Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:

MAGSolo wrote:]
Where did I use an ad hominen attack? I think I asked a question.

That you have to ask that, makes me think that you are not paying attention to HOW you post and what you seem to imply with your posts, may I ask how old YOU are and YOUR level of education?

Now, I am also curious.

1over137 wrote:Hi all.

My atheist friend asked me, if Canaanites or other tribes of unbelievers were giving chance to believe.

You know, Israelites were killing whole villages, but had people chance to know about God?

God is certainly all knowing. He knew those that took over Canaan Land after Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph days would come in and take over the land. These people followed after false god’s and sacrificed to demons the bible tells us. The archeological records verify this as do other ancient records. This means they were by no means pure and innocent but rather exploiters of God’s grace and perverts and manipulators of it. God knew they would never have anything to do with him. Amazing how God’s grace put up with them for as long as he did.

So the coming of the children of Israel, were first used as the hand of God bring these people into judgment and accountability. Next, point God had, was to keep the ancient Israelites from falling in to the same depraved nature of the people of Canaan land along with their diseases and degeneracy. As for God forewarning them – he had from the time of Joseph till Moses to do so and most likely did but people ignore and reject such dreams, visions, verbal warnings readily, even as they so do so today.

Problem with such moral equivalence arguments you receive from objectors to the bible and God, is that objectors ignore the historical context of ancient life, how brutal and harsh it was. They measure the ancient people according to the own cultural civilized group think as they view themselves to be, innocent, sweet, noble…and God a big meany in the sky unworthy of consideration.

The tendency is to forget how Christ Jesus and the shedding of the Holy Spirit has pushed back this pagan meaness and depravity and give no thanks to God for it in our modern times. They desire a return to hedonistic ways to prove the god they love – loves them. They continue to fail to heed God’s actual gracious warnings and pleadings, and continue to show spite towards God’s grace. Much as the objectors of the bible do so today.

Ask such objectors if the world is more like this today than it was yesterday?

"But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such … as these." Titus 1:1-5 NASB

Then ask them what form of godliness do they pander too?
-
-
-

1over137 wrote:

MAGSolo wrote:So Hannah, if you are a female, how would you like to be raped and then forced to marry the person that raped you?

Maybe that marriage would prevent me from being raped further by other people.

So you would be fine with being forced to marry a man that raped you?

MAGSolo wrote:

1over137 wrote:

MAGSolo wrote:So Hannah, if you are a female, how would you like to be raped and then forced to marry the person that raped you?

Maybe that marriage would prevent me from being raped further by other people.

So you would be fine with being forced to marry a man that raped you?

In Our cultural context and under our ESTABLISHED laws and morals, no she would not nor should she be.

The more correct and contextual argument would be:
Would you prefer to marry your rapist under the authority and control of your father or be killed or banished or sold off to a brothel or whatnot.
Because those were the real world alternatives in the ANE and the more you deny the cultural context of the ABOLISHED levitical Laws, the more you seem to ignore any argument other than the ONE you are making, which means you really aren't here to debate or discuss, just state thing about the bible that you are not very well informed on and make it clear than ANYTHING OTHER than YOUR view is wrong.

MAG,
After reviewing my last few posts directed at you I noticed I have given you attitude and been a bit rude to you.
I apologize.
One of those days today and I am a bit short in the patience department and if I have come off as belligerent I am truly sorry.
You have questions and the right to ask them and while I may not like how you ask them, I shouldn't be rude to you.
Again, sorry.

MAGSolo wrote:So Hannah, if you are a female, how would you like to be raped and then forced to marry the person that raped you?

