daily Bible verse

[jcribb16]

But what you are implying would be to say it was okay for the Midianites to continually kill the Israelites, their children, and their livestock, take their food, etc.
The Midianites had been warned repeatedly by God to stop their wicked behavior to the Israelites, and they refused to stop.  The Israelites offered a peace treaty and the Midianites refused.  So, the Israelites did what they had to, to stop the evil happening to their people.

Well then put 'em in the phantom zone or something and make them have a time out! lol Perhaps you know why the Midianites were being so awful to the Israelites? A just leader does not order the other side to slaughter and enslave opposition. That's terrible! Again, when you place a deity in a story like this, it makes it prone to gigantic errors in judgement. If he's able to stop such horrible things, yet does not, that is malice.

As with Hitler, those people he ruled over were not hurting anyone for him to do what he did, only because he wanted a "pure" race.  

The great flood ring a bell? Not to jump around, but Hitler convinced his followers that the jews were evil just as your god convinced his select few that the rest of the world was evil.

Rather, Hitler was similar, in wickedness, to the Midianites.  He was the evil one.  The Midianites were the evil ones.  You cannot take a portion of scripture and only discuss and blame the situation when there is more to the story.

I believe the Hitler example is a weak one because it can be applied to both sides of this argument. I'm concentrating on the words used though-- it's not necessarily the background of the situation in this story, but what the orders specifically were and how immoral and illogical (due to a deity being introduced) they are.

God does not condone slavery.  Even in the Old Testament, slaves under people who followed God, still had rules about how they were to be treated from their owners.

Incorrect- if you have rules about slaves, you condone slavery. If you take the OT as true history and quote it, you acknowledge slavery. If you have a rule in your rule book stating you can beat your slaves, you forfeit the moral position. I'm aware that the slave trade in our nation's past was completely immoral. Even if said slaves were treated decently, no human has the right to own another human being.

The group who tie bombs or dynamite do not accept Jesus Christ as Savior.  Christ is our way through to God.  They don't believe that.  They are still living in the Old Testament ways of doing some things.

I am in partial agreement with you here, but considering how a lot of xtians act in the present and especially in the past, I will have to disagree as they are/were obviously living with the same foundations.

"Slavery in the Old Testament was very different and involved a variety of methods, situations, and restrictions. But the Old Testament is clear about capturing people and selling them as chattel (tricking them into working or forcing them to work for no pay, and then had no right to refuse): kidnapping was a crime punishable by death (Exodus 21:16) - “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.."

"Because of the socioeconomic situation of Old Testament Israel, God did allow slavery, but He allowed it for a simple purpose: to help the poor survive.  A person could sell himself into slavery (akin to indentured servitude) in order to pay off debt or provide a basic subsistence.

God enacted several laws to prevent the need for slavery in the first place. Many of these laws are found in Deuteronomy 24:

1. Verse 6: a piece of equipment used in the survival of a family may not be taken in pledge for a loan.
2. Verses 12, 17: if a poor man gives his cloak in pledge, it must be returned at night so he won't be cold; a widow's cloak must not be taken in pledge at all.
3. Verses 14-15: a poor hired man must receive his wages daily.
4. Verses 19-21: when harvesting wheat, olives, or grapes, some must be left over for the poor to take for themselves.

Slavery was to be a last resort. Israel was to “remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from there” (Deuteronomy 24:18).  This is the slavery you are speaking of: chatteling, in that many were kidnapped and/or tricked into working, were not allowed to refuse to work, and were beat, withheld food, water, clothes, and at times, rest.  God removed the Israelites from out of that horrible situation in Egypt.

Sometimes, circumstances were such that the laws requiring care for the poor were not enough. In ancient agrarian societies, it was often extremely difficult to provide for oneself and one's family. Many slaves in Old Testament Israel had sold themselves to prevent starvation; others had been sold by their family so the family wouldn't starve."

