Why does the god of the Bible consider slavery to be moral??

kate4christ03 wrote:

satan means adversary....his original name was Lucifer. he was an angel who fell. Isaiah 14:12-17...he is also called King of Tyre in Ezekiel 28:11-19

I knew that much, kate. I was challenging Neo's "knowledge" about some other original name.

0 Replies

kate4christ03 wrote:

Since the bible is translated in English the term Lucifer was used....the actual hebrew word is Llyh and transliterated heylel. It's no different than saying the germanic derived word God instead of hwhy(original hebrew) transliterated Y@hovah.

None of that changes the fact that his name could not possibly have been Lucifer.

0 Replies

its a tranlsation........the english form of his name is lucifer just as Ieosus is translated Jesus in english....like Petros is Peter....etc etc.......

0 Replies

snood oh ok sorry.....i've never heard of satan having an unknown name. i don't really see the relevance or importance since he was just a created being.

0 Replies

Ieosus is not a name in Hebrew or Aramaic, nor is Petros. In fact, the one we call Peter was named simon, until the putative Jesus called him "Petros," the Rock, which is pretty damned silly, because that's not how you say rock in either Hebrew or Aramaic. In fact, Ieosus is a made up name, too, because his name, in all the earliest references, was obviouly the Hebrew equivalent of Joshuah--Ieosus is just another Greek neologism.

You yourself provided what you allege was the name of this fairy tale character when you called him "Llyh"--so either that is wrong, or you were wrong when you said his original name was Lucifer.

0 Replies

kate4christ03 wrote:

snood oh ok sorry.....i've never heard of satan having an unknown name. i don't really see the relevance or importance since he was just a created being.

Not particularly important or relevant. Neo stated that Satan wasn't the original name as if that was a matter of fact, and I didn't think it was.

0 Replies

Quote:

Ieosus is not a name in Hebrew or Aramaic, nor is Petros. In fact, the one we call Peter was named simon, until the putative Jesus called him "Petros," the Rock, which is pretty damned silly, because that's not how you say rock in either Hebrew or Aramaic. In fact, Ieosus is a made up name, too, because his name, in all the earliest references, was obviouly the Hebrew equivalent of Joshuah--Ieosus is just another Greek neologism.

petros and ieosus are both greek. which was the common language of that time due to the hellenistic society. I was using both as an example of how a name can be tranlsated to a different language without it being "made up" as you alleged. Just as i pointed out the germanic derived word God is something else in hebrew.

Quote:

Neo stated that Satan wasn't the original name as if that was a matter of fact, and I didn't think it was.

snood when i read that i was assuming he was meaning the (original) name he was given before he fell which is lucifer (in english), and after he rebelled satan.
set that is what i was meaning.

0 Replies

Link in Wikipedia containing info on the name/title lucifer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

If anyone wishes another thread, perhaps that would be a good idea. I'll participate and you can continue hollering at me.

I hate digressing from my original purpose of resurrecting Frank's dead horse.

After lunch I will get back to my whipping of it.

0 Replies

kate4christ03 wrote:

Quote:

Ieosus is not a name in Hebrew or Aramaic, nor is Petros. In fact, the one we call Peter was named simon, until the putative Jesus called him "Petros," the Rock, which is pretty damned silly, because that's not how you say rock in either Hebrew or Aramaic. In fact, Ieosus is a made up name, too, because his name, in all the earliest references, was obviouly the Hebrew equivalent of Joshuah--Ieosus is just another Greek neologism.

petros and ieosus are both greek. which was the common language of that time due to the hellenistic society. I was using both as an example of how a name can be tranlsated to a different language without it being "made up" as you alleged. Just as i pointed out the germanic derived word God is something else in hebrew.

No, Greek was not the common language in Palestine at that time--the only two langauges in common currency there and then were Latin and Aramaic--and overwhelmingly Aramaic. And that is a signal point. Just as Simon's name was altered to Petros/Peter, so Joshuah was altered to Ioesus--which is a made-up name, a neologism, because Greek proper names never ended in "us." It's not just that they used a different alphabet, they did not end proper names in the "-us" sound. If forming a name such as that, as would be the case with transliterating a Latin name, they would have used "-os." (See your own evidence of Petros, not Petrus.

The point is significant, because, as i said, the Christians love to make sh*t up. Most of what is modern Christianity, including many of the names of the main players, were changed or made up from whole cloth when Saul of Tarsus got his grubby mitts on the cult.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Joe Nation wrote:
. . . The words of the Bible itself, those sacred words which come from the very mouth and mind of god, prove Frank's point.

(By the way, he is very happy this thread is back up. Gleeful actually.)

Well howdy and welcome back to the thread, Joe (who doesn't care to offer any specific examples) Nation.

But let us not use the bible as an ambidextrous authority, recognizing one set of 'sacred words', while ignoring the rest.

And the words you ignore show Satan to be the father of human misery and the creator of slavery. They also identifies Satan as the ruler of the world. So let's fix responsibility where it belongs.

