Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Apologetic on Slavery & Rape in the Bible

* * * * * 1 votes

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
81 replies to this topic

#1
Seeking1

Seeking1
  • Members
  • 25 posts
  • Gender:Female

I recently debated an atheist online about these two issues in the Bible who was using them to attack Christians and make Christianity look immoral. I will record my responses to her here for your reference. However, I cannot give her responses as she DELETED THEM! I have changed people's usernames for anonymity. I am being foolish here by commending myself, but my sister, an unbeliever, said it was the BEST apologetic she had ever heard for these questions, and now wants to give that argument to one of her friends! The atheist whom I debated NEVER saw this one coming! :D

 

First Comment:
Hi "Atheist," I am sorry for any ad hominem attacks given in response to your difficult questions about morality in the Bible. I am a Christian. I also hate it when people (i.e., those professing faith in Christ) do not understand the issues and are actually quite bad at apologetics, and merely attack the questioner rather than carefully think through issues, even if it requires them to do some real research and think through these difficult issues more carefully, even if it makes them very uncomfortable. Rather than defending Christ by simply attacking you and name calling (as they believe they are doing), they are actually doing harm and leading people away. I will first attempt to answer your question about rape being condoned and promoted in the Bible, particularly about the passage in Deuteronomy 22:28-29. This question bothered me immensely too as an unbeliever: it also made me feel justified in thinking the Bible was evil and immoral. I am a KJV onlyist in the sense that I believe it to be superior to modern day translations, which I find very questionable and untrustworthy. This passage is one important reason why.

 

Second Comment:
To continue, the KJV rendering of the passage in question, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, is this: "28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and LAY HOLD on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." Notice something important here: the word RAPE is ABSENT in this version!

 

Many modern translations seem to want to render it "rape" while the KJV does not. The original Hebrew word in question is תּפשׂ "tâphaś" (taw-fas'), which is "A primitive root; to manipulate, that is, seize; chiefly to capture, wield; specifically to overlay; figuratively to use unwarrantably: - catch, handle, (lay, take) hold (on, over), stop, X surely, surprise, take." (Strongs H8610)

Many of these words, like manipulate, wield, catch, handle, etc. do NOT lead to idea the woman was automatically raped. I would argue that this is definitely NOT the case, even if a raped woman felt compelled to marry her rapist because of wrong values in a society (like Tamar with Amnon in 2 Samuel).

 

Addition to my Second Comment:
I also STRONGLY disagree with "Christian Responder's" stance that the woman being made to marry her rapist would be any kind of justice for her in God's interpretation, without which a corrupt society would view her as less. I have already thrown into doubt the use of the word "rape." Just because Tamar in 2 Samuel thinks it is better to marry Amnon rather than remain alone and "used," doesn't mean that God's law in Deuteronomy meant this. I would argue that it didn't.

 

Third Comment:

As an aside comment, I only partially agree with "Christian Responder's" comment earlier to you. It is definitely true that God considered whether a society could truly handle some of His stricter moral laws, like in the case of divorce. Here is the example passage, Matthew 19:3-10:

 

"3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

 

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses BECAUSE OF THE HARDNESS OF YOUR HEARTS SUFFERED YOU TO PUT AWAY YOUR WIVES: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

 

Fourth Comment:
However, "Christian Responder" seems to be ignorant of the fact that Biblical slavery was NOT like New World Slavery. God was NOT just allowing slavery because of the times here (although that was partially true). Forced Biblical slavery only legitimately occurred if someone was a debtor and needed to pay back money through their labor (no bankruptcy back then - similar to work furlough today), or if it was a people of a criminal, conquered nation (like the Canaanites) who otherwise would have been put to death for their crimes. It is true that their children were to remain enslaved to the Israelities, but I have an explanation for that too. The Canaanities were very idolatrous, and if they started to rule society, Israel may have fallen into idolatry sooner.

 

Also, by being led by the Israelities, they would have learned of the true religion and had a better chance of being saved from hell, rather than being let go and remaining in an idolatrous religion. Also, Uriah was a Hittite, one of the nations cursed to slavery, and he was married to an Israelite wife, Bathsheba. This indicates to me that God knew eventually most of the Canaanites would assimilate and intermarry with the Israelities, and the curse would perhaps dissipate with each passing generation.