There were also different types of slaves, treatment of slaves, what happened with slavery and religious rites, opportunities for freedom, slaves and family, female slaves, and the Israelites verses the "Foreigners."  I can go more into any of these if you'd like - just let me know.

"As a conclusion about slavery, and why God allowed it, including why some people condemn the Bible, or God, because it, or He, does not call for the universal abolition of slavery.  We need to understand that the cultural conditions are what made slavery a sad necessity. Even so, this was not chattel slavery—masters did not "own" their slaves' humanity; they leased their work".

"Slavery was never in God's perfect plan. But, because of sin, for a time and place, slavery was permitted by God, with certain restrictions."  And if those restrictions weren't met for the protection of the slaves' humanity, then those harming or kidnapping would have been punished, and the slaves would be removed from that situation.

I researched and provided much of this between my Bible, Bible handbooks, and Gotquestions.org.

[jcribb16]

"Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue."

Yet, the bible-thumpers do not keep silent , thus removing all doubt about their foolishness.

Why should believers have to stay silent when sharing something we enjoy with others who would or might enjoy the same?  That's not what the verse means.  Standing up for or defending my beliefs does not meant I have to stay silent as well.

That's incorrect; staying "silent" is unamibiguous - it means not talking/writing, (apparently sign-language slips through a crack in that metaphysical injunction).  The specious supertitiously-based "verse" says nothing whatsoever of "standing up for or defending" religious beliefs, (the inherently-biased additional 'reinterpretation' is random, self-serving and summarily disregarding as illogical).

Wrong context, falcon9.  Speaking and sharing about something is not the same as what that verse is implying.  Arguing, condemning, riling up, spiting, yelling, and causing trouble is what this verse is implying - that it's much better and "discerning" to watch your (general your) tongue when involved in a clash or argument with someone (general) or others. 

This is in no way aimed toward you nor is it aimed toward what you call "bible thumpers" with what I listed - those are genuine and real examples of when it would be wiser to hold one's tongue, and by doing so, to calm things down between the ones riled up.  And not just in a forum, but in our personal lives, whether at home, work, out and about, or just about anywhere. 

[JediJohnnie]

But what you are implying would be to say it was okay for the Midianites to continually kill the Israelites, their children, and their livestock, take their food, etc.
The Midianites had been warned repeatedly by God to stop their wicked behavior to the Israelites, and they refused to stop.  The Israelites offered a peace treaty and the Midianites refused.  So, the Israelites did what they had to, to stop the evil happening to their people.

Well then put 'em in the phantom zone or something and make them have a time out! lol Perhaps you know why the Midianites were being so awful to the Israelites? A just leader does not order the other side to slaughter and enslave opposition. That's terrible! Again, when you place a deity in a story like this, it makes it prone to gigantic errors in judgement. If he's able to stop such horrible things, yet does not, that is malice.

As with Hitler, those people he ruled over were not hurting anyone for him to do what he did, only because he wanted a "pure" race. 

The great flood ring a bell? Not to jump around, but Hitler convinced his followers that the jews were evil just as your god convinced his select few that the rest of the world was evil.

Rather, Hitler was similar, in wickedness, to the Midianites.  He was the evil one.  The Midianites were the evil ones.  You cannot take a portion of scripture and only discuss and blame the situation when there is more to the story.

I believe the Hitler example is a weak one because it can be applied to both sides of this argument. I'm concentrating on the words used though-- it's not necessarily the background of the situation in this story, but what the orders specifically were and how immoral and illogical (due to a deity being introduced) they are.

God does not condone slavery.  Even in the Old Testament, slaves under people who followed God, still had rules about how they were to be treated from their owners.

Incorrect- if you have rules about slaves, you condone slavery. If you take the OT as true history and quote it, you acknowledge slavery. If you have a rule in your rule book stating you can beat your slaves, you forfeit the moral position. I'm aware that the slave trade in our nation's past was completely immoral. Even if said slaves were treated decently, no human has the right to own another human being.

