Do the atrocities of the Old Testament matter in the light of the New? Answer: YES, they do.

Then I guess you've not seen any of my posts.

Nor mine.

[sigh]

So you think that Christians don't like to address history? Why is it that you refuse to address the full message of scripture?

No you are focusing on history......

Many of them are given up to the 'god' character as a "heave offering". The bible is pretty direct how offerings are given. They are burnt.

Where do you get this?

The rest of the female children are to become "Property"; meaning they can be 'used' in whatever manner their new owners want them for.

Proving that you haven't studied the laws of their culture concerning slaves.

God permitted slavery to exist in both Old and New Testament times. But this does not mean that slavery was a God-ordained system. Slavery was an invention of fallen man, not of God. Nevertheless, God allowed it to exist the way He allows other things to exist that He does not approve of: murder, lying, rape, theft, etc.

While slavery was permitted by God and rules were set down by him for the treatment of slaves were given so that they would not be mistreated. You see you pick some verses but ignore the ones that show differences in the slaves held by the Hebrew's and what we think of as salvery today.

Deuteronomy 23:16

Leviticus 22:11

Exodus 21:20

Chris,

We address it all the time. We accept that God acted as He did. What you have trouble with and what you call denial is that we do not accept your characterization of events.

Chris is another who tries to hold God to men's concepts of right and wrong......

See you didn't even look at the scriptures listed.......

So you refuse to address the scriptures....and you set yourself above God....

So you refuse to address the scriptures

How do you suppose your cited scripture exonerates your god?

Leviticus 22:11 tells us slavery is so acceptable even priests buy slaves.

Deuteronomy 23:16 sounds nice at first telling us not to return runaway slaves back to their master, but lets examine that a bit. Why would slaves be running away if slavery wasn't so bad back in Jesus' days?

Exodus 21:20 tells us if you beat your slave to death you will be punished, great. However Exodus 21:21 reminds us if that slave takes a day or two to die there shall be no punishment because after all slaves are simply money. Again, great stuff. Got to hand to the Mr. God for such compassion.

War,poverty, and crime were the basic factors that reduced persons to a state of servitude. Captives of war were often constituted slaves by their captors or were sold into slavery by them.(compare 2Ki 5:2; Joel 3:6) In Israelite society a person who became poor could sell himself or his children into slavery to care for his indebtedness.(Ex 21:7; Lev 25:39,47; 2Ki 4:1) One guilty of thievery but unable to make compensation was sold for the things he stole, evidently regaining his freedom at the time all claims against him were cared for. [Ex 22:3] At times slaves held a position of great trust and honor in a household. The patriarch Abraham's aged servant (likely Eliezer) managed all of his master's possessions. (Ge 24:2; 15:2,3) Abraham's descendant Joseph, as a slave in Egypt, came to be in charge of everything belonging to Potiphar, a court official of Pharaoh. (Ge 39:1,5,6) In Israel, there was a possibility of a slave's becoming wealthy and redeeming himself.[Lev 25:49]

Among the Israelites the status of the Hebrew slave differed from that of a slave who was a foreigner, alien resident, or settler. Whereas the non-Hebrew remained the property of the owner and could be passed on from father to son(Lev 25:44-46), the Hebrew slave was to be released in the seventh year of his servitude or in the Jubilee year, depending upon which came first. During the time of his servitude the Hebrew slave was to be treated as a hired laborer.(Ex 21:2; Lev 25:10; Deut 15:12) A Hebrew who sold himself into slavery to an alien resident, to a member of an alien resident's family, or to a settler could be be repurchased at any time, either by himself or by one having the right of repurchase. The redemption price was based on the number of years remaining until the Jubilee year or until the seventh year of servitude. (Lev 25:47-52; Deut 15:12) When granting a Hebrew slave his freedom, the master was to give him a gift to assist him in getting a good start as a freedman. (Deut 15:13-15) If a slave had come in with a wife, the wife went out with him. However, if the master had given him a wife(evidently a foreign woman who would not be entitled to freedom in the seventh year of servitude), she and any children by her remained the property of the master. In such a case the Hebrew slave could choose to remain with his master. His ear would then be pierced with an awl to indicate that he would continue in servitude to time indefinite.[Ex 221:2-6; Deut 15:16,17]

Certain special regulations applied to a female Hebrew slave. She could be taken as a concubine by the master or designated as a wife for his son. When designated as a wife for the master's son, the Hebrewess was to be treated with the due right of daughters. Even if the son took another wife, there was to be no diminishing of her sustenance, clothing, and marriage due. A failure on the son's part in this respect entitled the woman to her freedom without the payment of a redemption price. If the master sought to have a Hebrewess redeemed, he was not permitted to accomplish this by selling her to foreigners.[ Ex 21:7-11]

