The Bible Contradictions Thread

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Take your pick

Kinda sums it up really

philologos

Malty T: Yes, I think God was justified in punishing the Egyptians for their mistreatment of the Israelites.

Sam Vimes: Interesting you raise the two punishment scenarios. It was a problem of mine until rather recently. I realised upon reading that there were two means of punishment:

1) Divine punishment
2) Judicial punishment based on Torah laws.

In the case of the first, if God is to punish the sins of people after centuries. It will be after the culmination of sin and injustice that the people are unwilling to change. If the children of those who began this pattern don't reform, repent, change their ways and turn back to God. These people are also accountable to God's punishment. So yes in this context it is reasonable that the descendants will be accountable for the behaviour of their parents to the fourth generation. In cases where the children do mend their ways, and return to faith in God, this punishment will not take place.

However, the Torah bound Sanhedrin, when providing judgement on particular cases, were not permitted to bring judgement on children for their fathers crimes.

The first is a general context, the second is a particular and judicial context.

This is merely what I have come to think concerning the Jewish scriptures on this subject, but I feel it makes sense in context. In retrospect it doesn't seem like much of a contradiction.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

In cases where the children do mend their ways, and return to faith in God, this punishment will not take place.

That's not what it says. It says:

For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

If the children do not mend their ways then they are themselves committing sins and deserving of punishment and if the sinning continues after the fourth generation then so will the punishment but it doesn't say that either. That is not "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children", that is punishing the children for their own sins

Sam Vimes

Also could you please respond to this? This is the part of the slavery debate that you never respond to and it just goes around in circles:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

A slave who is treated well is still a slave. It's quite easy to respect someone's rights when they have pretty much none. The owners were allowed to beat their slaves so you've demonstrably shown nothing I'm afraid. All you've done is show that there were limits to how badly they could beat them and that if they managed to escape they weren't forced to go back, neither of which excuse anything. I'm not assuming anything in any colonial context, I am getting my interpretation of biblical slavery entirely from the bible

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Malty T: Yes, I think God was justified in punishing the Egyptians for their mistreatment of the Israelites.

On what rational basis do you judge that it is acceptable to punish a child for something his father did? Please give an answer that amounts to more than "because god says so" or a statement of christian beliefs. I'd like a rational justification please

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Malty T: Yes, I think God was justified in punishing the Egyptians for their mistreatment of the Israelites.

When you say "the Egyptians" who do you mean?

Do you include the infants as justified in punishment. If so for what exactly?

Jakkass wrote: »

In the case of the first, if God is to punish the sins of people after centuries. It will be after the culmination of sin and injustice that the people are unwilling to change. If the children of those who began this pattern don't reform, repent, change their ways and turn back to God. These people are also accountable to God's punishment. So yes in this context it is reasonable that the descendants will be accountable for the behaviour of their parents to the fourth generation.

Yes but that isn't what it actually says. God is not punishing the children for the sins of the children (how can children sin?)

He is punishing the children for the sins of the father. This was common practice back then (inherited debt and inherited punishment), so it would obviously have made sense to the Israelites that their god would also partake of such "justice", but makes a lot less sense in modern times coming from an eternal all loving god.

Likewise with the killing of the first born in Egypt. This was done to punish the parents. The baby is collateral damage. It is like killing the cow to harm the farmer. They are not being killed because of what they have done (they haven't done anything), they are being killed as a way of getting at their parents.

In the genocide in conflicts such as the recent ones in Africa such as Rwanda it would be common for militia to rape the wives and daughters of their foes as a way of getting at them. They weren't punishing the wives and daughters, they were using them to punish the men in the opposing army.

When Christians justify this type of actions in the Old Testament it simply highlights for the rest of us the moral bankruptcy of their faith.

Your god is not scary to me because I don't believe he exists. What is scary to me is humans who look at this stuff and conclude it that makes perfect sense and is in line with their sense of justice. That is very worrying.

philologos

You are missing the clause "of those who hate me" on verse 5. If a child who is descended from these people finds God, and ends up loving God. It would seem that the hatred clause can no longer be applicable.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

I've demonstrably shown that in all cases slave holders were required to respect the rights of slaves.

