Do I agree that the Bible says what it actually says? Um. Let me retire to consider that question. I'll get back to you.
For pete's sake will you just get to the point already instead of asking patronizing questions?
I'm sorry if you feel those questions are patronizing.. They weren't meant to be as you mentioned that I wasn't clear enough, and now that I attempt to clarify for you, you think I'm patronizing.. What to do.. lol..
Also, to further clarify, those questions weren't asking if you agree "the Bible says what it actually says".. No, the questions were about the CONTEXT. Again, back to one of my first main points, context is important. Talking about loving God and your neighbor are in the context of the Torah, not the context of Jesus, not Paul, not just included somewhere in the Bible.
Really they were honest questions.. You do agree the Torah states these things. And it wasn't to be patronizing, it was because once again, your "strawman" sounded as if it didn't. So I'm not trying to assume you know or agree, instead I'm asking a polite question. That's all. Sorry you feel otherwise.
My point is just that, that the guidance of the torah itself (not Jesus or Paul) teaches to love your neighbor as yourself.. Is it the whole of my answer, no. I think I mentioned in the very first post there are things that have to be understood, context, language, culture.. And just because I make a point doesn't mean it's true either. It's what I believe, and again I;m writing these point by point to hopefully elicit some feedback on the point. I'm working towards answering the 2 torah sections on servants, but there's still a few premises to be understood beforehand. And hey, maybe those premises are wrong. Am I still unclear?!
I think everyone-Raf included- would freely admit we all have lives and posting here can
easily take a back burner to actually living them.
It's perfectly fine to say you'll get back to this soon with a better answer-
then hold off until you can post it. We can take it in good faith that you're
waiting until you can articulate your points in a manner they deserve, and don't
want to rattle off something off-the-cuff.
(You haven't seen my response to all this partly for that reason.)
There's no need to take up time by posting and saying you WILL post the response.
This isn't network television and there's no competition for viewing the thread.
Thanks for the reminder WordWolf. I realize the impatience here. Only I'm not "waiting until I can articulate better".. Sure, time is short, so what i have time for I post. No one needs respond if there isn't on-topic. To post everything in one sitting isn't possible. To do it offline and then post it all would also be counterproductive since there are a number of premises that must be mentioned and handled first. Which is what I'm attempting to do. I'm not worried about being teased. It either is what I believe or isn't, and I have no problems learning from any and all responses positive/negative. But I appreciate your concern.
I wasn't going to reply, but you left me with a question and I do not wish to be impolite.
So, no. You are not unclear. You may (please for pity's sake already) proceed. And unless you are going to demonstrate how I misrepresented your position (when in fact I accurately responded to what you actually wrote) the gratuitous accusations of strawman are both rude and unappreciated.
I have read several articles attempting to respond to the issue we're discussing, including the NBD article posted by Mark. Not one of these articles has wasted this much space setting the stage for the crew to come in and sweep the floor so the lighting can be set up while the casting agents put ads in Variety in time for the writer to finish the script so we can finally finally FINALLY get to rehearsals.
On with the SHOW already.
My patience is worn out. You're bluffing. You have no response and you're stalling in confidence that you'll come up with something halfway acceptable. Good luck with that.
If your next post doesn't advance the discussion, I will not be replying. It's been two weeks. Praises from Mark aside, you've not actually made a single relevant point that directly addresses any issue we've raised here. Nothing but "It was a warm summer evening in ancient Greece."
While we're waiting, let us consider another example of rank immorality prescribed by the author of absolute, objective morality.
I want you to imagine you're a woman, and you see your husband fighting another man. In an act of defending your husband, you get behind the assailant and grab him by the balls. This distracts the guy long enough for your husband to escape harm.
How should you be punished?
No, I'm serious. The woman gets punished for this. I'm NOT KIDDING. She touched the family jewels! What should her punishment be?
If you said "cut off her hand, show her no mercy," congratulations! Not only are you allowed in the Cobra Kai Dojo, but you are also as moral as Yahweh! Yahweh says, CUT OFF HER BLEEPING HAND.
No...MERCY!