You really don't seem to understand what's going on in this passage. In the ANE marriage was an extremely important institution. It provided a home for the wife as well as protection and financial security. It served to better the social and economic position of the bride's family and increase the size of the extended family. Although we are used, living as we do in the twenty-first century, to marrying for love, people in the ANE wouldn't have thought of it that way. You don't seem to realize what marrying the rapist would mean in this instance. The victim, living in a culture in which purity is extremely important and in which a non-virgin would have extraordinary difficulty finding a husband (something she NEEDS for security), would be pretty much out of luck. Marrying the rapist in the ANE would not be like it is today. The new husband would be forced to provide for her for the rest of her life. She would remain, because of other OT laws, legally protected against abuse, neglect, abandonment, or being given away, and her father's household would still protect her. If I have my laws straight, this would be a special case of marriage. Her husband would have to fulfill all the duties required of a provider but without getting anything in return as a normal husband would (the protections against abuse and neglect in place plus the fact that he would be, in this case, unable to divorce her eliminating his control over her and, likely freeing her from any obligation to actually act as a WIFE to him [note, though, that in the ANE they would differentiate between types of wives, and in this case the woman in question would likely fill the role of a dependent--having to be provided for but being under no obligation to fulfill the role of partner or companion as we imagine today]).

So what we really have here is a set of laws that, in a sense, punish the rapist by forcing him to provide for his victim for the rest of her life. Now, that may not look so good, but what else could have been done? I suppose one could argue for sending the rapist to jail, though they didn't really have extensive prisons in agrarian Israel, but this wouldn't do anything to help the victim, who, robbed of her virginity wouldn't be able to find a husband. I suppose God could have just said, "Get over your need for purity. It's not her fault so give her some respect," but that would require somebody to actually do what he says, and the Old Testament amply demonstrates that Israel wasn't exactly great at changing its way of thinking to be in line with God's. When his most fundamental laws often went ignored, how could God expect the people of Israel to adhere towards his own perfect morals? I suppose the rapist could be forced to pay her money without marrying her, but that certainly wouldn't guarantee her future if he died before she did and stopped assisting her or if he went into debt. Only by forcing him to take her into his extended family could the law guarantee that she was permanently taken care of.

As for stoning disobedient children, you make it sound as if people killed their five-year olds for talking back. That obviously isn't the way it worked. The rebellious offspring would have to be a lot older and a lot more rebellious to warrant being killed (like threatening the often precarious well-being of the family). You also have to remember that individual case would be subject to judges who could dole out punishments case by case.

And no, we aren't just making things up when we state that slavery in Israel wasn't slavery in the sense we usually think of it today.

Icthus wrote:

MAGSolo wrote:So Hannah, if you are a female, how would you like to be raped and then forced to marry the person that raped you?

You really don't seem to understand what's going on in this passage. In the ANE marriage was an extremely important institution. It provided a home for the wife as well as protection and financial security. It served to better the social and economic position of the bride's family and increase the size of the extended family. Although we are used, living as we do in the twenty-first century, to marrying for love, people in the ANE wouldn't have thought of it that way. You don't seem to realize what marrying the rapist would mean in this instance. The victim, living in a culture in which purity is extremely important and in which a non-virgin would have extraordinary difficulty finding a husband (something she NEEDS for security), would be pretty much out of luck. Marrying the rapist in the ANE would not be like it is today. The new husband would be forced to provide for her for the rest of her life. She would remain, because of other OT laws, legally protected against abuse, neglect, abandonment, or being given away, and her father's household would still protect her. If I have my laws straight, this would be a special case of marriage. Her husband would have to fulfill all the duties required of a provider but without getting anything in return as a normal husband would (the protections against abuse and neglect in place plus the fact that he would be, in this case, unable to divorce her eliminating his control over her and, likely freeing her from any obligation to actually act as a WIFE to him [note, though, that in the ANE they would differentiate between types of wives, and in this case the woman in question would likely fill the role of a dependent--having to be provided for but being under no obligation to fulfill the role of partner or companion as we imagine today]).

