Civil Religious Discussions : all things Christianity II

[Ndavid45]

Looking atExodus 21, I do not see your point.

The KJV, DV, AND Wycliffe all use the word servant and follow the Sabatic rules.

I think I've heard that the newer interpretations use the word slave, but they have a lot of other mistakes too.

Here is a link to a Jewish site and as you will see they use the word servant too.

https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0221.htm

If it is just servant and not slave then why does it say the slave/servant is his money?

20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money."

 

[T.Lex]

It seems to say that you can beat a slave as long as you don't kill them because the slaves is his property.

Yes, it does... so that's some protection right? In all honesty, under other... regimes... slaves were more literal property and could be killed at the whim of their masters.

Are you familiar with the Code of Hammurabi?

 

[NKBJ]

My definition of morality (subjective) would be what is best for humanity. Im taking the stance that owning another person as property is not moral in any situation and never has been.

Just my take on it, we never have been able to grok what He does if we view Him in our terms. Or to put it another way, as humans we try to apply our versions of right and wrong in questioning what He does. To expand a bit on that, most people think that death is wrong. How many times have you heard someone express the ideas that they can't see how a loving god could allow __(fill in the blank)__ .
Heh, really? The only reason you came here was to graduate. In the words, to go through however much time in 4D world was needed and then to croak it. To congeal. To suffer an agonizing illness or burn to death or whatever (there's a million ways to snuff it in 4D world). So let's moralize together...
OH WOE OH WOE HOW COULD A LOVING GOD ALLOW THIS!

Uh, ever get the feeling that maybe His ways aren't our ways?
He answers prayers. He intervenes. He's doing stuff all the time to keep this funny farm on track despite our best efforts to screw it up. When we don't listen He rubs our noses in it unless we stop going on the rug. That means He's concerned, He's involved, He listens, He cares. But He doesn't do things our way because He's smart.

 

[Ndavid45]

Lots to unpack there.

Although others might also chime in, let's be clear - there's no intent to "gang up" on you or anything. We are all just sharing our own perspectives, which will generally align differently than yours. So, thank you for sharing yours.

But, are you open to receiving new information that might reveal problems with your position? I'm thinking specifically of how slavery worked in the OT. Your statements reveal a certain unfamiliarity with history. That might be an issue.

So, are you up for some fair challenges to your statements that are mistaken?

Always up for new information. Im constantly skeptical of everything, including what i think i know now. How else is one to learn without receiving different views and new information?

 

[JettaKnight]

20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

It seems to say that you can beat a slave as long as you don't kill them because the slaves is his property.

Yeah. And think to use the word "servant" sugar coats it.

Did you read the start of the chapter? Does it not show a level of compassion, if not for everyone, at least for the Hebrew slaves?
Or verse 26?



There's a whole mess of what we see as really nasty rules and laws aimed at that specific society and culture, and need to be taken in that context of that culture. It's unfair to drop them onto modern American culture and point out all the ways they don't line up.

Better to drop them onto a culture that neighbored the Israelites, e.g. the Babylonians. See how God's laws compare against the laws of a similar society.

Always up for new information. Im constantly skeptical of everything, including what i think i know now. How else is one to learn without receiving different views and new information?

There's a Baptist, an Orthodox Christian, and Catholic in this thread who regularly challenge each other's beliefs for the better.

 

[Ndavid45]

Yes, it does... so that's some protection right? In all honesty, under other... regimes... slaves were more literal property and could be killed at the whim of their masters.

Are you familiar with the Code of Hammurabi?

No i am not familiar with that code. I would like your input on it nd will research it this evening.

Giving protection for slaves only to tne point that they cant be killed but beating them is ok stilll seems to say that owning another as property is ok, just dont kill them. That, to me is a completely immoral(subjective) action that a perfect god would never allow or make a place for in a world he created. Seems like a sick and unnecessary cruelty that the one who makes the rules could have prevented.

 

[Ndavid45]

Yeah. And think to use the word "servant" sugar coats it.

Did you read the start of the chapter? Does it not show a level of compassion, if not for everyone, at least for the Hebrew slaves?
Or verse 26?



There's a whole mess of what we see as really nasty rules and laws aimed at that specific society and culture, and need to be taken in that context of that culture. It's unfair to drop them onto modern American culture and point out all the ways they don't line up.

Better to drop them onto a culture that neighbored the Israelites, e.g. the Babylonians. See how God's laws compare against the laws of a similar society.



There's a Baptist, an Orthodox Christian, and Catholic in this thread who regularly challenge each other's beliefs for the better.

I guess thats a point we disagree on. I dont think there's ever a place or time that owning another as property is a moral idea and that is a hard idea for me to get passed. Im not saying you mean this by that line of thinking but couldn't that argument be used to justify slavery in the Confederacy(different time and culture)? Or any other culture and time than ours?
I think i see what you're saying i just disagree at this moment.

Edit to finish responding*

Yes i did read the whole chapter.
For background of my views, i grew up in a non denominational church was there 3 nights a week, went to a Presbyterian elementary school and a Lutheran highschool. We studied the passover and it's meaning every year and Easter was a bigger deal than Christmas at home.

