Primate of homophobia?
The Anglican primate of Nigeria, Archbishop , has Philip Groves, the facilitator of the Anglican Communion's listening process, in which he defends likely to become law in Nigeria within a few weeks.
Consensual sex between men or between women is already a criminal offence in Nigeria, punishable with 14 years' imprisonment. In about a dozen northern Nigerian states, where Sharia law is enforced, homosexuality is punishable by death by stoning. The new measures will make it an offence, punishable with up to five years imprisonment, even to make a speech defending gay rights.
As many as 250 American church leaders have recently signed a petition challenging the new legislation (and the already existing Nigerian anti-gay laws) as "repressive". In March 2006, sixteen international human rights groups signed a letter condemning the new measures, saying that proposed bill "contravenes the basic rights to freedom of expression, conscience, association, and assembly." The European Parliament has already adopted a resolution condemning these and other human rights abuses in Nigeria.
But Archbishop Akinola says "the Western idea of human rights is subservient to the service of the common good." Human rights campaigners will, of course, point out that the establishment of a human rights culture may actually advance the common good.
Comments
This kind of ignorant intolerance is almost inevitable when one bases one's moral principles on ancient texts like the Bible or the Koran. The sooner people accept that morality has nothing to do with the supernatural, nor with the ancient books which jumble morality and the supernatural together, the better. Morality is the Highway Code of life and should be based on respect for the maximum liberty of each that is consistent with the liberty of all.
I hope that the UK Government, the EU and the UN, etc, will make it clear to these homophobes that we will not condone their brutal bigotry and that effective action (eg. sanctions) will be taken to defend human rights.
No doubt in a hundred years or so, when man treats man equally without regard to race, and the sexuality of an individual is of no more importance than the colour of his eyes (passing nod to Bob Marley/Haile Selassie), the theists will look back "a la wilberforce thread" and point to some individual within the church who championed equal rights. At the moment, the most strident theist voices on this blog stand shoulder to shoulder with this caveman and oppose equality legislation at every turn.
Shame on you; Ranting about slavery at one turn, and defending differentials in rights with the other. It's all part of the same spectrum
I agree with Gee Dubyah. How can Akinola not see the similarities between slavery and the abuse of gay people's human rights?
GW
I know you cant get your head around this, but try again.
As I have said elsewhere on this blog the bible explicitly forbids people from kidnapping and trading people for profit.
The slavery of the OT was a voluntary social security net and a form of community service for thieves etc.
This not an obscure interpretation - read the scripture refs on the relevant entry.
Abrahamic faiths have been exclusively heterosexual for 6000 years.
PB
by the way GW
what authorities do you base your assessment of the causes and nature of homosexuality on?
and what authorities do you base your human rights on?
The most desireable societies today by immigration patterns are those based on judeo-Christian law.
You dream of a utopion future when homosexuality is treated as normal, but history shows it has always thrived during the decline of civilisations, and many would argue, as a symptom of said decline.
Have you any alternative epoch in history to show a counterpoint to this?
PB
Wills's post was re Nigeria!
You strangely enough (or maybe not) didn't mention the proposed laws there, so we must presume you agree with them?
I would estimate that somewhere between 10% - 20% of the membership of churches in the UK are GLTB -
(Gay Lesbian Trans-sex and Bi-sex) though prob not yours PB?
Do you think you have the right to say who can or not be a Christian?
Alan
I would certainly support the outlawing of homosexuality - if it was a proper democratic decision!
I have no desire to live in a theocracy as I dont think they have a good track record.
Christ tells a parable about deciding who is or is not Christian. It is called the wheat and the tares. In it he says believers should not occupy themselves with this problem but leave that up to him on the final day.
That said, the NT is all about guiding individuals and leaders out of the latest ditch of heresy and there are explicit guidlines for elders to eject rebellious members.
We all have our areas of the flesh to battle. If a Christian with homosexual tendencies was battling them in my church I would be more than happy to ask him to pray for my battles as I would offer to pray for his.
True Freedom Trust estimates that there are as many folk with gay tendencies in churches opposing homosexuality as there are gay people outside the churches fighting for gay rights.
Im not convinved by your percentages but I think it is safe to say the media is certainly encouraging more and more people to experiment in homosexuality. In Sodom and Gommorrah ALL the men of the city came out to rape the visitors.
In short, I am sure the percentages are rising.