So what we really have here is a set of laws that, in a sense, punish the rapist by forcing him to provide for his victim for the rest of her life. Now, that may not look so good, but what else could have been done? I suppose one could argue for sending the rapist to jail, though they didn't really have extensive prisons in agrarian Israel, but this wouldn't do anything to help the victim, who, robbed of her virginity wouldn't be able to find a husband. I suppose God could have just said, "Get over your need for purity. It's not her fault so give her some respect," but that would require somebody to actually do what he says, and the Old Testament amply demonstrates that Israel wasn't exactly great at changing its way of thinking to be in line with God's. When his most fundamental laws often went ignored, how could God expect the people of Israel to adhere towards his own perfect morals? I suppose the rapist could be forced to pay her money without marrying her, but that certainly wouldn't guarantee her future if he died before she did and stopped assisting her or if he went into debt. Only by forcing him to take her into his extended family could the law guarantee that she was permanently taken care of.

As for stoning disobedient children, you make it sound as if people killed their five-year olds for talking back. That obviously isn't the way it worked. The rebellious offspring would have to be a lot older and a lot more rebellious to warrant being killed (like threatening the often precarious well-being of the family). You also have to remember that individual case would be subject to judges who could dole out punishments case by case.

And no, we aren't just making things up when we state that slavery in Israel wasn't slavery in the sense we usually think of it today.

Pretty much on the button.
All Laws were subject to interpretation and implementation by the "governing group" of the time, be it the "judges" or the "elders" or the "priests" ( depending on what time in Israel's history and which laws was broken).

Magsolo, I think Icthus answered your question, didn't he?

PaulSacramento wrote:

MAGSolo wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The cultural context of when and to whom these laws were given MIST be taken into account.
When God gave these Laws to Israel, what "laws" had Israel been under before them?
How did they compare? Where these new Laws a "step up" or a step down compared to other ANE Laws to which Israel would have been exposed to.

No, the time and to whom these laws were given do not need to be taken into account at all actually.

Yes, they do.
And YOU saying that they don't doesn't equate to that being so.
In your opinion they don't and in the opinion of others, they do.
You opinion is NOT more valid than theirs ( or vice-versa).

No it doesnt matter. Ideals and laws are bound by time. what is truly good and evil is not bound by time. What is good and right today was good and right 100, 500, 1000, and 10,000 years ago. God should have been guiding his people according to his timeless and infinite knowledge of right and wrong, not giving them backwards laws that catered to and even reinforced the ignorant practices and ideals they had. How can you teach people what is good and what is bad when you make laws that cater to what it is that they do, instead of what is actually good? When did it become Gods job to cater and bend his will to what mortal men are doing, he is supposed to tell them what is supposed to make his word the absolute final say in what is right and wrong. If anything, this was the time when God needed to set them straight and show them that their ideas were simply wrong. Instead he made laws that reinforced their ignorant views and allowed people up to just over 100 years ago, to use the bible to validate things like slavery. How is it that nowhere in the bible does it say anything about slavery being wrong and evil when we know it to be so today. How is it that not once anywhere does the bible say that it is not good for a person to own another person and subjugate them to his will? How is it that a book is supposed to be the word of God and God is supposed to be the arbiter of goodness, but even in the new testament, it commands that slaves obey their masters, rather than teaching people that slavery is not good or right?

Icthus wrote:

MAGSolo wrote:So Hannah, if you are a female, how would you like to be raped and then forced to marry the person that raped you?

