Why the Same-Sex Marriage Experiment Will Not Work

[Valoran]

Hi again Valoran,

First off, I would and have argued that if we properly understand God we do not support nor have we ever supported inhumane slavery. The concepts of slavery or servant-hood supported by the Bible is similar to what we witness as the employer/employee relationship today. These people in OT times were indebted or poverty stricken and in order to pay the debt or live a better lifestyle they became indentured servants. We do the same thing today in our work relationships. We agree to perform what the employer demands of us in return to meet our own needs and obligations.

Hi PGA,

First off I'd like to say that you strike me as an otherwise sensible person who is perfectly capable of raising sound arguments, but I can only describe the quoted paragraph above as incredibly ignorant and irresponsible.

If the Bible is really as objective as is claimed, you wouldn't need to argue about whether God supported slavery; its status would be clearly outlined in the Bible. With that said, I personally believe that its a gross misrepresentation to equate employer-employee relationships with slavery. An employee exchanges his services in return for wages, is free to leave as he pleases, and has his rights and benefits protected by law. The relationship is clear-cut with healthy and well-defined boundaries spelled out for both the employer and the employee. A slave on the other hand is the property of the master. Period. Just because the Bible contains some ambiguous guidelines on how to treat slaves ("you must see to it that his owner does not rule over him ruthlessly" can not only be interpreted in a very broad manner, but guilt on the master's part is virtually impossible to prove), does not in any way mean that slavery is similar to the employer-employee relationship. The only similarity between the two cases is that one party works for the other in return for remuneration (for slavery, this "remuneration" may simply mean that the slaves are allowed to live), and apart from than that I highly doubt there is any other parallel that can be possibly drawn that still falls within the boundaries of common sense.

Actually there was lots said in both testaments about slavery and also the kind of cruel, malicious slavery that God opposed. God's primary concern was to love Him and love our neighbours in both testaments. Jesus summed up all the laws in those two statements. The Golden Rule is just one prime example. Over and over again Jesus not only demonstrated the love for others but also told those He addressed to love others as you love yourself, a lesson that applies across the centuries.The apostle Paul among others makes reference to the fact that in Christ we are all brothers and sisters in one big family, that there is neither Jew nor Greek, rich or poor, free or slave, man or woman, but that we are all one in Christ. This is the kind of verse that has inspired many to push for the abolition of the harsh kind of servant-hood practised both in Egypt and in many parts of the world up until recently, and that still goes on in the black-market, this buying and selling of people, usually for sexual perversions and the like.

You keep bringing up what Jesus said regarding love, but what you cannot deny is that Jesus was silent on the issue of a man being owned and treated as another's property. Since the Bible doesn't condemn it, does that mean you're willing to accept slavery as an institution, as long as masters "love" their slaves and do not treat them "ruthlessly"? If you don't, then why not, and what is the basis for your choice?

You may not agree with it but can you demonstrate why something should be as you believe it to be? Why is your view the 'best?' You see best implies that there is a standard by which we can know and measure good by. What shifting standard will you propose to me? In order to have an objective standard/measure/reference/final resting point you have to know what best is. Can you point me to such a standard? If you can't then all you have to work with is someones preference, someones likes, someones feelings. In such a case some like to murder their enemies and those they see as inferior (such as Hitler) and some like to offer them hospitality as Jesus gave example of with the Good Samaritan. What is your preference?

Frankly, no atheist I know is presumptuous enough to claim that their personal view is the 'best'. To the best of my knowledge, not even the most militant atheists on the public media have said anything that could even be remotely construed as such, and they would be sorely mistaken if they did. The argument that any one party possesses the 'best' view is quite strictly attributable to theists, and what makes it even more amusing is that theists take their very own position, turn it into a straw man to project onto unbelievers, and, in an incredible display of hypocrisy, castigate them for it.