The Law protected slaves from brutalities. A slave was to be set at liberty if mistreatment by the master resulted in the loss of a tooth or an eye. As the usual value for a slave was 30 shekels (compare Ex 21:32), his liberation would have meant considerable loss to the master and, therefore, would have served as a strong deterrent against abuse. Although a master could beat his slave, the slave, depending upon the decision of the judges, was to be avenged if he died under his master's beating. However, if the slave lingered on for a day or two before dying--this indicating that the master had not intended to kill the slave but to discipline him--he was not to be avenged.( Ex 21:20,21,26,27; Lev 24:17) Also, it would appear that for the master to have been considered free of guilt the beating could not have been administered with a lethal instrument, as that would have signified intent to kill.( compare Nu 35:16-18) Therefore, if a slave lingered on for a day or two, there would be reasonable question as to whether the death resulted from the chastisement. A beating with a rod, for example, would not normally be fatal, as is shown by the statement at Proverbs 23:13: "Do not hold back discipline from the mere boy. In case you beat him with the rod, he will not die."

Certain privileges were granted to slaves by the terms of the Law. As all male slaves were circumcised (Ex12:44; compare Ge 17:12), they could eat the passover, and slaves of the priests could eat holy things.(Ex 12:43,44; Le 22:10,11) Slaves were exempted working on the Sabbath. (Ex 20:10; Deut 5:14) During the Sabbath year they were entitled to eat of the growth from spilled kernels and from the unpruned vine. (Lev 25:5,6) They were to share in the rejoicing associated with the sacrificing at the sanctuary and the celebration of the festivals.[Deut 12:12; 16:11,14]

Your problem is that you and people like you keep trying to make excuses for the inexcusable.

Slavery is always wrong.

Rape is always wrong.

Harming children is always wrong.

There are no exceptions.

those havent always been wrong.

if i felt like messin with ya, i'd argue that most people didnt think those were wrong until illegal, non-latin bibles started getting smuggled around all over europe.

but i dont really feel like messin with ya.

give em hell, chris.

Lev 22:11 When you study the laws concerning the priest you find that only members of his household are allowed to eat of the food provided for the priest…so this is saying that in essence the slave is a member of the household.

When you study you find that the servitude was in many cases limited in time periods and that at the end of that period the master was required to set the slave up economically as they started their new life. Slaves were granted the same rights as the master when it came to the Sabbath, or religious observances. The reality of slavery cannot be denied. "Slave labor played a minor economic role in the ancient Near East, for privately-owned slaves functioned more as domestic servants than as an agricultural or industrial labor force. But again in the end you do not find where slavery was establish of God but that he allowed it just as he allowed and does allow as Christ stated divorce because of the hardness of men’s hearts.

How do you suppose your cited scripture exonerates your god?

Leviticus 22:11 tells us slavery is so acceptable even priests buy slaves.

Deuteronomy 23:16 sounds nice at first telling us not to return runaway slaves back to their master, but lets examine that a bit. Why would slaves be running away if slavery wasn't so bad back in Jesus' days?

Exodus 21:20 tells us if you beat your slave to death you will be punished, great. However Exodus 21:21 reminds us if that slave takes a day or two to die there shall be no punishment because after all slaves are simply money. Again, great stuff. Got to hand to the Mr. God for such compassion.

You do what most people on your side of the argument do. Take a single thing, such as Deuteronomy 23:16 and try to figure out the worst interpretation you can for it. You don't bother to take anything else into consideration, like other scriptures or intent. For instance you say:

Why would slaves be running away if slavery wasn't so bad back in Jesus' days?

You say let's examine this a bit. Ok, lets. If a runaway slave is not to be returned to his or her master, how stupid do you have to be to mistreat a slave, knowing that if you're too harsh they can simply run away and be free? Surely all slaves knew of this law, so if slavery was so bad, why didn't they all run away en mass?

And this:

However Exodus 21:21 reminds us if that slave takes a day or two to die there shall be no punishment because after all slaves are simply money.

Again you are simply trying to make it sound bad by looking at the letter of the law, applying the worst thing you can think of and ignoring intent. This law's intent was to prevent wanton abuse of slaves. Even if a severely beaten slave recovers, he can always fall back on Deut 23:16 and escape a bad master.

You look at slavery from today's perspective where slavery is not necessary. There are all sorts of social safety nets to care for the poor. In OT times, what was there for the destitute? You call slavery evil, yet it was the social safety net, the welfare system of the day. What would you have those people do? Take what you think is the moral high ground and refuse the institution of slavery and let them all starve to death? If you went back in time to those days and tried to liberate the slaves, most of them would probably think you were a madman. Where else did they have to go? Look at the beggers in the bible. Most of them would probably have loved to have been a slave. They would have loved to have the safety and security of a place to live, work and sleep. But most beggars weren't fit for work. They had the hardest life of them all. Completely at the mercy of everyone else.

