God's Law; Your slaves

reply to post by WarminIndy

Isn't karma an idea that comes from people also?

Yep. But cause and effect are laws that can't be denied, whether you believe in it or not.

And you are going to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing, it has nothing to do with whether I am right or wrong about it, which I am right because you are the one who brought it up, made up your own definition of God (which I would remind you, you are just a person also).

I'm disagreeing with the concept of a god who writes or condones laws about the acceptability of beating your slaves, stoning your teenagers, going to war and sacrificing animals.

So your ideas of moral code do not arise from karma (because that's a human idea), they come from you (also a human idea).

It's my belief that human morality stems from human empathy and the will to survive and thrive.

And there is no moral code. So then tell me again, how is slavery wrong?

I never said that there is no such thing as morality. I just don't believe it comes from the Bible or from your God.

Because according to your on moral code it is wrong? Where does your moral code arise from? It can't come from karma, because that's a human idea. If you say it is wrong, then prove to me where it is wrong.

Where do you get this stuff? I never said morality is wrong, I said it doesn't come from your biblical God.

If morality was issued by your God, why doesn't the whole universe follow the same morality? Why are only humans subject to God's morality?

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Isn't karma an idea that comes from people also?

Yep. But cause and effect are laws that can't be denied, whether you believe in it or not.

And you are going to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing, it has nothing to do with whether I am right or wrong about it, which I am right because you are the one who brought it up, made up your own definition of God (which I would remind you, you are just a person also).

I'm disagreeing with the concept of a god who writes or condones laws about the acceptability of beating your slaves, stoning your teenagers, going to war and sacrificing animals.

So your ideas of moral code do not arise from karma (because that's a human idea), they come from you (also a human idea).

It's my belief that human morality stems from human empathy and the will to survive and thrive.

And there is no moral code. So then tell me again, how is slavery wrong?

I never said that there is no such thing as morality. I just don't believe it comes from the Bible or from your God.

Because according to your on moral code it is wrong? Where does your moral code arise from? It can't come from karma, because that's a human idea. If you say it is wrong, then prove to me where it is wrong.

Where do you get this stuff? I never said morality is wrong, I said it doesn't come from your biblical God.

If morality was issued by your God, why doesn't the whole universe follow the same morality? Why are only humans subject to God's morality?

edit on 2-4-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)

Laws are defined by whom?

And you know very well that karma is not in effect for everyone either.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Laws are defined by whom?

As opposed to laws that regulate how badly one can beat their slaves, the reality of the "laws of Cause and Effect" are not up for debate.

And you know very well that karma is not in effect for everyone either.

I don't know why you keep bringing karma up, I'm not a proponent of karma, per say.

reply to post by WarminIndy


You ask, "So tell me again how slavery is wrong ?"...............do you care to share with us how slavery is right ?
For you to even entertain the thought of slavery being acceptable just proves how illogical your train of thought is to begin with, and says even less about your perception of morals and ethics. You say it isn't wrong, but if you were to be made a slave, then you would be doing a complete backflip and we both know it.

So apart from benefiting the slave owner, how is slavery right ?

reply to post by WarminIndy


I do not feel the need to respond any more than you feel the need to keep responding to me. You seem to have a habit of just looking at things from your own situation. Please stop doing this for both our sake.

I was NOT drawn by magnetism of God, I was on a conspiracy site and saw a topic that I thought I would look at. No magnetism, just looking. I then noticed quite a few quotes from religious texts by members and I just happened to notice the trend of all these man made stories seeming to justify the use of slaves. I thought I would comment and due to being completely taken out of context, and you seeming to be the one that has taken issue with me. And you have an issue with this because of why again ?

Does this mean that I have magnetised you, and that you are an iron and drawn to me. Or does that only work when it's in favour of your opinion ?

reply to post by windword


Karma is the biggest joke there is. From this, an eye for an eye is established as well. It is a massive control tactic to put people in a state of believing they don't have to do work in their communities to get others aware and overcome the corruption with higher mind and more advanced skills aside from revolutions, ie taking the big caveman club and swinging, but higher skills of Unity and Negotiation, Understanding the real needs of all those needy groups people love to hate on, and negotiating, using spiritual strengths and positive love tactics and faith in action, to overcome and win.

