Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Anything Divine in the Bible?
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 391 of 406 (491531)
12-17-2008 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 388 by DevilsAdvocate
12-16-2008 9:03 PM


Re: If God Were Human Would He Want a God Like Him?
It is not that I feel the Bible is not divine because of the atrocities I see in the Bible. From my own study of the Bible compared to the archaeological and historical evidence of the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean my opinion is that the Bible, both OT and NT seem to be human derived (OT from Semitic and non-Semitic neighbors and NT from Greco-Roman gnostic and mystery religions) not God inspired.
That is pretty much the area of one of the other Forums on the reliability of the text. I won't talk much about that now.
Also, the Bible's own inconsistencies, scientific evidence and supernatural and unrealistic myth-like stories (i.e. creation in 7 days, talking snakes, talking donkey's, sun stand still, water to wine, walking on water, virgin birth, etc) also prove this point to me.
Well, I sympathize with you some. My early days of Bible reading were had with a big FILTER by which I was going to pick and choose what things were plausible. So I know the road you are on.
I would only say two things. In my experience I started with the Gospels. First I got convinced of the integrity of Jesus Christ. He gained my trust. Then I noticed gradually that He seemed to take the Old Testament seriously. Somehow I got convinved that if it was credible to Jesus then it must be Okay. His credentials, for me, were beyond questioning. So I came to the Old Testament THROUGH the New Testament.
That worked for me. Now the other thing that helped is to be careful to find out what is actually SAID. What was actually written. But I won't develop that now.
My second point to you is that the first sentence of the Bible says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
The whole universe was created by His power out of nothing ! What can He not do then ??
This establishes that we are dealing with a Being of limitless power. His ability is infinite. His power cannot be measured. That may not mean that at every turn He will do a "magic trick" to tickle our sense of entertainment. But it does mean that He can, if it serves some purpose of His, transcend the laws of His creation and do a miracle.
I think that life began with a miracle of God.
After studying a book on the miracles of the Bible it was pointed out to me that they usually come in pairs. It is like if there is one hard to believe statement there is another somewhere else which acts as a partner, a confirming second testimony. I saw a deliberate scheme which made me suspicious that something was up with these miracles.
It was as if God as saying with the second occurance "That's right. You heard me the first time, the sun stood still."
"That's right, You got the first time. I did say that the water of the river parted. Here I do a similar thing."
"That's right. You heard it right the first time. An animal spoke. Here I do it again to reinforce what I told you the first time."
"That's right. That's what I said. A man was raised from the dead."
At any rate this double confirmation of miracles led me to believe that I was dealing with a very wise Mind and not frivolous material. I would only suggest that the some of these are more important than others perhaps.
I would hope that the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead would be the first miracle of God you could accept if for now you just can't take a lot of the others.
I'll have to continue latter.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-16-2008 9:03 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 392 of 406 (491537)
12-17-2008 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 390 by jaywill
12-17-2008 6:42 AM


Re: More on Slavery...
iano writes:
There is also this to consider: the purpose of law giving (via conscience) is not so much to restrain us from sin as it is to convict us that we are sinners. Which means that it's imperative we sin!
jaywill writes:
I could be misunderstanding the intention of this paragraph. But any suggestion that man SHOULD sin is unreliably opposed to the revelation of the Bible and really to common sense.
It was an oblique attempt to deflect the commonly held unbelievers view that being "good" will be enough to enter heaven (should it be the case, the unbeliever thinks to himself, that God, heaven, Judgement turn out to exist afterall).
-
I agree that the law was given to expose man's sinning nature. But I hope this is not a cynical leap from that to suggest, that the more sin commited then the better. Early critics of the Christian faith leveled this criticism against Paul's teaching:
"What then shall we say? Should we continue to sin that grace may abound? Absolutely not! We [Christians] who have died to sin, how shall we still live in it?" (Rom. 6:1,2)
"What then? Should we sin, because we are not under the law but under grace? Absolutely not! (Rom. 6:15)
Given that my comments were aimed at unbelievers and not Christians, one could argue that the unbelieving person would be better off cutting ties with the attempt (conscious or no) to self-justify by attempting to refrain from sin.
Clinging to such self-justification is certain to result in damnation - indeed, it's a deadly dangerous thing to do. For all it's many downsides, a headlong rush into depravity at least gives one the opportunity to end up at the very bottom of the barrel. To submerge themselves completely in the stench of sin.
How very often is it that a person finds God there?
-
It is a process and it takes a lifetime of practice. But any thought that the sinner should hold on and sin more and more is not at all wise.
In the case of the Christian sinner, not at all, at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by jaywill, posted 12-17-2008 6:42 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by jaywill, posted 12-17-2008 10:25 AM iano has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 393 of 406 (491540)
12-17-2008 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 389 by Dawn Bertot
12-17-2008 12:58 AM


