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 36 by Elijah John]

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.

I have given you verse that needs no interpretation. I have shorn you where God has spoken on behalf of the slaves , even equalizing them to their own master ! You have taken a verse where God is intervening in the treatment of slaves , this is not condoning.

I gave you verse in post 16 where the slave owner fears Gods wrath , on his treatment of slaves.


These need no " fancy interpretation " , to fit my narrative. They are stated with evident meaning .

Deuteronomy 23:15-16 .

I will repeat , should Jesus have talked against slavery , this could have started an insurrection , that could have resulted in massacres. Slavery was interwoven in society , man made , not instituted with a condoning from God.

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 39 by Elijah John]

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.

Sorry , my bad , thought I was answering to Danmark.


I am glad to see you understand that this acceptance of enslavement is more from man , than God , as far as the bible is concerned any way .

I appreciate that , as I am not so much trying to " prove you wrong " more than give you different perspective of the bible , as I understand ones twist verse to fit their narratives, I would never knowingly do that . I take my licks from atheists when they are correct on the bible.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 41 by Faithful One]

Faithful One, I wrote this post before I read your post above, so please keep that in mind. I wonder if we are actually closer on this than we think!

My point is that it is NOT God that is condoning slavery, Moses is. I make the distiinction that Moses is not always right on what God wants, but is a man of his times.

I do think that SOMETIMES and often he gets it right, as in the Ten Commandments...but I use that very filter to decide..beating a slave so badly that they die a few days later violiates the Commandment to do no murder. But Moses permits it, and by permitting, he condones. He HAS no Romans to answer to...so he cannot blame them.

So by condoning (seeking to soften but not condemning the institution IS condoning), slavery Moses Law on this is in violation of God's law to "do no murder".

And again, there WAS no Roman rule in the days of Moses, HE called the shots, it was HIS Law which he attributed to God.

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 38 by Danmark]

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

This does nit contradict this verse , this verse speaks of ones that are are still under ownership of their master, not escaped slaves.

This verse does not condone slavery , this is an intervention on it, , not to mention indentured servants , war prisoners , were better off than the freemen who slept in the streets.

Where in your verse does it state God is o.k with slavery ? I even give verse where God tells the master the slaves worth is just as equal to his , concerning Gods grace.


Work around ? I gave you exactly what you said you have yet to see.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 38 by Danmark]

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

This does nit contradict this verse , this verse speaks of ones that are are still under ownership of their master, not escaped slaves.

This verse does not condone slavery , this is an intervention on it, , not to mention indentured servants , war prisoners , were better off than the freemen who slept in the streets.

Where in your verse does it state God is o.k with slavery ? I even give verse where God tells the master the slaves worth is just as equal to his , concerning Gods grace.


Work around ? I gave you exactly what you said you have yet to see.

MY verse? It's God's verse:

Exodus 20:1 - 21:21:

And God spoke all these words, saying...
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

Now between Exodus 20:1 and 21:21 please tell me where it changes from "God spoke" to "someone else spoke."

It is obvious from the context of the passage that there was no question that owning slaves was permitted by God. God simply clarifies that since slaves are mere property, the may be beaten severely, but not killed. Note, the punishment for killing a slave is not death. The punishment is unspecified.

God is very particular and very detailed about his laws, as is plain from any reading of Leviticus and Exodus. He is so detailed he even specifies what foods may be eaten together and what fabrics may be worn.

It would require an injection of illogic with the force of a tsunami to imagine that this God specified how badly a slave may be beaten, and never mention he was opposed to slavery. All God had to say was "Thou shalt own no slaves." But he never says that. The closest he comes is in Exodus 21:2 where he makes an exception for Hebrew slaves:
When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing.

So your analysis is plainly wrong. Now, on to the real issue:
It is clear that it is wrong to apply these laws from the Pentateuch to today.
So why apply those ancient laws about homosexuality to a time when we understand that people are not homosexual by choice. If you have any doubt on that score, please read Haven's excellent and unanswered post:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 899#731899

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 32 by Elijah John]

First that law doesn't mandate striking slaves.

Second it is a law that is clearly designed to limit the violence a slave owner might consider.

Third our society also has different punishments based upon the level of violence.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 32 by Elijah John]

First that law doesn't mandate striking slaves.

Second it is a law that is clearly designed to limit the violence a slave owner might consider.

Third our society also has different punishments based upon the level of violence.

Again, by not forbiding the keeping or the striking of slaves, the Law of Moses permits it, (on the grounds that slaves are property) and by permitting it, condones it.

Again, are you OK with that being one who accepts the entirety of the Bible as infallible?

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 32 by Elijah John]

First that law doesn't mandate striking slaves.

Second it is a law that is clearly designed to limit the violence a slave owner might consider.

Third our society also has different punishments based upon the level of violence.

I have heard the argument before. God was just placing rules on things that were already happening.

The thing is, the bible God is not one to pander to humans desires. He is a "my way or the highway" type of God. So if he's against something, he's gonna make that quite clear and he's gonna have very harsh penalties for those who break his rules.

Eg how dare you worship other gods but me.

God regularly kills people for doing things he doesn't like. He destroyed entire cities for doing things he didn't like. So why would any one think that God would tolerate things like slavery if he was against it?

The fact that God doesn't just say "no slaves" is evidence that the bible God was quite ok with this practice. Otherwise he would have completely outlawed it and set harsh penalties in place for those who disobeyed.

God never changes. He doesn't just suddenly go soft on certain abominations. If he doesn't like it, then it's absolutely out and too bad what humans want!

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 48 by OnceConvinced]

You have posted excellent points.

This claim that the Bible can be viewed as nothing more than the ramblings of men and STILL have something to do with a God simply doesn't hold water.

It's either the word of God or a pack of outright lies.

There can be no middle-of-the-road here.

The Fundamentalist do have at least that much right. All they need to do now is realize that it's not the word of any God and they'd be done.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 32 by Elijah John]

First that law doesn't mandate striking slaves.

Second it is a law that is clearly designed to limit the violence a slave owner might consider.

Third our society also has different punishments based upon the level of violence.

Again, by not forbiding the keeping or the striking of slaves, the Law of Moses permits it, (on the grounds that slaves are property) and by permitting it, condones it.

Again, are you OK with that being one who accepts the entirety of the Bible as infallible?

One step at a time. Let's discuss this law.