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. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)


When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)


Good so now I can sell my Daughter into slavery and I can own slaves myself.
Becouse the bible says I can.
Or was this a different god that commanded these things?

actually SM, your correct, only you would have to find away to transport yourself back to those times when it applied. you have to keep in mind the customs of the times. now - that is not possible, [legally anyway] but then it was.

O.K. but that was god commaning those things right?
Is it not the same god?
And if it was just becouse of the times does that mean that god is subject to our times and laws?
What I'm saying is if the bible is the exact word of god then why would he even put the laws of the time in the bible when he knew at some point they would change.
And these are gods laws.
So he was cool with slavery then but not now?
And where does it say in the bible god condeming slavery?

Read the scripture in context and the answer will be clear.

Well, not only that, but the biblical God is supposed to be unchanging (i.e. dependable)

How could a God who condones slavery at one point and then condemns it at another be considered to be dependable?

A lot of people who call themselves Christians today actually tend to have higher morals than the biblical God.

For example, they don't believe in slavery. They don't believe in murdering heathens. They don't believe in stoning sinners to death.

Also how can a God who asks people not be judgmental of other also ask people to stone sinners to death?

How could they determine that a person is a sinner if they didn't first pass judgment on them?

Clearly the Bible is a train wreck of a religion. It's totally incompatible with its own premises.

It constantly shoots itself in the foot.

I don't mean this to put down other people's religion. I was born and raised as a Christian. I'm denouncing my own religion!

I'm giving testimony that it turned out to be an absurd lie that can't possibly be true IMHO.

The book contradicts its own values.

It's truly a train-wrecked religion.

It got off track long before the New Testament even came into being. And the New Testament is basically a testimony against the Old Testament anyway.

Jesus was totally opposed to the things that the God of Abraham had commanded people to do.

It's perfectly Clear that Jesus could not be in any way affiliated with the God of Abraham.

If anything is crystal clear in the Bible it's the incompatiblity of the teachings of Jesus with the commandments of the God of Abraham.

Christians try their best to turn Jesus into God and sweep the God of Abraham under the carpet.

But they can't get rid of the lump in the middle of the carpet to save their soul.

The very meaning that they give to the crucifixion Christ demands that they preserve the blood thirsty cravings of the God of Abraham.

It's an unworkable mythology IMHO.

It simply can't be made to make sense on any level.

God never commanded slavery, God regulated slavery. There were no grocery stores or SSI or food stamps. People sometimes would sell themselves or their children into slavery to someone rich enough to guarantee food and shelter. Those laws regulated how a Jew could treat their slaves. A woman who was purchased as a slave couldn't go free, that's a limit on the owner and the slave. The owner had to keep in mind that by him owning a female slave, everyone was going to assume he had his way with her. Since she would have a very difficult time finding a husband, her owner would have to care for her for her entire life. If she wanted to go back to her father's house, her family could buy her back. You only look at these laws from today's timeframe, you aren't even trying to imagine what that world (where "Death by wild animal" was common, where wars and invasions were a regular thing, where the government wasn't taking taxes from everyone to feed the poor) was like. We live in a country where you could easily live on the scraps in one families garbage. But back then, you had to work hard to earn everything you ate. They couldn't afford to throw away food. Somehow, these people had to survive and being a slave to a wealthy man is preferable to starvation or being eaten alive by wild animals.

"Spidercmb" context comes with different interpetation..hence.. different conclusions ..

which is why I asked was the part in the bible about Jesus walking on water supposely literal or rumor ...

If you understand the context, then there is only one conclusion. Read John 6 and let me know what you think.

Understood, But if a god did not want people to sell each other into slavery, would'nt be in his power to make sure people knew that?
And maybe give sugestions on how to not do it?
There seems to be alot of tho shalt nots, why would'nt slavery be umongst those?
Becouse god did'nt want to rock the boat of the laws at the time, even though it is obviously wrong and imoral. So either slavery is moral or god is not.

is John 6 on the Packers or the Cowboys? ...

