The Bible (a discussion)

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

I shall now attempt to straighten the mess I made this morning.
Frank Apisa wrote:
How do you interpret "You may own them; you may buy them; you may own them a chattels; you may leave them to your sons as hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves?"
I wrote:
Yeah, that's the way it was, Frank.
Frank Apisa wrote:
Oh...so the god thought it was okay for that time?
I wrote:
Okay is not the right word. God did not think it was okay for Satan to abuse Job; but he allowed it.

Frank Apisa wrote:
And are you saying that the god put a time limit on it?
I wrote:
We are all subject to that time limit, Frank. God put an end to Job's suffering. He will put an end to mankind's suffering.
Frank Apisa wrote:
But you still have not told me how you interpret that quote from your god.
Yeah, that's the way it was, Frank.

Nice try.

You missed.

Let's take this a bit more slowly for you.

When the god of the Bible told Moses:

"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you BUY them from among the neighboring nations. You may also BUY them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves YOU MAY OWN AS CHATTELS, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, MAKING THEM PERPETUAL SLAVES. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen." Leviticus 25:44ff

...was the god telling Moses that it was okay for the Hebrews to possess slaves both male and female and that they could buy them...and that they could own them a chattels and leave them as hereditary property, thereby making them perpetual slaves?

Please understand that there will be less mess to clean up if you just answer that question with a "yes" or a "no."

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

And being a decent guy...lemme give you a hint about the correct answer to that question:

YES!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

It's a trick using the expression "god of the Bible". It is on the last page that Moses made the rule and that has not been refuted.

No 1--There is no God.

No 2--If there was the god would not be talking to Moses.

No 3--If a god was talking to Moses there is no need to set a bush on fire to do it.

So Moses was responsible for the statement. He was trying to consolidate the scattered tribes of the region under one leadership to hopefully make them strong enough to resist invasions.

What is an "insurgent"? It is a category to which drone attacks might be applied. Worse that slaves. Unpersons. In their own land.

Questioning the statement is thus no different from questioning any other leader from history. Such as those in the southern states of north America when the Constitution was written. I've seen a 1927 US newspaper headline which used the phrase "exterminate the Indians". It was a crime in Kansas at one time to criticise slavery in public. (2 years in jail).

The trick derives from the assumption that the reader is stupid.

Moses was telling the people under his authority that it was okay for the Hebrews to possess slaves both male and female and that they could buy them...and that they could own them a(s) chattels and leave them as hereditary property, thereby making them perpetual slaves?

It is a person who does not believe in gods using assertions that god said those things in order to discredit God, to discredit the Bible and to discredit the religion which grew out of it and thus to discredit the rules which that religion advocates and especially those which cover sexual behaviour despite there being no penalties for the infringement of them. Indeed, the rules which are the substance of the matter are not only widely infringed in our societies but are encouraged to be infringed by example and by legal sanction.

It boils down to an attempted self-cleansing of the soul presumably due to a residual sense of guilt derived from a Christian socialisation which the attempt actually validates.

It is pathetic, ridiculous and a gross insult to the intelligence of A2Kers. Pure childish sophistry.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Yeah, that's the way it was, Frank.= yes.
Sorry if my use of so many words made it hard for you to understand.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

And being a decent guy.

Is from the same can of worms. Self validation. Marking your own exam paper again. It has guilt written all over it.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Frank wrote:
And being a decent guy.
Is from the same can of worms. Self validation. Marking your own exam paper again. It has guilt written all over it.

C'mon Spendi. Frank is a decent guy. But . .
Well, yeah. He does mark his own papers. And now he will think he scored Mensa +

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Quote:

If adultery was a serious economic disadvantage in the marginal living conditions in those days

It was not. No idea why you'd think it was.

Because the authorities at that time took the trouble to make the rule about adultery and to strictly enforce it as they do now in those regions and as they do now in relation to selection of candidates for election to high office.

Authorities don't make and enforce rules for no reason. The idea that such rules came to be just for the hell of it is infantile. Rules are designed for economic reasons. That one class might design them for its own benefit is in the nature of the case. The only alternative is anarchy.

Now I have answered you will you explain why adultery "was not" a serious economic disadvantage in the marginal living conditions in those days.

1 Reply

@Cyclops,

Quote:

All these posts reveal, if anything, are the personal biases of the posters,

"All these posts!!!". Show me why my posts reveal a personal bias.

I am all eyes to know. I am eager to correct such errors.

Assertions mean nothing to me or to anybody else.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Give Cyclops a break, Spendi. He doesn't see the half of it.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Rules are designed for economic reasons.

