Raf

Think comedy

Geoffrey Rush Les Miserables Liam Neeson

I didn't say child. I said daughter. That statement is without scriptural support. Sure, that is ONE way it could happen. But "the only way?" Not what the Bible says. This is a false dilemma. I note how you juxtapose "allowing their children to die" with selling a daughter into slavery, as if those were the only two options. Giving the child up for adoption would be a much better option than selling a daughter into slavery. Note also that this verse [Exodus 21:7 ff, which I will quote in full momentarily] says nothing whatsoever about the father's motivation (escaping poverty, debt, etc). And if it IS for those reasons, it is treating the girl as the father's property rather than his progeny. There are many more options available besides "selling my daughter as a sex slave" and "letting her die." ESPECIALLY for an omniscient God who is able to say "here's how you handle this situation." For a moral person, selling the child would not even make the list of options. Here are the verses. 7 “If a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not please the man who bought her, then he shall let her be bought back again; but he has no power to sell her to foreigners, since he has wronged her by no longer wanting her after marrying her. 9 And if he arranges an engagement between a Hebrew slave girl and his son, then he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but must treat her as a daughter. 10 If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing, or fail to sleep with her as his wife. 11 If he fails in any of these three things, then she may leave freely without any payment. Please read the verses again. It is describing NOTHING like a foster family. Egads. She's a sex slave. Concubine. Handmaid. Maidservant. Not an ebed, I acknowledge, but still relevant to the context of this thread. Read it. Unlike the male ebed from a few verses earlier, she does NOT get the "go free in the seventh year" clause. She explicitly does not get that. Male slaves got freedom. Female slaves did not. The master can sell her back (whether this is before or after he's "used" her is not specified, but let's be generous and presume it's before). He can't sell her to foreigners. Well, that's nice. I guess that means he can sell her to another Israelite, which sounds very much like a slave trade and nothing at all like a foster family type of situation. Now, the master CAN give the girl to his son. At that point, he has to treat her like a daughter-in-law. Well, that's nice. No, really, it is. Or the master can marry her himself (note that she doesn't seem to get a vote here. Is THAT moral? I know it was the cultural norm, but is it moral? Now, if the master marries the girl himself, AND he takes another wife, he has to... wait, what? That's... isn't that... wait just a cotton picking minute (pun gleefully intended)! Yeah, we haven't even touched on polygamy in this thread. Do you believe monogamy is more moral than polygamy? God doesn't seem to have an opinion. He's like, "Whatevs. If your culture allows it, fine. If it doesn't, well, I'd prefer one man one wife, but if you have more than one wife, I'm good with that too." o.....k....? So if the master decides to make his slave girl his wife, she stops being a slave right? Wrong. She's just treated differently. But there's a whole new rule: he has to keep feeding, clothing and banging the slave girl. Otherwise, she can go free without payment. What the bloody hell? That's what it says. Clearly. He doesn't even seem to have to divorce her. Just, go. That's not freedom for mistreatment, mind you. That's dismissal. I've used you. I'm done with you. I don't owe you jack. Begone! Fascinating. Moral? No, not by your standards. If you say it is, I just won't believe you. If you appeal to cultural relativism, you've already lost. God should be setting moral rules and laws, not submitting to cultural norms. A moral God would recognize those verses as monstrous. But they were appropriate for the culture that invented this God in the first place. No. They were what we described above. I don't believe you. And as evidence, I put forward that before you said it was not a moral outrage, you did not posit what the Bible actually said on the subject, which is certainly morally outrageous. False dilemma. We've been over that. Gee, I wonder why not. They did not have the "freedom to leave." That is a deliberate misrepresentation. They could escape, and people would not be allowed to return them. But that is not at all the same as "freedom to leave." Now it should be noted that according to some scholars, the "escape" clauses only refer to slaves from foreign lands who escape into Hebrew land. I'm not sure that is accurate, but if I come across solid citations, I'll be happy to share them. Which protections am I referring to that applied to Hebrew slaves but not foreign? For one, the freedom after six years. Leviticus 25: 44 However, you may purchase slaves from the foreign nations living around you, 45 and you may purchase the children of the foreigners living among you, even though they have been born in your land. 46 They will be permanent slaves for you to pass on to your children after you; but your brothers, the people of Israel, shall not be treated so. No Jubilee for you!

