Why does god want to cut off women's hands?

[Bad Writer]

Unless of course his intention was to rape her and force her to submit to his whims for her entire life.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

You need to study ancient history very thoroughly before condemning what happened to people. You're trying to compare oranges to apples and it just doesn't work.

So we're to understand by this comment that the great GC has studied ancient history very thoroughly. The only thing that doesn't work here is GC's lying.

[John V]

Unless of course his intention was to rape her and force her to submit to his whims for her entire life.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

We've covered this one before. Some translations do not use "rape." That he seizes her could imply that, but that "they" are discovered implies it's a situation of seduction. In that society men prized virginity in a potential bride. The man in this case was forced to pay the father the bride price. Note that the father was not forced to give up the girl to the man. But, if he chose to, the man was forced to support her for life. The passage is a protection for women, not a punishment of them.

---

So when the bible endorses slavery, that's god "trying" to steer us right regarding human rights? Or was the bible written by people, meaning that humans falsely purported to have god's word, and god did nothing to correct that?

And before you go new testament on me, that endorses slavery too.

Consider what Jesus said regarding divorce - it was not ideal, but because of the hardness of their hearts, it was permitted. You therefore cannot conclude that because a practice was permitted by the law, God sees it as ideal.

[Psykhronic]

So there's some shit about virginity and "seizing", yeah they're totally not talking about rape

In any case, no matter what "seizing" means, forcing a woman to be with that sort of man punishes her - notice how much say she has over what happens to her.

[John V]

So there's some shit about virginity and "seizing", yeah they're totally not talking about rape

Alone, I'd probably conclude that meant rape, too, as I acknowledged. However, it goes on to say that "they" are found out, which doesn't at all fit with the rape scenario.

[Esquilax]

Consider what Jesus said regarding divorce - it was not ideal, but because of the hardness of their hearts, it was permitted. You therefore cannot conclude that because a practice was permitted by the law, God sees it as ideal.

So... I'm now being told to believe that god couldn't get what he wanted and had to settle?

And this is the same god that, during the old testament where this slavery stuff is first endorsed, murdered the majority of the world in a global flood because people weren't doing what he wanted? The same god who struck Lot's wife down for looking back when it contravened his commands? The same god that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for immorality, that god permitted slavery because he had no other way of getting to the people?

Besides, the actual content of the message rather disagrees with your surmise; a god who disapproved of slavery would have included rules against harming them, which he didn't do. Instead, he allowed violence against slaves, assuming they don't die right away. These aren't the words of a god who isn't cool with slavery.

Nor is that whole "give them a wife and children so that they stay with you" thing, regarding Jewish slaves that were time limited. Oh, not to mention the idea that one should take their permanent slaves from the nations around you, but never Jews.

There's no conciliation here, no attempt to lessen the suffering of the slaves, or any kind of slow, progressive retraction of things; you can't phrase this as some kind of learning process when it's also a staid and unchanging law.

Speaking of hardening hearts, god had no trouble doing that to Pharaoh around Moses... so hey, let's not attempt a free will argument here. Doesn't work.

[tokutter]

Unless of course his intention was to rape her and force her to submit to his whims for her entire life.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

We've covered this one before. Some translations do not use "rape." That he seizes her could imply that, but that "they" are discovered implies it's a situation of seduction. In that society men prized virginity in a potential bride. The man in this case was forced to pay the father the bride price. Note that the father was not forced to give up the girl to the man. But, if he chose to, the man was forced to support her for life. The passage is a protection for women, not a punishment of them.

---

After 2000 years still can't get together on what it all means.

For the record JohnV....what version do you use

Or are you like a couple relatives of mine who have 5 different versions lying aroung......and when they hit a snag like the one above.....use the version that lines up with what they want

The slight of hand ......never ends


.

[John V]

So... I'm now being told to believe that god couldn't get what he wanted and had to settle?

You're not being told to believe anything. I'm showing you applicable scripture. You can believe what you want.

And this is the same god that, during the old testament where this slavery stuff is first endorsed, murdered the majority of the world in a global flood because people weren't doing what he wanted?

Judgment isn't murder.

Besides, the actual content of the message rather disagrees with your surmise; a god who disapproved of slavery would have included rules against harming them, which he didn't do. Instead, he allowed violence against slaves, assuming they don't die right away. These aren't the words of a god who isn't cool with slavery.

First, don't think of American slavery when considering slavery in the Bible. People couldn't be kidnapped and sold into slavery. Slaves were generally debtors or prisoners of war.
Ex 21
16 “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.

You're correct that some violence short of death was permitted.
Ex 21
20 “And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.

So, there was a rule against killing slaves. Further, violence resulting in permanent damage was forbidden:
Ex 21
26 “If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth.

So, there were rules against harming slaves, albeit not absolute.

Further, slaves were forbidden from working on the Sabbath. Strange that men inventing a law for their own benefit would include this provision.

Another interesting provision regarding slaves:
Deut 23
15 “You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16 He may dwell with you in your midst, in the place which he chooses within one of your gates, where it seems best to him; you shall not oppress him.

This certainly doesn't benefit slave owners.

There's no conciliation here, no attempt to lessen the suffering of the slaves, or any kind of slow, progressive retraction of things; you can't phrase this as some kind of learning process when it's also a staid and unchanging law.

As shown, there are laws that lessen the suffering of slaves.

1 Cor 7
21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings.

The last part of this underscores the earlier point that slavery then was largely debt slavery which prudent people could generally avoid.

Philemon 1
8 Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9 yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love.
...
15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother.

There's your change - what a slave owner "ought to do" is free his slaves.