Re: If God Were Human Would He Want a God Like Him?
myself writes:
The problem though is that if you use this line of reasoning you could apply the term "slave" to just about any type of labor industry. You are slave to your work so to speak. You have to work for a boss who may treat you like shit and if you may have to work for long enduring hours with very little incentives and pay. You could quit a civilian job at anytime but so too will you face repercussions there as well i.e. loss of wages, no or a negative recommendation, an angry wife, starving kids, loss of house, etc. Are they actual literal slaves as modern society defines slavery? No!
Bertot writes:
Ofcourse and that is my point DA, slavery has many meanings and cannot be restricted to a certain definition. The only problem with the above examples you provide, while very true, is you missed the point and avoided the first question I asked. I asked, are people (draftees) taken against thier will, yes or no?
Actually technically no, consciences objection has existed since the Revolutionary War. So, even draftees have a way out as opposed to slaves. I have never seen a slave classified 1-W. So your argument even there falls flat. Current legal protection for consciences objectors allows them to avoid the draft as shown here in the Selective Service System: "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for conscientious objector status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims."
No matter how you spin this Bertot, the slaves of the Hebrews are not the same as military service men either enlisted or drafted. The Hebrew slave system was not much different than those of any other slave systems of antiquity and was almost identical to the slave systems of other Semitic civilizations. In fact, many of Greek and Roman slaves were able to buy their freedom however, I have never seen a provision for this in Hebrew law (except for the Hebrew indentured servants). According to the Torah, foreign slaves owned by the Hebrews could be beaten into submission and were treated as property not much different than cattle i.e. chattel slaves. Here is the definition for chattel slaves: "Slaves are held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase, or birth, and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (such as wages) in return for their labor." Is this not true of the foreign slaves held by the Hebrews? Were they not chattel slaves? Are American military draftees chattel slaves?
When this action happens, whether you call them prisoners or indentured servents acting against thier will they are slaves of a sort and by definition.
No, there is a categorical and motive difference between prisoners, indentured servants and slaves. You are merging all these different types of people into one definition. Again according to your logic we could apply the term slave to just about any occupation or human condition that exists. According to you I am a slave because I serve in the military (some days I really don't want to go to work but I know I have to for various reasons), a prisoner is a slave even though he is a criminal or a hostage of another country (a prisoner of war can become essentially [and usually temporarily] a slave as in the case of work camps but not all prisoners of war are), etc.
So according to your logic anyone who does something against their will is a slave. Your not married are you? I do things against my will all the time either because my wife wants me to do something, my child wants something, work demands things of me, etc. You get my drift? You really think I want to be away from my family 6-7 months at a time? That is against my will. How about people in careers that travel a lot or have to move to another state to have a decent job, many times "against their will".
The fact that anyone that leaves the military has consequenses has nothing to do with the fact that draftees (slaves), or what ever you wish to describe them, are taken against thier will an FORCED to serve in places and situations that are against thier beliefs, not to mention the fact that they do not wish to be there in the first place.
Consciences objectors. Look it up. Draftees are not slaves. Draftees receive a paycheck and rights that slaves do not. Draftees are not bought and sold as property. Draftees are not born into slavery. Draftees families are not sold off to other slave masters or passed down from generation to generation. Slaves owned by the Hebrews were owned for life and their offspring also owned were passed down from generation to generation. Slaves also could be beaten into submission. Members of the military are protected under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). Draftees could gain rank and make more money get more privileges. Slaves serve at the whim of their masters and are not guaranteed any rights or privileges. Draftees could leave the service after the war/conflict ended.
Draftees ≠ Slaves
The purpose of the US military draft is solely for extreme cases of national emergencies to defend our country (to protect and secure the rights and freedoms of all the citizens of our country). As a citizen of this country we have certain inalienable rights, however we also have certain duties and responsibilities required of us as well. You may call this an unwritten "citizenship contract" so to speak. One of these duties is that in times of national emergency we as citizens are willing to protect this country from foreign threats either by enlisting/commissioning or by being draft. If you don't like this rule you can leave and go to a country without this mandate of being able to be drafting (compulsory enrollment) its citizens into service i.e. Canada, etc. or you can file for consciences objector status. A draftee can also file for exemption, postponement, or deferment. Can a slave do that?
BTW, I don't necessarily agree with the all of the reasons in which the USA has instituted the draft, case in point Vietnam, however I do understand the impetus behind it. Notice that we have not instituted the military (or I should say Army) draft for over 35 years, since the end of the Vietnam War, because of its severe implications and ramifications on the rights of servicemen and of their families (as well as the weakening of the military by non-volunteers). Personally, I (and the majority of American's) don't think that the draft should be implemented except in dire emergencies to protect the country i.e. WWII. That is a case when the safety and security of millions of American citizens trumps the rights and freedoms normally granted to an individual person. During WWII and other wars in which citizens were drafted into the Army, those who consciously objected were given the option to serve their country in a civil service role rather than serving on the front lines in the Army.
Slavery takes none of this into account and slaves never had the options draftees may be granted much less any other rights, pay, recognition, judicial protection, etc that they were given.
I noticed you did not provide another word to describe the situation of those taken against their will as in the case of draftees. Now this may be what the government calls them, but what do you think the people that are in that situation against their will call it?
I am a member of the Veterans for Foreign Wars and know many servicemen who were draftees. Not one seriously calls the draft slavery. Many are proud of there service even if they were drafted and many served long after they were told they could leave the military.
So by your logic is the drafting of American citizens for a national emergency i.e. a WWII type situation, immoral?
Your initial contention or question was, Is slavery wrong or right, it mentioned nothing about a certain type, time or place of that condition. My example of the draftee demonstrates beyond any doubt that the term slavery is broad in character and meaning.
Ok, is the slavery system used by the Hebrews as shown below, right or wrong?
Exodus 21:7-11 writes:
If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.
If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her.
If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters.
If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.
If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.
Exodus 21:20-21 writes:
If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished.
If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
Leviticus 25:44-46 writes:
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have--you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you.
Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession.
You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.
Two questions:
1. Why is slavery in Greece, Rome, Babylon, Assyria, Babylonia, Canaan, etc morally objectionable and the Hebrew slavery system not?
2. Why did God not abolish the slave system all together and why did the early Christians condone slavery and never speak out against it?
Ofcourse not. You entered into that CONTRACT OF YOU OWN FREE WILL and are therefore obligated to honor that contract as you would the purchase of an automobile. Draftees did not agree to anything or enter into any contract of thier own free will, but are forced into those situations as is a slave of any time, place or country. Notice you even used the word "contract".
Actually draftees process of entering the service is similar to that of an enlistee. The only difference is the process in which they are compulsorily enlisted into the military (actually doctors, etc can also be drafted into a commission as well during a draft). Past drafts i.e. Vietnam War used a lottery type system and then sent draft notices to Selective Service registered individuals. He goes through a battery of examinations both physical and psychological and then if he passes and does not apply for exemption, postponement, or deferment he is enlisted or commissioned into the military (Army) for a period of two years of service (much less than the volunteer enlistees standard obligatory service of 4 years).
What about stop-loss during a war? The military holding people in the military involuntarily "against their will" after the terms of their enlistment contract expire? Is that slavery too?
Besides that to help you know that I was in the military, what do we usually call 77-134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice? What term describes those articles. Ill give you a hint it starts with a "P"
Punitive Articles.
Though I still don't see how you can rationally call service in the military slavery? If you understood what slavery was like either 200 or 2000 years ago you would not equate these as being the same.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-17-2008 12:58 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-17-2008 12:45 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 405 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-18-2008 1:00 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 394 of 406 (491543)
12-17-2008 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by iano
12-17-2008 8:36 AM


Re: More on Slavery...
IANO
It was an oblique attempt to deflect the commonly held unbelievers view that being "good" will be enough to enter heaven (should it be the case, the unbeliever thinks to himself, that God, heaven, Judgement turn out to exist afterall).
I see. I sometimes am too defensive. In this case I went back and read over your post again and thought I misunderstood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by iano, posted 12-17-2008 8:36 AM iano has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 395 of 406 (491555)
12-17-2008 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by DevilsAdvocate
12-16-2008 5:38 PM


Re: If God Were Human Would He Want a God Like Him?
CS writes:
Well neither are the "slaves" in the Old Testament "actual literal slaves as modern society defines slavery".
Um yes they are. How are they not literal slaves?
The point was as modern society defines slavery...
Even your book says that "slave" could have just meant something like "servant", as modern society defines the term.
Enslavement of one person over another in this manner should not be condoned or justified.
Why not? and how do you know this?
Without slaves, could the Pyramids have been built?
I just don't think that slavery is absolutley immoral like you are arguing.
and then you're taking it further with god condoning slavery in the OT and saying that this makes god a bad guy.
Slavery can be justified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-16-2008 5:38 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-17-2008 6:17 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 396 of 406 (491560)
12-17-2008 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by DevilsAdvocate
12-17-2008 9:30 AM


Re: If God Were Human Would He Want a God Like Him?
DA writes:
Though I still don't see how you can rationally call service in the military slavery? If you understood what slavery was like either 200 or 2000 years ago you would not equate these as being the same.
Its simple and I will demonstrte why once again.
I will get to this latest response as quickly as I can today, busy with a few things, but will get to it soon as I can.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-17-2008 9:30 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 397 of 406 (491568)
12-17-2008 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by DevilsAdvocate
12-16-2008 9:03 PM