You really don't seem to understand what's going on in this passage. In the ANE marriage was an extremely important institution. It provided a home for the wife as well as protection and financial security. It served to better the social and economic position of the bride's family and increase the size of the extended family. Although we are used, living as we do in the twenty-first century, to marrying for love, people in the ANE wouldn't have thought of it that way. You don't seem to realize what marrying the rapist would mean in this instance. The victim, living in a culture in which purity is extremely important and in which a non-virgin would have extraordinary difficulty finding a husband (something she NEEDS for security), would be pretty much out of luck. Marrying the rapist in the ANE would not be like it is today. The new husband would be forced to provide for her for the rest of her life. She would remain, because of other OT laws, legally protected against abuse, neglect, abandonment, or being given away, and her father's household would still protect her. If I have my laws straight, this would be a special case of marriage. Her husband would have to fulfill all the duties required of a provider but without getting anything in return as a normal husband would (the protections against abuse and neglect in place plus the fact that he would be, in this case, unable to divorce her eliminating his control over her and, likely freeing her from any obligation to actually act as a WIFE to him [note, though, that in the ANE they would differentiate between types of wives, and in this case the woman in question would likely fill the role of a dependent--having to be provided for but being under no obligation to fulfill the role of partner or companion as we imagine today]).

So what we really have here is a set of laws that, in a sense, punish the rapist by forcing him to provide for his victim for the rest of her life. Now, that may not look so good, but what else could have been done? I suppose one could argue for sending the rapist to jail, though they didn't really have extensive prisons in agrarian Israel, but this wouldn't do anything to help the victim, who, robbed of her virginity wouldn't be able to find a husband. I suppose God could have just said, "Get over your need for purity. It's not her fault so give her some respect," but that would require somebody to actually do what he says, and the Old Testament amply demonstrates that Israel wasn't exactly great at changing its way of thinking to be in line with God's. When his most fundamental laws often went ignored, how could God expect the people of Israel to adhere towards his own perfect morals? I suppose the rapist could be forced to pay her money without marrying her, but that certainly wouldn't guarantee her future if he died before she did and stopped assisting her or if he went into debt. Only by forcing him to take her into his extended family could the law guarantee that she was permanently taken care of.

As for stoning disobedient children, you make it sound as if people killed their five-year olds for talking back. That obviously isn't the way it worked. The rebellious offspring would have to be a lot older and a lot more rebellious to warrant being killed (like threatening the often precarious well-being of the family). You also have to remember that individual case would be subject to judges who could dole out punishments case by case.

And no, we aren't just making things up when we state that slavery in Israel wasn't slavery in the sense we usually think of it today.

The problem with this is that here again, we have God bending his will to fit in with the ideals and practices of fallible, ignorant men. What kind of God knows what is right and wrong but makes laws that concede to the practices of men. Slavery is not right. Why would God make laws that permitted slavery just because that was the practice at the time when God himself is supposed to dictate practices according to his knowledge of right and wrong? Why would God decree that a man must marry the woman he raped just to fit in with these peoples ignorant views about female purity. Does he at all take into consideration that the woman might want absolutely nothing at all to do with the man that raped her. Instead of God saying that a woman that has been raped is no less "pure" than a virgin, he makes laws that validates these ignorant views and allows men to hold on to them for thousands of years. You ask what else could have been done? I mean seriously, are you kidding me? What else could have been done other than making the rapist marry the girl he raped? Wow, yeah, thats really a tough one

As for stoning disobedient children, you make it sound as if people killed their five-year olds for talking back. That obviously isn't the way it worked. The rebellious offspring would have to be a lot older and a lot more rebellious to warrant being killed (like threatening the often precarious well-being of the family). You also have to remember that individual case would be subject to judges who could dole out punishments case by case.

Once again we have people (you) simply making stuff up. The scripture does not say anything at all about the offsprings needing to threaten the well-being of the family. It doesnt say anything of the sort, so I must ask where you got this claim from? The text says:
They shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’
21 “aThen all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so byou shall remove the evil from your midst, and call Israel will hear of it and fear.
Being a drunkard and a glutton is not anywhere close to threatening the well-being of the family, so please stop completely making stuff up. Having a disobedient offspring is not sufficient reason to kill him. So being a rebellious son, such as being a drunk or glutton, is deserving of being stoned to death, but for raping a woman, the punishment is that you must marry that woman. Yeah God was on a roll when he thought these up wasnt he. Actually Its almost certain that no God played any role in thinking up these ridiculous laws.

