God's Law; Your slaves

reply to post by DISRAELI

You are missing the point that these are law texts in the first instance.
Why do modern western countries have so many laws dealing with the driving of cars? Not because the lawmakers are obsessed with cars, but because the people who live under the laws drive cars. The cars exist, are capable of causing trouble, and need to be regulated.
Similarly these are laws to govern the behaviour of people who have already got slaves. The slaves exist, so the situation needs to be regulated.

First of all, our lawmakers ARE obsessed with cars. trains and planes. Transportation is vital to our economy and our way of life. Consumers are encouraged to purchase cars and financial institution are geared to financing those cars, trucks, vans, etc. Factories were built and labor laws created as well as laws related to roads, licenses to drive, taxes, fuel and rules of the road.

Obviously, slavery was important to the Israelites economy too. From early on in their history, in the Torah, you see "God" ordering the Israelites to go out and conquer nations and take slaves. So, your theory that God preferred that the Israelites didn't take salve is contradicted by your very own Bible.

Now, will people look back at America's reliance on transportation and government regulation of such, and the motto of "One Nation Under God", and say, GOD must have written those laws, because, look how well thought out and fair they were!

On the other hand, Israel has many laws promoting the welfare of slaves.
While it also has a law saying fugitive slaves must NOT be returned to their masters.

Isn't it obvious enough that slave-owners wrote the first set of laws, and did not write the second set?

No it isn't obvious!

So, because there are variances of slavery laws, by your logic, that means that "God" wrote those laws? I hardly think that's logical! What is logical is that a bunch of people who were enslaved by others, including Babylon, now see it as their turn. But remembering the bitter reality of slavery, have incorporated a teeny tiny bit of compassion into their law.

The historic lesson of slavery, if not learned were destined to be repeated, and Christians didn't learn from history and, based on Biblical teaching, felt justified, empowered and ordained to go out and continue to enslave those they thought to be inferior. And, the so called Christian nation of The United States of America was among the last global bastion of slavery that only ended with a deadly war, a little more than 150 years ago.

What we have now, on a global scale, is a very well thought our kind of corporate slavery, that fuels our global economy.

reply to post by DISRAELI

TextLet’s take, for example, what God’s law says about the treatment of slaves among the Israelites. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Very well written DIREAELI.
Have never been taught that subject before and it does bring more understanding than criticism of God. Good thread.

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

What are you on about? What do post modern era wars, tyrants and despots have to do the character of the God of the Bible? Oh, yeah, they're all alike!

Are you justifying their wars and despotism in the name of atheism? Is it ok if they were atheists?

So murder is justified if the murderer was atheist, is that what you are saying in soft language?

Let's see, you are saying that atheist despots are like God. Is God an atheist?

windword
reply to post by DISRAELI

 

You are missing the point that these are law texts in the first instance.
Why do modern western countries have so many laws dealing with the driving of cars? Not because the lawmakers are obsessed with cars, but because the people who live under the laws drive cars. The cars exist, are capable of causing trouble, and need to be regulated.
Similarly these are laws to govern the behaviour of people who have already got slaves. The slaves exist, so the situation needs to be regulated.

First of all, our lawmakers ARE obsessed with cars. trains and planes. Transportation is vital to our economy and our way of life. Consumers are encouraged to purchase cars and financial institution are geared to financing those cars, trucks, vans, etc. Factories were built and labor laws created as well as laws related to roads, licenses to drive, taxes, fuel and rules of the road.

Obviously, slavery was important to the Israelites economy too. From early on in their history, in the Torah, you see "God" ordering the Israelites to go out and conquer nations and take slaves. So, your theory that God preferred that the Israelites didn't take salve is contradicted by your very own Bible.

Now, will people look back at America's reliance on transportation and government regulation of such, and the motto of "One Nation Under God", and say, GOD must have written those laws, because, look how well thought out and fair they were!

On the other hand, Israel has many laws promoting the welfare of slaves.
While it also has a law saying fugitive slaves must NOT be returned to their masters.

