Here we go - Slavery

[ScottA]

So another non answer to my question.

"Do you think it is moral of god to make a rule that Hebrew slave owners can beat their slaves with a rod as long as they don’t die within 1-2 days?"

And again you are so far off of context and lacking in understanding, that you still have no idea that you are rummaging through God's trash criticizing Him for reacting the same as you to what is unacceptable to you both, about the garbage.

"Gee, Michael Angelo, not only are these shards and chips at the foot of David not artistic, they're a mess!"

So astute this one!

...Hello!? Knock, knock...is anybody home?

 

[JellyJam]

"Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing." (Ex 21:1-2, ESV)

"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money." (Ex 21:20-21 ESV)

This verse in context is saying these things:
1. God made rules for one person to enslave another by.
2. God says here that a slave is another persons money, dehumanizing them.
3. God made rules for one person to beat another with a rod.
4. God is ok with a slave being beaten so bad that he may only survive a day or two as long as you don't hit them in the eye or make a tooth come out (26-27).

Why is this god, if he exists, to be followed? Or, are these verses saying something different?

Vince,

If I was to play a game of chess with you, and in my mind I knew that I've already won even before the first move was made.

Wouldn't you still lose in my mind, even if you took all my pieces and checkmated my king.

Even if I saw every wrong move I made, even if I saw all my pieces being taken, even if I saw my king cornered and the game end.

Wouldn't I just deny you won the match later, and just say to myself I believe he cheated?

 

[bbyrd009]

"Now these are the rules that you shall set before them" might be seen in the context of the then-current um state of mind, zeitgeist maybe, of human's thinking surrounding slavery; iow men got rules to marry multiple wives too, but God does not condone that either, and they got the rules (which might be read as tacit permission) bc of their "hardness of heart," if I remem right.

Also "if the slave lives one or two days," iow not to the third day is um whispering something to me, dunno what yet though.

Also, kind of a corollary of that prolly, seekers are told that they must "die" to live, but literal dying is not what is meant there either prolly, as living sacrifice is I think invoked in the same passage.

For vinnie, you put God in the position of literally judging over us with your perspective imo, in a way that maybe violates What you bless will be blessed what you curse will be cursed, although that and God is not our judge are NT I guess, so literalists will point out that God supposedly was their judge...which I could only argue there that obv the theocracy failed so not really.

Iow since God does not change then what they blessed would be blessed too, even then, meaning that if human society in general allowed slavery then, that maybe changes the way now these are the rules you shall set before them is understood? Crap now I'm all curious as to what precedes and um follows that passage, what subject matter specifically, and I don't really have time to be curious today lol, so prolly tonight for that, but wadr "Now these are the rules you shall set before them" coming from the same um source as "I came to abolish all rules and authority and powers" paraphrased is just reiterating to me that you are kind of playing wise here, and some wisdom is hidden?

Iow you might even just assume that God is "evil" for now, ok, God is ok with that I think, believe it or not, and if that allows one to see past the literal to the wisdom, for instance the passage might even be read with a sense of horror, which might be the point? "Let's blithely set out some rules for this most heinous of human institutions, and reduce people to money and everything, as a mirror" maybe?

 

[Vince]

And again you are so far off of context and lacking in understanding, that you still have no idea that you are rummaging through God's trash criticizing Him for reacting the same as you to what is unacceptable to you both, about the garbage.

"Gee, Michael Angelo, not only are these shards and chips at the foot of David not artistic, they're a mess!"

So astute this one!

...Hello!? Knock, knock...is anybody home?

So, no answer again.

 

[Vince]

Vince,

If I was to play a game of chess with you, and in my mind I knew that I've already won even before the first move was made.

Wouldn't you still lose in my mind, even if you took all my pieces and checkmated my king.

Even if I saw every wrong move I made, even if I saw all my pieces being taken, even if I saw my king cornered and the game end.

Wouldn't I just deny you won the match later, and just say to myself I believe he cheated?

That does not change the truth in the matter that I won the game. What is your point?

 

[Vince]

"Now these are the rules that you shall set before them" might be seen in the context of the then-current um state of mind, zeitgeist maybe, of human's thinking surrounding slavery; iow men got rules to marry multiple wives too, but God does not condone that either, and they got the rules (which might be read as tacit permission) bc of their "hardness of heart," if I remem right.

Would you write rules for beating a slave? I bet not.

For vinnie, you put God in the position of literally judging over us with your perspective imo, in a way that maybe violates What you bless will be blessed what you curse will be cursed, although that and God is not our judge are NT I guess, so literalists will point out that God supposedly was their judge...which I could only argue there that obv the theocracy failed so not really.