And no, we aren't just making things up when we state that slavery in Israel wasn't slavery in the sense we usually think of it today.

So where is your proof that it was something different. How is owning a slave, treating them as property and giving them to children as inheritance any different from slavery as we know it?

MAGSolo wrote:

Icthus wrote:

MAGSolo wrote:So Hannah, if you are a female, how would you like to be raped and then forced to marry the person that raped you?

You really don't seem to understand what's going on in this passage. In the ANE marriage was an extremely important institution. It provided a home for the wife as well as protection and financial security. It served to better the social and economic position of the bride's family and increase the size of the extended family. Although we are used, living as we do in the twenty-first century, to marrying for love, people in the ANE wouldn't have thought of it that way. You don't seem to realize what marrying the rapist would mean in this instance. The victim, living in a culture in which purity is extremely important and in which a non-virgin would have extraordinary difficulty finding a husband (something she NEEDS for security), would be pretty much out of luck. Marrying the rapist in the ANE would not be like it is today. The new husband would be forced to provide for her for the rest of her life. She would remain, because of other OT laws, legally protected against abuse, neglect, abandonment, or being given away, and her father's household would still protect her. If I have my laws straight, this would be a special case of marriage. Her husband would have to fulfill all the duties required of a provider but without getting anything in return as a normal husband would (the protections against abuse and neglect in place plus the fact that he would be, in this case, unable to divorce her eliminating his control over her and, likely freeing her from any obligation to actually act as a WIFE to him [note, though, that in the ANE they would differentiate between types of wives, and in this case the woman in question would likely fill the role of a dependent--having to be provided for but being under no obligation to fulfill the role of partner or companion as we imagine today]).

So what we really have here is a set of laws that, in a sense, punish the rapist by forcing him to provide for his victim for the rest of her life. Now, that may not look so good, but what else could have been done? I suppose one could argue for sending the rapist to jail, though they didn't really have extensive prisons in agrarian Israel, but this wouldn't do anything to help the victim, who, robbed of her virginity wouldn't be able to find a husband. I suppose God could have just said, "Get over your need for purity. It's not her fault so give her some respect," but that would require somebody to actually do what he says, and the Old Testament amply demonstrates that Israel wasn't exactly great at changing its way of thinking to be in line with God's. When his most fundamental laws often went ignored, how could God expect the people of Israel to adhere towards his own perfect morals? I suppose the rapist could be forced to pay her money without marrying her, but that certainly wouldn't guarantee her future if he died before she did and stopped assisting her or if he went into debt. Only by forcing him to take her into his extended family could the law guarantee that she was permanently taken care of.

As for stoning disobedient children, you make it sound as if people killed their five-year olds for talking back. That obviously isn't the way it worked. The rebellious offspring would have to be a lot older and a lot more rebellious to warrant being killed (like threatening the often precarious well-being of the family). You also have to remember that individual case would be subject to judges who could dole out punishments case by case.

And no, we aren't just making things up when we state that slavery in Israel wasn't slavery in the sense we usually think of it today.

The problem with this is that here again, we have God bending his will to fit in with the ideals and practices of fallible, ignorant men. What kind of God knows what is right and wrong but makes laws that concede to the practices of men. Slavery is not right. Why would God make laws that permitted slavery just because that was the practice at the time when God himself is supposed to dictate practices according to his knowledge of right and wrong? Why would God decree that a man must marry the woman he raped just to fit in with these peoples ignorant views about female purity. Does he at all take into consideration that the woman might want absolutely nothing at all to do with the man that raped her. Instead of God saying that a woman that has been raped is no less "pure" than a virgin, he makes laws that validates these ignorant views and allows men to hold on to them for thousands of years. You ask what else could have been done? I mean seriously, are you kidding me? What else could have been done other than making the rapist marry the girl he raped? Wow, yeah, thats really a tough one

As for stoning disobedient children, you make it sound as if people killed their five-year olds for talking back. That obviously isn't the way it worked. The rebellious offspring would have to be a lot older and a lot more rebellious to warrant being killed (like threatening the often precarious well-being of the family). You also have to remember that individual case would be subject to judges who could dole out punishments case by case.

