Bible Questions?

The fact that they give rules to how slaves are to be treated means that the passage supports the idea of slavery.

It is not taken out of context, I take it that you see no qualms in selling youur daughter to the highest bidder when it comes for being a sex slave, errr I mean wife as you see it.

 

It does seem much different from what we think of slavery. Maybe I am misreading it, but she is sold as a slave and she is a slave until the buyer decides that she is to his liking or does she have no say in the matter?

What does it mean when it says:

"She will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are"

This is how I figure it. Please correct me if I am wrong:

1. Once the 'slave girl' is married she is no longer to be treated as a slave girl by neither 'seller' nor 'buyer'. The 'slave girl' is married by the permission of the 'girl's owner'. Once married she is to be treated as a daughter by the 'seller' and a wife by the 'buyer.'

2. Breaking the contract (meaning, not marrying her?), he then cannot give her away to anyone other than the one that 'sold' her. Anyone else, being, 'foreigners'.

3. The 'slave girl' may go back to her 'owner' if the 'buyer' isn't pleased with his 'purchase' (lol). Again, does she have a say in the matter or is it all up to the 'seller' and 'buyer'? What are her rights?

4. If he decides to take another wife, he has to keep up the contract. (Polygamy?) And the contract includes: 1. Providing for her food and clothing. 2. Sleeps with her as his wife.

That sounds pretty different from slavery, or am I missing something?

Sounds more of an arranged marriage, but with more freedom.

Is it like:

Guy: "Hey, can I marry your daughter? She's a hotty. Here's a million."
Father: "Sure, if you both like each other."
Guy: "Awesome, here is a big bag of dough. Womenz please $_$".
Daughter: "No thx, he's a putz"
Guy: "WTF, not cool, here take daughter and money back."
Father: "Why did you have to do that for? -__-"
Daughter: "Whatevs"

What are the rights of the father, daughter, and would be husband? Have these rights changed with the gospels?

 

Also, doesn't the Bible mention to honor contracts and customs of the times? So squelching on a deal you promised for one person just to get more money from the higher bidder would be against the principals handed down to them?

 

If you owned a Hebrew slave he is supposedly to allowed freedom if he wants it after 6 years I think, however if within the periods of time of him being your slave and his time for emancipation he has himself been wed to another slave girl the girl in question in not to be freed.

there for leaving the original slave between the proverbially rock and a hard place, either accept his freedom and leave any wife and children he may have procured while enslaved or choose to remain a slave forever and get to stay with his wife and children.

Or more accurately acquiring them as slaves himself, and hence the cycle continued on and on, all the while being endorsed by "the powers that be."

 

Where do you see anything about "highest bidder" there is no auction and where do you see anything about sex or sex slave? The words used are wife and marry and there is a long history in many cultures of the husband paying for their wife, ever hear of a dowry? Try reading the Bible Ge 34:11, 12; Ex 22:16; 1Sa 18:23, 25; Ge 29:18, 20, 27; 31:15.

 

If a slave had come in with a wife, the wife went out with him. However, if the master had given him a wife (evidently a foreign woman who would not be entitled to freedom in the seventh year of servitude), she and any children by her remained the property of the master. In such a case the Hebrew slave could choose to remain with his master. His ear would then be pierced with an awl to indicate that he would continue in servitude to time indefinite.—Ex 21:2-6; De 15:16, 17.

 

We are talking about forced marriage here, which is akin if not the same as slavery.

What happens when men marry women?

They fuck.

What happens when the "forced wife" or slave would rather not screw a stranger who bought them with money?

They are raped.

Forced marriage and consummation equels rape if it is not consensual, did you really need it spelled out in such detail for you?

 

Again where do you see the word forced? I don't see it?

Many cultures still have arranged marriages, do you consider that to be Sex Slavery?

It seems that you are reading a lot into this that it just doesn't say, why is that?

Do you have a personal reason to try and make the Bible look bad?

 

Yes, I believe he does.

But his problem is not ours.

Our job is finding a way to soften his heart to God. The best way is just what's going on here. The questions he puts to us, he also puts to himself. The Holy Spirit will handle that.

At some point he will realize that his logic is being skewed by his anger/mistrust/denial/personal experiences.....whatever it is, it's deep....

Rudy.... sorry to talk about you bro, rather than to you.

But in a bizarro way, I kinda did.


-

 

In case this is news to you slave owners often raped women who they had supposedly bought.

If you choose to ignore the passages of the bible that mention slavery that is entirely up to you.

Yes I consider it slavery and if the woman in question is forced to have sex with her arranged partner I would consider it sex slavery.

Why, are you in favor of forced marriages?

All I said was the Bible supports slavery, which it clearly does.

I could relink all the passages again but you would just ignore them so I will refrain.

