Does the Bible condone slavery?

[loco]

Religion is an Illusion and derives it's strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires

   -Sigmund Freud

"I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. I’ve never been much impressed by the kalam cosmological argument, and I don’t think it has gotten any stronger recently. However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it."
  -  Antony Flew, British philosopher and former, long time atheist

[big L dawg]

Suppose we've chosen the wrong god.Every time we go to church we're just making him mader.
                               -Homer Simpson.

[The Luke]

I've lost track of this thread...

I'm still not even sure if my question regarding Exodus 21:8 has been answered or not?


Am I right in thinking that the following passage:
Exodus 21:20-21:
"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for they are his property."

...allows slavemasters to beat their slaves (male or female) to death with a stick, just so long as the slave doesn't die immediately but survives at least two days after the beating?

If the slave dies having succumbed to the injuries inflicted by his bat wielding master more than two days after the beating, then the master goes UNPUNISHED?

Am I getting that right?


First we had McWay justifying the fact that the Bible condones the killing of innocent children, with impunity, just so long as they are the children of the people Yahweh has designated as enemies of Israel.

Now we have McWay justifying the fact that the Bible condones the beating to death of slaves, with impunity, just so long as they die slowly from a maiming rather than being killed outright because Yahweh has designated these people as property.


Am I getting this right?

It's hard to tell... 'cos this is getting really surreal really quickly.



The Luke

[OzmO]

Hardly!! I've addressed the issue directly. A butler's service IS inherited property. And much like a modern-day butler, a foreigner could choose to stay OR LEAVE his master's employ. Once again, see the Hagar example. She, of her own free will, left Sarah and Abraham, when Sarah started mistreating her. She was NOT FORCED to stay, nor was she punished when she returned.

You were hung up people being designated as property. My military analogy makes the point that, even in the 21st century, people can be designated as "property", without actually being property. That's why you can be charged with "destruction of government property", if you injure yourself intentionally (especially to avoid serving in combat).

You can make them.........IF THEY VOLUNTEER TO DO SO. You can do that with Hebrew servants, too......IF THEY AGREE TO TERMS. Once again, Hagar was a foreign servant or slave. She was NOT FORCED TO SERVE Sarah and Abraham for life. Slaves (foreign or Hebrews) can sell themselves to the service of others. There would hardly be need to mention that, if foreigners were deemed lifetime slaves, no questions asked.

You can buy them (either buy out their masters' contracts or the people SELL THEMSELVES to you). But, no, you can't just take them from other nations. Ex. 21:16 states that kidnapping someone from a foreign land was punishable by death.




It "differs little" that someone sells himself to another's employ vs. someone get kidnapped from his own land?

It "differs little" that someone, in seven years, can be free vs. someone being enslaved FOR LIFE?

It "differs little" that someone can serve another for life, if he so chooses vs. someone serving for life, whether he wants to do so or not?

It "differs little" that any major injury frees a man of his servitude obligation vs. someone being literal property, no matter what the master does to him?

It "differs little" that a master must MARRY a slave girl, if he fancies her and she consents (thus, elevating her status to full-blown wife) vs. the master going to slave row to get all the black booty he wants with no consequence or obligation?

It "differs little" that a master killing a servant warranted DEATH for that master vs. one killing a servant, having little-to-no consequence?

It "differs little" that kidnapping someone from a foreign land warranted DEATH vs. doing such being encouraged and highly financially rewarded?

"Slaves are slaves"? I beg to differ!!!!

More like, she would never be property (again, see the military reference).



Property is not property, in this case, because the "slaves" of the OT ARE NOT chattel, as black people were. That's like saying service is immoral, which it is not. The "slavery" of the OT is not forced, makes no designation based on race or color, designates rights and responsibilities, and gives the benefit of the doubt, regarding any violations or wrongdoings, to the SERVANT, not the master.

Go back to the passage i keep pasting on every post.  If any of what you said was true they wouldn't have used the word SLAVE.   AND, the word "property" is used to describe the word slave.

It is what is is.  The God you and loco worship endorses slavery and genocide.

[loco]

It is what is is.  The God you and loco worship endorses slavery and genocide.

 

No.

As if you cared about slavery and genocide anyway.

If the God I worship endorsed casual sex and homosexuality, you'd worship Him too.

Whatever you wanna keep telling yourself to make yourself feel better about the life of unaccountability you live, OzmO! 

[MCWAY]

I've lost track of this thread...

