The Good Bad & Ugly

[nPeace]

Nope, men have authorty over women. It's explicitly mentionned several times in the OT and the NT and confirmed by secular sources on how those society behaved. Women had a certain form of authority, especially over their children, but they were subject to the authority of their husband and father if they were not married.

In the Bible, both men and women had authority.
A woman could exercise authority over a man under her roof.
A woman could exercise authority over a man, working for her.
This is in the Bible.

A husband is head of his home, as an arrangement for order.
This authority has nothing to do with superiority or higher or lesser being.
(1 Corinthians 7:4) . . .The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does.

And the NT specifically condamns and reject that earlier practice which was also exception and not rule. You are trying to polish a turd there.

No. You simply are taking words and using them out of context. Authority does not mean better than, or more important than. Dictionaries are a dime a dozen.

You view of order imposed a regime of violence towards women which is insane and against which women have rebelled. It also imposes an "order" based on gender not based on virtues, skills, common accord or accomplishment. Then again you seem to use "order" in the same way tyrants justify their violence.

Please refer to scriptural text and not personal opinion, if you are addressing the OP.

You can always migrate to North Korea, the tribal terrioty of Pakistan or Saudi Arabia to live in a world similar to that in which Jesus was born and raised. It's the closest you will ever experiment to live in the past. Sadly, you might fight it difficult to tolerate the abject poverty this type of "order" breeds

I refer to you to the incredible damage, especially in terms of sexual violence, this has caused over the decades and still does in the more fundamentalist cults like the quiverfull movement, the fundamentalist Mormon Church and the Jehova Witness.

Male slaves were sold, as a rule, at twice the rate of female slaves of the same quality. Male Hebrews could be taken into slavery for debts, but had to be released after a maximum of seven years. Female Hebrews could be taken for life.

Conjecture and opinionated views are not being debated here.

Women couldn't get loan since the dotary couldn't be seized (thus no one would accept it as a waranty) and didn't personnaly owned anything else as the product of their work was owned by their husband or father as was everything else (that or it was part of their dowery and thus couldn't be seized or loaned). You had to wait until the 1960's for women to be able to take loans without a man's permission.

Women could get loans. There was equality. God protected women, and gave consideration to them.
This is Biblical.

He specifically order the Hebrews to massacre all men, women and child, going so far as to order the killing of children in front of their mother before they, themselves were killed with the notable exception of virgin girls to be taken as captives. He also ordered the killing of their animals.

Please give the Chapter and verse where God ordered "the killing of children in front of their mother before they, themselves were killed with the notable exception of virgin girls to be taken as captives".

Repeat...Leviticus 18:24, 25, 27-29 Justice; Righteousness; Protecting the land. These are all good.
Why is justice and righteousness bad to you? Not that it matters.

Sports hunting was popular in Ancient Palestine, especially for the royalty.


You advocate and defend slavery, genocide, rape, marital rape, child marriage, women's oppression. You are currently trying to defend the worst things that humanity ever produced. Think about that for a second. The worst injustice and the worst crimes man has commited against man you are trying to defend.

I'm not defending what you are making up. I am standing on the side of what I honestly read.
Why should I support things that are asserted, by people who are biasedly opinionated?
I know better than that.
I have presented the scriptures. You are presenting half truths with added outright unsupported allegations.
Would you go to court, with no evidence, and make assertions, and think it just that the judge agree with you?
Who does that? Yet, that's what you are here doing... only not in court.

 

[nPeace]

Merry Christmas....
Yes!
I am most interested in all the laws of Moses, although I notice that some are way out of date now.


Sure....... those 'out of date' laws which extremists still grasp to today whilst ignoring all the good ones.



These are what I call the 'Poor Laws' and if these were ALL still law today, and adapted for today's commerce, industry, travel and retail trades there wouldn't be people sleeping out rough (and some dying) on these frozen mornings.
I like the way that somebody put their own short description on to these laws, they make for easier reading. If you prefer the exact writings then please do look 'em up.