Once again we have people (you) simply making stuff up. The scripture does not say anything at all about the offsprings needing to threaten the well-being of the family. It doesnt say anything of the sort, so I must ask where you got this claim from? The text says:
They shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’
21 “aThen all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so byou shall remove the evil from your midst, and call Israel will hear of it and fear.
Being a drunkard and a glutton is not anywhere close to threatening the well-being of the family, so please stop completely making stuff up. Having a disobedient offspring is not sufficient reason to kill him. So being a rebellious son, such as being a drunk or glutton, is deserving of being stoned to death, but for raping a woman, the punishment is that you must marry that woman. Yeah God was on a roll when he thought these up wasnt he. Actually Its almost certain that no God played any role in thinking up these ridiculous laws.

And no, we aren't just making things up when we state that slavery in Israel wasn't slavery in the sense we usually think of it today.

So where is your proof that it was something different. How is owning a slave, treating them as property and giving them to children as inheritance any different from slavery as we know it?

Making stuff up? Really? Is taking anything but a flat, uniformed reading of the text translated into contemporary English 'making stuff up'? Is contextualizing the Biblical material using the extensive research of hundreds of years of archaeology, history, textual criticism, theology, etc 'making stuff up'? I don't think so.

The Bible doesn't make it clear that slavery is wrong? It certainly seems to take a strong stance against CHATTEL slavery, or does the whole part about freeing the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt not count? I suppose I'll get the 'proof that it [OT slavery] was something different out of the way. By OT law, the vast majority of slavery falls under something similar to indentured servitude. Someone falls in debt and sells himself or another family member. Note, however, that when one says 'sell' in this context, it doesn't mean the same thing it does in a contemporary market. Property as understood in the OT is different. Everything within a patriarch's household is his property, be it his land, his house, his belongings, his servants, or his children. This does NOT, however, mean that other humans that fall under the term 'property' have less worth as humans or can be disposed of however the master sees fit. Property is a very broad term in the OT as is the term 'slave'. A servant is called a slave to his or her master, but an advisor to the king is called a slave as well. Even a king is called a slave if he is subject to a greater king because freedom is understood as being relative. Therefore, it is an illicit move to simply equate what the OT calls slavery with what we tend to call slavery today. They were quite different. For one thing, even though Israel was an agrarian society, most slaves acted as household servants. Agriculture and other manual labor was, quite surprisingly (and even outside of Israel) predominantly the work of 'free' people. Once again, however, it is vital to stress that the line between a free person and a slave was relatively thin. To a certain extent, slavery in Israel could be seen as a form of adoption. Israel's economy necessitated the existence of family units considerably larger than a contemporary nuclear family. Families often coalesced in to large extended families that owned and worked the land. These units were relatively self sufficient, providing their own food and producing many of their own necessary goods. Because income was often tied directly to the land, it was important to keep families together in order to maintain holdings, but this provided its own difficulties