I'm sorry, Warrior. I realized a lot of my post was kind of rude so I went back and reworded it...then found out you had already responded.

Yes, it makes it more difficult and at times frustrating to have to look at the Bible from their context and times but also it forces us to study God's Word and not just accept it at a surface level.

I don't know why God would want to do that. That would mean every imperfect human would have to study God's word and try to derive the meanings from it using their imperfect study skills. Not to mention that a huge percentage of people throughout history weren't even literate. This means that the illiterate people of the world would have to rely on a literate leader to read and interpret the bible for them, meaning they'd have to put their faith in another person and not God directly.

I said, a Stone Age as portrayed by evolutionists. I didn't say there wasn't such a thing as the Stone Age.

There have been plenty of excavations of "cavemen" skeletons, art, and primitive stone tools. I don't know where all these things would come from in the biblical version of world history.

It's strange and weird but that doesn't make it any less valid. If you've read pagan mythologies, you'll find the biblical accounts to be much more realistic and plausiable.

Ok, let's compare a couple of creation stories. (Edit: I don't expect anybody to actually read all these...)

THE ISLAM VERSION: In the time before time, God was. And when God wants to create something, all he needs to say is "Be", and it becomes. So it was that God created the world and the heavens. He made all the creatures, which walk, swim. Crawl and fly on the face of the earth. He made the angels, and the sun, moon and the stars to dwell in the universe. And consider, as the Qur'an says, how God poured down the rain in torrents, and broke up the soil to bring forth the corm, the grapes and other vegetation; the olive and the palm, the fruit trees and the grass. Then it was that God ordered the angels to go to the earth, and to bring seven handfuls of soil, all of different colours, from which he could model man. God took the seven kinds of earth and moulded them into a model of a man. He breathed life and power into it, and it immediately sprang to life.

THE ROMAN VERSION: Before there was earth or sea or heaven, there existed only chaos: shapeless, unorganized, lifeless matter. There was opposition in all things: hot conflicted with cold, wet with dry, heavy with light, and hard with soft. Finally a god, a natural higher force, resolved this conflict, separating earth from heaven, parting the dry land from the waters, and dividing the clear air from the clouds, thus organizing all things into a balanced union. Thus did the god, whichever god it was, set order to the chaotic mass by separating it into its components, then organizing them into a harmonious whole. Then the god shaped the earth into a great ball and caused the seas to spread in one direction and the other. The earth he organized into five zones, the same number that exist in heaven, which is divided into two regions on the right, two on the left, and one in the center. Beneath the ether and above the earth hangs the air, where the god formed mist and clouds, placing thunderbolts within the clouds. To each of the four winds he assigned limits and purpose. He caused the stars, which heretofore had been veiled in darkness, to shine forth across the sky. Then man was born. Prometheus molded an image of the gods from a clump of earth that had been newly separated from the ether and thus still retained some divine qualities. This new being was made to stand erect with his eyes directed toward heaven and the stars, unlike other animals who hang their heads and gaze toward the ground.

THE GREEK VERSION: In the beginning there was an empty darkness. The only thing in this void was Nyx, a bird with black wings. With the wind she laid a golden egg and for ages she sat upon this egg. Finally life began to stir in the egg and out of it rose Eros, the god of love. One half of the shell rose into the air and became the sky and the other became the Earth. Eros named the sky Uranus and the Earth he named Gaia. Then Eros made them fall in love. Uranus and Gaia had many children together and eventually they had grandchildren. Soon the Earth lacked only two things: man and animals. Zeus summoned his sons Prometheus (fore-thought) and Epimetheus (after-thought). He told them to go to Earth and create men and animals and give them each a gift. Prometheus set to work forming men in the image of the gods and Epimetheus worked on the animals. As Epimetheus worked he gave each animal he created one of the gifts. After Epimetheus had completed his work Prometheus finally finished making men. However when he went to see what gift to give man Epimetheus shamefacedly informed him that he had foolishly used all the gifts. Distressed, Prometheus decided he had to give man fire, even though gods were the only ones meant to have access to it. As the sun god rode out into the world the next morning Prometheus took some of the fire and brought it back to man.