Now, I KNOW the Bible says love your neighbor as yourself.
The Bible ALSO says cut off the hand of a woman who touches another man's privates when that man is fighting her husband (how often was this happening that a law needed to be made out of it... AND WHAT ABOUT THE TWO MEN FIGHTING?)
There's only one conclusion that can be drawn from this. According to the Bible, it is NOT unloving to cut off a woman's hand if she touches the privates of a man fighting her husband.
Just like it is not unloving to hold a woman and son hostage unless the husband/father, who has earned his freedom, commits to slavery for life.
Mutilating crotch grabbers and holding slave women and children hostage IS LOVING, according to the Bible!
Or you could just admit that this is a contradiction. Could you? Could you do that? My position: You can, IF you are more moral than Yahweh (spoiler alert: you are!)
That is an interesting sentence there Raf, "Not advancing the discussion...".. If only there was a discussion we would be much further along. But that's fine.
The next point that must be considered in context with the mitzvot about the ebed, servant, is in regards to the family. Just as love is the cornerstone by which the torah rests, the family is the cornerstone by which the lives of those in that day and time were cemented. And while it may seem irrelevant, just as you may think the point of love is, it is just as important. In fact,both set the cornerstone for the entire Tanakh as set forth when God made man. First it was love, as man was made in the image of God, and man was made for a purpose, and given a task,to guard and take care of the earth. But from the creation and task of love, next God made a helper and a companion. And the two become one. Equality and love again being set forth from the beginning. There's one thing we do not get a choice in. That's our family and it is because of our parents that we have life. But not only is it because of them, but the Eastern perspective is that it is also for the sake of them. For their purpose. Just as original man was made for God's purpose. And while we can decide to not fufill that purpose, it doesn't change the fact nor the mutual responsbilities. That is the parents are responsbile to love and care for their kids, as much as the kids are responsible to fulfill the purpose the parents had for them. Parents could have aborted or not fed, clothed, or cared for their children, the opposite of love. And thus the opposite of love for kids was to dishonor the family by living apart from it except through mutual agreement. Course today, abortion rights are debated, as part of Parental rights, yet the remainder of Parental rights are slowly being removed one by one. An interesting side note in somewhat the same vein, are the discussions now taking place regarding autonomous bots. As artificial intelligence has become better and better to where bots now can care for themselves, repair themselves, and even to an extent replicate, governments and legal institutions are already trying to draft what rights there should be, who should be responsible, and what freedoms should be granted. No different than with humans, that is, we didn't make ourselves (That's the context that I am referring to). And while many parents had nothing in mind when they "made" a child, to the Eastern minds, that in itself would be a very unloving act.
So you might ask, why this is important when it comes to an ebed, a servant. Their culture depended on the family structure, where evey member's effort was required in taking care of the day to day household. People didn't have money to just go to a store to buy food or clothing. They labored day and night in the fields, sat out for weeks straight with the livestock finding fresh grass, and every person in the household was relevant. To have a son, daughter just up and leave to do their own thing wasn't just dishonoring the family but it could be the difference between life and death. While child labor laws today sound great, many families would have never survived without the kids. And yes, one of the usages of an ebed is the son/daughter who works to help their family.
"If only there was a discussion we'd be much further along."
Well maybe there WOULD be a discussion if you would address a point instead if dancing around it so much.
God is love. Family was important. Waiting for the part where any of this validates a man holding a wife and son hostage unless the husband agrees to be his slave for life.
Mark attacked the subject directly with his NBD excerpt. I gave it only a casual treatment. If anyone thinks it raised points I have failed to rebut, I'm willing to revisit it.
I also recommend articles by Paul Copan, which make a valiant (and in my opinion insufficient) effort to tackle what is certainly a difficult issue.
In the meantime, unless something changes, I'm going to feel free to raise other issues.
And WordWolf, you teased a salient point, and I'm genuinely looking forward to you making it. ;)/>
13 “If any man take a wife and go in unto her, and hate her,
14 and give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her and say, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found her not a maid,’
15 then shall the father of the damsel and her mother take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate.