Isn't it obvious enough that slave-owners wrote the first set of laws, and did not write the second set?

No it isn't obvious!

So, because there are variances of slavery laws, by your logic, that means that "God" wrote those laws? I hardly think that's logical! What is logical is that a bunch of people who were enslaved by others, including Babylon, now see it as their turn. But remembering the bitter reality of slavery, have incorporated a teeny tiny bit of compassion into their law.

The historic lesson of slavery, if not learned were destined to be repeated, and Christians didn't learn from history and, based on Biblical teaching, felt justified, empowered and ordained to go out and continue to enslave those they thought to be inferior. And, the so called Christian nation of The United States of America was among the last global bastion of slavery that only ended with a deadly war, a little more than 150 years ago.

What we have now, on a global scale, is a very well thought our kind of corporate slavery, that fuels our global economy.

Do you drive over the speed limit so you can "stick it to the man"?

Do you own a car? Do you shop at a grocery store? Do you buy lottery tickets? Do you drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes?

Did you buy a computer? Do you have the internet? Tell me, do you have to have all of these things? Or do you shop at farmers markets, use corn ethanol you produce yourself to put in a vehicle you purchased, or do you go all out like the Amish and have a horse and buggy? I am assuming you buy clothing, or do you raise your own cotton, herd your own goats and sheep and make your own clothing?

Hmm, it seems that because you just might be a consumer but you don't have to be a consumer, then really you made yourself a slave. You've sold yourself out to the mighty corporation that gives you internet so you can come on here and talk about Biblical slavery, but you are a slave yourself, and sold yourself out to become a slave.

Why not go all out and escape slavery and live like the Amish do, or some other uncivilized tribe. You don't have to be a consumer, but you are. The very fact that you use the internet, proves that you don't mind being sold out as a slave, because you got the internet.

DISRAELI
reply to post by immoralist

 

Underneath the sarcasm you obviously get the point, that the task is to distinguish between the good and the bad, to separate out, if possible, what they were being told ("You shall love you neighbour as yourself") from what they came up with themselves ("we've always had slaves, let's keep them").

Well I understand your point, but I dont necessarily agree that these ancient books should really be the foundation of our ethics of morality. The only option we have if this is maintained is that we have a buffet style morality where we pick and choose from various aspects of these books that we find palatable to a modern audience.

My personal opinion is that ethics are something that have Evolved for social animals living within groups, through excluding the lawbreaker and allowing the compliant breeding access and rights over time. Ethics and morality are two different spheres, ethics is something which is functional and has merely to do with the happiness of individuals within a group. Morality is a suprastructure invented by priestly power systems to actually enforce and control ethics to reinforce their religio-power system thus subverting the inherant power structure of the strong/inherently healthy (and usually consequently 'dumb' but good willed). The caste of the priest (or the witchdoctor etc...) invented a world superimposed upon the real one as a means to harness the power away, having become EVER more clever, cunning, and consequently more Ill-willed they grasped the sceptre of power away from the strong by restricting access to "The Good".

This is the clear different between Good and Bad, and Good and "evil".

immoralist

DISRAELI
reply to post by immoralist

 

Underneath the sarcasm you obviously get the point, that the task is to distinguish between the good and the bad, to separate out, if possible, what they were being told ("You shall love you neighbour as yourself") from what they came up with themselves ("we've always had slaves, let's keep them").

Well I understand your point, but I dont necessarily agree that these ancient books should really be the foundation of our ethics of morality. The only option we have if this is maintained is that we have a buffet style morality where we pick and choose from various aspects of these books that we find palatable to a modern audience.

My personal opinion is that ethics are something that have Evolved for social animals living within groups, through excluding the lawbreaker and allowing the compliant breeding access and rights over time. Ethics and morality are two different spheres, ethics is something which is functional and has merely to do with the happiness of individuals within a group. Morality is a suprastructure invented by priestly power systems to actually enforce and control ethics to reinforce their religio-power system thus subverting the inherant power structure of the strong/inherently healthy (and usually consequently 'dumb' but good willed). The caste of the priest (or the witchdoctor etc...) invented a world superimposed upon the real one as a means to harness the power away, having become EVER more clever, cunning, and consequently more Ill-willed they grasped the sceptre of power away from the strong by restricting access to "The Good".

