by jimwalton » Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:49 pm
> Can you imagine a person who would NOT be better off in heaven?
Of course not. Heaven is THE PLACE TO BE. It's always the best choice.
> If heaven is what Christians claim it is, then absolutely NOBODY would be better off by not being in heaven.
Correct, and agreed. Heaven is the ideal.
> In fact, anyone who rejects heaven must be making a poor decision by all objective and subjective standards.
Again, correct and agreed.
> Isn't that how perfect and amazing heaven is? What this means that anyone who rejects heaven must be acting against their own self interests and against any interests that could be good for anyone else.
Ultimately, yes, but this is what people do. It's a common human phenomenon, though. We tend to make decisions more by viscera than by logic, by emotion rather than by benefit. The more I watch humanity, the more I see that people see what they want to see, believe what they want to believe, and act by "gut" than by reason. But that doesn't mean they are not morally or cognitively developed (as you say in your next sentence); it rather means that humans have a tendency to justify their moral choices and their thoughts by less-than-stellar reasons. It's not so much a matter of maturity or capability as it is human nature. The Bible speaks of it in terms of darkened minds (Rom. 1.21, 28) or blindness (2 Cor. 4.4), and I have observed that to be true. On this forum, I can speak logic and give evidence and people respond, "Well, it doesn't convince me. I disagree with you." Of course they do. But it's not immaturity or lack of cognitive development. It's because their minds are made up.
> Slavery
That's funny that you think you have to link a wikipedia article to me. Do you think I haven't had this conversation 100 times? Do you think I haven't studied the subject deeply?
> ONE VERSE??? Come on, buddy. That is an extremely dishonest statement.
Not at all. Let's talk. I've had this conversation 100 times. What would you like to talk about?
> I'm sure you are well aware of God's law about only receiving punishment for beating your slave if the slave dies within a couple days.
Ah yes, Exodus 21.20-21. A total misunderstanding. Ya gotta study it. It was not natural for masters to beat their slaves. In fact, it was rare. If they beat their slaves, they would not be as strong and healthy to work for them. We are not to think of the Japanese work camps in WWII.
All of the laws (Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy) are casuistic, meaning it deals with a wide variety of case studies, which may or may not have been realistic or historic, but which serve as guidelines for judges having to make judicial decisions. They are often characterized by "it...then" clauses to give the judges principles by which to adjudicate. They regulate the general principles for governing society, for fair practice, and for treating people fairly in contentious situations. As persons committed crimes under varying circumstances, it became necessary to go beyond the simple statute like "Do not steal," for instance, to take into account such things as time of day, motive, and the value of what has been stolen (like Jean Valjean stealing a single loaf of bread because his family was starving, kind of thing, in Les Miserables).
The law codes of the Torah are not lists of God's mandatory moral commands, nor are they lists of rules to be obeyed. They are not legislation. They are better viewed as legal wisdom. They are a collection of legal situations and the appropriate judicial response to guide judges to make wise decisions.
Therefore, they are not intended to be read as rules, but instead to circumscribe the bounds of civil, legal, and ritual order. They are hypothetical examples to illustrate underlying principles, similar to how we use word problems to teach math. The things we make up (two trains are coming towards each other...) are not to teach about trains, buildings, running, or apples, but to learn trigonometry. So we also understand the laws of the Torah. it is to shape society, not to give a list of moral commands.
You'll notice that the text specifies that if a master injures a slave, he is to be punished in like manner (fines, appropriate compensation, legal action; Ex. 21.23-27) and the slave is to go free (Ex. 21.27). The slave is to be treated with dignity. If the servant dies, the master is to be tried for capital crime (Ex. 21.20). If the slave is injured, the debt is presumably voided and the person goes free (Ex. 21.27). With judicial guidance like that, beating of slaves was rare.
I'll ask you to notice that vv. 20-21 are a set. The teaching of v. 20 is radical: the "slave" is considered a person, not a thing (possession). They are considered persons with rights, not property to be treated as the master wishes.
Also, remember that this is casuistic law (hypothetical cases). Such things may never have happened, but they are guiding the judges with ideas for how to render verdicts.
There's a term that occurs three times in the text: naqam. It's a generic word for "hit, spike, smite, beat, attack, punish."
v . 20 "If a man beats his slave with a rod". If a man naqams his servant. This is pretty wide open to interpretation. Some Bibles translate it as "beat", but it could be much milder than that. It could be a whack for discipline.
If the slave dies from this hit, or attack, or discipline, or beating, the master is to be punished (naqam), meaning he is to be capitally punished for the crime.