16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, ‘I gave my daughter unto this man for a wife, and he hateth her;
17 and lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, “I found not thy daughter a maid,” and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought an evil name upon a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel,
21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house; so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
Holy...
So if a woman is not a virginwhen she's married, she DIES. Horribly. Do you think that's an appropriate punishment? If you don't, I submit that you are more moral than Yahweh.
Please note, there is NOTHING in the Old Testament that so much as HINTS at a similar punishment for a MAN who is not a virgin when he gets married. PLEASE correct me if I am mistaken. I am not wedded to this observation (no pun intended).
28 “If a man find a damsel who is a virgin who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her [THIS IS RAPE, BY THE WAY. IT IS TRANSLATED AS SUCH IN NUMEROUS VERSIONS. IF A WORD STUDY REVEALS OTHERWISE, DO ENLIGHTEN ME], and they be found,
29 then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
So, if a woman is raped and she's not married, the rapist pays the victim (her father. Her father is the victim) and as part of his punishment gets to has to MARRY THE GIRL!
That'll teach him!
Do you think that's the appropriate "punishment" for a rapist? If not, I submit you are more moral than Yahweh!
Overall, I think I've made my point and I do not plan to continue posting allegations on this thread. If anyone would like to address anything I've posted, I'll be more than happy to explore whatever issues you raise.
Of course, if this thread gets exciting the way the old SIT thread did, I reserve the right to revisit that decision. There are still plenty of verses to explore.
One last thing before jumping into the specific verses you brought up, Raf. And that would be just a bit of background behind the ebedm, servants.. While Mark posted a portion from the Nelson Bible Dictionary, I think a few things need to be highlighted or even given a bit more background to from it.
From the perspective of the torah, there were only 2 ways that someone actually became an ebed (besides coming from another land with other laws), but in regards to what Yahweh himself allowed, there were only 2. The first is found in Exodus 22:1-3 "if a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep. If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. "
So rather than rot away in a prison learning with other prisoners a "better"(cough) trade, they were made to work off their debt.
The second way is found in Leviticus 25:35ff "‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you. Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you. You must not lend them money at interest or sell them food at a profit. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God. If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors"
So if they were poor, first and foremost, love, and take care of them was the rule, in fact that was the rule for anyone. But if the poor themselves realize they can not take care of themselves, their family, and they do sell themselves as a servant,ebed, they were not to be treated as an ebed. Though technically they still were one.
While these were the only 2 ways the torah allowed, there was one other class of servants, ebeds, handled in the torah. And those were ones coming from other nations with their own laws and contracts. Thus, how they became a servant,ebed, was out of the hands of other nations. But God allowed them to be purchased by the Israelites, and enjoy the freedoms other nations did not allow.
So what are some of these freedoms? First, if the servant, ebed, decided to run away, no one was allowed to stop them. If they thought they could do better on their own, they had the right.
Deuteronomy 23:13ff "You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him."
They are required to have a day off each week, the sabbath as well as enjoy the holy days and festival weeks.
Exodus 20:10 "But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns."
Deut 16:10 "Then celebrate the Festival of Weeks to the Lord your God by giving a freewill offering in proportion to the blessings the Lord your God has given you. And rejoice before the Lord your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name—you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, the Levites in your towns, and the foreigners, the fatherless and the widows living among you."
Make no mistake, being a servant was work. But there was a reason they were one. They were not allowed to be mistreated, else they could go free. (Ex 21:26ff) Course, if they were mistreated, they could run away also. The main reason one has to remember that they were a servant, were either because they were to poor to take care of themselves and couldn't find anyone able to do so, or they were a thief and needed to pay back their debt.
One, you omitted at least two ways to become an ebed, neither of which passes anything resembling moral muster. You could be born into it, which is no fault of the child. Or you could be sold by your father (if you were a woman) which is not voluntary for the woman and is therefore a moral outrage. Curious that you omitted those, especially the born into it part.
