mdarus

You are correct, it would be no problem for an ominpotent to juggle all the needs and prevent every evil, every wrong, every heart break.

I appreciate your persepective but humbly disagree. But it would be much easier to blame evolution and human culuture for all the evil in the world. We have no expectation that these forces have either the power or motivation to stop evil. Therefore we can not accuse them of sins of ommission.

It is an interesting intelectual exercise to try to determine if sin was inevitable, how long they might have held out, and what would have happened if sin never occured. It is not necessary from my perspective to conclude that sin had to occur although it seems likely.

I thought that is what we were talking about.

If I go to the top of the mountain and push the snow down on people, that would be a sin of commission. If I see someone heading into an avalanche area knowing there is a risk and have an opportunity to warn them, but fail to act that could be a sin of ommission.

However, I question that just because I can take action, I morally must take action. I might warn them but what if I fail to block their path? What if I fail to tackle one and physcially restrain them? What if I fail to shoot one in the leg? What if I fail to kill one in the group so the rest of the group will not follow? Where does my due dillengence end and their personal responsibility start?

My suggestion is that God has given mankind a great deal of personal responsiblity. This seems like the right thing for him to do. Even though it includes a lot of bad decisions by people that harm other people, it also provides opportunities for all the good things.

Just because God has the power and motivation (love) to prevent all evil, he is not obligated to do so. He is not culpable for the acts of other beings. Instead he give other beings the opportunity to join in mitigating evil acts with acts of good. If he were to engage in the elimination of evil by use of his omnipotence, it would result in great harm.

achristianbeliever

I'm not. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. The question is would the writers of the Bible have considered credit card debt slavery? If you think I'm wrong then fine but I'm not redefining slavery. I would also say that what Moses got the Israelites away from was slavery. Exodus chapter 21 was slavery. And what occured in the mini-series roots was slavery. To say I'm redefining slavery would mean I don't accept any other circumstance as slavery which I never said and I've just said now that isn't the case. All I'm saying is I don't think you can show what happened to African American slaves in early America and make the assumption that it was exactly that same way in every circumstance where slavery occurred. One thing that needs to be realized that in the Ancient World slavery was MOST (not all) of the time voluntary.

Its amazing because what the skeptics here responded is exactly what I knew they would.

I wrote here:
Skeptics are so predictable.

Yeah suuuuuuure that's what the Hebrew thoughts were for a slave. If that were true then there would be circumstances in which the master must be required to let the slave go free.

Then why does the Bible say that if you damage the eye or a tooth of a slave they must go free? I don't recall that if I smash a chair I'm required by law to let that chair go free. Now don't say, "Well he should go to prison not just have to let the slave go free" that's not the point. You said a slave was nothing more than furniture. Then why did a slave have any rights of any kind if he was nothing more than furniture?

The problem between me and the skeptic is our differences in how the Bible considered a slave property as well as a human.

To what extant was a slave merely property and/or a human to the Israelites and to what extant was the relationship between master and servant subject to the laws for humanity? That is the main question.

It would be appreciated if the skeptics here actually examined the laws that occured to the African American slaves compared to the slaves of the Israelite books rather than just assume it was exactly the same.

Ubercat

How many slaves do you own?

-Ubercat

Ubercat

And that's just in describing god, let alone the humans!

-Ubercat

Ubercat

I'm glad you admit that sin, (in a universe where the bible is true), would be inevitable. Obviously the fall was predestined by god. How do you make predestination jibe with free will? The two are diametrically opposed.

-Ubercat

Anat

IMO one reason behind the HB's approach to slavery is that at least some of the authors viewed slavery as a situation that corrupted the slave more than it did the slave-owner. This is demonstrated in the portrayal of the Israelites in the wilderness as a spineless lot that were ready to return to Egypt at any sign of trouble. A slave is perceived as one who easily gives up freedom for no-more-than basic physical comfort. Thus the laws regarding slavery are lukewarm - on the one hand the slave (and particularly the male Hebrew slave) is protected from some of the more extreme forms of mistreatment, and is given some opportunities to regain his freedom, but OTOH is considered of lower moral value due to his choice of slavery.

In later halakhic literature slaves are denigrated for being slaves of slaves (since all the Jews are slaves=servants of God), and one is prohibited from selling oneself into slavery until one is so poor that one is forced to sell his shoes.

Toto

Here is Vokosigan's classic disection of the Christian arguments on slavery:

http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.c...c&f=6&t=000718

Slavery is different from credit card debt. A slave who disobeys his master will be beaten, because there is no economic incentive that can be used to gain his compliance. A modern debtor has many options - find a new job that pays more, cut back on expenses, declare bankruptcy - but will not be beaten for failing to pay his debt.

achristianbeliever

Of course and we all know ancient people could just as easily go to the local bank of Israel and declare bankruptcy. Your analogy doesn't work your looking at it again through 21st century eyes. Besides show me where it said a master MUST beat their slave not just that it was permissible. Do you think that if a master didn't beat their slave from time to time they were punished? Only reason I ever brought up credit card debt is because I believe the people of the Old Testament would have considered it slavery and I don't think enough people have given enough of a good explanation of why that couldn't be. The options for a modern debter is meaningless. Ok so today we have other options than beating but eliminate those options and ways to deal with disobedient debtors become much more difficult.

wow you can post a link to a site about slavery? Guess what I can do that too.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html

Show me the biblical statement that says Christians MUST own slaves and not just that it was permissible. If you can't your argument is pointless. Besides I already mentioned restaurants making people work to pay off their meals if they haven't paid for it but of course I'm not allowed to call that slavery.

Toto

Sorry, I think it is your analogy that does not work. Slavery and debt are vastly different institutions.

So you claim that you can read the minds of ancient people, and that they clearly would have considered a modern contract relationship that preserves the personal autonomy of both parties to be the same as slavery? I think you are the one who needs to explain this extraordinary claim.

Ancient people did understand debt relationships, and debt was not the same as slavery (although in ancient times, but not now, a debtor might be forced by circumstances to sell himself or family members into slavery.)

Could you explain what you mean? Is there every a chance that a disobedient debtor would be beaten into compliance? Are you thinking of the Mafia breaking someone's leg?

This is Daniel Wallace's site - which the first link debunks.

I fail to see how this makes my argument pointless.

I suspect that restaurants no longer force people to wash dishes if they can't pay for their meals. Too many problems with labor regulations and workers' comp. They probably just call the police.

NOGO

You ask a question and then tell us that you wont accept the answer.

Most slaves became such through war. There are plenty of examples in the bible. Are you saying that it is ok for victors to enslave people defeated in war? Are you saying that Paul thought that this was ok?

By ancient standards the average american would have a couple of German or Janaese salves and troops in Irak would be collecting Iraki women for sale in the US.

But slavery in itself is ok! Right?