THE POOR!
Well-to-do are required to lend to the poor (Ex. 22:24)
Not to demand from (nor press) a poor man repayment of his debt, when he cannot pay. (Ex.22:24)
Not to exact a pledge from a debtor by force (Deut. 24:10)
Not to keep pledges (tools etc) from its owner when he needs them (Deut. 24:12)
Not to refrain from making a loan to a poor man. (Deut. 15:9)
Not to take a pledge from a widow (Deut. 24:17)
Leave corners of fields and orchards for the poor (Lev.19:9 Lev. 23:22)
Do not gather gleanings but leave them for the poor (Lev. 19:9)
Not to gather single grapes from the ground (Lev.19:10)
The second tithes in the 3rd and 6th sabbatical years are for the poor (Deut. 14:28-29)
Payed up or not, debts will be layed aside in the seventh year (Deut. 15:2)
Wealthy are obliged to subsidise a poor man (Deut. 15:7)
Everybody must support the poor according to their means (Deut. 15:11)
Forgotten sheaves or fruit must be left for the poor (Deut. 24:19 -20)
Imperfect vines of grapes to be left for the poor (Lev.19:10 Deut. 24:21))
Don't force a debt be repayed if the poor can't pay (Ex.22:24 Deut. 24:10)
Not to loan by pledge upon cooking pots, tools, etc (Deut.24:6)
Lend to widows pledge free (Deut. 24:17)
Not to afflict an orphan or a widow (Ex. 22:21)
Not to reap the entire field (Lev. 19:9; Lev. 23:22)
Not to return to take a forgotten sheaf or fruit. (Deut. 24:19-20)

I was thinking of how long that list could get, if I added some I had in mind, but yes, the good in the Bible is ignored, and the good also appears bad, because of not wanting to see good.
Of course, people could paint me as bad, for spanking my child's bottom, because they don't see the good it may do, but that's how it is.
Some persons can never do good.

 

[epronovost]

In the Bible, both men and women had authority.
A woman could exercise authority over a man under her roof.

Nope, male headship. I women owe obedience to a man.

A woman could exercise authority over a man, working for her.
This is in the Bible.

She can't exercise authority over a free man, but a male servant yes.

A husband is head of his home, as an arrangement for order.
This authority has nothing to do with superiority or higher or lesser being.
(1 Corinthians 7:4) . . .The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does.

No a women doesn't have authority over a man's body since men can have several wives and take concubines though she cannot do the same. Note that a women cannot strike her husband, but he can.

The fact that you have never received any form of sexual education is duly noted. You have been abused in your youth by being shielded from important education in a same way if an individual would have prevented you from learning how to read and write.

Conjecture and opinionated views are not being debated here.

That's not a conjecture. I refer to you to Leviticus 27:4 not that I trust you to read the Bible being too busy to polish turds as you are.

Women could get loans.

Unless you can quote the passage where they can that's conjecture and opinion.

Repeat...Leviticus 18:24, 25, 27-29 Justice; Righteousness; Protecting the land. These are all good.
Why is justice and righteousness bad to you? Not that it matters.

You need to protect yourself from invading babies? A yes, invading babies and old ladies! They will ravage your lands. Gotta kill those pillaging donkeys too!

Then again had you read 1 Samuel 15:3 you would know that, but you didn't and you will polish that turd accusing suckling babes of being so evil they needed to be killed as did their pets and cattle.

 

[oldbadger]

I was thinking of how long that list could get, if I added some I had in mind, but yes, the good in the Bible is ignored, and the good also appears bad, because of not wanting to see good.
Of course, people could paint me as bad, for spanking my child's bottom, because they don't see the good it may do, but that's how it is.
Some persons can never do good.

Yes, I do wish that list could be utilised today.

How often do you spank your child's bottom and what for ?
How old is your child?

 

[nPeace]

Nope, male headship. I women owe obedience to a man.

Women... and men, owe obedience to Christ. That's how much you know about the Bible. You're practically saying these things from your head... not the Bible.

She can't exercise authority over a free man, but a male servant yes.

This is not Biblical. Again, you are not using the Bible. You are speaking without Biblical knowledge, and saying what is in your head.

No a women doesn't have authority over a man's body since men can have several wives and take concubines though she cannot do the same. Note that a women cannot strike her husband, but he can.

See what I mean. All from your head. No scriptural support.

The fact that you have never received any form of sexual education is duly noted. You have been abused in your youth by being shielded from important education in a same way if an individual would have prevented you from learning how to read and write.

You are quite good at making up stories. Have you ever considered being a professional liar? Or am I behind.

That's not a conjecture. I refer to you to Leviticus 27:4 not that I trust you to read the Bible being too busy to polish turds as you are.

(Leviticus 27:2-6) 2 “Speak to the Israelites and tell them, ‘If a man makes a special vow to offer the estimated value of a person to Jehovah, 3 the estimated value of a male from 20 to 60 years old will be 50 shekels of silver by the standard shekel of the holy place. 4 But if it is a female, the estimated value will be 30 shekels. 5 If the age is from 5 to 20 years old, the estimated value of the male will be 20 shekels and 10 shekels for the female. 6 If the age is from one month up to five years old, the estimated value of the male will be five shekels of silver and three shekels of silver for the female.