FASCINATING that you cite the verse but don't quote it. I can't blame you. It's ghastly. Here are the verses, with a bit more thrown in for context: 20 “If a man beats his slave to death — whether the slave is male or female — that man shall surely be punished. 21 However, if the slave does not die for a couple of days, then the man shall not be punished — for the slave is his property. ... 26 “If a man hits his slave in the eye, whether man or woman, and the eye is blinded, then the slave shall go free because of his eye. 27 And if a master knocks out his slave’s tooth, he shall let him go free to pay for the tooth. So let's be clear: beating the slave is FINE if the slave doesn't die or suffer serious injury. The master does not get punished for that. A few lashes on the back? As long as you don't take out his eye or knock out his tooth, you're ok. To say "they were not allowed to be mistreated" is demonstrably false. They WERE allowed to be mistreated. They just weren't allowed to be killed or mutilated. Well. That's nice. Then they would still be slaves. They would just be slaves who had run away. The notion of being able to simply "quit" is absent from the Bible. Or they were born into it. Or sold into it by their dads.

I think you could make the case that this is more moral than imprisonment. I'm curious to know whether he goes free once the debt is paid. In any event, that is not "slavery," that is making restitution after committing a crime. If he does NOT go free once the debt is paid, then we're talking slavery. But the bottom line here is that this is an example of punishment for a crime, not "slavery." I find the phrasing interesting. "Do not make them work as slaves." This already tells you that we are distinguishing between these people and other "slaves." As such, the issue under observation here is the slaves, not the people who must not be treated as slaves. We are explicilty not talking about slaves here. Yes, technically they were. But they were not to be treated as slaves. So how are the slaves treated? Why the distinction? If being a slave was so "ok," then why insure that people who sold themselves into ebeddery were not to be treated as such? Aren't you implying here that being a slave was NOT "ok," if people who sold themselves out of debt were not to be treated as slaves? As previously noted, these were NOT the only two ways the torah allowed. A child could be born into it, through no fault of his own, and held from his father as the property of his master unless the father agreed to become a slave for life, a verse whose significance you have yet to address. That these foreign born slaves were treated better than other nations would have treated them is not really relevant. The issue is that they are slaves, period, and NOT given the same protections as Hebrew slaves. More on that later, since you did ask. Fascinating verse. If a slave runs away he is not to be returned to his master. Note, it does not say "if a slave decides to quit, the master must let him go." That would be how a moral person would phrase it. But in this case, the master's perspective is missing. Why is that? And why doesn't the Bible simply instruct, "he shall be free"? It just says don't send him back. What if the master arrives to claim him? Nothing says he can't. In fact, as the master's property, the slave MUST go back. So kudos for not requiring people to return slaves, but it's hardly "freedom." So the slaves don't work on the sabbath day or the holy days. Neither do the animals. Your point?

Nothing?

Angelina Jolie Mr. & Mrs. Smith Brad Pitt

After fifteen minutes I wanted to marry her, and after half an hour I completely gave up the idea of stealing her purse.

You think therefore you are... correct

The World Will Know King of New York

Mulling

Deleting. Covered in later posts.

Deleting. Covered in later posts.

If memory serves, they won't return a Brazilian. But Victor B is not a Brazilian.

Why do we assume that brainwashing and choice are antithetical to each other?

For the record, if I have quoted Sam Harris, it's by accident. While I am aware that he has addressed issues of morality and I have read some of his stuff, I am not consciously quoting him or citing him. For whatever that's worth. :)

:)

I guessed based on Braddock being the title of one of the MIA movies. The other two fell into place. Ben Affleck Christopher Pine Alec Baldwin

LACKS a sense of humor?

That last post was, of course, completely sarcastic. I was attempting to illustrate what I brought up in another thread, the outsider test. We tend to apply our critical thinking skills differently for religions we oppose than we do for religions we embrace. We do not presume Islam to be correct until disproved. We do not presume Allah's atrocities are to be understood in light of his professed mercy and compassion. But Yahweh? Yahweh is love! If he appears to be unjust, the problem must be with my understanding. Allah gets no such allowance. The only difference between them is the name, and the presumptions we make when approaching their attributes.

But the Quran says Allah is merciful and compassionate, so all of his laws and behaviors need to be understood in the CONTEXT of his mercy and compassion. Have you done word studies on the Quran to determine why you fail to recognize Allah's mercy and compassion where it is evident?

Chuck Norris

Busted!!! http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_27616870/minnesota-brides-christ-cult-leader-arrested-brazil?source=rss Courtesy of Jeff Sjolander

The Graduate. "Yo Adrian! I did it!"

Dana Carvey Master of Disguise Brent Spiner