Atheism

Originally posted by long pig
The word "slave" never appears in the hebrew text, they're called servants. Here is what the law says about having slaves. 1. They are to be paid. 2. They are not to be beat. if they are beat, they can sue thier masters. 3. They can only be a slave for seven years.4. They can only be a slave willingly. i.e sell themselves. 5. At the end of 7 years, they are given the same inheritance as the eldest son. 6. If a slave runs away, they are not to be forced back. Does that sound like slavery to you? As for dietary laws, they are only there to keep you healthy. Don't eat scavengers or fat. He wants u 2 eat what's good 4 u. That is the sole reason 4 them. What sacrifices are evil? No offense, but its clear you get your biblical P.O.V from something other than the bible.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not that I'm aware of.

It could be a case of the hebrew language lacking an extensive vocabulary and we end up with one word that is similar to 3-5 of our own words...so we end up with translation issues...which has happened a lot and I mean A LOT.

That's what I thought, since that's apparently the case with Old Arabic, which is why many muslims are strongly against translating the Quran, seeing how both are semitic languages I could imagine that problem to persist.

But maybe Long Pig can comment on that and what 753 said...he's apparently a scholar of the languages of the Bible.

Originally posted by long pig
1. They are to be paid. 2. They are not to be beat. if they are beat, they can sue thier masters. 3. They can only be a slave for seven years.4. They can only be a slave willingly. i.e sell themselves. 5. At the end of 7 years, they are given the same inheritance as the eldest son. 6. If a slave runs away, they are not to be forced back. Does that sound like slavery to you?

yes?

or are you of the opinion that the only form of slavery in existance has to be the "chattle" form of the African slave trade?

No, it's not biblicly okay to beat a slave as long as you don't kill them. It's called murder and god doesnt condone murder. As for killing males, all i can think of is war. And no, god never said to take wives of the people the went to war with. Its against torah law. I am indeed a student of biblical languages, what do you need help with? As for slavery....if that is slavery in your opinion, then everyone on earth that has a job is a slave. They weren't slaves, they were willing, paid servants who were to be treated as though they were family. I mean no offense, but if what i wrote sounds like slavery to you, I'm honestly questioning your ability to read.

Oh, you want to know if there is a word for slave and servant. There isn't a different word, but there is a difference in how the word is written. In ancient hebrew, not in modern hebrew. The word is ebed. When meaning slave, it has a unique article. Servant does not.

Originally posted by long pig
No, it's not biblicly okay to beat a slave as long as you don't kill them. It's called murder and god doesnt condone murder. As for killing males, all i can think of is war. And no, god never said to take wives of the people the went to war with. Its against torah law. I am indeed a student of biblical languages, what do you need help with? As for slavery....if that is slavery in your opinion, then everyone on earth that has a job is a slave. They weren't slaves, they were willing, paid servants who were to be treated as though they were family. I mean no offense, but if what i wrote sounds like slavery to you, I'm honestly questioning your ability to read.

Why do so many of the translations have all these negative things in them? Are they not present in the original?

These are the ones longpig talked about. the regulations of servitude regimes of other hebrews. They're certainly much lighter and more just than the european model, but they still incorporate some people as property practices.

Exodus 21:1-4 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."

Deuteronomy 15:12-18 "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him."
Exodus 21:7 "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

Corporal punishment and its excesses

Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

Exodus 21:26-27 "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. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."

But this is the regulation of gentile slave labour and it's slavery alright. No ambiguity whatsoever about this. People are sold, bought and inherited as property, for ever. Children being born into slavery included.

Leviticus 25:44-46 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

Taking wifes from the captive women of conquered enemy nations. Doesn't seem to demand any consent from the prisoner herself (although some such relationships must have been consentual). At the end it makes a provision saying she cant' be sold as a slave, clearly marking it as an exception

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."

More wives taken by force. Also condones genocide and the deliberate extermination of civilians, children included.

The second kidnaping part is actually kind of funny in a disturbing way.

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

Inherited debt servitude:

Kings 4:1 "Now there cried a certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets unto Elisha, saying, Thy servant my husband is dead; and thou knowest that thy servant did fear the Lord: and the creditor is come to take unto him my two sons to be bondmen."