With karma, people say, oh well, they'll get theirs in the end. Of course they don't! Look at them, they live from cradle to grave in the lap of luxury. When they drop bombs on babies and neighborhoods in Afganistan, do you think anyone in their family has ever gone through such pain and agony? Yet they can do it. Not only can they do it, BUT THEY WILL DO IT EVERY TIME THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE THEY'RE DARK SIDED. They just have to fuel up enough hate, or even apathy/disinterest, in the people and its bombs away. They'd do that to your neighbors if they could overcome consciousness enough to allow it. That seems to be their nature.

And yet, boy oh boy, are they rewarded. Often with the longest lives going. Look at Queen Elizabeth and David Rockefeller! I mean they are old enough to have lived through the dinosaur days, and have enough karma but have never experienced it.

Love does not smite people. Higher Ups/Creator and God are only Love. Its not about Forgiveness, its not about KARMA, its always about growing up more, learning the lesson, growing understanding and compassion. In that state, everyone can simply BE HEALED.

Again, there is no such thing as karma, its a lie. Even in the afterlife. If a person really feels they deliberately chose to do wrong, and harmed many people, and they refuse the offer of the healing and helping hand, they are pulled by gravity, if their frequency is heavy, to lower realms. However, if you can cremate your cares, well....

But with soul memories, all I can say is, Love Heals and Helps everyone, even the worst sinner, always. Love never gives up on anyone either, there is no permanent hell, there is no smiting God. There is error and harming others and frequencies that keep one in gravity however, for example, the gravity of murder is akin to a black hole, so there is work to do.

The bible is metaphoric and has many eastern ancient wisdom passed on, divided up and scattered all over the place for those able to see it.

The rest is a control mechanism for the masses.

I still believe in the possibility of a literal Christ, but metaphorically, just as strong, because the "Word" of God, is that still but persistently strong voice within, and conscience, that guides us onwards, if we're faithful to this, and striving for discernment. We certainly didn't come in alone, but with a bungee cord, and Family who love us very very much.

While if the brother is obliged to sell himself to outsiders, he benefits from the “Jubilee” law outlined in the same chapter, which allows him to redeem himself or be redeemed by a “kinsman”.

This is one of the places where the Law is obliquely pointing towards the New Testament understanding of God.
For the figure of the "kinsman", who comes in to reclaim to the family any land which has been sold for debt, or any family member who has been sold for debt, is one of the sources of the later concept of the "redeemer", who does for men what they cannot do for themselves.
When Job says "I know that my redeemer lives", he's using the same word- GOEL.
When Paul describes human life before the arrival of the gospel as "I am carnal, sold under sin" (Romans ch7 v13), he is using the metaphor that life is under a spiritual burden which is comparable to debt-slavery.
So when he says that Christ has "redeemed" us (e.g. Galatians ch3 v13), he is using the same metaphor.
Thus the Law is anticipating Christian theology by embedding one of its most important concepts.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Quick look up! Above your head!

Aww too late.....

DISRAELI
Yes, I consider it a benefit for the slave when the master is punished if the slave is killed or injured.

The 'master' is only 'punished' if the slave dies within the following 1-2 days......if the slave dies after that amount of time? no problem!

Notwithstanding, if he survives a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Because the bible considers these people to be other peoples property.....

Certainly a great improvement on the laws of Babylon or Rome.

Even if that's true, it doesn't make what is written in the bible any more moral or acceptable.

If you steal from me, pointing out that someone else has also stolen from me does not mean that you're not a thief.

If you were a slave yourself, you would much prefer to live under Israelite law than under Roman law, especially when the free gifts (from the flock, from the threshing-floor, and from the vine-press) were handed over at the end of your time of service.

Again you conveniently leave out a few key points, such as the slaves in question must be Hebrew, and must have sold themselves willingly. If not, then it's a red hot poker through your earlobe and slavery for life..........no lovely retirement gifts for you!

More shameless cherry picking...

Nevertheless, the proponents of the abolition of slavery got their motivation out of the Bible, which was my point; that the principle which opposed slavery was there in the Bible to be found.
If they were Christians, they got it out of the Bible directly.
If they were non-religious humanitarians, they got it out of the Bible indirectly.

So you claim, but whereas I can show that all of the proponents for slavery were good biblical folk such as yourself, you cannot show that the morality and empathy that led to the abolishment of slavery were the same.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Oh brother! Like a fabled "Knight in Shining Armour" in a fairy tale.