But God Hates Divorce
DA,
If Christians treated the Bible as just another book presenting the history of that region not as a doctrinal thesis on how we should live our lives I would have no problems with this. However, Christians selectively cherry pick stories and passages out of the Bible to use as examples of how we are to live a moral life while disregarding the blatant and disparaging passages chalked full of what modern humans consider human atrocities.
Yes. Something like that does occur.
I think that you are on the right track to read the Bible for yourself. Many do not. So all that they know is second hand.
That fact that some would examine the Scriptures first hand is encouraging. This was my practice from my early life as a believer.
How can they do this in good conscience when the god of the Bible systematically commands, commits and condones ethnocide, rape, murder, infanticide, enslavement and other atrocities.
Let's look at your list:
"Systematically" - Okay, when Joshua went into Canaan God instructed them to systematically wipe out the inhabitants. I have to ask myself a couple of questions:
1.) Is it possible that God could have done that and still be righteous, holy, perfect.
I am persuaded that the answer is "Yes, He can."
Back in Genesis 15 He told Abraham that He would not bring Israel into Canaan yet because the people of had not gotten bad enough yet to merit such a judgement. They were not going to deserving of such a harsh conquest until another 400 years.
"And He [God] said to Abram, Know assuredly that your seed will be sojourners in a loand that is not theirs, and they will serve them; and they will afflict them four hundred years. ... And in the fourth generation they will come here again, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." (See Genesis 15:13-16)
God was willing to tolerate their steady decline for four more centries. Meanwhile, terrible victimazation of its citizens, oppression, witchcraft, pacts with demons, dedicating animals, children, objects to the darkess occult practices. The crimes were unspeakable. Perhaps some of Canaan's own victims crying out to God in prayer for mercy at the evil of the society.
I don't know why the animals had to be killed. I do not like to think about it. Maybe the animals carried diseases dangerous to wipe out the whole human race because of their sex acts with the animals. Maybe they were so devoted to Satan that they were demon possessed.
And the babies, why were they killed? I don't know. Maybe they were spared something worse in life by a swift death. These are really tough questions for me to answer.
But like Abraham who said when he interceeded for Sodom, challenging God "Shall the Judge of all the earth not do justly ?" (Gen. 18:25)
I notice that the Conquest of Canaan is not an act that is repeated throughout the rest of Israel's history. We do not see this kind of harsh national conquest as a continuous practice. Latter the Israelites got a reputation of having merciful kings.
So I just believe that this conquest business is a seldomly repeated example of something a righteous God had to do. He does remind Israel that the judgment on Canaan is not because of Israel's goodness but the Canaanites badness:

