Raf

To be clear, you could not go free before seven years. If you went free, you couldn't take your wife and kids with you. That's. Not. Freedom. Just the fact that God would let the master keep the wife and kids... Holy cannoli, really? How is that morally acceptable regardless of what word you're using? Slave, ebed, jolly green giant... It's NOT something I would ever allow morally. Seems to me the so-called source of absolute, objective morality clearly is not as moral as the vast majority of the people who follow him today (not to mention the vast majority of people who don't).

Ladies and gentlemen, exhibit 1: Biblical ebeddery allows a master to hold an ebed's wife and children hostage if the ebed wants to go free (if he gave the wife to the ebed in the first place). If you have a moral objection to that rule, which is presented to us as God's voice and not man's, then you are saying that you are more moral than the God who gave that rule. If you do not have a moral objection to that rule, you are probably, and I'm guessing here, not reading this. Read it as many times as you'd like. A man can sell his daughter as an amah. She doesn't get that cool deal about going free after seven years. That's for male ebeds. (I'm assuming we are not restricted to ebed, but even if we are, the concepts are clearly related and on-topic). And if the master marries another woman, in addition to his... let's call it, purchased sexual companion... as long as he keeps feeding, clothing, and boning his amah, he doesn't have to free her. If you have a moral objection to that rule, which is presented to us as God's voice and not man's, then you are saying that you are more moral than the God who gave that rule. If you do not have a moral objection to that rule, you are probably, and I'm guessing here, not reading this. God must have not read the part about how they were not to be treated as property. He said, yeah, treat them like property. If you have a moral objection to that rule, which is presented to us as God's voice and not man's, then you are saying that you are more moral than the God who gave that rule. If you do not have a moral objection to that rule, you are probably, and I'm guessing here, not reading this. Let me know if I need to keep going.

What?

I knew it was Rise or Legends.

FYI: If you need to give MORE characters, please make them obvious to move the game along. This actor has had so many roles, but you never think of him as his character names. He's too much of a presence for that.

Three actors in search of a character. That character being Sherlock Holmes Up next Seymour Parrish Sean Maguire Daniel Hillard Hints: the character of Seymour Parrish was VERY well received by critics. But the movie he was on was not exactly a blockbuster. I'd be surprised if you had not heard of it. I'd be surprised if you saw it. You have all but certainly seen the movie featuring Daniel Hillard. He's actually the title character, in a manner of speaking. The actor won an Oscar for portraying Sean Maguire.

Fine Rise of the Guardians of the Galaxy Or is it Legend of the Guardians of the Galaxy Or Rise of the Dawn of the Legends of the Guardians of the Galaxy Quest for Fire and Ice Storm of the Century

Is ebeddery, as described in the Bible, morally acceptable to you? Only verses can outline what biblical ebeddery is.

Yes. Tom Hanson from 21 jump street John Dillinger from public enemies James Barrie from finding neverland. You're up.

I was just waiting for verses.

I give you three character names, you identify the actor/Actress who played them. Or if you're in the mood, give us three actors who played the same role, and we have to guess the role. Try not to be too obscure, but no need to make it easy. Ready? Go! John Dillinger Tom Hanson James Barrie

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.