You're asking why somethinigs sound worse in translation than they do in the original? 60% of bad translation of Hebreisims or are accidents, and 40% are on purpose. Take hell for example. God torturing someone for eternity, who, at the most only sinned 80 yearse. That makes god seem evil Hell the way that is taught in 99% of all christian churches has no biblical foundation. No one will be tortured with pain for eternity. The word hell isn't even in the entire original bible. In fact, up to dozen words, none which mean the same thing, are all translated as HELL. Bad thing is, hel is a pagan god of the under world name, like Hades and pluto (all of which were added to the bible by pagans i.e Catholics). Eye for an eye seems wrong as well as evil. But again i'm the only one so far to figure out it's meaning. It's not literal. It means that the punishment fits the crime.

i'm impressed 753 EX: 21 1-4 Slaves can bang his masters daught? The reason the kid stays with master is it's father wasn't a good provider, otherwise he wouldn'ta sold himself to pay off debt. Also, they weren't gentile. EX: 21 20-21 You need to read this again. It's not saying that if you beat a slave and he takes a while to die, you're out of trouble. Its saying if u kill him, u're a murderer. But if u beat him and he recovers, u aren't a murderer. .EX: 21 26-27 When it says eye for eye tooth 4 tooth, u realize it's sayin a servant should b treated fair. DEUT: 21 10-14 Again, they were hebrews, otherwise they would b killed. Making wives of defeated people doesn't change god's law of how 2 treat ur wife. LEV: 25 44-46 Gentile slaves are 2 get the same treatment as Heb servants but with more vigor. KINGS: 4-1This has nothing 2 do with indentured servants. They were going2 work off her debt.1 Kidnapping is a death pen sin,God never said 2 kidnap. U do no that not all things n the bible r meant 4 us to do?

I think long pig is ****ing with you guys.

Originally posted by long pig
i'm impressed 753

EX: 21 1-4 Slaves can bang his masters daught? The reason the kid stays with master is it's father wasn't a good provider, otherwise he wouldn'ta sold himself to pay off debt. Also, they weren't gentile.

EX: 21 20-21 You need to read this again. It's not saying that if you beat a slave and he takes a while to die, you're out of trouble. Its saying if u kill him, u're a murderer. But if u beat him and he recovers, u aren't a murderer. .EX: 21 26-27 When it says eye for eye tooth 4 tooth, u realize it's sayin a servant should b treated fair. DEUT: 21 10-14 Again, they were hebrews, otherwise they would b killed.

Making wives of defeated people doesn't change god's law of how 2 treat ur wife.

LEV: 25 44-46 Gentile slaves are 2 get the same treatment as Heb servants but with more vigor. [quote] Yeah and the gentile ones got to be bought, sold and inherited along with their children. KINGS: 4-1This has nothing 2 do with indentured servants. They were going2 work off her debt.1 Kidnapping is a death pen sin,God never said 2 kidnap. U do no that not all things n the bible r meant 4 us to do?

1. I think long pig also mistook some of the intent of my original argument. He took issue with the "occasionally evil God" I mentioned, but the title of the section that clip is taken from is "Precursors in Mythology." It is weak grounds for being an atheist just to say a deity is evil, which is why that wasn't my point. The entire section was about the precursors to Christianity in mythology, a few of which LP has even mentioned himself (Hel as the underworld god, for example). So LP, do you disagree that Christianity has numerous mythological predecessors? I doubt you do.

2. The OT God's anger, however, and the arbitrary nature of some rules, is indisputable. Dress it up how you want, slavery is slavery, to use one example. inamilist touched upon that same idea. Good eating habits? Ok, then why are they treated as sins, instead of as simply bad practices? Why can I not come into contact with a woman during her period (another silly but true example, among many others)? Why even have such nonsense if it has no bearing on the immortality of your soul? Either it doesn't, and their entry in the Bible is pointless. Or it does, and the religion is arbitrary, inexact, and yes, sometimes evil.

...and that leads to this: some rules can be explained away, others ignored. But is it the Word of God when we have to make such exceptions?! Of course not.

3. You profess to be the sole bearer of truth in some of the interpretations, which is itself laughable and egotistical. Yes, you can reconfigure every potentially evil rule in the Bible to be amiable to present-day ethics. How convenient. 🙄 Can you really not see that we're dealing with subjective interpretations here, and that their affect on the real world (which is often abjectly evil) should be our only concern?

