Total posts: 1,732
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Exodus 21:16He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surelybe put to death.Pretty serious. Wouldn't you say?Or do you not think this verse applies to chattel slavery, which generally involves involuntary abduction?
Chattel slavery is not prohibited by this verse. It does nothing to stop a Hebrew from buying a slave from a foreign kidnapper.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
You're implying that there was bad treatment (justified by the law) against Hebrew servants.
I am having difficulty understanding your confusion. Do you believe foreign slaves and Israelite servants operated under the same rules? I mean, the passage alludes to different rules for each. The last line draws to mind the jubilee and the option for redemption - neither of which would be available to permanent slaves. This alone is different (and worse) treatment than native slaves. Having your liberty amputated is a fairly significant mistreatment!
Foreigners not being allowed to take part in some ceremonies is certainly not abuse.
I'll just stop you there because you're lost already. As an attempted proof you provided (out of context) a verse [LINK] which seems to suggest (all) law applies equally to foreigner and Hebrew alike. When the context is added though, it is clear this verse is not talking about the law in general, but a specific law.
From what I understand, you feel that since the word foreigner can potentially apply simply to a stranger or sojourner, not necessarily someone from a different nation, that the law stating if a slave runs away, that the law demanding his protection cannot be someone from a different nation?
I ask you to rephrase this paragraph/question. There are a lot of moving parts in there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
If a mind is dependent on a brain and the brain dies, there is nothing left to experience life, death, or life after death. The afterlife claim is hollow if it cannot be shown an individual can survive death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
But cells still work after your brain dies
I don't get your point here. I have no trouble believing cells may still have metabolic activity after death of the brain, but it is irrelevant. The cells (if they do still work) are no longer working together and that is a prerequisite of the mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You're asking for a definition to be defined? It's not that complicated, bud. You (your body and mind) is alive or it isn't. When your body dies so does your mind. For the dead, there is no life.Define no longer existing, God has provided an answer but not atheists
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What is stops being?
Ceases to be; no longer exists; kaput
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
We have good reason to believe death is when 'you' stops being and there is no afterlife.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Yes, I would be your indentured servant as defined by Leviticus 25:44-46
Well, I could never I'm good conscience take on a slave, Roderick.
I left a bit of verse 46 off. The full text reads:
"You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your [b]countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another."
The final sentence makes clear foreign slaves are subject to different (and worse) treatment.
All of the proof verses you've provide (with exception to the last) have been addressed in another thread (Link). As for Exodus 12:49, it refers to passover restriction. Including the passage before verse 49 provides all the context that could possibly be needed to understand it properly. I've bolded the law verse 49 references.
"48 A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it. 49 The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
As I mentioned in another thread, noble sentiment and beauty can be found in the Bible.Wow good catch, too bad you end there.
...but I don't end there and neither should anyone else. Making a tacit acknowledgement of the ugliness in the Bible without considering the impact this has on the claims it contains can only lead to dubious conclusions.
We can agree on the sublime in the Bible. We can agree on the undignified. What we can't agree on is that the former outweighs the latter and, because of this, that the Bible should be considered a source of divine inspiration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Ok, buddy. I guess the thread is over now. 😭Well,i's true
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
ErtlnView destrouyed you
Easy for you to say! 😜
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
As I mentioned in another thread, noble sentiment and beauty can be found in the Bible. On the other hand, small-mindedness and barbarity can be found as well. This is not better or worse than the time periods from which the authors came. One needn't accept fantastical claims of spiritual beings to explain it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Nah, not too bad - if your master's beatings killed you too quickly, he would be punished and if you were maimed in some way (lost eye, lost tooth, etc.) you'd be set free! Undoubtedly, this is the product of a benevolent mind.
🤣😂😄😃😏😐🤔😮😬
Created:
Posted in:
To anyone who holds slavery in the Bible was nothing more than temporary indentured servitude, I ask:
Would you be my 'indentured servant' as defined by Leviticus 25:44-46?
Leviticus 25:44-46 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
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 Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have [a]produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The society that is 'being pushed for' is one where everyone has religious freedom...the same religious freedom (including Christians).China has religious freedom to. But it has to fall under strict government control. The humanists aren't a whole lot different except they are not in power fortunately.