 

Fifth Comment:
On the other hand, forced slavery of people who had not committed any crime (like the Black Africans) would actually have resulted in the DEATH PENALTY by OT Law! Here is my support, Exodus 21:16: "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be PUT TO DEATH." Also, slaves had rights in OT law, whereas in New World Slavery they were considered mere property and chattel, where the slaver owner could do pretty much whatever he wished!

 

Therefore, New World Slavery was NEVER Biblical and it DID NOT have God's approval! The Christian abolitionists of the 19th century were righteous on these facts alone! The perpetual slavery only applied to actual Canaanities in the days of ancient Israel which was fulfilled about 3,500 years ago, NOT to Black Africans or anyone else. Also, the brutal treatment of Black Africans also led to them rejecting and resisting Christianity rather than embracing it, so New World Slavery also bore very evil fruit there (hence a BAD TREE!) So, in conclusion, the two forms of slavery were VERY different.

 

Sixth Comment:
As to Exodus 21:7-11, it states in the KJV: "7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. 8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. 9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10 If he take him anotherwife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money."

 

You stated, "Exodus 21:7-11 allows for sex slavery (so long as you marry the slave, it's okay. Oh, and the slave has no say in the matter)."

 

I do not see this passage as automatically being about sex slavery, even though I have seen several atheist websites claim this. The term "maidservant" isn't automatically synonymous with "sex slave." There were plenty of maidservants who never had sex with their masters or their sons. This passage is dealing with a case where the master or his sons marries the maidservant, and this is one reason why she would not be permitted to go out as the men servants do: they are a unit. The father or the daughter may have owed a debt to the master, and the daughter may be there to help her father pay it off.

 

Nowhere is this passage saying she was forced to marry the master or his sons: that is an assumption being read into the text. I actually see this passage as very humane and beneficial for the female servant who very likely married the master or his son voluntarily. Because she is a servant, and the master could take advantage of her due to the fact, God is protecting her rights as wife with this law. It even promises manumission if the law is disobeyed!

 

Seventh Comment:

Hi "atheist," thank you for your response. It is NOT true that a slave in the OT had "no rights." If they did not, it would be no different than the chattel slavery of the antebellum South, and there would be NO RULES for protecting the slave himself ANYWHERE in OT Law! Also, slavery in the OT is more similar to indentured servitude than New World Slavery. I believe when a slave is referred to as "property" in the OT, it simply means that they are their master's money because they owe him a debt, NOT because they are despicable objects and less than human! They still have value and rights in the eyes of God!

 

Today, even prisoners in jail in the United States are considered "PROPERTY OF THE STATE!" Some would even argue that they are pampered in the today's jail system! While they are considered "property" their plight is nowhere as bad as it would have been in the antebellum South under New World Slavery! BIG DIFFERENCE! While they are considered "property," they hold MANY RIGHTS!

 

Source:

Amendment 13 of the U.S Constitution reads:

 

Section 1.

 

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS A PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

 

Section 2.

 

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

 

Also, even the U.S. military considers its soldiers as GOVERNMENT PROPERTY! The term G.I. means GOVERNMENT ISSUE! Thus, the slavery of OT Law was NOT meant to be as bad as it may sound just because of our negative perceptions of what slavery means from the antebellum South. Just because the Israelities may have disobeyed God and mistreated their slaves, DOES NOT mean that He approved of it, or His Law was meant to accommodate that! If you would like more sources, I am willing to look them up for you.

 

(After this last statement, "Atheist" never responded back to me and then she DELETED HER COMMENTS! I believe I definitely won that argument!)

 

I went back and reexamined the comments section of our discussion. It seems that for some reason, both all of my comments and "atheist's" comments back to me were deleted except for my sixth comment. I do not know if "atheist" deleted them or not, or if someone else did. 


Edited by Seeking1, 26 May 2014 - 05:21 PM.

  • 2

#2
Fez

Fez

    Royal Member

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,490 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Interests:Many and varied. Any technology with blinking and flashing lights, no matter what it does...

And then there's the Saving Grace of Jesus to consider.


  • 1

#3
Seeking1

Seeking1
  • Members
  • 25 posts
  • Gender:Female

The original article I commented in was about homosexuality, in which I debated "atheist" over rape and slavery in the Bible. Usernames have been changed for anonymity.

 

Included here is most of the conversation before I entered in, and users have been colored coded:

 

"Atheist" originally stated in attack to Christian values,

 

Comment 1:

 

The Bible did say things about rape.

