mikeT
Well-known member
Christians say so.
I would rather that your god had the capacity to speak for himself.
Why can’t evolution explain itself
- Thread starter DaGeo
- Start date
CrowCross
Well-known member
Gus Bovona
Well-known member
That God as spoken through his written word is an equivocation on "spoken." When I ask why God hasn't already spoken directly to everyone, "spoken" is meant as in verbal communication, not written.
mikeT
Well-known member
If that were true:
- you wouldn't be constantly trying to speak for him here in this thread
- we'd be able to find an example of him speaking for himself that wasn't accompanied by Christians telling us what was said and what it meant
- evangelism would be unnecessary, and a complete waste of time
- there'd be no need for "faith" in Him
Instead, he needs your help, to do the same every human being can do from birth.
CrowCross
Well-known member
Why hasn't he had a personal conversation with you? That I don't know. Perhaps you've never started one.
Then again God has already spoken to you with these words...and you ignore them.
CrowCross
Well-known member
Well then, I suppose you'll have to go on your way feeling vindicated that there is no God....because He doesn't speak the way you demand that He speaks.
Gus Bovona
Well-known member
Why are you changing the question to me, when I've been talking about *everyone?*
Why is it so difficult to stay on topic?
I'm talking about *verbal* speaking.
Why is it so difficult to stay on topic?
So the bit that says you can have slaves - treat them as property - as long as they are not Israelites, that is god-breathed and useful for instruction in your view?
Lev 25:44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45 You may also acquire them from the sons of the foreign residents who reside among you, and from their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may also pass them on as an inheritance to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with [ac]severity over one another.
I find that appalling, but I expect you can rationalise it away somehow.
CrowCross
Well-known member
Why do you insist on demanding God has to speak to you face to face if He be for real?
CrowCross
Well-known member
What is a slave? Is every form of slavery the same? Do you know you're a type of sslave right now?
Oh, and yes, the above biblical quoye is God breather and useful for instructions. The problem is when you show your hatred for God and twist it.
Gus Bovona
Well-known member
Show me where I demanded anything of God as distinct from asking how it the behavior in question (or lack thereof) of God makes sense.
If you don't, there's no reason for me to continue with you here.
CrowCross
Well-known member
When you read your post as a collection...it does.
But, have a nice day. See you in the next thread.
Gus Bovona
Well-known member
Well, I said **if** you couldn't say why, but your reply above **does** say why. So we can continue, at least for the time being, and if you're willing.
However, I need some clarification. What do you mean by reading my post (singular?!) as a collection. If more than one post, just in this thread on this one issue, or all my posting here on CARM? I'm still not seeing how it adds up to a demand, but maybe I'll understand with more clarification.
As I said, Christians are great as raionalising this away.
The text specifically says you can own another man as a possession, so we are talking chattel slavery. Do you think chattel slavery is moral?
I do not have to twist it. It is already evil. Slavery is morally wrong.
That you cannot see that shows how twisted Christianity is.
CrowCross
Well-known member
Move on Gus.
CrowCross
Well-known member
CrowCross
Well-known member
Yes we sure are. Then again I would say properly understanding the topic.
Slave ownership was a common practice long before the time the Mosaic Law was given. So, the law neither instituted slavery nor ended it; rather, the law regulated it. It gave instructions on how slaves should be treated but did not outlaw slavery altogether.
Hebrews with Hebrew slaves. The law allowed for Hebrew men and women to sell themselves into slavery to another Hebrew. They could only serve for six years, however. In the seventh year, they were to be set free (Exodus 21:2). This arrangement amounted to what we might call indentured servanthood. And the slaves were to be treated well: “Do not make them work as slaves. They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you” (Leviticus 25:39–40). The law also specified that, “when you release them, do not send them away empty-handed. Supply them liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to them as the Lord your God has blessed you” (Deuteronomy 15:13–14). The freed slave had the option of staying with his master and becoming a “servant for life” (Exodus 21:5–6)....ref
Here is more info to expand your horizons concerning slavery if you choose to look further.
But, consider your view is THE ONLY view...don't bother looking because it's simply rationalising away slavery.
Gus Bovona
Well-known member
So it’s not a demand that you can articulate a justification for.
Please stop impugning motives to me that you can’t articulate a justification for. Instead, deal with the actual issues I’m raising.
Only if I thought he existed.
How about you? Do you love the God who says chattel slavery is moral? Do you just turn a blind eye to his morality? Or rationalise it away?
I would say you rationalise it away, but let us see what you have.
So you are saying slavery is okay because other people were doing it? Or because it is traditional? Do please clarify your thinking here. Do you take the view that any activity that has been going on a long time is morally acceptable?
The law makes clear God's position - that chattel slavery is acceptable.
As you say, he did not outlaw slavery. That would have been the moral way to proceed - at least in my view, but then I think slavery is wrong. He had no problem condemning adultery and picking up sticks on the sabbath - even making them capital offences.
I guess they were not common practice long before, right?
I will stop you there. This discussion is about gentile slaves, so I will just skip the rest of that paragraph as it is not relevant to chattel slavery.
The text I quoted was quite clear on this.
Lev 25:44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you.
The Hebrews certainly had laws protecting their fellow Hebrews. For one thing, a Hebrew slave was freed at the jubilee. Gentile slaves were considered possessions, and were slaves for life.
46 You may also pass them on as an inheritance to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.
For gentile slaves they can be treated with all the severity you like.
A list of links... How many of them just ignore the chattel slavery for gentiles, and pretend all slaves were treated as Hebrew slaves were?
The first one has this useful definition of chattel slavery:
A chattel slave is an enslaved person who is owned for ever and whose children and children’s children are automatically enslaved. Chattel slaves are individuals treated as complete property, to be bought and sold.Chattel slavery, or the owning of human beings as property able to be bought, sold, given, and inherited, is perhaps the best known form of slavery. Slaves in this context have no personal freedom or recognized rights to decide the direction of their own lives
- Owned forever? Yes, Bible says "you can use them as permanent slaves".
- Treated as property? Yes, Bible says "as a possession".
- Able to be inherited? Yes, Bible says "You may also pass them on as an inheritance to your sons after you".
Number three says that explicitly: "A Hebrew slave could become free after six years of service..."
Here is number six: "The treatment of slaves was not to be severe (Lev. 25:43, 53)."
The verses that support that statement are explicitly only for Hebrews! But the author wants to pretend it applied to all slaves, so twists the truth, and sadly people like you fall for it.
Here are the verses:
Lev 25:42 For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. 43 You shall not rule over him with [ab]severity, but are to revere your God.
Lev 25:47 ‘Now if the means of a stranger or of a foreign resident with you becomes sufficient, and a countryman of yours becomes poor in relation to him and sells himself to a stranger who is residing with you, or to the descendants of a stranger’s family,... 53 He shall be with him like a worker hired year by year; he shall not rule over him with severity in your sight.
All these rationalisations Christian trot out are about how Hebrew slaves are to be treated, and carefully avoid how gentile slaves are to be treated. Gentile slaves were chattel slaves. They were permanent slaves, they were treated as property, they could be treated ruthlessly (as long as they did not actually die).
And this is what you assure us "is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness".
When you address the chattel slavery of gentile slaves, I will give your view the consideration it deserves.
CrowCross
Well-known member
No, As the site explained....more traditional.
It also explained that "slavery" wasn't quite what you like to express it as.