This is the clear different between Good and Bad, and Good and "evil".

So should we follow Stalin's example? Should we trade God and the priestly caste for an atheistic system that The State defined morality? Tell us exactly what you feel is the best governance that has worked? The hierarchical structure of small bands of non-Christianized Amazons?

When the law breaks the law, then there is no more law, just the fight for survival - Billy Jack.

Once a law is no longer called a law, then there's no breaking of laws, because they are non-existent. So slavery can only be called slavery when given a backdrop of what slavery is defined as. Therefore, tomorrow when there are no laws about slavery because it's all moral relativism anyway, the person who does take slaves won't be any more wrong than you are, because it's all a matter of survival and no more moral laws restricting it.

If you think one can be good without God, then Stalin must have been an angel. But you call him evil, why? Where does the concept of evil arise from? Apparently Stalin could not be evil if it is all buffet morality.

windword
Now, will people look back at America's reliance on transportation and government regulation of such, and the motto of "One Nation Under God", and say, GOD must have written those laws, because, look how well thought out and fair they were!

That is not an analogy for what I'm doing, because I'm not doing the logic that way round.
I don't set out to prove that "God wrote" these laws.
Rather, the premise of these threads is that I take a similar assumption as the starting point (that they were, at least, published in his name), and then proceed by asking what, in that case, they would say about him.
In the same way, if it was taken as a premise that a God was responsible for the present laws of America, it would be legitimate to ask what those laws might say about him (the equivalent debate would be whether he endorsed or only tolerated the individual ownership of guns).

"Isn't it obvious enough that slave-owners wrote the first set of laws, and did not write the second set? "
No it isn't obvious!
So, because there are variances of slavery laws, by your logic, that means that "God" wrote those laws?

That was not my logic at all.
I was responding to someone who suggested that slave-owners wrote the laws on slavery, and my logic was as follows;
1) The equivalent laws in Israel act against the interests of slave-owners.
2) Therefore the slave-owners were not responsible for them.
As I've already remarked, "proving" that God wrote these laws is not on my agenda.
I'm just taking that as the opening premise and seeing where it leads.
The most I need to show is that they're compatible with the opening premise.

And a candid and honest comparison of the two sets of laws would be forced to admit that the contrast between them is not "teeny tiny".
If you had to live under them, you would think the difference was immense.

and Christians didn't learn from history and, based on Biblical teaching, felt justified, empowered and ordained to go out and continue to enslave those they thought to be inferior. And, the so called Christian nation of The United States of America was among the last global bastion of slavery that only ended with a deadly war, a little more than 150 years ago.

Nevertheless, I repeat, when the campaigns against slavery began, the Christian pressure groups who led them got their conviction that slavery was immoral from the teaching they found in the Bible.
For that matter, your own conviction that slavery is immoral comes ultimately from the same source, but the Christian labels were removed at some stage in the transmission process.

immoralist
Well I understand your point, but I dont necessarily agree that these ancient books should really be the foundation of our ethics of morality. The only option we have if this is maintained is that we have a buffet style morality where we pick and choose from various aspects of these books that we find palatable to a modern audience.

It's more a case of getting down to the "spirit" of these laws, the basic principles which underlie them.
This process began with Paul, and his teaching that we are released from "the old written code" and living under the guidance of the Spirit.
So this is a contribution to the debate amongst Christians about what the Bible is saying to us.

WarminIndy

If you think one can be good without God, then Stalin must have been an angel. But you call him evil, why? Where does the concept of evil arise from? Apparently Stalin could not be evil if it is all buffet morality.

This is an obviously ridiculous statement that belies your fearful rabid defense of your own beliefs more than any sensible statement about reality.