You make the argument that all we have to work with is our preferences, likes, and feelings. At the end of the day, that's not too far off from the truth. Christians like yourself operate along the same lines as well, where you choose to accept the morals presented by the Bible because it fits your worldview. Can you demonstrate why should we heed Jesus' command to love, for example? If your reply is that it's because what God ordered, you've simply demonstrated a preference. If on the other hand you try to rationalize it using reason, you're falling back on naturalistic explanations that have nothing to do with God and are, by your own argument, non-objective.

Your world-view is inconsistent, because on the one hand you argue against something and then on the other you prove why it should be so. It is so wishy-washy because it depends on nothing more than what those in power push to be the rules. They can change with the change of government or ruler. Your whole argument falls to those who are in power unless you can provide an objective standard as to why something should or must be. Maybe you can address some of these inconsistencies I have pointed out as to why they 'should' be rather than just why they are?

I think this might be a good time to point out again that, when I stated that there are some morals that are broadly agreed upon by most people, that should not be taken as an endorsement that the majority view is always right. The right view may indeed happen to be the majority view and vice versa, and there is a certain degree of correlation between the two, but to claim that the two always coexist with each other is quite fallacious.

Second, I don't think it's a bad thing to be "wishy-washy" if it's done for the right reasons. There is nothing inherently bad with change, assuming it's a change for the better. Reason, justice, and setting right mistakes that were made in order to move forward are more important than obstinately sticking to the outdated rules of yesteryear out of sheer hubris. Despite your arguments against "wishy-washyness", Christians are in fact quite capable of it as well, and have been doing so. Why do you think slavery was abolished? Why do you think women are now allowed to speak in churches? Why do you think that Christians accept the New Covenant instead of sticking with Moses' laws? Why do you think Christians don't lead armies around slaughtering unbelievers anymore, or gave up on witch-trials, or accept that the Earth revolves around the sun, or condemn pedophilia nowadays?

The example you give above seems like what the Obama administration is attempting to do to some extent. It wants to increase the taxes of the wealthy to offset the conditions of the poor. The question is can such wealthy people really live these extravagant lifestyles without regards to the poor and without even a shade of guilt? It appears so. Who switched the price tags so that sports stars get exorbitant amounts of money while those who teach your children sometimes barely make ends meet?

To be honest, modern society and institutions have grown so complex that it's hardly accurate anymore to blame any one event on any one man's sole decision or action. But other than that, my example was given as-is, without any allusions to any political events anywhere. I don't think, for example, that it's right to punish the rich simply because they're rich. Do you?

PS. Valoran, I see you have taken up the moral law argument on the other forum. If you want to answer my questions and then switch over their then that will be fine with me.

Hm, I'm fine either way. If there's no risk of running the thread off-topic, I'm happy to do as you suggest.

[PGA]

Hi Peter,

First off, I would and have argued that if we properly understand God we do not support nor have we ever supported inhumane slavery.

is there a thing like non-inhumane slavery? And if yes, might it be supported by God as an objective, absolute, time and epoque independent value?

Ciao

- viole

Hi Viole, how are you?

It all depends on the task-master, doesn't it? The Bible instructs the person whose care the slave/servant is under to treat them fairly, not like the forefathers were treated in Egypt. That kind of harsh treatment is something God constantly reminds the Israelites not to do. In fact He reminds them to treat their neighbour as themselves, just as Jesus summed up the laws of God.

Peter

[PGA]

Hi Valoran,

First off I'd like to say that you strike me as an otherwise sensible person who is perfectly capable of raising sound arguments, but I can only describe the quoted paragraph above as incredibly ignorant and irresponsible. -Valoran

I don't know how familiar you are with the codes of conduct in the Ancient Near East (ANE), but there are some striking similarities between them and the biblical understanding in places. You seem very articulate and well read so if I post an article on them maybe you will read them, since I feel like I'm playing a broken record on this point. I think the article is thorough enough that a clearer picture will arise as to the culture back then, and even how it relates to today in the examples I used. It is my hope that you will at least peruse it, because in the other discussions I have had it was obvious nobody had.

http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

Peter

[PGA]

