray's Hot Iron analogy.

    Like God, I have experienced the Military, and it is quite clear that there are certain circumstances that are unacceptable behavior and you can be shot on site. Here let me try to prove it to you since you haven't experienced the military first hand.

    FROM USMJ: "843. ART. 43. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

    (a) A person charged with absence without leave or missing movement in time of war, or with any offense punishable by death, may be tried at any time without limitation."

    [Do you see how it says any time without limitation? This is also to mean right on the spot]

    FROM USMJ: "899. ART. 99. MISBEHAVIOR BEFORE THE ENEMY

    Any person subject to this chapter who before or in the presence of the enemy--

    (1) runs away;

    (2) shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend;

    (3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property;

    (4) casts away his arms or ammunition;

    (5) is guilty of cowardly conduct;

    (6) quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage;

    (7) causes false alarms in any command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces;

    (8) willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; or

    (9) does not afford all practicable relief and assistance to any troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or their allies when engaged in battle;

    shall be punished by death..."

    This is in direct conflict with:

    "906a. ART. 106a. ESPIONAGE

    A sentence of death may be adjudged by a court-martial for an offense under this section (article) only if the members unanimously find, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more of the following aggravating factors:..."


    Or this one:

    "907. ART. 107. FALSE STATEMENTS

    Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."


    So Stan the student, should I now call you viewpoint as "Colossally stupid"? I know that most of what your "perceived knowledge" is based on, is ignorance.

    "So you've said, but you haven't explained why you disagree with me, especially if you really do understand my points."

    I think I have been patient in explaining my viewpoint and even finding articles that I agree with to show you my point of view. You may just be mistaken again. You did make some compelling arguments that I had a hard time refuting because you reached my conscience. When I do the same for the argument for God you write it off as garbage but that is your stubbornness showing. At least I am being honest about God. Are you?

    ReplyDelete
  99. We must keep in mind Miller, or Miller's article, has nothing to do with the Bible not condoning slavery.

    What are you talking about? Miller titles his article:

    Good question...

    ...Does God condone slavery in the Bible?

    (emphasis preserved from original)

    I'm pretty sure that means that his article has something to do with the bible not condoning slavery...

    If you are trying to prove that since Miller possibly lied in his article that the whole thrust is false, then what you are doing is called an ad hominem fallacy attack and will not stand.

    Seriously? You still haven't figured out what ad hominem is? If I prove that Miller lied to make a point, then yes, that point is invalid as presented. It does not mean that the statement(s) in his conclusion are invalid, just that the method(s) by which that conclusion has been drawn is invalid.

    In the case of Miller, he lied so that he could claim that slaves were freed -- remember he said "all slaves" rather than "Hebrew slaves"? He made a series of absolute statements with regard to biblical statements which I showed are absolutely false.

    Not only did he lie, but he was wrong. In fact, it is because of the way he cited the biblical sources he used that we know he intentionally omitted potentially damaging evidence, which is why we can safely say that he has lied. He lied, because he was intentionally promoting inaccurate statements.

    I really don't know where you're coming from, sometimes...

    I say that the bible endorsed slavery -- including the "bad" kind of slavery -- and I have given biblical references. You may have noticed that I tend to only use biblical references (at the least, an extreme majority of my references are purely biblical), partly because they work better than scholarly or scientific material. Miller, on the other hand sparsely cites biblical sources, and even when he does, he conveniently omits portions of the passages in question, and he generally makes his references through other references -- whether they are scholarly or not, I am not qualified to say; I have neither the time nor patience to wade through the lengthy bibliography offered.

    My case against Miller is based purely on biblical reference. He says the bible says "only X", I show that the bible says "not only X, but also Y".

    He has lied, and you selected his article as supporting your position not on the basis of critical assessment, but based on the fact that the conclusion drawn supported the view you wished to hear. If I am wrong, then I apologize, and extend to you the opportunity to explain my error.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  100. As to the UCMJ...

    Sounds great on paper student, but it is not true my friend.

    We'll see, "teacher".

    My very first question to you Stan the student is, and I know the answer, Have you ever served in the military?