"Do not say in your heart when Jehovah your God drives them out from before you, Because of my righteousness, Jehovah has brought me in to possess this land. Rather, it is because of the wickedness of these nations that Jehovah is about to dispossess them from before you.
It is not because of your righteousness nor because of the uprightness of your heart that you are entering in to possess their land, but Jehovah your God is is about to dispossess them from before you because of the wickedness of these nations and so that Jehovah may establish the word that He swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob." (Deut. 9:5,6)
" ... on account of these abominations Jehovah your God is dispossessing them from before you. "(Deut. 18:12b)
You should have noticed that there was distinction in harshness as to how God told Israel to deal with enemies near and those farther away. If this is just a general genocide of all of Israel's enemies then I would ask why would God make a distinction ? Obviously He thought some were more deserving of slaughter than others:
When you draw near to a city to fight against it, you shall proclaim peace to it. And if it responds with peace to you and opens its gates to you, all the people found within it shall become your forced labor; and they shall serve you. ... But of the cities of these peoples which Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not allow anything that breaths to live; But you must utterly destroy them: the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, just as Jehovha your God has commanded you,
So that they do not teach you to do according to all their abominations which they do for their gods and you sin against Jehovah yoru God." (See Deut. 20:11-18)
So I have chosen to believe that God can be righteous and have an example of an extreme case of leading Israel in such a slaughering conquest. The book of Joshua is a necessary extreme testimony of God's judgment upon some very bad nations. It is not the regularly repeated norm throughout all of Israel's history.
The alternative is to assume that my righteousness exceeds God's. He in that case should have consulted with me before leading Israel into Canaan. Or He needed to get advice from some wise human being He created. Then I guess we'd be in a real pickle with a faulty error prone Supreme Divine Governor of the entire universe.
I don't entertain the thought that the biblical account is fictional.
Even worse, Christians justify this behavior (from what I believe to be a non-existent being) as being acceptable. That is what I have a problem with.
I am willing to admit that there are some difficult places in the Bible to understand. I am not willing to throw out the whole revelation of God in the Bible because of some places hard to understand.
My own behavior in my life leads me to believe that probably I would not recognize absolute goodness at every instance. Probably at some instances of God's righteous justice I would not agree. If I did I would not have done some of the things which I did.
Anyway, my Bible's last book is not Joshua. I have 27 books dedicated to this Man Jesus. He seems to have the last word in the 66 books of the Bible.
Me:
Let me ask you a few questions, hoping you'll give a non sarcastic and honest reply.
You:
You treat me with respect and I shall do the same.
1.) Do you think that "Thou shalt not have any slaves" should have been one of the Ten Commandments ?
Yes, that would have been a start. Any attempts to prohibit slavery, ethnocide, and the other atrocities of the OT would be a convincing argument for a good and just God.
I want to think about that for a season. Thanks.
Me:
2.) When God gives instructions to the Hebrews how to offer the trespass offering do you take that as God's command for them to commit trespasses?
No, but that is not the same as telling the Hebrews where to get their slaves from and that as long as you don't kill them than it is ok to beat them. Also, telling them they can sale their daughters off as sex slaves is also pretty disgusting.
Excuse me. But when you say some things like "telling them they can sale their daughters off as sex slaves ... I just find that a groundless accusation.
Your logic seems flimsy there, again respectfully. With as much faulty reasoning I could rationalize that the institution of marriage is itself a form of sex slavery. All I would have to do is find one incident of a wife who wished not to have sex on some given night and point out that she was in a slavery relationship with some man backed by the state.
I refered to a website with a long discussion about the social negative attitudes about masters who took sexual advantage of female servants. Not to say that it was not done. But the ANE socially frowned upon the practice.
Why should I accept that God commanded it? Where is your evidence of divinely commanded sex slavery ? The incident of Sarah, Hagar, and Abraham has been disqualified IMO.
Miller's website on sale of daughters by dads in ANE (copied by Permission)
Now, let's turn to the Exodus 21.7-11 passage, dealing with a father 'selling' his daughter . .
1. The first thing to note is that commentators do not see this as a 'despicable' , 'mercenary' act on the part of a cold-hearted father. Rather, it was an exigency taken by a dad in protection and provision for his daughter (generally thought to be under extreme duress):
· "Lagas-Girsu legal texts show children being sold into slavery, and this led the texts' editor to posit a weak family bond. If, as seems likely, the parents were choosing life over death for their children, one does not need to doubt their devotion to the children." [OT:LIANE, 35]
· "While this legal right of parents was more than likely subject to abuse, its practice resulted from poverty and debt that threatened the survival of the household. Thus the selling of children was one means of payment of debt by an impoverished household, at the same time providing a new household for the poor offspring." [OT:FAI, 196]
· "Female slaves were treated differently. Many times female slaves were concubines or secondary wives (cf. Gen. 16:3; 22:24; 30:3, 9; 36:12; Jud. 8:31; 9:18). Some Hebrew fathers thought it more advantageous for their daughters to become concubines of well-to-do neighbors than to become the wives of men in their own social class." [BBC, at Ex 21.3ff]
· "In the ancient world, a father, driven by poverty, might sell his daughter into a well-to-do family in order to ensure her future security. The sale presupposes marriage to the master or his son. Documents recording legal arrangements of this kind have survived from Nuzi. The Torah stipulates that the girl must be treated as a free woman; should the designated husband take an additional wife, he is still obligated to support her. A breach of faith gains her her freedom, and the master receives no compensation for the purchase price." [JPStorah, Ex 21]
2. Secondly, commentators are quick to point out that this 'selling' isn’t real slavery--its very, very different from 'regular' slavery transactions. ; (3) has multiple exit conditions; and (4) has additional protections and guarantees in it:
And yes, God does in several passages tell the Hebrews to annihilate babies and children of their enemies (infanticide) as well as pillage their cities and rape their women.
Killing of the babies in the conquest of Canaan is an example.
Why was it not the norm for every war throughout the rest of the OT?
There is no divine command to rape.
I have listed these passages over and over in this topic and each time they get summarily dismissed by you and Bertot.
I'll be looking over you posts. But I think you dismiss some things we write also.
Me:
3.) When God gives instructions about what to do in the case of Divorce, do you take that to mean that God is commanding the Hebrews to Divorce ?
No but he is condoning it i.e. allowing it to happen.
Would you also say that if a public school hands out condoms to kids it is condoning them to have premarital recreational sex ?
God said that if He blessed that land because of their obedience there would be no poverty in the land. The absence of poverty would negate the need for poor to sell themselves into slavery. It would eliminate the need for families to sell members into slavery ANE style.
So do you feel that this warning and promise of God covenants that His part will be to eliminate the circumstances which give rise to slavery, if they are careful to obey:
"However, there shall not be any needy among you (for Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess), But only if you carefully listen to the voice of Jehovah your God and are certain to do all this commandment hwich I am commanding you today.
For Jehovah your God will bless you as He has promised you. And you will lend to many nations, but you will not borrow; and you will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you." (Deut. 15:4-6)
Deuteronomy 24:1-3 writes:
If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.
I see this as prescriptive. That is what to do in the situation when a man wants out of his obligation as a husband.
The certificate of divorce is for the protection of the woman and not for her exploitation. If the husband on some night changes his mind the released woman is protected by a document that she does not have to return to that man. He has divorced her and cannot yo-yo back and forth according to his whims on any given lonely night.
You don't see in any of this God's gracious care for the woman? I do.
And I certainly do not see God commanding men to get rid of wives. He is making provision for the situation due to their hardness of heart and wanting to break away from thier wives.
Is there any other writings throughout the Bible which would suggest that God want them to remain happy together? In Malachi God says that He HATES DIVORCE:
" ... Jehovah has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been treacherous; yet she is your companion and your wife of covenant.
But did He not make them one? And the remnant of the Spirit was His. And why the one? He sought the seed fof God. Take heed then to your spirit. and let no one be treacherous to the wife of his youth.
FOR I HATE DIVORCE, SAYS JEHOVAH THE GOD OF ISRAEL; and he who does it behaves in violence, says Jehovah of hosts. Take heed then to your spirit, and do not be treacherous." (Malachi 2:14b-16)
So your passage must be God making provision for man's weaknesses in doing something which He hates. It is not God condoneing by any means.
"Take heed to your spirit" there I believe means to take heed to the still small voice in one's conscience. Yes you have a RIGHT to divorce. But having the RIGHT does not make it RIGHT.
It is seen as violent to break up the covenant with the wife of your youth, says God. Take heed to your spirit. But for those who cannot He has made provision. And I see it as just and considerate of the female party and not exploitive.
You have to me painted a caricature of God that I would throw stones at myself if it were true. But it is a caricature.
Do you think it would be ok if our judicial system created a law saying "If a man wants to have sexual relations with a young boy, ensure that the young boy provides a certificate of consent before allowing this to take place".
What on earth are you talking about now ?
Where's the parellel in the Bible. With the same abount of flimsy reasoning I might argue that every marriage is an act of state sponsored sex slavery.
Incidently, Deuteronomy 24:1-3 appears to me to be a case when the husband finds that the woman was sexually active with someone before he married her. That seems to be the reason for the discussed displeasure:
"If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her,
Is God saying "Thus says the Lord, Divorce her immediately if you find that she has not kept her virginity into marriage." ?
Isn't there room here for what the husband is ABLE to tolerate or not ? Isn't there an IF implying that the attitude of the husband is the triggering factor.
Does God say that the husband MUST never keep her and love her ? Does God command that she be put out ? No. I don't see that. I see God making provision for something that He clearly states that He HATES - a hard hearted divorcing husband.
Enter the words of Jesus:
" And some of the Pharisees came to Him, testing Him and saying, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?
And He answered and said, Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall be joined to his wife; and the two shall be one flesh?
So then they are no longer two, bu tone flesh. Therefore what God has yoked together, let man not separate.
They said to Him, Why then did Moses command us to give her a certificate of divorce and divorce her?
He said to them, Moses, because of your hardness of heart, ALLOWED YOU to divorce your wives, but from the beginning i thas not been so.
But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries her who has been divorced commits adultery.
Marriage belongs to God. Divorce belongs to man.
And why would God warn Israel that a king would do a negative thing by multiplying wives if God was eager to see a lot of loose rereational sex take place ?
"When you enter into the land which Jehovah your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it, and you say, I will set a king over me like all the nations which surround me ... You must set over you a king whom Jehovah your God will choose [reluctantly in the case of Saul] ... And he shall NOT amass wives to himself ..." (See Deut. 17:14-17)
Does that sound like God is encouraging unbridled lust or seeking to restrict it ?
Your caricture of God commanding sex slaves makes NO SENSE.
And if I bring you to the New Testament I will nail your straw man to the wall. Again, no disrepect meant.
Do you think this law would be condoning the act of pedophilia even though the judicial system is not commanding it men to have sexual relations with little boys? Of course. So why is the Mosaic law any different?
Well let's see. The last commandment of the ten is "You shall not covet."
If it was conceivable that men could eliminate their coveting, their jealous wanting, but being satisfied completely in God, that would eliminate all acts of greediness, for wives, girlfriends, and everything else. Would it not?
If the first commandment not to have any other gods before God was kepted, then NOTHING would be exalted to such a high degree as to distract from loving God. Right?
Basically, your argument is that the Law of God is NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
Oh, Okay. That must mean that you yourself have mastered it and found that keeping it is not adaquate for human morality.
How are you on coveting? Have you jealously desired anything in all your life? Have you envied your neighbor for his degree, his car, his house, his money, his vacation, his wife, his girlfriend, his looks, his cloths ... etc.
You mean you have kept the tenth commandment your whole life and have no one instance of disobedience to it? You are guiltless
and therefore can sit in judgment of the Law of Moses ?
Tell me how you are qualified to point out the evil in the law of God. You may say "But I have this knowledge of good and evil." You may have some ethical knowledge. But what did you DO ? Did you resist the evil that you knew not to do? Did you perform that good that you knew to do?
If you have sinned how can we trust you to point out the evil in the law which you have yourself broken? How are you to qualified to show us its moral shortages ? Have you put no other gods before God? Do you have any idols in your life, material or otherwise?
If you have transgressed the law how can we trust that you can point out its moral failures? Keep the whole law first. Then when you have kept the whole law you can point out to us its moral failures and how you could advize God here and there as to what is more righteous.
4.) When God gives instructions about what the Hebrews should do in the case of owning slaves, do you take that as God's command for them to have slaves?
I take it that God at a minimum is condoning slavery to take place.
I see God making provision for the advent that some Israelites may be in a situation of having slaves.
One of my favorite quotes by English philosopher Edmund Burke (yes he was a Christian but he was also a humanist) is "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". If you are doing anything to stop an evil act from occurring than you are condoning it. Should this not apply even to your god?
My God is stopping evil also makes provision for sinners to be saved from its terrible penalty.
If my God only cared about immediatly stopping evil at this moment, no human being alive would like the result. The first to hate the consequences would be the self righteous.
How God coordinates His eternal justice and perfect righteousness WITH His great Love for man and desire for man's salvation, that is the balancing act that my God does.
If He only cared about love there would be no justice. Yet if He only cared about justice and not love, there would be no mercy and no salvation.
At the cross of Christ there is God's justice and God's love working together. He will save us from the terrible penalty of "stopping evil" dead in its tracks. But He will do so in a manner that manifests His love that we be saved from eternal justice.
He will show us His undying love and His gift of eternal life. But He will manifest this love in a way that upholds His dignity, His hatred for sin, and His condemnation for all rebellion.
I look to the resurrected Christ for the stopping of evil in my life and the erasing of the guilt of my past and the empowering to live godly for my future.
me:
5.) If slavery in any form was a sin, do you think that the sin offerings, trespass offerings were not designed to atone for such sins in the Hebrew worship ?
you:
I don't know. I have never seen in the Bible were slavery is considered a sin. Can you provide a scriptural reference for this?
You should have read many passages that exposed behaviors, acts, and actions, if done to a slave were sin.
Slavery means many things. And I think you may be exploiting one form of it as we are most familiar as 21rst century Westerners to inflame the very word in all of its usages in the Bible and ANE.
Do you feel that God condones not wearing seat belts because the ten commandments have no explicit command concerning that?
Do you feel that God condones heroin usage because there is no command against that?
Do you feel that God condones poisoning the ocean with insectiside because there is not command in Leviticus on that?
How about paying sports stars millions of dollars for playing sports. Does God condone that because there is no commandment against such excesses?
How many commandments do you think Moses should have brought down from Mt. Sanai? Should he have brought from God 100 more? How about 100,000 more restricting all known evils? How about 100,000,000 commandments to cover every possible human situation of human temptation to do wrong?
How about instead of ten commandments God sent Moses down with a trillion commandments to restict every possible human thought to do wrong.
You think you could have done a better job at making a righteous law expressing what God wants? How many commandments would your book have ?
I better look to Jesus Christ for justification and for life.
[qs]
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-16-2008 9:03 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 398 of 406 (491577)
12-17-2008 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by jaywill
12-16-2008 2:33 PM


