It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

God's Law; Your slaves

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


History is what is it is. Neither good nor bad, just historic. The Torah has a set of historic laws that the Hebrews followed. Some laws were better and more compassionate than those of other cultures, some not. I just object to defining the character of "God" by looking at the laws of primitive people.

The Bible isn't about GOD, it's about a certain people's definition of God. GOD doesn't change and GOD's laws don't change.

The fact that the Hebrew laws are useless and outdated belies their god's relevance in modern times.




posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   

windword
I just object to defining the character of "God" by looking at the laws of primitive people.

However, it's a legitimate exercise for people who already believe that God was behind the Old Testament.
As I said to another poster, this is a contribution to the discussion about what the Bible is saying to Christians.



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


As I said in my first post, it makes me physically sick to read as people use "GOD" to justify slavery, murder, rape and brutality.



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

As I said in my first reply, nothing in my comments has been about "justifying" slavery.



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Yes you are. This whole thread is justifying slavery. The God of the Old Testament orders the Hebrews to take slaves. Then, supposedly, he provides laws to regulate slavery.


10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.

12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies.

15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.


What does this ^^ say about the character of the God of the Old Testament to Christians?



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

The whole question of war in the Old Testament is another big subject which would need a separate thread (though you may guess that the concept of "hardness of heart" would come up again as one of the elements of the discussion).

The laws outlined in the OP come up with the institution already in place, and I detected two main features in them; the purpose of ameliorating the condition of slaves, and indications that the tenor of the law was "unfriendly" to the continuation of slavery.

Two pieces of evidence in particular;
Firstly, while Roman and Babylonian law had fierce "Fugitive slave" laws demanding the return of slaves to their masters, Israel had a law forbidding the return of slaves to their masters.
Secondly, I quoted the episode in which Jeremiah got the king and people of Jerusalem to issue an "Emancipation Proclamation" liberating all the slaves of the city; then, when they reneged on their promise, he wrathfully declared that God would deliver them into the hands of the Babylonians- specifically because they had gone back on their promise to free the slaves.
A God who gets angry because slaves are not liberated? That doesn't sound like a God who favours slavery to me.

If you can see any passages where I suggest that slavery is a good thing, then you can say that I'm "justifying slavery".


edit on 30-3-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 





A God who gets angry because slaves are not liberated? That doesn't sound like a God who favours slavery to me.


The Old Testament God is contradictory and schizophrenic.



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Or, alternatively, struggling with human "hardness of heart".



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Yeah. I just don't believe in that kind of a god, one who struggles or gets perplexed, angry, jealous, etc.



edit on 30-3-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


I just don't get it. We are told that God is Love and therefore whoever does not know Love does not know God (1 John 4:8). We are even given a definition of Love "patient, kind, not jealous, doesn't brag, not prideful, does not dishonor others, not selfish, not easily angered, forgives by not keeping a record of wrongs, always protects" (1 Corinthians 13:4-8) and yet people still seem to believe that God is like a human struggling with his negative emotions (hatred, revenge, jealousy, etc.).



posted on Mar, 30 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 

My phrase meant "struggling with the fact that humans have 'hardness of heart'".
I've been using that concept a lot in this series.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 02:09 AM
link   

WarminIndy
reply to post by DarksideOz
 


One of those that I can't name but knows what the name is.

Argue the 9/11 on another thread. Right now this is about what the Bible says about slavery.

Question : Why are you placing onto the ancient Hebrews a higher moral standard than any other ancient society? It's like those ancient societies were ok having slaves as long as they followed Zeus or Apollo or Quetzcoatl or Shang Di. But you hold the ancient Hebrews to a higher moral standard, why?

Question : Is driving a thing you MUST do in Australia just so the law can be enforced to make you pay? Or is driving in Australia a choice you make? Is there a law requiring you to drive in Australia?




So let me get this right, I can't mention 9/11 on this thread, but you can keep referring to driving laws ?

I'll take my example of 9/11 to 9/11 threads if you agree to take your driving laws to the rant section........deal ? But before you do, can you tell me what the driving law means if I choose to break it and don't get caught ? Or how a Terrorist Act [9/11] will stop a terrorist from acting ? They are pieces of paper that cannot stop you from doing it, they are just guidelines for what punishment[s] could be imposed, IF caught.