Except the right to not be a slave of course.

So yes in this context it is reasonable that the descendants will be accountable for the behaviour of their parents to the fourth generation.

You are unbelievable and terrifying.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

It was a problem of mine until rather recently.

This says two things to me. First, it sounds like your trying really hard to interpret the Bible in such a way that it fits current morals. If you interpret certain things literally, certain things metaphorically, allow certain actions to be out of god's control, and twist things like slavery into an employer/employee analogy, then of course your going to eventually 'fit' what the books of the bible say to fit current moral standards.

Secondly, why not just take Occam's Razor? I know it's not always the right approach, but it's so obvious here given you have to believe supernatural events. It's just irrational.

Jakkass wrote: »

If the children of those who began this pattern don't reform, repent, change their ways and turn back to God. These people are also accountable to God's punishment.

You seem to think it's OK for us to be punished for not believing in god. What sort of perfect creator would make it so difficult to believe in him, throw in a tonne of contradictions into his holy book, and then punish us for eternity for not believing in him. Wow, what a dickhead..

Turtwig

Jakkass,

Killing a life in your view is wrong, yet when God does it's o.k??

Galvasean

Malty_T wrote: »

Jakkass,

Killing a life in your view is wrong, yet when God does it's o.k??

We have had this debate before. Basically it boils down to God being above the law.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

You are missing the clause "of those who hate me" on verse 5. If a child who is descended from these people finds God, and ends up loving God. It would seem that the hatred clause can no longer be applicable.

That's still not punishing the child for the iniquities of the father, it's punishing the child for his own iniquities.

And could I get your thoughts on this:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

A slave who is treated well is still a slave. It's quite easy to respect someone's rights when they have pretty much none. The owners were allowed to beat their slaves so you've demonstrably shown nothing I'm afraid. All you've done is show that there were limits to how badly they could beat them and that if they managed to escape they weren't forced to go back, neither of which excuse anything. I'm not assuming anything in any colonial context, I am getting my interpretation of biblical slavery entirely from the bible

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

You are missing the clause "of those who hate me" on verse 5.

No I'm not, in fact you highlight the issue with your quote. He punishes the children of those who hate him. It does not say the children hate him, the parents hate him. Or the grand parents. Or the great grand parents. And because of this he punishes the children and their descendants. How they feel about God is irrelevant.

Jakkass wrote: »

If a child who is descended from these people finds God, and ends up loving God. It would seem that the hatred clause can no longer be applicable.

If a child who is descended from these people finds God and ends up loving God it wouldn't matter because again what the child does is irrelevant. It is never mentioned in any of these quotes that such punishment depends on the child's actions. The child is being punished for the sins of the father.

Again that would have seemed to have made sense in ancient more barbaric times. Things like inherited guilt and debt were common place. By modern standards though it is appalling. Imagine stoning the children of the 9/11 bombers.

Flamed Diving

Wicknight wrote: »

Again that would have seemed to have made sense in ancient more barbaric times. Things like inherited guilt and debt were common place. By modern standards though it is appalling. Imagine stoning the children of the 9/11 bombers.

It is indeed a primative and barbaric philosophy on punishment.

Sam Vimes

Galvasean wrote: »

We have had this debate before. Basically it boils down to God being above the law.

I don't think it's exactly that. They believe that god is perfectly moral and so whatever he does is by definition moral. If god raped and murdered a child, that would be moral. If he tells people to conquer a foreign land, take their valuables to the temple and keep the women for themselves, that's moral. If he destroys an entire city and kills all the women and children therein, that's moral. If he enters into a pact to give someone military victory in exchange for human sacrifice, that's moral. If he turns someone to a pillar of salt, that's moral. If he wipes out the whole human race, that's moral. If he allows and innocent man to die as a sacrifice to himself for the sins of others when he could just forgive the sins if he so chose, that's moral. Whether an action is moral or not changes depending on who is carrying it out or who asked for it to be carried out and they call us moral relativists.