    If you know the answer, then you sure made a big deal to ask it in such a way as to suggest otherwise...

    The answer is, yes, I served in the military. As you are no doubt aware, I am also the type of person who notes and exercises his rights -- even when doing so might appear dangerous.

    We must get, in the open, this part first. Because first hand experience far exceeds perceived book knowledge or secondhand knowledge

    And what happens when firsthand experience conflicts with firsthand experience? Is it also possible that perceived book knowledge might actually prove correct in some cases where it disagrees with firsthand knowledge?

    You see, Dan, as I said, and have said before on your site: I was in the military.

    Anyway, let's see what else you have to say on the subject...

    Errr.

    Holy crap, Dan. You don't really know the UCMJ, do you?

    You quoted 843.43, but you both misstated its meaning, and misunderstood its intent.

    843.43 describes court-martial proceedings -- specifically, the statute of limitations for how long after a crime has occurred that an individual may be prosecuted in a court-martial. It falls under the sub-chapter heading "Trial Procedure". This means that any offense major enough to require a court-martial gets a court martial. Battlefield "justice" is unrecognized, and those who would engage in such "justice" would be themselves prosecuted.

    Have you never heard of Article 13?

    No person, while being held for trial, may be subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances required to insure his presence, but he may be subjected to minor punishment during that period for infractions of discipline.

    You seem to be conflating those minor transgressions, which would be subjected to "Article 15" punishment (with which you may be familiar... I certainly am), with those more major transgressions which warrant a court-martial.

    Or perhaps you've never seen Article 20 (although you should probably look at Article 16 first):

    [S]ummary courts-martial have jurisdiction to try [enlisted personnel only] for any noncapital offense made punishable by this chapter.

    What? Since a summary court-martial involves nothing more than a commissioned officer adjudicating, this pretty well denies your notion of battlefield "justice". Perhaps if your military experience had been on land you'd have been better educated with respect to your battlefield rights.

    What's more, even where a summary court-martial may apply, I can demand a special or general court-martial:

    No person with respect to whom summary courts- martial have jurisdiction may be brought to trial before a summary court- martial if he objects thereto. If objection to trial by summary court- martial is made by an accused, trial may be ordered by special or general court-martial as may be appropriate.

    Now, as I had said, "[o]f course you know that this death sentence would only follow a Court Martial, and that in order to condemn a soldier to death, 100% of the panel must agree. Furthermore, the code stipulates that the order given must be a lawful order. I'm pretty sure that an order to commit genocide (especially infanticide) is an unlawful order."

    Every part of this is absolutely, unequivocally true (voting requirements by a panel considering a death penalty can be found at Article 52). When I said, "[c]olossaly stupid, Dan", I wasn't calling you stupid, I was calling your statement stupid. And it was.

    I realize you were in the Navy, but you're woefully uninformed as to the procedures stipulated in the UCMJ, and while I don't mean to belabor the point, you were wrong concerning the fate of a soldier denying his officer, even in a time of war. Even he would be granted a general court-martial.

    While my statement regarding a soldier's catch-22 is not completely factual, it would be inconceivable to find a soldier who had objected to an order on the grounds that it was unlawful being sentenced to death after a court-martial determined the order in question was indeed lawful.

    I'll grant that a soldier in this impossible situation might be sentenced to death, but it would require an extreme situation, and would require 100% approval by the convening panel in a general court-martial.

    Okay, I'm done talking about the UCMJ. Is class dismissed yet?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  101. Stan,

    I guess I worded what I said wrong.

    "We must keep in mind Miller, or Miller's article, has nothing to do with the Bible not condoning slavery."

    Might be better if I wrote

    "Miller, or Miller's article has nothing to do with the fact the Bible does/doesn't condone slavery"

    About ad hominem

    Person A makes claim X.
    Person B makes an attack on person A.
    Therefore A's claim is false.

    can be applied:

    Miller makes claim that God doesn't condone slavery in the Bible.
    Stan makes an attack on Miller about being a liar in one point of his article.
    Therefore Miller's claim is false.