 

A woman would be forced to marry her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

A woman could be executed for being raped (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).

Taking women as spoils of war was seen as swell (Deuteronomy 21:10-14).

The Bible is a poor source for moral teachings.

 

Comment 2:

 

These claims have nothing to do with the evil that was (and is still, from what some commenters have said) condoned in the Bible. Talking about Jesus (who is Himself evil, in that He threatens to torture you forever if you don't worship Him) is irrelevant to the fact that the Bible condones slavery, rape, and genocide. It is completely unreasonable to say that "homosexuality is evil because the Bible says so" when the Bible condones acts that are completely atrocious.

 

"Christian Responder" states to "Atheist,"

 

I understand your sense of outrage. Certainly, if a women were forced to marry her rapist today, it would be appalling. But that is also because in today's culture, a single woman who has been raped can still lead a decent life without being married. Even if she becomes a single mom, she can still survive in society. However, at that time, that place, that culture, a woman who had been raped would have become a pariah. No man would marry her. She would become a burden to her family and an outcast from society. Forcing the man to take responsibility for his actions and marry the girl was the only way to mitigate the damage he had caused. It was not a perfect solution, but it gave the woman a place of respect in society, something she would have lost if the man did not marry her. It was in fact a progressive stance for that time and place, one that forced men to treat women with minimum decency.

 

That command can't be transposed directly onto our society and culture today. Similarly, in the early OT polygamy was practiced, but certainly by later in the OT and by the NT a man was only supposed to have one wife. I don't think that ALL of the practices of the OT were meant to be understood as absolute moral laws -- they were a code set in place to regulate a specific (fallen) society on earth, not a utopian one. Most of the fathers of the faith (Abraham, Jacob, etc...) actually weren't stellar characters. Abraham lied about his wife being his wife and basically allowed her to be violated by a local ruler. Jacob cheated his brother out of his birthright... David was an adulterer and a murderer. But yet they were counted righteous because of their faith.

 

I honestly don't know whether it's possible to be gay and Christian. I know that most people who are gay didn't knowingly choose to be that way, and that they bear a burden (especially if they're Christians) that I can never understand. If my daughter or son confessed to me that he/she were gay, I don't know what my response would be. I think I would tell them to have faith. That if they really desire God, if they really want to have a relationship with Jesus, they will figure it out with Him. Whether that means living a celibate life, whether they are convicted by the Holy Spirit to live a certain way or not, is up to them. That's a journey that every person has to take for him or herself. But I would point out that following Christ is no easy task. It entails taking up your cross, whatever that is. It means giving up yourself. I would say that most people, even heterosexual people, would find that cost too high.

 

"Atheist" shot back,

 

You're not the first person to toss out the "cultural context" argument. It's a bad argument for anyone who wants to claim that the Bible is infallible.

 

If God were real and the law was based on His commands, then it was He that decided that forcing women to marry their rapists was okay. That would make the God of the Bible evil and not worth following. Same goes for slavery.

 

A “Guest” then responds to “atheist,”

 

Wow I'm not sure I have ever seen such a blatant misinterpretation or misrepresentation of scripture. Verses 23-24 are not about rape victims, they are about fornicators. The woman would be considered a fornicator because she did not cry out. This would indicate it was consensual and NOT rape. Verses 28-29 say that the MAN is forced to marry the woman, not vice versa. The understanding is that he has violated her, and as such he must own up to what he did. Thats why he had to pay the father fifty shekels. Otherwise he could just go on raping women with no punishment at all. Nowhere does it say that the woman is bound to the man. You should look just two or so verses up at verses 25-26. God was not promoting rape. Not even close. I don't even know how Deuteronomy 21:10-14 is even immoral. You are talking about wartime activities. Captives were going to happen.

 

“Atheist” then says,

 

The woman would be considered a fornicator because she did not cry out. This would indicate it was consensual and NOT rape."

 

Are you kidding me? Do you seriously mean to tell me that there has never, in the course of human history, been a woman who was raped who was too scared to call for help?

"Verses 28-29 say that the MAN is forced to marry the woman, not vice versa. The understanding is that he has violated her, and as such he must own up to what he did. Thats why he had to pay the father fifty shekels. Otherwise he could just go on raping women with no punishment at all."