If you can be good without God, then Stalin must have been an angel? NO, Stalin was a terrible person, obviously. You can be good WITH or WITHOUT GOD. God has literally nothing to do with weather someone decides to act morally or ethically toward other people.

ETHICS are why Stalin is considered to be a bad person, Ethics are a product of group evolution. Chimps have a form of ethics, Dogs have a form of ethics, ALL human societies which have ever existed have a form of ethics.

Do individuals choose not to follow these? Yes. Do individual systems consistently fall short of our "ideals", absolutely.

However for you to hyperbolically posit that because someone doesnt believe in God they are going to act unethically, is completely unfounded and ridiculous. Some of the worst people I have ever known have been Christians. Some of the Best people I have ever known have been atheists.

I myself used to be a Christian, I went to school to become a missionary, I still read the bible, I understand it EXCELLENTLY. I have met countless Christians who are good people, Countless muslims who are good people, Countless buddhists who are good people, and Countless atheists who are good people.

Buddhists are Atheists, they are some of the most ethical and considerate people on the face of the earth, Christians have been responsible for some of the most horrible atrocities in the past several thousand years, IN SPITE Of their belief in your God.

Im saying God has literally nothing to do with whether someone is ethical or moral whatsoever. NOTHING, especially not your god, or his god, or any particular god. Im an atheist, My wife is an atheist, and if you ask anyone who knows us, we have the most integrity and act ethically toward people AS A PRINCIPLE FAR more often than 90% of the good christian folk around us.

DISRAELI

DarksideOz
... saying that slavery will accepted to the point of having rules and guidelines set out in religious text's ? ...
What sort of God, religion, or human thinks that enslaving another human for their own benefit is somehow justifiable, let alone having any place in supposed religious texts ?

You are missing the point that these are law texts in the first instance.
Why do modern western countries have so many laws dealing with the driving of cars? Not because the lawmakers are obsessed with cars, but because the people who live under the laws drive cars. The cars exist, are capable of causing trouble, and need to be regulated.
Similarly these are laws to govern the behaviour of people who have already got slaves. The slaves exist, so the situation needs to be regulated.

Nothing in the passages I quoted, and nothing in my remarks on them, suggest that slavery is "somehow justifiable".
On the contrary, I have pointed out a number of indications that the Biblical God did not want them to be holding slaves, and wanted them to give it up.
They include the episode where Jeremiah talked the people of Jerusalem into issuing an Emancipation Proclamation.
You think slavery is a bad thing.
My claim is that the Biblical God thinks slavery is a bad thing. You are in agreement with each other.

Slavery only benefits the slave owner. I wonder how much influence slave owners have had on religious text's over the years ?

Did you not read the second post of the thread, where I quoted Babylon's laws on the subject of slavery?
They make an interesting contrast.

On the one hand, Babylon has many laws about returning "fugitive slaves" to their masters
While it has NO laws promoting the welfare of slaves.

On the other hand, Israel has many laws promoting the welfare of slaves.
While it also has a law saying fugitive slaves must NOT be returned to their masters.

Isn't it obvious enough that slave-owners wrote the first set of laws, and did not write the second set?

edit on 29-3-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

I don't believe I missed your point at all, but I'm not going to get into that tit-for-tat debate.

We were apparently given free will by God, where we not ? Yet how does that free will exist if slavery is an accepted belief by those who have re-written the "laws" ?
Slavery is a direct contradiction to free will, and it is yet another classic example of man re-writing into their own version and benefit. Therefore, any mention of slavery rules, laws or conditions in any text is a contradiction to the laws of God, and should be ignored.

The only person who wins from slavery is the slave owner.

And when you can see the benefit of slaves to these men, then you can be sure "slavery laws" will be written in the slave owners favour. Even if those laws contradict the word of God.
God gave us free will, apparently, yet chosen men have decided to over rule it for their own benefit.
Whether its in a religious text, or a law, the question remains.................'how does ANYONE justify slavery at ANY stage, considering we were supposed to have free will'.