The excuse of course is that we're all sinners and deserve whatever we get. The ultimate battered wives syndrome.

philologos

Wicky: I'm going to have to -
1) Compare translations
2) Look at a Hebrew concordance / Biblical commentary
before getting back to you. Accuracy is key I guess.

Panrich

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicky: I'm going to have to -
1) Compare translations
2) Look at a Hebrew concordance / Biblical commentary
before getting back to you. Accuracy is key I guess.

You have a finger in quite a few dams today what with us atheists and those pesky muslims quoting scripture at you

philologos

Is it putting up a dam to suggest that you have to research something more thoroughly? I'm accepting that Wicknight has put up a good point, and it demands a better assessment on my part.

As for what I'm discussing in the Islam forum, that's a different subject entirely.

I don't consider Muslims or atheists to be "pesky" in the slightest, I just hold fundemental disagreement with both.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Is it putting up a dam to suggest that you have to research something more thoroughly? I'm accepting that Wicknight has put up a good point, and it demands a better assessment on my part.

You will find people who have your interpretation of it but remember that if the children are only punished if they also hate god then they're not being punished for the iniquity of their fathers and the sentence makes no sense, not least because there's no reason to stop at the fourth generation if the fifth and sixth also hate him. Maybe the it makes sense in the original language though.


And could I get your thoughts on this:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

A slave who is treated well is still a slave. It's quite easy to respect someone's rights when they have pretty much none. The owners were allowed to beat their slaves so you've demonstrably shown nothing I'm afraid. All you've done is show that there were limits to how badly they could beat them and that if they managed to escape they weren't forced to go back, neither of which excuse anything. I'm not assuming anything in any colonial context, I am getting my interpretation of biblical slavery entirely from the bible

Panrich

Jakass, I was actually admiring your industrious nature in my previous post. I didn't mean to offend as I find your output to be prolific even though I don't agree with the content.

Sam Vimes

Panrich wrote: »

Jakass, I was actually admiring your industrious nature in my previous post. I didn't mean to offend as I find your output to be prolific even though I don't agree with the content.

I think he confused putting his finger in dams, ie having a lot of problems to solve, with putting up a dam to block things.

philologos

Sam: I think if the rights of individuals are respected, there isn't anything wrong with a slave and master relationship. This is what the Hebrew model puts forward. Having said that, I think that the changes in work structure have been productive in the last few centuries, but there are still a lot of work situations whereby employees aren't treated according to Biblical principles. I.E much more yet to do.

I don't see any slave / master model if rights are to be respected to be any worse than a employee / employer model. Infact it would come down to mere semantics for me.

I've already explained how I use Paul's words in Ephesians 6 / Colossians 4 as a part of what work ethic I intend to have in a modern context.

As for the quote in Exodus 21, I've shown how both you and Dave have taken that out of context already. I'm not going to repost what I've already posted in the past.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam: I think if the rights of individuals are respected, there isn't anything wrong with a slave and master relationship. This is what the Hebrew model puts forward. Having said that, I think that the changes in work structure have been productive in the last few centuries, but there are still a lot of work situations whereby employees aren't treated according to Biblical principles. I.E much more yet to do.

I don't see any slave / master model if rights are to be respected to be any worse than a employee / employer model. Infact it would come down to mere semantics for me.

I have a right to freedom. I have a right not to enter into someone's employment if I so choose and to leave when my contract allows it, I am not forced to enter into a lifetime contract. My children have a right not to work for the same employer if they so choose, it's not a generational contract. My employer has no right to tell any of his female employees that they must marry any of his male ones. If I meet my wife at work and we want to leave, my employer has no right to force me to stay by forcing my wife to stay. My employer has no right to lay a finger on me.

These are all rights that I have that slaves don't. You keep saying that slavery is fine as long as the rights of the individual are respected but the bible makes it quite clear that these people had little or no rights to be respected. Do you think it is acceptable and moral that all of the above were allowed in biblical slavery? You say that the changes in work structure have been productive in the past few centuries but how can something that deviates from that which is prescribed in the bible be productive?