THE CHRISTIAN VERSION: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. God called the vault “sky.” The second day, God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. The third day, God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years." God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. The fourth day, God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. The fifth day, God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”So God created mankind in his own image, male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food." God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

There's a second version too.

THE OTHER CHRISTIAN VERSION: This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when God made the earth and the heavens. Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. Then God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. NowGod had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” God formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

These other creation stories don't sound any more strange than the Biblical version, especially when one considers the passage in Genesis 6 about the sons of God going down from heaven and mating with the daughters of men, producing the Nephilim.

So you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, breathed by God and man wrote it all down in a language people in that time could understand?

No. (Probably should have clarified that earlier, but yes, I'm not a Christian at the moment.)

Yes, I agree I was being unfair about the craft of the video. It was poorly drawn and yes, the audio quality is actually bad at my end (and other videos are perfectly fine). That said, it is a very interesting, if frustrating video.

Okay, thank you, I'll move past this.

Thank you, I'm quite familiar with satire but I still don't appreciate snide, disrespectful pot-shots at the Bible, trying to get people to not believe the Bible. That's a pretty dangerous tight-rope of humour.

Yeah, I know. It disappoints me that most of the Atheist videos on youtube are either incredibly profane or incredibly rude to Christians, because then I can't usually share them anywhere in discussions. This video was one that I found which had no swearing and actually referenced bible verses instead of just making generic claims about what the bible says or what Christians believe. The guy's intended audience might have been fellow Atheists, so maybe he didn't care how rude he was being.

Why would God want the Church to be the leaders in medical science, that's just silly. That's not why he came. It just seems like a silly argument.

Perhaps that's a bad example. Some other points in the video that I thought were stronger were that Jesus didn't clear up a lot of moral issues like slavery is wrong.

Big miracles don't exactly equal more people believing in God. Think back to the Israelites at the foot of Mount Sinai. They had God's prescence with them the whole time (pillar of cloud, pillar of fire), and they still stuffed up royally by trying to make a golden calf, a predictable god they could control to do their bidding.

Yeah, that's always been a bit puzzling to me. The Israelites saw God's power in ways that we 21st century folk can only dream of. I would imagine they'd be scared out of their wits imagining what God could do to them if they tried to misbehave. And yet they rejected God so quickly.

I'll have to respond to everything else in this discussion later, I need to go to bed. o_O

You know, prayer doesn't have to be a closed-eyes, on our knees sort of thing. I would personally vote for praying and performing CPR at the same time.

If God was here to glorify himself, why waste time doing small, insignificant miracles like walking on water and turning water into wine?
...
Why didn't he give them some basic knowledge about science so that the church would be the leading medical institute in the world? I think you are assuming that this would only benefit humans. No, in addition to saving saved millions of lives, it would be a testament to God's incredible power, glory and knowledge! Jesus only bothered to heal a few people who already had faith in him. What is Jesus trying to imply with that?

I think first of all, I should comment on the statement that God had come to earth to glorify himself. Not that that is wrong, but in saying this, I think some people overspiritualize something very important about the Incarnation... which is, that it is an Incarnation: God in the flesh. And the key to Incarnation is that Jesus came to exemplify the fact that "God is love": his job was glorifying God through love and relationship.

That's why he did not give out a whole lot of medical knowledge or science: it's too impersonal. (And besides, it would not necessarily be a testament to God's power; it could very easily just be twisted into a testament of humanity's power.) He preferred healing those whom he touches, or who touch him, indicating a relational, physical connection.

In only healing some people who "had faith in" (read: had a relationship with) him, he was trying to imply that love and relationship was most important. His actions were not to minimize the importance of medicine (Luke was a doctor, after all, and Jesus himself makes reference to doctors at least once), but rather to show that relationship is ultimately an important part of physical healing.

As for why he didn't do more... well, something else to remember about Jesus is that he is fully human, and as such was subject to human limits, both physically and emotionally. He was performing miracles through God the Father, but he was also exemplifying the concept of stewardship by not overextending himself.