 

If the man is forced to marry the woman, it means it goes both ways. This is more of a punishment for the woman than the man. Now the man gets to rape the woman every night, because there was no such thing as "marital rape" in those times.

 

And you don't know how the taking of women as spoils of war is immoral? You're a monster!

 

Another “Defender” stated,

 

Again-you are looking at this from a 21st century feminist perspective. In the ancient world there was NO possiblity of a woman having a life out of wedlock with a child-NONE, ziltch!!! So, firstly, for a woman to be raped and have a child(which was the normal course of events-she had to be provided for. If she didn't cry out, for her to marry the rapist would have been harsh, but not quite as harsh if she was ostracised, or cast out. Secondly, the context was a small village/town, where everyone would have known everyones business. A perfect environment in which to cry out if one was being raped. Thirdly, there was provision for the rapist to be judged-as we can see in the next verses (and judged much more harshly if found guitly than the woman.) We can assume that in this context rape was not a common occurance. This is not a Koran type of law where the woman would need several male witnesses before she was found guilty. Life was tough for everyone. What did Jesus say when confronted with the prostitute 'let he who has sinned cast the first stone' Did he refer to her as a 'slut'?

 

A “Fighter” stated to “atheist,”

 

Escpecially if its taken out of context. Good job proving my point. Try reading the Bible first, and not getting out of context scripture off of a website.

 

“Atheist” replied,

 

 

The "out of context" argument doesn't apply here, either. Every time that argument has been used, nobody ever provides the "proper" context.

 

“Fighter” asks,

 

Have you ever read the Bible?

 

“Atheist” Responds,

 

Yes. Multiple times.

 

But my personal life has nothing to do with this. Are you going to go ad-hominem now, or do you actually have a proper rebuttal?

 

“Fighter” states:

 

I don't believe you, and my rebuttal is only for those who enter into an intelligent debate having read the required materials. In this case, the Bible. You can fool others, but you can't fool me. I was once a foolish atheist like yourself, until the grace of God fell upon me in a desperate time of need and freed me from the prison I was in. I don't need to respond to you. Its not a matter of conceding or giving in. Its a matter of standing up for God's word, and recognizing a trolling atheist when you see one. You are a sophist. You are here to argue just to argue. There is no endgame in sight for you, which is truly what defines the atheist trolls of this era. Blessings in the name of Jesus Christ, and may the Lord judge you on your works accordingly.

 

“Atheist” responds,

 

So when I asked "Are you going to go ad-hominem now, or do you actually have a proper rebuttal?", you could have simply answered with "no".

 

I find it funny that everyone so far that I've challenged to rebut my point responds with nothing more than childish insults and then claims "I don't need to respond to you."

 

And yet, you did.

 

Another “Unbeliever” states in support of “Atheist,”

 

You've been blessed! How does it feel? I always feel like I'm coming down with the flu after I've been blessed proper.

 

“Atheist” says,

 

They always insult you, then give their blessing.

 

Whatever they gotta do to feel good about themselves...

 

Now here’s where I come in with my first through sixth comments above.

 

“Atheist” gave a response to my Second Comment about her thinking King James onlyism was weird even back as a Christian, and she said a few other words as well which I do not remember, but I no longer have that comment as it was deleted either by her or by someone else, and my email archive did not have a copy of it either.

 

“Atheist” responds to my sixth comment:

 

"A slave has no rights and there is nothing in the law that says anywhere that a slave has any say in the matter.

But you do bring up the issue of slavery. Slavery is one of the most morally repugnant practices ever committed in the history of mankind. While some apologists are saying that it wasn't as bad as the way America did it, that's irrelevant because it's morally wrong to own someone and treat them as property."

 

(NOTE: I got this above comment from my email archive, as someone had deleted it from the site later on.)

 

The above was "Atheist's" final comment to me.

 

 

 


  • 1

#4
fdksos

fdksos
  • Members
  • 6 posts
The Bible was firmly against forced slavery.
 
Exodus 21:16 "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death."
Exodus 21: 20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished."
Exodus 21:26 "If a man strikes his servant's eye, or his maid's eye, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for his eye's sake."

Exodus 21:27 "If he strikes out his male servant's tooth, or his female servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."
Deuteronomy 23:15 "If slaves should escape from their masters and take refuge with you, you must not hand them over to their masters."
Deuteronomy 23:16 "Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him."
Deuteronomy 15:12 "If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free."

