(Exodus 21:7-11)
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.
2007-01-17 03:20:07 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
So you are saying that god used to condone slavery but changed his mind?
2007-01-17 03:29:20 · update #1
srprimeau: Look, while I have no free will, I still need to live in this world. As a practical matter I behave as if I have free will. There are acts which hurt people, regardless of why they were caused. I don't condone those acts. This passage is one of them.
2007-01-17 03:32:18 · update #2
srprimeau: There is no objective right or wrong. Yes, it's just chemical reactions. But I can still be disgusted by what they create.
2007-01-17 03:33:44 · update #3
srprimeau: Now you are finally getting it right. Murder is caused by chemical reactions, yes. There is no right and wrong except what humans define it to be. Yes, I do find that distasteful but it is the case whether I like it or not. Separate your feelings from the issue, man.
2007-01-17 03:52:09 · update #4
Hi Steve!
Oh you have just made my day today! What would I do without you on Yahoo answers? Although, you do confuse me a bit.
You are not a rational being by your own belief. I can respect that, in fact many of the questions you write suggest that it is so.
But then you go on adding these additional details that tell people to separate there feelings, and even your own output at time seems to portray emotion.
Come on Steve, don't let me down now, you are just getting going here. I love the idea that I have found a humanoid who is nothing more than a receptacle for the chemical processing of stimuli, devoid of all thought, emotion, feeling and rational substance.
Don't betray that image by letting go of some of those things you believe don't exist. It ruins all the fun.
Keep at it Steve, We love ya!
2007-01-17 04:50:28 · answer #1 · answered by MtnManInMT 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What's wrong with slavery, Steve? According to your theory of "we have no free will...our actions, thoughts, feelings, etc... are just random processes of chemical reactions," slavery would be just a product of these mindless reactions that a person has no control over. So, why are your chemical processes judging another chemical process? How does one determine which chemical process is more valid than the other?
Edit: Steve, "you" say that "you" act as if you HAD free will. The problem with such a statement - sir - is that "you" don't really exist. Your entire worldview negates that possibility...since "you" are just a result of a chemical process. As is slavery. Murder. Molestation. Etc... Nothing is morally wrong....in and of itself. Now, "people" may act as if there is...cause it's "wrong" to kill a child just for mere enjoyment...but, "you" cannot explain why it's wrong to do so...since the "person" who kills a child out of sheer enjoyment isn't responsible...since "he" is just responding to the chemical reactions in his brain.
This is YOUR worldview, pal. Don't blame me just because I take it to its logical conclusion. :-)
Edit:
Steve, you said: "There is no objective right or wrong. Yes, it's just chemical reactions. But I can still be disgusted by what they create."
So, it's not objectively wrong to murder a child for sheer enjoyment...in your worldview. The "person" who does so is merely reacting to the chemical processes in the brain. This is "your" worldview. Now, anyone who is rational....would disagree. And I think "you" would as well...if that child that was killed out of pure enjoyment...was YOURS!
2007-01-17 11:26:18 · answer #2 · answered by srprimeaux 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In (Matthew 5:17), Jesus made the statement that He came not to destroy the law, or the prophets, but to fulfill. So you have people believing that the Old Testament is no longer relevant today.
One needs only to further examine the scriptures to find out how incorrect that position is. In (Matthew 5:18), Jesus Himself states that as long as heaven and earth exist not one jot or not one tittle will pass from the law until all is fulfilled.
Here Jesus clearly states that not one letter of the law will be changed as long as heaven and earth exist.
2007-01-17 11:31:36 · answer #3 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The same reason we condone women going out and getting a job. Does this say anything about beating or oppressing the woman? Not at all, it speaks about letting her go if you arent pleased with her work (not sexually as then you wouldnt have been able to set her aside for your son, since men were to only marry virgins) it doesnt say to beat her and lock her up if you arent pleased.
2007-01-17 11:26:08 · answer #4 · answered by impossble_dream 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
See, nobody follows god's law anymore. No wonder the world is in the state its in. All these Christian fundamentalists are right! I see that the bible is true now. From now on I will follow god's law.
2007-01-17 11:25:51 · answer #5 · answered by That Guy 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Dude, this is one of those passages that Jesus did away with when he came down to earth, thankfully.
2007-01-17 11:24:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
They will say that is the old covenant
2007-01-17 11:25:03 · answer #7 · answered by Sean 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