inquisitive01

[comment edited: posters are assumed to be dealing in good faith]




Your SOLE defense seems to be a hatred towards the Bible and Christianity (an opiniated defense, in other words).



If it's repugnant to YOU, that's YOUR problem. If you're being entertained by THIS, you should try to find other forms of entertainment (I thought I suggested that to you earlier?).


And, if you're going to bring the old convenience canard up, have you managed to find any evidence or valid support for your assertion that we don't believe in order to sin more, or more conveniently?

Didn't think so.

Does that mean you're going to change your mind and admit your error?

Yeah. Didn't think so on that one either.
[/QUOTE]


Have you found those statistics related to those who have not been convicted yet? Didn't think so. Have you found those statistics related to those in city jails? Again, didn't think so.

:thumbs:

spin

Ladies,

1) To call the Hebrew bible the OT is both disrespectful and
pandering to xian attempts to misappropriate a Jewish text
as theirs, while degrading it to 2nd class, as old is
replaced by new;

2) To talk about the "morality" of God is meaningless as there
is no yardstick with which to compare the deeds of this god;

3) To project modern moral standards back onto the bible is a
waste of time, except for xian baiting purposes (slavery is
sanctioned in the bible and how someone became a slave is
irrelevant to that sanction, so live with it);

4) To call someone a liar seems to be a blatant breach of
etiquette, which I think requires discipline. (Thanks, Vork)


spin

inquisitive01

You're assuming I'm a lady? Those assumption things sure seem to be prevalent around here, not to mention that it makes one wonder what you're views towards ladies might be.

I think how (whether it was voluntary or involuntary) someone became a slave is completely relevant, since it is the ABUSE OF SLAVERY (by man, which would be involuntary slavery) that you are attempting to say was sanctioned by God, which does not seem to be the case to me. Whether you think this or not is your choice.

Dean Anderson

Persumably, as a 'true Christian', you have no moral problem with people being forced into prostitution or pornography reluctantly, either - since people also do those out of desperation, poverty and debt...

Would you care to explain why an immoral act becomes moral if the person that you are taking advantage of is in a desperate enough situation that they are willing to submit to it?

Would you care to explain why we shouldn't just go to the refugee camps in Dafur and round up all those who are willing to be slaves in order to avoid starving to death - then sell them to slave masters.

It would certainly be cheaper than the alternatives - such as providing them the food and resources that they need. And anyway, selling them all into slavery would not be immoral because they are in a desperate situation anyway - and willing to be slaves in order to save their lives...

Your idea that it is proper for desperate people to be sold into enforced slave labour rather than helped isn't a new one by any means:

dmarker

Try Yahoo chat, they can't kick you off there. A good room to start with is "Bible Questions Answered". The room isn't labeled Christian.

Gullwind

Are you seriously going to argue that most (or even a large percentage of) slaves in history chose to be enslaved?

inquisitive01

"Rounding up" and "selling" those in Dafur would be an abuse by those rounding them up and selling them. People have other choices than prostitution or pornography... of course I would think that the vast majority of those who choose prostitution or pornography do so as their own choice. If you have statistics that say otherwise, feel free to share them.

Angrillori

#1) An opinionated defense, hmmm? Not that that brush paints anyone else here?

#2) In case you missed the entire rest of this thread, there's been a pretty significant defense of the position:
"The god of the bible approved of slavery."
Based primarily upon biblical text.

However, the alternative has boiled down to:
"There is no condemnation of slavery in the bible, and god did approve of slavery in the bible, but because some people sold themselves into slavery, therefore slavery must have been a good thing."

When this was systematically dealt with, argumentum ad repition ensued, and you haven't offered anything new to the table. Have you? You didn't in this post....


No, I don't hink I should. If it's entertaining to me to point out how you cannot defend the god you worship, then I think I'll just keep on doing it. But, thanks for the advice. Unless you've been able to provide a defense? You sure didn't in this post....

Don't need to.

YOU made the assertion. YOU support it. All an assertion needs in order to be dismissed is the current burden of evidence to stand against it.

Currently the evidence is:

Us: 1
You: 0

So, put up, or shut up already.

Angrillori

Ah, so the trend continues? Make an assertion and demand everyone else support it?

I don't suppose you'll support this any more than you supported your assertion that atheists disbelieve in order to sin more or sin more conveniently.

Oh well. C'est la vie.

Not entirely unexpected I guess, but, just as a friendly bit of advice, generally speaking it's better for your position if you actually support it with valid arguments, evidence, and well, support. It's quite your choice though...like I said, just offering a bit of friendly advice...

Shameless Hussy

By your concept of morality, perhaps, but not (apparently) by the morality of their system. (This is the part where someone could make the rude little observation that many gods in history, and especially the Judeo-Christian God, are suspiciously similar to and self-serving for the people who invented - oops! - I mean WORSHIP them. But rudery goes against MY moral system, so pretend you didn't see this.)

Well, *I* would have liked that better. But He didn't, so there we are. Then again, He didn't say they HAD to take slaves, He said IF or WHEN they took slaves, they had to this and that. Which means He gave them the latitude to make a better choice. Look, there are plenty of religions which contain things I consider incredibly distasteful. All I can do is try to live an example which I feel is less distasteful.

A couple of things:
The God of the OT is a God of retaliation and retribution. He is also a God concerned mainly with his children (the chosen ones), and nation-building both in the literal and allegorical senses (Israel). He drives hard bargains, He is as merciless as He is merciful, He can be a trickster, and He is very, very tribal. This is an ethnocentric God, and this is a God who doesn't have a problem with war. He also doesn't fight fair (by my standards, anyway). But if you don't believe in Him, then why be offended by any of this? I prefer just to take the text on its own terms. HOWEVER, I do see a problem when Christians, who have basically glommed on to this Jewish God, try to negate or rewrite these elements of the OT to make everything fit into their johnny-come-lately version. I don't have a problem with one religion branching out from a pre-existing one, but if you take a God, you TAKE him. Don't try to say down was really up and bad was really good to soothe your own nagging discomfort.

As for the slaves, IIRC "Hebrew" does not equal "Israelite". But yes, the message was, among other things, to thy own tribe be true, and none of this turning-the-other-cheek business. You want to be delivered into your own nation, you gotta kick some ass to get there. But you are also being held to a higher standard (which means He'll flood you out or burn you down if you turn your back on Him, twice as hard as He'll flood and burn on your behalf). Being chosen isn't a cakewalk. He's watching you and judging you above ALL others. So now how can this message be taken out of its literal, immediate context in the OT stories and be put to (spiritually) constructive use today?