for the family as it was the responsibility of the family leaders to protect and provide for a large number of people. Marriage was vital to maintaining this order by allowing families to mingle and strengthen each other, and it is into this system that we must contextualize OT slavery. When someone sold either himself or his family into slavery, he received a sum of money in exchange for that family member joining another family. This was not the slavery of the American South in which slaves were worked hard, regularly beaten, and forced to live in huts or barracks outside the main estate. Slaves in the ANE generally became part of the family unit into which they were sold, eating at the same table with their master's family, attending rituals and festivals as family members. Slave owners were required to provide for their servants, not only food and clothing, but often (always in Israel) at least some wages. Furthermore, slaves were to be treated as human beings. Murder of a slave, even if it was yours, was murder. If you injured one of your slaves you had to either give him/her just compensation or his/her freedom. One could not force a servant to continue working after his/her debt has been paid, he/she has earned enough money to redeem his/herself, or longer than seven years. You mentioned the ability to keep a slave as inheritable property, but this only applied in two circumstances: 1) if the master dies before the allotted time or the debt owed by the servant hasn't be paid, in which case the servant would stay with the family until that time or 2) if the slave in question isn't an Israelite, in which case the servant can be held longer because other nations refuse Israel the same courtesy. Now, even in the latter case, the law provides ample regulation. Foreigners are to be treated with respect and dealt with generously. Note also that Israel had relatively unprecedented laws against giving up a fugitive slave. It is not quite clear whether the OT requirement that fugitive slaves be given shelter applied to all slaves or only foreign ones, but in either case, it protects against harsh treatment. Now, in the American South, slave owners often slept with their slaves and had children with them who were treated as slaves as well. This would not be allowed in the OT. If you wanted one of your slaves, you had to marry him/her and provide them with all the support and protection you'd have to give to a free person. In fact, the OT regulations of slavery seem to be designed precisely to protect a servant's rights as a human being. A slave can have property, can free him/herself at any time if he/she has earned the money or met any other requirements and could even petition to become a full-fledged member of the family once free. In fact, if a servant is freed and asks to stay within his/her master's household, the former owner is required to accept them as a member of the family. Master's are even expected to provide generously for their servants once they are freed, sending them away with gifts. This is obviously not slavery as we envision it today. It is not the permanent ownership of another human being. It does not reduce people to the level of chattel or strip them of their rights as humans. It does not destroy families and separate parents from their children unwillingly. It does not entitle the master to abuse or overwork people they own, nor does it exploit the poor or perpetuate the servant's poverty. It is a system that provides generously for those who are forced to involve themselves in it an was a relatively efficient and fair system for managing debts between neighbors. And I am not making it up. Researchers have catalogued surviving materials from the ANE concerning these matters, and volumes have been written about it. Most scholars studying the ANE do not consider ANE slavery (of which OT slavery is the most humane form) to be slavery as we understand it today.

