Evidence in a religious forum

4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

I'm sorry, but my question was what would you suggest as an alternative 

Actually I wasn't trying to conflate the two. At the time, I wasn't sure you were making that distinction. This is the verse I thought you were referring to.

2 “If you buy a **Hebrew servant**, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

The 7 year clause was provided for voluntary service due to being in poverty. Are you thinking that's forced servitude? Do you think they had a slave market?

Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found sin possession of him, shall be put to death.

Maybe I should ask, what exactly (particularly in the bible) do you mean by thought crime?

Who would you consider non-innocent (guilty) enough to deserve cancer?

Yahweh's plan is for salvation for those willing to receive it.

How could it be false when I'm conveying the plan as stated in the bible?

What does my ability or inability to suggest some alternative have to do with the moral correctness of what actually was undertaken?

This is not what I was referring to. This is a standard that ONLY APPLIES TO HEBREWS. This is the standard I am actually referring to.

Leviticus 25: 44-46

"Both thy bondman and thy bondmaids which thou shalt have, shalt be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you to inherit them after you; they shall be your bondmen forever. But over your bretheren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor."

Buy them, they shall be your possession, they shall be your bondsmen forever.

Was I somehow unclear or were you purposefully ignoring what I was actually saying?

Kidnapping and buying and owning are separate issues. Please stop falsely conflating the issues.

I mean convicting someone for their private beliefs and desires. Like coveting or not believing in a particular proposition. 

I am not prepared to day that anyone deserves cancer and yet cancer exists. If the Yahweh were unable to create a world without cancer I don't think much of his omnipotence and if he could I don't think much of his decision to include cancer in his plan.

I am not prepared to day that anyone deserves cancer and yet cancer exists. If the Yahweh were unable to create a world without cancer I don't think much of his omnipotence and if he could I don't think much of his decision to include cancer in his plan.

You seemed to imply that the action of dropping a bomb on Hiroshima involved an unnecessary form of retribution. You specifically referred to the melting of faces which seemed to suggest the immorality of the retribution was based on the severe consequences of the H-bomb itself. Which of course lead me to inquire as to a less severe method you might have in mind. Do you think there was a way to accomplish the same goal by using a method that didn't melt the face?

how do you line this up with this verse?

15 v“You shall not give up to his master a slave1 who has escaped from his master to you. 16 He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.

You don't think selling a man involves slavery?

This is quintessential slave trade talk. This the chattel slavery Ludo and yourself are trying to pin on scripture.

It's funny how I do give a scriptural example of chattel slavery, and it gets rejected as kidnapping for ransom.

But they're not private to God. The law of God is love. If someone loves someone, they're not going to sexually fantasize over them. That's the convience of pornography. People we don't know, and don't feel any accountability to.

Now I admit, I probably used way too mild of an example when referring to someone unashamedly fantasizing over your spouse. For instance, swingers are people who wouldn't have a problem with that at all. Probably would be happy about it. But, I could use a more sensitive example (which I won't do) where there's no question you would have a huge problem with your friends unashamed fantasies. You would get away from that person as soon as you could.

That part is up to you. Cancer is a product of human violation. You may not agree with that penalty, but not everyone agrees on the death penalty, public caning, etc.

I am not prepared to day that anyone deserves cancer and yet cancer exists. If the Yahweh were unable to create a world without cancer I don't think much of his omnipotence and if he could I don't think much of his decision to include cancer in his plan.

Yes, I certainly recognize that.

Are you concerned about it?

Why bother with all that?

For one thing, the wife was provided for by the master. So basically we're talking about a woman who the master has been taken care all along, before she was given as a wife.

I mean this is the font of all morality and goodness according to you, and the first act in the whole myth is him promising to hold all generations accountable for one person's crime, that he KNEW that person would commit when he made him. How's that moral? And before you go with the whole "you have kids, i'm sure you knew you'd have to discipline them" counter, I wouldn't hold my great grandchildren accountable for something their parent did. Much less the great grandchildren of my great grandchildren. 

