Gay marriage ban passes in NC - Page 19

05-18-12, 04:42 PM

Quote:

@ CaptainHaplo. Well done.

So despite the long winded run around Haplo manages to confirm that Jesus didn't speak against it so safe keeper was correct.

Quote:

Thus there is no "slave" or "master", no "property" or "owner" in the Grand view of God.

Interesting, then why does god set out the conditions for treating slaves? Or was gods rules on how to do slavery a bit of the bible which was just made up?

Quote:

The word "slavery" as we use it today is translated from the Hebrew "ebed" which has a much wider meaning that just slave. It is more often translated accurately as servant or hired worker.
# Jewish Encylopedia - published by Funk and Wagnalls.

Would that be funk and wagnalls? then......
The Hebrew word "'ebed" really means "slave"; but the English Bible renders it "servant" (a) where the word is used figuratively, pious men being "servants of the Lord" (Isa. xx. 3), and courtiers "servants of the king" (Jer. xxxvii. 2); and (b) in passages which refer to Hebrew bondmen, whose condition is far above that of slavery (Ex. xxi. 2-7). Where real slaves are referred to, the English versions generally use "bondman" for "'ebed," and "bondwoman" or "bondmaid" for the corresponding feminines (Lev. xxv. 49).
.....So it is slave when it means slave but is written as bondsman sometimes when it means real slaves.

CaptainHaplo · 05-18-12, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u crank

@ CaptainHaplo. Well done.

It almost wrote itself - I don't get the credit for that one....

It was a blessing for me to do it.

u crank · 05-18-12, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So despite the long winded run around Haplo manages to confirm that Jesus didn't speak against it so safe keeper was correct.

He is correct in that He didn't speak against it.

He is incorrect in that He did not say " slavery is okay."

05-19-12, 01:34 AM

Quote:

He is correct in that He didn't speak against it.

He is incorrect in that He did not say " slavery is okay."

Not quite, as he said he didn't come to change to old rules and the old rules do say slavery is OK and he should know because .....well he is the one who is also the one so its his rules isn't it.
Now if he had said the old rules are OK apart from that bit about slaves you may have more of a point.

MH · 05-19-12, 03:55 AM

According to ancient Halaha master could own Jewish slave/eved(its written with Bet but pronounced as v in this case) for no more than six years and had to give him freedom.
None Jewish slaves could be owned for unlimited period of time but the law said that it was forbidden to cause any physical harm to the slave.
Physical abuse could be a reason for realise and killing the slave could be death sentence to the master.

05-19-12, 04:13 AM

Quote:

None Jewish slaves could be owned for unlimited period of time but the law said that it was forbidden to cause any physical harm to the slave.

No it doesn't, it says if you harm them to the extent that they lose part of their body they can get their freedom.

Quote:

Physical abuse could be a reason for realise and killing the slave could be death sentence to the master.

Depends on if the slave dies on the day after the beating doesn't it.
If the slave is beaten so badly it dies quickly or beating it so it dies not so quickly are differentiated.
Makes sense really as having a slave die two days after a beating could just be put down to normal wear and tear.

MH · 05-19-12, 04:26 AM

It could be that or anything else....direct link needed to be established as evidence so you could not wait a week...

those had been harsh times also forensics wasn't so much of high standards.

MH · 05-19-12, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No it doesn't, it says if you harm them to the extent that they lose part of their body they can get their freedom.

Yes including teeth....teeth are important issue....

I guess some slapping was allowed...

u crank · 05-19-12, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Not quite, as he said he didn't come to change to old rules and the old rules do say slavery is OK and he should know because .....well he is the one who is also the one so its his rules isn't it.
Now if he had said the old rules are OK apart from that bit about slaves you may have more of a point.

I'll give you some of that, but we should note this. I'm sure that 1st century Palestine was ripe with many social and human ills that are still with us today. Spousal abuse, incest, cruelty to animals.... you get the idea. If Jesus made no comment on those or any other human failings does that mean He was giving His approval to them?

The Bible describes the personality and character of Jesus of Nazareth quite well. Whether you believe him to be Divine, just a man or a myth doesn't matter. The qualities described there remain the same. To interject into that characterization the idea that "slavery is okay" seems unlikely. I'm not saying it's impossible, I just need some proof. Quotes from the O.T. and other writers in N.T. about slavery won't do. Did He actually say or impart this idea to others? My opinion is no.

Safe-Keeper · 05-19-12, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

You really want a disertation on this?

Um, no, I used Jesus' and the early Christians' view on slavery as an example of how we don't follow the Bible litterally, and didn't intend for anyone to write a whole novel in return, or for the whole thread to be derailed to the extent it was.

