Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hawkingfan · 12-30-2002, 07:40 AM

It disgusts me to hear Christians defend God's laws from the OT. One Christian has said here that these laws are "higher" than man's, yet once when I listed some, I was told by the Christian that they would leave some of the answers to an OT scholar. This tells me that the Christian is afraid to admit that God's laws are wrong. It does not take a scholar to interpret something that was written for the masses and is very easy to understand. Christians pick and choose which ones to follow and which ones to discard. They fail to question their "loving" God when He clearly condones slavery and abuse against women.

From Leviticus 25:44 (NIV version):

"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."

I was told by that Christian that God's laws concerning slavery were revolutionary! Giving the benefit of the doubt and saying they were, God never condemns the act itself. Why can't the Christian see that SLAVERY IS WRONG--period! And at NO TIME (before Christ, after Christ, EVER) was it acceptable IN ANY FORM!!

Also consider Exodus 21:20-21--"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."

That was one of the quotes the Christian decided not to touch.

And how can a Christian defend the following:

Deuteronomy 22:28--"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty sheckels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

This was yet another one not touched by the Christian.

Lucky girl! Nice guy, this God. His laws are higher than man's, eh?

The Other Michael · 12-30-2002, 11:56 AM

This looks like it will be a better fit in General Religious Discussions, so I'm going to move it there.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator, First Class

Debbie T · 12-30-2002, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawkingfan
They fail to question their "loving" God when He clearly condones slavery and abuse against women.

Interesting you bring this up as last night I was in the II library trying to find something on child abuse and found an Essay by Mark D. Ball, Ph.D. spoke on many issues you are talking about.

Quote:

Thus, in the 31st Chapter of Numbers occur God-sanctioned murder, rape, enslavement, and child abuse. First, God specifically orders the war -- he does not simply allow the Israelites to visit pain, suffering, and death upon another people, in which case God's role would be a passive one -- on the contrary, he assumes an active role by demanding the carnage. Second, all the men are summarily killed. Third, all the Midianite boys and unvirginal women are ordered to their deaths. Fourth, the Israelite men are urged to (presumably) enslave and rape the virgin Midianite girls. Most civilized people abhor all such actions as these (with less accord on the issue of war itself), considering them so evil that they must be prevented, even at high cost, and punished when efforts at prevention fail. Murder is still a capital crime in many states, imprisonment is the punishment for rape, the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids slavery, and convicted child abusers face not only incarceration but also a stigma, arguably deserved, that will follow them perhaps their entire lives.

Although the believer must concede God's demanding the war, he or she may still reject the notion that God sanctioned the postbellum savagery of Moses and the Israelites. Whereas verses 1, 2, and 7 state clearly that God ordered the war, the believer may insist that what happened to the Midianite captives after the war was ordered by Moses, not by God. Verses 8-18 do not explicitly implicate God in the atrocities inflicted on the captives -- Moses issues the orders.

Nonetheless, it is not less than sanction to intervene in the affairs of Israel and Midian to start the war, while not intervening on behalf of the helpless victims to palliate their pain. If God does intervene in human affairs, and is abundant in goodness, then surely he intervenes not to start wars, but to stop them. Surely he intervenes not to cause pain and suffering, but to end it. Thus, because God was willing to intervene to demand the war, his refusal to intercede afterwards, i.e., his postbellum silence, must be tacit approval of the Israelites' cruelty toward the Midianites.

The answers I have received from Christians about these issues are varied and some simply do not want to touch these issues. Others say that the old testament shouldn't even be a part of the Christian bible. But it is there non the less. Most answers I have seen are that God knows best and we can't understand the mind of their god. I personally think it is a cop out and gets them off the hook not to have to realize the implications of these tough verses.

Most of us outside the religion know these verses point to the way life and attitudes were back when they were written. God becomes a kinder and gentler god in a parrallel path as humanity becomes kinder and gentler. A Christian can not accept these verses and deal with them because they go against his humanity. Back when they were written this was acceptable, not so today. So a Christian is left with the dilemna of either facing these stories for what they stand for or ignore them completely or try to find a way to excuse them away.

alek0 · 12-30-2002, 04:07 PM

Many Christians are just finding excuses to justify that.

I have argued recently with some christians on these same issues. The answers I got were that slaves were not slaves but voluntary servants and that they were treated nicely (questions on whether captured virgins would "voluntarily serve" those who killed their families were ignored, and so were the questions to what happens to slaves who are not jewish, since provision to set males free after 7 years applies only to jewish). As for rape, the answer was that no loving father would make his daughter marry her rapist, so law is irrelevant. And payment isn't payment for damaged property, it is to support the girl (yeah, right).

I gave up in the end. I just don't understand how can people find excuses for such things.

happyboy · 12-30-2002, 06:39 PM

ah, the bible. rape manual for greedy ancient israelites, as well as a manual for how God wants you to butcher your enemies and burn everything they cherish to the ground.

Hawkingfan · 12-31-2002, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by alek0
The answers I got were that slaves were not slaves but voluntary servants and that they were treated nicely (questions on whether captured virgins would "voluntarily serve" those who killed their families were ignored, and so were the questions to what happens to slaves who are not jewish, since provision to set males free after 7 years applies only to jewish). As for rape, the answer was that no loving father would make his daughter marry her rapist, so law is irrelevant. And payment isn't payment for damaged property, it is to support the girl (yeah, right).