I don't see the relevance of Chinese religious freedom.
First off, it was not servants that were bought from the heathen nations, but slaves. Secondly, the Israelites acting within their own laws without accounting for laws of the neighboring nations doesn't mean it was acceptable in a universal sense. It would most certainly depend on which nation was telling the story as to whether it was proper and legitimate.In rare cases (only the wealthy could have purchased a slave), the foreign slave was to be treated as a servant. Semantics are not really necessary here.
It is not a matter of semantics as far as I am concerned. The Bible has rules which apply to native servants and foreign slaves. Verses which allow "permanent slaves" to be bought from the heathen nations [Link] and others which mandate Hebrews slaves are to be set free on the 7th year of service [Link] make this painfully obvious.
I may not be sure what your argument. Is it that since the foreigners have an opportunity to become a part of the nation of Israel, they are not really foreigners?
No. This is a bit of a mess. You said:
You're forgetting that a foreign slave (servant) can leave their master if there were any abuse. And not only that, someone else would be required to put them up.
Foreign slaves could not leave their master for any reason that I'm aware of. If that was allowed at all, it would not be a foreign slave's decision (at least not one own by Israel). I supplied a verse which I thought you were referring to, but it did not apply to all slaves or even slaves owned by the nation of Israel at all.
Favored race is a false view of related scripture. So is your reference to "God's chosen people"
Favored Race and God's chosen People is not a reference to Christians. It is a reference to Jews.[Link] [Link] I understand what you are suggesting by supplying the parable, but that doesn't change that Jews were chosen by God/favored race - at least according to the Torah/Bible. "Christian" is not a race even if some Christians believe they were chosen.
Many people, for instance, much prefer being a slave to Jesus than a slave to drugs. It baffles me how people can't make the slavery-servant connection. The term slavery was not politically incorrect back then.
Would you be my slave as defined by Leviticus 25:44-46?
Leviticus 25:44-46 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
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 Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have [a]produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves.
A king is simply a leader. They didn't have presidents and prime ministers back then. Having a king didn't necessitate an oppressive government.
Agreed, but if America was founded on Biblical principles democracy is a bit of a head scratcher.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I'll be the first to admit America has its flaws and fails to realize the value of its founding principles all too often. Progressive goals are easier laid out than realized. But allowing CN revisionist history to stand would actually make American ideals the pretense you suggest.
Created:
It seems like mustardness is conflating Lamarck and Darwin's concepts, but that's not accurate.
Lamarck thought someone who developed big muscles from a life of blacksmithing (or whatever) would pass big muscles to offspring (that doesn't happen). Darwin held that whatever traits helped organisms to survive in a given environment (before producing offspring) would be selected for. (Not sure how the grape stomper example fits into this)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Well, at least you let him know that there is a citation..Now you can show me how, or why you think this only applies to Israelites
This was in regards to Deuteronomy 23:15-16. In the context set by the previous verses (related to war), enemy slaves were not to be returned so that they might come to accept YHWH in which case these individuals could come to be part of the nation of Israel.
And, do you think this verse is one of those wink wink, nudge nudge scenarios? They wrote it, but don't really mean it?Exodus 23:9"Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.
I assume you're placing a lot of emphasis on "foreigner", but it can be understood as sojourner, stranger, or guest. Was there anything you would like to add to this? It seems very similar to the above verse except it was in regards to strangers (potential converts?) and was addressed to judges rather than soldiers, but I'm no Biblical scholar. ;-)
Listen, before we run this predictable path which leaves you feeling abused, you should know I do not hold the Bible (or Christianity) to be without noble sentiment or beauty. My point is simply that important concepts in Christianity (eg. favored race - "God's chosen people", slavery - "slave to Jesus", monarchy - "Kings of Kings") run in direct contrast to those of America (eg. equality, liberty, democracy).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Indeed.
The notion that the laws of Israel were universal is mistaken. Israelites did not ignore the 10 commandments when they took slaves or committed genocide - it was understood Mosaic laws (unless explicitly stated otherwise) only applied to Israelites and offered no protection for non-believers.