---

After 2000 years still can't get together on what it all means.

No, but we've gotten together on what most of it means. Yes, there are a few passages which have become ambiguous over time.

For the record JohnV....what version do you use

Or are you like a couple relatives of mine who have 5 different versions lying aroung......and when they hit a snag like the one above.....use the version that lines up with what they want

I typically use the NKJV. When I hit a snag, I go to bible gateway and check a bunch of versions. I also go to blue letter bible and check underlying Hebrew and greek occasionally.

The slight of hand ......never ends

I don't see that acknowledgment that no one translation got everything correct is equivalent to slight of hand.

[Esquilax]

Judgment isn't murder.

That must make swallowing the atrocities of that book so much easier for you. Some of us are more moral than that, however.

First, don't think of American slavery when considering slavery in the Bible. People couldn't be kidnapped and sold into slavery. Slaves were generally debtors or prisoners of war.

Yeah, I don't actually care how the slaves got where they were; slavery is an immoral proposition regardless of the source. And I'm not thinking of American slavery, I'm thinking of slavery as described in the bible, which did include beatings, sexual slavery, and numerous other immoralities.

Incidentally, the bible was certainly what those American slaveowners were thinking of, in terms of defending their own immoral practices. Take from that what you will.

You're correct that some violence short of death was permitted.

Just so long as it wasn't that cruel, American slavery, no?

So, there was a rule against killing slaves.

There was a rule about killing them immediately. Do you know how nasty a beating is, if it kills you? Even if you take a few days to do so?

Further, violence resulting in permanent damage was forbidden:

Yes, I imagine the people who wrote the book would frown on property damage.

Further, slaves were forbidden from working on the Sabbath. Strange that men inventing a law for their own benefit would include this provision.

The sabbath? Oh, you mean the day you're supposed to go to church, where that "slaves obey your masters" stuff is drilled into your head as the divine and inerrant word of an angry god that'll punish you for disobeying! That sabbath!

You know, you're right; I can't think of a single reason why it would be beneficial for slaves to be getting time off on that day.

This certainly doesn't benefit slave owners.

Nor does the whole animal sacrifice thing. These people weren't super smart, nor consistent. But if you're going to cling to those few passages and ignore the whole "there's slavery" thing, then fine. I just hope you realize what it is you're being forced to advocate and defend, in the name of your god.

As shown, there are laws that lessen the suffering of slaves.

1 Cor 7
21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings.

Right, become a slave to god, instead. Break them rules for christ.

The last part of this underscores the earlier point that slavery then was largely debt slavery which prudent people could generally avoid.

You're making excuses for slavery. You do understand that, right?

Philemon 1
8 Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9 yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love.
...
15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother.

You know, this particular epistle was used as an argument both for and against modern slavery. Think about that.

There's your change - what a slave owner "ought to do" is free his slaves.

Not according to some interpretations: Philemon was entreated to treat his slave as a brother, not to free him. In fact, if what Paul was trying to do was free the slave in question, he could just do so and he would be fine, according to your interpretation. Given this, why was he bothering to return Onesimus to his master at all?

[Bad Writer]

[John V]

That must make swallowing the atrocities of that book so much easier for you. Some of us are more moral than that, however.

You're confusing less righteous with more moral.

Yeah, I don't actually care how the slaves got where they were; slavery is an immoral proposition regardless of the source. And I'm not thinking of American slavery, I'm thinking of slavery as described in the bible, which did include beatings, sexual slavery, and numerous other immoralities.

Incidentally, the bible was certainly what those American slaveowners were thinking of, in terms of defending their own immoral practices. Take from that what you will.

It's also what many abolitionists had in mind. The question is, which side had better support? Considering the prohibition against kidnapping and selling into slavery, and the order to accept escaped slaves as free people, the Southern position as not Biblical. If they were following the law, they should have killed the slave traders, and then accepted their slaves as free people.

There was a rule about killing them immediately. Do you know how nasty a beating is, if it kills you? Even if you take a few days to do so?

I haven't argued that there was perfect protection for the slaves. There admittedly wasn't.

Yes, I imagine the people who wrote the book would frown on property damage.

That makes no sense, as it's considering damage to one's own slave, and considering the previous verse discussed.

The sabbath? Oh, you mean the day you're supposed to go to church, where that "slaves obey your masters" stuff is drilled into your head as the divine and inerrant word of an angry god that'll punish you for disobeying! That sabbath!

Where do the Sabbath laws require going to church?

You know, you're right; I can't think of a single reason why it would be beneficial for slaves to be getting time off on that day.

There isn't any reason for it.

Nor does the whole animal sacrifice thing. These people weren't super smart, nor consistent. But if you're going to cling to those few passages and ignore the whole "there's slavery" thing, then fine. I just hope you realize what it is you're being forced to advocate and defend, in the name of your god.

False dichotomy. Before, you mentioned regulation and change. Now, "there's slavery" is all there is to it.

You're making excuses for slavery. You do understand that, right?

You're making an appeal to emotion. You do understand that, right?

You know, this particular epistle was used as an argument both for and against modern slavery. Think about that.

OK, I thought about it, and I don't see it as a good argument for slavery.

Not according to some interpretations: Philemon was entreated to treat his slave as a brother, not to free him. In fact, if what Paul was trying to do was free the slave in question, he could just do so and he would be fine, according to your interpretation. Given this, why was he bothering to return Onesimus to his master at all?

So that Philemon could do the right thing voluntarily, as Paul explains:

14 But without your consent I wanted to do nothing, that your good deed might not be by compulsion, as it were, but voluntary.