I'm still not even sure if my question regarding Exodus 21:8 has been answered or not?

What question would that be?

Am I right in thinking that the following passage:
Exodus 21:20-21:
"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for they are his property."

...allows slavemasters to beat their slaves (male or female) to death with a stick, just so long as the slave doesn't die immediately but survives at least two days after the beating?

If the slave dies having succumbed to the injuries inflicted by his bat wielding master more than two days after the beating, then the master goes UNPUNISHED?

Am I getting that right?

NOPE!!! How many times do you have to be told that, boy genius?

First we had McWay justifying the fact that the Bible condones the killing of innocent children, with impunity, just so long as they are the children of the people Yahweh has designated as enemies of Israel.

Now we have McWay justifying the fact that the Bible condones the beating to death of slaves, with impunity, just so long as they die slowly from a maiming rather than being killed outright because Yahweh has designated these people as property.


Am I getting this right?

It's hard to tell... 'cos this is getting really surreal really quickly.



The Luke

How does that saying go again, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing the same way and expecting a different result”?

If that’s the case, Luke needs to hit the rubber room with the quickness. What part of  “Slave lives, master lives; slave dies; MASTER DIES!” don’t you quite understand?

You’re the one with the hang-up on the time issue, ridiculously trying to fuse some sort of technicality out of it. If that weren’t enough silliness, you’re now trying to conjure up some screwy scenario about breaking people’s bones, without knocking out eyes or teeth, as a way to avoid punishment (as if a master would be STUPID enough to injure his servant to the point where he can't do the job he's being paid to do, along with having to pay for his medical care and family provisions).

[MCWAY]

Go back to the passage i keep pasting on every post.  If any of what you said was true they wouldn't have used the word SLAVE.   AND, the word "property" is used to describe the word slave.

What I've said IS true, and I showed you the Bible verses and other supporting references to prove it.

The issue here appears to be that you're stuck on the words, "slave" and "property". That's why part of this discussion has been and continues to be, whether the "slave" of the OT is equivalent to the "slave" that we've come to know in recent history (i.e. chattel slave).


Case in point, you said ealier that a soldier really isn’t "property". If that’s the case, why is it that a soldier can be charged with “destruction of government property, if he injures himself, specifically to avoid combat?

If a soldier can be seen as “property” in one aspect, without his actually being such in the purest sense, why do you have such a hangup, regarding foreign "slaves" and the title of “property”, even though they aren’t kidnapped or forced into lifetime servitude and can be elevated in social status, based on a number of scenarios?

It is what is is.  The God you and loco worship endorses slavery and genocide.

Now, you're trying to have it both ways. Whenever we discuss the Amalekites, you declare that God should have assimilate them into Israel's culture. While that wasn't done with the Amalekites, it WAS DONE with other people in the OT. And this form of servitude was how that was conducted.

Make up your mind, here. What's to be done with Israel's enemies, do they get assimilated or do they get destroyed?

[OzmO]

What I've said IS true, and I showed you the Bible verses and other supporting references to prove it.

The issue here appears to be that you're stuck on the words, "slave" and "property". That's why part of this discussion has been and continues to be, whether the "slave" of the OT is equivalent to the "slave" that we've come to know in recent history (i.e. chattel slave).


Case in point, you said ealier that a soldier really isn’t "property". If that’s the case, why is it that a soldier can be charged with “destruction of government property, if he injures himself, specifically to avoid combat?

If a soldier can be seen as “property” in one aspect, without his actually being such in the purest sense, why do you have such a hangup, regarding foreign "slaves" and the title of “property”, even though they aren’t kidnapped or forced into lifetime servitude and can be elevated in social status, based on a number of scenarios?

Now, you're trying to have it both ways. Whenever we discuss the Amalekites, you declare that God should have assimilate them into Israel's culture. While that wasn't done with the Amalekites, it WAS DONE with other people in the OT. And this form of servitude was how that was conducted.

Make up your mind, here. What's to be done with Israel's enemies, do they get assimilated or do they get destroyed?

Again if anything you said holds any water, they wouldn't have used the word slavery and people in the military would be called property or slaves.  All of this is not true.  In black and white they are called slaves and you and loco struggle to find any way to justify this through flawed weak logic like soldiers destroying government property.  Asinine.

I'm not arguing what should have been done at this point.  God ordered a genocide. End of story.

You worship a slaver and genocider.  It's cool,  i don't ever think you would do anything like that.