The Bible, and the world, would clearly be better off without such nonsense. It isn't why I'm an atheist, but it is why I can and do sometimes get upset with religion.

Originally posted by Deadline
I think long pig is ****ing with you guys.

He's said as much a few pages back, but it's his time to waste...and I genuinely think he's playing devil's advocate because he means some of what he says. But he's not Christian, as he's already professed. And I'll happily tell him why I think he's wrong, so long as I have the time to do so.

Atheism is just as ignorant as Theism.

You cannot prove or disprove an existence of any form of god. But you can resist one!

if god does exist he/she/it is a powerhungry warmongering *******.
if god doesn't exist then it doesn't matter.

Originally posted by Liberator
Atheism is just as ignorant as Theism.

You cannot prove or disprove an existence of any form of god.

I don't have to disprove something to not believe in it. I can't prove that Paul Bunyan is only a fictional character but if you asked me I wouldn't say that I'm undecided on the issue. If you showed me ten marbles on a table I can't prove that there isn't an eleventh one that cannot be sensed but I'm not going to be a "invisible, intangible, marble" agnostic, that would be absurd.

There are lots of gods we can disprove anyway, there's clearly no one living on Mount Olympus. It's only when you remove all relevant traits from god that you end up with one that can't be disproved.

I just find Atheism to be really similar to Theism.
Sort of like the 'religion of having no religion'.

I understand your point though, but isn't that the same line of thought as religious people?

Try taking your first sentence and re-wording it a bit to:
"I don't have to prove something to believe in it."

See what I mean?

Originally posted by Liberator
I just find Atheism to be really similar to Theism.
Sort of like the 'religion of having no religion'.

I understand your point though, but isn't that the same line of thought as religious people?

Try taking your first sentence and re-wording it a bit to:
"I don't have to prove something to believe in it."

See what I mean?

I don't believe in god, but i'm not an atheist because I cannot prove that a god doesn't exist.

the principle of someone ruling over me, the belief that i want to be herded "like a sheep in flock with his shepard" bothers me.

and I never said faith is not justified, we all have faith in something it doesn't have to be religion.

Ok, so yes, I agree - it is more plausible but you still once again cannot disprove its existence.

Originally posted by Liberator
I don't believe in god, but i'm not an atheist because I cannot prove that a god doesn't exist.

and I never said faith is not justified, we all have faith in something it doesn't have to be religion.

Ok, so yes, I agree - it is more plausible but you still once again cannot disprove its existence.

Originally posted by Liberator
I just find Atheism to be really similar to Theism.
Sort of like the 'religion of having no religion'.

You might want to read the last few pages where we establish that atheism isn't a system of belief (it is a particular belief) and that religion is always a whole system of beliefs.

A religion of not having religion would be, uh, maybe Secular Humanism or possibly certain forms of Satanism.

Originally posted by Liberator
Try taking your first sentence and re-wording it a bit to:
"I don't have to prove something to believe in it."

See what I mean?

No, because I didn't say that. Admittedly a better phrasing on my part would have been "I don't believe in things just because they aren't falsifiable". (on a side note I see what you did with the negatives there, I'm not sure how that works out, the statements clearly aren't logically equivalent, triple negatives screw up english grammar big time)

I choose not to believe until there is evidence that suggests I should believe (of course I am not utterly rigorous and perfectly consistent about this, I'm only human). The opposite way leads to madness, believing in everything that there is no reason to believe in.

Originally posted by Liberator
Atheism is just as ignorant as Theism.

You cannot prove or disprove an existence of any form of god.

Originally posted by Liberator
I don't believe in god, but i'm not an atheist because I cannot prove that a god doesn't exist.

Probably the most common misconception of atheism. It doesn't claim proof of anything. If you think that atheism represents a statement of proof, you're working with a flawed definition. Even the most strident atheists won't claim to "know" there is no God, at least those with a modicum of sense about them.

There's really only a matter of severity between agnostics and atheists. Agnostics would mostly say "We don't know for sure." Atheists will mostly say "We don't know for sure, but I don't believe in a God." It's still a statement of belief, but much like Sym's marble analogy.