Actually there was lots said in both testaments about slavery and also the kind of cruel, malicious slavery that God opposed. God's primary concern was to love Him and love our neighbours in both testaments. Jesus summed up all the laws in those two statements. The Golden Rule is just one prime example. Over and over again Jesus not only demonstrated the love for others but also told those He addressed to love others as you love yourself, a lesson that applies across the centuries.The apostle Paul among others makes reference to the fact that in Christ we are all brothers and sisters in one big family, that there is neither Jew nor Greek, rich or poor, free or slave, man or woman, but that we are all one in Christ. This is the kind of verse that has inspired many to push for the abolition of the harsh kind of servant-hood practised both in Egypt and in many parts of the world up until recently, and that still goes on in the black-market, this buying and selling of people, usually for sexual perversions and the like. -Me

You keep bringing up what Jesus said regarding love, but what you cannot deny is that Jesus was silent on the issue of a man being owned and treated as another's property. Since the Bible doesn't condemn it, does that mean you're willing to accept slavery as an institution, as long as masters "love" their slaves and do not treat them "ruthlessly"? If you don't, then why not, and what is the basis for your choice? -Valoran

Yes, love does not seek to harm.

Jesus' condemned the harsh kind of slavery that was practised by the Egyptians, because it is metaphorically used to describe mans condition outside of Christ too. I can think of numerous occasions in which He condemned the harsh treatment of people, and of others where He condoned servant-hood. There are also many verses in the NT that talk about the Christian being redeemed from this harsh kind of slavery and also those that speak of us being bought with a price, that we are no longer our own but God's workmen, etc, etc.

John 8:31-36

New International Version (NIV)

Dispute Over Whose Children Jesus’ Opponents Are

³¹ To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. ³² Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” ³³ They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”

³⁴ Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. ³⁵ Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. ³⁶ So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

Luke 16:13

New International Version (NIV)

¹³ “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”

Matthew 20:27

New International Version (NIV)

²⁷ and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—

Matthew 4:10

New International Version (NIV)

¹⁰ Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’

Matthew 11:29-30

New International Version (NIV)

²⁹ Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. ³⁰ For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

From these passages you can see that one type of slavery is harsh and wicked and the other is kind and caring. The same is true in the OT in intent and practise.

[PGA]

Now concerning the other issue - objective/universal morality and a moral law giver (which does tie in with the discussion on same-sex marriage).

You may not agree with it but can you demonstrate why something should be as you believe it to be? Why is your view the 'best?' You see best implies that there is a standard by which we can know and measure good by. What shifting standard will you propose to me? In order to have an objective standard/measure/reference/final resting point you have to know what best is. Can you point me to such a standard? If you can't then all you have to work with is someones preference, someones likes, someones feelings. In such a case some like to murder their enemies and those they see as inferior (such as Hitler) and some like to offer them hospitality as Jesus gave example of with the Good Samaritan. What is your preference? Me

Frankly, no atheist I know is presumptuous enough to claim that their personal view is the 'best'. To the best of my knowledge, not even the most militant atheists on the public media have said anything that could even be remotely construed as such, and they would be sorely mistaken if they did. The argument that any one party possesses the 'best' view is quite strictly attributable to theists, and what makes it even more amusing is that theists take their very own position, turn it into a straw man to project onto unbelievers, and, in an incredible display of hypocrisy, castigate them for it. -Valoran

Actually the atheist/materialist/secular humanist's system shoots itself in the foot repeatedly, for without a fixed standard of what goodness is that transcends cultures how do you measure whether you have progressed or not? Your good is always being redefined and reinvented. I only have to point you to the very issue of this thread - homosexuality and same-sex marriage debate as to its goodness.

If you don't know what is best then how do you measure the goodness of something? Is it (goodness) something that is arbitrarily picked out of mid air?

You make the argument that all we have to work with is our preferences, likes, and feelings. At the end of the day, that's not too far off from the truth. -Valoran

I know it is, for your world-view. You can't demonstrate otherwise.