And really, when it comes down to it, pretty much all of Jesus's miracles were relational. Walking on water? The true miracle was that he managed to get Peter to step out of a boat and start walking on water himself in order to meet up with his friend. Turning water into wine? He was at a party; go to a college party and ask if the people there would want a person who could turn water miraculously into alcohol there.

And of course, if you want a big miracle, how about dying on the cross so as to effectively substitute for the sins of all humanity, only to resurrect three days later, thus allowing everyone a way to Heaven without having to fulfill the other requirement of being without sin, which no one is? That is a huge miracle that has "saved millions of lives". And get this: he did that because he loves us.

And yes, all this is to glorify God, because God is love.

Now, I don't just bring this up for you, but also for everyone here. In fact, I've been trying to bring this up for a while in this thread, because sometimes I get the feeling that not enough people, including Christians, really grasp the concept of Incarnation. Like the ancient Gnostics, we try to overspiritualize everything, including Jesus's time on earth, and think that our fleshly bodies and reaching out to others in fleshly ways (yes, including that way when it's appropriate, but obviously not limited to that way) is unhelpful at best and sinful at worst. But really, it's a necessary part of being made in the image of God, and growing towards His likeness. Same goes for the stewardship of ourselves and not going past our limits.

Edit:

Some other points in the video that I thought were stronger were that Jesus didn't clear up a lot of moral issues like slavery is wrong.

First of all, in New Testament times, slavery in and of itself was not morally objectionable. The problem was in the way masters treated their slaves.

And to that extent, Jesus cleared up that issue, as well as pretty much every single moral issue, when he said that the greatest commandment was "Love the Lord your God and love your neighbor as yourself."

And there it is again: Incarnation as love. And you wonder why I'm so obsessed with this topic.

Certainly stardf29. Performing CPR on anyone is a good time to pray. Especially if you really should have revised and updated your first aid qualifications.

I hope you realize I posted that as one of the interpretations of how Genesis 1-11 came about. I personally do not agree with it, because it completely changes what is said about Creation and as well as the Flood. As for the Flood, I have no doubts that tsunamis such as perhaps the slide of Etna or the collapse of the isthmus in Turkey that filled the Black Sea would have happened. However, I do know for certain that events such as these did not occur with Noah's Flood. The facts in the Bible do not line up with these theories. I believe those theories happened post-Flood and what we have discovered would still be true.

I don't see what is changed about what is said about Creation. Genesis Chapter 1, so often quoted eleswhere in the Bible, is an overview which covers the facts reasonably well, even today. It merely states Who made the Earth, and What was made, not How. More detailed Chapter 2, with more connections to Jewish mythology, is more problematic.

I agree that tsunamis, hurricanes etc seldom last as long as 40 days and 40 nights. And that although there have been rare rainy spells in comparatively recent history, which have lasted quite as long as the Ark's 40 days and nights, they didn't necessarily result in disastrous floods of such Biblical proportions. Given the ambiguousness of any evidence of floods found in Archaeology so far, especially without a context, I rather fear we never will know for sure either way.

And yes, I also am greatly disappointed that if anything related to the Bible is located, doubt and critics abound, but anything not related to the Bible is highly praised.

In part this is due to over-enthusiastic amateur archaeologists and Christians anxious to find Biblical secrets, who damage sites and lose objects in their search. It is also possible that what the reality was and what the reader thought the Bible said might be two different things. Take both arks for example, especially the Ark of the Covenant. You have all heard of Indiana Jones, and have probably seen the film 'Raiders of the Lost Ark". But according to one Tudor Parfitt, who devoted much time, money and research to finding out, the Ark went as far away as Harare in Zimbabwe. But what he found in a museum there, looks nothing like the artifact featured in the Indiana Jones film.

Parfitt, quoting the relevant texts in his book, did point out there were two such Arks, in Exodus and Deuteronomy, so he might be right. But there have also been court cases over suspected forgeries, or over genuinely historic items which were tampered with to make them look more authentic. Either way, those sorts of episodes leave a nasty taste in the mouth. And no item has been more affected than Noah's Ark itself.