For the figure of the "kinsman", who comes in to reclaim to the family any land which has been sold for debt, or any family member who has been sold for debt, is one of the sources of the later concept of the "redeemer", who does for men what they cannot do for themselves.

Who is the supposed family member that sold their family and land into slavery in the first place, that "Jesus", a family member, a kinsman, should come a redeem us? God? Satan? Our ancestors? Adam and Eve?

Does Jesus think it's okay to beat his family members, as long as they live for a day a two afterward?

What about the slaves that were captured and they and their land are considered the plunder of war? Who sold out those people? Who redeems those slaves?

windword
Who is the supposed family member that sold their family and land into slavery in the first place, that "Jesus", a family member, a kinsman, should come a redeem us?

Origen's famous answer to this question was the literal one.
His line of teaching was that the human race was self-sold into the possession of Satan through their sin in Adam and Eve.
This held the field until the time when Anselm wrote CUR DEUS HOMO.

But when you quoted my comment, you left out the part where I treated it as a metaphor;

When Paul describes human life before the arrival of the gospel as "I am carnal, sold under sin" (Romans ch7 v13), he is using the metaphor that life is under a spiritual burden which is comparable to debt-slavery.

Since i am taking it as metaphorical, quibbles based on the literal interpretation fall to the goround.

Prezbo369
Even if that's true, it doesn't make what is written in the bible any more moral or acceptable.
If you steal from me, pointing out that someone else has also stolen from me does not mean that you're not a thief.

If somebody else steals from you, and I take steps to make sure that most of the property is returned, you are better off than you were immediately after the theft.
Never, at any stage, have I claimed that these laws are perfect as they stand.
I claimed them as an improvement on what was there before.
If the laws of Israel are better, for slaves, than the laws of Babylon and Rome, then they are an improvement. Q.E.D.

Again you conveniently leave out a few key points, such as the slaves in question must be Hebrew

I covered this aspect in the OP.
Better treatment for Hebrew slaves and ideally Hebrew brethren not being slaves at all was the first stage in the campaign against slavery.
The extension of "brethren" from one nation alone to the world at large was a development which only fully emerged at the New Testament stage; from it, Christians drew the logical conclusion that if all men were brethren they should not be enslaved.
Hence the famous slogan "Am I not a man and a brother?"
The re-education of an entire culture is a slow process, when it works against human "hardness of heart".

More shameless cherry picking...

What's wrong with "cherry-picking", if it means choosing what is good in preference to what is bad?
It's only the inverse of your own approach, of deliberately blinding yourself to any good that might be in a situation, and preferring to find the bad. I suppose we could call this "wart-picking".
Between my cherry-picking and your wart-picking, I think the cherry-picking is the more honourable activity.

reply to post by DISRAELI


When reading over the op as well as the replies I became curious as to the opinion the op had on the following. Do you think these laws were new to the people who recorded them? I often find when reading and discussing biblical topics this question pops into my head. I have to make the assumption depending on a person's view of our origins that it isn't. If one believes that God created us then it would Imo be a safe assumption these ideas would be in place. Since we have references in the early parts of genesis of servants or slaves being given to other people it would appear that slavery would be condoned. Making the teacher argument presented wouldn't makes sense at least to me if we actually came from God as there would be no need for rules for slaves unless slaves were originally allowed to begin with.

I know I'm coming in here a little late. I can't help myself!

If you go against God you go against God and therefore you have no choice but to except cause and effect.

Take the from the tree that was forbidin and deal with the consequence

Go against The Lord your God and again, deal with it!

When mighty power is more than you or me, you obey the rules.

Stick your finger in a power point and you can surely receive you reward for you actions.

It's all very simple, follow the rules.

DISRAELI
If somebody else steals from you, and I take steps to make sure that most of the property is returned, you are better off than you were immediately after the theft.

You'd still be a thief...

Never, at any stage, have I claimed that these laws are perfect as they stand.

No, but you have claimed that these rules were 'spiritually inspired' by a perfect being.

I claimed them as an improvement on what was there before.
If the laws of Israel are better, for slaves, than the laws of Babylon and Rome, then they are an improvement.

Yes an improvement.....on the laws of Babylon and Rome...but Babylon and Rome were not the only contemporary civilizations at that time were they?

Q.E.D.