Whatever its faults, at least America was founded on principles striving toward equal rights for everyone. The conflation of Biblical and American values is to deny this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Either Roderick doesn't know this law only applied to Israelites (and not unbelieving foreigners) or he is being dishonest in trying to equate all slavery in the Bible to indentured servitude.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I would say it does tie with MAGA, although I would say coincidentally. I imagine Trump envisioned a time before heavy regulation in which business was less accountable. CN longed for the days when Christianity was championed over the "godless communism".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
These Christians understand it as I do: LINKI'm well acquainted with Tony Campolo.
Are you dismissing every other name mentioned because you find Mr. Campolo's views distasteful? That's not reasonable, if so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I'm glad to hear that, Rod. "In God We Trust" is not original (and not representative of a culture which existed before the 1950's or all Americans in any time period) and is something that doesn't belong when it comes to government empowered by a pluralistic society.Simply put, rather than this being a conspiracy, many Christians feel that anything that was once accepted and thus removed, like Christian slogans should not have been removed because all they do is display a cultural heritage. I don't personally think the slogan should be mandatory. I don't think the slogan was even original. Something eventually added on. So yeah, I don't agree with everything they propose. But, they are hardly conspiracy theorymaterial.
I encourage you to look over the additional sources (absent any demonstrable bias against Christianity). I agree, there is no conspiracy as that would require it to be a secret...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I have no trouble believing many white evangelicals perceive that era to have been an ideal environment for happiness. It's a bit of rose tinted nostalgia though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The society that is 'being pushed for' is one where everyone has religious freedom...the same religious freedom (including Christians).The constitution is used merely as a tool to try and adjust it to fit the society that they're pushing for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
First off, it was not servants that were bought from the heathen nations, but slaves. Secondly, the Israelites acting within their own laws without accounting for laws of the neighboring nations doesn't mean it was acceptable in a universal sense. It would most certainly depend on which nation was telling the story as to whether it was proper and legitimate.Were the Hebrews breaking the law when they purchased foreign servants?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
More than two dozen doctors, counselors, activists, and other Christian leaders signed a letter condemning the resolution, which they said violates religious freedom. “Religious leaders have the constitutionally protected right to teach religious doctrine in accordance with their faith, and politicians have no right to tell clergy what is moral, dictate the content of their sermons, or instruct them in religious counseling,” they wrote.
Religious freedom does not give anyone the right to marginalize others, so there is no violation of religious freedom in asking for better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Here is an article from Religious News Service. The terms (with the exception of "Christian Nationalists") is softer, but the message is the same. Here is another from Baptist News Global: LINKI most definitely need to review other sources. These sources that use such terminology are deceptive. The tendency is for them seems to be to accuse Christians attempting to influence society as being those who want to force Christianity into society.
What are religiously copy-pasta laws?
"In God We Trust" bills introduced in 6 states all this year.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
So then the United States is guilty of kidnapping whenever we capture a prisoner of war?
Is it safe to assume you're mulling over the rest of the post from which this came?
In short, the US has agreements with other countries regarding prisoners of war, thus captivity is legal (provided certain conditions are met) and not to be confused with kidnapping.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I won't disagree with that. The issue I have is that, instead of making a case for their political views/social views/ignorance, an appeal to a common religious view is being exploited.The credulity of *some* believers is being used against them.My problem is that CN seems to be pushing not so much a Christian agenda as a deeply conservative one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The revisionism, legislation, education, etc they advocate would have the effect of giving Christianity more respect than it deserves on its merits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I'm certain you condemn kidnapping, rape, and sexual slavery.I don't think Christian Nationalists are in favour of them either!
Neither do I.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
But, I would need a more neutral source to fnd out just how aggressive these bills really are. I don't trust sites that use terms like the Christian far-right, conservative watch, religious watch, religious far-right, etc.Christian Nationalists is an invalid term.
To be honest, I'm not sure what you need another source for, you obviously accept religiously themed copy-pasta laws are a thing. Also, "Christian Nationalism" is actually in the title of this thread, but here at post 110 you reject the term?
