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

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.

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.

. . . 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.
. . .

Joe(don't be too tough on neo)Nation, Of all the religionists on a2k, neo is one of my favorite, because his tone is always mellow without any aggression or bad words (unlike many of mine). All my siblings are christians and republicans, and I love them all. I have a special affection for neo, because I see the goodness in him.

There's something about religion that seems to grab the individual's heart and mind. They can rationalize so many of the contradictions found in the bible, anybody trying to find elemental reasoning will be frustrated. It's a malady that can't be explained.

mesquite wrote:

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.

No ambiguity claimed.

Compare what you refer to as physical and sexual mistreatment to the treatment of slaves under religions contemporary to ancient Judaism.

The ambiguity comes from your painting all with the same brush.

And don't think I am telling you I would have preferred to live as a captive slave to a Hebrew master. I would not. But I think I would have preferred that to living as a slave of an Assyrian master.

. . . We were not discussing comparative mistreatment to see which was the worst. You made the claim that Biblegod did not allow physical mistreatment which he clearly did so long as the mistreatment did not cause death within a day or two.

Joe(don't be too tough on neo)Nation, Of all the religionists on a2k, neo is one of my favorite, because his tone is always mellow without any aggression or bad words (unlike many of mine). All my siblings are christians and republicans, and I love them all. I have a special affection for neo, because I see the goodness in him.

There's something about religion that seems to grab the individual's heart and mind. They can rationalize so many of the contradictions found in the bible, anybody trying to find elemental reasoning will be frustrated. It's a malady that can't be explained.

You might not have been discussing comparisons. I was.

. .

Quote:

. 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.

. . .
Don't get your shorts in a bunch, Joe. I didn't use the term allegory, you did. But you are right in that I hold that slavery is a good description of the condition of man.

. . . If you think this is me being tough on someone you should listen in when I talk about something important, like whether the Yankee relief battery has been completely discharged. . .

. . . Joe(Occasionally, I would like them to face what they believe and tell it true.)Nation

You made the claim that Biblegod did not allow physical mistreatment which he clearly did so long as the mistreatment did not cause death within a day or two.

mesquite wrote:

You made the claim that Biblegod did not allow physical mistreatment which he clearly did so long as the mistreatment did not cause death within a day or two.

Wait a minute . . . hold the phone . . . you mean if i enslave Neo, i can beat him to the point that he'll die in three or four days, and i'm cool?

mesquite wrote:

You made the claim that Biblegod did not allow physical mistreatment which he clearly did so long as the mistreatment did not cause death within a day or two.

Wait a minute . . . hold the phone . . . you mean if i enslave Neo, i can beat him to the point that he'll die in three or four days, and i'm cool?

mesquite wrote:

. . . We were not discussing comparative mistreatment to see which was the worst. You made the claim that Biblegod did not allow physical mistreatment which he clearly did so long as the mistreatment did not cause death within a day or two.

You might not have been discussing comparisons. I was.

Exodus 21:20 "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged.

Exd 21:21 "But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

Neo?

I'm not ignoring you and I would not have resurrected Frank's post if I was not sure of my position.

neologist wrote:

I'm not ignoring you and I would not have resurrected Frank's post if I was not sure of my position.

Translation: I will attempt to flog this dead horse back to life, even if it kills him . . . er . . . well, you know what i mean . . .