WVIncagold

Really same conditions? so if you misbehave in the army ( which you singend a term of enlistment same as a roman legionaire by the way... were they slaves also?) they could sell you to a salt mine in the middle east? I say Bull shit and this reaks of it. joining of a free will and recieving pay for services is not slavery. Again how is it we are moraly superior to your god since slavery was outlawed yet your bible condones it.

WVIncagold

No but it does make sexual harrasment immoral. Actually it is the other way around sexaul harrasment is immoral so we made a sexual harrasment law to punish the immoral act. Just like the punishment of a slave in the bible.

WVIncagold

again your disingenous when you subscribe indetured servitude to slavery. What if buble bees fly out my ass? I love what ifs. they are ways of dodging the real meat of what is positioned and that is why you used it. You equate with the free man working today to being a slave because you yourself have a slave mentality and are not truly free. This makes me sad. but you are not a slave only you enslave yourself. The point i was making is you have no choice being a slave. Notice women could never buy there way out of slavery, only the man. so since slavery was bigoted towards sex then how abouty we just talk about the women who were slaves. I have not intituted my own ideas thank you very much as the slavery norm that women faced. they did not get to buy there way out ans were taken as spoils of conquest. the irony is you have substituted your own mental gymnastics in order to reconcile yourself that slavery isnt so bad. If it isnt such a bad thing why are we as a society more moral than than your bible since we have outlawed such a benevolant prractice?

WVIncagold

again your argument is "got lube"?:huh:

sschlichter

salt mines? We are talking about OT slavery laws, not the slavery of the Roman empire. They obviously are different due to the laws insistence that a slave is not to beaten or you will be punished, resident foreigners are to be treated resectfully (loved, in fact), and if you do harm a slave then he/she is to go free. Slaves consisted of criminals being punished, the destitute whom sold themselves into slavery so they could eat, apprentices who sign up as a bond servant, and foreign residents whom were to be treated resectfully, foreign women who were to be taken as wives, no slaves. The slavery that you describe is outlawed in OT law. They may or may not have practiced immoral slavery, but the law clearly restricts it.

sschlichter

Why do you assume you live in a more moral culture?

WVIncagold

So they did not have slat mines in the OT ME? Conscription for service is not new but it is not slavery, as it involved choice. Even the draft in todays involves choice. Albeit both suck but a choice all the same. Slaves have no choice. So they had no punishment but slavery for criminials? So a slave could by his freedom but his wife and children could be willed in to future? Apprentices did not sign up as bond servants they signed up as apprentices. that was the point. you cant even keep your terms correct. Forieng women were taken as spoils of war as long as they had a hymen otherwise they were sold as kitchen slaves and house slaves and could never buy therer way out of poverty only the men could. All slavery is immoral and that is why we as a modern culture have outlawed it it all its wonderfull forms. the Law is there because slavery was present and therefore condoned by the bible. Why are we as a people more moral today than the god of the bible? Why is the bible moot on slavery being bad? no where does the bible come out and say owning another human is immoral.

Net2004

how many saw the son of god incarnate in the form of a man? how many heard the conversations between the son god and the father god? how many understood the real meaning of jesus' parables?

"Mark 4:
2 He taught them many things by parables, and in his teaching said:
3 "Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed...
9 Then Jesus said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him
about the parables.
11 He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to
you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables
12 so that, "`they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever
hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be
forgiven!'"

So Jesus is clearly shown using parables, and he's explained that he does so in order to keep those not in his "inner circle" from understanding the real meaning of his teachings. Then his disciples ask for an explanation when they are alone with him, and Jesus gives the explanation. That is teaching in secret. The most important aspect of the parable, its meaning, was told in secret. "

can shitler show us where jesus taught openly that he was the sower of the good seed?


"In short, Matthew has made certain changes to the story related in Mark Mark 10:2-12. According to Mark, the pharisees question Jesus about divorce and Jesus asks them about about the command in this regard given by Moses. Jesus then explains why this command was given -- "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law." Jesus goes on to say that, "what God has joined together, let man not separate." Later, once in the house, the diciples also question Jesus to which he replies: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." Period, end of story.



Matthew relates the above story in Matthew 19:3-12, but he makes some changes. The placement is changed -- rather than asking the pharisees "What did Moses command you?" as Jesus does in Mark, in Matthew Jesus starts off by referring to Genesis. It is the pharisees
who, in reaction, ask Jesus to explain the command of Moses and Jesus then gives his reply to that. Furthermore, while in Mark the disciples get to question Jesus "in the house," -- away from the pharisees -- in Matthew the scene appears to be unchanged and the disciples simply offer the suggestion, in light of Jesus' earlier verdict regarding divorce, that it is better not to marry at all, to which Jesus later comments. Jesus' verdict on divorce in Matthew, which includes the exception clause, is formulated in the midst of his discussion with the pharisees and not "in the house" when he is with his disciples.

Now, "why" Matthew exactly did Matthew make such changes to the story we cannot determine with certainity as it is not possible to get inside his head. "

the easy answer is matthews authour did not like marks secretive jesus.

Net2004

1 Samuel 15:1 Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one [Yahweh] sent to anoint you king over His people Israel. Therefore, listen to [Yahweh's] command! 2 Thus said [Yahweh] of hosts: I am exacting the penalty for what Amalek did to Israel, for the assault he made upon them on the road, on their way out of Egypt. Now go, attack Amalek, and proscribe all that belongs to them. Spare no one, but kill alike men and women, infants and sucklings, oxen and sheep, camel and asses!"



When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you—and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. (Deuteronomy 7:1-5, NIV)



"Either way would mean that many thousands of the Canaanites were children when Yahweh gave the command to wipe them out and leave "no one alive to breathe" (Deut. 20:16-17; Josh. 10:40; Josh. 11:14-15), because the Israelite population at that time numbered 2.5 to 3 million, so if the seven nations were just greater and mightier collectively than this, there would surely have been 400,000 to 500,000 Canaanite children at the time. As noted earlier, Yahweh told Jonah that there were 120,000 children in Nineveh alone, so an estimate of 400 to 500 thousand children in seven nations collectively greater and mightier than the Israelites' three million would certainly be reasonable. "Moses" claimed that children have "no knowledge of good or evil" (Deut. 1:39), so readers should keep in mind that Mr. Miller is trying to rationalize the massacre of hundreds of thousands of innocent children, who didn't know the difference in good and evil."


arnolds god practiced butchery of cannanite n amalekite children, how is this moral?

sschlichter

Matthew
(Matt 13:36) Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him saying, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field."
(Matt 13:37) He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man.

As far as what is public...

(John 8:12)
Then Jesus spoke out again, "I am the light of the world. The one who follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

(John 8:23) Jesus replied, "You people are from below; I am from above. You people are from this world; I am not from this world.

(John 8:58) Jesus said to them, "I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!"

(John 14:6) Jesus replied, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.