The very road rules example you gave actually proves my point. The more laws they have, the more control they have. The less control we have of ourselves, then the less free will we have. Mans laws, as a majority, do nothing but take away from our right of free will.

Yes, we need some form of law and order in society, but we do NOT need the amount of laws that we have today. There is not one single person on this planet that can know every law across all jurisdictions, yet they claim that ignorance of the law is no defence in a courtroom. If you did something, genuinely not knowing that it was a crime to begin with, then are you really guilty ? If that law was made by corrupt people, then what merit or worth does that "law" have to begin with ?

To use your example about driving rules, here in Australia we have a new LAW for driving on roundabouts when the older system worked better than the new system, due to the confusion of the new rule. Put it this way, this new roundabout rule in Australia is so stupid that I have seen at least 50 police cars not use the new ruling while going though a roundabout. BUT, it is a LAW that can be enforced, even though the enforcement officers do not use the new rule either. A law does not change common sense, yet common sense can change any law. Laws are written by men, and men makes mistakes. But isn't the word of God gospel, and not to be altered by man ?

Yet when God gives us free will, man thinks he can come along and change all that with slavery. Any religious text that endorses and justifies the use of slaves is written by man, not God, therefore should be used as the toilet paper it was meant for. Put it this way, if I was a criminal, that had the power to change the word of God into my own words, then obviously I am going to change the rules to make my criminal behaviour now legally legal. Have a look at how the world of politics works. They put loopholes into existing laws so that they can then escape any charges, while then happily charging anyone else who doesn't know about the loophole. And when has been going on since day dot of human laws, then what worth are human laws, especially when they contradict the word of God ?

Look around you in the world today, and tell me if you think that is what God meant by 'free will'. Be honest in your assessment of todays world, and take into account we are constantly on the verge of WW3, most democracies are nothing but police states draped under the banner of democracy. Most "democratic" elections are rigged. The legal system is either incompetent, or straight out corrupt. Politicians couldn't be more puppet like if they tried. Police escape charges that would see you or me in maximum security.
Thanks to a false-flag on 9/11, and the LAWS that ensued, you or I can now be labelled a terrorist just for disagreeing with our Government, even if your argument is credible. This very law is a blatant 'up yours' to our free will. And the less free will we have, then more power and control they have over us.

If God gave us free will, then who is any man or woman to take it away from us for their own agenda's ? I'm all for laws that are based on common sense and suit the majority, but I have no respect at all for laws that only benefit the few and I do not acknowledge these laws no matter how many of my fellow people call me a criminal for not OBEYING these laws. Much like the slavery laws that contradict free will. Yes we need some form of law and order, but who gets to decide on the order, and what if that order suits them a lot better than it suits the majority of the population ? Does that not show total disrespect for our free will ? Yet they expect respect of their laws in return. Based on what ?

immoralist

WarminIndy

If you think one can be good without God, then Stalin must have been an angel. But you call him evil, why? Where does the concept of evil arise from? Apparently Stalin could not be evil if it is all buffet morality.

This is an obviously ridiculous statement that belies your fearful rabid defense of your own beliefs more than any sensible statement about reality.


If you can be good without God, then Stalin must have been an angel? NO, Stalin was a terrible person, obviously. You can be good WITH or WITHOUT GOD. God has literally nothing to do with weather someone decides to act morally or ethically toward other people.

ETHICS are why Stalin is considered to be a bad person, Ethics are a product of group evolution. Chimps have a form of ethics, Dogs have a form of ethics, ALL human societies which have ever existed have a form of ethics.

Do individuals choose not to follow these? Yes. Do individual systems consistently fall short of our "ideals", absolutely.

However for you to hyperbolically posit that because someone doesnt believe in God they are going to act unethically, is completely unfounded and ridiculous. Some of the worst people I have ever known have been Christians. Some of the Best people I have ever known have been atheists.