Re: More on Slavery...
I think the question should be: Why do some listen to their conscience and some do not?
What do you mean? Are you suggesting I suppress my conscience? I can assure you I do not. Or is it that my conscience is in perfect alignment with that of god? In which case I'd like you to answer me why he is apparently in favour of abortion? I don't suppress my conscience when it comes to this, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that abortion is justifiable. Or are you suggesting I do this subconsciously? Then how are we ever to know when we are doing it or not?
Then this is further complicated by the fact of different issues. I may be more sensative in conscience in one matter. I notice that that is no garantee that I have boasting rights over another person who may be more prone in another area to listen to his conscience than I.
Here we have the same problem. How do we know we all have the same conscience when apparently we can;t tell when we "suppress" it or not?
There is also the problem of an over sensative conscience too. That can lead to mental problems. I do not deal with that here.
Ok, neither will I then.
Now, here's what I read in the Bible.
Ok, I'll tell you what I read then as well. Just remember, without evidence, every view is equally valid, and thus not valid at all.
1.) Cain and Abel's parents told them how God needed to be worshipped.
Dammit, you made a part of genesis again, and all in vain, it never says they knew HOW to worship god, they just offer stuff to him.
2.) Abel obeyed. Cain decided to invent his own procedure.
Nowhere does it say this. You can't invent your own story to go along with what you THINK it should say.
3.) God recognized Abel's offering and rejected Cain's with an encouraging word to Cain that if he did well he too would be received.
No. God gave absolutely NO reason as to why he did bless Abel and not Cain.
4.) Cain, over come with the jealousy of rage becomes the world's first murderer. He also becomes the world's first inventor of a man made religion.
Nowhere does it say Cain established a "man made religion".
Conscience problem? Where? He lies to god, where is there an implication that he has a problem with this?
He has just murdered his brother Abel. He is totally callous about it.
Indicating he felt no such thing as a conscience.
It is not that Cain had no conscience. It is that he excecised his will power to suppress it. He shut it down. He shut it up. He refused by act of will to listen to his conscience.
Really? where does it say this is the case? You're just making stuff up now.
The problem with his conscience is really the problem in his will's choice to suppress the feeling of wrong doing in his conscience.
He DIDN'T suppress his conscience. He didn't feel bad at all! If the bible wanted to make clear he was suppressing his conscience, it could've said so, but it didn't. You're assertion that he IS doing it is just that, an assertion.
Of course God knew exactly where Abel was.
Really? then why did he ask Cain? Why not just say, "I know what you did"? Why did he need the "calling of the blood from the ground" to become aware of the situation?
God was giving Cain an opportunity to realize what he had done and to confess his sin.
Or god didn't know, and just wondered where Abel was.
The result was disappointing:
I'll say.... First, he chooses to prefer one over the other on a whim, then he is surprised the other acted as he did. I thought this fellow's supposed to be omniscient and all, doesn't seem like it.
Cain still shows no sign of remorse.
Again indicating that he didn't feel bad about it at all, which points to the fact that there is no universal conscience.
He only cares that his punishment is too harsh.
I would complain too, after being so unfairly treated.
He is scared that someone will seek vengence upon him and kill him, an act which God strictly forbids.
Well, since the only people so far are his mother and father, I'd say he'd just have to get away from them. I mean, how hard can it be t outrun two people when you've got an entire planet t hide on? Oh, and god finally sees he can;t put all the blame on Cain, so he decides to have some mercy upon him, bit late, but still.
The Bible portrays the downward current of the human race from Adam's disobedience. The next stage from entry of death is sin, murder, and the refusal to heed the God given conscience.
NOWHERE does it mention that Cain had a conscience, much less that he was suppressing it. Stop making stuff up.
Some would listen to the conscience and some would not.
There is no such thing as a universal conscience, if you have evidence to the contrary, please show it.
Now the conscience is a part of what the Bible calls the heart.
The heart is a muscle that pumps blood around a body, it has no impact on one's thoughts whatsoever. Unless, it doesn't function well, of course, that can be pretty detrimental to one's thought processes.
Psalm 33 says:
Jehovah looks down from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the site of His habitation He gazes at all the inhabitants of the earth, He who fashions the hearts of them all, He who discerns all their works.
This is just another way to refer to the creation story, god literally made our hearts, that's what this is saying.
God fashions the hearts of all created men.
He has to, if he didn't we'd all die.
Then God observes their lives and their works. He is watching. He is observing how each of us reacts to our conscience.
There is no universal conscience, there may be a subjective one. So, basically, god's just watching us a great big real life soap. I'll bet he's laughing his ass off.
He does not expect us to be able to carry out all of the good that we know.
We don't KNOW of ANY good. Further, the notion of what is "good" changes all the time, again pointing to the fact that there is no absolute moral right or wrong. To give an example that ties nicely into this thread, most of the "developed nations" used to think slavery was quite nifty, they don't now.
He knows that we have fallen into a sinful nature.
He should, he's responsible.
He does neither expect us to be able to resist all of the evil that we know.
We don't KNOW of ANY evil. Same argument as for the good, basically.
He knows that we have become corrupted and damaged by the poisoning of man's nature with the Satanic spirit operating in Adam's descendents.
He should, he's responsible.
He hopes that the conscience will be listened to to the point that when the Gospel comes and informs us that we have sinned we would agree.
The he should've given us all a universal conscience. Since he hasn't, he's playing a mean trick again.
When it says that Jesus had died for our sins He hopes we will believe.
Why hope, he could've made it so much easier. Oh, and hope implies he doesn't know what we'll do, so, is he Omniscient or not?
When we do and accept Jesus as our Savior and Lord there is a great peace that comes into the conscience that nothing in the world can give.
Really? how do you know? Tried everything there is have you?
There is no imitation for it.
Really? how do you know? Tried everything there is have you?
It is supernatural.
No, actually, it is quite natural, sorry. Feelings of euphoria are caused regularly by using drugs such as heroin and others. But then again, even if you tried all these things and still said that this "god experience" is so much better, it would still not be supernatural. For, you see, it's quite normal to claim the drugs you're using at this moment are the "best ever".
Yet it is quite normal.
So what is it? Supernatural, or normal?
I don't. I think he's an asshole.
We know that we are now, under the blood of Jesus, in a status AS IF WE HAD NEVER SINNED.
Uhm, no I'm not. Jesus, as described in the bible, never existed.
The conscience is restful and peaceful because, JUSTICE, has occured on our behalf in the death of Christ.
Nailing someone to a cross for telling people to get along is your idea of justice?
We have not been overlooked. We have been JUDGED. We have been judged in Christ. Justice has been imputed on our behalf in the death of Jesus the Son of God.
Really? I'd like to state here that I do not consider nailing a man to the cross for asking people to get along good justice, in fact I find it very bad justice.
On Calvary, on Christ's cross, our sins which offend our God created conscience were dealt with by Christ.
Thee is no god-created conscience. If there is, why is it not consistent?
The wrong reaction is to reason like this:
"No I am NOT a sinner. I am a pretty good person. At least I am not as bad as this guy over here. I am better than that one over there. I am better than a lot of religious people. I don't need to be saved. I don't need a Savior.
Even if I am bad I can change. Just give me one more day. I'll prove that I can change. I can live a life pleasing to God. Beside I don't want to have someone else take the penalty for me. That is not noble. That is not responsible. I will be responsible before God for my own sins. I don't want to say that I am all forgiven because of the death of Jesus."
Yes, for that is a stupid reaction. A better one would be something like this:
"I'm not a sinner, for sin is something invented by men to keep other men under their control. I'm a pretty good person, of course, I don't do everything like another person would do it, but that's because we have a different viewpoint on different things. I think, I act better then that person, but he probably thinks the same about me. I am better than a lot of religious people, at least I don't cling to false hopes and fairy tales, I look upon life through realism, not fantasy. Of course, the religions people say they're better than me, but what do you expect with everybody's morals differing. I don't need saving, that's something for the religious type. they want to believe this they can go right ahead.
I'm not bad, so why would I change? Because of the irrational fear of the religious?"
that would be much more realistic.
These kinds of reasonings are rebellion and unbelief. It is better to pray like this:
"Lord Jesus. I realize that I am a sinner. I don't promise to change myself. I don't promise I can turn over a new leaf. But I do acknowledge that I am a guilty sinner. I need your precious blood to wash away the stain of my sins before God. I receive you as my Lord and Savior."
Irrationality based in fear is never better then rationality based on reality.
That is much much wiser response to the Gospel. In fact just to confess "Lord Jesus" is most of the battle.
Confessing to an imaginary friend is what I did when I was 4, now, I talk to my real friends about my life.
This post is not meant to completely explain the Christian experience. I mean it to address the question you had on the conscience.
Pretty lengthy post and a lot of sermonizing to do that.
I also wanted to show you how the conscience can be released, made free, clean, gloriously at peace and how you can have a brand new start with a keener and ever brightening conscience.
Ok, too bad it's all fictional.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by jaywill, posted 12-16-2008 2:33 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by jaywill, posted 12-17-2008 4:40 PM Huntard has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 399 of 406 (491579)
12-17-2008 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by iano
12-16-2008 8:26 PM


