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

mesquite wrote:

Neo?

Sorry. I have been researching the conditions imposed on slaves in non Hebrew nations in B.C.E. times and have not yet found enough to qualify for a post. Apparently there were as many different laws as there were classifications of slavery.

I'm not ignoring you and I would not have resurrected Frank's post if I was not sure of my position. Nevertheless, and as I have often said, it is often a long leap from self assurance to rhetorical proof.

The revelations of Moses were supposedly given him while travelling through the desert with the people he had just freed from captivity in Egypt. But it is obvious to even a casual inspector of the narrative...that the entire of the Hebrew civilization was already in place and thriving when the stuff was written.

There were instructions on how to properly beat slaves...how to buy and sell them...for people who had just been released from slavery themselves and who had no slaves.

There were instructions on all sorts of things that any reasonable person (which obviously excludes most of the defenders of this nonsense)...would see to be for a functioning civilization...not a group of recently rescued slaves in distress in the desert. http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1904261#1904261

I see none of my fellow 'thumpers' have even dared to tread on this path. You gotta credit me with the iron jaw here.

. . . There were instructions on how to properly beat slaves...how to buy and sell them...for people who had just been released from slavery themselves and who had no slaves.
. . .

I don't get the chance to mention this often enough -- so let me jump at this opportunity:

The entire of the theological mythology -- or what I personally see as a "theological mythology" was, in my opinion, VERY, VERY enlightened for the people and time.

I think none of us should begrude the ancient Hebrews that.

Fact is, they needed a specific kind of god to protect themselves from the very specific gods of their "enemies" -- and they needed the force of a god to emphasize the need for rules and regulations necessary for an orderly society.

With that said, however, I do not extend those considerations to present day humans who still think this stuff holds water.

But of course, that is just my opinion.

Joe Nation wrote:

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

Exactly. And let one's belief not be clouded by desire for reward or license.

Knock knock
They have a strong motivation to share their message. At Armageddon, believers will be resurrected and have everlasting life in a paradise on Earth, they say.

"Part of our job is to make disciples," Soler said. "But we also believe, living in the last days, that we're doing warning work. We're giving an opportunity to let people know about the end being close. It's up to the individual to respond to that. … We really feel like we owe that to our neighbors."

neologist wrote:

Joe Nation wrote:

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

Exactly. And let one's belief not be clouded by desire for reward or license.

In an article about JWs, The Arizona Daily Star wrote:

Knock knock
They have a strong motivation to share their message. At Armageddon, believers will be resurrected and have everlasting life in a paradise on Earth, they say.

"Part of our job is to make disciples," Soler said. "But we also believe, living in the last days, that we're doing warning work. We're giving an opportunity to let people know about the end being close. It's up to the individual to respond to that. … We really feel like we owe that to our neighbors."

Sounds like at least a little bit of reward carrot being dangled there and especially so when coupled with the warning.

It seems "soon" never comes - for over 4.5 billions years.

mesquite wrote:

neologist wrote:

Joe Nation wrote:

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

Exactly. And let one's belief not be clouded by desire for reward or license.

In an article about JWs, The Arizona Daily Star wrote:

Knock knock
They have a strong motivation to share their message. At Armageddon, believers will be resurrected and have everlasting life in a paradise on Earth, they say.

"Part of our job is to make disciples," Soler said. "But we also believe, living in the last days, that we're doing warning work. We're giving an opportunity to let people know about the end being close. It's up to the individual to respond to that. … We really feel like we owe that to our neighbors."

Sounds like at least a little bit of reward carrot being dangled there and especially so when coupled with the warning.

The Star missed an important point. Not only believers will be resurrected for a chance at life. Nearly all who through the ages have lived and died without knowing about God will have a similar chance. Perhaps they did not give Mr. Soler an opportunity to say that.

The situation will be different for those living in the time immediately preceding the end, however. Though all have a choice.

. . .
I can't see how that in any way lessens the impression of reward for belief. In fact I think it strengthens it.

That Arizona Daily Star article picked up quite a number of comments on the story which may be of interest to you.

I think many could benefit from the advice of poster # 2.

I have done not a small amount of research on the subject of slavery before our common era. Despite the fact that there were different degrees of slavery, if 'degrees' is the proper word, most societies apparently had in place regulations governing humane treatment. I say 'apparently', because in some instances there is very little remaining public record. In the case of the Hebrews, however, we have a document copied and recopied over the centuries with little, if any variation in text and may be fairly certain that what we read is what was written.

OK, so what was written and why? Or why, if the institution of slavery as it applied to ancient Israel would be considered brutal in our day, why would God permit it? Why would he legitimize it in statute? Those who seek an answer must look into the world situation as it existed 3500 years ago: Slavery had existed for centuries. The Jews had been slaves and had owned slaves. Slavery existed in virtually all the surrounding nations. So God saw fit to regulate it in a way that harmonized with his purpose for the Hebrews at that time.

It has oft been posted in this thread that the treatment of Hebrew slaves, particularly chattel slaves was far less humane than that of, let's say, a man who sold himself to pay a debt. Less humane by our standards, yes; but what of the standards of the day? To answer this, I quote none
other than our former, but still esteemed, resident churl, Frank Apisa!!!!!

Frank Apisa wrote:

I don't get the chance to mention this often enough -- so let me jump at this opportunity:

The entire of the theological mythology -- or what I personally see as a "theological mythology" was, in my opinion, VERY, VERY enlightened for the people and time.

I think none of us should begrude the ancient Hebrews that.

Fact is, they needed a specific kind of god to protect themselves from the very specific gods of their "enemies" -- and they needed the force of a god to emphasize the need for rules and regulations necessary for an orderly society.

With that said, however, I do not extend those considerations to present day humans who still think this stuff holds water.

But of course, that is just my opinion.

Source: Frank's amazing post

The question remains, however:

Why did God not do away with it? Or, for that matter, why would God sanction the annihilation of the many city states inhabiting the Promised Land, states that had done nothing overtly to provoke Israel to attack?

I have no idea of why a god would send ANY children to die -- unless the god is a psychopath or a scumbag. So perhaps the answer to your question is: Because the god is a psychopathic scumbag.

I'm not saying that necessarily is the case -- just that I cannot think of a more reasonable explanation for the god sending one son to be killed, so obviously I cannot think of a more reasonable explanation for sending more than one.

(Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.[/b] But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.

Did you see #93?

#99 was rather scathing from an insider.

#106 must be one of those that you can't get to stop talking.

I'm a man of few words, myself.

Quote:

I'm a man of few words, myself.

...and here I am, thinking you never shut the hell up.
...proof that we are don't necessarily appear to others as we think we do.

. . .
Jeez, Snood, I knew if you kept on posting, eventually you would say something reasonable -- something that mattered.

Now here you've gone and done it. Unfortunately, you've spoiled that amazing series of posts that went nowhere; did nothing; and contributed zip.

Oh well, I imagine you will start again very soon.

Or will you eventually shake whatever is bothering you and get back to posting with intelligence?