I myself used to be a Christian, I went to school to become a missionary, I still read the bible, I understand it EXCELLENTLY. I have met countless Christians who are good people, Countless muslims who are good people, Countless buddhists who are good people, and Countless atheists who are good people.

Buddhists are Atheists, they are some of the most ethical and considerate people on the face of the earth, Christians have been responsible for some of the most horrible atrocities in the past several thousand years, IN SPITE Of their belief in your God.

Im saying God has literally nothing to do with whether someone is ethical or moral whatsoever. NOTHING, especially not your god, or his god, or any particular god. Im an atheist, My wife is an atheist, and if you ask anyone who knows us, we have the most integrity and act ethically toward people AS A PRINCIPLE FAR more often than 90% of the good christian folk around us.

Can you tell me exactly what I have to be fearful of?

You know as well as I do that people don't live up to what they claim. You claim ethics as a principle, correct? Then tell me, what if the ethics of your groupthink change slowly over time when it becomes ethical to screw people just a little bit more, until you have totally screwed them? What happens then? Were you ethical according to groupthink? Yes, because you let groupthink tell you what the definition of ethical behavior is.

I then say that Stalin was ethical according to his groupthink. It was his principle to murder and starve Russians. So just saying ethics means nothing because one can have very bad ethics, that you call unethical, but to them, it's ok within their groupthink. So chimpanzees have groupthink ethics, dogs have the same. Hedonism is also an ethical principle. Would you say hedonism is good?

But the word ethics and morality is interchangeable in the Oxford Dictionary.

For those who need to catch up, groupthink is the majority who tells each other how to think. Just as the above examples by this poster.

reply to post by DarksideOz


One of those that I can't name but knows what the name is.

Argue the 9/11 on another thread. Right now this is about what the Bible says about slavery.

Question : Why are you placing onto the ancient Hebrews a higher moral standard than any other ancient society? It's like those ancient societies were ok having slaves as long as they followed Zeus or Apollo or Quetzcoatl or Shang Di. But you hold the ancient Hebrews to a higher moral standard, why?

Question : Is driving a thing you MUST do in Australia just so the law can be enforced to make you pay? Or is driving in Australia a choice you make? Is there a law requiring you to drive in Australia?

reply to post by WarminIndy


Just to clear up front, as you know, because I've told you this before, I don't believe that that biblical character claiming to be GOD is a is god, God, or GOD! I don't believe in your god. That's not to say that I don't believe in God, but the Bible version isn't it.

Are you justifying their wars and despotism in the name of atheism? Is it ok if they were atheists?

So murder is justified if the murderer was atheist, is that what you are saying in soft language?

Let's see, you are saying that atheist despots are like God. Is God an atheist?

What difference does it make if wars are started by atheists or religious folk? All despots, including the biblical god, are the same.

Slavery, murder, rape.....these things are not from, endorsed or regulated by any god.

windword
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Just to clear up front, as you know, because I've told you this before, I don't believe that that biblical character claiming to be GOD is a is god, God, or GOD! I don't believe in your god. That's not to say that I don't believe in God, but the Bible version isn't it.

Are you justifying their wars and despotism in the name of atheism? Is it ok if they were atheists?

So murder is justified if the murderer was atheist, is that what you are saying in soft language?

Let's see, you are saying that atheist despots are like God. Is God an atheist?

What difference does it make if wars are started by atheists or religious folk? All despots, including the biblical god, are the same.

Slavery, murder, rape.....these things are not from any god.

edit on 30-3-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)

Whatever spiritual force you believe in, even though you might not call it God, as the Bible says, and you know that I believe in GOD as the ultimate reality above and beyond the descriptions the Bible says, existed before the Bible was written. That God is described in the Rig Vedas, so therefore this great Transcendent Being, over the affairs of men throughout time, has revealed to men at different times the different aspects and attributes of His character.

This means that if you believe in a Great Transcendent Being above and beyond merely what the Bible describes, then that Great Transcendent Being must have also been behind every civilizations' use of slavery. The Brahma of the Vedic Age is described the exact same way as the Biblical description, so God is more than just a God that suddenly existed for the ancient Hebrews.