Second, your appeal to cultural relativism in the case of foreign born slaves falls flat on at least two levels. First, it does not matter that they were treated better by the Hebrews who owned them than by their kinsmen would have treated their slaves. The issue is whether it was moral for the Hebrews to own foreign slaves at all, not whether they were nicer slave masters than the surrounding nations. Secondly, and more significantly, many of the protections for Hebrew born slaves that you seem to think (but have yet to show) makes their enslavement more morally palatable simply did not exist for foreign born slaves.
So the problem for you now becomes, was Israel's enslavement of foreigners moral?
You've finally made some salient points. But our weekend begins. See you on the other side of it.
I admit that the death penalty of this day and age was very harsh and I am sure that other cultures of this day were equally harsh. However, some of the Old Testament Law is more favorable and less harsh to the population than the laws of nation's today. Here is an example of this from Exodus 22:25-27.
25 "If you lend money to any of My people who are poor among you, you shall not be like a moneylender to him; you shall not charge him interest. 26 If you ever take your neighbor's garment as a pledge, you shall return it to him before the sun goes down. 27 For that is his only covering, it is his garment for his skin. What will he sleep in? And it will be that when he cries to Me, I will hear, for I am gracious.
In contrast today for profit companies are legally allowed to pay very high interest rates on credit cards. This would have been outlawed under the Old Testament law. I hope you can see that this is good and favorable to people who need financial help the most.
Just so you know, people raised prices significantly to cover the lack of paying interest. People could and were made slaves to cover debt. So I'm not sure how this is necessarily better.
In order to "enlighten" myself a bit, I read the Qur'an. And I read it with the grain of salt I felt it deserved. It was appalling. Absolutely appalling. Who would be stupid enough to think this was anything but an immoral capricious god? Then I decided to read parts of the OT with the same grain of salt. Same response. I can't read the OT with any sense of anything but moral outrage.
If anything, I think the "law" of the OT very much mimics the social and moral constructs of the day, not set a standard. I do not believe that it goes as far as the Qur'an in its uncanny ability to fix Mohammad's moral dilemmas of the moment, but it most certainly reflects a need to maintain the patriarchy culture.
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?
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.
We all come with a set of premises - including Sam Harris, Raf. I sincerely do not know when people got the idea that it was morally wrong to enslave another human; stone a person for any offense; or any of the other head shaking things that were done in the name of god, but I'm glad that I came late enough to see it in my lifetime.
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.
...you omitted at least two ways to become an ebed, neither of which passes anything resembling moral muster. You could be born into it, which is no fault of the child. Or you could be sold by your father (if you were a woman) which is not voluntary for the woman and is therefore a moral outrage. Curious that you omitted those, especially the born into it part.
You are correct, they could become an ebed either of those ways.. Let's start with the latter mentioned. Selling of a child as an ebed. The only way this would happen was already mentioned, that is the family is too poor to take care of themselves and it falls on the people to take care of them. If they still are unable to take care of themselves, then rather than allowing their children to die, they can sell them to another family in which case they were to be taken care of the same as an Iraelite servant where they were not to be given hard work as a normal servant. It would be very much like a temporary foster family. Except that is in one case. And that was rather than JUST trying to keep their kids alive, it was seen better that they could give their daughter to marry into a wealthy family that she would be family with priviledges rather than a servant, then they did that, but then, they weren't an ebed. And no, I wouldn't consider either of those scenarios a moral outrage. Sure, involuntary for the kids, but go ahead, let them die.. That sounds moral! They weren't allowed to sell them if they could afford to care for them, and they weren't treated as an ebed. Heck even an ebed isn't treated like what most think of as a slave either..
As for the other mention. Being born into it. Of course this would only be for the foreign servants with one slight exception and that is one of the verses you had brought up much earlier, but I won't handle just yet. Instead lets handle the foreign servant, and yes, their offspring. Being part of the ebed's family of course helped their family and went whereever their family lived and helped out. As mentioned earlier, every member of every family worked, and that was because it was needed just to survive in the agrarian culture they lived in. So yes, the sons and daughters worked with their parents. BUt as mentioned before, if they decided to leave the family they worked for, even though being from a foreign land, had the freedom to leave just as any Israel ebed and the Israelites were not permitted to force them to return.