Christians like yourself operate along the same lines as well, where you choose to accept the morals presented by the Bible because it fits your worldview. Can you demonstrate why should we heed Jesus' command to love, for example? If your reply is that it's because what God ordered, you've simply demonstrated a preference. If on the other hand you try to rationalize it using reason, you're falling back on naturalistic explanations that have nothing to do with God and are, by your own argument, non-objective. -Valoran

I might be able to demonstrate it. It all depends on what a person who believes in a relative standard will accept. Your final authority boils down to yourself and those you agree with, not on truth. You have nothing that transcends you ultimately. Is it better to love your neighbour or to hate and harm your neighbour? It not only boils down to because God has commanded itfor the Christian, but He is wiser than I am. It also boils down to where a person places their highest authority - in self or in Someone that transcends self. You see, that is what the original sin involve. It also boils down to truth, something that the atheist has no absolutes on either, and truth is an absolute. I liked the question Pilot asked Jesus, "What is truth?" It seems to run to the heart of the issue.

In fact, as I stated earlier, when you get down to the nitty-gritty of your world-view, the things that your belief hinges on, the nuts and bolts, it has zero explain-ability. In discussing the second premise of the moral argument you still have to account for morals without a moral law giver. How can morals exist without mind to conceive of them? That second premises may not be as illogical as you may think. I'm still waiting for your answer - well maybe not. I have to catch up on the posts to see if you answered that question. If not I'm curious to hear your answer, and are you speaking the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you _ _ _? Sorry, poor humour.

Your world-view is inconsistent, because on the one hand you argue against something and then on the other you prove why it should be so. It is so wishy-washy because it depends on nothing more than what those in power push to be the rules. They can change with the change of government or ruler. Your whole argument falls to those who are in power unless you can provide an objective standard as to why something should or must be. Maybe you can address some of these inconsistencies I have pointed out as to why they 'should' be rather than just why they are? Me

I think this might be a good time to point out again that, when I stated that there are some morals that are broadly agreed upon by most people, that should not be taken as an endorsement that the majority view is always right. The right view may indeed happen to be the majority view and vice versa, and there is a certain degree of correlation between the two, but to claim that the two always coexist with each other is quite fallacious. -Valoran

The point is who decides? Wars have been started over these very issues - a dispute over who is right. In your world-view might makes right. Would you agree?

Second, I don't think it's a bad thing to be "wishy-washy" if it's done for the right reasons. There is nothing inherently bad with change, assuming it's a change for the better. -Valoran

Better in whose opinion? When an atheist or secular humanist banters about qualitative terms I always take note because I want to see how they can justify these terms without a fixed and final reference. It amazes me how the word 'right' keeps morphing and taking on new meanings as they redefine the term.

Reason, justice, and setting right mistakes that were made in order to move forward are more important than obstinately sticking to the outdated rules of yesteryear out of sheer hubris. Despite your arguments against "wishy-washyness", Christians are in fact quite capable of it as well, and have been doing so. Why do you think slavery was abolished? Why do you think women are now allowed to speak in churches? Why do you think that Christians accept the New Covenant instead of sticking with Moses' laws? Why do you think Christians don't lead armies around slaughtering unbelievers anymore, or gave up on witch-trials, or accept that the Earth revolves around the sun, or condemn pedophilia nowadays? -Valoran

On the subject of the New Covenant, the reason we accept it is because of the grace and mercy of God. He has shown us that His good, just and perfect laws are hard to keep, in fact no human, other than Jesus, has been able to keep them. So we recognize, again because of God's grace, that the New Covenant is a far, far better covenant.

I'm out of time. I need some sleep to recover and get ready for another 12 hour night shift.

Thanks for engaging in the discussion again!

Peter

[Valoran]

Now concerning the other issue - objective/universal morality and a moral law giver (which does tie in with the discussion on same-sex marriage).

Actually the atheist/materialist/secular humanist's system shoots itself in the foot repeatedly, for without a fixed standard of what goodness is that transcends cultures how do you measure whether you have progressed or not? Your good is always being redefined and reinvented. I only have to point you to the very issue of this thread - homosexuality and same-sex marriage debate as to its goodness.

If you don't know what is best then how do you measure the goodness of something? Is it (goodness) something that is arbitrarily picked out of mid air?