Um... and what is your problem?

Unless you can quote the passage where they can that's conjecture and opinion.

You made the claim. You quoted nothing to support it. That burden of proof lies with you.

You need to protect yourself from invading babies? A yes, invading babies and old ladies! They will ravage your lands. Gotta kill those pillaging donkeys too!

Why was the land ruined again? What was wrong with the people and the animals?
Perhaps education is needed here. Read up on genetics.

Then again had you read 1 Samuel 15:3 you would know that, but you didn't and you will polish that turd accusing suckling babes of being so evil they needed to be killed as did their pets and cattle.

You don't really believe I don't know that account. Why pretend to know the Bible when you can't even get half the things you say about it right?

 

[nPeace]

Yes, I do wish that list could be utilised today.

Sounds good.

How often do you spank your child's bottom and what for ?
How old is your child?

I think this is a good scripture we can utilize too 1 Thessalonians 4:11
Not meaning that in a bad way. Is there a reason you are always trying to pry into my personal life? If I want to share anything, I will volunteer that.

 

[epronovost]

Women... and men, owe obedience to Christ. That's how much you know about the Bible. You're practically saying these things from your head... not the Bible.

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.


I highlighted the parts for you, but I can make you a resumé. Wives must submit to their husband and obey to their every desires and in all things just like men themselves submit themselves and oey in all thing Christ. This is a savage call to submission of women toward men on the sole basis of gender. It's a clear, unambigious call for the oppression of women on the sole basis of them being women. It's a disgusting form of misogyny that took ove a century of fight to dismantle, made millions suffer and held back humanity.

Would you like me to quote the passage of the NT that denounce any leadership role of women when it comes to the faith and religion (and maybe even all forms of female authority over a man if you are more of a literalist)? It's in Timothy 2:11-15. It also place the blame of the original sin on women, excuse their oppression on that basis and ive them their sole redemptory road through childbirth which has set humanity back and killed or condamned women to misery fo so many century. Cointhians 14: 35 also touches on that matter, but seems to focus only on the role of women in Church and in religious activities than in women in general. Both do rob them of position of leadership in the Church.

You are quite good at making up stories. Have you ever considered being a professional liar? Or am I behind.

It seems apparent that you never had any sort of science based sexual education (and your knowledge of basic history is iffy if only because you believe the conquest of Israel as described in the Bible is accurate).

(Leviticus 27:2-6) 2 “Speak to the Israelites and tell them, ‘If a man makes a special vow to offer the estimated value of a person to Jehovah, 3 the estimated value of a male from 20 to 60 years old will be 50 shekels of silver by the standard shekel of the holy place. 4 But if it is a female, the estimated value will be 30 shekels. 5 If the age is from 5 to 20 years old, the estimated value of the male will be 20 shekels and 10 shekels for the female. 6 If the age is from one month up to five years old, the estimated value of the male will be five shekels of silver and three shekels of silver for the female.

Um... and what is your problem?

Being a women robs you of value on the basis of your gender alone. Being a women makes you worth less and that's very bad and sexism. A slaves best protection is his or her value as any crime commited against them will be punished by a monetary fine based on his or her value. Being a cheap slave is dangerous.

It's also an absolute truth of my earlier statement on the fact that male slaves are worth twice more than female slaves which you called conjecture and not based on the Bible...apparently you don't know the book as well as I do.

Why was the land ruined again? What was wrong with the people and the animals?
Perhaps education is needed here. Read up on genetics.

The Bible never used the term "genes". Are you trying to imply they were of a subhuman race of animals and humans that deserved total annhihilation (which doesn't exist btw, we have genetic studies from Hebrew and Canaanites of the time and they are basically one and the same)? That sounds very much like nazi propaganda.

And why would you keep the virgin women in that case to have them as wives and concubines? Deuteronomy 21:10-14 contains an entire passage on how to take virgin girls from ennemy nation to take them as wives. Considering the enemies of Israel in Deuteronomy are the same one's mentionned in Samuel and Joshua, your excuse of "they need to be exterminated due to evil genes" doesn't square well with this one.

Numbers 31:17-18 is even more explicit in the matter of killing all men, women and male child, but authorise the keeping of girls to become wives (as described above) or sex slaves. What did the baby boys and mothers do to deserve annihilation that girls did not? What did the baby girls do to deserve sexual slavery?