A man could enter a contract for several years as a slave but had to be released at the end. Taking someone as a slave forcefully was clearly against what The Bible taught. Beating a slave was also illegal and meant that the slave could go free. On the seventh year, a slave had to be set free, their contract fulfilled.

Atheists like to ignore these verses though.

Edited by fdksos, 27 May 2014 - 01:59 PM.

  • 1

#5
Bonky

Bonky

    Junior Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPip
  • 117 posts
  • Gender:Male

The Bible was firmly against forced slavery.
 
Exodus 21:16 "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death."
Exodus 21: 20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished."
Exodus 21:26 "If a man strikes his servant's eye, or his maid's eye, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for his eye's sake."

Exodus 21:27 "If he strikes out his male servant's tooth, or his female servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."
Deuteronomy 23:15 "If slaves should escape from their masters and take refuge with you, you must not hand them over to their masters."
Deuteronomy 23:16 "Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him."
Deuteronomy 15:12 "If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free."

A man could enter a contract for several years as a slave but had to be released at the end. Taking someone as a slave forcefully was clearly against what The Bible taught. Beating a slave was also illegal and meant that the slave could go free. On the seventh year, a slave had to be set free, their contract fulfilled.

Atheists like to ignore these verses though.

 

Not to be nit picking but isn't it true that only Jews were let go after 7 years? [EX 21:2]  I didn't think that applied to non-Jews [Leviticus 25:45-46].  Also, it was illegal to outright kill a slave, but beating them wasn't what was wrong.  Let's take a look at one of the verses you mention:

 

Exodus 21: 20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished."

 

....and the slave DIES as a direct result...

 

Look at the very next verse, 21:21

 

But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

 

 

It isn't saying that beating a slave is wrong, it's saying beating one outright to the point where the slave dies right away.  If I'm not mistaken, if the slave dies after a few days they would assume that the master didn't intend the kill the slave and the master was off the hook, no punishment.  


Edited by Bonky, 28 May 2014 - 10:03 AM.

  • 2

#6
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,703 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elgin, Illinois, USA
  • Interests:The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27 - - - Love, Your Brother Joe
.... if the slave dies after a few days they would assume that the master didn't intend the kill the slave and the master was off the hook, no punishment. 

 

~

 

Kind Of Like If An Injured American Soldier Dies Off The Job Site

Then His Owner The U.S. Government

Is Off The Hook, No Help For

The Wife And

Kids?


  • 1

#7
Seeking1

Seeking1
  • Members
  • 25 posts
  • Gender:Female

Thank you for your responses :)

 

Bonky, good points. You came up with a good apologetic for why the slave master wouldn't have been punished if the slave didn't die right away after corporal discipline. Some slaves probably were really unruly and even criminalistic, although I wouldn't of course say this for all of them. I believe this is why God allowed corporal punishment as a form of discipline, and God even states (to paraphrase) in Proverbs that "Sparing the rod will spoil even a child."

 

Parents are even advised to use corporal discipline with their own children. I agree with you that the slave most likely would have died right away had death been the intent. However, I also believe that the rod should be used a in limited, humane way, and not as a means of carnal anger or cruelty. A child should be clearly told why they are being punished as well, and it should not be a beating for beating's sake. I believe a stinging swat or two is sufficient for a child. 

 

Your point is getting me thinking. Perhaps the slave violently confronted the master for trying to discipline him, and the master defended himself, with the slave being more hurt than intended. Maybe the slave had an unknown medical condition that would have caused him to get more hurt from being hit than usual, and may have died a few days later from it. Perhaps he gained a cut that got infected, and he died from that, rather than from the punishment itself. I am not sure of God's thinking here, and this is a difficult passage in which I am speculating on. If anyone has any other ideas, please feel free to provide them! I also believe that these laws were guidelines for things that were generally true, rather than absolutely true.

 

This is because even Jewish judges were set up to examine the evidence before conviction. Like "atheist" stated earlier concerning Deuteronomy 22:23-24, "Are you kidding me? Do you seriously mean to tell me that there has never, in the course of human history, been a woman who was raped who was too scared to call for help?" A Jewish woman under examination could have claimed this as the case, and it would be up to the Jewish judges to determine the truthfulness of her claim. If this law was meant to be absolute, then there would be little need for Jewish judges, as no unique circumstances could ever be considered in someone's defense. If the woman was determined to be truthful, then I do NOT believe she would have been punished. 

