Evidence for God from Science

Butterfly wrote:[...You completely avoided my question, just like the article you linked to did. Talking about voluntary servitude has nothing to do with what the verses I quoted from Lev.25:44-45, nor does the Bible ever speak of perpetual voluntary servitude. That is the issue, please address it...

Both articles (Rick Deem, Glen Miller) go on, and on about slavery versus servitude making up loads of material along the way, without ever really addressing the main issue of owning people and keeping them and their children in perpetual servitude. Owning another human being is a violation of their human rights, and immoral...God allowed for such behavior in the Bible, which makes him morally corrupt and invalidates him as a true god.

The amount of time it took you to write your post avoiding my question, would have been sufficient time to copy and paste the appropriate part of Rick Deems article, so that's no excuse.

Butterfly wrote:...First off in this thread I have never "claimed" to live by the Golden Rule, even though in my life I do try to practice its principles. The whole point of my conversation in this thread is to show that principles like the Golden Rule, do not need a moral law giver in order to exist.

Secondly, where have I misrepresented your beliefs? I don't even know you. My statement about people who try and impose their religious doctrines on others, refers to people I have known, or read of, so if the shoe DOESN'T fit DON'T wear it.

I respect your belief that objective morals come from God, otherwise I wouldn't be having this conversation.

Butterfly wrote:...My posts do not contain my definition of morality, but rather I am giving my ideas of how morality could have risen in the thought process of self-conscious humans. What I am saying is that it is wrong to impose your religious dogmas on others.

As I said in another post, this issue of God allowing perpetual servitude has nothing to do with the culture of the ANE, but everything to do with allowing people who were not Hebrews, to be treated in a manner that denied them equal human rights in perpetuity. A clear distinction is made in verse 45 between what can be done to a Hebrew servant versus a non-Hebrew, these are rules set up by the Hebrew god, Yahweh. So, there is no denying that immoral treatment of non-Hebrews was approved of by God.

3. Other references to 'slavery-like' situations in the Mosaic law: The 'Foreign slave".


In addition to the institution of Hebrew servanthood above, the Mosaic law has some material on two other kinds of servant/slave-type situations: captives of war and foreign slaves. There is not much material on these subjects, and, given the intention of the Law to differentiate between Israel and the nations, much of it falls into the exceptional category.

The first case is that of war captives in Deut 20. The scenario painted in this chapter is a theoretical one, that apparently never materialized in ancient Israel. It concerns war by Israel against nations NOT within the promised land. Since Israel was not allowed by God to seek land outside its borders (cf. Deut 2.1-23), such a military campaign could only be made against a foreign power that had attacked Israel in her own territory. By the time these events occurred (e.g. Assyria), Israel's power had been so dissipated through covenant disloyalty that military moves of these sort would have been unthinkable.

But the scenario involved offering peace to a city. If the city accepted peace, its inhabitants would be put to "forced labor" (cf. Gibeon in Josh 9), but this would hardly be called 'slavery' (it is also used of conscription services under the Hebrew kings, cf. 2 Sam 20.24; I Kings 9.15). If the city was attacked and destroyed, the survivors were taken as foreign slaves/servants (but the women apparently had special rights--cf. Deut 21.10ff) under the rubric of the second case (below).

We noted earlier in this essay that these were not 'slaves' in the proper sense of the word, but more 'vassals' or 'serfs'.

The second case is that of foreign slaves within Israel (Lev 25.44f):

Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. 44 "`Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life
God orders the Israelites to make a distinction between the Hebrew servants and the those of foreign nations. They were:

· Allowed to 'buy' (not take!) slaves from foreign nations around them [Note: these would NOT include the Canaanites, but would be from remote nations. This would make the incidence level of this extremely small, except in the case of royalty or the ruling class. In those days, rulers would often have slaves with special skills, such as writing, teaching, translation, but the lives of these 'slaves' would not be representative of the common "western" slavery under discussion.]



· The temporary resident situation would look more like the Hebrew institution (since the alien would be 'selling himself' as in that case). The main difference would be the absence of the "timed-release" freedom clauses, but the slave-for-life-for-love situation may have been what is behind the 'you CAN make them slaves for life' (implying that it was not automatic.).


· The temporary resident already performed more mundane tasks for the people, for example wood and water services (cf. Deut 29.11: the aliens living in your camps who chop your wood and carry your water. ), in exchange for escape from Egypt or from troubles abroad. But these aliens were not confined to some 'lower class' in the Israelite assembly, since it is obvious that they could rise to affluence and actually BUY Hebrew servants as well:

"`If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan, 48 he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself. (Deut 25.47)

As such, it looks more like the Hebrew institution than the 'western' version.