There is a difference between knowing what an ideal "best" for a specific situation would be, and coming up with a general definition for "best" that covers all conceivable situations. I notice you tend to emphasis the latter, perhaps deliberately, because there is simply no one-size-fits-all solution to every single moral issue out there. The fallacy in your argument arises when you try to imply that because general definitions do not exist, it is impossible for non-theists to accurately judge specific situations on a case-by-case basis either.

If we're going to talk about specific situations, however, the question becomes much more answerable. The same-sex marriage is an issue of equality and freedom of choice, where we strive to progress towards a society that rejects discrimination based on sexual orientation. When we narrow it down to individual issues, that's when the theist is reduced to Bible-thumping, unable to produce any reasonable justifications for their moral stand other than "well, it's what God says!". Are we honestly expected to believe that such a moral system is objective in any shape or form?

I know it is, for your world-view. You can't demonstrate otherwise.

Very good. Are you aware, however, that the exact same is true for your world view as well?

I might be able to demonstrate it. It all depends on what a person who believes in a relative standard will accept. Your final authority boils down to yourself and those you agree with, not on truth. You have nothing that transcends you ultimately. Is it better to love your neighbour or to hate and harm your neighbour? It not only boils down to because God has commanded itfor the Christian, but He is wiser than I am. It also boils down to where a person places their highest authority - in self or in Someone that transcends self. You see, that is what the original sin involve. It also boils down to truth, something that the atheist has no absolutes on either, and truth is an absolute. I liked the question Pilot asked Jesus, "What is truth?" It seems to run to the heart of the issue.

Truth and morals are two different things entirely. Truth is objective, while morals are not. Truths and facts can be used as data to produce a moral stand, but trying to suggest that morals are truth is being silly. Again, I ask the question: Christians claim to be in possession of the best and objective set of morals. How do you prove this?

In fact, as I stated earlier, when you get down to the nitty-gritty of your world-view, the things that your belief hinges on, the nuts and bolts, it has zero explain-ability. In discussing the second premise of the moral argument you still have to account for morals without a moral law giver. How can morals exist without mind to conceive of them? That second premises may not be as illogical as you may think. I'm still waiting for your answer - well maybe not. I have to catch up on the posts to see if you answered that question. If not I'm curious to hear your answer, and are you speaking the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you _ _ _? Sorry, poor humour.

PGA, the usual rule of thumb when trying to take the moral high ground is to do it after you have demonstrated that you possess the superior moral platform, not before. As for zero explainability, can you tell us how a set of "morals" that is based on "because God said so!" has any explainability whatsoever? You ask how can morals exist without mind to conceive of them, when the fact is that every one of us has a mind, making your question moot.

As I've explained to LuftWaffle, something that arises from a mind instead of being discovered via observation or logical deduction is, by definition, subjective. In trying to use objective morals as an argument for God's existence, the conclusion of the moral law argument undermines its own premises. It's a self-defeating argument that gets you nowhere.

The point is who decides? Wars have been started over these very issues - a dispute over who is right. In your world-view might makes right. Would you agree?

You need to understand that what is moral and what actually happens in the real world are two different things that don't necessarily agree. Again, you are asking for broad, one-size-fits-all answers that do not exist in both atheist morals or Christian morals alike; God was perfectly happy to forget his loving side and sanction the slaughter of Jerusalem when it suited His purposes, for instance. If you're willing to quote a specific issue, I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you.

Better in whose opinion? When an atheist or secular humanist banters about qualitative terms I always take note because I want to see how they can justify these terms without a fixed and final reference. It amazes me how the word 'right' keeps morphing and taking on new meanings as they redefine the term.

Again, please provide any specific examples that you want to discuss. With regards to the same-sex marriage issue, it's a change for the better since equality and social rights are triumphing over discrimination grounded in a religious basis, which in turn has no grounds whatsoever. If the fact that 'right' can take various meanings depending on the situation really amazes you, perhaps you have been ignoring reality for far too long in favor of an illusion you have allowed yourself to be lulled into because it fits your religious beliefs. Why do you think humans are capable of exercising judgment? Why do you think judges can hand out varying sentences for the same crimes, committed under different circumstances? They're certainly not doing it because it amuses them.