 

Therefore, even the Jewish judges had to do analysis of the situation before conviction, although God's laws would generally still be true (like the woman in Deuteronomy 22:23-24 who would most likely NOT be a rape victim, but rather a fornicator). In line with this thought, I believe even the Jewish judges were required by God to make sure there was no wrongdoing on part of the master concerning his slave. I believe it would be generally true that the master had no intent to cause permanent harm to his slave if the slave died a few days later.

 

In support of this concept, I cite Exodus 21:16, "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake," as an example. This form of bodily harm is PERMANENT, and manumission was REQUIRED in this case! Therefore, God DID care whether a slave was irreversibly harmed by his master! Therefore, Exodus 21:20 CANNOT mean that God didn't care that the slave was beat so bad he suffered great damage! Notice that Exodus 21:20 is only a few verses apart from Exodus 21:16, so the overall context definitely supports my assessment! Exodus 21:20 was meant to be considered with Exodus 21:16 in mind! 


  • 1

#8
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA

The only apologetics that can explain rape and slavery in the bible is that God is perfect, therefore anytihng he does is perfect.  This includes committing, ordering, or condoning slavery, rape, incest, eugenics, genocide etc.    You can put any spin on it you want, but in the end if God did it, it is not immoral, and we should stop apologizing for it (note the difference between apologizing and apologetics).


Edited by jerryR34, 30 May 2014 - 03:18 PM.

  • 2

#9
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,672 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Israel Advocacy Bible Study, Apologetics, Theology, Camping, Hiking, Fishing, Birdwatching, BBQing

The only apologetics that can explain rape and slavery in the bible is that God is perfect, therefore anytihng he does is perfect.  This includes committing, ordering, or condoning slavery, rape, incest, eugenics, genocide etc.    You can put any spin on it you want, but in the end if God did it, it is not immoral, and we should stop apologizing for it (note the difference between apologizing and apologetics).

That is nonsense.


  • 2

#10
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA

 

The only apologetics that can explain rape and slavery in the bible is that God is perfect, therefore anytihng he does is perfect.  This includes committing, ordering, or condoning slavery, rape, incest, eugenics, genocide etc.    You can put any spin on it you want, but in the end if God did it, it is not immoral, and we should stop apologizing for it (note the difference between apologizing and apologetics).

That is nonsense.

 

Where did I go wrong? 


  • 2

#11
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oregon, USA

Why water down the faith?  God has never done anything wrong.  I think it is terribly presumptuous of us to try to explain his actions.  We should say God is perfect - end of discussion.  Stringing people along with contrived explanations makes for a weak-faithed congregation.


Edited by jerryR34, 30 May 2014 - 04:02 PM.

  • 2

#12
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,703 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elgin, Illinois, USA
  • Interests:The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27 - - - Love, Your Brother Joe

....The only apologetics that can explain rape and slavery in the bible....

 

~

 

With No Apology To The LORD Jesus

 

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth,

 

and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Genesis 6:5

 

For The Truth Of Our Deceits

 

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

 

I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways,

 

and according to the fruit of his doings. Jeremiah 17:9-10

 

~

 

Forgive Us

 

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

 

For We Have Sinned

 

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:23

 

And Come Short Of The Glory Of God

 

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23

 

And We Love You And We Bless Your Holy Name

 

Bless the LORD, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name. Psalms 103:1

 

Our LORD And Our

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

God

 

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:24

 

~

 

Where did I go wrong? 

 

~

 

Believe

 

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

 

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

 

Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:13-15

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

 

Do not err, my beloved brethren.

 

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights,

 

with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. James 1:16-17

 

Love, Your Brother Joe


  • 1

#13
Trinitron

Trinitron

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 128 posts
  • Gender:Male

Genocide, slavery, rape...what's the problem?  God said it's ok.  King David had a man killed so he could take his wife.  Elijah cursed a bunch of kids for making fun of his baldness and a couple bears killed them.  Who are we to question God?  The bible is either the inspired word of God or it isn't.  Who are we to pick and choose?  What's next?  Are we going to put God on trial and judge him?  If the bible says to have your child stoned, then that is God's will.  We also just have to remember that we have to follow the laws of the land and obey authority as the authority is God given.  That is why the Jews could not stone the adulterer woman because they were under Roman law.  That is why they had to get Rome to kill Jesus.  They believed in God's law but at that time were under Roman law.