[MCWAY]

Again if anything you said holds any water, they wouldn't have used the word slavery and people in the military would be called property or slaves.  All of this is not true.  In black and white they are called slaves and you and loco struggle to find any way to justify this through flawed weak logic like soldiers destroying government property.  Asinine.

There's no struggling involved (although, they're called "bondmen" in the KJV, from the Hebrew word,abad, meaining to labour or to work for another, to serve another by labour). Neither of us need to justify someone selling themselves into servitude to avoid things like starvation, especially when they can elevate themselves to prominence and ARE NOT forced to lifetime servanthood.

Plus, I didn't say "soldiers destroying goverment property". I used the soldier analogy to make the point that someone can be considered property in certain aspects (i.e. prosecution for an offense), without being actual property in the truest sense.

I'm not arguing what should have been done at this point.  God ordered a genocide. End of story.

You worship a slaver and genocider.  It's cool,  i don't ever think you would do anything like that.

I worship a healer, Creator, and deliverer. That is cool, indeed. 

[Necrosis]

No.

As if you cared about slavery and genocide anyway.

If the God I worship endorsed casual sex and homosexuality, you'd worship Him too.

Whatever you wanna keep telling yourself to make yourself feel better about the life of unaccountability you live, OzmO! 

why do you think anyone needs to be held accountable. If your god exists, he should be held accountable for the terrible job he has done. Children dying, murder,rape,starvation,natural disasters etc etc...

sure you will try to lay the blame back on humans for all this, but he knew the future and still fooked up, it is on his watch that millions of children starve for no reason.  A couple million children dying for man eating an apple? for sins? a bit extreme is it not.

[MCWAY]

why do you think anyone needs to be held accountable. If your god exists, he should be held accountable for the terrible job he has done. Children dying, murder,rape,starvation,natural disasters etc etc...

What exactly will be the punitive sentence for this supposedly mean, poor-performing old God, atheists holding their collective breaths (until they turn blue), waving "There is no God!" signs?

 

sure you will try to lay the blame back on humans for all this, but he knew the future and still fooked up, it is on his watch that millions of children starve for no reason.  A couple million children dying for man eating an apple? for sins? a bit extreme is it not.

I’m sorry. I thought you guys like that silly thing called FREE WILL.

People disobey God's instruction and then act surprised when disaster, dysfunction, disease, and death occur. Ain't that rich?

I guess you missed that last commandment, "Thou shalt not covet". There's plenty of food. But, some people want to be greedy, selfish, and cruel. And other people suffer as a result.

And, as Loco mentioned earlier via that article, when tragedy does strike folks, it's the servants of that mean old pesky God, who come to their aid. Meanwhile, Team "Free-thinkers" are simply flapping their gums. I've seen plenty of folks from the Salvation Army and other humanitarian places help out in times of need. Where are the "Rationale/Reason Army" centers with folks that feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and comfort those that mourn?

[The Luke]

And, as Loco mentioned earlier via that article, when tragedy does strike folks, it's the servants of that mean old pesky God, who come to their aid. Meanwhile, Team "Free-thinkers" are simply flapping their gums. I've seen plenty of folks from the Salvation Army and other humanitarian places help out in times of need. Where are the "Rationale/Reason Army" centers with folks that feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and comfort those that mourn?

...they are called scientists and so far they've trounced God.

Antibiotics have saved more lives than wars have ever taken. Hygiene has increased the world's population ten fold. The percentage of people living in poverty worldwide decreases every year. The invention of the nuclear bomb has effectively put paid to the trend of increasingly severe and increasingly frequent wars.

Just because scientists aren't pushing Bibles on starving people doesn't mean they aren't helping. Industrialised agriculture has effectively eliminated starvation for half of the human race, give science another hundred years and God will look like a shady snake oil salesman.

I think it was George Bernard Shaw who succinctly noted that "twenty five percent of human suffering is toothache".

Praying won't alleviate toothache... or any other malady.


The Luke

[MCWAY]

...they are called scientists and so far they've trounced God.

Antibiotics have saved more lives than wars have ever taken. Hygiene has increased the world's population ten fold. The percentage of people living in poverty worldwide decreases every year. The invention of the nuclear bomb has effectively put paid to the trend of increasingly severe and increasingly frequent wars.

Hygiene has been around for centuries. Maybe, just maybe, if you actually digest a Bible verse or two (when you're not preoccupied with making ridiculous claims about them), you'd notice a few OT chapters where instruction is given to the Israelites on how to keep disease down.

