Regulations regarding war captives were very strict. In the case of a woman, if a man wanted to marry her he had to give her time to recover from the shock of war, she was to be taken into the home and “shall sorrow for her father and her mother a full month” (Deuteronomy 21:13). Oh. This make the practice oh so moral and civil. How kind and thoughtful.
>Oh. This make the practice oh so moral and civil. How kind and thoughtful.I reply: I would also point out according to Jewish Tradition, Mishnah & the testamony of Josephus if the woman didn't want to marry the guy who captured her in war she didn't have too. So yes it was very kind & civil unlike let's say your average PZ Myers Fanboy.
It seems that the New Atheists are no better than Religious Fundamentalists in reading modern culture into the Bible. I'm reminded of the NT condemnation of men having "long hair". Most American religious Fundamentalists seem to interpret shoulder length hair as "Long" for a man. Where as in Bible times it was waste length hair that was considered "long".In a like manner. Proponants of Slavery in America tried to use the Bible to justify it BUT if they really wanted to follow the Biblical standard then on the 50th year of the founding of the United States they should have freed all the slaves according to the Law of Jubilee.New Atheists in a like manner confuse ROOTS & American Slavery (which DID NOT follow the Biblical on slavery).It's beyond comical.
"Proponants of Slavery in America tried to use the Bible to justify it..." They didn't 'try', they did. There is so much inconsistency, ambiguity, and just all-in-all drivel in the Bible that Christians can use it to justify just about any moral position under the sun. What we actually see is that Christians come to some moral position and THEN they find scripture to justify that position. The fundamental problem with this is that they then think that this somehow makes THEIR position sacrosanct and this closes their minds to any discourse and rational evaluation."It's beyond comical"Somehow I just don't find any version of slavery comical.
>They didn't 'try', they did.I reply: No they tried & failed.>There is so much inconsistency, ambiguity, and just all-in-all drivel in the Bible that Christians can use it to justify just about any moral position under the sun.I reply: Yeh we Catholics DENY the Reformation teaching on the perspicuity of Scripture.Also you just contradicted yourself. You just admitted the Bible isn't clear(which it isn't apart from Tradition see 2 Thes 2:15) & Yetyou claim Pro-slavery person used it clearly to justify the slavery of Africans.So which is it?>What we actually see is that Christians come to some moral position and THEN they find scripture to justify that position.I reply: Sorry but historically they read scripture threw the filter of Tradition & then formulated moral dogma. They DID NOT start with a ready made moral teaching & then justified it from scripture. You have presented no evidence too this effect.>The fundamental problem with this is that they then think that this somehow makes THEIR position sacrosanct and this closes their minds to any discourse and rational evaluation.I reply: Which Christians are we talking about Catholics? Eastern Orthodox? Certain specific species of Historic Protestants(like the Anglicans)? All of whom believed in Tradition in one form or another.This is all elementary to anyone who has read Newman on the Development of Doctrine. QUOTE"Is there to be no development of religion in the Church of Christ? Certainly, there is to be development and on the largest scale.Who can be so grudging to men, so full of hate for God, as to try to prevent it? But it must truly be development of the faith, not alteration of the faith. Development means that each thing expands to be itself, while alteration means that a thing is changed from one thing into another.The understanding, knowledge and wisdom of one and all, of individuals as well as of the whole Church, ought then to make great and vigorous progress with the passing of the ages and the centuries, but only along its own line of development, that is, with the same doctrine, the same meaning and the same import.END QUOTE -Saint Vincent of Lerins Fifth Century AD.>>"It's beyond comical">Somehow I just don't find any version of slavery comical.I reply: You don't seem to have any ability to defend your claims rationally either. Your Emo act it all together tedious. Biblical "Slavery" was not immoral anymore then being Drafted or being compelled to fullfil a term of service in the Military(you can't just quit) is immoral.Deal with it & spare us your Emo whining.
Regarding "resisting evil" and slaps to the face and the turning of cheeks...I've seen all sorts of interpretations of the turn-the-other-cheek line, ranging from ones that ignore all context ("Resist not evil!") and ones that ignore cultural context ("What it means is... if someone insults you, don't insult them back!"), but the only one I've seen so far that seems to take into account all relevant context I heard from a priest and theologian...It boiled down to "Force others to show you respect."Seriously.Cultural context: Slapping someone backhanded and slapping someone with your palm apparently were different acts depending on whether you were smacking an inferior (backhand) or an equal (forehand). Moreover, like writing, it's not the kind of thing most people do with just any hand.Matthew 5:39 actually specifies that the first strike is on the right cheek - the one that would be on the receiving end of a disrespectful backhand. Turning so that the other cheek is the only available target makes the striker have to choose between not striking or implying you are their equal.
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 [property]."I think he was referring to that passage about being able to kill your slave. May not be able to kill your slave, but it seems pretty cut and dry to me that you're able to beat your slave to within an inch of death with absolutely no punishment. How loving and kind...
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 [property].">>I think he was referring to that passage about being able to kill your slave. May not be able to kill your slave, but it seems pretty cut and dry to me that you're able to beat your slave to within an inch of death with absolutely no punishment. How loving and kind...I reply: New Atheists really have to start reading the TALMUD(& not in the silly way self-hating Jewish Atheists & White Supremacists like to misread it. Learn something about the rules of Halakah). Actually it means the Death Penalty can't be applied to a man who beats his slave harshly & doesn't cause his death. Nothing more. It literally says he can't be Avenged (i.e. some must kill the one who wounds him). It says nothing about not being punished at all.BTW the above quote is not a very good translation. Also Exodus 20:26-27 say if you beat your male or female slave with a rod & either injure their eye or knock out their tooth you must set them free. Also the Rabbis said the Law applies to any injured limb that can't grow back or be made to function again.Which is very kind since it mitigates the level of corporal punishment one may employ against their Indentured Labor. That is very loving & kind considering the historic circumstances. >within an inch of death with absolutely no punishmentI reply: Interesting how New Atheists read their OWN self-serving tradition into the text instead of the one handed down with it?Like I said they just don't know enough about religion due to their extreme contempt(i.e. like equating belief in God with gravity resistant Pasta) to be able to make any meaningful criticism it. Maimonides wrote that, regardless whether a slave is Jewish or not, "The way of the pious and the wise is to be compassionate and to pursue justice, not to overburden or oppress a slave, and to provide them from every dish and every drink. The early sages would give their slaves from every dish on their table. They would feed their servants before sitting to their own meals... Slaves may not be maltreated of offended - the law destined them for service, not for humiliation. Do not shout at them or be angry with them, but hear them out". In another context, Maimonides wrote that all the laws of slavery are "mercy, compassion and forbearance"According to Jewish Tradition you had to treat you slave like a member of your extended family. Also it was forbidden for a Jew to kidnap either Jews or Gentles with the purpose of enslaving them under penalty of death. Also a Father can only sell his pre-pubescent daughter(when she is over the age of 12 she belongs to herself) & only as a last resort if he can't feed her & he should do so with the understanding when the daughter grows up she will be freed & either her master may marry her or the Master's son will do so. What a difference Tradition makes.