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the quote in Exodus 21, I've shown how both you and Dave have taken that out of context already. I'm not going to repost what I've already posted in the past.

Which quote in Exodus 21? The only one I remember you "putting in context" was showing that if a slave escapes from his master then he is not forced to go back but I fail to see how that in any way mitigates slavery

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Which quote in Exodus 21? The only one I remember you "putting in context" was showing that if a slave escapes from his master then he is not forced to go back but I fail to see how that in any way mitigates slavery

Did you not read the thread I asked you to read the last time we got into this argument?

Otherwise it means rearguing, and rearguing the same points. You can see how that might get a bit monotonous?

If you are arguing against a passage in Exodus 21 I would have thought you'd be familiar with it at least?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

These are all rights that I have that slaves don't. You keep saying that slavery is fine as long as the rights of the individual are respected but the bible makes it quite clear that these people had little or no rights to be respected

I patently disagree with you on that one from my reading of the Jewish Scriptures. There are numerous passages in Deuteronomy and in Exodus securing the freedom of slaves. Christian Scripture demands responsibility from masters in not abusing their slaves. Indeed, Jewish sages such as Moses Maimonides also makes this clear:

At the same time, Maimonides and other halachic authorities forbade of strongly discouraged any unethical treatment of slaves. According to the traditional Jewish law, a slave is more like an indentured servant, who has rights and should be treated almost like a member of the owner's family. Maimonides wrote that, regardless whether a slave is Jewish or not, "The way of the pious and the wise is to be compassionate and to pursue justice, not to overburden or oppress a slave, and to provide them from every dish and every drink. The early sages would give their slaves from every dish on their table. They would feed their servants before sitting to their own meals... Slaves may not be maltreated of offended - the law destined them for service, not for humiliation. Do not shout at them or be angry with them, but hear them out." In another context, Maimonides wrote that all the laws of slavery are "mercy, compassion and forbearance"

In the Jewish Torah, maligning or mistreating the lowly was directly punishable by God. He said when the widow and the orphan cry out to Him that He will take it seriously. He's a God of justice in both testaments.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Did you not read the thread I asked you to read the last time we got into this argument?

Otherwise it means rearguing, and rearguing the same points. You can see how that might get a bit monotonous?

If you are arguing against a passage in Exodus 21 I would have thought you'd be familiar with it at least?

Here's exodus 21:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21&version=NIV

I have given you several passages from that and you have responded to. I don't know which one you are referring to. Are you referring to the one where you tried to excuse it by pointing out that if a slaves manages to escape he's not forced to go back?

Jakkass wrote: »

I patently disagree with you on that one from my reading of the Jewish Scriptures. There are numerous passages in Deuteronomy and in Exodus securing the freedom of slaves. Christian Scripture demands responsibility from masters in not abusing their slaves. Indeed, Jewish sages such as Moses Maimonides also makes this clear:

In the Jewish Torah, maligning or mistreating the lowly was directly punishable by God. He said when the widow and the orphan cry out to Him that He will take it seriously. He's a God of justice in both testaments.

So do you deny that the things I mentioned in my previous post are prescribed by the bible? Really I don't care if Jewish law said that the slaves were to be treated to one blowjob a week from the master, none of that changes or excuses the fact that:

1. A slave is not a willing participant in a contract
2. A slave is subject to a lifetime contract
3. The slaves children are also not willing participants in the contract
4. Women could be handed over to men as wives
5. Female Hebrew slaves did not go free as the men did
6. Slaves could be beaten within certain limits

You can say that "maligning or mistreating the lowly was directly punishable by God" but their definition of "maligning or mistreating" was very different to ours. We're not talking about the cultural context of ancient Israel here, this is supposed to be absolute and objective morality as prescribed by god and none of the above 6 items are absolutely or objectively moral

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Here's exodus 21:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21&version=NIV

20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Ye, pretty much the same as an employer/employee relationship

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Here's exodus 21:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21&version=NIV

I have given you several passages from that and you have responded to. I don't know which one you are referring to. Are you referring to the one where you tried to excuse it by pointing out that if a slaves manages to escape he's not forced to go back?