Re: More on Slavery...
jaywill has already made the point that different people will suppress their conscience in different degrees, in different areas where conscience can operate - so its very difficult to measure any degree of imbalance (given that Gods perspective on sin is the measure being applied)
And as I've said to Jaywill, I don't suppress my conscience. Or if I do, it must happen subconsciously, so we can never know if we are or are not doing it, and thus never know if we are or aren't going against this "universal conscious" you claim god put in us all.
[qs]There is also this to consider: the purpose of law giving (via conscience) is not so much to restrain us from sin as it is to convict us that we are sinners. Which means that it's imperative we sin![qs/]
I don't really feel bad about anything I do, does this mean I do not sin? When I endorse abortion, I feel fine, when I take god's name in vain (I say goddamit alot) I feel fine. Does this mean these things are not sins?
Suppressing conscience in order to sin can lead in one of two directions finally:
Since I don't do that, I guess I'm not in any of these categories.
- continued suppression, to cope with the seared conscience caused by the previous suppression. On and on and on until the last breath is drawn (or the conscience is finally extinguished).
- the will of a person, whilst suppressing conscience in order to sin isn't prepared to suppress to the bitter end. It is unwilling to fully bury/ fully excuse/ fully justify what it knows to be evil - whilst finding itself unable to stop committing evil. In the measure it doesn't suppress, it must bear the pain of a seared conscience.
Hey! I was right! Like I pointed out above, if I don't feel bad for actions I have taken in my life so far, does this mean I have never sinned? Or could it mean this conscience stuff you go on about might not actually be correct?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by iano, posted 12-16-2008 8:26 PM iano has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 400 of 406 (491581)
12-17-2008 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by Huntard
12-17-2008 3:20 PM