You don't really believe I don't know that account.

I hope you don't know the account else I'd rather have Hitler than you. At least he attempted something close to rationnality and was burdenned by the scientific ignorance of his time. You don't have that excuse and defend the same kind of atrocities he has commited in the same language too.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Uh. Um. One translation is fine.
Since you gave no reference to the book, Chapter, and verse, I will do so, so that readers can easily find the text.

(Leviticus 25:44-46) 44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you, from them you may buy a male or a female slave. 45 Also from the sons of the foreign settlers who are residing with you, from them and from their families that are born to them in your land you may buy slaves, and they will become your possession. 46 You may pass them on as an inheritance to your sons after you to inherit as a permanent possession. You may use them as workers, but you must not subject your Israelite brothers to cruel treatment.

Who were the nations around the Israelites?
The Amʹor·ites, the Hitʹtites, the Perʹiz·zites, the Caʹnaan·ites, the Hiʹvites, the Jebʹu·sites, and all the other ites.

Who were the foreign settlers residing with the Israelites?
The Amʹor·ites, the Hitʹtites, the Perʹiz·zites, the Caʹnaan·ites, the Hiʹvites, the Jebʹu·sites, and all the other ites.

Whom did the Israelites buy?
Captives - who were slaves to the other nations.
Captives - who were taken during war, or those who surrendered.
2 Samuel 12:29-31 ; Joshua 9:3-27 ; 2 Kings 5:1, 2

These were used as workers.
They were prisoners of war - whether handed over (sold), or taken.

It does not matter to me how people today try to wash their hands and pretend that there is no slavery that is acceptable today... when there is.
Some may want to deny it, but the honest don't hide it.
Slavery has its place... for now.
In time it will be done away with... once certain factors are removed.

IT's SO very ugly how you try and justify it!

Whom did the Israelites buy?

Captives - who were taken during war, or those who surrendered.

Do you REALLY think it's morally okay to enslave the people that you conquer in battle? God would have no problem if we'd enslaved the Germans and the Japanese's after WWII? How about if the North had enslaved the South after the American Civil War? That would have been perfectly moral in your opinion?

Captives - who were slaves to the other nations.

Wow, okay... so as long as I don't enslave you MYSELF and simply let someone else enslave you and buy you from them, God has absolutely NO PROBLEM with me owning you as my property.

Sorry, but what your claiming is absolutely disgusting and it's that EXACT type of UGLY reasoning that allowed Christians to justify slavery up until the middle of the 19th century.

Slavery has its place... for now.

And there it is! You acknowledge that the bible you claim is the authority on moral behavior 100% DOES condone slavery as an absolutely acceptable practice. That's all I need to hear in order to conclude that the book is NOT a means of determining acceptable moral behavior and it's truly sad how thoroughly you have to twist your moral compass in order to justify it.

 

[epronovost]

@QuestioningMind

I'd like to also mention that you can be born into slavery too. Children of slaves are slaves themselves too (unless they were slaves for a limited period of time. In that case they will be freed at the same time their parents are).

 

[nPeace]

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.


I highlighted the parts for you, but I can make you a resumé. Wives must submit to their husband and obey to their every desires and in all things just like men themselves submit themselves and oey in all thing Christ. This is a savage call to submission of women toward men on the sole basis of gender. It's a clear, unambigious call for the oppression of women on the sole basis of them being women. It's a disgusting form of misogyny that took ove a century of fight to dismantle, made millions suffer and held back humanity.

I can't say it any better than the Bible.

(Ephesians 5:21-33) 21 Be in subjection to one another in fear of Christ. 22 Let wives be in subjection to their husbands as to the Lord, 23 because a husband is head of his wife just as the Christ is head of the congregation, he being a savior of this body. 24 In fact, as the congregation is in subjection to the Christ, wives should also be to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, continue loving your wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and gave himself up for it, 26 in order that he might sanctify it, cleansing it with the bath of water by means of the word, 27 so that he might present the congregation to himself in its splendor, without a spot or a wrinkle or any of such things, but holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. A man who loves his wife loves himself, 29 for no man ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cherishes it, just as the Christ does the congregation, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and he will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh.” 32 This sacred secret is great. Now I am speaking about Christ and the congregation. 33 Nevertheless, each one of you must love his wife as he does himself; on the other hand, the wife should have deep respect for her husband.

(Romans 12:5) so we, although many, are one body in union with Christ, but individually we are members belonging to one another.