I'm curious as to which "protections" you are referring to, Raf, that the foreign born ebed did not have available?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
266
38
32
188
Popular Days
Aug 7
50
Aug 8
46
Aug 2
42
Aug 1
33
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 266 posts
waysider 38 posts
TrustAndObey 32 posts
Bolshevik 188 posts
Popular Days
Aug 7 2017
50 posts
Aug 8 2017
46 posts
Aug 2 2017
42 posts
Aug 1 2017
33 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
Raf.......YES! And so are you! TY!
TrustAndObey
I can understand where you are coming from Raf. However, if you honestly are inviting a discussion on these topics, could you be clear on what you consider is dodging. Because, to myself, you make it
TLC
It's not just people that say it. Scripture itself says that God is good. But simply equating morality to that which is "good" and attributing the cause (or source) of it to the law (and then equati
Posted Images
Raf
As I stated earlier, society doesn't get its morals from the religion that produced it. Religion gets its morals from the society that produced it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
I'm sorry if you feel those questions are patronizing.. They weren't meant to be as you mentioned that I wasn't clear enough, and now that I attempt to clarify for you, you think I'm patronizing.. What to do.. lol..
Also, to further clarify, those questions weren't asking if you agree "the Bible says what it actually says".. No, the questions were about the CONTEXT. Again, back to one of my first main points, context is important. Talking about loving God and your neighbor are in the context of the Torah, not the context of Jesus, not Paul, not just included somewhere in the Bible.
Really they were honest questions.. You do agree the Torah states these things. And it wasn't to be patronizing, it was because once again, your "strawman" sounded as if it didn't. So I'm not trying to assume you know or agree, instead I'm asking a polite question. That's all. Sorry you feel otherwise.
My point is just that, that the guidance of the torah itself (not Jesus or Paul) teaches to love your neighbor as yourself.. Is it the whole of my answer, no. I think I mentioned in the very first post there are things that have to be understood, context, language, culture.. And just because I make a point doesn't mean it's true either. It's what I believe, and again I;m writing these point by point to hopefully elicit some feedback on the point. I'm working towards answering the 2 torah sections on servants, but there's still a few premises to be understood beforehand. And hey, maybe those premises are wrong. Am I still unclear?!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Thanks for the reminder WordWolf. I realize the impatience here. Only I'm not "waiting until I can articulate better".. Sure, time is short, so what i have time for I post. No one needs respond if there isn't on-topic. To post everything in one sitting isn't possible. To do it offline and then post it all would also be counterproductive since there are a number of premises that must be mentioned and handled first. Which is what I'm attempting to do. I'm not worried about being teased. It either is what I believe or isn't, and I have no problems learning from any and all responses positive/negative. But I appreciate your concern.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I wasn't going to reply, but you left me with a question and I do not wish to be impolite.
So, no. You are not unclear. You may (please for pity's sake already) proceed. And unless you are going to demonstrate how I misrepresented your position (when in fact I accurately responded to what you actually wrote) the gratuitous accusations of strawman are both rude and unappreciated.
I have read several articles attempting to respond to the issue we're discussing, including the NBD article posted by Mark. Not one of these articles has wasted this much space setting the stage for the crew to come in and sweep the floor so the lighting can be set up while the casting agents put ads in Variety in time for the writer to finish the script so we can finally finally FINALLY get to rehearsals.
On with the SHOW already.
My patience is worn out. You're bluffing. You have no response and you're stalling in confidence that you'll come up with something halfway acceptable. Good luck with that.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
If your next post doesn't advance the discussion, I will not be replying. It's been two weeks. Praises from Mark aside, you've not actually made a single relevant point that directly addresses any issue we've raised here. Nothing but "It was a warm summer evening in ancient Greece."
Get to the point already.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
While we're waiting, let us consider another example of rank immorality prescribed by the author of absolute, objective morality.
I want you to imagine you're a woman, and you see your husband fighting another man. In an act of defending your husband, you get behind the assailant and grab him by the balls. This distracts the guy long enough for your husband to escape harm.
How should you be punished?
No, I'm serious. The woman gets punished for this. I'm NOT KIDDING. She touched the family jewels! What should her punishment be?