Re: More on Slavery...
I can't respond to all your remarks today.
me:
I think the question should be: Why do some listen to their conscience and some do not?
What do you mean?
Do you have a set of keys on you? How many keys do you have on your key chain?
Why don't you just leave everything unlocked ? Are you afraid that somebody may steal something.
Go into the world then with your key chain preaching that not everyone will listen to their conscience not to steal. Don't blame me.
Here we have the same problem. How do we know we all have the same conscience when apparently we can;t tell when we "suppress" it or not?
I just mean to state that we all have a conscience.
You will find some hardened serial killers with no remorse, that though I am convinced that they have a conscience, they have totally ignored it to the extreme.
Arguing about "the same conscience" is getting fuzzy to me.
1.) Cain and Abel's parents told them how God needed to be worshipped.
Dammit, you made a part of genesis again, and all in vain, it never says they knew HOW to worship god, they just offer stuff to him.
It was a side point. I agree that this is my interpretation.
I think that the killing of the cattle to cloth Adam and his wife was the model upon which Abel knew that the offering of blood of an animal was required. His parents told him. And I think by revelation he and they knew that God required to be approached by the blood of a sin offering.
You are right that it does not explicitly state that.
2.) Abel obeyed. Cain decided to invent his own procedure.
Nowhere does it say this. You can't invent your own story to go along with what you THINK it should say.
We know that Abel's offering was accepted. We know that Cain's was not. When we read on into Exodus, Leviticus, etc. some expositors believe that they can ascertain why.
There was no blood in Cain's offering. I think another reason is less likely though I have heard some other's proposed. I mean "Without ther shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" was strongly proclaimed by God in latter records.
So is it unreasonable to interpret that that is why Abel's offering was accepted and Cain's was not?
3.) God recognized Abel's offering and rejected Cain's with an encouraging word to Cain that if he did well he too would be received.
No. God gave absolutely NO reason as to why he did bless Abel and not Cain.
That has no real bearing on what was stated - ["God recognized Abel's offering and rejected Cain's ..."]
That is simply a reference to Genesis 4:4,5. You have a point about what was and was not said about why He chose one but not the other. You have no point that there was not a discrimination.
4.) Cain, over come with the jealousy of rage becomes the world's first murderer. He also becomes the world's first inventor of a man made religion.
Nowhere does it say Cain established a "man made religion".
Conscience problem? Where? He lies to god, where is there an implication that he has a problem with this?
Again. This is a side point which may be arguable. However, you have so far said nothing which refutes that Cain did not regard the conviction of his conscience.
I think that is the main thing you are trying to refute. Right?
He has just murdered his brother Abel. He is totally callous about it.
Indicating he felt no such thing as a conscience.
I am not sure who wrote this sentence, me or you. But I do not mean that he had no conscience. I mean that he would not listen to his conscience.
me:
It is not that Cain had no conscience. It is that he excecised his will power to suppress it. He shut it down. He shut it up. He refused by act of will to listen to his conscience.
You:
Really? where does it say this is the case? You're just making stuff up now.
Did Cain argue that he had not done anything wrong? No he did not. Then we can assume that he knew that God was right that it was wrong to murder his brother.
His concern was not remorse but only regret that he was going to be punished. What do you think about the murderer in court who when sentenced shows no sign of remorse at his act? I would think that he either is putting on a show that he doesn't care what he did or he really doesn't care.
Many times the judge will adjust the sentence based on whether the convicted person shows CONSCIENCE and remorse at his crime.
Why you think it should be different for Cain is a mystery to me.
The Apostle John says concerning Cain " ... we should love one another, not as Cain was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his works were evil and his brother's righteous."
I would say that the sight of his brother became hateful reminder to him that his own works were evil while his kid brother's were righteous. Would you say that one who murders his brother lovelessly is not surpressing his conscience?
Whose making up stuff on the fly here? Cain knew his works were evil according to the Apostle John. There was a conscience in him.
The problem with his conscience is really the problem in his will's choice to suppress the feeling of wrong doing in his conscience.
He DIDN'T suppress his conscience. He didn't feel bad at all! If the bible wanted to make clear he was suppressing his conscience, it could've said so, but it didn't. You're assertion that he IS doing it is just that, an assertion.
This may be a matter of symantics. Or it may be a problem that you're just being disagreeable on general principle.
You don't like the phrase "suppress his conscience?"
Ignore? Not take heed? Shut up? Shut out? Cover up with reasonings?
I think suppress is appropriate because Paul speaking of the history of mankind talks about "holding down the truth in unrghteousness"
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven upon all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who HOLD DOWN the truth in unrighteousness." (Rom. 1:18)
Holding down is suppression. Holding down the truth I think includes holding down the truthful conviction in the human conscience that a wrong act has been committed.
Something told Cain not to kill. His conscience told him. He held that down and killed anyway. What ground do I have to say this? My ground is Genesis 4:7 - " ... And if you not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and his desure is for you, but you must master him.
This appears to be God's warning that his evil temper is about to cause him to sin terribly. The next verse is about Cain luring his brother to the field in order to kill him. He did not master the sin crouching at the door (probably meaning the door of his heart).
Any thought that the suppression or resistence of the conscience of Cain is not indicated here I can't take seriously.
Me:
Of course God knew exactly where Abel was.
Really?
Yea. Really.
then why did he ask Cain?
I explained that. Did you ever have naughty kids and you asked them about thier behavior, knowing all along what they did?
Why not just say, "I know what you did"? Why did he need the "calling of the blood from the ground" to become aware of the situation?
Why? Because maybe your style and God's style are not the same.
He did the same thing to Adam you know? He asked Adam where He was when Adam was off hiding.
No, I don't think that God was puzzled as to what tree Adam was hiding behind.
Me:
God was giving Cain an opportunity to realize what he had done and to confess his sin.
Or god didn't know, and just wondered where Abel was.
I think God knew just what happened and just where Adam was off hiding.
He certainly knew where I was, that's for sure. I think in this respect Adam was not that much different from most of us who have tried to hide ourselves from God.
I am serious and not kidding. As a very little kid I remember hiding under a blacket to God would not see me.
The result was disappointing:
I'll say.... First, he chooses to prefer one over the other on a whim,
It wasn't a whim. It was according to His eternal plan of redemption as symbolized in the offering. It pointed to Christ who was "slain from the foundation of the world" ( Rev. 13:8).
then he is surprised the other acted as he did. I thought this fellow's supposed to be omniscient and all, doesn't seem like it.
I like to keep reading through the rest of the book. That helps me to get a full picture of God's character and nature.
I would complain too, after being so unfairly treated.
I might also.
Well, since the only people so far are his mother and father, I'd say he'd just have to get away from them.
The only people pertinent to the focus of that particular story mentioned are Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel.
I don't know that in the course of time there were not other people. They had lots of children. The ones mentioned are important to the development of the history the writer wants to tell.
If you have nothing else to say about Cain's conscience, I think I have no need to add anything.
You're welcomed to have another interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Huntard, posted 12-17-2008 3:20 PM Huntard has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 401 of 406 (491584)
12-17-2008 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by New Cat's Eye
12-17-2008 12:15 PM


Re: If God Were Human Would He Want a God Like Him?
CS writes:
Myself writes:
CS writes:
Well neither are the "slaves" in the Old Testament "actual literal slaves as modern society defines slavery".
Um yes they are. How are they not literal slaves?
The point was as modern society defines slavery...
Modern definition of slavery by Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary: "3 a: the state of a person who is a chattel of another b: the practice of slaveholding". Definition of chattel: "an item of tangible movable or immovable property except real estate and things (as buildings) connected with real property". Definition of slave: "a person held in servitude as the chattel of another".
According to Wikipedia: "Slavery is the systematic exploitation of labour. As a social-economic system, slavery is a legal or informal institution under which a person (called "a slave") is compelled to work for another (sometimes called "the master" or "slave owner")Evidence of slavery predates written records, and has existed to varying extents, forms and periods in almost all cultures and continents. Slaves are held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase, or birth, and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (such as wages) in return for their labour. As such, slavery is one form of unfree labor. Today, slavery is formally outlawed in nearly all countries, but the phenomenon continues to exist in various forms around the world."
Encyclopedia Britannica: "condition in which one human being was owned by another. A slave was considered by law as property, or chattel, and was deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons."
So according to all these modern sources slavery is defined as one human being owned by another as property (chattel) and deprive of rights and freedoms normally held by free people.
Please tell me how this does not apply to the Hebrew slavery system? Please indulge us.
Even your book says that "slave" could have just meant something like "servant", as modern society defines the term.
Definition of servant: "one that performs duties about the person or home of a master or personal employer". A slave is a servant by definition but not all servants are slaves in the strictest use of the term (property/chattel of an owner). Most servants receive pay and other benefits in exchange for their work. I am a servant of the government but I am not a slave. Government officials are civil servants but they are not slaves. Please refer to the above definitions of slavery as a reference to what context we are using this term.
And no, I saw nowhere where in the book "Jewish Slavery in Antiquity" where it stated that the foreign slaves kept by the Hebrews were only servants and not actual slaves as previously defined. If you did please provide the specific quote.
CS writes:
Myself writes:
Enslavement of one person over another in this manner should not be condoned or justified.
Why not? and how do you know this?
You don't read any of my previous posts do you?
As I stated before, the vast majority of the governments on this planet have determined slavery to be unacceptable and an abominable action as described in Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ratified in 1948 by the United Nations:
"No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms".
The emancipation declaration issued by President Lincoln states that " all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free".
The United States 13th amendment abolishes slavery and prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude. Specifically it states " Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
I, Huntard, and several others on this forum have belabored these points on the reasoning behind them. If you want specifics go back and read the previous posts before asking us the same questions we have already answered.
Without slaves, could the Pyramids have been built?
Who is saying that the pharaohs should have used slave labor to build the Pyramids? Not me. Are you saying it was ok that the pharaohs used slave labor?
I just don't think that slavery is absolutley immoral like you are arguing.
Then you are a sick puppy.
and then you're taking it further with god condoning slavery in the OT and saying that this makes god a bad guy.
Slavery can be justified.
Need I say anything more? And you wonder why people are leaving morally bankrupt Christian faith by the droves?
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2008 12:15 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by NosyNed, posted 12-17-2008 6:23 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 402 of 406 (491585)
12-17-2008 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by DevilsAdvocate
12-17-2008 6:17 PM