    Understand?

    ReplyDelete
  102. Person A makes claim X.
    Person B makes an attack on person A.
    Therefore A's claim is false.


    But this isn't what I have done. Rather I have done the following:

    1. Person A makes claim X.
    2. Person B illustrates that claim X is false based on the foundational text used by Person A.
    3. Therefore Person B notes that Person A has made a false claim.

    Understand?

    Miller's claim is not false because he is a liar, but rather Miller is a liar because he has made a false claim.

    Ergo, non ad hominem.

    Man, this is a good topic.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  103. Miller, or Miller's article has nothing to do with the fact the Bible does/doesn't condone slavery

    Even re-worded, this isn't true according to Miller's apparent goal, and even if this were ignored, the question is being begged:

    Then why did you link to it?

    Your preamble to the actual links states the following:

    A man named Glenn M. Miller wrote about this subject. This rather detailed study connects the fact quite well.

    You then follow the links with your emphatic concluding statement:

    God doesn't Condone Slavery!

    So if "it has nothing to do with the fact the Bible does/doesn't condone slavery," then what is its perceived value to your claim?

    Sure, Miller's article isn't authoritative with respect to the question, but I suspect you'd be singing a marginally different tune -- sure, it still wouldn't be authoritative, but you'd be defending it a lot more ardently if it were actually honest in its presentation.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  104. Nothing could justify such an exterminating decree but the absolute authority of God. This was given: all the reasons of it we do not know, but this we know well: The Judge of all the earth doth right.

    So, basically, Dan, your defense of God's order to kill babies and children is that God is right, no matter what He does. That's a conversation stopper, because then it doesn't matter at all what we think about right and wrong: if God says killing babies and children is right, then it is right, no matter what we might think. Sorry, I don't think killing babies and children is right. Do you?

    ReplyDelete
  105. Zilch- What objective standard do you suggest we use to determine what is right and wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  106. MrFreeThinker: there are no objective standards, in the sense of standards that exist apart from what people feel and believe. But there is a great deal of consensus on standards, because we have evolved as social animals with a similar genetic basis for morals (loving one's family, disliking cheaters, etc.); because we have a cultural background of evolved systems of morals that work, more or less well, to build society; and because we are capable of reasoning and deciding what we need to do if we want to enjoy the fruits of society.

    And my feelings, my upbringing, and my society all tell me that it's wrong to kill children- no God necessary. What about yours? Would you go around knocking old ladies down, or robbing banks, if God didn't tell you it was wrong? If so, please stay religious.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Stan,

    I knew I would face another knuckle raping this morning because I did remember that you were in the military. Be gentle please. My brain cell damaging past is showing. Well it wasn't the "true" military, if I can remember it was the air force, right?

    It's very strange how I get shot down every time I try to be a little cocky with you. I need to stay humble so I win a debate once in a while.

    "but you'd be defending it a lot more ardently if it were actually honest in its presentation."

    Not one of us knows 100% truth of scripture here. We are all trying our best to understand God and that can only be a good thing. Besides If I was any good at what I am doing I would be some pastor at some church somewhere. I am, to a degree, the pastor in my home though.

    I prayed to God that if I was going to do more damage then good then I would hang up the whole DA thing. Hopefully, the jury is still out on that one for now. Sorry I called you a student, I was being cute/cocky and again it backfired at me.

    "Miller's claim is not false because he is a liar, but rather Miller is a liar because he has made a false claim."

    Fair, although I reserve the right to disagree. lol

    ReplyDelete
  108. I reserve the right to disagree that Miller is a liar that is.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Dan,

    Does a man your age really need to be reminded that being disagreed with over the internet is nothing even close to rape?

    It's hard enough to get past all the logical fallacies in your article and subsequent comments. ("Darwin embraced slavery so you should too!" Really? Are we 8?)

    Your rape comment is not cute or funny or witty. It's grossly insensitive, and well, just gross.

    Grow up, dude.