If you said "cut off her hand, show her no mercy," congratulations! Not only are you allowed in the Cobra Kai Dojo, but you are also as moral as Yahweh! Yahweh says, CUT OFF HER BLEEPING HAND.
No...MERCY!
Now, I KNOW the Bible says love your neighbor as yourself.
The Bible ALSO says cut off the hand of a woman who touches another man's privates when that man is fighting her husband (how often was this happening that a law needed to be made out of it... AND WHAT ABOUT THE TWO MEN FIGHTING?)
There's only one conclusion that can be drawn from this. According to the Bible, it is NOT unloving to cut off a woman's hand if she touches the privates of a man fighting her husband.
Just like it is not unloving to hold a woman and son hostage unless the husband/father, who has earned his freedom, commits to slavery for life.
Mutilating crotch grabbers and holding slave women and children hostage IS LOVING, according to the Bible!
Or you could just admit that this is a contradiction. Could you? Could you do that? My position: You can, IF you are more moral than Yahweh (spoiler alert: you are!)
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
That is an interesting sentence there Raf, "Not advancing the discussion...".. If only there was a discussion we would be much further along. But that's fine.
The next point that must be considered in context with the mitzvot about the ebed, servant, is in regards to the family. Just as love is the cornerstone by which the torah rests, the family is the cornerstone by which the lives of those in that day and time were cemented. And while it may seem irrelevant, just as you may think the point of love is, it is just as important. In fact,both set the cornerstone for the entire Tanakh as set forth when God made man. First it was love, as man was made in the image of God, and man was made for a purpose, and given a task,to guard and take care of the earth. But from the creation and task of love, next God made a helper and a companion. And the two become one. Equality and love again being set forth from the beginning. There's one thing we do not get a choice in. That's our family and it is because of our parents that we have life. But not only is it because of them, but the Eastern perspective is that it is also for the sake of them. For their purpose. Just as original man was made for God's purpose. And while we can decide to not fufill that purpose, it doesn't change the fact nor the mutual responsbilities. That is the parents are responsbile to love and care for their kids, as much as the kids are responsible to fulfill the purpose the parents had for them. Parents could have aborted or not fed, clothed, or cared for their children, the opposite of love. And thus the opposite of love for kids was to dishonor the family by living apart from it except through mutual agreement. Course today, abortion rights are debated, as part of Parental rights, yet the remainder of Parental rights are slowly being removed one by one. An interesting side note in somewhat the same vein, are the discussions now taking place regarding autonomous bots. As artificial intelligence has become better and better to where bots now can care for themselves, repair themselves, and even to an extent replicate, governments and legal institutions are already trying to draft what rights there should be, who should be responsible, and what freedoms should be granted. No different than with humans, that is, we didn't make ourselves (That's the context that I am referring to). And while many parents had nothing in mind when they "made" a child, to the Eastern minds, that in itself would be a very unloving act.
So you might ask, why this is important when it comes to an ebed, a servant. Their culture depended on the family structure, where evey member's effort was required in taking care of the day to day household. People didn't have money to just go to a store to buy food or clothing. They labored day and night in the fields, sat out for weeks straight with the livestock finding fresh grass, and every person in the household was relevant. To have a son, daughter just up and leave to do their own thing wasn't just dishonoring the family but it could be the difference between life and death. While child labor laws today sound great, many families would have never survived without the kids. And yes, one of the usages of an ebed is the son/daughter who works to help their family.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It was a warm summer evening in ancient Greece...
"If only there was a discussion we'd be much further along."
Well maybe there WOULD be a discussion if you would address a point instead if dancing around it so much.
God is love. Family was important. Waiting for the part where any of this validates a man holding a wife and son hostage unless the husband agrees to be his slave for life.
And waiting.
And waiting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
While some of this may address the function of slavery in ancient times, I fail to see how it portrays Yahweh in a moral light.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
By agreement of Raf and T&O,
the side-discussion on slavery and the Bible was one subject to more
concretely address more nebulous topics of morality.
That was the top of page 4.