Allegedly it ended up on Mount Ararat. But by now the Ark must have been long since demolished by locals looking for building resources or firewood, by souvenir-hunting pilgrims or tourists, or damaged or burned in the incessant fighting in those parts over the centuries. But there are still undaunted souls who still claim to have found it, some of them quite recently.

We don't know how far the tower had been built. We tend to picture this ziggurate about half the size of the Empire State Building. But we actually don't know how far along it was. So it may not have gotten far.

Iraqi-born people have told me that the Tower of Babel does actually exist. The Ancients knew about it, it has been identified with Babylonian ziggurats dedicated to the Babylonian God Marduk, Alexander the Great allegedly ruined the Tower by trying to rebuild it, and to this day has been considered a landmark of sorts. Allegedly it currently looks like the picture if you click on the link below, and would be a great tourist attraction for Iraq if it were not still such a dangerously violent country.

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/1320 ... rently.jpg

On the slavery issue, I found this interesting "article":

... e9349aee06
I haven't cross-checked the Biblical references yet and I'm not sure if it's trustworthy, but if it's true I'd be one happy man.

I apologise, Minotaur, I presumed you were Christian. I have more respect for you now, knowing you're not a REALLY unorthodox Christian. Thanks

Reepicheep775, I don't know if that link is supposed to be a joke or not, but, and now this may sound stupid, I do not see an article. Slavery, Human Trafficking, is what I deal with on a day-to-day basis and in a way I find that very offensive. I understand it may be a joke, but slavery is no joke, especially when there are more slaves in the world today than there have EVER been at any other point in history. (sorry this is off topic, but it was on my heart and I could not ignore it).

EDIT: I realize there is some form of article. It didn't occur to me to look at the album before I posted this and when I did I was too busy to come back and change my post. Though, I must say I am still very offended by it, but I apologize if whatever I have said seemd rude or disrespectful. It was not intended in that way.

@smartypants, no, that wasn't a joke, there really was an "article", but it was in the form of a slideshow. One had to click "next" on the top right in order to advance to the next slide.

Wouldn't it be right to pray to God that CPR works while administering it? You kind of have to fall on your knees to do CPR, and praying acknowledge's our dependance on God, and then administering help? Not doing it as as some thing to look or feel pious or hold a badge of honor inside that exclaims "Ooh, I'm a buff CPR-admnistiering, praying hero fit for a Christian novel!" , because honestly, life is in the hands of God. If it's meant for the person to die of a heart attack, then they're going to die no matter what attempts are made to refute that.

If the life is in the hands of God, and God has already determined whether it is his will for the person to die or not, then I'm not sure what the point of the prayer would be. After all, if the person's meant to die, they're going to die, and nothing you, whether it be CPR or praying, will change God's mind. But if the person's meant to live, they'll live even without your help since it's God's will.

So in such a situation, it is not God's choice of what to do, but yours. Since praying isn't going to have any affect on God's will, what's the point? I wouldn't worry about trying to ask God for help and guidance in saving the person. I'd just do the CPR/call 911 and do what I can to help on earth, that way I'll know I'll have done all I can to help the person in good conscience.

On the slavery issue, I found this interesting "article":

... e9349aee06
I haven't cross-checked the Biblical references yet and I'm not sure if it's trustworthy, but if it's true I'd be one happy man.

Um...that was awful. The article does a lot of sugar-coating and ignores the most brutal and disgusting bible verses on the topic.

The presentation spends a lot of time and effort explaining how Hebrew slaves are to be treated in a somewhat decent manner...

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

God only forbids unethical treatment of Hebrew slaves, but makes it very clear that foreign slaves can be bought and sold just like property. Kalman Kingsley conveniently forgot to mention this small little detail in his presentation.

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Now just think about this for a minute.