The group who tie bombs or dynamite do not accept Jesus Christ as Savior.  Christ is our way through to God.  They don't believe that.  They are still living in the Old Testament ways of doing some things.

I am in partial agreement with you here, but considering how a lot of xtians act in the present and especially in the past, I will have to disagree as they are/were obviously living with the same foundations.

Slavery in the Old Testament was very different and involved a variety of methods, situations, and restrictions. But the Old Testament is clear about capturing people and selling them as chattel (tricking them into working or forcing them to work for no pay, and then had no right to refuse): kidnapping was a crime punishable by death (Exodus 21:16) - “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.."

Because of the socioeconomic situation of Old Testament Israel, God did allow slavery, but He allowed it for a simple purpose: to help the poor survive.  A person could sell himself into slavery (akin to indentured servitude) in order to pay off debt or provide a basic subsistence.

God enacted several laws to prevent the need for slavery in the first place. Many of these laws are found in Deuteronomy 24:

1. Verse 6: a piece of equipment used in the survival of a family may not be taken in pledge for a loan.
2. Verses 12, 17: if a poor man gives his cloak in pledge, it must be returned at night so he won't be cold; a widow's cloak must not be taken in pledge at all.
3. Verses 14-15: a poor hired man must receive his wages daily.
4. Verses 19-21: when harvesting wheat, olives, or grapes, some must be left over for the poor to take for themselves.

Slavery was to be a last resort. Israel was to “remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from there” (Deuteronomy 24:18).  This is the slavery you are speaking of: chatteling, in that many were kidnapped and/or tricked into working, were not allowed to refuse to work, and were beat, withheld food, water, clothes, and at times, rest.  God removed the Israelites from out of that horrible situation in Egypt.

Sometimes, circumstances were such that the laws requiring care for the poor were not enough. In ancient agrarian societies, it was often extremely difficult to provide for oneself and one's family. Many slaves in Old Testament Israel had sold themselves to prevent starvation; others had been sold by their family so the family wouldn't starve.

There were also different types of slaves, treatment of slaves, what happened with slavery and religious rites, opportunities for freedom, slaves and family, female slaves, and the Israelites verses the "Foreigners."  I can go more into any of these if you'd like - just let me know.

As a conclusion about slavery, and why God allowed it, including why some people condemn the Bible, or God, because it, or He, does not call for the universal abolition of slavery.  We need to understand that the cultural conditions are what made slavery a sad necessity. Even so, this was not chattel slavery—masters did not "own" their slaves' humanity; they leased their work.

Slavery was never in God's perfect plan. But, because of sin, for a time and place, slavery was permitted by God, with certain restrictions.  And if those restrictions weren't met for the protection of the slaves' humanity, then those harming or kidnapping would have been punished, and the slaves would be removed from that situation.

I researched and provided much of this between my Bible, Bible handbooks, and Gotquestions.org.

Very well said,Jcribb.
The bottom line is there was no welfare system in the old testament.Indentured servitude was actually the only chance some of the poor had for survival.

There are several laws that God put in place for the benefit of slaves:
Deuteronomy 23:15-16  If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.

Exodus 21:26-27“When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth

Exodus 21:2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.

[Falconer02]

Slavery in the Old Testament was very different and involved a variety of methods, situations, and restrictions. But the Old Testament is clear about capturing people and selling them as chattel (tricking them into working or forcing them to work for no pay, and then had no right to refuse): kidnapping was a crime punishable by death (Exodus 21:16) - “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.."

Completely incorrect-- slavery is slavery. Again, owning and selling another human being under any context is immoral. Trying to skew your way out of the obvious says that you are uneasy with the actions (which is good, but...).

Because of the socioeconomic situation of Old Testament Israel, God did allow slavery, but He allowed it for a simple purpose: to help the poor survive.  A person could sell himself into slavery (akin to indentured servitude) in order to pay off debt or provide a basic subsistence.

Then I'm afraid that you worship a terrible deity who supports bigotry. Since we have better methods now, and yet your god supported barbaric ideals instead of more sane and evolved ones, this is obvious to everyone but a blind follower of such evil gods.

Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.”
-  George Gordon Byron

I researched and provided much of this between my Bible, Bible handbooks, and Gotquestions.org.

http://www.compellingtruth.org/slavery-Old-Testament.html

Again, completely copy/pasting large amounts of text from sources is cheap.

[Falconer02]

The bottom line is there was no welfare system in the old testament.Indentured servitude was actually the only chance some of the poor had for survival.

So this god avoids the actions of educating his followers on a fair and balanced system like future generations will have, and instead condones actions that are barbaric in nature because "it's just the current trend". That is illogical and ignorant and arguably supports the conclusion that this god is made up.

here are several laws that God put in place for the benefit of slaves:

I don't understand why one can't see the humongous gap in reasoning which supports the action of slavery. That's really all there is to it-- trying to defend the actions of any slavery is wrong. Having a rule book alone is immoral. Again, owning and selling another human being under any context is immoral.

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.  Exodus 21:20-21

Beat around the bush all you like-- right here is an example of where your argument for moral treatment perishes.

[jcribb16]

But what you are implying would be to say it was okay for the Midianites to continually kill the Israelites, their children, and their livestock, take their food, etc.
The Midianites had been warned repeatedly by God to stop their wicked behavior to the Israelites, and they refused to stop.  The Israelites offered a peace treaty and the Midianites refused.  So, the Israelites did what they had to, to stop the evil happening to their people.

Well then put 'em in the phantom zone or something and make them have a time out! lol Perhaps you know why the Midianites were being so awful to the Israelites? A just leader does not order the other side to slaughter and enslave opposition. That's terrible! Again, when you place a deity in a story like this, it makes it prone to gigantic errors in judgement. If he's able to stop such horrible things, yet does not, that is malice.

As with Hitler, those people he ruled over were not hurting anyone for him to do what he did, only because he wanted a "pure" race. 

The great flood ring a bell? Not to jump around, but Hitler convinced his followers that the jews were evil just as your god convinced his select few that the rest of the world was evil.

Rather, Hitler was similar, in wickedness, to the Midianites.  He was the evil one.  The Midianites were the evil ones.  You cannot take a portion of scripture and only discuss and blame the situation when there is more to the story.

I believe the Hitler example is a weak one because it can be applied to both sides of this argument. I'm concentrating on the words used though-- it's not necessarily the background of the situation in this story, but what the orders specifically were and how immoral and illogical (due to a deity being introduced) they are.

God does not condone slavery.  Even in the Old Testament, slaves under people who followed God, still had rules about how they were to be treated from their owners.

Incorrect- if you have rules about slaves, you condone slavery. If you take the OT as true history and quote it, you acknowledge slavery. If you have a rule in your rule book stating you can beat your slaves, you forfeit the moral position. I'm aware that the slave trade in our nation's past was completely immoral. Even if said slaves were treated decently, no human has the right to own another human being.

The group who tie bombs or dynamite do not accept Jesus Christ as Savior.  Christ is our way through to God.  They don't believe that.  They are still living in the Old Testament ways of doing some things.

I am in partial agreement with you here, but considering how a lot of xtians act in the present and especially in the past, I will have to disagree as they are/were obviously living with the same foundations.

Slavery in the Old Testament was very different and involved a variety of methods, situations, and restrictions. But the Old Testament is clear about capturing people and selling them as chattel (tricking them into working or forcing them to work for no pay, and then had no right to refuse): kidnapping was a crime punishable by death (Exodus 21:16) - “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.."

Because of the socioeconomic situation of Old Testament Israel, God did allow slavery, but He allowed it for a simple purpose: to help the poor survive.  A person could sell himself into slavery (akin to indentured servitude) in order to pay off debt or provide a basic subsistence.