Re: If God Were Human Would He Want a God Like Him?
Who is saying that the pharaohs should have used slave labor to build the Pyramids? Not me. Are you saying it was ok that the pharaohs used slave labor?
And in fact, there is recent information that much or all of the labor was not slavery. The farmers were hired when the nile flooded the fields. Recent discoveries of the actual settlements of the workers including writings shows that they were not slaves. This is no longer understood to be the case.
(I suppose it is possible that foreign captives were used as slaves but I don't know if this is documented at all.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-17-2008 6:17 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 403 of 406 (491591)
12-17-2008 9:28 PM


I concede this topic on the grounds of obfuscation and religious moral relativism but mainly because I have to drive up to Chicago tomorrow to visit my grandmother.
BTW, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays. Hope to pick this up after I get back.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 404 of 406 (491593)
12-17-2008 11:35 PM


Well past 300 messages
Topics use to implode if they got too long. Percy claims the current software is not only new but also improved, and that this will no longer happen. We, however, did loose a 400+ message topic in the last great topic disappearance. I wonder if that topic imploded and took other things with it (the "black hole topic" hypothesis)?
I'm going to close this one down later tonight, probably at least 2 hours from now. Maybe try some closing statements?
Or perhaps someone wishes to mine a particular point from this topic, and submit it to become the start of a new topic? A quality message 1 and topic title please.
Adminnemooseus

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-18-2008 2:50 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 405 of 406 (491594)
12-18-2008 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 393 by DevilsAdvocate
12-17-2008 9:30 AM


Re: If God Were Human Would He Want a God Like Him?
DA writes:
Actually technically no, consciences objection has existed since the Revolutionary War. So, even draftees have a way out as opposed to slaves.
Let me say first of all thanks for the excahnge on the issue. I had to untangle 5 bags of Christmas lights and the only thing more difficult, is trying to understand your way of thinking, ha ha.
C.O. is a way of thinking DA it was not always a method of excaping forced servitude in the military. You cannot excape the fact that many members of the armed forces were taken, held and forced to serve, or go to prison against thier will.
While you did offer to speak to stop loss and national emergencies, you all but ignored my question as to whether it is wrong to hold someone against thier will. If these are the examples you wished to use, then I would say that these are both from the perspective of the person imposing them and not from the perspective of the person taken agains thier will.
Yes there are degrees and categories of slavery, as you indicate but it still constitues slavery nonethe less.
Your objections to slavery and its practices are a product of your upbringing and current social order. In the days of the Greeks and Egyptians, that behavior would have been perfectly acceptable.
Let me use another illustration. The Bible not only condons but commands that women be in subjection to men, atleast in the Church and in Gods family. Now there are those today that would be down right offended by this and say that it is immoral, yet God commanded it, as such.
So while societies standards may change, it is only Gods declarations based on an eternal perspective that can have any OBJECTIVE reality.
So according to your logic anyone who does something against their will is a slave. Your not married are you? I do things against my will all the time either because my wife wants me to do something, my child wants something, work demands things of me, etc. You get my drift?
Quite obviously you are misrepresenting my position. No, simply doing something agaisnt you will, does not constitute slavery. If someone else physically restrains me and enforces consequenses against my will if I resist, and enforces punishments if I resist,, then that is slavery, no matter how you desribe it otherwise.
Draftees ≠ Slaves
The purpose of the US military draft is solely for extreme cases of national emergencies to defend our country (to protect and secure the rights and freedoms of all the citizens of our country). As a citizen of this country we have certain inalienable rights, however we also have certain duties and responsibilities required of us as well. You may call this an unwritten "citizenship contract" so to speak. One of these duties is that in times of national emergency we as citizens are willing to protect this country from foreign threats either by enlisting/commissioning or by being draft. If you don't like this rule you can leave and go to a country without this mandate of being able to be drafting (compulsory enrollment) its citizens into service i.e. Canada, etc. or you can file for consciences objector status. A draftee can also file for exemption, postponement, or deferment. Can a slave do that?
You know darn well that draftees did not ALWAYS have these exemptions and classifications. Many through the years were treated as criminals, imprisoned and even put to death for such actions. Your attempts to rationalize this behavior, while noble are fallacous.
Your problem since the start of this debate has been that you have a preconcieved and limited definition of the word slavery. While it most certainly includes those things you include, it is not limited to either your definition, types in past history or classifications within the designation of slavery. The simplest definition would ofcourse be anyone taken against thier will, forced to serve and punishments if they do not. Now there may be other types, conditions and levels within that context, but it is slavery nonetheless, if it is against a persons will.
Two questions:
1. Why is slavery in Greece, Rome, Babylon, Assyria, Babylonia, Canaan, etc morally objectionable and the Hebrew slavery system not?
2. Why did God not abolish the slave system all together and why did the early Christians condone slavery and never speak out against it?
Slavery in these countries, or more specifically TIMES was acceptable behavior. Your objections to the pratice of slavery is due to your current upbringing and a society that percieves it as objectionable. You can justify your actions in the responses to the draft and in other areas due to the fact that you percieve such actions against another human being as deplorable, yet do not show the same consistency with regard to species of lower intelligence. This demonstrates that your position is nothing more that subjective relativism and there is no way to condemn the actions or others, no matter the time period.
God did not abolish these actions because the buying and selling of another person as property is not a crime in his view, as is indicated by the condoning of such behavior. God in many instances allowed behavior for a time, to demonstrate his mercy, while he still considered it sa a sin in principle. If slavery is not one of these things, he allowed it for a reason and more importantly it is based on an absolute morality. Again as I have clearly indicated by your own admissions, you find valid reasons to justify the taking or holding a individual against thier will, if you BELIEVE the REASON to be worthy enough. Remember, the current standard of what should take place in society could change with the passage of time.
Now I most certainly agree with you, but if that standard is not based on an absolute standard then it would follow that the persons with the most power and influence, have the position to decide what actions are right or wrong, moral or immoral, and thats assuming we can use those terms in light of aso-called morality, which turns out to be nothing more than an opinion after all.
Standards within a species are only deplorable and objectionable if the collective masses at this or that time deem it as such. Try and step back and take an objective look at why you are outraged. If there is no categorical and absolute standard, then it would follow that your "morality" is nothing more than a product of the current society, your upbringing in that society and your emotions and understanding applied against those conditions. You find HUMAN slavery deplorable because you are a human being. As a human being you may find it deplorable that a women should be in subjection to a man, but by what principle will you rail against it, when it is based on an absolute standard and your own human actions are not consistent with your own beliefs.
I am a member of the Veterans for Foreign Wars and know many servicemen who were draftees. Not one seriously calls the draft slavery. Many are proud of there service even if they were drafted and many served long after they were told they could leave the military.
Many or most did not use the term "slavery" because it was not in vouge. If however, there was no real problem as you suggest, what was the big outcry? Why were people sent to prison or forced to stay in the military and work against thier will.
Why and how did the changes come about in the draft system, if there was no problem? Clearly without saying it outright (and I am sure several did that were never heard) most belived it to be problem that needed correcting, atleast in thier view.
Punitive Articles.
Correct, I hereby authorize you to advance to the next rank.
Though I still don't see how you can rationally call service in the military slavery? If you understood what slavery was like either 200 or 2000 years ago you would not equate these as being the same.
Because slavery is not limited to a time or place. Further, while it has several levels and categories, it has a root meanings by the definitons I supplied.
Subjective "morality" will never get you any closer to questions of morality. Because it will only be a matter of perspective.
Have a nice trip to Chi-ca-go man. "We dont need no stinking badges, man"
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-17-2008 9:30 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024