Yes, I've responded to them on another thread previously, which I asked you to read. I've been through this entire argument based on Exodus 21 before.

I wasn't asking you to quote it for me, I was asking you to make sure that you have read what you are arguing against (Exodus 21) before arguing it.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So do you deny that the things I mentioned in my previous post are prescribed by the bible? Really I don't care if Jewish law said that the slaves were to be treated to one blowjob a week from the master, none of that changes or excuses the fact that:

I think that the Jewish law upholds rights for slaves, as later Jewish sages such as Moses Maimonides, or Christian writers such as Paul the Apostle argued.

1. A slave is not a willing participant in a contract
2. A slave is subject to a lifetime contract
3. The slaves children are also not willing participants in the contract
4. Women could be handed over to men as wives
5. Female Hebrew slaves did not go free as the men did
6. Slaves could be beaten within certain limits

None of these are always applicable according to Jewish law.

Number 2 isn't applicable in two respects:
1) Israelites weren't permitted to be kept permanently unless they consented.
2) Any slave, were they maligned or mistreated were allowed to flee at any stage, and according to Jewish law weren't allowed to be returned. See the linked thread for that.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You can say that "maligning or mistreating the lowly was directly punishable by God" but their definition of "maligning or mistreating" was very different to ours

Interesting point. The Jewish people were however, told to love their neighbours as themselves (in respect to fellow Israelites), and then by extension to love foreigners as themselves. How is this compatible with abuse?

I deal with point number 5 in the post that I have linked.

liamw wrote:

20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Ye, pretty much the same as an employer/employee relationship

Read the whole chapter, otherwise it is dishonest quotation. One shouldn't read to find what they are looking for, but rather they should read to find out what is true from the text.

Exodus 21:26-27 wrote:

“When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=advKQG-iJs4

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

Read the whole chapter, otherwise it is dishonest quotation. One shouldn't read to find what they are looking for, but rather they should read to find out what is true from the text.

So the slave is only allowed go if he loses an eye or a tooth during the beating?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, I've responded to them on another thread previously, which I asked you to read. I've been through this entire argument based on Exodus 21 before.

I wasn't asking you to quote it for me, I was asking you to make sure that you have read what you are arguing against (Exodus 21) before arguing it.

Yes I have

Jakkass wrote: »

I think that the Jewish law upholds rights for slaves, as later Jewish sages such as Moses Maimonides, or Christian writers such as Paul the Apostle argued.
None of these are always applicable according to Jewish law.

Number 2 isn't applicable in two respects:
1) Israelites weren't permitted to be kept permanently unless they consented.
2) Any slave, were they maligned or mistreated were allowed to flee at any stage, and according to Jewish law weren't allowed to be returned. See the linked thread for that.

So yes you were talking about the "allowed run away" clause. I find it truly mind boggling that you find that either of those in any way mitigate the situation. The first one is racist and even with that it still condones the keeping even of Israelite slaves and the second one I like to call the "Josef Fritzl" clause because had his daughter managed to escape she wouldn't have been forced to go back by the law. And anyway, you're still using the terms "maligned or mistreated" as if they mean something. None of the things I mentioned above count as being "maligned or mistreated" under biblical slavery. After your post we're left with:

1. A slave is not a willing participant in a contract
2. A slave is subject to a lifetime contract (unless he's lucky enough to be Hebrew in which case it's seven years)
3. The slaves children are also not willing participants in the contract
4. Women could be handed over to men as wives
5. Female Hebrew slaves did not go free as the men did
6. Slaves could be beaten within certain limits (and if those limits were exceeded and they managed to escape they were not forced to go back)

I already knew that there were different rules for Hebrew slaves and you can see because I mentioned it here (which is why I said female Hebrew slaves do not go free, neither male nor female non-Hebrew slaves go free) and you forgot to mention that his wife could be used to blackmail him into staying btw and I already knew that if a mistreated slave managed to escape he was not forced to go back as you can see because I said it in this thread but I didn't feel either were worthy of mention because they in no way mitigate the situation. Pointing out that there were one or two exceptions in which the immoral rules of slavery did not apply does not change the fact that these rules existed. Do you think it is absolutely and objectively moral that these rules were followed by the Israelites as commanded by god?