Have you ever gone over the speed limit, yes you have. Did you get caught, not this time. Did you go and turn yourself in for speeding over the limit, no. So you disobeyed the very driving laws you preach.

If we are all innocent until proven guilty, then we have committed no crime until caught, charged and convicted. So by not turning yourself in for speeding, did you break a law ? Your answer would be no I assume, because if it was yes, then you would of turned yourself in and payed the fine every time you went over the speed limit.

'Guilty' in todays world could be done by the fate of 12 peers that judge you, while revealing nothing about their own personal life and previous actions. We have a Judge that may be involved in sinister activities behind closed doors, then deciding the fate of a fellow human, where that decision could be based on lies, corruption or even outright stupidity. This is why "laws" is not definite or final. This is why common sense can change a law, but no law can change common sense.

'Not guilty' could actually be a 'guilty' man by public opinion, but due to a minor, trivial red tape error, a 'guilty' person walks 'free'. It's ironic that most people say that the legal system is out dated and corrupted from the top down, yet we then allow, and support that very system to judge us, and possibly remove our free will.

Do you see how fragile the laws are ? Do you see how easily manipulated the laws are ? Do you see how free will has been targeted so that slavery can exist ?

And what removed this free will to the extent of today..............laws, laws, laws and more laws. More laws, less free will.

Anyway, I better leave it there as I'm sure you have a few speeding fines to go pay ?























posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


I understand that you are saying does free will really exist if we are under the rule of God, but I believe it isn't under the rule of God, it is under the Judgement of God. Isn't that where the whole go to heaven or hell thing comes about. We are Judged by God based on the actions of our free will. Free will doesn't mean do whatever you want and face no actions, it means do what you feel but remember you will be judged on it.

But with so many religious texts contradicting each other, or spinning a different version of the same story, the word of God can sometimes be hard to find from all the words of man confusing and distorting the word of God. But what happens when you completely remove someone's free will..................you end up with a slave. So how can slavery even be mentioned in a religious text, let alone have a set of guidelines justifying its use. Any religious text that does this should be thrown in fiction section where they belong !



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   

DarksideOz
Free will doesn't mean do whatever you want and face no actions, it means do what you feel but remember you will be judged on it.

You've understood the first half of the point I was making.
Unfortunately you haven't yet grasped the second half of the point, that whether or not our actions ore restricted by other humans has nothing to do with "free will" in the theological sense. That's why I was giving the issue a different name ("freedom of action").
So religious comments about "free-will" are not offering freedom from human restraints, and human restraints, up to and including slavery, do nothing to take away "free will".
Therefore there is no point in talking about "free will", because it isn't related to the subject in hand. The two topics have nothing to do with each other.


So how can slavery even be mentioned in a religious text, let alone have a set of guidelines justifying its use.

They do nothing of the kind. There is NOTHING in the laws I've quoted which "justifies" slavery.

You are still missing the point that these are "law" texts in the first instance.
You might as well ask why religious texts (in the 10 commandments) are dealing with criminal subjects like theft and murder.
Part of the answer would be that all laws have to deal with the things which the people who live under the laws are doing.
And it is perfectly reasonable that a religious law should be telling people not to commit theft and murder.
In the case of these laws on slavery, they are a) trying to improve the treatment of slaves, and b) trying to push the people away from having slaves at all.
These are reasonable things for a religious text to do.



edit on 31-3-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 





And it is perfectly reasonable that a religious law should be telling people not to commit theft and murder.
In the case of these laws on slavery, they are a) trying to improve the treatment of slaves, and b) trying to push the people away from having slaves at all.
These are reasonable things for a religious text to do.


I disagree. I think a tell tale sign that a text is NOT spiritually inspired is if it lists a bunch of things that a forbidden, and then list sanctions and punishments for those things. Those are sure sign that these laws were penned by men to control men and women.

Valid religious texts are empowering and interject positive suggestions, such as love your neighbor, forgive others, pray like this....etc.

Furthermore, the Bible does justify slavery as a basic premise. The Bible teaches that you can't serve two masters. Translation, you must serve a master. Karmicly speaking, the Bible send the message that "If you're a slave, it's because you chose the wrong master and therefore deserve your lot in life", in my opinion.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   

windword

I see no reason why a Biblical God should limit his methods of communication to the ways that you consider valid.
If he chooses to make himself known through history, proverbs, or laws (and all of them can be found in the Old Testament), then they can all be reilgious texts.