So let's hear your cry against the Untouchables in Hinduism because the Hinduism formed after the Vedic Age, which had laws for slaves and Untouchables.

Confucius himself advocated slavery. Where did he get that idea from? The Mandate of Heaven. So let's hear your decry of slavery under the Confucianism founded on MANDATE OF HEAVEN. So now, let's talk about the Mandate of Heaven and Confucius.

DarksideOz
And when you can see the benefit of slaves to these men, then you can be sure "slavery laws" will be written in the slave owners favour.

I've answered this point already, so I patiently repeat the previous answer.
Perhaps you will read it this time.
"Did you not read the second post of the thread, where I quoted Babylon's laws on the subject of slavery?
They make an interesting contrast.

On the one hand, Babylon has many laws about returning "fugitive slaves" to their masters
While it has NO laws promoting the welfare of slaves.

On the other hand, Israel has many laws promoting the welfare of slaves.
While it also has a law saying fugitive slaves must NOT be returned to their masters.

Isn't it obvious enough that slave-owners wrote the first set of laws, and did not write the second set?"

We were apparently given free will by God, where we not ?
If God gave us free will, then who is any man or woman to take it away from us for their own agenda's ?

The question of "free will" is a complete red herring, because you are confusing two different issues, namely
how much we are controlled by God
how much we are controlled by other people

When people use the term "free will" in Theology they are ONLY talking about the first issue.
The term "free will" means "When you choose to do something wrong, you are responsible for what you choose to do; God is not making you do it".
Nobody has ever said that the Christian God has given us "free will" in the sense you're using, of not having our actions restricted by other people. In fact I think we should call that something different, like "freedom of action", in order to avoid confusion between the two ideas.

Not only is "complete freedom of action" not something which is promised in religion, but it is also completely unworkable, for reasons which should be obvious.
One man's freedom to beat another man's head with an iron bar interferes with another man's freedom not to have his head beaten with an iron bar.
It isn't possible to sustain both freedoms at the same time. Something has to give.

Imagine the next-door neighbour breaking into your house, destroying your property, beating up your family, and threatening to kill averybody there.
Are you really saying you would do nothing to stop him, because stopping him would interfere with his God-given freedom of action? I think you would stop him as quickly as you could, either on your own or with the help of others.
In certain circumstances like that one, interfering with someone's freedom of action is a good thing to do.
And that is what laws are for.
When used properly, they interfere with freedom of action in order to stop it injuring other people.
The laws on slavery in the Old Testament have that purpose.
They restrain the freedom of the slave-owner (examples in the OP) for the benefit of the slaves who would otherwise suffer from it.

reply to post by WarminIndy

This means that if you believe in a Great Transcendent Being above and beyond merely what the Bible describes, then that Great Transcendent Being must have also been behind every civilizations' use of slavery. The Brahma of the Vedic Age is described the exact same way as the Biblical description, so God is more than just a God that suddenly existed for the ancient Hebrews.

I don't believe in that kind of god. I don't believe that god is a person or a conscious entity that interferes in human society and judges our behavior and motives. God just is. God is a unifying force that binds all things through "love. God is not Jesus, Yahweh, Zeus, Krishna or any other name that people claim to be god.

reply to post by DISRAELI


There are remnants of the Code of Hammurabi, ancient Babylonian Law, throughout the Old Testament. Even Jesus, in the New Testament, quotes from the Code of Hammurabi in Matthew when he says:

5:38
You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Do you think that the Code of Hammurabi was also endorsed by the god of the Old Testament? Just some of it?

Compare the philosophical freedom that Greece enjoyed during the same time period. Scholarship was allowed to flourish and produced men like Socrates and Pythagoras, while the Hebrews were limited in the questioning of the universe by their own 10 Commanments. On the other hand, contemporary Solon the Athenian wrote and administered his 10 Commanments, before going into hermitage for the following ten years, lest he be perceived as a dictator by enforcing his new laws.

