sschlichter

so, now it is immoral for a country to win a war. Was it immoral to occupy Germany, Italy, and Japan after WWII? Was it immoral to make them pay war reparations (the modern equivalent of tribute outlined in Lev 20:11)

sschlichter

I would like to add that the use of teeth and eyes is a literary tool to provide an example. When the law says an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, it is not neglecting what to do when an ear has been severed. The underlying priinciple is to limit revenge and to keep it from escalating. It is not a definitive list of the body parts covered by the law.

In the same way, the eye and tooth of the slave does not provide a list of body parts covered by the abuse law. It provides a rule that can be applied by a judge. Ie. You were not allowed to cut off a slaves ear, fingers, toes, or other body parts either. The same law applies.

sschlichter

actually, it may be a distraction but it is equally illogical for a Muslim not to respect the law of Moses since the Koran is very clear as to it's purpose.

Surah 2:53 And when We gave Musa the Book and the distinction that you might walk aright.

sschlichter

Are you joking? What enlightnement philosopher did you have in mind?

sschlichter

quote:

The land of Canaan was already inhabited by people before the Israelites settled during the
Iron Age (ca. 1200-1000 B.C.E.). There is archaeological evidence that the Canaanites of
the second millennium B.C. practiced the ritual of child sacrifice due to excavations of a shrine
to Baal near the city of Gezer. These excavations have yielded clay jars containing the charred
bones of infants and some older children (refer to picture on the left) (P. Hugues Vincent 188-192). Click on the following images:

passage taken from http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/cou...canaanite.html

Sheshonq

It is immoral to make the conquered people slaves and exploit them.

It is not the modern equivalent. You don't know what you're talking about.

Sheshonq

No, that is not the underlying principle. IN point of fact, slaves did not have any right or recourse to revenge - either as a legal or a practical matter. Had they assaulted or killed a Hebrew master, then they would be foreigners guilty of the assault (or murder) of a Hebrew. That would meant the slave, as a foreigner, facing Hebrew law under Hebrew judges. Can you work the rest of it out for yourself, or do I need to draw you a map?

Which doesn't matter to the current conversation, since:

1. the original state of slavery was immoral - adding little bits of humane treatment around the edges does not change that fact;

2. the text clearly indicates that slaves were not people, but property

Sheshonq

It is not equally illogical. You are clearly ignorant of the role that the OT plays in Islam; quoting a sura about Moses in isolation does not support your position.

You're barely familiar with the OT; do yourself a favor and try not to lecture about other religions, hmm?

Sheshonq

Not at all. Apparently you're ignorant of the Enlightenment period.

Montesquieu, Rousseau, Voltaire, Raynal, Smith, Du Pont, Kant - for starters.

Sheshonq

In point of fact this isn't as cut-and-dry as the article makes it out to be. The majority evidence consists of infants buried in jars, with the bones charred. But there are problems with this:

1. It is not possible to determine if this was a child sacrifice, or a stillborn child who died and was ritually cremated, with the remains buried in a jar;

2. The majority of evidence for any such child sacrifice comes not from Palestine, but from Carthage (another Phoenician city);

3. However in Carthage, it is confined to a time around 400-146 BC when Carthage was sacked and burned by Rome -and long after the supposed conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews

It may be that child sacrifice was practiced, but it's far from clear. It is far more likely that the Hebrews wanted to create a bete noire out of the surrounding tribes, and picked this practice as a way of demonizing them. It was the ancient parallel to saying "Communists like to eat babies" - even though Communists never did any such thing.