Now, as for God making the law fit the practices of the day....what of it? God did not make the law to conform to ANE practices, he did it to improve them. Your knowledge of the ANE, or rather your ignorance of it, shines through when you claim that the OT law looks like it was made up to fit what was commonly believed in the ANE. It obviously wasn't. The OT books contain powerful polemics against practices that ANE cultures would have viewed as normal. It takes the usual eye for an eye mentality and changes the focus from property and economic justice to justice based on the value of humans. It takes law codes that perpetuate the separation of classes and forces them to treat people as equals. The life of a slave is worth no less than the life of his wealthy owner by the OT law. If you were familiar with the way things usually worked in the ANE, you wouldn't being saying that its laws sound like they come from that culture. God is the cosmic Creator--unchanging, perfect, all powerful, the source of all that is good, separate and superior to the creation. He is not anthropomorphic. He needs no food or sustenance, and he acknowledges no other gods. You can say that he is made up, but you can't coherently argue that his supposed non-existence can be reasonably demonstrated by examining his laws and nature in the context of the ANE. If Israel was going to make up a God, the Lord is not what they would come up with.

Lastly, your claim that I'm making stuff up about children threatening the social order is patently false. As I said earlier, the agrarian, community-based nature of the ANE left many families hanging dangerously on the verge of poverty and starvation. Everybody had to work, and everybody had to do their part. If a man's son is a lazy drunkard (which in context would likely entail other activities we'd associate with the 'wrong crowd' today) he'd be threatening his family's well being. His family is responsible for providing for him, and if he's going to refuse to do anything but drink, well, he's needlessly burdening others and disgracing his household. We may think of it as harsh today, in an age where we can slack off and not starve to death in a desert climate because of it, but Israel did not have that luxury. And it isn't as if being a drunkard is something you can do once. It is, by definition, a personality trait. It isn't as though he'd be killed for going out one night and getting smashed. A drunkard son, to even become a drunkard, would have to make being irresponsible in the face of his family a way of life and would have plenty of opportunities to turn back or be a decent person before he'd get punished. Oh yeah, and the reason the drunkard is executed and the rapist isn't is because the drunkard doesn't have any way to make up to his victim. Because his crime is that his lifestyle is an economic and social burden, his removal is the best remedy. If the rapist were to be killed, who would provide for the victim's future? What good would killing the man do if it still left the woman in poverty. And no, God is not reinforcing primitive ideas about purity. What should he have done? Sure he could have told them to get over it, but telling them to would hardly overturn centuries of culture. Even if the law said that people shouldn't care about such things and should treat a woman who lost her virginity to rape as a normal woman, people would just make excuses not to marry her. But more importantly, the OT law is not meant to be a perfect law code, because God was not trying to make heaven on Earth when he founded Israel. God's ultimate revelation of love and compassion is in Jesus Christ. The OT law, though important, is the setup for the real deal. God was under no more obligation to give Israel a complete and entire exhaustive moral code than he was to give them all the scientific knowledge in the universe. What he did do was to found a nation that, in it's laws, had respect for human beings and was designed to be simultaneously practical and morally upright.

That's all for now because I'm pressed for time at the moment.

1over137 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

MAGSolo wrote:]
Where did I use an ad hominen attack? I think I asked a question.

That you have to ask that, makes me think that you are not paying attention to HOW you post and what you seem to imply with your posts, may I ask how old YOU are and YOUR level of education?

Now, I am also curious.

His name indicates that he has a Magister degree (from German speaking country) and is a soloist. Is my guess right?

Icthus, thanks for your post. I am learning from it.

Great post Icthus.

Mag you can also read this "Slavery and the Bible"
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... it=slavery
I wrote this a while back, hopefully this will help you somehow.

@ 1over137
just to help answer your original question since mister maggy likes to throw monkey wrenches into people's topics i'll answer the best i can and can provide some scripture if needed. when reading the book of joshua we see that when the spies were sent to jericho they lodged at rahab's house and she hid them from the people of jericho. in her conversation with the israelites she mentions that the people have heard how God had delivered the israelites from the egyptians and that the whole land was terrified of them Joshua 2: 8-13. what i have gathered from my studies is that God had the israelites wander 40 years in the wilderness not just because of the rebellious israelites but for other reasons as well and i'll explain. we all know the expression hitting two birds with one stone well i like to apply that with how God works but instead of hitting two he hits millions lol but here i'll get to the point what i have come to see is not only did God have the israelites wander 40 years cuz of their rebellious nature but also to teach them how to endure hardship and trust in him. do you really think they were ready to obtain their promised land? i think not and for obvious reasons we are shown that. God had to tutor them, guide them and lead them through moses. now God could have taken them straight through to their land but instead they went in kind of a circle and what does this have to do with the people of cannan? well it's simple once you give it some thought. rahab explained that the whole land heard of the israelites and what they came for so i also think God gave them a chance to repent of their ways. why would God do that when he said previously to kill them all you may ask? well simple again God is merciful and loving and will go to great lengths to save the righteous. isn't that what he did to rahab? wasn't her household saved due to her bravery and her willingness to go with God's plan? not only was she spared but also the Gibeonites too, although they came deceivingly they repented of their ways and did not follow with the rest of their amorite neighbors in attacking Israel. Joshua 9: 27. So i strongly believe and feel that God gave them time to turn from their ways and it is not like they had no idea who the Israelites were because from Rahabs conversation she and the land had known of the miracles in which God had done for Israel but not just that but also why and for what reason Israel was coming. instead of following God's plan most opposed and like any that oppose God it is only a matter of time before your walls come crashing down on you like jerichos. hope that helped any