On the subject of the New Covenant, the reason we accept it is because of the grace and mercy of God. He has shown us that His good, just and perfect laws are hard to keep, in fact no human, other than Jesus, has been able to keep them. So we recognize, again because of God's grace, that the New Covenant is a far, far better covenant.

Isn't God the wisest being ever who knows all? Isn't God timeless, unchanging, and eternal? If the Old Covenant suited God and His people just fine for over 5000 years, why do we need Jesus and the New Covenant? Or could it possibly be that Christians and God are apparently also just as capable as non-believers to make a change for the better as the circumstances dictate, despite how hard they try to condemn it in non-believers?

I'm out of time. I need some sleep to recover and get ready for another 12 hour night shift.

Thanks for engaging in the discussion again!

Peter

The pleasure's all mine. You're more than welcome!

[Valoran]

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. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. (Deut 15.12f)

Another thing that you should consider is that God's law was always after love, justice and mercy.

Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. (Lev 25.43)

..but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. (Lev 25.46)

53 He is to be treated as a man hired from year to year; you must see to it that his owner does not rule over him ruthlessly. (Lev 25.53)

Do not consider it a hardship to set your servant free, because his service to you these six years has been worth twice as much as that of a hired hand. And the LORD your God will bless you in everything you do. (Deut 15.18)

Interestingly enough, all the verses you quote here expressly refer to Israelite slaves. Non-Israelite slaves were treated as inheritable property, were not to be freed, and could be legitimately obtained by conquering enemy populations and pressing them into service, assuming those enemy populations weren't indiscriminately slaughtered outright.

I'm also not sure what to make of your claim that slavery was often voluntary for Israelites. Given how was allowed for men to sell their pre-pubescent daughters into slavery, the question is voluntary according to whom? Do we have any information on what was the alternative to this "voluntary" enslavement to determine that it was truly voluntary?

[PGA]

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. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. (Deut 15.12f)

Another thing that you should consider is that God's law was always after love, justice and mercy.

Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. (Lev 25.43)

..but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. (Lev 25.46)

53 He is to be treated as a man hired from year to year; you must see to it that his owner does not rule over him ruthlessly. (Lev 25.53)

Do not consider it a hardship to set your servant free, because his service to you these six years has been worth twice as much as that of a hired hand. And the LORD your God will bless you in everything you do. (Deut 15.18)

Interestingly enough, all the verses you quote here expressly refer to Israelite slaves. Non-Israelite slaves were treated as inheritable property, were not to be freed, and could be legitimately obtained by conquering enemy populations and pressing them into service, assuming those enemy populations weren't indiscriminately slaughtered outright.

I'm also not sure what to make of your claim that slavery was often voluntary for Israelites. Given how was allowed for men to sell their pre-pubescent daughters into slavery, the question is voluntary according to whom? Do we have any information on what was the alternative to this "voluntary" enslavement to determine that it was truly voluntary?

Hi Valoran,

The link I supplied explains all this. Per-chance, did you read it?

[PGA]

Hi Stargazer,

It all depends on the task-master, doesn't it? The Bible instructs the person whose care the slave/servant is under to treat them fairly, not like the forefathers were treated in Egypt. That kind of harsh treatment is something God constantly reminds the Israelites not to do. In fact He reminds them to treat their neighbour as themselves, just as Jesus summed up the laws of God. Me

What's "fair"? Do you know that if a slave gets married while under service of a master that when and if he is release the wife and children [if any] are NOT required to join him? The slave owner can demand they stay. Now the slave can decide to stay and NOT go in order to be with his family but I'm wondering if you call this "fair". Your comparison to the slavery that the Jews used and our employment today is a shocking example of just how far someone will go to twist reality in order to defend their religious beliefs. -Stargazer

There again, you have to understand the culture and what it meant by the word 'slave/servant' and the context in which it is applied. See the link I supplied if you are interested.