Quote:

So despite the long winded run around Haplo manages to confirm that Jesus didn't speak against it so safe keeper was correct.

05-19-12, 11:33 AM

Quote:

I'll give you some of that, but we should note this. I'm sure that 1st century Palestine was ripe with many social and human ills that are still with us today. Spousal abuse, incest, cruelty to animals.... you get the idea. If Jesus made no comment on those or any other human failings does that mean He was giving His approval to them?

Well for that to come into play you would need to look at any of the 600+laws to see if they came into play on any of those subjects.
Incest certainly fits that category which could lead to an old joke about the location which started this particular round of the "oh no its the gays again" game.
So there you go, by saying he hadn't come to change the laws he was saying don't have sex with your aunt but you can screw your cousins

Quote:

I just need some proof. Quotes from the O.T. and other writers in N.T. about slavery won't do. Did He actually say or impart this idea to others? My opinion is no.

Can you see a problem there?
Identify the writers of the NT, which do you call the others?

Sailor Steve · 05-19-12, 11:43 AM

I'm loving the talk about Jewish slaves. It wasn't the Jews keeping slaves that they were talking about, it was the Romans. Roman slavery could be as bad as some think, but on the whole it was relatively benign. A Roman slave could rise to run the household. He could even purchase his own freedom, and any Roman slave could join the army for twenty years and then get his freedom and that of his family. Paul telling a slave to be faithful to his master was nothing like saying the same thing to a 19th century American slave. If Jesus didn't condemn slavery in his own time it was likely because for most of them slavery wasn't worth running away from.

I'm also failing to see what something said about slaves two thousand years ago has to do with gay marriage today. I have to agree with August and Haplo on this one - it sounds like it's skirting the edge of being about how Jesus didn't care about certain people. What's that about?

05-19-12, 12:13 PM

Quote:

I'm also failing to see what something said about slaves two thousand years ago has to do with gay marriage today. I have to agree with August and Haplo on this one - it sounds like it's skirting the edge of being about how Jesus didn't care about certain people. What's that about?

Well for starters someone tried to make a bad point about how we all live to his religious laws, leaving aside that theology flies straight back in his face the slavery issue does make a nice additional counter. Plus of course if you look at NC and amendments over marriage that comes nicely round to the legacy from the slavery.

u crank · 05-19-12, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Can you see a problem there?
Identify the writers of the NT, which do you call the others?

I am sorry. I should have explained. The others would not be the writers of the four gospels, who to my knowledge did not record Jesus saying "slavery is okay". Any of the other writers or books of the New Testament. Sorry for the confusion.

05-19-12, 02:03 PM

No worries, but the first part of that identity question matters also in relation to the 4.
Have you any thoughts on the letter Q and its relation to 2 of the 4?
Or for that matter why the 4th seems to sit differently?

I mean we could go into any of the many non canonical gospels too, but of course they were all heretics.

05-19-12, 04:26 AM	#277
MH Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 3,184 Downloads: 248 Uploads: 0	It could be that or anything else....direct link needed to be established as evidence so you could not wait a week... those had been harsh times also forensics wasn't so much of high standards. Last edited by MH; 05-19-12 at 06:25 AM.

05-19-12, 11:43 AM	#282
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	I'm loving the talk about Jewish slaves. It wasn't the Jews keeping slaves that they were talking about, it was the Romans. Roman slavery could be as bad as some think, but on the whole it was relatively benign. A Roman slave could rise to run the household. He could even purchase his own freedom, and any Roman slave could join the army for twenty years and then get his freedom and that of his family. Paul telling a slave to be faithful to his master was nothing like saying the same thing to a 19th century American slave. If Jesus didn't condemn slavery in his own time it was likely because for most of them slavery wasn't worth running away from. I'm also failing to see what something said about slaves two thousand years ago has to do with gay marriage today. I have to agree with August and Haplo on this one - it sounds like it's skirting the edge of being about how Jesus didn't care about certain people. What's that about? __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo

05-19-12, 03:55 AM	#275
MH Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 3,184 Downloads: 248 Uploads: 0	According to ancient Halaha master could own Jewish slave/eved(its written with Bet but pronounced as v in this case) for no more than six years and had to give him freedom. None Jewish slaves could be owned for unlimited period of time but the law said that it was forbidden to cause any physical harm to the slave. Physical abuse could be a reason for realise and killing the slave could be death sentence to the master.

05-19-12, 02:03 PM	#285
Tribesman Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	No worries, but the first part of that identity question matters also in relation to the 4. Have you any thoughts on the letter Q and its relation to 2 of the 4? Or for that matter why the 4th seems to sit differently? I mean we could go into any of the many non canonical gospels too, but of course they were all heretics.