The Bible teaches that you can't serve two masters. Translation, you must serve a master. Karmicly speaking, the Bible send the message that "If you're a slave, it's because you chose the wrong master and therefore deserve your lot in life", in my opinion.

What the dickens does "Karmidy speaking" mean? Who is Karmidy, and why should I take any notice of what he says?

The two options in that quotation are "God and money". Neither of them are "slavery" in the sense we're talking about (i.e. one man being property of another man).


edit on 31-3-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 12:40 AM
link   

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy
 





This means that if you believe in a Great Transcendent Being above and beyond merely what the Bible describes, then that Great Transcendent Being must have also been behind every civilizations' use of slavery. The Brahma of the Vedic Age is described the exact same way as the Biblical description, so God is more than just a God that suddenly existed for the ancient Hebrews.


I don't believe in that kind of god. I don't believe that god is a person or a conscious entity that interferes in human society and judges our behavior and motives. God just is. God is a unifying force that binds all things through "love. God is not Jesus, Yahweh, Zeus, Krishna or any other name that people claim to be god.


What is love?

I hear that thrown around all the time. But exactly what is it? How is it expressed? Where does it come from?

God just is. God is a unifying force. God can't simply be and then be A unifying force, because even mob mentality is a unifying force that bind people with violence. Orgasms (sorry to be blunt) is a unifying force that binds people sexually.

So what is love?

Is love something a man achieves while raping a child? He has an orgasm.

Is love something achieved when the klan is unified in a lynching?

A unifying force called love without moral judgment. And what was your problem again with slavery?



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 





What the dickens does "Karmidy speaking" mean? Who is Karmidy, and why should I take any notice of what he says?


k-a-r-m-i-c

Karmicly
Karmically

Spell check doesn't like any of it!

However, personally, just to be clear, I don't believe in spiritually uplifting texts that promote that which is forbidden. Psychiatrists know that negative affirmations are just as, if not more powerful than positive affirmations.

"Don't think of a pink elephant!"




edit on 1-4-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 01:49 AM
link   

windword
reply to post by DISRAELI
 





What the dickens does "Karmidy speaking" mean? Who is Karmidy, and why should I take any notice of what he says?


k-a-r-m-i-c

Karmicly
Karmically

Spell check doesn't like any of it!

However, personally, just to clear, I don't believe in spiritually uplifting texts that promote that which is forbidden. Psychiatrists know that negative affirmations are just as, if not more powerful, than positive affirmations.

"Don't think of a pink elephant!"




edit on 1-4-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)


I think outside of the box. When I saw that, the first thing I thought of was Mowgli. Why Mowgli?

Oh I know, Mowgli, The Jungle Book a movie by Disney and jungles are where elephants are. I didn't think pink, I thought gray. How's that for not falling for the "negative affirmation"?

What is forbidden without moral judgment?

I thought love was a unifying force without moral judgement, so then you have to love slavery because love is all there is. You can't hate slavery if you are unified by the unifying force of non-judgmental love.

Therefore, as you say God is a unifying force of love, then God can't hate slavery either. So God can't be judgmental either about slavery, and neither can you.

By your definition, you have to love slavery and slave owners without judgment, because the unifying force of love dictates there can be no other way.



posted on Apr, 1 2014 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


You say that there is nothing in the laws that 'justifies' slavery, yet by their very mention in the texts, and the rules and conditions set in place, then it IS justifying it's use. If it didn't justify it, then it wouldn't exist as a rule in those text. Any text, religious or other, that justifies [has set rules in place] slavery is going against free will.

You keep saying I am going off topic, yet you choose to engage with me. This thread seems to of lost its appeal to most so I don't see why it is an issue, and I believe it does relate to this topic but from another angle. If you can't see that angle, then that is no fault of mine.

For me, the problem that arises from "free will", is that is was not defined so it can be very open to interpretation and personal opinion, much like with everything relating to religion. How many people have died throughout history under the name of religion purely because of another human[s] interpretation of Religion ?

Look at how many people on this planet believe without doubt that "God" does exist, yet who on this planet can say with absolute 100% proof what or who God is ?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join