If you enlisted in the US army for a four year term and you got married in that time to someone also enlisted under a lesser term, does that release you from your current contractual obligation just because her term is up? She can't take you out of your existing contract just because you want to leave with her. If the US military owns the rights to your contract then you are under obligation to them to fulfill the full terms of the contract.

If you are a citizen of the USA then you are required to live within the laws of that country. You are only as 'free' as the law allows you to be. There are restrictions and guidelines that you cannot cross without being held responsible. The laws and customs of the ANE were different than what we currently experience, but there are many similarities also. When you enter into an employer/employee contract then you are required to comply with the rules that the employer sets down and work according to their guideline in compliance and conjunction with the laws of your country that supersede them. If you want payment for services rendered then you are under obligation to fulfill the employers terms, without breaking the greater laws of the land. The same was true for the Hebrew slave/servant. He agreed to live according to the rules set out by the master in return for a better life than he was currently experiencing. In turn, God also required the master to act within His guidelines of treating the slave/servant with compassion and respect, something that the Israelites did not receive under the hands of the Egyptians and also something that the Lord continually reminded the master of the slave/servant to avoid this harsh type of treatment of anyone in his care. The same respect was also required of a slave taken in battle from foreign lands. They were not to be abused like the Israelites experienced abuse in Egypt. This theme is a constant reminder by God, and those who ignored it were guilty and accountable to God, just as an employer is for breaking the laws that are above his rules and conditions for employment.

The seven year term was a contractual term in which the slave/servant agreed to live as the master ruled, just like you agree to work under the contractual terms your employer lays down. Both master and employer set the conditions. The slave or employee agree to fulfill the terms for the contract to be binding. You as an employee are free to quit whenever you so desire under the laws of your country (usually with a two week notice as courtesy to your employer). The Hebrews operated under the master who operated under the laws of God.

You mention that the Bible states that the Jewish slave masters should not treat their fellow Jewish slaves harshly....you do realize they are comparing them to NON Jewish slaves right? Another words, there's a group of people the Jewish slave owners CAN treat harshly [own for life etc]....NON JEWS. Your idea of "fair" is a bit different than mine. -Stargazer

The conditions applied to both Hebrew and foreign slaves. As I said before, God reminded the Israelites not to treat a slave as they had been treated in Egypt.

Exodus 1

The Israelites Oppressed

¹ These are the names of the sons of Israel who went to Egypt with Jacob, each with his family: ² Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah; ³ Issachar, Zebulun and Benjamin; ⁴ Dan and Naphtali; Gad and Asher. ⁵ The descendants of Jacob numbered seventy^[a] in all; Joseph was already in Egypt. ⁶ Now Joseph and all his brothers and all that generation died, ⁷ but the Israelites were exceedingly fruitful; they multiplied greatly, increased in numbers and became so numerous that the land was filled with them.

⁸ Then a new king, to whom Joseph meant nothing, came to power in Egypt. ⁹ “Look,” he said to his people, “the Israelites have become far too numerous for us. ¹⁰ Come, we must deal shrewdly with them or they will become even more numerous and, if war breaks out, will join our enemies, fight against us and leave the country.”

¹¹ So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh. ¹² But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread; so the Egyptians came to dread the Israelites ¹³ and worked them ruthlessly. ¹⁴ They made their lives bitter with harsh labor in brick and mortar and with all kinds of work in the fields; in all their harsh labor the Egyptians worked them ruthlessly.

Exodus 3:9

New International Version (NIV)

⁹ And now the cry of the Israelites has reached me, and I have seen the way the Egyptians are oppressing them.

God's reminder:

Exodus 22:21

New International Version (NIV)

²¹ “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.

Exodus 23:9

New International Version (NIV)

⁹ “Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.

Deuteronomy 10:19

New International Version (NIV)

¹⁹ And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.

Leviticus 19:33-34

New International Version (NIV)

³³ “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. ³⁴ The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 24:14

New International Version (NIV)

¹⁴ Do not take advantage of a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether that worker is a fellow Israelite or a foreigner residing in one of your towns.