Not without the cooperation of all parties involved including the Japanese. Then again I am not an omnipotent god. One would hope that an omnipotent god could achieve any goal without violence or suffering as a result. That said war is not a morally desirable thing to undertake.

Funnily enough I did not use the word slavery. I instead specified the actual moral standard of buying selling and owning people as property. If you define that as slavery then you should take it up with leviticus. Nevertheless kidnapping is not the same as buying selling and owning people. While being sold as property is one possible consequence of kidnapping it is far from the only one and kidnapping is hardly the only way to achieve a situation in which people are bought sold and owned as property. 

Claiming that the victim is actually responsible for the abuse they endure is an abominable thing to do. It enables abusers and perpetuates the cycle of abuse. You asked me

what crime would make striking someone with cancer a moral thing to do and I said there us no such crime. Apparently you disagree so I ask you. What crime did a ten year old child with bone cancer commit that makes it morally correct to consign them to a slow painful death you and I could hardly imagine? Maybe they fantasized about your spouse? You seem to be unreasonably sure that that is an immoral thing to fantasize about. 

I am unconcerned with the actions of a being I consider to be fictional unless ot informs the real world morality of human beings that might then visit equally terrible punishments on other humans.

The rest of your post after this is a distraction and irrelevant. You've really never thought about "why would something that's all powerful require ANY human action on its behalf?" THat seems unusually intellectually lazy of you, I don't get the impression that's how you are.

I didn't even ask the harder version:

why would anything go wrong to such a degree that an all powerful, all knowing being would get so upset all the time, when he'd have to have known it would happen? I mean this is the font of all morality and goodness according to you, and the first act in the whole myth is him promising to hold all generations accountable for one person's crime, that he KNEW that person would commit when he made him. How's that moral? And before you go with the whole "you have kids, i'm sure you knew you'd have to discipline them" counter, I wouldn't hold my great grandchildren accountable for something their parent did. Much less the great grandchildren of my great grandchildren. 

Where in the bible, in this book we're talking about, does it say "the indentured servant can take his whole family with him provided he can provide for them"? Not necessarily in those words. Just where in the passage are you getting this meaning? I know you have a habit of adding stuff that isn't there, as you did with Elisha (and the mortal threat to his life, your admitted that's your opinion and not in the book at all), is this a similar case, to make that more moral?

Do you consider life good?

You mean bombing Hiroshima is excusable because the powers that be weren't omnipotent?

If the verses in question are contradictory, how do you know which is right? 

But the text in question is referring specifically to the slave market which was rampant during that time period and region. I'm having a hard time believing you're actually arguing against that.

So the creator is at fault for knowing your thoughts?

Where is the convicting someone for an act they have not actually committed come from?

Where do you think most (actually all) acts of heinous crimes come from?

I'm sorry, but I need some reference point for this. What specific comment(s) did I make that makes you draw this conclusion? As an example, I'm not aware of ever suggesting a

victim is responsible for the abuse they endure. Usually I can at least see where someone misunderstood me. But this seems way out in left field. I feel like I'm being accused of violent aggression for trying to tackle the quarterback.

Out of curiosity, why do you focus so much on a book you think is fictional?

Before I became a believer, I had no interest in the Bible, and I wouldn't be here talking about it. I also had no bitterness though.

I have already provided evidence

I have already provided the logic to it

I am not arguing that the bible doesn't make opposite views depending on the verses you choose to focus on. If the verse in question is actually an injunction against slavery rather than simply against kidnapping it doesn't change the moral dictates concerning the owning of people as property set forth in leviticus it just gives abolitionists and slave owners both a verse to quote to show that the bible "supports" their position (owning people is the focus of my argument and I don't care if you want to call it slavery or not. You could call it super

happy and fully justified people owning time it is still wrong in my estimation which stems mostly from my not wanting to be owned by anyone and the excercise of human empathy)

So the creator is at fault for knowing your thoughts?

Only in as much as a peeping tom is at fault for peeking through a window.