You say Frank is happy to have this thread back up. I would be most happy to have him return to it. Or, perhaps you could act as his mediator.

No one is ignoring anything. (But nice try on getting the thread focused on the red herring of Satan.)

Who spoke these words ???:
At Leviticus 25:44,

"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."

Hint: it wasn't Satan. No mention of Old Sparky.

Joe(God alone condones the enslavement of humans.)Nation

0 Replies

Neo didn't take the tangent - he merely mentioned it. It was I who pushed the issue.

And Neo - no one was hollering at you. You shouldn't state things as matters of fact that clearly aren't.

0 Replies

You are absolutly right Snood, thank you for pointing that out about the tangent.

Now, Neo, who spoke those words I quoted?

Joe(come on now.)Nation

0 Replies

It ain't even 6:00 a.m. where Neo lives yet--don't expect a quick response.

0 Replies

Since I'm staying in a mission right now, my nightly read is of course the bible (in English).

Might well be I've time from tomorrow onwards to study it more intensively (occupied by my harem just now and all the days before), so I might find the REAL answer to the original question ...

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Neo didn't take the tangent - he merely mentioned it. It was I who pushed the issue.

And Neo - no one was hollering at you. You shouldn't state things as matters of fact that clearly aren't.

Hi Snood;

(And in your case, I am referring to THE Snood, not just any snood.)

Just kidding about the hollering. I know you folks are cool.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

You are absolutly right Snood, thank you for pointing that out about the tangent.

Now, Neo, who spoke those words I quoted?

Joe(come on now.)Nation

Perhaps you are expecting me to say that God thinks you understand what what you believe he said but is not sure you realize that what he said was not what he meant?

Sorry, this is not a time to waffle. The words came from God and were recorded by Moses. They mean what they say.

Now that we have answered that, let me ask you. Since you are using scripture to examine the institution of slavery, are you willing to accept the scriptural explanation of why slavery existed, who originated it, and how God used this tool of Satan to illustrate man's enslavement to sin including the role of the messiah in setting mankind free?

I mean, it's all in the bible, right?

If you don't believe the bible, then maybe the Hebrews didn't keep slaves after all.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

If you don't believe the bible, then maybe the Hebrews didn't keep slaves after all.

Yeah, right . . . the Hebrews were too virtuous to do what absolutely everyone around them was doing, and what was frequently done to them. The argument is not that the Hebrews were bad for keeping slaves (although it certainly was not a praiseworthy policy), but that they claim that their god authorized it, which is why references to the bible are pertinent. That is not to say that i believe the bible when it says that their imaginary friend told them they could have slaves, but rather that it is good inferential evidence that the Bobble is a set of stories which ancient writers dreamed up to justify their behavior and their silly notions of self-importance. Which means of course, that it is awfully damned silly to think that it has anything to do with a being powerful and knowledgable enough to create something such as the entire cosmos.

0 Replies

Unless the rest of the bible explains it.

0 Replies

Neo,
Before you get carried away with explaining new stuff let's finish up some of the earlier points. Way back in this post you made some assertions.

neologist wrote:

The slavery tolerated by God did not permit sexual exploitation or physical mistreatment.

.
I refuted both of those assertions in this post where I provided quotes from the bible and included links to the actual verses so that the full context was available. There is no ambiguity in the verses I quoted.

0 Replies

Neo wrote

Quote:

are you willing to accept the scriptural explanation of why slavery existed, who originated it, and how God used this tool of Satan to illustrate man's enslavement to sin including the role of the messiah in setting mankind free?

Nope. You're just going to try and point the finger at something else other than the Great Jehovah, God Almighty who was the author and creator of the Jew's license to enslave. But go ahead, it will be interesting.

It is a wonder we don't all get whiplash from shaking our heads at what you write. So now regale us with the "scriptural explanation" of how having slaves was merely an allegory for the sin of man. Do you not see how this myth you are spinning is no different than any other of the thousands of other creation/destruction/redemption myths? There is nothing missing.

Good/Evil... Sacrifice/Sin... Saviour/Redeemed.

And Setanta is correct, not only about the Hebrews, but of all the ancient people who told their myths in order to justify their behaviors and to solidify whatever tribal connections there were.

When the Israelites told their story of course they were the Chosen People able to enslave other humans because their God had told them it was permissable. Meanwhile, slightly to the North, the Babylonians were being whispered to as well. I bet the Hebrews weren't so hot on slavery during the Babylonian Captivity. I wonder if they listened to the priests of Ur's scriptural explanation for their enslavement??

Slaves in Egypt, slaves in Babylon, slaves in Palestine - those crazy Jews kept getting themselves enchained all over the Middle East, so why wouldn't they have a try at it themselves? With God's winking eye looking on, naturally.

(There is something in the human psyche that knows that enslaving humans cannot be right, slaveholding people are always looking for some God/Deus/Father/Holy One to say "Not to worry. For you it's okay.)

Joe(Got the word of He Who Must Be Obeyed on it. whew...)Nation

0 Replies

Why does the god of the Bible consider slavery to be moral??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know