Religion

trotsky

(49,533 posts)

28. Sal, you're prooftexting!

Mon Mar 12, 2012, 02:25 PM

Mar 2012

Shall we look at the rest of Exodus 21? I mean, it's all about CONTEXT, right?

Verses 2-4: "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free."

Verses 7-8: "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed..."

And this doesn't even begin to note that your out-of-context verse, 16, is right in the middle of all those other rules we laugh at, like "eye for an eye" and everything else that enlightened Christians like yourself tell us most certainly do not apply anymore.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

134 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

HR 535 � Year of the Bible Resolution (billboard) [View all] pokerfan Mar 2012 OP

A lesson in Biblical literalism brought to you by Americanatheists.org. rug Mar 2012 #1

I bet you say that to all the direct Bible Quotes. ;) nt greyl Mar 2012 #2

Only to the cute ones. rug Mar 2012 #4

Feel free to interpret HR 535 literally. greyl Mar 2012 #6

Oh, that doesn't need interpretation, it's plain enough. rug Mar 2012 #7

lol greyl Mar 2012 #8

A thoughtful response. rug Mar 2012 #10

Are you saying the Republicans behind the bill aren't theists? greyl Mar 2012 #12

I'm saying it's Republicans doing this but the target is not Republicans, but theists. rug Mar 2012 #14

We both know those behind the bill identify more deeply with their religion greyl Mar 2012 #22

So - it's all the nonbelievers in the legislature who passed the bill? dmallind Mar 2012 #13

No, it's Republicans. rug Mar 2012 #15

acting out of secular motivations? deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #26

Try political. rug Mar 2012 #32

keep going... deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #33

Passed you, rug Mar 2012 #34

and off the cliff deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #36

I'll wait. rug Mar 2012 #37

better yet, hold your breath ;) deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #38

It's metaphorical slavery pokerfan Mar 2012 #3

I suppose you accept the literal truth of what follows as well. rug Mar 2012 #5

I will assume that you believe slavery is immoral pokerfan Mar 2012 #11

It's self-evident. rug Mar 2012 #16

oh well, then pokerfan Mar 2012 #17

Do you think the immorality of slavery is not self-evident? rug Mar 2012 #18

so self evident it apparently never existed pokerfan Mar 2012 #19

How interesting that this group Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #9

Was Paul talking about metaphorical slavery? laconicsax Mar 2012 #20

Whoever wrote that verse Thats my opinion Mar 2012 #21

But such cultural bias is maintained by many Christian sects to this day muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #23

Ahhh...more prooftexting. Sal316 Mar 2012 #24

oo oo oo, are we doing bible contradictions? deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #25

What you've also never seen skepticscott Mar 2012 #27

Sal, you're prooftexting! trotsky Mar 2012 #28

Oooooh SNAP! Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #29

I'll try some in small doses this time. ;-) trotsky Mar 2012 #30

Welcome back, trotsky, and what an entrance to boot! cleanhippie Mar 2012 #35

Post 31 shows just how much trotsky rocks. 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #40

Aw shucks, I can't take credit for that. trotsky Mar 2012 #63

Now that was righteous. UnrepentantLiberal Mar 2012 #47

I quit. Sal316 Mar 2012 #31

Good luck with your munitions R&D. laconicsax Mar 2012 #39

Sorry to see you leave. No, really. trotsky Mar 2012 #62

You don't understand, trotsky. laconicsax Mar 2012 #65

The clear reason that the Bible does not condemn or endorse slavery humblebum Mar 2012 #41

Yes, the fact that slavery isn't condemned by the Bible is ridiculous, offensive, and shameful. n/t laconicsax Mar 2012 #42

Aristole's theory of slavery humblebum Mar 2012 #43

Did you seriously call slavery both necessary and expedient? laconicsax Mar 2012 #44

No I didn't, but Aristotle did. And that demonstrates just how normal the social status humblebum Mar 2012 #49

Aristotelians do not claim that his utterances were divine. Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #51

Who said they did? But, the study of any culture in that period humblebum Mar 2012 #52

So the bible is just cultural and not divine? Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #54

This is the key hypocrisy of those who deny what is really in the 'Scriptures'... Bluenorthwest Mar 2012 #56

again missing the difference. Obviously intentionally. Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #58

So the Bible isn't anything more than a product of it's time. laconicsax Mar 2012 #61

I agree with neither of your assertions and am running from nothing, however humblebum Mar 2012 #67

You can't have it both ways. laconicsax Mar 2012 #69

I have clearly stated my case, and really don't have clue what you are driving at. humblebum Mar 2012 #70

if that's your agruement then you eitehr miss the point, or it's a strawman deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #85

Well you are right "that slavery did exist exist." That's really all that needs to be said. humblebum Mar 2012 #88

Just telling you what eveeyone is "driving at" deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #89

As I added to the last post: humblebum Mar 2012 #90

not at all deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #91

You just said that you were judging by today's standards. humblebum Mar 2012 #92

so slavery was a step in social evolution? deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #93

Listen, I certainly don't have all of the answers, but according to the Bible humblebum Mar 2012 #94

What makes you think the Bible is a reliable guide to the present? laconicsax Mar 2012 #95

Your opinion is yours, not mine. humblebum Mar 2012 #96

And out come the fundamentalist views. laconicsax Mar 2012 #100

Your opinion is your opinion, not mine. Out come the militant atheist views. humblebum Mar 2012 #103

