DougP

I went to a luncheon that Matthew Shepards mother spoke at, it was very good.


Also, if Inq. isnt kidding, im going to ball up in the corner and cry.

inquisitive01

Why are you so "angry" anyway? I'm not "running," but you can imagine (or wish) that if you like. At least I try NOT to make any and every excuse imaginable to avoid Christ's (the Son of God, who is at the right hand of God the Father) teachings in order to make my life more convenient. That's what some might call "running." :wide:



As for these (very few, btw) Verses from Leviticus, you're not seeing context regarding servants here. In other words, you're not seeing the implied "IF YOU CHOOSE TO HAVE SERVANTS" (there is no command from God to have servants... IF there is then simply point it out), this is how it shall be done. Notice also the following from Verse 46:

"Ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

Does that sound like an unreasonable LAW to you? Speaking of law, have you read Leviticus in it's entirety? The whole book has to do with LAW that must be established based on society's actions... just as our governments make laws for us to follow and abide by. For example, does the U.S. government support (or say we can/must take part in) fraudulent activities? Of course not. However, laws must still be made in order to keep order, based on perceptions of what would/could happen if no laws were made. In other words, just because we are given laws commanding us not to engage in fraudulent activities does NOT mean that those giving us the laws REGULATING these activities are saying "IT'S OKAY; YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION."

Anyway, The following is Leviticus Verses 35-46 (redemption of the poor) followed by Verses 47-55 (redemption of servants):


Leviticus 25:35-55

35 And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee.
36 Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee.
37 Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.
38 I am the LORD your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, and to be your God.
39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:
40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile.
41 And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.
42 For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen.
43 Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God.
44 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.
45 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.
46 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.
47 And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger's family:
48 After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him:
49*Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself.
50 And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubile: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him.
51 If there be yet many years behind, according unto them he shall give again the price of his redemption out of the money that he was bought for.
52 And if there remain but few years unto the year of jubile, then he shall count with him, and according unto his years shall he give him again the price of his redemption.
53 And as a yearly hired servant shall he be with him: and the other shall not rule with rigour over him in thy sight.
54 And if he be not redeemed in these years, then he shall go out in the year of jubile, both he, and his children with him.
55 For unto me the children of Israel are servants; they are my servants whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

inquisitive01

About what? Getting drunk (i.e., sh**-faced, stoned, high, buzzed, etc.) being an acceptable practice? You do have bars where you live, don't you?

inquisitive01

Well, I thought you might put 3-4 Verses, but didn't realize you'd attempt an overwhelming 22 Verses (if I counted them right). Why not just pick a few at a time, rather than trying to base your arguments on quantity rather than quality?

I will address Ecclesiastes, though... it only has 12 CHAPTERS! Therefore, to my knowledge anyway, Ecclesiastes 25:13, 25:22, 26:9-10, 26:14-15, and 42:13-14 do not exist (unless there's some newer version that has added at least 30 chapters to Ecclesiastes, that is). :huh:


Anyway, if you want to take a few (existing) Verses at a time, that's fine. However, I'm not going to sit here all night and type out some 20-page report to try and respond to all of the Verses you posted. If that's not acceptable, that's your choice.

By the way, are there any man-made laws you also feel compelled not to follow for whatever reasons? Also, do you let people who disregard your rules enter into your house? For example, if you're married, and some other man comes in and disregards the bond you have with your wife, do you ignore this? Do you ignore someone who steals from you? Who vandalizes your home? Who lies and deceives you?

BlakeEM

Ecclesiastes passages were removed from the bible, but I'm told still remains in the catholic version? What I read about it As in the bible was edited, so why do people edit or sensor the word of god?


Ok you make me choose just one? There so so many jucy ones. Lets start with this one...

These are words spoken by Jesus. It appears that Jesus will kill children with death. I can't see any other meaning for that other than to kill a child?

Angrillori

Whoah there inq. now we've got you on record as:

Avoiding the issue again. Your demand was: Show me where god says it is acceptable to have slaves. (Yes, slaves. Use whatever eupemism you want, but an owned human...is a slave.) In my book, giving permission means something is acceptable to one. In Lev. God explicitly gives permission to have slaves.

More to the point, did you manage to find anywhere god condemns slavery? Hmm?

So we have:

Slavery is explicitly acceptable to god.
and
God never condemns slavery.

So, is slavery acceptable now too? Or was it just acceptable then because everyone else was doing it?

P.S. In re: not ruling each other harshly--Did you read verse 45 too? Did you notice that it's only other Israelites they are not to rule over harshly? Slaves from other lands apparently were fair game....THAT'S a good law?!?!?

BlakeEM

Funny that the best way to fight most Christians is to quote the same book they use to try to convince you (some get offended over it, offended over quotes from their own holy book!). When homophobes, anti-Semitics, and murders can justify their actions with bible passages you have to think about what you are really reading.

funinspace

I would agree completely with this statement, but probably not in what you are trying to get at. Yes, humans had a great impact on what is in the Bible...like they molded it to their purposes?

You ask where is it said to be ok, but then obviously know the verses where it puts limits on such practices. Your Xian God has plenty of space to write strongly against such practices, yet chose not to. Instead he chose to put only limits on such practices. That is a defacto acceptance (aka OK) of slavery. Slavery and drunkenness is hardly similar. True drunkenness is strongly written against in both the Hebrew Canon (HC) and the NT. So slavery and polygamy is tolerable by God, but homosexuality is worthy of death. And this makes sense to you, and is a reasonable moral code from within the HC?

Yep, it's such a grand moral code, it even stipulates the limits of how close you can beat your slave to death:

Ex 21:20 And if a man strikes his servant or his female servant with a rod so that he or she dies as a result of the blow, he will surely be punished. 21:21 However, if the injured servant survives one or two days, the owner will not be punished, for he has suffered the loss.

Another one of my favorites:

1 Timothy 3:12 "A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children...".

There are only 2 admonishments for limiting the wives to 1. And the other one is the same thing for overseer's. A direct corollary is that this doesn't apply to the general congregation. Hey now we can be like good old fashion Mormons, but it's damnable to be a homosexual. Yeah, that fits so well within our modern morality. Within the Hebrew world of Jesus' day, polygamy was still openly practiced. And this was the best Xianity could come up with for a moral code... :rolling:

Angrillori

Oh boy. I kinda wish you hadn't brought this up. Check out any of the 'slavery in the bible' threads from recently. Inq. apparently believes that this verse means that the slaves may not be punished if they beat their master near to death because the master is the slave's property. He refuses to even consider that, well, that DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE! Much less consider the amount of torture he's inflicting on not only the English, but the Hebrew language as well as he twists grammar, and pronoun/antecendent relationships past the breaking point.

I know, I know. It's unbelievable, but here's the proof in the pudding:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...15#post1763915



But, but, but, can't you see where god IMPLIES that that means everyone should only have one wife, because, because, well, Adam only had one Eve! Yeah! That's the ticket! Sheesh.

Or, is the xian defense for this that, like slavery, god thought multiple wives were ok back then, because everyone else was doing it

Mageth

For the record, the womens' rights movement really got started a long time before the "women's lib" movement, in the 19th Century.

Perhaps one should ask grandmothers and great-grandmothers for their opinions.

Again, I wonder what the slaves thought about slavery?