Thinking is not acting. If someone were to think about punching you in the face and then someone else actually did it which one would you think more deserving of punishment? Conversly if someone fantasizes about adultery (coveting his neighbors wife) the Yahweh offers equal punishment (eternal torment) as someone who actually does commit adultery.

According to the bible all things come from god. Care to argue that this is not true?

Ah yes let me clarify. I mean the Yahweh is an abuser for making child leukemia an integral part of his plan. If you require further clarification please

just ask.

Again I am unconcerned with the actions of a being I consider to be fictional unless it informs the real world morality of human beings that might then visit equally terrible punishments on other humans. If religion did not cause humans to harm, mistreat or strip freedoms from other humans I would be completely unconcerned. I am not bitter by the way just concerned with the possible consequences of believing in religious dogma that promotes mistreatment of any given humans (say the LGBT community, women and people who pick up sticks on the wrong day of the week.)

That's very true, it doesn't buy happiness. It also shows that often we don't really know what gives us happiness.

Did you ever have anything good happen in your life?

If a nation faces an unprovoked attack from another nation, and the attacked nation is forced to defend themselves, is the attacked nation immoral for engaging in the immoral act of war?

You've made posts that seemed leave open the possibility of Yahweh existing. 

How do I know? Like anything else, study, and draw a conclusion. What I don't do is assume I understand a verse at first glance for the same reason I don't assume I can navigate a rocket without training.

One of the problems is that people have different ideas as to what is contradictory, or unethical in terms of scripture. 

As far as contradictions, lists are literally made of all the alleged contradictions (whether the list piler believes they all are or not). One of the alleged contradictions on any exhaustive list will probably include the mule and the colt mentioned in the Gospels, where a witness claims one animal, the other including the colt making two. Do you think there's a contradiction in the two separate testimonies?

If you take issue with ownership, then you have to be against indentured servitude, because for those 7 years, the servant is owned.

No. Totally different.

Blaming God for knowing your thoughts is like blaming you for seeing a traffic accident that was right in front of you. You're not a peeping Tom for witnessing a traffic accident, are you?

It really depends. The guy who thought about it may have given the idea to the one who actually does it. They may have prompted the attack. They may even be more hateful. They also may have paid the guy who did it.

The problem is that we can't always see whatever contribution we may actually have for incidences we assume on someone else. A horrible thought, but words we have said to others may have caused serious mental problems. That time we called someone "fat", not thinking much of it might be one of the contributing factors as to why they're contemplating suicide. Do you think that's far-fetched?

The acts of a heinous crime originated from the mind. 

God creating evil (which He didn't do).

Yes. How is child leukemia an integral part of His plan? Or, what exactly do you mean?

So far it looks like you're concerned about something that hasn't even happened.

If you don't mind me asking, for the purpose of relevant discussion, are you American?

To hopefully shed light on the whole OT laws and how they apply to the NT era, and modern times, and why certain laws in the OT don't necessarily apply in the same way as the NT, or today

I just don't see any point and as castin has already pointed out we are not getting anywhere and that does not make for entertaining discussion. 

if you went further you would realize that he didnt debate my arguments about the logic of God

1. Everything God did in the Bible was for good reasons.
   
2. An action is good simply because the actor believes it is for good purposes.
   

The Bible actually specifically states that each man is judged by their own actions. We do unfortunately suffer consequences from the actions of others. It's really very simple.

I'm sorry. Are you under the impression that the woman in the passage in question is not someone practicing indentured servitude?

When you go forth to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God has delivered them into your hands, and you have taken them captive,

And you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her, and take her for a wife -

Then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and do her nails,

And she shall remove the garment of her captivity from her, and remain in your house and weep for her father and mother a for month, and after that you may approach her and have intercourse with her, and she shall be your wife.

And if you do not want her, you shall send her out on her own; you shall not sell her at all for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, because you "violated" her.

Please explain the idea of original sin, if each man is judged by his own actions.  I'd love to hear your answer to the question in that post, but I don't expect one. I can get a lot of what you think about it from context. 