  • 1

#14
Sevenseas

Sevenseas

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,027 posts
  • Gender:Female

Genocide, slavery, rape...what's the problem?  God said it's ok.  King David had a man killed so he could take his wife.  Elijah cursed a bunch of kids for making fun of his baldness and a couple bears killed them.  Who are we to question God?  The bible is either the inspired word of God or it isn't.  Who are we to pick and choose?  What's next?  Are we going to put God on trial and judge him?  If the bible says to have your child stoned, then that is God's will.  We also just have to remember that we have to follow the laws of the land and obey authority as the authority is God given.  That is why the Jews could not stone the adulterer woman because they were under Roman law.  That is why they had to get Rome to kill Jesus.  They believed in God's law but at that time were under Roman law.

 

 

You are confusing what people do, which God calls sin, with God who does not condone any sort of brutality, rape, murder, bestiality etc etc.  The 10 commandments will quickly back that up.  As far as what you

are callling genocide, study the culture of those peoples the Israelites waged war with and you will find a bestial and cruel people who sacrificed children and basically worshipped the devil even though they

may not have called him the devil as do we today.

 

I don't see where God said 'well done to Elijah' so perhaps curses actually do work?  King David was judged by God for his sin and his life was never the same.  God never condoned what David did but rather

exposed his sin through the prophet and judgement quickly followed...his infant son died.  Sin kills and sin separates us from God.

 

Rape is not condoned by God and neither is the list above you have contrived.

 

We are allowed to question God....humankind has created dictatorships wherein questions are not allowed.  You have somehow a very skewed idea of God and the Bible.  

 

The woman caught in adultery (where was the man...it takes two) was left at Jesus feet because of what Jesus said.  Read the story again.  

 

The God you describe is not found in the Bible. 


  • 2

#15
Sevenseas

Sevenseas

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,027 posts
  • Gender:Female

Why water down the faith?  God has never done anything wrong.  I think it is terribly presumptuous of us to try to explain his actions.  We should say God is perfect - end of discussion.  Stringing people along with contrived explanations makes for a weak-faithed congregation.

 

 

The problem is that your description of God is false.  

 

God is holy and therefore His perfection is holy.

 

God's actions are actually already well explained.  In...the...Bible.  It's all there.


  • 2

#16
Trinitron

Trinitron

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 128 posts
  • Gender:Male

Well, I don't need to defend or God.  If he told Satan to kill Job's children or if God sent an evil spirit to torment Saul that was his choice.  God's foolishness is better than man's wisdom.  1 Corinthians 1:25  God is above our questioning.


  • 1

#17
Sevenseas

Sevenseas

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,027 posts
  • Gender:Female

how do you feel about misrepresenting Him?


  • 2

#18
Seeking1

Seeking1
  • Members
  • 25 posts
  • Gender:Female

The only apologetics that can explain rape and slavery in the bible is that God is perfect, therefore anytihng he does is perfect.  This includes committing, ordering, or condoning slavery, rape, incest, eugenics, genocide etc.    You can put any spin on it you want, but in the end if God did it, it is not immoral, and we should stop apologizing for it (note the difference between apologizing and apologetics).

 

 

Why water down the faith?  God has never done anything wrong.  I think it is terribly presumptuous of us to try to explain his actions.  We should say God is perfect - end of discussion.  Stringing people along with contrived explanations makes for a weak-faithed congregation.

 

 

Well, I don't need to defend or God.  If he told Satan to kill Job's children or if God sent an evil spirit to torment Saul that was his choice.  God's foolishness is better than man's wisdom.  1 Corinthians 1:25  God is above our questioning.

 

 

Genocide, slavery, rape...what's the problem?  God said it's ok.  King David had a man killed so he could take his wife.  Elijah cursed a bunch of kids for making fun of his baldness and a couple bears killed them.  Who are we to question God?  The bible is either the inspired word of God or it isn't.  Who are we to pick and choose?  What's next?  Are we going to put God on trial and judge him?  If the bible says to have your child stoned, then that is God's will.  We also just have to remember that we have to follow the laws of the land and obey authority as the authority is God given.  That is why the Jews could not stone the adulterer woman because they were under Roman law.  That is why they had to get Rome to kill Jesus.  They believed in God's law but at that time were under Roman law.