Oh, and before anyone gets the idea I'm for slavery, I'm not. Nor is God. It was simply that it was the best solution for those times.

how stupid do you have to be to mistreat a slave, knowing that if you're too harsh they can simply run away and be free?

The practice is called "hobbling", cutting off a foot, cutting the right tendon, smashing the ankel, ect., doesn't kill the slave but sure slows them down. By the rules set down in your bible this practice wouldn't be considered "too harsh".

Surely all slaves knew of this law, so if slavery was so bad, why didn't they all run away en mass?

The same question could be asked of slaves in all times and places, commonly throughout history the number of slaves outweighed the number of freemen, why didn't they rise up? Part of our human nature is subjecting ourselves to authority and is easy to exploit, say with your very religion telling you that your master should be treated like your god, for instance.

You call slavery evil, yet it was the social safety net, the welfare system of the day.

Slavery was not a "social safety net", it was not welfare for the poor it was welfare for the rich and nothing more. A means to create wealth for a few with the sweat and blood of many. Yes I rightfully call slavery evil and I don't even have to be all knowing to know I'm right.

Take what you think is the moral high ground and refuse the institution of slavery and let them all starve to death?

How about letting them share in the fruits of their labor instead of giving it all to the master? Why do you only see two choices, slavery or starvation? Instead of concentrating the profits into one individual-the master, how about sharing some of those profits in a little thing called 'wages'?

If you went back in time to those days and tried to liberate the slaves, most of them would probably think you were a madman.

Yeah maybe they'd even crucify me.

Oh, and before anyone gets the idea I'm for slavery, I'm not. Nor is God. It was simply that it was the best solution for those times.

Slavery was the "best solution"? Well if it was so great why isn't it a great solution today?

I personally don't blame our Founders for their evil practice of holding slaves but I still consider the practice evil but I don't judge them by our current standards, it wouldn't be fair because they were products of the age they lived in-they weren't all knowing. Which brings us to the Jesus character who unlike Thomas Jefferson supposedly had some more insight to things. If Jesus was just a man why would I blame him anymore than I blame Thomas Jefferson? But Jesus was supposedly more, either god related or god himself-so why didn't he know better than Thomas Jefferson when it came to slaves?

I hold supposed deities to higher level than mere humanity and like CHris said above, "slavery is always wrong".

so this is saying that in essence the slave is a member of the household.

Like a sheep or other bought and paid for piece of property.

for privately-owned slaves functioned more as domestic servants than as an agricultural or industrial labor force.

Yeah, domestic servants that acted as a private agricultural and industrial labor force. This is before there were large centralized agriculture and industry, households were their own agricultural and industry spots, they grew their own crops and tended their own flocks and produced their own goods from clothing to furniture. Just because these slaves weren't working at huge plantations didn't make their work any less degrading.

Certain privileges were granted to slaves by the terms of the Law. As all male slaves were circumcised

Ouch, you call this a privilege?

Therefore, if a slave lingered on for a day or two, there would be reasonable question as to whether the death resulted from the chastisement. A beating with a rod, for example, would not normally be fatal, as is shown by the statement at Proverbs 23:13: "Do not hold back discipline from the mere boy. In case you beat him with the rod, he will not die."

Some internal injuries take days to die from and they can easily be administered using a rod. Google death by caning if you really think beating someone with a rod can't kill them.

hey smithicie, but in truth they did not give all the fruit of their labor to the master, in fact the Law forbid them to take all from the field during harvest. during the year when the land was rested during Jubilee what ever grew was for the slave person and widow and father-less boy and poor person. Slavery as it was during Biblical times was not as hard as we try to put it as seen through our eyes. we tolerate nothing in today's society. But to judge a people by our standards when we ourselves have none is wrong in and of itself.

The question was asked why didn't slaves run away en masse? If the abuse was as we see it then they were crazy to stay. But the scripture cited Deuteronomy 23:16 is not taling about slaves of the nation of Israel. Please read your Bible. If you would, you would know Moses is rereading the Law again, as they are about to go into the Promised Land. This particular verse would then be about a slave that would flee from from the outside verse 15 says: "You must not hand over a slave to his master when he escapes from his master to you." If the master was among the nation he has not fled away. everyone believes in the same thing, the slave would risk not finding a better master but just another one that he has just fled from. Verse 16: With you(the nation ) he will keep on dwelling in among you in whatever place he may choose in one of your cities, wherever he likes. You must not maltreat him." No where in those verse was the runaway slave turn into a slave for anyone of the nation of Israel. That is not what the Bible says.

You didn't answer a single one of my questions. You just denied some of it and ignored the rest of it.

Well, at least it's consistent.

