Castin

I think attempting to say whether God condoned or didn't condone salvery is a very simplistic question on a very complex idea. 

It's well and good to say that God could have simply put into the Bible - "don't own slaves."  He didn't, therefore, he condones slavery. I think that is a very weak argument. 

The number one problem that people have with slavery is stealing people, kidnapping free people against their will and making them slaves.  God ABSOLUTELY condemns kidnapping people - whether they be Jew or Alien.   So I think it is right to say that God does not condone slavery in the way that slavery is conducted in our world today. 

1. The Hebrew word in Exo 21:16 is ish, I believe, which usually referred to an adult male Israelite in the Covenant Code. Almost certainly did not apply to aliens -- you can read this more clearly in Deut 24:7.
   
2. The number one problem I have with slavery is that I think owning another human being is wrong. Whether they were kidnapped, indentured, what have you.
   
3. Seems to assume most slaves were sourced via kidnapping. That isn't true. Slaves could be bought from surrounding nations, captured via conquest, or even pressed into involuntary debt slavery (see 2 Kings 4, where the creditors are coming to take the woman's children as slaves). Girls could be sold into sexual slavery by their fathers. There were many tragic ways people could become slaves without being stolen off an Israelite street. And of course Israel had no way to regulate how slaves were sourced in the nations they purchased from.
   

Another part of the complexity is that in the time that Leviticus was written, EVERY nation on the face of the earth supported slavery. And in every nation apart from Israel, this slavery could arise from kidnapping. So there was already a clear distinction between Israel and other nations.

 Also, back in those days, and interestingly, even in the world in some places today, people would sell themselves to others for a time, known as an indenture. Even the Jews could do this for 7 years. This is a type of slavery. The idea is based on the notion that "we own ourselves". And an important part of those ownership rights of our body, was the right to sell it to someone else.  Today - people don't own their own bodies. (not that the abortion movement cares) The State owns our bodies - and it has done so - since it legislated the idea that no property rights can exist in a human body.  Removing the ownership of property in body, removed the ability to privately sell your body to someone else - but it also effectively proved the point that we are slaves to the State. It owns our body and it tells us what rights we have. 

In those times - people from other cultures could sell their bodies to another person - even to a Jew. In a sense it was a form of welfare. Or perhaps a bank mortgage. 

The Israelites, however could not go looking for people in other cultures to buy slaves. And the reason for that is because the predominant manner in which people became slaves was by kidnapping. 

The other time when Israel needed to consider slavery was in times of war.  What were they to do with the foreigners they captured? If they released them - then they would form part of a group to try and get rid of them. Or they would go back and join the families they came from and start fighting again. The Jews were disliked then probably in the same way they are now. didn't have welfare in those times, so people had to make money somehow to get food.  So they had to do something with them. I suppose they could kill them. But they were captured in war - and unless God said to destroy them - then they couldn't. 

Overall, I think the matter is far too a complex matter to come up with a simplistic answer. 

Did God condone slavery?

God hates slavery. This is why we have free will.

By syntax, over time, and let's not even include the possible distinctions of translation [by ignorance, or by malicious or intended accurate purpose] from Hebrew, the primary O.T. language, the word "slavery" has transitioned from even being descriptive of people charged and convicted of crimes for which a fine is sufficient penalty, and, at one time [such as O.T. era, and in that instance, I don't think slave holders could be classed as "owners," since eventual release is implied] when one could not afford the fine, were placed in indentured servitude, aka [by standards, then] slavery, but only for a designated period. We do not use the term "slavery" for that purpose, today, yet your argument does not include that shift of definition when discussing God's attitude toward the word, as construed, then.

Would you argue God changed his mind? I wouldn't, and multiple biblical, and other holy writ of other religions, sources maintain he is of the same mind forever.

The real question is: do you condone slavery?

Do you drink coffee? Slavery persists on coffee farms. 

I don't need to drink coffee; I have enough energy. In the last 12 hours I have been to the gym for two hours and later ran for 45 minutes. I still cannot sleep. The curse persists, like slavery. 

You probably need coffee, don't you? 

