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"

[Wootah]

How about this one, when the Egyptian beat the Jewish slave and Moses killed him...

Let's face it, I can't even SAY anything more about this without violating forum rules, yet it is a fundament, a disgusting fundament of the Old Testament.

Anyone?

It's not clear to me what your position is exactly.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 31 by Wootah]

Wootah, did I miss it or did you ever answer 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 " (caps my emphasis)

So clearly the Bible is saying it is OK to beat one's slave half to death, since the slave is PROPERTY.

Is that from God? Or is that a flaw in the Bible based on the human element.

Either way, are you comfortable with that Mosaic ruling? And does that in any way change your view that the Bible is infallible?

Or can you admit now that even Evangelicals and Fundamentalists "pick and choose" to some degree.

Whether Church fed, or Preacher fed, or on our own, we ALL pick and choose the lens with which we filter the Bible.

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 32 by Elijah John]

So clearly the Bible is saying it is OK to beat one's slave half to death, since the slave is PROPERTY.

No this is intervening ,,not a condoning . Slavery was the state of law in these days. I even gave you verses and example of how this is not God condoning slavery in post 16 .

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 32 by Elijah John]

So clearly the Bible is saying it is OK to beat one's slave half to death, since the slave is PROPERTY.

No this is intervening ,,not a condoning . Slavery was the state of law in these days. I even gave you verses and example of how this is not God condoning slavery in post 16 .

You make some good points in that post, but why not intervention to put an end to the keeping of slaves? The slavery Law of Moses is from ancient Isarael, thousands of years before Roman occupation and rule. Moses called the shots, there was no "law of the land" at that time except for that of Moses.

The slave is considered "property". Ironic, since God just liberated the Israelites FROM Egyptian slavery.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 31 by Wootah]

Wootah, did I miss it or did you ever answer 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 " (caps my emphasis)

So clearly the Bible is saying it is OK to beat one's slave half to death, since the slave is PROPERTY.

Is that from God? Or is that a flaw in the Bible based on the human element.

Either way, are you comfortable with that Mosaic ruling? And does that in any way change our view that the Bible is infallible?

Or can you admit now that even Evangelicals and Fundamentalists "pick and choose" to some degree.

Whether Church fed, or Preacher fed, or on our own, we ALL pick and choose the lens with which we filter the Bible.

There is also this rather odd passage in Philemon, where Paul writes mysteriously about his relationship with Onesimus:

I, Paul, an old man and now a prisoner also for Christ Jesus— 10 I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I became in my imprisonment. 11 (Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful to you and to me.) 12 I am sending him back to you, sending my very heart. 13 I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel, 14 but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own accord. 15 For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back for ever, 16 no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother—especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

In any event, I am aware of no place in the Bible where slavery is condemned, and as EJ points out the Bible only talks about not killing a slave, but allowing them to be beaten severely. This 'morality' seems extremely odd today.

Looked at in the most charitable way possible, the Bible's approach to slavery is another example of why the Bible's declarations of what is and what is not 'sin' should be seen in light of the culture of the day. I say this in particular regard to its references to homosexuality. Most Christians, I assume, would be quick to agree that today slavery is wrong and beating a slave half to death is even worse. So why not look at the Bible's statements about homosexuality in the same light.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

How are you able to discern which sentences in the Bible are from God and which aren't? Are you claiming a supernatural power? This needs to be resolved.

Why not consider that the verse does not condone beating but actually seeks to punish it.

Think about our laws - we have different punishments based upon the level of violence but does that mean our laws condone violence as well?

If you really want to be outraged with fundamentalists consider Christ and grace and how outrageous but necessary grace is.

Why not prohibit slavery altogether then? Instead of trying to reform the institiution by making it slightly more "humane" if you can call beating a slave within an inch of his life "humane".

Outrage at Fundamentalists? Only for stuff like this, and being unwilling to admit that they too, pick and choose based on their Pauline and Johannine filter with which they interpret the Bible. And being unwilling to admit that their interpretation is just that an INERPRETATION. Or maybe it's their favorite preacher's interpretation, but it is still an interpretation.