God enacted several laws to prevent the need for slavery in the first place. Many of these laws are found in Deuteronomy 24:

1. Verse 6: a piece of equipment used in the survival of a family may not be taken in pledge for a loan.
2. Verses 12, 17: if a poor man gives his cloak in pledge, it must be returned at night so he won't be cold; a widow's cloak must not be taken in pledge at all.
3. Verses 14-15: a poor hired man must receive his wages daily.
4. Verses 19-21: when harvesting wheat, olives, or grapes, some must be left over for the poor to take for themselves.

Slavery was to be a last resort. Israel was to “remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from there” (Deuteronomy 24:18).  This is the slavery you are speaking of: chatteling, in that many were kidnapped and/or tricked into working, were not allowed to refuse to work, and were beat, withheld food, water, clothes, and at times, rest.  God removed the Israelites from out of that horrible situation in Egypt.

Sometimes, circumstances were such that the laws requiring care for the poor were not enough. In ancient agrarian societies, it was often extremely difficult to provide for oneself and one's family. Many slaves in Old Testament Israel had sold themselves to prevent starvation; others had been sold by their family so the family wouldn't starve.

There were also different types of slaves, treatment of slaves, what happened with slavery and religious rites, opportunities for freedom, slaves and family, female slaves, and the Israelites verses the "Foreigners."  I can go more into any of these if you'd like - just let me know.

As a conclusion about slavery, and why God allowed it, including why some people condemn the Bible, or God, because it, or He, does not call for the universal abolition of slavery.  We need to understand that the cultural conditions are what made slavery a sad necessity. Even so, this was not chattel slavery—masters did not "own" their slaves' humanity; they leased their work.

Slavery was never in God's perfect plan. But, because of sin, for a time and place, slavery was permitted by God, with certain restrictions.  And if those restrictions weren't met for the protection of the slaves' humanity, then those harming or kidnapping would have been punished, and the slaves would be removed from that situation.

I researched and provided much of this between my Bible, Bible handbooks, and Gotquestions.org.

Very well said,Jcribb.
The bottom line is there was no welfare system in the old testament.Indentured servitude was actually the only chance some of the poor had for survival.

There are several laws that God put in place for the benefit of slaves:
Deuteronomy 23:15-16  If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.

Exodus 21:26-27“When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth

Exodus 21:2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.

Great add on verses!

[jcribb16]

Slavery in the Old Testament was very different and involved a variety of methods, situations, and restrictions. But the Old Testament is clear about capturing people and selling them as chattel (tricking them into working or forcing them to work for no pay, and then had no right to refuse): kidnapping was a crime punishable by death (Exodus 21:16) - “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.."

Completely incorrect-- slavery is slavery. Again, owning and selling another human being under any context is immoral. Trying to skew your way out of the obvious says that you are uneasy with the actions (which is good, but...).

Because of the socioeconomic situation of Old Testament Israel, God did allow slavery, but He allowed it for a simple purpose: to help the poor survive.  A person could sell himself into slavery (akin to indentured servitude) in order to pay off debt or provide a basic subsistence.

Then I'm afraid that you worship a terrible deity who supports bigotry. Since we have better methods now, and yet your god supported barbaric ideals instead of more sane and evolved ones, this is obvious to everyone but a blind follower of such evil gods.

Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.”
-  George Gordon Byron

I researched and provided much of this between my Bible, Bible handbooks, and Gotquestions.org.

http://www.compellingtruth.org/slavery-Old-Testament.html

Again, completely copy/pasting large amounts of text from sources is cheap.

I gave where I got it from, and compellingtruth.org is from gotquestions.org. Disagreeing with the info given is your prerogative.  You are only focusing on one point of the whole issue instead of the reasons surrounding the issue.  Since you refuse to consider the reasons around the issue, then agreeing to disagree is the final answer.

Just keep in mind today, that although there aren't "slaves" technically serving in rich households, castles, etc., they are still people doing the same time of things in those households that people did back then - as a way to survive.  They get paid money in today's society, but they are technically still "serving" others and are considered the "help," maids, valets, servants, etc.