Is there a distinction between "condone" and "acknowledge?"

I believe the answer is Yes.

Condone is tacit approval.

Acknowledge is tacit recognition of existence, but not approval.

The one is not the other, and "tacit" is the demonstraton of that fact. It is recognition that God had expectations of us when we have, to date, failed to observe properly. It is evident that we do not love God as we should, and do not love ourselves as we should.

The  balance of the OT, post-Genesis [which, from Eden, had a simplified insrtruction to have dominion of the Earth for purposes of righteousness [not greed] and understand the distinction of good and evil. The balance of the OT is based upon the Law of Moses which had more strict requirements because the Israelites proved to be less respectful of those initial requirements out of Eden, which should have sufficed. They were, on their own, sufficient to treat one another with respect to to treat God as our Father by following his laws. Out of Eden was a dogma very similar to the two commands offered by Christ when asked to identify "the greatest law." Christ, instead, gave two "greatest" laws which are eternally inseparable: Love God; love our fellow man. Adhering to these, alone, would satisfy, and make of us better people than the Law of Moses ever could, which is why Christ said he came to fulfill the law, not to destroy it. To fulfill law is to step up from what was law to a better law, much like Jimmy Madison proposed in the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States: to be "a more perfect union."

God has been trying to tell us forever, since Eden, that we are free when we follow his advice, and enslave ourselves, nut by him, as we accuse, when we do not.

Nope, most slaves today are illegally enslaved

Thats not even true. Minority are slaves of majority in democracies now. Children are slaves of parents and their government.

Societies today approve of slavery too.

Many haven't realized this but slavery is a part of the gospel message.

I'm not talking about Hebrew Israelite camps that teach they'll enslave so called white folks in heaven.

But true Christians are actually slaves of God which I can get this will push away atheists to far away galaxies beyond measure.

Hence being an atheist, you want your liberty as being your own god .

And slavery is almost universally condemned in the modern world; in the ancient world it was so normative that God himself condoned it.

The condemnation does not mean much when there are millions of slaves in the world, some of whom are enslaved in Western countries, or making products those in Western countries use. Do you think you have never used a product not made by the hands of a slave? What about all the children forced to pick coffee beans? And the fruits you eat? What about the clothes you wear and technology you use? 

Where does it say God condones slavery? God has less to do with slavery than you and I do. He is not using products made by slaves. Take it up with Satan if you dislike slavery.

Judaism began 4k years ago that was actually later than the onceptual origin but when they formally began scribing it, announcing it. Other than Hinduism, it is one of the oldest religions ever to still properly exist today

Jesus did bring world peace and spread the faith around the world. He did it via his followers.

In fact, Judaism is anti conversion, it codn't spread ever how Christianity did.

Jesus was the Messiah.

We are 4k years or so from the origin of Judaism's claim of a future Messiah. Who was it?

Are you still in high school?

It is believed by those that slavery itself alone is neither good or bad .

The only trans Catholics fully support even more than seculars even, are intersex. We encourage them to become women or men.

Denying yourself that because of a book written at a time when slavery was okay is just pure and utter nonsense, persisting only in the minds of those who value dogma over people.

Slavery is apparently ok now, as there continue to be slaves in the world. 

I don't know why atheists bother to talk about morality. What is there without God? Why should we bother trying to be nice? You think it is wrong if homosexuals are judged...why? Have you invented these morals?

Why should I value people over dogma? Dogma cannot be changed; it is NATURE. 

I don't think the Bible's authors were aware of the concept of trans people, but we can be pretty confident they would have been dicks about it, I think.

Trans people usually wear clothes of opposite gender.

I admit Paul is an odd one, how that oddball ended up founding a huge chunk of our Scripture is an example of austistic savantism in my opinion. Most will takr that as blasphemy. I mean it as a neutral observation, no insult.

I am somewhat heretical to him on banning all females from clergy and politics. I will not say he was entirely wrong on sex though. He and St. Augustine did take it a little too far. The reality is celibacy is fine and admirable but not suoer admirable sucj that parenting is evil. Sex inside marriage is fine too, within parameters.