· It is not to be expected that foreign servants would have the same rights and privileges as Hebrew servants, given the 'showcase' nature of the law. There were many distinctions along these lines, to highlight the value of covenant membership. Some of these include:



§ Dietary laws: Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your God. (Deut 14.21)



§ Cancellation of Debts: 1 At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the LORD's time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. 3 You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you. (Deut 15.1-3)



§ Interest charges: Do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. 20 You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite, (Deut 23.19ff)

This shows that the standard for intra-Hebrew cultural practice was to be higher than international practice (but note that foreigners could easily become members of the assembly of Israel and participate in the covenant blessings, so this is not an exclusion scenario at all.) And indeed, such standard cultural priorities are meant as inducements to assimilate to the host community--they are like a 'Benefits of Membership' brochure.

Indeed, it must still be remembered that the nation of Israel was supposed to welcome runaway foreign slaves with open arms (Deut 23.15).

· The case of the female war-captives is remarkable for its 'instant exaltation' of the woman--past slave, past concubine, all the way to full wife(!):

"The position of a female captive of war was remarkable. According to Deuteronomy 20:14, she could be spared and taken as a servant, while Deuteronomy 21:10-11 allowed her captor to take her to wife. While the relationship of the Hebrew bondwoman was described by a peculiar term (note: concubine), the marriage to the captive woman meant that the man 'would be her husband and she his wife.' No mention was made of any act of manumission; the termination of the marriage was possible only by way of divorce and not by sale." [OT:HLBT, 127]



· Finally, it should be noted that the passage says that they "can" make them slaves for life--not that they "were automatically" slaves for life. Somehow, freedom was the default and lifetime slavery only an 'option'.


It should also be recognized that the Law did make some allowance for less-than-ideal praxis in the day (e.g. polygamy, divorce), but nevertheless regulated these practices and placed definite limits and protections around these areas. This foreign semi-slavery seems to have fallen into this category as well.



But even with this class of people being 'below' regular Hebrew slaves, there was still a God-directed humanitarian vision required of Israel--in strong contradiction to other lands…

Let's see some of the data which reveals this perspective.

(1) "Although slaves were viewed as the property of heads of households, the latter were not free to brutalize or abuse even non-Israelite members of the household. On the contrary, explicit prohibitions of the oppression/exploitation of slaves appear repeatedly in the Mosaic legislation. In two most remarkable texts, Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19, Yahweh charges all Israelites to love ('aheb) aliens (gerim) who reside in their midst, that is, the foreign members of their households, like they do themselves and to treat these outsiders with the same respect they show their ethnic countrymen. Like Exodus 22:20 (Eng. 21), in both texts Israel's memory of her own experience as slaves in Egypt should have provided motivation for compassionate treatment of her slaves. But Deuteronomy 10:18 adds that the Israelites were to look to Yahweh himself as the paradigm for treating the economically and socially vulnerable persons in their communities." [HI:MFBW:60]

(2) The classic alienation of insider-outside social stratification (a major component of Western and even Roman slavery) was minimized in Israel by the inclusion of the domestics in the very heart-life of the nation: covenant and religious life. This would have created social bonds that softened much of any residual stigma associated with the servile status. This was accomplished through religious integration into the religious life of the household:

"However, domestic slavery was in all likelihood usually fairly tolerable. Slaves formed part of the family and males, if circumcised, could take part in the family Passover and other religious functions. Moreover, in general there were probably only a few in each household (note: allowing easier access to family bonds)" [OT:I:101]

jlay wrote:

As I said in another post, this issue of God allowing perpetual servitude has nothing to do with the culture of the ANE, but everything to do with allowing people who were not Hebrews, to be treated in a manner that denied them equal human rights in perpetuity. A clear distinction is made in verse 45 between what can be done to a Hebrew servant versus a non-Hebrew, these are rules set up by the Hebrew god, Yahweh. So, there is no denying that immoral treatment of non-Hebrews was approved of by God.

And so by what standard to you judge this to be immoral?
Human rights? According to?

Butterfly wrote:

jlay wrote:

As I said in another post, this issue of God allowing perpetual servitude has nothing to do with the culture of the ANE, but everything to do with allowing people who were not Hebrews, to be treated in a manner that denied them equal human rights in perpetuity. A clear distinction is made in verse 45 between what can be done to a Hebrew servant versus a non-Hebrew, these are rules set up by the Hebrew god, Yahweh. So, there is no denying that immoral treatment of non-Hebrews was approved of by God.