And, the statement I made was with regarding to people giving IMMEDIATE aid to those in need. Scientists aren't handing out food or providing shelter to victims of natural disasters.

Just because scientists aren't pushing Bibles on starving people doesn't mean they aren't helping. Industrialised agriculture has effectively eliminated starvation for half of the human race, give science another hundred years and God will look like a shady snake oil salesman.

Notwithstanding the fact that the gist of my statement was in regards to humanitarian aid and disaster relief (or the fact that many contributers to industrialized agriculture are/were Christians, anyway), that's what the so-called Enlightenment folks were saying a couple of centuries ago.

Alas, that has not happened. Guys with lab coats weren't joining the requested number of volunteers for the Red Cross, to help victims of Hurricane Katrina. Try reading and digesting the material, before flapping them lips, next time.

I think it was George Bernard Shaw who succinctly noted that "twenty five percent of human suffering is toothache".

Praying won't alleviate toothache... or any other malady.


The Luke

Yet, we have millions of testimonies from people nationwide regarding their healing, due to prayer. But, what else is new?

[The Luke]

Yet, we have millions of testimonies from people nationwide regarding their healing, due to prayer. But, what else is new?

...you make a good point McWay.

I knew a guy who visited Lourdes (as a busker, trying to scrounge up some money). He told me that when you enter the Holy Grotto itself there are many strings strung up overhead across the span of the cave just filled with walking sticks left behind by those who came to Lourdes lame and left healed.

There isn't one single wooden leg.

There isn't one single glass eye.

There isn't one single rubber hand.



The Luke

[MCWAY]

...you make a good point McWay.

I knew a guy who visited Lourdes (as a busker, trying to scrounge up some money). He told me that when you enter the Holy Grotto itself there are many strings strung up overhead across the span of the cave just filled with walking sticks left behind by those who came to Lourdes lame and left healed.

There isn't one single wooden leg.

There isn't one single glass eye.

There isn't one single rubber hand.



The Luke

Perhaps, if you visit there, you'll be healed of your comprehension disorder, which (from the bulk of your posts) would REALLY NEED an act from the Almighty to cure. 

[The Luke]

Perhaps, if you visit there, you'll be healed of your comprehension disorder, which (from the bulk of your posts) would REALLY NEED an act from the Almighty to cure. 

...maybe I'll send my slave as proxy on my behalf.

Then beat him to death with a stick when he comes back... in accordance with scripture.


The Luke

[Necrosis]

What exactly will be the punitive sentence for this supposedly mean, poor-performing old God, atheists holding their collective breaths (until they turn blue), waving "There is no God!" signs?

 

I’m sorry. I thought you guys like that silly thing called FREE WILL.

People disobey God's instruction and then act surprised when disaster, dysfunction, disease, and death occur. Ain't that rich?

I guess you missed that last commandment, "Thou shalt not covet". There's plenty of food. But, some people want to be greedy, selfish, and cruel. And other people suffer as a result.

And, as Loco mentioned earlier via that article, when tragedy does strike folks, it's the servants of that mean old pesky God, who come to their aid. Meanwhile, Team "Free-thinkers" are simply flapping their gums. I've seen plenty of folks from the Salvation Army and other humanitarian places help out in times of need. Where are the "Rationale/Reason Army" centers with folks that feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and comfort those that mourn?

if he knew the future then none of what you said makes sense.

Its reasonable to conclude god could create a world without suffering since he is omnipotent while still allowing free will. The fact that this scenario does not exist and that there is ample suffering(exactly what we would find without a god) indicates that there is no god and suffering exists because the world is ruled by chaos.

[Necrosis]

...you make a good point McWay.

I knew a guy who visited Lourdes (as a busker, trying to scrounge up some money). He told me that when you enter the Holy Grotto itself there are many strings strung up overhead across the span of the cave just filled with walking sticks left behind by those who came to Lourdes lame and left healed.

There isn't one single wooden leg.

There isn't one single glass eye.

There isn't one single rubber hand.



The Luke

luke, mcway likes to present arguments that contain a multitude of fallicies. Like the one above,argument ad populum.

He thinks religious people momentarily being cured of borderline illnesses (back pain, trouble walking) is evidence of a god. Meanwhile, like you have outlined, not a single miraculous healing has ever been recorded. Not to mention the logical burden one must bare if god does heal the sick at this grotto. That is, god is an asshole. Yes, he heals people at this grotto who ask for help for no apparent reason yet lets children starve everyday, die via aids, parasites etc... how can you reconcile an all-loving god with something that heals as he pleases and lets countless cries for help go unheard.