That having been said, we've had a few pages of prologue to that
subject, and little actually addressing slavery and morality.
If this keeps up, I'm going to end up reviewing and posting digests
of the salient points made so they don't get completely lost in a
sea of words. (Legitimate points shouldn't be lost.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mark attacked the subject directly with his NBD excerpt. I gave it only a casual treatment. If anyone thinks it raised points I have failed to rebut, I'm willing to revisit it.
I also recommend articles by Paul Copan, which make a valiant (and in my opinion insufficient) effort to tackle what is certainly a difficult issue.
In the meantime, unless something changes, I'm going to feel free to raise other issues.
And WordWolf, you teased a salient point, and I'm genuinely looking forward to you making it. ;)/>
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Deuteronomy 22:
13 “If any man take a wife and go in unto her, and hate her,
14 and give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her and say, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found her not a maid,’
15 then shall the father of the damsel and her mother take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate.
16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, ‘I gave my daughter unto this man for a wife, and he hateth her;
17 and lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, “I found not thy daughter a maid,” and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought an evil name upon a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel,
21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house; so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
Holy...
So if a woman is not a virginwhen she's married, she DIES. Horribly. Do you think that's an appropriate punishment? If you don't, I submit that you are more moral than Yahweh.
Please note, there is NOTHING in the Old Testament that so much as HINTS at a similar punishment for a MAN who is not a virgin when he gets married. PLEASE correct me if I am mistaken. I am not wedded to this observation (no pun intended).
28 “If a man find a damsel who is a virgin who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her [THIS IS RAPE, BY THE WAY. IT IS TRANSLATED AS SUCH IN NUMEROUS VERSIONS. IF A WORD STUDY REVEALS OTHERWISE, DO ENLIGHTEN ME], and they be found,
29 then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
So, if a woman is raped and she's not married, the rapist pays the victim (her father. Her father is the victim) and as part of his punishment gets to has to MARRY THE GIRL!
That'll teach him!
Do you think that's the appropriate "punishment" for a rapist? If not, I submit you are more moral than Yahweh!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Overall, I think I've made my point and I do not plan to continue posting allegations on this thread. If anyone would like to address anything I've posted, I'll be more than happy to explore whatever issues you raise.
Of course, if this thread gets exciting the way the old SIT thread did, I reserve the right to revisit that decision. There are still plenty of verses to explore.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
One last thing before jumping into the specific verses you brought up, Raf. And that would be just a bit of background behind the ebedm, servants.. While Mark posted a portion from the Nelson Bible Dictionary, I think a few things need to be highlighted or even given a bit more background to from it.
From the perspective of the torah, there were only 2 ways that someone actually became an ebed (besides coming from another land with other laws), but in regards to what Yahweh himself allowed, there were only 2. The first is found in Exodus 22:1-3 "if a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep. If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. "
So rather than rot away in a prison learning with other prisoners a "better"(cough) trade, they were made to work off their debt.
The second way is found in Leviticus 25:35ff "‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you. Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you. You must not lend them money at interest or sell them food at a profit. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God. If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors"
So if they were poor, first and foremost, love, and take care of them was the rule, in fact that was the rule for anyone. But if the poor themselves realize they can not take care of themselves, their family, and they do sell themselves as a servant,ebed, they were not to be treated as an ebed. Though technically they still were one.
While these were the only 2 ways the torah allowed, there was one other class of servants, ebeds, handled in the torah. And those were ones coming from other nations with their own laws and contracts. Thus, how they became a servant,ebed, was out of the hands of other nations. But God allowed them to be purchased by the Israelites, and enjoy the freedoms other nations did not allow.
So what are some of these freedoms? First, if the servant, ebed, decided to run away, no one was allowed to stop them. If they thought they could do better on their own, they had the right.
Deuteronomy 23:13ff "You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him."
They are required to have a day off each week, the sabbath as well as enjoy the holy days and festival weeks.
Exodus 20:10 "But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns."
Deut 16:10 "Then celebrate the Festival of Weeks to the Lord your God by giving a freewill offering in proportion to the blessings the Lord your God has given you. And rejoice before the Lord your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name—you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, the Levites in your towns, and the foreigners, the fatherless and the widows living among you."