Why should this verse not be taken literally?

Iow you might even just assume that God is "evil" for now, ok, God is ok with that I think, believe it or not, and if that allows one to see past the literal to the wisdom, for instance the passage might even be read with a sense of horror, which might be the point? "Let's blithely set out some rules for this most heinous of human institutions, and reduce people to money and everything, as a mirror" maybe?

I think that some rules the god of the bible put forth are immoral such as this rule for slave owners and Paul's advice to slaves.. Evil is another topic in my opinion.

 

[bbyrd009]

Would you write rules for beating a slave? I bet not.

Would you read literally a work that openly advertises that it is written from a different perspective, and that things do not appear as they seem? Also it was a completely different world then, Vince, you are applying your values and sensitivities to a completely diff era, and a vastly diff culture to boot. Also you reason as a Hegelian, and therefore assume an either/or, at least when interacting with believers...same as me I guess, you get sucked into it. You seem quite eastern otherwise? Not trying to win iow? Lemme refresh what you are trying to win here, brb

Why is this god, if he exists, to be followed?

ah ya, i member now. so, imo since you insist that God must "exist" in order to exist before you insist that no God exists, can I at least suggest you give serial consideration to this part,
[QUOTE="Vince, post: 538323, member: 8114]Or, are these verses saying something different?[/QUOTE]

 

[ScottA]

So, no answer again.

Wakey, wakey...

No, that is not it at all. Not only have I answered you, I have answered you countless times. But you are not getting it.

Slavery in the world is God showing us the trash we have accumulated. But instead of your reaction being that you agree with Him that it is trash and blaming us for it, you are agreeing with God that it is trash and yet blaming Him for it. Bad move. You see...well, actually, you don't see...but in that trash is also an invitation to dispose of the trash of humanity and not be tossed out with it. But by blaming God for the whole mess, you are snubbing Him and refusing His exemption and invitation to be free of all those things you find unacceptable. Consequently, whether you realize it or not, you are choosing to go down with the trash in the disposal. And this has all been explained to you in a million ways, through every means known to God and man, since the beginning of time.

So, you either wake up to the reality of what God is actually doing, or you prove yourself to be incapable of existing except among the trash, in which case, there you shall remain.

Wise up.

 

[bbyrd009]

And how bout that imo huh? Huh? Was that sweet or what?

I honestly believe parts of Scripture are written to horrify, I mean "you will cast dice to see whose child you will eat today or whatever, cmon bro

 

[bbyrd009]

Why should this verse not be taken literally?

Bc wisdom is hidden from the wise, bc you would then have to be describing what your two literal eyes would literally be seeing in that scenario, and Bc of your bias, at the very least, but don't get me wrong you can totally read that literally all day long if you like, and imo you do not have to defend your interp to anyone, ever. Well no persons anyway. Your interp informs my actions and behavior, I have abs no desire to even alter your interp, ok. That God should not be followed Bc He does not exist imo, and you nor prolly even i have done much more than scratch the surface of that passage a little, I bet.

We're liable to find a couple diff roots for what gets xlated "slave" in there, I'd wanna see what root was used for day...master, property, money, all the roots chosen would yield stuff, I'd first off be ignoring the English entirely and making up my own loose tranny of the Heb/Greek/Ara in the link and then doing a comparo, I could write three more paras here bro lol. Black can turn white really fast around a master wordsmith, which even literary atheists usually acknowledge they were.

 

[JellyJam]

That does not change the truth in the matter that I won the game. What is your point?

That a delusion can't be convinced it's a delusion.

 

[bbyrd009]

I think that some rules the god of the bible put forth are immoral such as this rule for slave owners and Paul's advice to slaves.

I think maybe you are supposed to think that, unless you happen to be a "Plantation Owner" obv--and you might onsite-search the Quotes for more on the um practicality of discussing "the morality of slave ownership with a plantation owner" I'm pretty sure it was, but briefly why bother right, and that guy is going to interpret that passage totally diff yo, that you may be advised?

So, what you think is cool and all, don't get me wrong, if you liked the passage in any way I would have (been able to skip this post lol) a diff reaction, Bc I have recently discussed here onsite the practicality of discussing the morality of slave ownership etc etc in a diff context, and it wasn't about them either tho they were sure it was I'm sure. Um...ya. Sorry, on the fly here

 

[bbyrd009]

That a delusion can't be convinced it's a delusion.

ya, zing.

Really you don't even have to actually say "delusion" I guess even, and ruin your chances for later, Bc delusion will sink back into the Javan all by itself soon enough I guess? (Jonah!)

 

[bbyrd009]

Wise up.