We have options.

-god doesnt exist, and these cures are all simple physiological placebos perhaps due to adrenaline. This is a safe conclusion as no outright miracles have ever been recorded nor documented by skeptics.

-god only heals minor health issues and either cannot heal larger issues like AIDS or doesnt care, making him less then perfect.

If god is healing people at a grotto and not the dying children of the world when he could, then shame on him.

[The Luke]

Perhaps, if you visit there, you'll be healed of your comprehension disorder, which (from the bulk of your posts) would REALLY NEED an act from the Almighty to cure. 

Maybe then I might understand what this Bible verse means:

Exodus 21:20-21:
"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for they are his property."


I think it means you can beat your slave to death with a stick just so long as the slave survives at least one or two days after the beating... then you go UNPUNISHED, because a slave is property, not a proper human being.

McWay tells me I'm wrong... and I'm sure he is right... but he hasn't explained it yet.


Come on McWay, you say you have explained this... I can't find the post... I've read your references to Exodus 20:21-22, but all they say is that a slavemaster wouldn't beat his slave to death for financial reasons...

Then why is there an explicit allowance by which those who do beat their slaves to death can go completely unpunished...? No eye for an eye, no tooth for a tooth?

Why is this...? Is it really because "they are his property"?


The Luke

[OzmO]

There's no struggling involved (although, they're called "bondmen" in the KJV, from the Hebrew word,abad, meaining to labour or to work for another, to serve another by labour). Neither of us need to justify someone selling themselves into servitude to avoid things like starvation, especially when they can elevate themselves to prominence and ARE NOT forced to lifetime servanthood.

Plus, I didn't say "soldiers destroying goverment property". I used the soldier analogy to make the point that someone can be considered property in certain aspects (i.e. prosecution for an offense), without being actual property in the truest sense.

I worship a healer, Creator, and deliverer. That is cool, indeed. 

In the lev verse does it say bondsman or slave in the kjv?


Also, add jealous, insecure, egotistical,  murderer, and masochist to your list.   

[The Luke]

Also, add jealous, insecure, egotistical,  murderer, and masochist to your list.   

...what these nutters never address is what this tin-box storm god is doing to his followers.

Imagine if you were an ancient Hebrew soldier... the Levite priest goes into the tent/tabernacle containing the Ark of the Covenenant, comes out a couple of minutes later and issues a list of cities and peoples you are to destroy on gods orders.

Soldiers don't mind fighting... that's what they train for... but imagine being told that god himself has ordered you to kill women and children. All the women... all the children... the elderly... even the newborns.


Why would Yahweh, or any god, demand that his followers slaughter children in the hundreds and thousands... why would a god expose his faithful soldiers to such a terrible mental burden?

Imagine the severity of your post traumatic disorder after you've caved in the heads of a couple of hundred defenseless women; children; toddlers; and newborns with a blunt bronze sword... especially when you know god has commanded you to do so... can you be a conscientious objector in such a circumstance? Will god be displeased if you don't butcher as many children as possible?

Could a Hebrew soldier say "Okay God, I'll kill the Canaanites and burn their cities, but I draw the line at hacking newborn babies to death!"?


If these sinful children and old folks really needed killing... why didn't Yahweh do it himself?

Why didn't Yahweh just nuke these cities, like he did Sodom and Gomorrah? Why turn his followers into guilt addled dysfunctional war veterans? Why make war criminals of your "flock"?


Some "chosen people"... chosen to do God's dirty work, and compensated with the right to enslave and abuse foreigners.



The Luke

[MCWAY]

In the lev verse does it say bondsman or slave in the kjv?

It's bondmen.

Lev. 25:44-46.

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.

Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

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.

Also, add jealous, insecure, egotistical,  murderer, and masochist to your list.   

No, thanks!!! 

...what these nutters never address is what this tin-box storm god is doing to his followers.

Imagine if you were an ancient Hebrew soldier... the Levite priest goes into the tent/tabernacle containing the Ark of the Covenenant, comes out a couple of minutes later and issues a list of cities and peoples you are to destroy on gods orders.

Soldiers don't mind fighting... that's what they train for... but imagine being told that god himself has ordered you to kill women and children. All the women... all the children... the elderly... even the newborns.


Why would Yahweh, or any god, demand that his followers slaughter children in the hundreds and thousands... why would a god expose his faithful soldiers to such a terrible mental burden?

