Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sabine Grant · 11-20-2008, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exciter

But not if you or your cild were a slave, I bet.

If I were alive back then and my child were a slave I'd much rather he be a slave in a nation ruled by the God of the Bible then anywhere else at the time.

Choosing the least worse of the worst? Have you considered that the goal is to eliminate any of the worst? Meaning (once more) ridding off ANY exploitative practices.

Please, address my previous post where I built a case against slavery of any form based on exploitation.

Johnny Skeptic · 11-20-2008, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Item 1

Exodus 21:2-4 (NIV)

"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free."

Item 2

Exodus 21:12-14 (NIV)

"Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death."

Item 3

Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV)

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

Item 4

Leviticus 25:44-45 (NIV)

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Regarding item 1, please note that after six years, a Hebrew slave gained his freedom, but item 4 shows that slaves from other nations could be forced to be slaves for life. Part of item 4 says "You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." That is a good example of racial bigotry, but what else should one expect from a race of people who appointed themselves as God's chosen people. Chosen for what?

Regarding item 2, if a Hebrew deliberately killed another Hebrew, he was put to death, but item 3 shows that if a Hebrew deliberately killed a slave, he was not put to death, only punished, but not punished at all if the slave recovered in a day or two. That is more proof of racial bigotry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

Hmmm, you mean tribes of people tend to treat people from other tribes differently? I'm shocked!

The texts say that if a Jew killed a Jew, he would be put to death, but that if a Jew killed a slave, he would only be punished, but not punished at all if the slave recovered within a few days. Now if a follower of the God of the Bible wrote that on his own without being inspired by God, the texts make sense because it is well-known that many humans are guilty of unfair racial bigotry.

Treating people unfairly is wrong no matter what the historical era is. There are not any good reasons why a loving God would treat people unfairly just because the lived in ancient times.

Would you say that lying was moral in ancient times? You already believe that God's treatment of slaves was moral in ancient times, including killing them. How is telling lies any worse than killing people?

The Bible says that God is not the author of confusion. The confusing writings on slavery in the Bible have needlessly confused many people for thousands of years. That is a good indication that a God did not inspire the Bible.

Johnny Skeptic · 11-20-2008, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

If I were alive back then and my child were a slave I'd much rather he be a slave in a nation ruled by the God of the Bible then anywhere else at the time.

I wouldn't since the God of the Bible did not rule over the Jews.

Ancient Jews were barbarians who killed their own people if they worked on the Sabbath Day, cursed at their parents, or practiced the freedom of choosing another religion.

Consider the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mircosoft Encarta Deluxe Encyclopedia 2004

The Code of Hammurabi contains no laws having to do with religion. The basis of criminal law is that of equal retaliation, comparable to the Semitic law of “an eye for an eye.” The law offers protection to all classes of Babylonian society; it seeks to protect the weak and the poor, including women, children, and slaves, against injustice at the hands of the rich and powerful.

The code is particularly humane for the time in which it was promulgated; it attests to the law and justice of Hammurabi's rule. It ends with an epilogue glorifying the mighty works of peace executed by Hammurabi and explicitly states that he had been called by the gods “to cause justice to prevail in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil.” He describes the laws in his compilation as enabling “the land to enjoy stable government and good rule,” and he states that he had inscribed his words on a pillar in order “that the strong may not oppress the weak, that justice may be dealt the orphan and the widow.” Hammurabi counsels the downtrodden in these ringing words: “Let any oppressed man who has a cause come into the presence of my statue as king of justice, and have the inscription on my stele read out, and hear my precious words, that my stele may make the case clear to him; may he understand his cause, and may his heart be set at ease!”

Consider the following:

http://www.managedcaremag.com/archiv...ammurabi.shtml

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Allen Spiegal, Ph.D.

Hammurabi's Managed

Health Care – Circa 1700 B.C.

AT THE DAWN OF CIVILIZATION, about 4,000 years ago, nomadic Semite tribes developed a managed health care system. Using cuneiform, a hieroglyphic writing, they inscribed the concepts on clay tablets and chiseled them into stone between the 17th and 21st centuries B.C.
Adapting the existing edicts, King Hammurabi of Babylon incorporated these managed care precepts in the Codex Hammurabi, a huge stone stele erected about 1700 B.C.:

Rates set for general surgery, eye surgery, setting fractures, curing diseased muscles and other specific health care services. Fees set according to a sliding scale based on ability to pay. Owners to pay for health care for their slaves. Objective outcome measurement standards to assure quality of care. Outcomes information management to include data collection and evaluation. Consumer and patient's rights to be publicized, explained and made known to all. Not only that, but marketing and advertising activities promoted adoption of the plan.

In the Codex prologue, Hammurabi characterized his compilation of judicial decisions: "These are the just verdicts that Hammurabi, the experienced King, has imposed in order to establish firm discipline and good governance in his country." Judgments followed the traditional and harsh "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" punishments of the Semite tribes. As we will see, physicians were well rewarded, but when they failed, the penalties were considerable.

Codex Hammurabi clearly indicated that physicians merited public esteem and were to be rewarded with adequate fees, carefully prescribed and regulated by law.