(1 Corinthians 12:19-28) 19 If they were all the same member, where would the body be? 20 But now they are many members, yet one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” or again, the head cannot say to the feet, “I do not need you.” 22 On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are necessary, 23 and the parts of the body that we think to be less honorable we surround with greater honor, so our unseemly parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 whereas our attractive parts do not need anything. Nevertheless, God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that had a lack, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but its members should have mutual concern for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all the other members suffer with it; or if a member is glorified, all the other members rejoice with it. 27 Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you individually is a member. 28 And God has assigned the respective ones in the congregation. . .

(Hebrews 13:17) Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you.

(1 Peter 3:7) You husbands, in the same way, continue dwelling with them [the wife] according to knowledge. Assign them honor as to a weaker vessel, the feminine one, since they are also heirs with you of the undeserved favor of life, in order for your prayers not to be hindered.

Repeating ... Any organization that is truly organized and orderly, must have authority, even if the ones taking the lead, are not viewed as superior.
That explains why the arangement Jesus sets in place works so well, and continues to maintain order, unity, and love.
The husband and wife, are one flesh, belonging to one another. Genesis 2:24 ; Matthew 19:3-6

Imagine the scene...
Father : Son, remember to obey the instuctions and directions of the driving instructor.
Son : Sure Ma. To himself. Why should I obey him. He is no greater than I am.
Instructor : Turn right here.
Son : No! Why should I! I want to turn left.
Screeech. BLAM!

I just painted a picture of your world. Like it? Enjoy it.
That's a bad, and ugly picture.

On the other hand, the Bible paints a beautiful picture of happy families promoting peace and happiness, and making a positive impact on society.

Children were to obey both father and mother. Why should they? Because they are of lesser worth? No, because the parents are responsible to care for them.
Husbands are to care for their wife. This arrangement is good.

 

[nPeace]

Would you like me to quote the passage of the NT that denounce any leadership role of women when it comes to the faith and religion (and maybe even all forms of female authority over a man if you are more of a literalist)? It's in Timothy 2:11-15. It also place the blame of the original sin on women, excuse their oppression on that basis and ive them their sole redemptory road through childbirth which has set humanity back and killed or condamned women to misery fo so many century. Cointhians 14: 35 also touches on that matter, but seems to focus only on the role of women in Church and in religious activities than in women in general. Both do rob them of position of leadership in the Church.

Adam was formed first... the Bible says.
Adam was to acknowledge his headship role. What does that mean?
1 Corinthians 11:
3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God.
8 . . .man did not come from woman, but woman came from man.
9 And what is more, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man.
11 Besides, in connection with the Lord, neither is woman separate from man nor is man separate from woman.
12 For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God.

Adam was to look after his wife... his family.
(1 Timothy 5:1, 2) 1 Do not severely criticize an older man. On the contrary, appeal to him as a father, to younger men as brothers, 2 to older women as mothers, to younger women as sisters, with all chasteness.

A sperm and an egg was predestined to produce a family. An arrangement that requires a pilot, and co-pilot.
To safely carry the cargo, one must take the controls. One is a helper. They are a team. Unity as described above, is essential.

The wife was to help her husband fulfill his role.
The headship arrangement is good.

Repeating ... (1 Corinthians 7:3, 4) 3 Let the husband give to his wife her due, and let the wife also do likewise to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does.

It seems apparent that you never had any sort of science based sexual education (and your knowledge of basic history is iffy if only because you believe the conquest of Israel as described in the Bible is accurate).


Being a women robs you of value on the basis of your gender alone. Being a women makes you worth less and that's very bad and sexism. A slaves best protection is his or her value as any crime commited against them will be punished by a monetary fine based on his or her value. Being a cheap slave is dangerous.

Are you reflecting on your world? The Bible does not support that view.

It's also an absolute truth of my earlier statement on the fact that male slaves are worth twice more than female slaves which you called conjecture and not based on the Bible...apparently you don't know the book as well as I do.

So if I give a woman less weight to carry, than a man, because I give consideration to her, I treat her as lesser? That's your view.
What an opinion.

The Bible never used the term "genes". Are you trying to imply they were of a subhuman race of animals and humans that deserved total annhihilation (which doesn't exist btw, we have genetic studies from Hebrew and Canaanites of the time and they are basically one and the same)? That sounds very much like nazi propaganda.

And why would you keep the virgin women in that case to have them as wives and concubines? Deuteronomy 21:10-14 contains an entire passage on how to take virgin girls from ennemy nation to take them as wives. Considering the enemies of Israel in Deuteronomy are the same one's mentionned in Samuel and Joshua, your excuse of "they need to be exterminated due to evil genes" doesn't square well with this one.

Numbers 31:17-18 is even more explicit in the matter of killing all men, women and male child, but authorise the keeping of girls to become wives (as described above) or sex slaves. What did the baby boys and mothers do to deserve annihilation that girls did not? What did the baby girls do to deserve sexual slavery?

God was specific about whom can be spared.
The Amalekites for example did not fall into the area of sparing the virgin girls.
Why?
Give it some thought.
Then consider again what I said previously, and the verse I linked twice, in Leviticus.

I hope you don't know the account else I'd rather have Hitler than you. At least he attempted something close to rationnality and was burdenned by the scientific ignorance of his time. You don't have that excuse and defend the same kind of atrocities he has commited in the same language too.

Feel free to think as you wish. Your view of morals are not scientific. I thought you knew.
Science does not care about your view on morals.

 

[QuestioningMind]

@QuestioningMind

I'd like to also mention that you can be born into slavery too. Children of slaves are slaves themselves too (unless they were slaves for a limited period of time. In that case they will be freed at the same time their parents are).

So true. According to nPeace God would have had no problem with us enslaving the Japanese people, since we conquered them in war. By now we'd have 3rd generation Japanese slaves.

 

[nPeace]

IT's SO very ugly how you try and justify it!

I understand. Your ideas and desperation looks quite ugly to me.

Whom did the Israelites buy?

Captives - who were taken during war, or those who surrendered.

Do you REALLY think it's morally okay to enslave the people that you conquer in battle? God would have no problem if we'd enslaved the Germans and the Japanese's after WWII? How about if the North had enslaved the South after the American Civil War? That would have been perfectly moral in your opinion?

Captives - who were slaves to the other nations.

Wow, okay... so as long as I don't enslave you MYSELF and simply let someone else enslave you and buy you from them, God has absolutely NO PROBLEM with me owning you as my property.

Sorry, but what your claiming is absolutely disgusting and it's that EXACT type of UGLY reasoning that allowed Christians to justify slavery up until the middle of the 19th century.

Slavery has its place... for now.

And there it is! You acknowledge that the bible you claim is the authority on moral behavior 100% DOES condone slavery as an absolutely acceptable practice. That's all I need to hear in order to conclude that the book is NOT a means of determining acceptable moral behavior and it's truly sad how thoroughly you have to twist your moral compass in order to justify it.

Doesn't matter if you imagine that you are moral, just because you get to choose what you like, and don't like.
What looks moral to you, looks ugly to others.

Slavery takes place today, and it's condoned.
A little background into the Bible.
God is king. The earth belongs to him.
The nations around were detestable - under penalty of death.

Slavery did not originate with God... at least the one described here.
The nations were in the habit of enslaving their captives.
God allowed it - tolerated it. He did not end it.

He chose a nation, whom he owned.... as his property.
Slavery? If you want to call it that, but God did not force them to work. They were willing to serve.
God treated them well.

They had taken up the practice of keeping slaves.
God tolerated it, but regulated it. He did not end it, but revealed to them why it must end.
They were allowed to continue to use their enemies as workers. Why?
They were in debt to God. They owed him their life, since they were spared death.

As king of the land, God gave permission to his people to execute his justice.
Those not fit to live were wiped out, or used as laborers.

Today, it is really just a different system, but the same thing basically takes place, only the enemies are not given any good treatment, as was the case with God.
Instead, they are massacred, and sanctioned, to be oppressed and suffer from poverty.
Anyway, that's not my concern.
If you are on my land, in my domain, and you make yourself a stench, you need to be purged.
I'm totally for criminals working rather than being lawless.

That's moral to me... at least where morals exist, and there is fairness, and no corruption.
God did not operate under a corrupt system.
Also, he promised to end all these circumstances.

Is this a moral argument though?

 

[QuestioningMind]

I understand. Your ideas and desperation looks quite ugly to me.


Doesn't matter if you imagine that you are moral, just because you get to choose what you like, and don't like.
What looks moral to you, looks ugly to others.

Slavery takes place today, and it's condoned.
A little background into the Bible.
God is king. The earth belongs to him.
The nations around were detestable - under penalty of death.

Slavery did not originate with God... at least the one described here.
The nations were in the habit of enslaving their captives.
God allowed it - tolerated it. He did not end it.

He chose a nation, whom he owned.... as his property.
Slavery? If you want to call it that, but God did not force them to work. They were willing to serve.
God treated them well.

They had taken up the practice of keeping slaves.
God tolerated it, but regulated it. He did not end it, but revealed to them why it must end.
They were allowed to continue to use their enemies as workers. Why?
They were in debt to God. They owed him their life, since they were spared death.

As king of the land, God gave permission to his people to execute his justice.
Those not fit to live were wiped out, or used as laborers.

Today, it is really just a different system, but the same thing basically takes place, only the enemies are not given any good treatment, as was the case with God.
Instead, they are massacred, and sanctioned, to be oppressed and suffer from poverty.
Anyway, that's not my concern.
If you are on my land, in my domain, and you make yourself a stench, you need to be purged.
I'm totally for criminals working rather than being lawless.

That's moral to me... at least where morals exist, and there is fairness, and no corruption.
God did not operate under a corrupt system.
Also, he promised to end all these circumstances.

Is this a moral argument though?

They were allowed to continue to use their enemies as workers. Why?
They were in debt to God. They owed him their life, since they were spared death.

That's just plain sick. Your god is moral because he mercifully decided to enslave people instead of practicing genocide on them. What a GREAT guy!

You clearly would have made a wonderful Southern slave owner. You would have tried to justify your horrendous practices to the bitter end. Of COURSE the people that I own as property should be grateful that I haven't decided to just kill them instead.

 

[nPeace]

They were allowed to continue to use their enemies as workers. Why?
They were in debt to God. They owed him their life, since they were spared death.

That's just plain sick. Your god is moral because he mercifully decided to enslave people instead of practicing genocide on them. What a GREAT guy!

You clearly would have made a wonderful Southern slave owner. You would have tried to justify your horrendous practices to the bitter end. Of COURSE the people that I own as property should be grateful that I haven't decided to just kill them instead.

...and they were. Joshua 9:3-27 ...at least the ones who were wise, and weren't too full of ego. Some chose Pharaoh's path.

 

[QuestioningMind]

...and they were. Joshua 9:3-27 ...at least the ones who were wise, and weren't too full of ego. Some chose Pharaoh's path.

I can just see you on the porch of your plantation house ranting about how your ungrateful slaves should be 'wise' instead of 'full of ego' and just accept their fate as your property. How dare they think they have a right to be free from your oppression!

 

[nPeace]

I can just see you on the porch of your plantation house ranting about how your ungrateful slaves should be 'wise' instead of 'full of ego' and just accept their fate as your property. How dare they think they have a right to be free from your oppression!

With the amount of food, rest and merriment they are enjoying, how dare they think I am oppressive.
Look. Where's my stick.

 

[epronovost]

The wife was to help her husband fulfill his role.
The headship arrangement is good.

No, that's why the last 200 years saw unprecedented prosperity and constant struggle to get rid of it and with each victory, humanity flourished more. Men might have loved having power, but women universaly fought against it and still do today all around the world.

Repeating ... (1 Corinthians 7:3, 4) 3 Let the husband give to his wife her due, and let the wife also do likewise to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does.

That simply means that monogamy was to become law after centuries of polygamy and concubinage not that both were equal. The same chapter says they are not.

So if I give a woman less weight to carry, than a man, because I give consideration to her, I treat her as lesser? That's your view.
What an opinion.

I'm talking about price and you talk about carrying weight? What are you talking about. Nowhere does this passage mention physical work. Physical work isn't even the only work slaves can do and carrying more doesn't make you better at any job. Women were worth twice less than men because they were women and your Bible defends the idea that men should rule and are more important which is atrocious as a concept and makes anybody supporting or defending such arrangement a bad person.

God was specific about whom can be spared.
The Amalekites for example did not fall into the area of sparing the virgin girls.
Why?
Give it some thought.

Because your deity is a sanguinary monster worshiped by equally sanguinary monsters like yourself. BTW, why did the little boys died and the little girls were taken in sexual slavery?

Then consider again what I said previously, and the verse I linked twice, in Leviticus.

It claims that they must die because they "taint" the land and you seem to consider this good because that taint is, according to you, genetic and not cultural or a convenient excuse by one civilisation to excuse the horror they wanted to perpetrate on another civilisation. It also infects animals and men. It doesn't have any effect on virgin girls though.

Feel free to think as you wish. Your view of morals are not scientific. I thought you knew.
Science does not care about your view on morals.

No my moral is humanist and yours is that of a genocidal oppressive dictator. There is no such thing as a "scientific morality". Your knowledge of ethics is as pityful as your knowledge of history or your own holy book. Your morality is rigorously identical to those who guarded concentration camps and slaughtered millions and consdered themselves righteous because they were cleansing their land from subhuman animals.

