Raf

Proposal: instead of calling it slavery and making comparisons to the instutution we all know and condemn, let's call it "ebeddery" and deal with it on its own terms. Because the issue is not really a comparison of Biblical slavery (ebeddery) and 18/19th century slavery. The issue is whether ebeddery is moral, on its own terms. You have stated that ebeddery is not something you would abolish. I submit that if you analyzed ebeddery on its own terms, you would change your mind about that. You have to. Any moral person would. I would like to see you arrive at an honest conclusion using the Bible to define its own terms, laws, rules, permissions, etc. The less I say, the better.

Dick Tracy

It's only the same genre if you're REAL flexible about it. When do we eat?

I think I'll wait until you review the scriptures, weigh and (if I may be so bold) reconsider what you're saying. Your initial gasp-eliciting comment came with a humble and open-hearted caveat that I'm sure, if you follow through on it, will have you revoking your "I wouldn't abolish it" position in short order.

T&O, were you done making your point, or do you have more to share? Because I have oodles, but I want to wait my turn.

X Men Hugh Jackman Les Miserables

Sticking to one subtopic at a time seems reasonable to me. And slavery seems as good a place to start as any. I would add that I am VERY interested in hearing what you have to say on the subject. What you've posted so far requires more time than I have at the moment, but I promise not to ignore it. And WW, welcome to the convo!

Ask away.

Cheated. And that would make an AWESOME name for the next sequel in the series of the second title.

No, I was just making a funny.

Joke's over

This argument is precisely why I asked Allan to expound on his statement. I hope both the abstract statement and the more concrete explanations aid Java Jane in her writing

Second time they were in the same movie. First time they were in the same scene/frame.

I should add that an examination of God's morality is not limited to the law. It can and should also include his behavior before the law was given and after. I'll give you some examples of on topic v. off topic. "Raf, you misunderstand what slavery was 3000 years ago v. what it was 300 years ago. Here's a list of differences that account for why God never banned it in the Torah." That would be completely on topic. It directly addresses the issue raised in the thread topic and in the opening/subsequent posts. "I think the Bible contains God's word but not that it IS God's word. As such, some of the things that made it into the law are a better reflection of the harshness of man than they are of the so-called immorality of God." That would be completely on topic. It directly addresses the thread topic and the opening/subsequent posts. "God banned murder. So He got some things right. You're just cherry-picking the bad things." Actually, such a comment would be just cherry picking the good things. The comment is on the line, at best. The thread topic is not "Can't God do anything right?" If it were, a list of things that underscore his morality would be on topic. God banned murder. God banned usury. God doesn't like potty mouths or cheating on your wife. Sure, bring them up, but why? Do they address the thread topic? No, because they are not really in dispute. Remember, the thread topic is "Are YOU more moral than Yahweh?" It is not "Are all people more moral than Yahweh?" Why is that distinction important? Because we're not comparing Yahweh's stand on slavery to Simon Legree's. We're comparing it to yours. We're not comparing Yahweh's stand on usury to Vinnie the Fingerbreaker's. We're comparing it to yours. So unless you approve of murder, usury, adultery, and fould language, invoking Yahweh's stand on those issues does not actually contribute to the discussion. "Other cultures at the time were worse." Off topic. The question is not "Were other cultures at the time more moral than Yahweh?" "Raf, you need to read the scripture with open eyes. It's clear you can't do that anymore because you've closed your eyes to the things of God and are now influenced by demons." :offtopic:/>/> Not to mention ad hominem and deeply offensive. You're wasting your breath. And after what happened on this thread before, I'm not going to sit by while BS like that is thrown at me again, like I did last time. It will be reported and it will be dealt with instantly. I let things get out of hand by responding to them instead of reporting them. It will not happen again. Show me what you see with your open eyes and open heart. Hope that clarifies things.

It's really not hard. In my posts, I'm laying out specific differences between morality as we understand it today and Yahweh's laws and behavior as exhibited in his law. My premise is that if morality is both objective and absolute, and God is the source of that objective, absolute morality, then his law should be absolutely and objectively moral. In all points. So instances in which his law appears to not be moral according to our standards MUST be addressed. Are our standards wrong? Are we misunderstanding the scriptures? Now be careful. You talked about the eastern mindset considering the concept of an "employee" barbaric. The burden is now on you to demonstrate not just that they felt this way, but that they were correct to do so. That is, if you're equating the eastern mindset with God's will. Otherwise, we're off topic again. I'm not asking if you are more moral than Bronze Age Israelites. I'm asking if you are more moral than the God they worshipped. Personally, I don't see how you can come up with a definition of slavery that is BOTH Biblically accurate and morally defensible. The Bible doesn't just employ the word. It establishes the meaning. And God never abolished the institution. As slavery is defined and regulated in the Bible, I submit YOU would have abolished it. God didn't. Why?

At last! You're obviously on topic. Go on!

Survey says...!

Take a guess.

Let's try a different approach. If you were God, giving your law to your chosen people, and your chosen people wanted to keep slaves, would you regulate slavery, or would you tell your chosen people: "No. Under no circumstances is one human being allowed to own another. I forbid it. End of discussion. You do it, and you will make Me very angry, and you wouldn't like Me when I'm angry"? God chose to regulate slavery. If I'm right, you would have abolished it, no questions asked. That makes you more moral than God, doesn't it? I mean, can regulating slavery be MORE moral than abolishing it, if morality is absolute and objective? If you were God and you gave your law to your chosen people, and one of your laws was not to work on a particular day, what would your punishment be for that infraction? Would you require that the person not eat until the next sunset? Or would you stone him with stones until he dies? God chose to stone the poor sticker-picker-upper. If I'm right, you would not have done it. That makes you more moral than God, doesn't it? I mean, can the death penalty for the most minor offense imaginable (seriously, who, other than God's ego, is hurt when a man picks up firewood on a Saturday?) be MORE moral than a token "punishment" with no long-lasting harm other than discomfort and inconvenience? [To answer a point made on an unrelated thread, these questions do not entail atheist presuppositions. They presume that the God of the Old Testament is a real being who really communicated His will, and they evaluate His law according to our current moral values. So I truly do invite discussions that tackle these difficult questions. Dodging these questions by pointing out irrelevant information is not on topic and therefore not welcome -- NO MATTER WHO DOES IT. God banned usury. Well, that's wonderful, and it's certainly a good thing. But does it address the fact that he failed to abolish slavery and that he instituted a punishment for Sabbath-breaking that even ISIS members would say is a little on the harsh side? No. It's a dodge. Dodges are off topic].

Delayed reaction much?

Yup.

Totally different tone: "Hey, this is a suicide mission. We have to do something. They are not gonna land this plane."

Barney Miller

The Last Action Hero A guess, but I'd be shocked if I was wrong

Does the star of the spinoff live? Slightly exaggerated rumors to the contrary notwithstanding?