Jakkass wrote: »

Interesting point. The Jewish people were however, told to love their neighbours as themselves (in respect to fellow Israelites), and then by extension to love foreigners as themselves. How is this compatible with abuse?

It's not really, I would call that a contradiction

Sam Vimes

liamw wrote: »

So the slave is only allowed go if he loses an eye or a tooth during the beating?

Yes that's what it says, Jakkass seems to think that makes it ok for some reason

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

1. A slave is not a willing participant in a contract
2. A slave is subject to a lifetime contract (unless he's lucky enough to be Hebrew in which case it's seven years)
3. The slaves children are also not willing participants in the contract
4. Women could be handed over to men as wives
5. Female Hebrew slaves did not go free as the men did
6. Slaves could be beaten within certain limits (and if those limits were exceeded and they managed to escape they were not forced to go back)

I've dealt with 2, and 5 as well.

4 is something I'll need to get back to you on at a later point due to well, not having all of the answers

6 has been dealt with, although fleeing doesn't necessarily have to be after the result of violence according to the text. That point would be more pertinent to 2 rather than 6.

3 is granted, considering that the original contract according to the Jewish law would have extended to children and family members people while they were still working for their master.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Do you think it is absolutely and objectively moral that these rules were followed by the Israelites as commanded by god?

I've explained my position already. I think any situation where rights were entirely respected is fine. I've already explained how I think that changes in work structure have been good but that abuse still remains. I don't agree that the Hebrew Scriptures sanction abuse, but rather that people abused the laws, as Jesus said that they abused the divorce laws.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not really, I would call that a contradiction

I wouldn't due to the nature of the two laws we are comparing:
1) Legal law - punishable by humans
2) Moral law - punishable by God

Just because something is permitted legally, does not necessarily mean that it is moral. That's the issue in interpretation that can result with having a legal code and a moral code in the same document.

In a sense I'm glad that I am concerned as a Christian with the Moral Law.
N.B - It will be quite a while before I get back to you on this if it is a very long response. As always I presume that is understandable?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I've dealt with 2, and 5 as well.

4 is something I'll need to get back to you on at a later point due to well, not having all of the answers

6 has been dealt with, although fleeing doesn't necessarily have to be after the result of violence according to the text. That point would be more pertinent to 2 rather than 6.

You need to stop saying you have dealt with these things. You have given responses and I have rejected those responses over and over again only for you to give the same responses again. In order to have a conversation you have to respond to the responses. If you just keep saying you've dealt with them, repeating the same things I have already rejected and ignoring my rejections we just end up in the same circular conversation we always have on slavery.

1. The fact that Hebrew slaves were only kept for seven years does not make it ok. They were still kept as slaves against their will and non-Hebrews were still kept for life. No matter how many times you ignore those two facts and claim to have dealt with this issue they will not stop being true and it will not make slavery acceptable. A single mitigating exception to a rule does not erase the rule and this exception isn't even a particularly mitigating one, it's just racism and still condones the owning of human beings
2. The fact that there were limits to how badly a slave could be beaten does not change the fact that the slaves could be beaten.

Jakkass wrote: »

I've explained my position already. I think any situation where rights were entirely respected is fine. I've already explained how I think that changes in work structure have been good but that abuse still remains. I don't agree that the Hebrew Scriptures sanction abuse, but rather that people abused the laws, as Jesus said that they abused the divorce laws.