Yes, it's true that the male Hebrew slave can go free after only seven years, but a master can bribe a slave into staying. The master only needs to give the Hebrew slave a wife, and they'll make babies. Then, in the seventh year, the slave will be set free, but be separated from his wife and kids unless the he decides to promise to be his master's slave forever! So essentially, the master can hold the slave's family hostage and use the slave's love for his family as a way to bypass the "every seventh year set the slaves free" rule!

But it gets worse for the females...

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Um...yeah. The whole second half of the passage is entirely irrelevant if the man who bought her just says, "Well, she didn't please me enough" and continues to buy her over and over again. Again, these sorts of details were left entirely out of this guy's presentation on biblical slavery.

Now, to address some of the gross misrepresentations of laws in the presentation. In slide 33, he says, "Even these slaves had many rights protecting their treatment. Masters who beat and killed a slave were liable to death penalty. Any permanent damage or mistreatment (such as knocking out a slave's tooth or damaging a slave's eye) resulted in their permanent freedom and the loss of a valuable worker and his family." Here are the bible verses he cites, but doesn't quote:

If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. (Exodus 21:26 NLT)

Err...okay...if I was a cruel master though, I'd just beat the slave on the back or something, and avoid hitting his fragile eyes. Which leads directly to...

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NLT)

Masters can just beat their slaves with rods without fear of punishment as the slaves don't die.

But in my mind though, this verse is the absolute worst.

If the ox gores a male or female slave, the owner shall give his or her master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. (Exodus 21:32 NLT)

There. Right there. Out of God's own mouth (remember, God said all this directly to Moses). A human life is worth thirty shekels. God actually assigns a monetary value to a slave!

And Warrior, that's okay. In the past, I've posted as a Christian in CR&P. I was raised a Christian, but began to have serious doubts about 3 years ago, did a bunch of research on the topic, and eventually "de-converted" fully about a year ago. I was really nervous about openly saying that on here because the community on NW is 90% Christian, and all of the friends I've made on these forums are Christian as well. However, I simply cannot, in good conscience, pledge allegiance to a book that supports such repulsive behaviors as I've quoted and referenced above.

Here is something to think about. Minotaur, what I am seeing you do here is basing one culture's standards with our own. We have been taught since early childhood that slavery is wrong. But what real basis do we have for that outside our own culture? Now just to be clear, I am completely against any form of abuse, trafficking, or anything along those lines. But the slavery that the Bible talks about would be indentured servants or more like in our modern world, the equivalent of employees. Those who were wealthy enough to 'afford slaves' had their family business and had servants who took care of the 'menial jobs'.

But here is something else that is an issue of slavery that we don't understand. When a master has a slave, that master is responsible for that slave's well-being including housing, clothing, food, etc. Abraham had a servant in Eliazar (I believe) who was a slave. Abraham's servant was in the same type of position as Alfred was to Bruce Wayne. The 'official title' was 'slave' but in today's culture we wouldn't consider that position to be a butler or something like that. Paul describes us Christians as slaves to Christ. In this context, we are to let Christ assume the responsibility for ALL our needs.

I see something else to your comment about 'A human life is worth 30 shekels'. Isn't that was Judas received for Jesus? Just a thought on that one.

We can take the concepts here an easily apply them to the work force. How should employers treat their employees? But the main point here is that we can't judge one culture on the basis of our own. Maybe we are the ones that are wrong. Slavery that abuses, seeks to make money, and trafficks is absolutely wrong. The slave trade was an abhorrent evil. But when the word 'slave' and the word 'servant' can be interchanged and the 'master' treats said servant in a Biblical manner, then there is nothing wrong. I won't judge the Jewish culture on the basis of what I have grown up with.

Just because God sets up a law where people pay 30 shekels when someone dies, that doesn't mean the person -- the soul itself -- is worth only that in God's eyes. The law was there so people would know what to do in certain circumstances; not necessarily to say who was worth more than another in the eyes of God.

Plus, the Bible has always said that those who are lowly servants and slaves in this life will be the ones in high positions in the next. It says that people who are poor in this life should take pride in their high position, and the rich should take pride in their low position. So any slave in this life would most likely have a better afterlife than any free rich man would.

