Your daily source of news & videos on science & religion since 2007
<span>Wow! How to beat your slave... that is really...hum...out of context. And you know what they say: atheists have to look at the Bible out of context, cause that's their pretext, to get to write some text (I created this...really)</span><span>The Bible does not tell you how to beat your slave, but what charges can be brought against him if he beats him (there is this little thing called sin). What you are trying to say is that God mandates that you beat your slave.... not so said the brown turtle. You could also post a video called: when a slaves loves his master because in the year of the jubilee, God mandated that salves be freed, but if one loves his master, he can stay..</span><span></span><span>Get it right homeboy... </span>
You mean the detailed description of how to BUY and sell slaves is not God condoning slavery?The bible is chock full of details of slave ownership. Google is your friend. http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htmGet real, homeboy...
<span>Hi Dan... before you read on, is this a rational discussion or just two people having a monologue? Because what I posted had nothing to say about what God thinks about slavery, but a response to the video. It really ticks me off when people like you do this: you talk off the given point. Richard Dawkins does this constantly in his debates. He takes side roads and uses scathing humour to avoid answering exactly was was put to him.</span><span>You want to have a serious discussion about the heart of God concerning slavery, fine... forget Google, and get ready to think. </span><span>Also get ready to suppose... because here is another problem with atheism, is that you say "there is no God" yet you quote the Bible, which claims to be the book of God. So in order to try to understand, you have to imagine that the sort of God that describes Himself in the Bible, is the one we are going to talk about. You know that sounds like science: you a have a theory (which can be really cooky, and then you try to prove or disprove that theory through experimentation) you dont go into you experimentation stage saying this is impossiible or I could do that. </span><span></span><span>sorry for the spelling mistakes, my mother tongue is french.</span>
<span>Hi Dan, or anyone else looking to join in this coversation. Here is what I meant by forgeting Google- the translation of some of the verses are misleading. The verse rightly quoted (even by the video) is anyone who... not when.. as if it was part and parcel of being a slave owner (which is what the videos tries to sell... which is really misrepresentation).</span><span>Another point is: you cannot read the type of salvery that existed in america and england in the past couple of hundred years (a trade which was contested and defeated, in England at least by Wilberforce who was a christian) to the slavery that was spoken of in the old testament. What you have a picture of is the looking down upon another human being (even thinking he is non human- not a biblical category) raping of a female slave, buying and selling people as commodities. The slaves that were talked about in the old testament were hebrews who sold themselves into slavery to have a livelyhood. </span><span>All those comments on the google page you posted Dan, probably do not take this into account. A slave was there to serve you, not a play thing, not a punching bag and if you bother to read exodu 21, you would see that violent behavior toward a slave was punished. </span><span>The problem is that the word slavery, because of the horrors of the "slave trade" grate on our ears, but put asside all the godless behavior perpatrated upon another human being and there is nothing wrong with service that was remunarated by having your basic needs met for six years (read the bible...)</span><span>Slaves or servants, in God's mandated covenant were fed and clothed and even part of the familly, like the quote I gave. I think you should get over your hatred of the Bible and God and not get your teaching for Dawkins and the likes and think for yourself. </span>