 

This attitude seems right to hyper-Calvinists, Muslims, fatalistic pagans, or even atheists looking to misrepresent God; however, I will argue it is actually contrary to the Word of God using Biblical evidence. This line of reasoning could be used to defend anything, including Islam, Paganism, or even Satanism. God indeed wants you to test Him, although in a righteous way and with an honest mind. The truth is falsifiable, and unlike what many Christians claim, I assert that the Bible, in order for it to be true, is falsifiable and must withstand the test of close and honest scrutiny. A Christian believing based off nothing could just as easily abandon the faith and believe something else instead for no good reason; their faith isn't based off real truth and is actually quite shaky rather than solid, contrary to popular belief. 
 
The truth is falsifiable because the truth makes absolute claims that are limited in scope and definition. Two contradictory claims cannot be true. For instance, "2 + 2" (when dealing with non-complex numbers at least - look up "imaginary numbers" in math if you are curious) always = "4." It cannot equal any other number, nor can it be "4" or "6" simultaneously. Therefore, the truth is absolute and if a true contradiction exists, then at least one of the claims must be a lie.
 
However, I also believe that many things can seem like contradictions on the surface, but are not really lies because an important exception can determine the true meaning, in addition to considering the surrounding circumstances of a particular claim. I believe this about so-called contradictions in the Bible: they are eliminated with either a reasonable exception or closely examining the surrounding context, including the tone and tenor of the Bible as a whole, to determine a complementary meaning, rather than a real contradiction between two passages.
 
Therefore, it is NOT a sin to scrutinize closely the claims of the Holy Bible or even to question God in certain instances. The integrity of doctrinal understanding of the both the Bible and of who is God requires it. There were instances in the Bible with those who questioned God, and they were answered favorably. For instance, Abraham and Moses were answered favorably, and even Job and Jonah were vindicated and forgiven by God.
 
To forbid trying to understand some basic things about God could actually undermine the faith of Christians rather than strengthen it. Also, the Bible wants Christians to know their Bibles and be able to defend their faith against the unbelievers. The ignorance of Christians today is why the world is in the state it is in today! You will not only strengthen and build your own faith in the written Word, but help convert others with open, honest minds to Christianity!
 
The character of God can be tested with His own Word, if He meets His own standards of Holiness! God invites others to reason with Him, knowing He will win, because He is consistent and would never lie or contradict Himself! He does NOT fear honest scrutiny or examination!
 
Let me provide some quotes from the Bible supporting my position:
 
John 10:37
"If I [Jesus] do not the works of my Father, believe me not."
 
Acts 17:11
"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."
 
1 Peter 3:15
"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"
 
2 Timothy 2:15
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
 
Isaiah 1:18

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."

 

1 Corinthians 2:15 
"But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."
 
1 Thessalonians 5:21
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
 
Proverbs 25:2
"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."
 
Micah 6:3
"O my people, what have I done unto thee? and wherein have I wearied thee? testify against me."
 
Isaiah 41:21
"Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob."
 
Isaiah 43:26
"Put me in remembrance: let us plead together: declare thou, that thou mayest be justified."
 
Isaiah 41:1
"Keep silence before me, O islands; and let the people renew their strength: let them come near; then let them speak: let us come near together to judgment."
 
 
 
-------------------------------------------
 
 
"Reasoning With God"

http://bridgetwillar...oning-with-god/


  • 2

#19
LuftWaffle

LuftWaffle

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 726 posts
  • Gender:Male

Well, I don't need to defend or God.  If he told Satan to kill Job's children or if God sent an evil spirit to torment Saul that was his choice.  God's foolishness is better than man's wisdom.  1 Corinthians 1:25  God is above our questioning.

 

If only I had a dollar for every time I've seen 1 Cor 1:25 misquoted to justify some or other contradictory notion about God...


  • 2

#20
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,672 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Israel Advocacy Bible Study, Apologetics, Theology, Camping, Hiking, Fishing, Birdwatching, BBQing

Well, I don't need to defend or God.  If he told Satan to kill Job's children or if God sent an evil spirit to torment Saul that was his choice.  God's foolishness is better than man's wisdom.  1 Corinthians 1:25  God is above our questioning.

That is a complete mishandling of that text.   That verse is talking about the foolishness of preaching the Gospel.  You are completely misrepresenting God and the Scriptures.


  • 3




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network