Ten Commandments of Solon (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers)

1. Trust good character more than promises.
2. Do not speak falsely.
3. Do good things.
4. Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made.
5. Learn to obey before you command.
6. When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful.
7. Make reason your supreme commander.
8. Do not associate with people who do bad things.
9. Honor the gods.
10. Have regard for your parents.

Unlike the biblical 10 Commandments, these are still relevant in every way, to everyone in modern society as much as they were back then, in 650 BC.

So, the Hebrews may have had some laws that were more civilized than some of their contemporary counterparts, but, at the same time, there were other societies that were even more civilized than them. I don't think some transcendental being/god had anything to do with it.

windword
There are remnants of the ancient Babylonian Law, throughout the Old Testament.

Yes, I know.
I've been quoting the comparable laws from Hammurabi myself, all the way through this series. Usually the second post in the thread.

Do you think that the Code of Hammurabi was also endorsed by the god of the Old Testament?

Paul would not have denied the possibility that the Biblical God could have influenced, if less consciously, the laws of other nations.
His way of putting it was "When the Gentiles who have not the Law do what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves"- Romans ch2 v14
You are still trying to refute the line of argument "If these laws are good, that proves that God wrote them", and I've already told you that I'm not using that line of argument.
I'm doing things the other way round; "Given the Biblical statement that God provided these laws, what would that say about him?"
Therefore the fact that the laws of other nations can be good as well has no impact on my case. I have never tried to deny it, and I have never tried to deny the resemblances between the laws of Israel and the laws of contemporary nations.
On the contrary, I 've made a point of drawing attention to the fact in every single opening post, making the fact one of the elements in my conclusions, and expecting to find God's input mainly in the differences and improvements.

Even Jesus, in the New Testament, quotes from the Code of Hammurabi in Matthew when he says: "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"

Incidentally, that is not true, you know, strictly speaking. He was quoting from Exodus.
The point can be proved by comparing the wording.
The words of the Law in Exodus are;
"If any harm follow, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe"- Exodus ch21 vv23-25

Whereas the comparable law in Hammurabi's Code is;

196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.
197. If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken.
198. If he put out the eye of a freed man, or break the bone of a freed man, he shall pay one gold mina.
199. If he put out the eye of a man's slave, or break the bone of a man's slave, he shall pay one-half of its value.
200. If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out.
201. If he knock out the teeth of a freed man, he shall pay one-third of a gold mina.

It's obvious from the verbatim quotation that Jesus was taking the words from Exodus rather than direct from the Code of Hammurabi (which already, in the time of Jesus, lay buried in the sand in an unreadable language).

Now it's very plausible that Exodus was influenced either by Hammurabi's Code or by the common culture which they shared with Hammurabi (for the rulers of Babylon were also Semites who had originally drifted in from the Arabian desert).
However, that is not at all the same thing as saying that Jesus himself was "quoting the Code of Hammurabi".

reply to post by DISRAELI

You are still trying to refute the line of argument "If these laws are good, that proves that God wrote them", and I've already told you that I'm not using that line of argument.
I'm doing things the other way round; "Given the Biblical statement that God provided these laws, what would that say about him?"

What these laws say about the God that supposedly provided them is that he was a war mongering murderer that endorsed slavery, rape and pillage and hated foreskins. But, you keep comparing the Hebrew laws to other more barbaric societal laws, to prove your point that the Hebrew's God was a better teacher, using these laws as evidence. I say, by that logic, Zeus was a better teacher because the Greeks were even more civil and loved wisdom more than the Hebrews.

However, that is not at all the same thing as saying that Jesus himself was "quoting the Code of Hammurabi".

Yeah, okay. Point is, the influence of the Code of Hammurabi is found throughout the Bible.

reply to post by windword

My own findings have been a little more subtle than that.
But I suppose people find what they look for.
Anyone who is determined to find only bad things, and closes off their minds to the finding of anything good, will, of course, find nothng but bad things.