And so by what standard to you judge this to be immoral?
Human rights? According to?

By the Golden Rule, which is the same standard that Jesus promoted.

RickD wrote:Butterfly, here from the Christian thinktank article. The blue is Leviticus 25:44:http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

3. Other references to 'slavery-like' situations in the Mosaic law: The 'Foreign slave".


In addition to the institution of Hebrew servanthood above, the Mosaic law has some material on two other kinds of servant/slave-type situations: captives of war and foreign slaves. There is not much material on these subjects, and, given the intention of the Law to differentiate between Israel and the nations, much of it falls into the exceptional category.

The first case is that of war captives in Deut 20. The scenario painted in this chapter is a theoretical one, that apparently never materialized in ancient Israel. It concerns war by Israel against nations NOT within the promised land. Since Israel was not allowed by God to seek land outside its borders (cf. Deut 2.1-23), such a military campaign could only be made against a foreign power that had attacked Israel in her own territory. By the time these events occurred (e.g. Assyria), Israel's power had been so dissipated through covenant disloyalty that military moves of these sort would have been unthinkable.

But the scenario involved offering peace to a city. If the city accepted peace, its inhabitants would be put to "forced labor" (cf. Gibeon in Josh 9), but this would hardly be called 'slavery' (it is also used of conscription services under the Hebrew kings, cf. 2 Sam 20.24; I Kings 9.15). If the city was attacked and destroyed, the survivors were taken as foreign slaves/servants (but the women apparently had special rights--cf. Deut 21.10ff) under the rubric of the second case (below).

We noted earlier in this essay that these were not 'slaves' in the proper sense of the word, but more 'vassals' or 'serfs'.

The second case is that of foreign slaves within Israel (Lev 25.44f):

Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. 44 "`Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life
God orders the Israelites to make a distinction between the Hebrew servants and the those of foreign nations. They were:

· Allowed to 'buy' (not take!) slaves from foreign nations around them [Note: these would NOT include the Canaanites, but would be from remote nations. This would make the incidence level of this extremely small, except in the case of royalty or the ruling class. In those days, rulers would often have slaves with special skills, such as writing, teaching, translation, but the lives of these 'slaves' would not be representative of the common "western" slavery under discussion.]



· The temporary resident situation would look more like the Hebrew institution (since the alien would be 'selling himself' as in that case). The main difference would be the absence of the "timed-release" freedom clauses, but the slave-for-life-for-love situation may have been what is behind the 'you CAN make them slaves for life' (implying that it was not automatic.).


· The temporary resident already performed more mundane tasks for the people, for example wood and water services (cf. Deut 29.11: the aliens living in your camps who chop your wood and carry your water. ), in exchange for escape from Egypt or from troubles abroad. But these aliens were not confined to some 'lower class' in the Israelite assembly, since it is obvious that they could rise to affluence and actually BUY Hebrew servants as well:

"`If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan, 48 he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself. (Deut 25.47)

As such, it looks more like the Hebrew institution than the 'western' version.


· It is not to be expected that foreign servants would have the same rights and privileges as Hebrew servants, given the 'showcase' nature of the law. There were many distinctions along these lines, to highlight the value of covenant membership. Some of these include:


· Finally, it should be noted that the passage says that they "can" make them slaves for life--not that they "were automatically" slaves for life. Somehow, freedom was the default and lifetime slavery only an 'option'.

But you still need to read the rest of the article for proper context.

RickD wrote:

Butterfly wrote:

jlay wrote:

As I said in another post, this issue of God allowing perpetual servitude has nothing to do with the culture of the ANE, but everything to do with allowing people who were not Hebrews, to be treated in a manner that denied them equal human rights in perpetuity. A clear distinction is made in verse 45 between what can be done to a Hebrew servant versus a non-Hebrew, these are rules set up by the Hebrew god, Yahweh. So, there is no denying that immoral treatment of non-Hebrews was approved of by God.

And so by what standard to you judge this to be immoral?
Human rights? According to?

By the Golden Rule, which is the same standard that Jesus promoted.

So let me get this straight. Since Jesus is God, and he promotes the golden rule, that must mean you judged by an objective morality with God as its origin.
I knew you were a believer. See, you can't stray too far off without God bringing you back to Him.