That's a bit short. Is that some crypto-marxist axiom? Why not for conflict-prevention reasons? I can't **** your wife for the same reason I can't steal your cow: the right of property, which is the foundation of most human societies. If everything is up for grab like among monkeys, men and neolithic societies could not have built anything. It's only when/where women are considered human beings equal to men that adultery can be tolerated. Otherwise, if/where they belong to their husbands, you can watch but you can't touch.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
All these posts reveal, if anything, are the personal biases of the posters,

"All these posts!!!". Show me why my posts reveal a personal bias.

I am all eyes to know. I am eager to correct such errors.

Assertions mean nothing to me or to anybody else.

Just saw this. Guffaw.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

Probably the main sign of their lost covenant is the disappearance of their genealogies. They no longer have a way to identify the Messiah by birth. Add that to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. and it doesn't leave much upon which to hang the yarmulke.

No doubt Jews lost a lot of things in or around 70 C.E... and in the replay of 130. Millions of Jews of all ages died in those wars. They also lost a temple, a country, status in Greco-Roman society, but also as you stress, they stopped maintaining a series of hagiographic histories of their own leaders and people. For instance the Book of Maccabees -- today an important zionist reference -- was copied/maintained by Christians, not by the Rabbis, who had good reasons to want to forget this whole period.

And they all but abandoned the old Law of Moses... That, as well as the destruction of the temple, were probably necessary for their own moral growth. They were remnants of a neolithic tribal god cult that had to be dispensed.

But if you're looking for a watershed divide in terms of theology or covenant with God, I would propose the three oaths made by Jewish leaders to some Babylonian king circa 200 or 300: that they will not go up en masse to Palestine, that they will not take up arms against any nation, and that they will not attempt to bring about the redemption before God chose to send his Messiah. In effect, abandoning nationalistic efforts to rebuild Israel.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

Just saw this. Guffaw.

Well then ed--you enlighten me. Your guffaw means nothing.

If you think I am biased in some regard I am eager to have it corrected.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

It's a trick using the expression "god of the Bible". It is on the last page that Moses made the rule and that has not been refuted.

No 1--There is no God.

No 2--If there was the god would not be talking to Moses.

No 3--If a god was talking to Moses there is no need to set a bush on fire to do it.

So Moses was responsible for the statement. He was trying to consolidate the scattered tribes of the region under one leadership to hopefully make them strong enough to resist invasions.

What is an "insurgent"? It is a category to which drone attacks might be applied. Worse that slaves. Unpersons. In their own land.

Questioning the statement is thus no different from questioning any other leader from history. Such as those in the southern states of north America when the Constitution was written. I've seen a 1927 US newspaper headline which used the phrase "exterminate the Indians". It was a crime in Kansas at one time to criticise slavery in public. (2 years in jail).

The trick derives from the assumption that the reader is stupid.

Moses was telling the people under his authority that it was okay for the Hebrews to possess slaves both male and female and that they could buy them...and that they could own them a(s) chattels and leave them as hereditary property, thereby making them perpetual slaves?

It is a person who does not believe in gods using assertions that god said those things in order to discredit God, to discredit the Bible and to discredit the religion which grew out of it and thus to discredit the rules which that religion advocates and especially those which cover sexual behaviour despite there being no penalties for the infringement of them. Indeed, the rules which are the substance of the matter are not only widely infringed in our societies but are encouraged to be infringed by example and by legal sanction.

It boils down to an attempted self-cleansing of the soul presumably due to a residual sense of guilt derived from a Christian socialisation which the attempt actually validates.

It is pathetic, ridiculous and a gross insult to the intelligence of A2Kers. Pure childish sophistry.

Do you know there is no GOD?
Do you know that if there were a GOD...IT would not talk to Moses?

Quote:

It is pathetic, ridiculous and a gross insult to the intelligence of A2Kers. Pure childish sophistry.

I agree...so why don't you cut it out?

0 Replies

@neologist,

One word would have done.

And since the word is "yes" why were you maintaining that other stuff?

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
And being a decent guy.

Is from the same can of worms. Self validation. Marking your own exam paper again. It has guilt written all over it.

YHGTBOOTBAIEK

0 Replies

Yes. The second question is superfluous.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I was hoping not to confuse you, Frank.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

I was hoping not to confuse you, Frank.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

But...if so, you shoulda stuck with the one word.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

. . . But if you're looking for a watershed divide in terms of theology or covenant with God, I would propose the three oaths made by Jewish leaders to some Babylonian king circa 200 or 300: that they will not go up en masse to Palestine, that they will not take up arms against any nation, and that they will not attempt to bring about the redemption before God chose to send his Messiah. In effect, abandoning nationalistic efforts to rebuild Israel.

I can't find your reference to this event. I wonder if you are referring to the Gentile Times, during which the Davidic king line was to be suspended. That actually started in 607 B.C.E. when the Jews were taken captive into Babylon. As to when it ended, that requires further explanation.

1 Reply

The Bible (a discussion)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know