Yes, those militant atheist views that the Bible isn't literally true. laconicsax Mar 2012 #104

Where did I say that it was all literally true? I am merely stating that one of the POV humblebum Mar 2012 #105

So when you denied that the Bible isn't literally true, what were you implying? laconicsax Mar 2012 #106

Quite the line of blather there. Are you sure you didn't confuse yourself? humblebum Mar 2012 #107

There you go again! You're contesting the claim that the Bible isn't literally true. laconicsax Mar 2012 #108

Then you should not be calling something historical fact, that isn't. Nowhere did humblebum Mar 2012 #109

You keep denying that the Bible isn't literally true! laconicsax Mar 2012 #110

You seem to be using a double negative in your question. humblebum Mar 2012 #111

Yes or No: Do you believe the Bible is literally true? laconicsax Mar 2012 #112

You are just kinda stumbling all over yourself trying humblebum Mar 2012 #113

Thank you for admitting your fundamentalist views. n/t laconicsax Mar 2012 #115

As well yours. nt humblebum Mar 2012 #116

I don't think you understand what certain words mean. laconicsax Mar 2012 #121

I think we are both aware of what certain words mean. humblebum Mar 2012 #123

So is it the word of God or the word of the dudes you said wrote it: Matthew, Mark, Luke et al.? Arugula Latte Mar 2012 #130

So you're saying that God pays attention to opinion polls? pokerfan Mar 2012 #45

Then you should be talking to your own ancient ancestors who lived back then, humblebum Mar 2012 #50

And yet the 'faith community' takes other parts of Scripture and demands that we Bluenorthwest Mar 2012 #57

And not one word or complaint proves that there is no deity, and yet humblebum Mar 2012 #73

So much for divine revelation then pokerfan Mar 2012 #72

Partially you are correct, and much of it is also timeless. And that is why so many value it. humblebum Mar 2012 #74

And lot of it is disgusting pokerfan Mar 2012 #76

Really, which parts are timeless, and which aren't? Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #81

Faith, hope, charity, compassion, love ... humblebum Mar 2012 #86

Oh, the good stuff. Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #98

I think you are confusing it with 'The Atheist's Handbook,' which has all those humblebum Mar 2012 #99

Yeah, but unlike you, Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #114

You mean to say that radical atheist's actions are real and humblebum Mar 2012 #127

Depends on what you are talking about. Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #131

much of it is timeless... in the context of it's time! n/t deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #84

"the shameful thing is the actual practice of owning human beings as property." humblebum Mar 2012 #53

So when did God figure out it was bad? Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #55

You're only right if scripture isn't part of a religion. laconicsax Mar 2012 #64

Yes, and that was thousands of years ago, and that is my point. humblebum Mar 2012 #66

Try hundreds, not thousands. laconicsax Mar 2012 #68

Then, you also know that Christianity was a driving force in the abolition movement.nt humblebum Mar 2012 #71

Actually, very few of the abolitionists, particularly in the United Kingdom and United States... Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #80

I beg to differ. The Second Great Awakening spawned many new abolitionists - humblebum Mar 2012 #101

You do know that you just acknowledged that the Bible was written by men, right? UnrepentantLiberal Mar 2012 #48

Yes, Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Moses, Paul, etc., were men. Very perceptive of you. nt humblebum Mar 2012 #75

You left out the monks that added scripture UnrepentantLiberal Mar 2012 #77

OYG! You don't actually believe that the Gospels were written by their namesakes, do you? laconicsax Mar 2012 #87

It just gets better and better, doesn't it? n/t Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #97

Most likely they were. Too much duplicity and questionable, biased research by skeptics humblebum Mar 2012 #102

Careful, humblebum, you are letting your hatred show... cleanhippie Mar 2012 #117

Now that was uncalled for. nt humblebum Mar 2012 #118

"Too much duplicity and questionable, biased research by skeptics and atheists." cleanhippie Mar 2012 #119

C'mon cleanhippie. laconicsax Mar 2012 #122

Oh My. Aerows Mar 2012 #134

And just which one of those is synonymous with hatred? nt humblebum Mar 2012 #125

Used in conjunction to smear and demean all atheists, you expose your hatred. cleanhippie Mar 2012 #126

And just where did I ever smear and demean all atheists? And there you go humblebum Mar 2012 #128

"Too much duplicity and questionable, biased research by skeptics and atheists." cleanhippie Mar 2012 #129

LOL! laconicsax Mar 2012 #120

He can't do that, as his "sources" are those "other ways of knowing." cleanhippie Mar 2012 #124

I hate to tell you, but much of your evidence against the Bible is drawn from"other ways of knowing" humblebum Mar 2012 #132

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. cleanhippie Mar 2012 #133

The OT and NT each contain many rules as to how slaves are to get sold or purchased Bluenorthwest Mar 2012 #59

Yes, slavery was a normal part of virtually all cultures at that time. nt humblebum Mar 2012 #79

which as you've worked so hard to establish... deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #82

Then why does it condemn many dietary practices that were normal parts of society at Bluenorthwest Mar 2012 #60

The NT condemns no diet. nt humblebum Mar 2012 #78

nor slavery n/t deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #83

This lesson brought to you by the US govt and it's constitution (nt) The Straight Story Mar 2012 #46