    ReplyDelete
  110. I promise to give $10,000 to the first person who can show me where in the Bible it condones slavery.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Yes, Biblical slavery is perfectly OK and fell into the catagory of CIVIL LAW. They did not have things like chapter 11 bankruptcy "avenues" back then. It was a form to pay off debt, mostly voluntary. This was debt that could not be written off like today. There would be a lot less frivolous spending if it were still around though.

    Before anyone gets into an uproar, the US Slavery was wrong as their was no "debt" to pay off. It impeded on liberties of individuals.

    Exodus 22:3 is clear that people cannot just forget their debt. Their must be atonement for their transgressions. Slavery was sometimes that "payment plan".

    Just donate the 10 grand to my paypal account. :7)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. again levitcus 25:44-46 it clearly impeded on the liberties of individuals

      Delete
    2. How does Leviticus 25:44-46 impede on the point they're bond servants? Nothing. Israelite needs help for something, they find someone that is paying off their debt as a servant, pays the original bond holder the amount being paid off, then the servant has a new bond holder. Pretty simple. Where is the problem again?

      Delete
    3. it says you can own them for life and as property and it wasnt voluntary. you are just denying the plain meaning of the text.

      Delete
    4. besides you admitted that levitcus 25 44-46 says that it has nothing to do with paying off debt, again READ IT, it suggests no such thing

      Delete
    5. let me help you since you clearly have reading problems "

      "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. 45 k 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. 46 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 l you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly"

      it says you may buy people and keep them as property for life and that you cant treat jews this ruthlessly

      Delete
    6. Two separate instructions there,  maybe this translation will help you, although I don't really do bible study with Atheists.

      Leviticus 25:46 HCSB

      You may leave them to your sons after you to inherit as property; you can make them slaves for life. But concerning your brothers, the Israelites, you must not rule over one another harshly.

      The truth is you will not get to any truth without repentance. Repentance comes BEFORE knowledge of truth, not after: 2 Timothy 2:24-26

      So we're spinning wheels here. These are mere gross and complaints, and judgments, to the Judge. But you're the criminal, not the judge. Ironic you have things so backwards.

      Delete
    7. yes we are spinning wheels, again with your special pleading, which is i guess all that you can do. Also i am merely exposing how absurd your "judge" is and no one in youe worldview is a criminal in a meaningful sense anyways

      Delete
  112. See new article on this topic:
    http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=17837#.UfRToI2R-So

    ReplyDelete
  113. I think the title to this is not defined enough. It is correct if you define "slavery" in a New World sense but it hasn't always been that way.

    Here is what I mean...
    http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslavent.html

    ReplyDelete
  114. http://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/slavery-in-the-bible-25/

    ReplyDelete
  115. Genesis 16:8 And he said “Hagar, Sarai’s slave girl, where have you come from and where are you going?” She answered, “I’m running away from Sarai, my mistress.” The angel of the Lord said to her, “Go back to your mistress and submit to ill treatment at her hands.” what the fuck bible?

    ReplyDelete
  116. again Dan read the text it says they are slaves FOR LIFE and can be treated as property and can be passed down to your children as inhertience. Also in every transalation BUT the KJV it says slaves! You are just trying to play a semantics game, nothing in levitcus 25:44-46 suggests the people paying off debts

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, bond servants have a value to them, as their debt. That does not negate my point, but it sure does bolster it.

      Delete
  117. it doesnt negate your point at all and it sure doesnt boster it, it has nothing to do with paying of debt.

    ReplyDelete
  118. I'm a Christian and I don't like slavery, but I believed God allowed slavery in the USA so that the Africans could become Christians. Many people were kind to their slaves and set them free in their wills. Also, the war between the states was not fought over slavery, but economics.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Exodus 21:20-21 states that it is ok to beat your slaves as long as the slave doesn't die within a day or two. Whether the term literally means "slave" as we think of slavery in the west, an indentured servant, a manservant or a maidservant is completely irrelevant. The Bib;e condones beating another human being half to death.

    As if this wasn't clear enough to show the barbarity that is all too common in the Bible, Deuteronomy 18:20-21 commands the Israelites to "stone an unruly child!"

    This is what you call the "Good Book"?!

    ReplyDelete
  120. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>