The one simple thing missing from all of this is that god of the simple times had no problem at all saying wearing the wrong clothes, or eating pork, was a sin. He didn't make up rules for how to treat the pig if you just had to eat it, or how to weave the cloth if you just had to mix threads in your loom. Plain, simple sin. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Yet, he never once made any laws saying that rape or slavery were wrong - on the contrary, he supposedly wrote rules to tell you how to treat the people you raped or enslaved! A freaking piece of thread had more thought in terms of sin than did humans? Raping and enslaving of virgins, giving a slave 30 days to mourn the husband you killed before you raped her .. how the heck can anyone justify this? But be careful of what you wear while you're raping your new slave, or you're sinning.

It's just .. disgusting.

Drakk, look at your bible. It says you can take slaves from the tribes you murder. Maybe the best idea would have been not to murder all their men and enslave the women? Not to pillage their entire town?

This is nonsense. Pure lack of knowledge and understanding. This is what many call taking things out of context. There's a reason for each incident; each action brought on by God. Where are these accounts of rape, incest that Jehovah God approved of?

I wonder how many today think things are just fine. The 117,000 abortions performed each day, the pedophiles, the violence and immorality. How many whine and cry about the injustices. All done by man! How many will blame God [again] when he takes action against all the cruel acts done throughout the earth. Because, you know something, he will take action and soon.

You want to blame GOD for injustices but forget how creepy man has been throughout history. How creepy man is today--how greedy he is. How man has ruined this earth and has no intentions [or capabilities] of cleaning it up. How there is so much food on this earth, but no! man is too greedy to share.

Given a choice between God and man, please, let me fall into the hands of Jehovah, for merciful are his ways. Always just and true. 1 Chronicles 21:13.

This is a true act of the kettle calling the pot black....

a set of stories written by often petty and cruel men who mean only to justify the cruelties of their all-too-human leadership

This has pretty much been how I've see it for quite some time. I'm not sure how anyone who believes that women are truly the equal of men - and not just a support system for a uterus - can actually read that particular book with a straight face.

Chris,

In other words, try to give a reason to believe in "god" that does refer to a scriptural justification.

Ok, how about this one. It's the first thing that popped into my head.

1 Peter 3:9

Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.

Do you understand what this command is about? Do you understand why I use it as just one of thousands that prove God? Can you tell me why I believe this?

No, I don't. "god" does not exist.

I am blaming people for manufacturing and keeping the myth around. Everything wrong with society is purely due to human frailty of the mind; a certain kind of weakness that causes us to engage in destructive and irrational behavior to satisfy emotional needs.

If God does not exist; then the whole lot of us are doomed. Man wanted to rule himself; look at the mess he's got us in. Ecclesiastes 8:9.

I actually agree with the "certain kind of weakness that causes us to engage in destructive and irrational behavior to satisfy emotional needs." Religions have twisted and misused the Bible [anyway] and for their own gain. No wonder there are so many who turn their backs on God. Can't hardly blame them, really, but in a way, it's their own making.

That weakness is to believe whatever anyone says without investigating it and making sure it's correct.

One thing, though, is this 'belief' has been around far to long for it to be a myth. It's been 'messed' with, true, but all the facts are there for those who really want to know.

Just one question, though, to you directly Chris, why is it so important for you to preach against it? If you don't believe, you don't believe--so what's the big deal. You do realize that is what your are doing.

One thing, though, is this 'belief' has been around far to long for it to be a myth. It's been 'messed' with, true,

People beliveing the earth was flat for thousands and thousands of years didn't make it so.

Ghandi and the Dalai Lama say stuff like that too, and I don't think either one of them are divine entities either.

Good will between people and toward strangers is not an alien concept to people of any kind that I know of.

True. Saying stuff like that doesn't make one a devine entity, nor is good will between people an alien concept between people, but then, those are not the concepts being spoken of in 1 Peter 3:9. Don't repay evil with evil, but rather, with blessing.

One can look at that verse and think it is a command about how to treat others, and it is, but in my opinion, it's only the shallow surface of things. One can obey the command and still not glean what is most important about the affair.

That's a typo: I mean to write "DOES NOT refer to a scriptural justification".

I suspected it was a typo but I asked those questions about the verse anyway. The reason is I think God can be proven to exist through the Bible if one is willing to have an open mind about it. Oh, I don't mean scientifically, of course, but not eveything you yourself believe can be scientifically proven. You can't explain them but you know in your heart these things (whatever they are for you) are true. So science isn't necessary for you or anyone else to believe spiritual matters.

So, I answered as if it were not a typo. I asked important questions about 1Peter 3:9 not to show you up but because I hope to show you something important about the nature of the Bible. So, again, if you're willing...

Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing

Do you understand what this command is about? Do you understand why I use it as just one of thousands that prove God? Can you tell me why I believe this?

Even if you prefer not to play this particular game I invite you to spend some time of thinking of reasons beyond the obvious. Think of all the possible reasons there could be, even if they don't seem likely.