I feel as though you're not being intellectually honest. I don't want to waste a lot of my time if you are only interested in what jibes with your beliefs and not what's actually true.
For what it's worth, rights cannot negate the rights of others. Freedom of religion does not include using government to advertise beliefs. It does not include treating homosexuals (or any group of humans) differently than others. It does not include the freedom from criticism. It simply means you are free to believe and worship as you please, (so long as that doesn't take away the rights of others) and government has no religious beliefs.
But that's not what I'm asking. Are these people in the right? Are they acting within constitutional boundaries?
You do realize this is a resolution and not a law, right? What issue do you have with it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
No, collecting virgins for the purpose of sex (and child bearing) wouldn't be mitigated by calling them wives. But that's not what they were given permission to do. Kidnapping, rape, sexual slavery, are serious crimes in Biblical law, mostly punishable by death.The problem is you're trying to make a claim about an event you probably don't even think happened, and then base it on man's animalistic behavior as a law allowing for sexual slavery. Kind of the wink, wink, nudge, nudge thing.
The women and young boys brought away were considered "captives" [1]. This is kidnapping by definition. Also, rape was only a capital offense if the victim was betrothed [2], and Hebrews could sell their daughters into sexual slavery [4]. Simply put, these offenses did not guarantee punishment... much less capital punishment.
I'm certain you condemn kidnapping, rape, and sexual slavery. However, the Bible and/or the individuals within it (whether they are fictional or not) do not do the same. Fortunately, the laws and values of our country stand in stark contrast to Biblical laws such as these.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Is collecting virgins for the purpose of sex (and childbearing) mitigated by calling them "wives"? Quite plainly - this is sexual slavery. There is no context where this is acceptable.The virgins weren't taken as slaves. They were taken to become wives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
LinkWhere is attempting to inject Christianity into government happening?
And what is your opinion on this?
It is a fact the stigmatization of homosexuals and transsexuals contributes to suicide and depression in these groups.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Most moral problems are not choices between good and evil but choosing the lesser evil.
Exactly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I dare say you've not understood my point at all. My reply was not about religion being evil or "stupid", but why atheists may feel compelled to seek discourse with believers. eg. inappropriate intrusions into their lives by believers.
I have no interest in a discussion about the "stupidity of religion". I'll leave that to newly de-converted and those offended by it.
Also, if we're going to consider this an atheist forum, then let me be the first to welcome anyone, everyone with ANY perspective on religion (belief, non-belief, other?). There are plenty of forum threads to go 'round! 😁
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
It has changed me and the way that I deal with other people. If that's not 'changing the world' nothing is.It appears to be ineffective for changing the world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Becoming vocal, even political. Look at Richard Dawkins. He writes books, has debates and discussions publically.
I would argue this is an action. This is beside my point though. Beliefs inform actions, so it makes sense to evaluate beliefs for validity. That happens here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I don't really believe that.changing the world takes action.
Ok. What does it take in your view?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
If we strive to hold true beliefs (and are willing to put our views up to scrutiny), then the world is a better place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
We should do our level best to tread gently. Realization that our cherished beliefs (and very identity) are flawed can be slow and painful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
That's something I wasn't implying if that's what you are trying to get at. I guess I'm off on a tangent from the forum topic.
In that case, I guess I didn't understand altogether what you were saying. We'll get it right next time! 😄
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Discussion can lead to a better understanding of our own views as well as those of others. This can lead to better arguments or acceptance of a flawed view. Without going further, this alone makes the world a better place, but having a better grasp of a position and an improved ability to express it makes larger audiences less daunting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Arguing with theists on a forum no one goes to or knows about is hardly a place to start to change the world.
Of course it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I observe that socio-political discussion of "evangelicals in the United States" is one topic, and "What is Pentecostal about" is another.
I observe topics of religion needn't be exclusively from a perspective of belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
This opinion (unlike religious beliefs in government, legislation, education, medicine, etc) harms me none. In this case, you're free to believe whatever you like.I don't believe that's why you guys are here. You are full of shit.
Created: