Fundamentalists...defending the indefensible

[Elijah John]

How bout this one:

"Exodus 21:20-21
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property "

Is this verse from God or Moses?

Could it be only Moses imperfect understanding of the will of God, what HE thought God wanted?

And thus isn't this an obvious flaw in the Bible?

If not, and you STILL maintain that the Bible is infallible, how do you defend:

a) the Bible's condoning of slavery, considering other human beings to be "property"
b) the Bible permitting (if not condoning) the beating of slaves, as long as they don't "die right away"

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 58 by Danmark]

We are talking of slavery here , you are deflecting , the same as Zyrryx.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 48 by OnceConvinced]

Actually God waits patiently for us. I can't think of an incident in the Bible where God doesn't restrain himself until the sin is too great to ignore. He is a big softie.

If that God is a 'softie', what it says about the general sentiments of his followers is a bit alarming. It does back up the general fundamentalist-brand of intolerance here in the states. Some of the stuff you read just surfing the internet will be how bringing back the death penalty for homosexuals is what's needed. Are these idiots just bragging to impress their buddies, or would they carry through if given the chance? People do weird crap on the internet for attention, and I don't know the answer.

The sins softie God refused to hold himself back on seemed to range from sin-by-association (The Flood) to high end human sins like murder. You never know what's going to set him off. He sounds so human. He doesn't even say anything brilliant, unless you include all his self-promotion as evidence for brilliance. He's like a couple of stereotypical bosses I've had, except for the killing, flooding, and plaguing parts. A good old Babylonian king. I can't imagine the contortions it would take for me to say 'God is a softie'. I would be suffering a lot more than I could describe, and unrelentingly, before letting my mind go to the desperation that would cause the contortions in the first place.

What it looks like to us 'outsiders' is you're all about as nice as your God and have his same ideas about right and wrong. To call that god a softie makes me not want to skip a day coming here.

[Zzyzx]

.

Yup, he sure made it clear that he opposed slavery, didn't he -- in the minds of Apologists -- not in what was written

? What part of "do not oppress him, do you not get ? What part of "do not turn him in "do you not understand ?

Ignoring the snide personal remarks, my point is that IF the Bible God was supposedly opposed to slavery that could / should have ranked as a prohibition along with adultery, theft, false worship, and mixed fabrics.

Trying to find SOME indication of disapproval (not even expression of opposition) stretches credibility of Apologists.

Does this ring " pro slavery " to you ?

A discerning reader might notice that rather than "pro-slavery" my observations the Bible God is "not opposed" according to tales.

"Keep the virgin girls for yourselves" might be construed as being pro-slavery

What part of " let him stay where he likes " do you not get ?

Is it too difficult to defend the Apologist position without personal comments?

I agree that Bible tales have the God placing limits on slavery – but note the absence of "him" condemning the practice.

You are also ignoring my other points.

I have shown you this verse is intervention , not a condoning .

Bible tales show that when God is opposed to an issue "he" is not adverse to saying "Thou Shall NOT" – and no such thing is said regarding slavery.

It must be frustrating when one's own literature does not support their idealistic view of God.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 58 by Danmark]

We are talking of slavery here , you are deflecting , the same as Zyrryx.

The gentlest way I can put my response, within the rules here, is to say that what you've written is not true. There is no 'deflection.' My post is about slavery and simply adds more examples. Let me repeat:

I am constantly amazed that anyone cites the Bible for any moral principle. In addition to Exodus 20 and 21, one need look no further than the chapter of Deuteronomy you just cited to find ridiculous and unfair principles cast as God's Law:

“He that is wounded in the stones or hath his private member cut off shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.
A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.
An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever, ...."
__ Deuteronomy 23:1-3

To seek guidance from such nonsense is to be morally bankrupt.

You cited Deut. 23, ignoring the more explicit passage in Exodus that supports slavery. I cited the same chapter of Deut. to demonstrate slavery isn't the only immoral law "God" proposes. Furthermore, this thread is not just about slavery, but about "Fundamentalists defending the indefensible." How is it morally defensible to defend slavery? How is it morally defensible to defend the idea of preventing even the great great great great great great... great grandson of an illegitimate child from entering the "congregation of the Lord?" How is it moral to exclude someone who has damaged testicles? How can it be moral to prevent someone from the 'wrong' tribe, even to the 10th generation, from the assembly of the godly?

I suggest you make the weak 'deflection' excuse because you have no good rebuttal. Nothing could be more obvious than that the Bible is a pack of self serving slices of baloney designed to support one tribe, the Hebrews, to the exclusion of all others.

To compound the idiocy of thinking otherwise, we need look no farther than the ridiculous theology of the 'gospel' of John where he claims Jesus is God and was present at the beginning of time knowing two contradictory assertions: That 1) only the Hebrews are beloved of God and, 2) that both Jews and Gentiles are welcomed into the Kingdom of God [unless of course they are missing a testicle or their great grandfather was a 'bastard.'

How is it possible for ANYone to believe such nonsense?
Not just nonsense, but immoral nonsense.