Back then, at least they had a way to get out of financial burdens by doing what they did, and the ones they worked for, at least were to have a heart and let them work for them, following the rules given in regards to their humanity.  That was a lot better than the way many slaves were treated right here in our own country.

[Paulinha]

thank you for sharing

[Falconer02]

I gave where I got it from, and compellingtruth.org is from gotquestions.org. Disagreeing with the info given is your prerogative.  You are only focusing on one point of the whole issue instead of the reasons surrounding the issue.  Since you refuse to consider the reasons around the issue, then agreeing to disagree is the final answer.

Agreed. I will continue to speak against slavery in all forms. You can continue beating around the bush with excuses and believing it's okay in certain situations.

Just keep in mind today, that although there aren't "slaves" technically serving in rich households, castles, etc., they are still people doing the same time of things in those households that people did back then - as a way to survive.  They get paid money in today's society, but they are technically still "serving" others and are considered the "help," maids, valets, servants, etc.

Incorrect example. Not being able to leave the 'job' is slavery. People today are granted the right to leave if they dislike the job and take a new one, and thus the above example is flawed.

Back then, at least they had a way to get out of financial burdens by doing what they did, and the ones they worked for, at least were to have a heart and let them work for them, following the rules given in regards to their humanity.  That was a lot better than the way many slaves were treated right here in our own country.

Again, slavery is slavery. It's morally wrong and you trying to defend it in any way is repugnant.

[falcon9]

Since you refuse to consider the reasons around the issue, then agreeing to disagree is the final answer.

No, that's a false dichotomy; the excuses, (not eumphemistic "reasons", since reason is based upon logical reasoning, not 'excuses'), cannot be 'justified' by any religious belief.

Just keep in mind today, that although there aren't "slaves" technically serving in rich households, castles, etc., they are still people doing the same time of things in those households that people did back then - as a way to survive.  They get paid money in today's society, but they are technically still "serving" others and are considered the "help," maids, valets, servants, etc.

The difference is that such work is done voluntarily for pay, not involuntarily for room and board and that's a significant difference.

Back then, at least they had a way to get out of financial burdens by doing what they did, and the ones they worked for, at least were to have a heart and let them work for them ... 

This sounds like such 'volunatary servitude' "slavery" was similar to today's employee except that today's employer's are not legally able to beat/kill/have sex with their 'employees' under the banner of some superstitious religious strictures.

That was a lot better than the way many slaves were treated right here in our own country.

Sure it was; research much?

[tclark15]

I have begun to study my Bibe again and reading scriptures daily helps to keep me thinking  in a positive manner.  During the day when I'm losing focus , I reflect back on my daily scripture. Today it's Psalms 1:1  Blessed is the man that walks not in the counsel of the ungodly nor stand in the path of snners nor sit in the seat of the scornful. What I gained from this scripture today was to stay positive and keep on moving, don't hang around people who are not a good  for helping to build Godly character in you.

[vp44]

My my my the racist shows its face. From many of your post I felt a certain thing about you and now with these latest post I think you have surfaced. Jcribb you hide behind verses and quotes, but more and more you show your true identity.

[falcon9]

I have begun to study my Bibe again ...

Why, doesn't only read "Red Lobster"?

[JediJohnnie]

Another point worth mentioning Re:slavery in the Bible.It wasn't always done to subjugate any certain race.A lot of people think that's synonymous with slavery,but it's not really the case.Not all slavery is classified the same.Not all people who owned slaves were  "evil" by association.(Needless to say,many of our founding fathers were slave owners.Didn't make them evil by default.)

I wouldn't waste anymore time debating this here (it's a verse thread,not a debate thread after all.) but obviously Falconer is going to hide behind his "I don't trust your source!" routine as usual.

[falcon9]

I wouldn't waste anymore time debating this here (it's a verse thread,not a debate thread after all.) but obviously Falconer is going to hide behind his "I don't trust your source!" routine as usual.

Since the reference source is religio-mytho-illogical hearsay, it can't be trusted as a valid one.