~Riella

Excellent points!
I might also like to add that that thirty shekels was payment, not to devalue a person's life but to show the deceased had value. It's quite possible that if such a thing happened, that money would not normally be given, so the owner wouldn't be compensated in some way. It's living by a Law that values the sanctity of human life. This sort of practice wouldn't come naturally to people.

Here is something to think about. Minotaur, what I am seeing you do here is basing one culture's standards with our own. We have been taught since early childhood that slavery is wrong. But what real basis do we have for that outside our own culture?

I don't think I did that at all. In my post, I didn't say, "These Bible passages are atrocious because they promote slavery, and slavery is evil". I instead set out to demonstrate that the Bible passages are atrocious because they promote actions that dehumanizing and unethical.

Now just to be clear, I am completely against any form of abuse, trafficking, or anything along those lines. But the slavery that the Bible talks about would be indentured servants or more like in our modern world, the equivalent of employees.

Right, but now you're just playing word games, redefining slaves in the Bible as "indentured servants" or "employees" because those terms don't have as much of a negative connotation. The Bible verses I quoted showed abuse and trafficking, and abuse is abuse whether it's against a slave or an employee. You can't get around this by simply changing which word you use.

But here is something else that is an issue of slavery that we don't understand. When a master has a slave, that master is responsible for that slave's well-being including housing, clothing, food, etc. Abraham had a servant in Eliazar (I believe) who was a slave. Abraham's servant was in the same type of position as Alfred was to Bruce Wayne.

Slave owners in the southern United States during the 1800's were responsible for their slave's well-being as well, including housing, clothing, and food too. So what's the difference between the Hebrew slaves and Alfred? It's that the male Hebrew slaves don't have freedom, they can't just walk away from their job like an employee can. They are legally required to work out those 6 years before they can be released. And for the women, it's even worse, since there's a loophole as I noted in my previous post.

I see something else to your comment about 'A human life is worth 30 shekels'. Isn't that was Judas received for Jesus? Just a thought on that one.

That's interesting...I hadn't noticed that. However, I think we can both agree that what Judas did was very wrong, so this doesn't really justify the 30 shekels argument, it only makes an interesting connection between two small parts of the bible.

(Speaking of which...if the price for a human life was still 30 shekels in Jesus's times, probably more than 1,500 years after the law was first written, does that mean shekels aren't affected by inflation? What an amazingly rock-solid investment shekels are! Maybe we should use the shekel as the world's leading unit of monetary value instead of the US dollar. )

But the main point here is that we can't judge one culture on the basis of our own. Maybe we are the ones that are wrong.

Fencer, how are we ever supposed to advance as a society with this kind of thinking? According to what you have said above, maybe we're wrong! Maybe the Bible was right, and the laws God wrote out in Exodus and Leviticus are the pinnacle of legal and moral perfection. But then you directly contradict the Bible when barely 2 sentences later you say this...

The slave trade was an abhorrent evil. Slavery that abuses, seeks to make money, and trafficks is absolutely wrong.

Maybe you forgot about Leviticus 25:44-46. I'll quote it again...

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

THIS is slavery that abuses. THIS is slavery that seeks to make money. THIS is slavery that bonds generations of families into forced labor. THIS is slavery that is truly evil. And the Lord your God endorses it! Not only that, but God endorses this abhorrent treatment to any human being except the Hebrews, his chosen people. Talk about racist! All are not created equal in God's eyes, apparently.

I won't judge the Jewish culture on the basis of what I have grown up with.

This reminded me of a small portion of a debate I heard between Nita A. Farahany, a neuroscientist and member of Barack Obama's Bioethics advisory Committee, and Sam Harris, a fellow neuroscientist and outspoken atheist.