Does the passage SAY she was an indentured servant? Also, what difference does that make? She is GIVEN to the slave, BY the master. Does she have any say in this transactin, according to the passage you quoted? Can she refuse to marry this servant? I think the answer is probably no, because women didn't have a whole lot of say in how they were handled back then. She's not "asked if she'd like to marry" someone. She's given, perhaps as a perk for the male servant being such a good servant. The sexual congress that necessarily precedes a family, if the woman has no say in if she can have it or not, would be rape. Or ae you of the belief (a Christian belief, BTW) that a husband can't rape his wife?

Also there are several instances in the bible where the Israelits have a holy sanction to tkae the spoils of war as "wives." Again, they don't have a choice, and it's not like the soldiers were switching from conquest to speed dating and chivalry. These women were basically sex slaves. But, since they weren't hebrews, it appears to you this doesn't really matter. But if you'd like a specific verse, check out Deuteronomy 21:10-14:

Perhaps. Perhaps not. We have really strayed from the point at the point where you bring up self defense however since according to the bible the Yahweh is invincible and so by definition unable to perform an act of self defense. 

Poor analogy. A rocket works how a rocket works. The controls work in the same way for everyone regardless of belief. Conversely even very serious theologians disagree about how to interpret scriptures. This is not only a Christian problem by the way. Seemingly every religion has separate denominations and infighting about the meaning of their holy book.

I agree. So how do we resolve the issue? It would seem that there is no cut and dry method for interpreting the bible and even if the apparent contradictions in the book itself could be resolved the contradictions in interpretation would still be a serious problem. 

An apparent one but that is to be expected in a book written over several hundred years (at least) based on oral tradition written by multiple authors and then poorly translated into English. 

I have already said that I am unconvinced that it is moral to keep indentured servants. Nevertheless this is simply muddying the waters as we (I presume) agree that owning a person as property in perpetuity is a far greater miscarriage of justice and owning people in perpetuity is what the rules laid out in leviticus are concerned with. Any discussion of indentured servitude is therefore besides the point when discussing the laws concerning ownership of peopleas property's outlined in leviticus.

All besides the point when dealing with pur secret unshared thoughts. That is where your argument really falls down. Unless I choose to share my thoughts and do not act on them

then they have no effect on anyone but me.

If there is no god certainly. If however there is an omnipotent invisible bully to harden Pharoah's heart or command the genocide of the hittites and philistines then it could

originate there as well.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 is not a commandment to rape. If anything, a warning against it.

What I'm specifically asking for is a verse where God Commands rape. Not whether or not a Christian man could potentially rape his wife.

You're mixing up the idea that a man might potentially rape a woman with God commanding a rape.

You're basically accusing me of doing what you're doing. You want me to magically accept your double-standard, when I'm asking you to magically produce a text that at the moment is non-existent.

Sound like how one normally meets a wife, right? There's a lot of scholarship on this topic, I'm sure you can google it just as easily as I do. 

How is that text a WARNING? It's from god's own command, thou SHALT. I don't want you to get all upset over it, so I can find a compromise: let's say it's not a command, and I'll read it as phis permission, which changes thou shalt into "if you want to." I don't know how the F you read what's there as a warning AGAINST taking a war bride. It's certainly not using anything in the text. Which probably means it's not really worth discussing anything in the actual bible with you, because apparently the words are meaningless, you're allowed to add your interpretation, you're allowed to tell others their interpretation is wrong, without telling why your sis right. 

This is an amazing picture of how God deals with mercy and kindness towards even the enemy. And to say otherwise - simply is nonsense. 

Are you seriously arguing that gays and women have not suffered religious persecution?

Are you further arguing that at least according to the bible sabbath stick gatherers were not to be stoned to death?

If you don't mind me asking, for the purpose of relevant discussion, are you American?

I don't see how it is pertinent. 

Speculation unless there is a specific verse that makes this distinction and I am unaware of any such passage. That makes all your following points rather besides the point.