Make no mistake, being a servant was work. But there was a reason they were one. They were not allowed to be mistreated, else they could go free. (Ex 21:26ff) Course, if they were mistreated, they could run away also. The main reason one has to remember that they were a servant, were either because they were to poor to take care of themselves and couldn't find anyone able to do so, or they were a thief and needed to pay back their debt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Two observations.
One, you omitted at least two ways to become an ebed, neither of which passes anything resembling moral muster. You could be born into it, which is no fault of the child. Or you could be sold by your father (if you were a woman) which is not voluntary for the woman and is therefore a moral outrage. Curious that you omitted those, especially the born into it part.
Second, your appeal to cultural relativism in the case of foreign born slaves falls flat on at least two levels. First, it does not matter that they were treated better by the Hebrews who owned them than by their kinsmen would have treated their slaves. The issue is whether it was moral for the Hebrews to own foreign slaves at all, not whether they were nicer slave masters than the surrounding nations. Secondly, and more significantly, many of the protections for Hebrew born slaves that you seem to think (but have yet to show) makes their enslavement more morally palatable simply did not exist for foreign born slaves.
So the problem for you now becomes, was Israel's enslavement of foreigners moral?
You've finally made some salient points. But our weekend begins. See you on the other side of it.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Just so you know, people raised prices significantly to cover the lack of paying interest. People could and were made slaves to cover debt. So I'm not sure how this is necessarily better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
In order to "enlighten" myself a bit, I read the Qur'an. And I read it with the grain of salt I felt it deserved. It was appalling. Absolutely appalling. Who would be stupid enough to think this was anything but an immoral capricious god? Then I decided to read parts of the OT with the same grain of salt. Same response. I can't read the OT with any sense of anything but moral outrage.
If anything, I think the "law" of the OT very much mimics the social and moral constructs of the day, not set a standard. I do not believe that it goes as far as the Qur'an in its uncanny ability to fix Mohammad's moral dilemmas of the moment, but it most certainly reflects a need to maintain the patriarchy culture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
We all come with a set of premises - including Sam Harris, Raf. I sincerely do not know when people got the idea that it was morally wrong to enslave another human; stone a person for any offense; or any of the other head shaking things that were done in the name of god, but I'm glad that I came late enough to see it in my lifetime.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I know. You just sound a lot like him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
You are correct, they could become an ebed either of those ways.. Let's start with the latter mentioned. Selling of a child as an ebed. The only way this would happen was already mentioned, that is the family is too poor to take care of themselves and it falls on the people to take care of them. If they still are unable to take care of themselves, then rather than allowing their children to die, they can sell them to another family in which case they were to be taken care of the same as an Iraelite servant where they were not to be given hard work as a normal servant. It would be very much like a temporary foster family. Except that is in one case. And that was rather than JUST trying to keep their kids alive, it was seen better that they could give their daughter to marry into a wealthy family that she would be family with priviledges rather than a servant, then they did that, but then, they weren't an ebed. And no, I wouldn't consider either of those scenarios a moral outrage. Sure, involuntary for the kids, but go ahead, let them die.. That sounds moral! They weren't allowed to sell them if they could afford to care for them, and they weren't treated as an ebed. Heck even an ebed isn't treated like what most think of as a slave either..
As for the other mention. Being born into it. Of course this would only be for the foreign servants with one slight exception and that is one of the verses you had brought up much earlier, but I won't handle just yet. Instead lets handle the foreign servant, and yes, their offspring. Being part of the ebed's family of course helped their family and went whereever their family lived and helped out. As mentioned earlier, every member of every family worked, and that was because it was needed just to survive in the agrarian culture they lived in. So yes, the sons and daughters worked with their parents. BUt as mentioned before, if they decided to leave the family they worked for, even though being from a foreign land, had the freedom to leave just as any Israel ebed and the Israelites were not permitted to force them to return.
I'm curious as to which "protections" you are referring to, Raf, that the foreign born ebed did not have available?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Deleting. Covered in later posts.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.