Or even get tuned to a certain kind of nonsense maybe; stop being so wise?
"If you beat your slave to death, only he doesn't die for a day or two, tra-la"
"When you find yourself behind your secure wall (~) under siege, you'll be casting lots with your neighbor to decide whose child you will both eat today,"
these are not supposed to be read with human sense I guess.
The only empathic reaction imo is "whoever wrote this is insane"

but that is strictly imo; see how beautifully the passage is written so as to evince at least three plausible interps, there! Well, plausible to the postulants anyway. Even Dao just never really even comes close, does it? Confucius reads like an idiot after, lol

 

[ScottA]

Or even get tuned to a certain kind of nonsense maybe; stop being so wise?
"If you beat your slave to death, only he doesn't die for a day or two, tra-la"
"When you find yourself behind your secure wall (~) under siege, you'll be casting lots with your neighbor to decide whose child you will both eat today,"
these are not supposed to be read with human sense I guess.
The only empathic reaction imo is "whoever wrote this is insane"

but that is strictly imo; see how beautifully the passage is written so as to evince at least three plausible interps, there! Well, plausible to the postulants anyway. Even Dao just never really even comes close, does it? Confucius reads like an idiot after, lol

In a manner of speaking, God has held up a mirror showing our own ugly image, and said, "Let it be manifest in the world for a witness."

But it also comes with "good news."

God is good!

 

[bbyrd009]

In a manner of speaking, God has held up a mirror showing our own ugly image, and said, "Let it be manifest in the world for a witness."

But it also comes with "good news."

God is good!

Ya, so that's (likely) one, vinnie would be two, and the plantation owner makes three.
Guess none of the ones even um see the other two though, usually?

 

[ScottA]

Ya, so that's (likely) one, vinnie would be two, and the plantation owner makes three.
Guess none of the ones even um see the other two though, usually?

Yes, we need to be prepared to see all perspectives, in order to have a complete understanding. Thus far Vin has apparently not considered God's perspective.

 

[Vince]

Would you read literally a work that openly advertises that it is written from a different perspective, and that things do not appear as they seem? Also it was a completely different world then, Vince, you are applying your values and sensitivities to a completely diff era, and a vastly diff culture to boot.

So you think that beating your slave like the bible says is not always wrong? I don't think forced slavery and rules to beat them severely is moral ever. But I guess we disagree.

Also you reason as a Hegelian, and therefore assume an either/or, at least when interacting with believers...same as me I guess, you get sucked into it. You seem quite eastern otherwise? Not trying to win iow? Lemme refresh what you are trying to win here, brb
ah ya, i member now. so, imo since you insist that God must "exist" in order to exist before you insist that no God exists, can I at least suggest you give serial consideration to this part,

I never have said there is no god. I do not believe that, I cannot know that so I don't claim that.

 

[Vince]

Wakey, wakey...

No, that is not it at all. Not only have I answered you, I have answered you countless times. But you are not getting it.

Slavery in the world is God showing us the trash we have accumulated. But instead of your reaction being that you agree with Him that it is trash and blaming us for it, you are agreeing with God that it is trash and yet blaming Him for it. Bad move. You see...well, actually, you don't see...but in that trash is also an invitation to dispose of the trash of humanity and not be tossed out with it. But by blaming God for the whole mess, you are snubbing Him and refusing His exemption and invitation to be free of all those things you find unacceptable. Consequently, whether you realize it or not, you are choosing to go down with the trash in the disposal. And this has all been explained to you in a million ways, through every means known to God and man, since the beginning of time.

So, you either wake up to the reality of what God is actually doing, or you prove yourself to be incapable of existing except among the trash, in which case, there you shall remain.

Wise up.

Got it.

 

[Vince]

Bc wisdom is hidden from the wise, bc you would then have to be describing what your two literal eyes would literally be seeing in that scenario, and Bc of your bias, at the very least, but don't get me wrong you can totally read that literally all day long if you like, and imo you do not have to defend your interp to anyone, ever. Well no persons anyway. Your interp informs my actions and behavior, I have abs no desire to even alter your interp, ok. That God should not be followed Bc He does not exist imo, and you nor prolly even i have done much more than scratch the surface of that passage a little, I bet.

We're liable to find a couple diff roots for what gets xlated "slave" in there, I'd wanna see what root was used for day...master, property, money, all the roots chosen would yield stuff, I'd first off be ignoring the English entirely and making up my own loose tranny of the Heb/Greek/Ara in the link and then doing a comparo, I could write three more paras here bro lol. Black can turn white really fast around a master wordsmith, which even literary atheists usually acknowledge they were.

The words mean slavery and beating. You can wordsmith it all you want if it makes you sleep at night.