And what these screwball skeptics fail to address is the reason why judgment hits these people. Take the Amalekites for example, As usual, in true "God-can-do-no-right" fashion, they forget that these folks assaulted Israel for over three hundred years unprovoked. It started as they were leaving Egypt. And guess who got targeted:

1 Sam. 15:2

Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.


Deut 25:17-19
Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt;

How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God.

Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it.


And, of course, it never dawns on our skeptic buddies that, if the Amalekites had REPENTED and made amends with Israel (or any of the other people they assaulted), they would have been forgiven and spared.

Nope!!! The skeptics "nutters" continue to act, as if the Amalekites and others like them were simply roasting marshmallows and singing campfire songs, when mean old Jehovah and crew went on the warpath.

Imagine the severity of your post traumatic disorder after you've caved in the heads of a couple of hundred defenseless women; children; toddlers; and newborns with a blunt bronze sword... especially when you know god has commanded you to do so... can you be a conscientious objector in such a circumstance? Will god be displeased if you don't butcher as many children as possible?

God will be displeased, if His instructions are not followed. Apparently Saul and his armies missed that post-traumatic disorder thing. They were too busy dividing up all the loot and livestock that they were ordered to destroy.

Could a Hebrew soldier say "Okay God, I'll kill the Canaanites and burn their cities, but I draw the line at hacking newborn babies to death!"?

I suppose he could have. We've seen example of people interceding on the behalf of others (i.e. Moses, when he asked God to spare the Israelites after that golden calf incident).

But, after three-centuries-plus of having THEIR BABIES killed and their people assaulted and crops destroyed by the Amalekites, I think the sympathy factor may have reached the ZERO mark.

If these sinful children and old folks really needed killing... why didn't Yahweh do it himself?

Why didn't Yahweh just nuke these cities, like he did Sodom and Gomorrah? Why turn his followers into guilt addled dysfunctional war veterans? Why make war criminals of your "flock"?

Once again, you manage to puncture your own foot. Plus, you forgot about the Flood.   

Some "chosen people"... chosen to do God's dirty work, and compensated with the right to enslave and abuse foreigners.


The Luke

One minute, you're complaining about people being completely wiped out; the next, you're blubbering about their being spared (of course, your spiel about abuse is quite false, as has been shown repeatedly.

Or, did you forget that God constantly told the people to treat strangers and foreigners kindly, when they came to Israel, as He reminded them of how badly they were treated in Egypt?

[OzmO]

Yeah  and the definition of bondman is:

bond⋅man     [bond-muhn] Show IPA Pronunciation 
–noun, plural -men.
1.   a male slave.
2.   a man bound to service without wages.


give it up McWay 

[MCWAY]

Maybe then I might understand what this Bible verse means:

Exodus 21:20-21:
"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for they are his property."


I think it means you can beat your slave to death with a stick just so long as the slave survives at least one or two days after the beating... then you go UNPUNISHED, because a slave is property, not a proper human being.

McWay tells me I'm wrong... and I'm sure he is right... but he hasn't explained it yet.

Wrong again, boy genius. I think the amnesia is kicking into gear, again. The first part of the verse, which you apparently can't quite digest, is that the master is PUNISHED if his servant dies under his hand. That means if the master IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS DEATH.

Come on McWay, you say you have explained this... I can't find the post... I've read your references to Exodus 20:21-22, but all they say is that a slavemaster wouldn't beat his slave to death for financial reasons...

Then why is there an explicit allowance by which those who do beat their slaves to death can go completely unpunished...? No eye for an eye, no tooth for a tooth?



Why is this...? Is it really because "they are his property"?


The Luke

No, nutrient-deprived one!!!! Once again, in your haste to flap your lips incessantly, you once again forgot that the little verse, just a few lines up.

Ex. 21:12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be PUT TO DEATH.

The concept is simple (which is the kind that fly clean over your head): Slave lives; master lives......slave dies; MASTER DIES.

[MCWAY]

if he knew the future then none of what you said makes sense.

Its reasonable to conclude god could create a world without suffering since he is omnipotent while still allowing free will. The fact that this scenario does not exist and that there is ample suffering(exactly what we would find without a god) indicates that there is no god and suffering exists because the world is ruled by chaos.

He did create that world. And, He gave man free will to maintain that perfection by obedience to God or to ruin it by disobedience to Him. Guess which option man picked.

Once again, we see the classic attempt to duck responsibility, blaiming God for man's disobedience and the consequences that follow.