Yes you have already explained that and I already pointed out that they had little or no rights to respect several times and gave a list of rights that others have that they didn't. Again, you have to respond to the responses, repeating something that I have already responded to instead of dealing with my response results in a circular conversation. I have heard your justifications of slavery and I have rejected them as utterly inadequate because my list of the 6 immoral things condoned by biblical slavery were as valid before you gave your justifications as after. Repeating the same rejected justifications ad nauseum will get neither of us anywhere. This list stands:

1. A slave is not a willing participant in a contract
2. A slave is subject to a lifetime contract (unless he's lucky enough to be Hebrew in which case it's seven years)
3. The slaves children are also not willing participants in the contract
4. Women could be handed over to men as wives
5. Female Hebrew slaves did not go free as the men did
6. Slaves could be beaten within certain limits (and if those limits were exceeded and they managed to escape they were not forced to go back)

the list incorporates the two justifications you gave so there is little point in giving them again. I would like you to either justify the above actions as objectively and absolutely moral or admit that they are not. You say that you think the "changes in work structure have been good". Does that mean that you accept that the "work structure" as prescribed by the old testament is not absolutely and objectively moral?

Jakkass wrote: »

I wouldn't due to the nature of the two laws we are comparing:
1) Legal law - punishable by humans
2) Moral law - punishable by God

Just because something is permitted legally, does not necessarily mean that it is moral. That's the issue in interpretation that can result with having a legal code and a moral code in the same document.

This is not the law of the land, this is what's written in the bible ffs and it's supposed to be objectively and absolutely moral. Unless you are acknowledging that parts of the bible condone and prescribe things that are not necessarily moral?

Turtwig

Jakkass,

By all means correct me I'm wrong but I think the rights for slaves only applied to Israelites. Can you show quotations that say the slaves of other nations should have the rights you claim they do?

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is not the law of the land, this is what's written in the bible ffs and it's supposed to be objectively and absolutely moral. Unless you are acknowledging that parts of the bible condone and prescribe things that are not necessarily moral?

Context is key!

The Torah was the legal and moral law of the Jewish people. I.E Courts ruled on the basis of the Torah. You do realise that there was an Israelite state in history? The Torah as a document, contains both legal and moral laws. This isn't true of the rest of the Bible. The moral laws call people to go further than the legal law requires.

The Bible is a library of books, not a book written in a single context.

I never said that it is binding legally now. I said rather clearly that I as a Christian follow the moral law, and the legal law of my respective state. Not the legal law of Israel.

I'll deal with the rest of your post when I can.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Context is key!

The Torah was the legal and moral law of the Jewish people. I.E Courts ruled on the basis of the Torah. You do realise that there was an Israelite state in history? The Torah as a document, contains both legal and moral laws. This isn't true of the rest of the Bible. The moral laws call people to go further than the legal law requires.

The Bible is a library of books, not a book written in a single context.

I never said that it is binding legally now. I said rather clearly that I as a Christian follow the moral law, and the legal law of my respective state. Not the legal law of Israel.

I'll deal with the rest of your post when I can.

So what you're telling me is that the prescriptions of the Torah fall short of the absolute objective morality of Yahweh, correct?

And that Yahweh permitted, endorsed and gave authority to the Israelites in falling short of absolute and objective morality and in carrying out acts considered deplorable today by allowing the rules by which these immoral acts should be carried out to be laid out in his book?

Bear in mind that I have absolutely no problem with the idea that the laws in the old testament were considered acceptable in the context of ancient Israel but not today but that's because I think the bible was written entirely by the ancient Israelites and there was no divine, perfect, absolutely and objectively moral involvement. If I thought there was there is no way I could square that circle

MrPudding

Jakkass wrote: »

2) Any slave, were they maligned or mistreated were allowed to flee at any stage, and according to Jewish law weren't allowed to be returned. See the linked thread for that.

Was there not a clause where they would have to leave their wife behind?

liamw wrote: »

So the slave is only allowed go if he loses an eye or a tooth during the beating?

Yeah, and we thought it was an unfair system.

Jakkass, if you are stuck for a job later in life perhaps you could try the publicity department in the Vatican. I am sure they would appreciate your skills. Once you finish rationalising and justifying slavery perhaps you could turn you hand to the raping of children.

MrP

Dades

MrP - your last comment doesn't really lend itself to maintaining an amicable atmosphere here.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWCISPvtaj8

Story where God commands David to conduct a census, then punishes him for doing so. However, in 1 Chronicles 21, it turns out that Satan told David to conduct the census. So which is it? Is the Bible contradicting itself? Is God perhaps a little forgetful?