But if the slave doesn't die, "he is not to be punished (same word: naqam, denoting capital punishment (from v. 20—same word). The master is not to be executed if the slave wasn't killed. It is thought that the loss of his slave (the slave might go free, depending on the injury [v. 26]) and/or the consequent loss of income (if the slave couldn't work, the owner could lose income) were deemed sufficient punishment for the master. If bodily injury resulted, as v. 26 says, the slave was to be set free.
"if the slave gets up after a day or two." This would indicate the master was only correcting him in some way. Sometimes discipline may be necessary, and the master is given the benefit of the doubt if there was no particular injurious or murderous intent. Here is where the judge can consider motive, method, and consequence.
"since the slave is his property." Unfortunate translation. The Hebrew word is כַסְפּוֹ, "money." Again, the suggestion here is not that servants were chattel, or property. The OT constantly affirms the full personhood of these debt servants. The servant is in the household to work off his debt. The employer (master) stands to lose money (כַסְפּוֹ) if he mistreats his employees; his hard treatment toward a servant could impact his income. This worker is an economic asset.
So we are to consider the principles portrayed here far more than any details. It's casuistic, not real.
At least some of the principles to guide judges:
1. The slave is a person with rights and dignity, not property or chattel at the master's whims.
2. There was a lex talionis situation here: eye for eye, tooth for tooth, freedom for abuse, death for death.
3. The master did have some legitimate authority over the servant to do what he was there to do. Corporeal punishment was not anathema in their society as it is in ours.
4. If the master suffered economic loss because of his behavior, so be it. No more was owed to him by the servant just because the master disciplined him and the servant was not able to work for a period of time.
> I invite you to step back from whatever post hoc rationalizations you have for these ugly passages. Take a moment, just a moment, to wonder if maybe these passages are simply wrong about what a loving God would demand.
So let's talk. I'm gonna guess you've read superficially and haven't studied the texts. There's really only one verse in the Bible, as I mentioned, much to your ridicule even though it's true, that we have to deal with, and that's Leviticus 25.44. But you don't judge God and their whole society on one verse, given the weight of evidence in other directions. But we can talk as you wish. I'm not being dishonest at all.
> Can you imagine a person who would NOT be better off in heaven?
Of course not. Heaven is THE PLACE TO BE. It's always the best choice.
> If heaven is what Christians claim it is, then absolutely NOBODY would be better off by not being in heaven.
Correct, and agreed. Heaven is the ideal.
> In fact, anyone who rejects heaven must be making a poor decision by all objective and subjective standards.
Again, correct and agreed.
> Isn't that how perfect and amazing heaven is? What this means that anyone who rejects heaven must be acting against their own self interests and against any interests that could be good for anyone else.
Ultimately, yes, but this is what people do. It's a common human phenomenon, though. We tend to make decisions more by viscera than by logic, by emotion rather than by benefit. The more I watch humanity, the more I see that people see what they want to see, believe what they want to believe, and act by "gut" than by reason. But that doesn't mean they are not morally or cognitively developed (as you say in your next sentence); it rather means that humans have a tendency to justify their moral choices and their thoughts by less-than-stellar reasons. It's not so much a matter of maturity or capability as it is human nature. The Bible speaks of it in terms of darkened minds (Rom. 1.21, 28) or blindness (2 Cor. 4.4), and I have observed that to be true. On this forum, I can speak logic and give evidence and people respond, "Well, it doesn't convince me. I disagree with you." Of course they do. But it's not immaturity or lack of cognitive development. It's because their minds are made up.
> Slavery
That's funny that you think you have to link a wikipedia article to me. Do you think I haven't had this conversation 100 times? Do you think I haven't studied the subject deeply?
> ONE VERSE??? Come on, buddy. That is an extremely dishonest statement.
Not at all. Let's talk. I've had this conversation 100 times. What would you like to talk about?
> I'm sure you are well aware of God's law about only receiving punishment for beating your slave if the slave dies within a couple days.
Ah yes, Exodus 21.20-21. A total misunderstanding. Ya gotta study it. It was not natural for masters to beat their slaves. In fact, it was rare. If they beat their slaves, they would not be as strong and healthy to work for them. We are not to think of the Japanese work camps in WWII.