Farahany: How could you ever say that forcing women to wear burqas is wrong from the point of view of science?
Harris: Well, I think it’s pretty clear that right and wrong relate to human well-being and it’s just as clear that forcing half the population to live in cloth bags and beating them or killing them when they try to get out is not a way of maximizing that well-being.
Farahany: Well, that’s just your opinion.
Harris: Ok, well, let’s make it even easier. Let’s say we found a culture that was literally removing the eyeballs of every third child at birth. Would you then agree that we have found a culture that is not perfectly maximizing human well-being?
Farahany: It would depend on why they were doing it.
Harris: Ok, well, let’s say they’re doing it for religious reasons. Let’s say they have a scripture which says, “Every third should walk in darkness,” or some such nonsense.
Farahany: Well then, you could never say that they were wrong.

Farahany, having worked in neuroscience, recently pushed hard against the United State Government's theoretical use of lie detectors on prisoners brought in for questioning, saying it was a violation of a human's right to cognitive privacy. Yet she was willing to try and justify something ethically appalling because of religion.

It was probably unintentional, but you have done pretty much the same thing, Fencer.

Just because God sets up a law where people pay 30 shekels when someone dies, that doesn't mean the person -- the soul itself -- is worth only that in God's eyes. The law was there so people would know what to do in certain circumstances; not necessarily to say who was worth more than another in the eyes of God.

I'm not talking about what a person's soul is worth. I'm talking about what a person's life is worth.

Plus, the Bible has always said that those who are lowly servants and slaves in this life will be the ones in high positions in the next. It says that people who are poor in this life should take pride in their high position, and the rich should take pride in their low position. So any slave in this life would most likely have a better afterlife than any free rich man would.

Very interesting. This reminds me of karma, almost. Everybody gets exactly what they deserve in heaven! It's all fair!

So here's my question to you: What about the people in hell? Are people who lost faith in God because their lives went so horribly or poor people who had to rob and steal to feed themselves exalted in hades? Are the rich people who didn't believe in God because they didn't need to be religious to do well in this life given the worst pits of burning sulfer to reside in?

Minotaur, now that I know that you're not a Christian, I understand your post. I was reading your posts from the view, like Warrior, that you were a really unorthodox Christian.
By prayer, I guess I meant praying while administering it--praying that you can do all you can to help the person, praying for God's will. Something like that.

I must admit that I do squirm when reading some of the Old Testament laws. The slave ones have never disturbed me very much because it isn't the same slavery that we learnt about and that happened in the Civil War and before and after, to my knowledge.

But when it comes to women, I've always been bothered by some things I've read... how some things are portrayed...
This doesn't take my faith in God, though. I have questions about many things in the Old Testament (like David, Solomon, Rehoboam. They were jerks much of the time, David less so, but still. I mean--stealing Michal just for his ego? If he really loved her he would have waited and not married several other women. *rolles eyes* Anyways.), I have questions about the rules given then, and wonder about it. But I'm confident that God is just, God is loving, God is not partial, and most of all, He is holy, so I don't want my faith to waver in him.
I admit, though, sometimes reading some things in the Old Testament makes me question just what was going on. But it doesn't change the opinon of God I have. I do struggle with blaming God and getting angry at Him about situations in life, but I'm learning.
One thing that my mom told me that has helped ease some doubts (I'm sorry if this breaks rules--if it does, mods, you can remove it right away.), but it said when a woman gave birth, she had to be secluded and couldn't touch sacred things for some time for certain reasons. However, Mary gave birth to Jesus and obviously had to keep Him with her, He being a baby and all--she was holding the most sacred thing--God coming to us in form of a man. To me, this indicates Jesus broke those laws. It doesn't answer all my questions, but it eases me to know God's character better.

[/ramble]

About your question on Hell (though it wasn't directed at me, sorry... ), I don't know for sure--but I know God is understanding and would understand why someone stole to eat. NOT that I think it's wholly right. I still am thinking through these things. But I don't think He'd put someone who just didn't believe in Christ but was an okay person in the same place Hitler is in Hell. I believe that there are levels of Hell. Just like believers receive rewards for their deeds in heaven (not salvation into eternal life, just rewards for what they did. Like I said, I'm not dead-ready with all the facts, just ready to answer every question about this. I don't doubt it but I am just basically understanding the idea.), I believe that there are levels of Hell. That said, I don't believe in purgatory or "levels of Heaven" offered.