Hahaha yeah ok sure, I know you guys have a very poor standard of evidence, but proof? lol

Better treatment for Hebrew slaves and ideally Hebrew brethren not being slaves at all was the first stage in the campaign against slavery.

A planned stage? a campaign? according to who?

The extension of "brethren" from one nation alone to the world at large was a development which only fully emerged at the New Testament stage; from it, Christians drew the logical conclusion that if all men were brethren they should not be enslaved.

Only if they rejected the OT in favor of the NT, as many christians do (except folk like you ofc). And even then, this is incredibly poor writing (although you did mention you're a Dr Who fan....so it's not all that surprising)

Hence the famous slogan "Am I not a man and a brother?"

A phrase originating from Charles Darwins grandpappy no less, some 1,700 years later.....

The re-education of an entire culture is a slow process, when it works against human "hardness of heart".

You keep saying this, but it's simply not true. Take a look at our civilizations attitude to homosexuality over the last decade, see how we've changed in that regard in such a small period of time, for the better, without the 'spiritual inspiration' of a god no less.....lol

'Hardness of heart' is just a biblical cop out.

What's wrong with "cherry-picking", if it means choosing what is good in preference to what is bad?
It's only the inverse of your own approach, of deliberately blinding yourself to any good that might be in a situation, and preferring to find the bad. I suppose we could call this "wart-picking".
Between my cherry-picking and your wart-picking, I think the cherry-picking is the more honourable activity.

Who's told you that?.....oh right

Choosing to be willfully ignorant is far from noble....this is pretty much the definition of religion, be ignorant, be happy.

Prezbo369
No, but you have claimed that these rules were 'spiritually inspired' by a perfect being.

My claim, from the beginning of the series onwards, has been that they were [I]modified[/I] by God's input.
I have said, all along, that there was a human element in them illustrated by the similarities with laws of other societies, and that the Biblical God's part in the exercise was to introduce improvements.

[A planned stage? a campaign? according to who?

This is an inference I have drawn from the fact that the early stages of Biblical teaching begin with restrictions on the power of slave-owners and the final stage is the Christian-inspired ending of the power of slave-owners.
I offer the possibility that this progression was deliberate.

Only if they rejected the OT in favor of the NT, as many christians do (except folk like you ofc).

The abandonment of Old Testament law, as a guide for behaviour, is standard in Christian teaching, following Paul.
That does not involve rejecting the Old Testament as a way of understanding God.
What I'm offering in this series is a different way of using the Law (that is, a way to gain understanding of God), to [I]replace[/I] using it as a guide for behaviour.

drivers1492
If one believes that God created us then it would Imo be a safe assumption these ideas would be in place.

That thought only works on the assumption that people had always held onto the ideas God originally gave them.
As you know, that is not what the Bible describes. The early chapters of Genesis describe a falling away from God; the events in Eden, the events leading up to the Flood, and so on.
You don't have to take the accounts literally to appreciate the point that the world was and remains full of people disregarding the will of any Biblical God and doing things they should not be doing, including theft, murder, and the keeping of slaves.
The laws here begin to operate in that situation, with people already holding slaves, and that's where the "teaching" work begins.

DISRAELI

drivers1492
If one believes that God created us then it would Imo be a safe assumption these ideas would be in place.

That thought only works on the assumption that people had always held onto the ideas God originally gave them.
As you know, that is not what the Bible describes. The early chapters of Genesis describe a falling away from God; the events in Eden, the events leading up to the Flood, and so on.
You don't have to take the accounts literally to appreciate the point that the world was and remains full of people disregarding the will of any Biblical God and doing things they should not be doing, including theft, murder, and the keeping of slaves.
The laws here begin to operate in that situation, with people already holding slaves, and that's where the "teaching" work begins.

Point taken. Where my mind seems to wander when reading through biblical texts in regards to the ot in particular would be how these people "fell away". I personally find it hard to fathom people being able to turn away when interactions with a being of the power described seemed to be a common thing. (common probably isn't the best description but it conveys the message) If god actually felt slavery was wrong I think it would be spelled out not glazed over with some undertones of direction. He/she/it tends to be fairly straightforward about things that we shouldn't do and I don't understand how this would be any different. While I do disagree with your reasoning on the subject I do understand it.

For information;

After the last theme in this series (on murder), there will also be an Index Thread, to tie the various threads in the series together and help people to navigate them.
This will appear after Easter.