You claim your god is good, but instead of making acts of charity you try to whitewash genocide, slavery and misogyny because that's the kind of person you are. Christians with a sliver of sanity and heart reject those passages as the monstrous ideas they are that were spewd by hateful men who placed themselves in position of power and played mouthpiece for God in an attempt to justified their cruelty. It seems you are a lesser man for not following this example.

 

[QuestioningMind]

With the amount of food, rest and merriment they are enjoying, how dare they think I am oppressive.
Look. Where's my stick.

Yep, you can justify just any old ugly thing, can't you? And then laugh at the depravity of it.

 

[nPeace]

No, that's why the last 200 years saw unprecedented prosperity and constant struggle to get rid of it and with each victory, humanity flourished more. Men might have loved having power, but women universaly fought against it and still do today all around the world.

Get rid of what? Headship arrangement? Lol.
That's like trying to invade a man's house and tell him how to use his toilet, cook his food, and wash him armpits. Lol.
The headship arangement is here to stay, beyond your death. It is what has been holding society together, for centuries, from totally collapsing.
Maybe your attempts are what's keeping you disunited, especially with the East.
Oh dear.

That simply means that monogamy was to become law after centuries of polygamy and concubinage not that both were equal. The same chapter says they are not.

Polygamy was tolerated. Acts 17:30 ; Romans 9:22 It was never God's will, and it brought unhappiness. Genesis 2:24 ; Matthew 19:5, 6 Those who practiced it, learned the hard way.

I'm talking about price and you talk about carrying weight? What are you talking about. Nowhere does this passage mention physical work. Physical work isn't even the only work slaves can do and carrying more doesn't make you better at any job. Women were worth twice less than men because they were women and your Bible defends the idea that men should rule and are more important which is atrocious as a concept and makes anybody supporting or defending such arrangement a bad person.

The text is not talking about women's worth. Please study the Bible, rather than read words off the page.
Desperation leads to these kind of things.
The verses show consideration for women, especially widows, and since the men usually were the providers, it is reasonable that they contribute more.
The virgin, and the widow gave willingly also, but consider was given to their circumstances.
This shows God's love, and tender compassion.

Because your deity is a sanguinary monster worshiped by equally sanguinary monsters like yourself. BTW, why did the little boys died and the little girls were taken in sexual slavery?

Why not just say you hate God because he kills people, fullstop, and quit digging into the Bible looking for an valid excuse, when there is none. Same goes for @QuestioningMind.
Again, study the Bible. Was it not clearly stated, why the young girls were spared.
You don't know why the young boys were killed? I am tempted to feed you everything, but that's no help to you, if you intend to page through the Bible looking for an excuse to paint God to how you want.
Read from the book of Genesis to Esther, and see if you get the answer.

It claims that they must die because they "taint" the land and you seem to consider this good because that taint is, according to you, genetic and not cultural or a convenient excuse by one civilisation to excuse the horror they wanted to perpetrate on another civilisation. It also infects animals and men. It doesn't have any effect on virgin girls though.

Ha Ha. I have to say, you do try hard. That's a good spirit, if you are not directing your blows at the air.
Did you actually study the account, or did you just read it? No need to answer. I know the answer.
Where in the text does it say slaughter the animals? How is this similar to Amalek's demise? Who were the Midianites... do you have any idea?
Were these included in the nations God was wiping out for their defiling practices?
Here ... Do you want scriptures to read? Try these...
Deuteronomy 7:1-4 ; Deuteronomy 13:12-18 ; Deuteronomy 20:15-20 ; Joshua 11:16-23

What the Midianites did was punishable, but it was not the same situation as the nations under God's radar, and in his crosshairs.... until the irreprehensible act they committed.

No my moral is humanist and yours is that of a genocidal oppressive dictator. There is no such thing as a "scientific morality". Your knowledge of ethics is as pityful as your knowledge of history or your own holy book. Your morality is rigorously identical to those who guarded concentration camps and slaughtered millions and consdered themselves righteous because they were cleansing their land from subhuman animals.

You claim your god is good, but instead of making acts of charity you try to whitewash genocide, slavery and misogyny because that's the kind of person you are. Christians with a sliver of sanity and heart reject those passages as the monstrous ideas they are that were spewd by hateful men who placed themselves in position of power and played mouthpiece for God in an attempt to justified their cruelty. It seems you are a lesser man for not following this example.

Opinion noted.