All of the laws (Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy) are casuistic, meaning it deals with a wide variety of case studies, which may or may not have been realistic or historic, but which serve as guidelines for judges having to make judicial decisions. They are often characterized by "it...then" clauses to give the judges principles by which to adjudicate. They regulate the general principles for governing society, for fair practice, and for treating people fairly in contentious situations. As persons committed crimes under varying circumstances, it became necessary to go beyond the simple statute like "Do not steal," for instance, to take into account such things as time of day, motive, and the value of what has been stolen (like Jean Valjean stealing a single loaf of bread because his family was starving, kind of thing, in Les Miserables).
The law codes of the Torah are not lists of God's mandatory moral commands, nor are they lists of rules to be obeyed. They are not legislation. They are better viewed as [i]legal wisdom[/i]. They are a collection of legal situations and the appropriate judicial response to guide judges to make wise decisions.
Therefore, they are not intended to be read as rules, but instead to circumscribe the bounds of civil, legal, and ritual order. They are hypothetical examples to illustrate underlying principles, similar to how we use word problems to teach math. The things we make up (two trains are coming towards each other...) are not to teach about trains, buildings, running, or apples, but to learn trigonometry. So we also understand the laws of the Torah. it is to shape society, not to give a list of moral commands.
You'll notice that the text specifies that if a master injures a slave, he is to be punished in like manner (fines, appropriate compensation, legal action; Ex. 21.23-27) and the slave is to go free (Ex. 21.27). The slave is to be treated with dignity. If the servant dies, the master is to be tried for capital crime (Ex. 21.20). If the slave is injured, the debt is presumably voided and the person goes free (Ex. 21.27). With judicial guidance like that, beating of slaves was rare.
I'll ask you to notice that vv. 20-21 are a set. The teaching of v. 20 is radical: the "slave" is considered a person, not a thing (possession). They are considered persons with rights, not property to be treated as the master wishes.
Also, remember that this is casuistic law (hypothetical cases). Such things may never have happened, but they are guiding the judges with ideas for how to render verdicts.
There's a term that occurs three times in the text: [i]naqam[/i]. It's a generic word for "hit, spike, smite, beat, attack, punish."
v . 20 "If a man beats his slave with a rod". If a man [i]naqams[/i] his servant. This is pretty wide open to interpretation. Some Bibles translate it as "beat", but it could be much milder than that. It could be a whack for discipline.
If the slave dies from this hit, or attack, or discipline, or beating, the master is to be punished ([i]naqam[/i]), meaning he is to be capitally punished for the crime.
But if the slave doesn't die, "he is not to be punished (same word: [i]naqam[/i], denoting capital punishment (from v. 20—same word). The master is not to be executed if the slave wasn't killed. It is thought that the loss of his slave (the slave might go free, depending on the injury [v. 26]) and/or the consequent loss of income (if the slave couldn't work, the owner could lose income) were deemed sufficient punishment for the master. If bodily injury resulted, as v. 26 says, the slave was to be set free.
"if the slave gets up after a day or two." This would indicate the master was only correcting him in some way. Sometimes discipline may be necessary, and the master is given the benefit of the doubt if there was no particular injurious or murderous intent. Here is where the judge can consider motive, method, and consequence.
"since the slave is his property." Unfortunate translation. The Hebrew word is כַסְפּוֹ, "money." Again, the suggestion here is not that servants were chattel, or property. The OT constantly affirms the full personhood of these debt servants. The servant is in the household to work off his debt. The employer (master) stands to lose money (כַסְפּוֹ) if he mistreats his employees; his hard treatment toward a servant could impact his income. This worker is an economic asset.
So we are to consider the principles portrayed here far more than any details. It's casuistic, not real.
At least some of the principles to guide judges:
1. The slave is a person with rights and dignity, not property or chattel at the master's whims.
2. There was a lex talionis situation here: eye for eye, tooth for tooth, freedom for abuse, death for death.
3. The master did have some legitimate authority over the servant to do what he was there to do. Corporeal punishment was not anathema in their society as it is in ours.
4. If the master suffered economic loss because of his behavior, so be it. No more was owed to him by the servant just because the master disciplined him and the servant was not able to work for a period of time.
> I invite you to step back from whatever post hoc rationalizations you have for these ugly passages. Take a moment, just a moment, to wonder if maybe these passages are simply wrong about what a loving God would demand.
So let's talk. I'm gonna guess you've read superficially and haven't studied the texts. There's really only one verse in the Bible, as I mentioned, much to your ridicule even though it's true, that we have to deal with, and that's Leviticus 25.44. But you don't judge God and their whole society on one verse, given the weight of evidence in other directions. But we can talk as you wish. I'm not being dishonest at all.