What? You mean Bible God telling people to kill gays, trans and zoophiles isnt fair? And Christians having death penalty for these for 1000 years isnt fair?

That is the best way to make it fair on all sexualities. It is why married or worse, fornicating, protestant or orthodix pastors/priests are complete hypocrites when telling gays, sluts andnothwe sexually immoral people not to have sex and to avoid masturbation.

It is as if you want to singke out the naturally non typical.hetero and say "you cant have sex but the rest of us can easily have fun doing it". Wrong.

All should fight the urge but marriage and being parents is the reason God gave us the urges.

Saint Paul says to avoid unlawful sex 'let every man have a wife' and vice versa. That doesn't necessarily mean the only way to avoid unlawful is through marriage.

that doesn't necessarily mean all becoming one flesh sex has to be marital sex

How do you become one flesh with multiple people?

*raises hand, thinks about it, lowers hand*

Cupid

Did the Jews pray to Jesus during the Holocaust?

I'm wondering what sexual orientation has to do with worship?

Why would a man worship a man?

I prefer to worship girls, because I am not gay. Plus, kinda more dedicated when worshipping someone you naturally really like.

Why cant God be female? Like, whats up with "God must be a man" opinion?

I would actually prefer to worship female God because I am not gay.

What happens when our sun runs out of hydrogen, burns out, and becomes a white dwarf?

It wont happen*.

Well, does new Maleficent count as religious?

"Sleeping Beauty's Maleficent is an explicitly satanic figure: “mistress of all evil,” in league with “all the powers of Hell.”"

I’ve never seen The Hunchback of Notre Dame but I imagine Quasimodo has at least some kind of faith.

Like fi're, hell 'fi're, this fi're in my skin.

Catchy song.

Might have been better off going with animated religious characters than Disney, I can't 'think of all that many explicitly religious Disney characters.

I think Kekata, the long haired old guy in Pocahontas, is a shaman. Has some good lines, but I'd put Friar Tuck above him, Friar Tuck just had a lot of energy and a fight scene.

Tzekel-Kan from The Road to El Dorado was pretty good, but it was a DreamWorks movie, and they cut his song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw4cMDVytnM - Trust Me

. . . Oh! The Prince Of Egypt! Wait no no, another DreamWorks Pictures.

I agree with you ranking Frollo number 1 though, has a lot of screen time, lot of character and impact, has a good song, has a sword swinging scene.

That right.  Picture him.

( picture him swaying side to side reallll slow like  and his fucking  spittng on his fingers and like rubbing each one of his 6 nipples . 

As he occasionally gasps to gather his breath.

Could any of you perhaps explain the following?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV):

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

The punishment for rape is paying a fine and then perpetually raping the victim? That is messed up.

There is also some stuff about slavery. Take Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV):

Anyone who kidnaps someone and either sells them or still has them when they are caught must be put to death. Anyone who kidnaps a man must die. Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a result. However, if the slave recovers after a day or two, they are not to be punished; for the slave is their property.

Right from the word of god: people=property. Don't tell me that literal god had to bend his command around the acceptance of mortals. He's god. Also, even if you weren't going do condemn slavery, why do you have to validate it?

The best case for polytheism-satanism and God soldiers of God Satan is here.

You cannot believe in God if you yourself arent a God.

This is because the only way to determine something as God is to be greater than or equal to it. For example, system for determining truth must always be greater than or equal to the truth it determines. Likewise, the system for determining God must always be equal to or greater than God.

For example, the only way to observe a whole object is for observation to be greater than or equal to object.

Likewise, it is logically impossible to consider God as the only source of truth. For you to determine that God is the source of truth already by tautology requires you to be able to determine truth, thus negating God as the only source of truth.

People can either determine what is true or they cant determine what is true.

If they can determine what is true, then God isnt the only one who determines truth.

But if they cant determine truth, then they cannot determine God as truth.

This applies to morality as well. Humans can either determine what is morally right or they cant. If they can determine what is morally right, then God isnt the only one who can determine what is morally right. But if humans cant determine what is morally right, then they cannot determine that God is morally right.