You mean despite that it is wholly irrational and has for centuries been the source of suffering and war?

No, I have no personal reason to try to make the bible look bad, it does a fine job all on it's own.

 

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps it's possible that it is you who are wrong?

Do you truly think you have access to divine wisdom that the majority of the planet (atheist and non Christian) alike do not?

Are you truly that conceded?

Your words ring hollow because they are based on an untruth, and it may warp your entire world view.

Jus.... sorry to talk about you bro, rather than to you.

But in a bizarro way, I kinda did.

 

God had nothing to to with this....

Again......God had nothing to to with this....

Again......God had nothing to to with this....

Your problem is with religion, not God.

Of course I have. I used to think and talk just like you. Say the same things. Had the same reasoning. Just like you.

No..... it's there for you as well. All's you gotta do is read.

Yes, I have totally conceded my soul to God... And sometimes I'm a little conceited as well.

Seems a button has been touched.

The fun part is figuring out which one.

Could it be the one where you started to soften, and resented that softening, so you returned to us with obtuse in an effort to man up?

Or....

Could it be that you're not getting anybody angry anymore, and this would be counterproductive to your endeavors to raise up that personal art of disdain?

My monies the former.

Love you bro.


-

 

I guess Rudenoodle is suggesting that while this passage does not mention FORCE, force would still be the inevitable consequence of this law. But I think that is the wrong approach because even then I don't see where the force would begin and even force was used, it would seem to be against the laws. So in the end, force would not be a part of the law.

One of the ways of not pleasing a man is by not having sex with him (lol). So she could withhold sex (in before marriage jokes) to break out of the contract because she isn't pleasing to him.

or am I way off on this?

 

In support of OWB if you notice the last sentence. She does have rights. That said, this passage does allow two things that are considered illegal today. Polygomy and "partial" slavery. The customs were much different back then that's for sure.

Does a Christian have to accept this to be a "true" Christian. Of course not! Just like a "true" Christian doesn't have to accept stoning, refraining from pork and many other out dated laws.

 

I always saw the laws as God's way of compromising with man. 'You guys don't really get it, but in order to help you, I will give you some guidance to help lead you to the right direction.' The problem was that man has a way of worshiping the symbol rather than the meaning of the symbol. As an example of this, it would be the equivalent to a man praising the American flag then turn around and do something that goes against the principals of what that symbol represents freedom, liberty, et al]. Man would look at a law and take it as an absolute and forget why a law was created in the way that it was. Man has a way of overlooking the meaning and go straight to the actuality.

He was making the best with what was available.

Jesus wasn't much for traditions anyway. I think he saw it like this: If a tradition got in the way of God's laws, then let go to the tradition, forget about it, and take on an action more fitting for God. If a tradition is useful and is aligned to God's will, then it would be a good thing, but only up to the point where it becomes obsolete.

Traditions are like dust, while God's will is like a diamond.

 

Really? Is that in the ancient nation of Israel that the Bible is talking about or are you talking about the American South?

I believe it's those passages we are talking about, how is that ignoring them?

Am I ignoring them because I'm not blowing them all out of proportion by making assumptions about what they say that they don't really say?

Again with the forced sex, I believe you may be the only one talking about forced sex. Because I'm not and neither is the Bible.

I'm not in favor of "forced" marriage, I don't even know where you got that idea.

And all I said was; yes it does. But that is NOT all you said.

Hey, let me do it for you:

Please reread your own cited Scripture:

Now please show me where any of the words I high-lighted in your posts are to be found in this cited Scripture? Seems like you might be saying a little more that just "the Bible supports slavery".

The Bible being irrational is just your opinion and I might add not the opinion of some of the finest minds of history.

As for the Bible being the source of "suffering and war" are you trying to say the Bible is at fault just because some say that the Bible is behind the suffering they cause even though the Bible in no way authorized it?

Really? The lady doth protest too much me thinks.

 

Interestingly one of the reasons in ancient Israel for not being pleasing a man was being a poor cook but rudenoodle seems to believe that he only way a woman can unpleasing to a man is in the bedroom.

 

Nice comment.

The Law was a tutor to lead the nation of Israel to the Christ, to get the nation ready for Christ's coming. The Law was to separate the nation of Israel from the lawless nations around them and clean them up and mentally prepare them for the teachings of the Christ. Jesus himself said that concessions had been made in the law for the hardheartedness of the people. (Matthew 19:8) So some of the laws didn't go as far as they could have but they went far enough to get the job done of preparing the way for the Christ.

 

I'll make it as simple as I can, I fully support the bible.

Obviously man made short comings? Whatever.

Please define what you mean by "Charity" and I'll give it a shot. The reason I ask is there is some dispute over the Biblical meaning of the word "Charity".

I would have to say that falling away from the truth would be one immoral act that could only be done by a true believer.