 

[T.Lex]

No i am not familiar with that code. I would like your input on it nd will research it this evening.

Giving protection for slaves only to tne point that they cant be killed but beating them is ok stilll seems to say that owning another as property is ok, just dont kill them. That, to me is a completely immoral(subjective) action that a perfect god would never allow or make a place for in a world he created. Seems like a sick and unnecessary cruelty that the one who makes the rules could have prevented.

Well, one of the rules is free will. By the exercise of free will, men owned other men. It was a power thing. And a laziness thing. "I hatez planting, but if I canz force that guy over there to do it, I canz eatz my grapez."

God, in the OT, clearly did not condone complete ownership of humans, in that He - through His prophets - was able to send us messages that maybe this isn't such a great idea.

Going back to the earlier point, if God made the rules at the start that He presented in the New Covenant, then the whole OT would've been different. But then, Christ's sacrifice wouldn't have really been the same, and arguably not necessary.

Which sets up another point that's already been raised - we have an imperfect view of God's overall plan. And that has always been true.

 

[T.Lex]

There's a Baptist, an Orthodox Christian, and Catholic in this thread who regularly challenge each other's beliefs for the better.

Oh, I'm sorry... I didn't realize you were Orthodox, too! Do you know foszoe?

 

[T.Lex]

I guess thats a point we disagree on. I dont think there's ever a place or time that owning another as property is a moral idea and that is a hard idea for me to get passed.

That might be a good place to start.

The notion of "morality" is even relatively new. Slavery is MUCH older than even the idea of "moral."

Do some research on the cultural views on slavery in recorded history. For most of the time, it was not a big deal.

 

[JettaKnight]

No i am not familiar with that code. I would like your input on it nd will research it this evening.

Giving protection for slaves only to tne point that they cant be killed but beating them is ok stilll seems to say that owning another as property is ok, just dont kill them. That, to me is a completely immoral(subjective) action that a perfect god would never allow or make a place for in a world he created. Seems like a sick and unnecessary cruelty that the one who makes the rules could have prevented.

He kinda did, but then humans decided they knew best... and so it goes. (See Genesis 2&3)
But there's always been light and redemptive path out of it.


There's cruelty and death all around. How much brighter is the light in the midst of the darkness?

 

[JettaKnight]

Oh, I'm sorry... I didn't realize you were Orthodox, too! Do you know foszoe?

If you're saying you've become the Baptist, then I'd even consider being Methodist.


I guess I should have said "Baptists"; apologies to Mr. Hough.

 

[historian]

Safe in presuming you mean under Rome?

Yes.

 

[JettaKnight]

I guess thats a point we disagree on. I dont think there's ever a place or time that owning another as property is a moral idea and that is a hard idea for me to get passed. Im not saying you mean this by that line of thinking but couldn't that argument be used to justify slavery in the Confederacy(different time and culture)? Or any other culture and time than ours?
I think i see what you're saying i just disagree at this moment.

That's totally understandable - it's almost incomprehensible.

There were TONS of Churches and pastors that tried to pull in these same passages to justify their slavery.

EDIT: Somewhere there's a culture with free healthcare pointing at us and talking about barbarian Christians. Or pacifist, or... There's always someone with a different morality throwing stones. (not saying that's wrong, I'll throw stones at cultures with abortion)

For background of my views, i grew up in a non denominational church was there 3 nights a week, went to a Presbyterian elementary school and a Lutheran highschool. We studied the passover and it's meaning every year and Easter was a bigger deal than Christmas at home.

Similar background, and I've worked with a lot of college students in the same situation, trying to get them to critically think about Christianity as their own and not something to be inherited.

 

[historian]

There's a Baptist, an Orthodox Christian, and Catholic in this thread who regularly challenge each other's beliefs for the better.

And then there's me!

 

[T.Lex]

And then there's me!

haha ok, but if there was ever a conversation in this thread that called for an historian, this appears to be it.

 

[Ndavid45]

Thankyou all for your input. I have alot of new information to consider and will be back in due time once i study some more. This has honestly been the best conversation about Christianity that ive had since I've strayed from faith(as most would put it). It has been encouraging and insight having this discussion and i will be back to continue. Again thankyou and if i didn't get to your response I apologize.

 

[T.Lex]

Welcome to the faith journey. Buckle up... parts of it will be rough.

 

[2A_Tom]

If it is just servant and not slave then why does it say the slave/servant is his money?

20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money."

As is the case with most people that question God, you have not read through the Bible 10, 20, or 30 times and read it foe more than 40 years.

It is very difficult to explain nuclear physics, relativity or the Bible to someone who does not have a firm foundation.

There are many ditches in the Bible. (Mmatt 15:14) You have found one and it will no use to you to be drug through this particular one.

The only help is Jesus Christ and his shed blood.

 

[Bartman]

I'll throw this in. The objection to the passages on slavery seems to be part of a larger point made be atheists: why would a just and loving God allow suffering?

Which seems to stem from the assumption that there is nothing to be gained by suffering, that it is the inherent right of every soul to be, coddled, for lack of a better word. Entitled, you might say.