God didn't want people to get divorced or marry multiple wives either, but Jesus taught that the Israelites were allowed to divorce and marry multiple wives, because their hearts were so hard. If God had forbid them something they wanted so much, it would have driven them further away and made their culture no better than any other around them. So what God did do was write laws regulating the behavior he didn't approve of. So while a Jew could marry many wives, they had to take care of each one well. And while a Jew could own a slave, they weren't allowed to kill them on a whim as other cultures allowed. To kill a slave was murder in the eyes of Jewish law. To cripple a slave was also a violation of their laws. To have sex with a slave girl meant you had to marry her. If you beat a slave and they couldn't work, it was your fault, not theirs. The slave owners obligations to care for the slave didn't change or diminish if their injured slave couldn't work.

But ignoring all of that, what else did Jesus say about the Old Testament law?



I don't believe many practicing Jews would disagree with Jesus' statement here. The laws are written to enforce good treatment of all members of society. So why did the Jews own slaves? Because they followed the letter and not the spirit of the law. Because a lesson that is made so clear by the scriptures was ignored for financial gain.

So you must be a vegetarian if you do not kill . . .

"Bushidobillyclub" vegetarian doesn't mean that they not do kill people it only means that they do not eat them ...

Okay, I think I found something in the bible that we can all agree on, and that we can all take 100% literally!!!



























the page numbers

To eat meat is to kill. That should seem simple to understand.

I don't see where the bible says thou shalt not kill people.

Exodus 20:13.

It is intellectually bankrupt to argue that the Bible says "Thou Shall Not Kill" when the original Hebrew document says "Thou Shall Not Murder" and that fact has been pointed out to you.

Who wouldn't kill to protect their family or friends? Even an innocent stranger. It would be immoral to prohibit killing. And killing in self defense is allowed by Exodus 22:2, so Exodus 20:13 would be contradicted by Exodus 22:2 if it was "kill".

I think you should really change your tack, because you are being stubbornly ignorant. I have corrected you and pointed you to resources that show that the word translated as "kill" actually means "murder". You seem to claim superiority to Christians because you accept "science" (Darwinism), but you boldly reject the easily verified truth of the wording of this verse. For that, you lose any moral high ground you could claim and you look like a bigoted buffoon who is grasping at any possible straw to attack Christianity.

Exodus 20:13 means "Thou Shall Not Murder"

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html
http://www.christianhomesite.com/cherryvale/text/10command6.html
http://www.missiontoisrael.org/6thcom.php
http://www.jewishveg.com/schwartz/killormurder.html

We don't agree on what murder is spider . . . nothing ignorant here . . .

You say that the times have changed . . . . and that is why god has changed his laws regarding slavery, and you will probably agree that blended clothing is not against gods law . . . . so many things you see as different today . . .


Well we do not need to kill animals to survive. Is it just to do so regardless of need?

How can you tell when its time to change with the times, or hold on to tradition?

Also Spider calling me ignorant is pretty funny, but also against forum rules.

Personally I dont give a dam. I will cuss you if I feel like it, feel free to report me. But understand that you need to decide for yourself how important your access here is when you throw around those words . . .

Murder: Murder is the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought, as defined in Common Law countries. Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice aforethought and the lack of lawful justification.

So you believe that killing animals is murder? You own a dog, do you feed it all vegetarian food?

And regardless of what definition of murder YOU use, the Israelites considered murder to be the definition listed above. Homicide. Not the killing of animals. So save your moral outrage, because Christians and Jews are not commanded by their God to not kill animals. And please tell me one thing, if a Christian were trying to force their beliefs on you, would you be offended? Because I'm getting a might annoyed that you think you have the right to force your beliefs onto the billions of Christians, Jews and Muslims in the world who all agree that the 6th commandment is essentially "DO NOT MURDER".

Look no morale outrage I am calling out your books discrepancies . . . (you can seriously stop getting off topic or I will report you)

Spider what is the topic we are discussing? . . . take your time, I know you like to confuse things.

Is the Morales of the OP the topic? Do I have a written ancient text to guide me that we can criticize?