On another note, as a book reccomendation to you, Minotair, if you're interested, I'd reccomend "A Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. I haven't actually read the real book: I was given the student edition, so I just read that. I still do need to read it with study in mind, not finishing my overdue book report but the reason I brought it up was becase you brought up the argument of Jesus never clearing up that slaver is wrong, and Mr. Strobel has a chapter on that, I think.

So here's my question to you: What about the people in hell? Are people who lost faith in God because their lives went so horribly or poor people who had to rob and steal to feed themselves exalted in hades? Are the rich people who didn't believe in God because they didn't need any divine assistance given the worst pits of burning sulfer to reside in?

Well, for one thing, people don't go to Hell just because they had to steal to feed themselves. Their salvation depends on where they are with God, and on their heart; not on their actions. I'm sure there are many poor people who had to do some pretty desperate things in their earthly lives, and still went to heaven.

I don't know who is and isn't in "the worst pits of sulfur", though I have heard some people do suffer there more than others. The only example I can remember, though, are those who cause others to sin/stumble. I'm sure there are more examples listed. I don't know if it mentions rich people.

I don't believe anyone is "exalted" in Hades. I believe that scripture is talking about God's people.

And as for people who say they were one of His people, but lose faith in God because their lives went so horribly -- that's a tricky question, because there's usually more to the story. If someone is really a Christian -- if they really and truly meant it when they decided to give themselves to Christ -- that shouldn't change just because terrible things happen to them. After all, the apostles went through terrible torment, and they never turned their back on God. God never promised to stop bad things from happening to His people; in fact the Bible says the opposite -- it says terrible things will happen to Christians, and that we should expect this. So I don't understand why so many people think God has broken some kind of promise to them when something bad happens to them. They certainly don't have to; and it makes me wonder how serious they were to begin with. Or at least, how well they understood it. Maybe someone falsely told them God would protect them from all bad things, and so they misunderstood who God was? I don't know. But they wouldn't have to read the Bible very long to see that this teaching was false.

If someone turned away from Christ because they misunderstood who He was or what He does, God would make sure they understood before they died. There are many people like that who think God broke a promise He never actually made (though they think, or were told, He made it), turn away for awhile, and come back after they understand. But there are also many people who turn away for much different reasons (mostly because they don't want God at all, and never really did to begin with), blame it on things or events they know are not God's fault, and just make-believe they have an excuse not to turn to Him, when deep down they know they should. Only God knows their heart. None of us can really see the full story as to what happened to them, why it happened, and why they really do the things they do. We also can't know whether or not their heart will change before they die, or (if they've already died) what happened between them and God during the last few seconds before they passed on.

We'll run into a lot of people who say they have turned away from God because something bad happened to them. But that doesn't mean the last chapter of their book is closed. They can still so easily change before the end; even if it's just a few seconds before the end that no one still alive ever knows about. God knows what each person can handle, and He knows why they really do what they do. He knows the situation in a way we never can. Everything we think we know about a person and their life is guesswork, because there's too much hidden from our view to really know what actually went on with them, and what their true motive is in their heart.

EDIT:

I'm not talking about what a person's soul is worth. I'm talking about what a person's life is worth.

I'm not sure how it makes a difference whether we're talking about their soul or their life (If it does, feel free to clarify). Like I said, the Law wasn't there to say what their life was worth to God, or that a person is only worth a handful of money. It's just meant as instructions for what to do afterward if someone dies in a certain manner.

The whole second half of the passage is entirely irrelevant if the man who bought her just says, "Well, she didn't please me enough" and continues to buy her over and over again.

I think that verse meant if the man honestly wasn't pleased. No matter what the society, people will always try to cheat. People cheat nowadays too, and hurt others in the process. It doesn't mean God approves of the cheating. He does allow it for the present time. But he sees everything that goes on, and will deal with the people doing the cheating, either in this life or the next.

~Riella