Yeah, I've heard these excuses, too. But they are unfounded. The Bible clearly describes a difference between a slave/servant and a hired worker:

Leviticus 25:39-- "If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. He is to be treated as a hired worker..."

Shake · 01-02-2003, 10:41 AM

More reasons to believe that Biblical literalists must be insane!

LordMoneyG · 01-02-2003, 01:23 PM

Yes, Bible literalists are insane.

And to touch on Debbie's post, most Christians I have confronted about the outrageous laws of the Old Testament (including stonings for those who sport sideburns, I believe) make the same arguement that most of the Old Testament should not be included, or if included, only gleaned for modern applications. They say that those laws cannot POSSIBLY apply in our modern society, so they should not even be considered. They state that, when they were written, these laws probably had some use (even this is hard to prove), but that use has since dissipated.

Which makes you wonder, how can they pick and chose? How can someone say that the basic enslavement of women no longer applies in society, yet complete and total abstinence before marriage still does? I find abstinence to be completely unrealistic, and when it prevents safe sex from being taught in schools, also very dangerous.

Ah, anyway, I don't understand Christianity sometimes. Make that almost never.

Tom Sawyer · 01-02-2003, 01:47 PM

I brought up this issue with a Christian friend and what he said was that mankind wasn't ready for modern laws and morality at that point. Then Jesus came along and changed everything and brought mankind into maturity, so the laws and everything from the Old Testament don't apply to anything today.

I always thought that was a pretty nice cop-out.

12-30-2002, 07:40 AM	#1
Hawkingfan Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,247	God, slavery, and the treatment of women It disgusts me to hear Christians defend God's laws from the OT. One Christian has said here that these laws are "higher" than man's, yet once when I listed some, I was told by the Christian that they would leave some of the answers to an OT scholar. This tells me that the Christian is afraid to admit that God's laws are wrong. It does not take a scholar to interpret something that was written for the masses and is very easy to understand. Christians pick and choose which ones to follow and which ones to discard. They fail to question their "loving" God when He clearly condones slavery and abuse against women. From Leviticus 25:44 (NIV version): "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." I was told by that Christian that God's laws concerning slavery were revolutionary! Giving the benefit of the doubt and saying they were, God never condemns the act itself. Why can't the Christian see that SLAVERY IS WRONG--period! And at NO TIME (before Christ, after Christ, EVER) was it acceptable IN ANY FORM!! Also consider Exodus 21:20-21--"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." That was one of the quotes the Christian decided not to touch. And how can a Christian defend the following: Deuteronomy 22:28--"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty sheckels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." This was yet another one not touched by the Christian. Lucky girl! Nice guy, this God. His laws are higher than man's, eh?

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

12-30-2002, 11:56 AM	#2
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	This looks like it will be a better fit in General Religious Discussions, so I'm going to move it there. cheers, Michael MF&P Moderator, First Class

12-30-2002, 04:07 PM	#4
alek0 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 640	Many Christians are just finding excuses to justify that. I have argued recently with some christians on these same issues. The answers I got were that slaves were not slaves but voluntary servants and that they were treated nicely (questions on whether captured virgins would "voluntarily serve" those who killed their families were ignored, and so were the questions to what happens to slaves who are not jewish, since provision to set males free after 7 years applies only to jewish). As for rape, the answer was that no loving father would make his daughter marry her rapist, so law is irrelevant. And payment isn't payment for damaged property, it is to support the girl (yeah, right). I gave up in the end. I just don't understand how can people find excuses for such things.

12-30-2002, 06:39 PM	#5
happyboy Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: on the border between here and there, WV Posts: 373	ah, the bible. rape manual for greedy ancient israelites, as well as a manual for how God wants you to butcher your enemies and burn everything they cherish to the ground.

01-02-2003, 10:41 AM	#7
Shake Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Folding@Home in upstate NY Posts: 14,394	More reasons to believe that Biblical literalists must be insane!

01-02-2003, 01:23 PM	#8
LordMoneyG Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North Carolina Posts: 125	Yes, Bible literalists are insane. And to touch on Debbie's post, most Christians I have confronted about the outrageous laws of the Old Testament (including stonings for those who sport sideburns, I believe) make the same arguement that most of the Old Testament should not be included, or if included, only gleaned for modern applications. They say that those laws cannot POSSIBLY apply in our modern society, so they should not even be considered. They state that, when they were written, these laws probably had some use (even this is hard to prove), but that use has since dissipated. Which makes you wonder, how can they pick and chose? How can someone say that the basic enslavement of women no longer applies in society, yet complete and total abstinence before marriage still does? I find abstinence to be completely unrealistic, and when it prevents safe sex from being taught in schools, also very dangerous. Ah, anyway, I don't understand Christianity sometimes. Make that almost never.

01-02-2003, 01:47 PM	#9
Tom Sawyer Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Toronto, eh Posts: 42,293	I brought up this issue with a Christian friend and what he said was that mankind wasn't ready for modern laws and morality at that point. Then Jesus came along and changed everything and brought mankind into maturity, so the laws and everything from the Old Testament don't apply to anything today. I always thought that was a pretty nice cop-out.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.