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj7VSGmKRPw

Of course the classic contradictions can be found in NT. Who found the empty tomb? Observe.

Sam Vimes

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Of course the classic contradictions can be found in NT. Who found the empty tomb? Observe.

So good it had to be posted twice

Flamed Diving

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So good it had to be posted twice

I would post it a third time, only I don't wanna ruin it.

philologos

MrPudding wrote: »

Jakkass, if you are stuck for a job later in life perhaps you could try the publicity department in the Vatican. I am sure they would appreciate your skills. Once you finish rationalising and justifying slavery perhaps you could turn you hand to the raping of children.

MrP

I'm not a Roman Catholic, so I don't think the Vatican would be too interested in me :pac:

So what you're telling me is that the prescriptions of the Torah fall short of the absolute objective morality of Yahweh, correct?

Hm, no. I amn't saying that.

I am saying that the law distinguishes between points where humans should step in and deal with affairs, and when God should step in and deal with affairs.

I think God's morality does require us to go beyond the judicial law that He has assigned for humans.

God has given a limited amount of responsibility to the State, and has taken on the role as judge in other cases.

Different laws, different roles. This is why I believe the Torah demands deep thought rather than taking things at face value. It's not a simple text, but rather it's complicated, even in it's structure. There are at least 4 different authors, with 4 different styles throughout according to theological work.

Laws, pieces, and situations are often repeated. It's kind of like the way that there are 4 different viewpoints in the Gospels, there are 4 different perspectives in the Torah.

Pompey Magnus

Jesus and the destruction of the Temple.

According to John:

Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days

But according to Mark:

Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man. " Yet even then their testimony did not agree.

So which was it, did Jesus actually predict the destruction of the Temple or was this a false accusation?

Turtwig

Everyone here seems to be citing blatant literal contradictions. To many Christians this is not even a problem, simply because it is widely believed that many of the bible's authors had scribes do the writing for the them.
Only the whackjob creationist like Christians deny this.
The bible has errors, but just listing them isn't going to achieve anything.
It's their responses (from the non zealots) that we should be focusing on.

Little details in variations of Matthew,Mark,Luke and John are really irrelevant here.

Flamed Diving

Malty, some of the variations in the Gospels are somewhat larger than you describe. Furthermore, does any Christian believe that these writers were not "divinely inspired"? If not, the book was written by man alone. You know, that "man" who is evil and does nothing right, etc?

philologos

I believe that all Holy Scripture is divinely inspired yes.

Most of the Gospel "contradictions" aren't directly opposed to eachother. In the vast majority of cases when they arise both can be true. It's not one versus the other. Most of the claimed contradictions result in a false diachotomy. From different points of view, it is clear that people notice different things more strongly than others. It is the reason why some events are described more vividly in some accounts than others.

A lot of the contradictions you find on websites, are also dealt with on this link. At the same time, it is fruitful to read the passages for yourself in context.

Turtwig

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Malty, some of the variations in the Gospels are somewhat larger than you describe. Furthermore, does any Christian believe that these writers were not "divinely inspired"? If not, the book was written by man alone. You know, that "man" who is evil and does nothing right, etc?

I think they believe they were all divinely inspired. Yet they also acknowledge that it was written by men (many men at that) who tried their utmost best to tell the full story as best and as revealingly(?) as they could.

Zombrex

I think it is some what naive to believe that there are going to be whopper literary contradictions in the New Testament, simply because if there were they would not have survived. Look at the non-canon books produced by early Christianity, that have talking crosses and Jesus moving objects as a child. They are discarded as the church developed and are now not considered divinely inspired at all, though obviously at some point people did believe them.

So for the first 200 years or so of Christianity there was a selection process going on deciding what was official Christian belief and what wasn't. It is hard to see major contradictions in the Bible surviving that process.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

A lot of the contradictions you find on websites, are also dealt with on this link. At the same time, it is fruitful to read the passages for yourself in context.

I sincerely hope you're not in bed with that site Jakkass,

As it is RUBBISH!!!