Is it any accident why Evangelicals including Bill Bright advice new converts to start reading the Bible starting with with the Gospel of John?

Why not Genesis, or Matthew if one wants to start in the NT?

It is because they have a Johannine LENS with which they are interpreting the Bible.

And I am outraged at how Jesus was treated, NO one should have to be tortured and die like that, especially a righteous and innocent (of the crimes charged) prophet like Jesus.

Grace? He BORE that unjust punishment with grace...and set an example for others to put up with their VERY minor crosses in day to day life. That is grace.

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 34 by Elijah John]


[/quote]There is also this rather odd passage in Philemon, where Paul writes mysteriously about his relationship with Onesimus:

What you do not understand is that Paul went against the word of God concerning this.

Deuteronomy 23:15-16 .

15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.

God did not condone slavey, it was interwoven into society , should Jesus have talked against slavery , this could have started an insurrection of slaves , resulting in the massacre of the half a million or so of them at the time .

Now you have seen verse, and reason .

I believe you might have missed my post 16, the treatment of slaves in these days or their situation is not the same as slavery during the civil war era , of course parts of Rome were , but not mostly .

Please see post 16 .

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 34 by Elijah John]

There is also this rather odd passage in Philemon, where Paul writes mysteriously about his relationship with Onesimus:

What you do not understand is that Paul went against the word of God concerning this.

Deuteronomy 23:15-16 .

15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.

God did not condone slavey, it was interwoven into society , should Jesus have talked against slavery , this could have started an insurrection of slaves , resulting in the massacre of the half a million or so of them at the time .

Now you have seen verse, and reason .

I believe you might have missed my post 16, the treatment of slaves in these days or their situation is not the same as slavery during the civil war era , of course parts of Rome were , but not mostly .

Please see post 16 .

Exactly! Nice work around, despite the fact it ignores Exodus 21:20-21.

Now, how about doing the same for the 'sin' of homosexuality?

So what does that leave us? Deuteronomy conflicts with Philemon and Exodus. The Bible contradicts itself. So what else is new?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 34 by Elijah John]

There is also this rather odd passage in Philemon, where Paul writes mysteriously about his relationship with Onesimus:

What you do not understand is that Paul went against the word of God concerning this.

Deuteronomy 23:15-16 .

15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.

God did not condone slavey, it was interwoven into society , should Jesus have talked against slavery , this could have started an insurrection of slaves , resulting in the massacre of the half a million or so of them at the time .

Now you have seen verse, and reason .

I believe you might have missed my post 16, the treatment of slaves in these days or their situation is not the same as slavery during the civil war era , of course parts of Rome were , but not mostly .

Please see post 16 .

The quote you attributed to me is one that Danmark used. Please be more careful wth the quote feature. And see a few posts above from my response to your post 16.

According to the OT, if Moses condoned something, God Condoned it. At least in OT times. But I do not think the condoning of slaves is FROM God, that was Moses error, the way I see it anyway.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 34 by Elijah John]

There is also this rather odd passage in Philemon, where Paul writes mysteriously about his relationship with Onesimus:

What you do not understand is that Paul went against the word of God concerning this.

Deuteronomy 23:15-16 .

15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.

God did not condone slavey, it was interwoven into society , should Jesus have talked against slavery , this could have started an insurrection of slaves , resulting in the massacre of the half a million or so of them at the time .

Now you have seen verse, and reason .

I believe you might have missed my post 16, the treatment of slaves in these days or their situation is not the same as slavery during the civil war era , of course parts of Rome were , but not mostly .

Please see post 16 .

The quote you attributed to me is one that Danmark used. Please be more careful wth the quote feature. And see a few posts above from my response to your post 16.

According to the OT, if Moses condoned something, God Condoned it. At least in OT times. But I do not think the condoning of slaves is FROM God, that was Moses error, the way I see it anyway.

The error is in attributing ANYthing in the Bible to God.