PaulSacramento wrote:There is a context in regards to the Hebrew people that needs to be understood and why the laws was given to them and why the laws was HOW it was for THAT time, for them.
They were a people that had been enslaved for generations, all they new was slavery and the slave caste system.
They were a people that, even after witnessing all they did to escape captivity, turned on Moses and God the first chance(S) they got.
They were a people that had been punished over and over by God for rebelling against Him and yet, they still did.
They were a people that God had to accommodate and shape and mold and when you do that, you have to accommodate and work with what you have.
Casual laws were a necessity with them since they were gonna "break" laws anyways, much like the many causal laws we have now.
Did God condone slavery?
Nope, as a matter of fact he made a HUGE statement against it - The Exodus.
Did God KNOW that the hebrews were gonna keep slaves no matter what? Of course He did and as such he made provisional and casual Laws for that, Laws that the Hebrews kept as well as they could, but many faltered ( imagine if they had been even more strict".
Were the OT laws perfect? Hell no, not even close, they were Laws to accommodate the Hebrews, to bring them step-by-step, closer to being the people of God.
To lay the foundation for a greater and better Law, a Law of Love given by The Word of God personally.

the ability to corrupt something doesn't mean it is flawed. It is contradictory to say that an eternal, omipotent being can create an eternal, omnipotent being. Fail.

Yes, why?
What is it they lack?

OM implies that there is a standard outside of man. That it REALLY is wrong to torture children for pleasure and not merely a preference.
Thus vanilla and chocolate, which are.......preferences. I can't say you are 'wrong' for prefering vanilla, even if everyone else in the culture prefers chocolate. The word 'wrong' just becomes a token assigned to societal or personal preferences. I suspect this is why you didn't answer the questions. You know where the answer leads.

Smuggling in OM. it presumes that a functioning society has some inherent value.

What I mean is , if I believe stealing is wrong and Tom does it, I think his morals are subjective but that would only be true IF stealing was wrong and if I don't have a standard that trancends my view of what is right and wrong, then I don't really have the right to call his morals , or anyone elses, subjective.

IT is very easy to say that morals are subjective but of course to say that we must compare the morals of A to those of B and then conclude, based on what WE believe is good, that A or B has subjective morals because they do NOT agree with ours or that of the other party.
Of course to do that, to claim that moral are subjective, we have to base that on some objective or absolute moral ( good).
If not, what are we basing our view that someone else's moral is "wrong" or :"incorrect" and hence, subjective?

B. W. wrote:
The Christian world view is summed up as simply as I can sum it up as this: God made us reasoning, intelligent creatures, and hardwired a moral conscious into our being/nature. Subjective morals are our own making, not God’s doing. He sent forth a standard of Objective Moral principles to expose our sin i.e. how we twist and warp things into a fine mess. In this, God reveals our need for His salvation out of the messes we create, such as slavery to our own subjective moral whims.

Jesus did clarified the Golden Rule thusly:

Mat 22:37, 38, 39, 40, Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." NIV

Somehow, you missed the first part of it: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.

Why?
-
-
-

Butterfly wrote:
Hey Rick, I'm glad I put a smile on your face, but don't get too hopeful I was a Christian for many years until I decided to try and find answers to some of the tough questions that had accumulated over the years, and what I found was not pretty.

Through my extensive biblical research, the unavoidable conclusions I came to were that the God portrayed in the Bible is immoral, biased toward the male, and unjust...which left me no choice but to invalidate him as a true God.

RickD wrote:

Butterfly wrote:
Hey Rick, I'm glad I put a smile on your face, but don't get too hopeful I was a Christian for many years until I decided to try and find answers to some of the tough questions that had accumulated over the years, and what I found was not pretty.

Do you mind sharing what you mean when you said "I was a Christian for many years"?

Through my extensive biblical research, the unavoidable conclusions I came to were that the God portrayed in the Bible is immoral, biased toward the male, and unjust...which left me no choice but to invalidate him as a true God.

Butterfly, I'm truly sad to hear this. You must have gone through something horrible in your life that leads you to feel this way. No matter what you've been through, God will never leave you nor forsake you. If you've ever believed on Christ, you are promised eternal life. Even if you forsake God, He can't forsake His promises to you. Even though you don't feel His presence sometimes, He will draw you back to Him. No matter how many people fail you, God will always be there for you. I pray that you will see that God loves you unconditionally, and is patiently waiting for you to return to Him.

I was a Christian up until 2010 when I started asking the tough questions that had weighed on my mind for years, determined to find answers. Little did I know then, that my journey for truth would lead me out of the faith I held for nearly 28 years. I had no horrible event in my life that shattered my faith, only a hunger for truth. At any point in my 28 years as a Christian if you would have asked me how sure I was of the reality of the Christian God, I would have told you I absolutely knew that I knew that I knew God was real, but of course all that has changed now.