It isn't far-fetched to suggest that, with appropriate language changes, the prologue and epilogue of Codex Hammurabi present lofty moral and ethical goals that managed care organizations might emulate:
"...to cause justice to prevail in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil, to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak ... to further the welfare of the people ... I brought health to the land; I made the populace to rest in security; I permitted no one to molest them ... I restrained them that the strong might not oppress the weak, and that they should give justice to the orphan and the widow.... "

I would take King Hammurabi over ancient Jewish barbarians any day. In addition, I am not aware that King Hammurabi wrote false prophecies like Bible writers did.

At any rate, even if the Old Testament is true, that does not necessarily mean that the New Testament is true. In my opinion, Jews understand the Old Testament much better than conservative Christians do. A good example is Isaiah chapter 53. Many if not the majority of conservative Christians believe that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus. Jews have sufficiently discredited that belief. I will start a new thread on that issue if you wish.

James Brown · 11-20-2008, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

So God's morality is relative; it changes with the times. Most believers claim that God's morality is objective, absolute, and unchanging.

Either that or he progressively reveals his morality and standards human society evolves enough to handle it. :huh:

That's quite the insult to ancient humans, isn't it? "As God, I could just tell you what the right thing to do is regarding slavery, but you're not mature enough to handle it yet. In three thousand years or so, then you'll be ready. If you're already a slave now, well . . . sorry."

And yet the ancient Hebrews were mature enough to be told not to murder, steal, and worship other gods. So what is it about monotheism that's so easy for a primitive society to grasp, but "Thou shall not enslave other people against their will" is too difficult? And how did the ancient Hebrews do with that monotheism doctrine, anyway? Was it as easy for them to absorb and adopt as you suggest? Had they evolved enough to handle it by the time they reached Mount Sinai?

I can't help but wonder if it was human society that evolved, or was it God?

show_no_mercy · 11-20-2008, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

So God's morality is relative; it changes with the times. Most believers claim that God's morality is objective, absolute, and unchanging.

Either that or he progressively reveals his morality and standards human society evolves enough to handle it. :huh:

So does this mean you're a Muslim?

ksen · 11-20-2008, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

Either that or he progressively reveals his morality and standards human society evolves enough to handle it. :huh:

So does this mean you're a Muslim?

Mmmm, no . . . allah be praised.

Exciter · 11-20-2008, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

If I were alive back then and my child were a slave I'd much rather he be a slave in a nation ruled by the God of the Bible then anywhere else at the time.

How so? Christianity wasn't practiced then. Do you think God would revel Himself and tell you that?

How do you know that they really treated slaves decent? A lot of the USofA slave owners thought they treated their slaves decent too.

Johnny Skeptic · 11-21-2008, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Item 1

Exodus 21:2-4 (NIV)

"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free."

Item 2

Exodus 21:12-14 (NIV)

"Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death."

Item 3

Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV)

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

Item 4

Leviticus 25:44-45 (NIV)

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Regarding item 1, please note that after six years, a Hebrew slave gained his freedom, but item 4 shows that slaves from other nations could be forced to be slaves for life. Part of item 4 says "You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." That is a good example of racial bigotry, but what else should one expect from a race of people who appointed themselves as God's chosen people. Chosen for what?

Regarding item 2, if a Hebrew deliberately killed another Hebrew, he was put to death, but item 3 shows that if a Hebrew deliberately killed a slave, he was not put to death, only punished, but not punished at all if the slave recovered in a day or two. That is more proof of racial bigotry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

Hmmm, you mean tribes of people tend to treat people from other tribes differently? I'm shocked!

The texts say that if a Jew killed a Jew, he would be put to death, but that if a Jew killed a slave, he would only be punished, but not punished at all if the slave recovered within a few days. Now if a follower of the God of the Bible wrote that on his own without being inspired by God, the texts make sense because it is well-known that many humans are guilty of unfair racial bigotry.

Treating people unfairly is wrong no matter what the historical era is. There are not any good reasons why a loving God would treat people unfairly just because the lived in ancient times.

Would you say that lying was moral in ancient times? You already believe that God's treatment of slaves was moral in ancient times, including killing them. How is telling lies any worse than killing people?

The Bible says that God is not the author of confusion. The confusing writings on slavery in the Bible have needlessly confused many people for thousands of years. That is a good indication that a God did not inspire the Bible.

Johnny Skeptic · 11-21-2008, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

If I were alive back then and my child were a slave I'd much rather he be a slave in a nation ruled by the God of the Bible then anywhere else at the time.

That is quite interesting. Many parties demolished the Jews, including the Philistines, Nebuchadnezzar, and the Roman emperor Trajan. In the early part of the second century, Trajan went to Palestine to put down a Jewish uprising, and killed 500,000 Jews. If the Jews had been more obedient to God, perhaps Trajan would only have killed 100,000 Jews. In addition, if Jews had been more obedient, perhaps God would have killed fewer Jews with hurricanes.

With the God of the Bible for a friend, who needs enemies?

Is it your position that God's protection of Jews was conditional on good behavior?

ksen · 11-21-2008, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exciter

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

If I were alive back then and my child were a slave I'd much rather he be a slave in a nation ruled by the God of the Bible then anywhere else at the time.

How so? Christianity wasn't practiced then. Do you think God would revel Himself and tell you that?

I didn't claim Christianity was practiced back then. :huh:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.