Deuteronomy 24:14

King James Version (KJV)

¹⁴Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates:

Leviticus 19:13-19

New International Version (NIV)

¹³ “‘Do not defraud or rob your neighbor.

“‘Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight.

¹⁴ “‘Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the LORD.

¹⁵ “‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.

¹⁶ “‘Do not go about spreading slander among your people.

“‘Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the LORD.

¹⁷ “‘Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt.

¹⁸ “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

¹⁹ “‘Keep my decrees.

These commands are not intended to harm but to protect and promote good will and right relations both for the Hebrews and the strangers/foreigners.

[PGA]

Hi Valoran,

I'm going to answer this in stages, for lack of time,

Now concerning the other issue - objective/universal morality and a moral law giver (which does tie in with the discussion on same-sex marriage).

Actually the atheist/materialist/secular humanist's system shoots itself in the foot repeatedly, for without a fixed standard of what goodness is that transcends cultures how do you measure whether you have progressed or not? Your good is always being redefined and reinvented. I only have to point you to the very issue of this thread - homosexuality and same-sex marriage debate as to its goodness.

If you don't know what is best then how do you measure the goodness of something? Is it (goodness) something that is arbitrarily picked out of mid air? -Me

There is a difference between knowing what an ideal "best" for a specific situation would be, and coming up with a general definition for "best" that covers all conceivable situations. I notice you tend to emphasis the latter, perhaps deliberately, because there is simply no one-size-fits-all solution to every single moral issue out there. The fallacy in your argument arises when you try to imply that because general definitions do not exist, it is impossible for non-theists to accurately judge specific situations on a case-by-case basis either. -Valoran

Well how would you come up with a general definition of best without an ideal best? Whose best would that be? Why do they know that their best is better than your best? How would you know that homosexuality was wrong unless there was an ideal of what should be? The fallacy of your argument is that there are so many conceivable definitions that it makes the very definition of best meaningless. If it wasn't so sad I would be laughing. It redefines the very term best to mean something other than what it is.

If we're going to talk about specific situations, however, the question becomes much more answerable. The same-sex marriage is an issue of equality and freedom of choice, where we strive to progress towards a society that rejects discrimination based on sexual orientation. When we narrow it down to individual issues, that's when the theist is reduced to Bible-thumping, unable to produce any reasonable justifications for their moral stand other than "well, it's what God says!". Are we honestly expected to believe that such a moral system is objective in any shape or form? -Valoran

I think that there are two objections that I can raise immediately to this statement. The first is what makes choice best? Because I prefer chocolate ice-cream to vanilla is nothing more than a preference. It is not something that should be law that everyone eats chocolate ice-cream just because I like it. The second objection is what about my freedom of choice? If it is just as equal as yours then why can't my laws be put into effect if I can get them enforced?

Just because people make laws for some situations and behaviours does not necessarily make them good. But within the confines of the law of the land I'm just as equal as you within the boundaries of the law, even if I do like to steal wallets I don't have the equal right to do so. The question is whose morality should set the standard. If you want to set it by force rather than by what 'should be' then Hitler's Germany is justifiable or if I rule then I'm going to put in effect the law that anyone can steal wallets? If a minority group wants to see polygamy or sex with minors as their equal right then based on your argument above it is within their freedom of choice to do so since their preference is just as equal as ours are and as long as the minors are consensual then so be it. You see, where I believe your argument trips up is that thinking any preference is as good and as equally valid is not valid for the very fact that some things are objectionable. Since our ideas on what should be equally right and what choices should be practised disagrees then why does a minority group get to decide over that of the majority, just because they like to do something that others see as wrong.

Polygamy, incest or sex with consensual partners by your definition could also be considered a freedom of choice and it should be an issue of equality too if you want to legislate everything on mere preference and minority opinion. If not then not all preferences are equal. And unless you can come up with a standard that is objective and the measure that we can judge by then what is to stop anything being legislated into law eventually? There is nothing, IMO.

Peter

Edited December 22, 2011 by PGA