PB
Spot on Gee Dubya (No.2). I can see that you鈥檙e a chip off the old block. It鈥檚 par for the course for religious organisations to claim credit for every advance while denying responsibility for any wrongs. We should also question the archbishop鈥檚 statement: 鈥渢he Western idea of human rights is subservient to the service of the common good鈥. What does he mean by 鈥榯he common good鈥 in this context? On the surface, it sounds like a perfectly reasonable idea we couldn鈥檛 possibly dispute. We might say that it refers to conditions that are to the benefit of most or all of the people in the society/world and would therefore presumably include health, education, peace, prosperity, etc, etc.
Where does sex fit in with the common good? After all, it is normally a private matter between two partners and has no more to do with morality than riding a bicycle, except when it happens without adult consent or creates public health issues. In the latter case, education about safe sex, whether straight or gay, is the moral course, not strict prohibition with severe penalties.
But of course the archbishop is not really speaking on public health grounds at all but rather in terms of his own church and its homophobic ideology derived, as Les Reid (1) says, from antiquated religious texts. Just for the benefit of pb (4), the New Testament also sanctions slavery: 鈥淟et as many slaves as are under the yoke count their own master worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, but rather do them service.鈥 (Paul鈥檚 First Letter to Timothy 6:1-2, which incidentally also 聽鈥 2:11-15 聽鈥 sanctions the slavery of women).
For Akinola, 鈥榯he common good鈥 is really what benefits his own church and its traditional values, but he has dressed it up in terms which make it appear unquestionable.
Also, if you look at the linked interview, he says: 鈥渢he so-called 鈥榬ight鈥 to homosexual orientation threatens the order of society because the continuation of the race is threatened by gay practice. Children are treasured as fruits of marriage and any union, as a gay union, that prevents the propagation of the community's growth is a personal shame to be openly censured鈥. In a country of 130 million, this is indeed a strange notion of 鈥榯he common good鈥.
pb (5) also refers to the 鈥榙ream of a utopian future when homosexuality is treated as normal鈥. Of course, both Adam Smith and Edmund Burke dismissed the antislavery committee in similar terms. Burke said that opponents of slavery had decent ideas but were 鈥榥aive beyond measure鈥. So much for these 鈥榳ise men鈥.
who is this guy pb who seems to want to defend the Nigerian anti-gay laws? That's just crazy. Any church that defends those laws is anti-Christian and deserves nothing but contempt.
PB
God it's difficult to get an answer out of you!
If possible you would want the same laws brought in here as in Nigeria?
Yes or No?
If No - then just condemn Nigeria and we can move on and talk about something else.
RE 5
PB I studiously avoid making assumptions on the "causes and nature" of homosexuality - it doesn't particularly matter in my opinion.
If someone wants to express their sexuality with a member of the same sex, I don't see why we should force them to accept "citizenship lite".
RE decline of civilization.
Please explain to me how homosexuality brought the Romans to their knees. I assume this is one of the civilizations you refer to?
Historians tend to attribute the decline of the Roman civilisation to the usurping of the Republic by the Emperors, starting with the coup by Sulla. Evidently you know better. How fascinating.
Brian
You cant even begin to show anyone here where the bible even hints at any acceptance of homosexuality.
Nor can you dispute that it has ALWAYS forbidden kidnapping and sale of people for commercial gain ie the entire African slave trade.
Exodus 21:16
And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
Deut 24:7
If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.
1Tim 1:9,10
9We also know that law[a] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels...for SLAVE TRADERS...
(NB Slave trading hereby shown to be the business of the counterfeit Bride of Christ which persecuted the church, Babylon;-)
Revelation 18
"Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils... And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more...The merchandise of gold, and silver and...SLAVES, and souls of men."
Slavery in the bible was primarily a voluntary social security net and form of community service.
There is NO suggestion that kidnapping and trading in people was tolerated.
/blogs/ni/2007/03/how_to_be_a_theological_racist.html
PB
Yep, it's pretty clear that PB is quite happy with Akinola's homophobia. Maybe he and the archbishop could get together and organise the stoning. Disgraceful.
GW
post 5 says homosexuality (sexual libertinism) was a symptom of decline, not cause!!!
Historians Plutarch and Gibson (Decline and fall of the Roman Empire) both said such sexual libertinism was a symptom
of a civilisation nearing its end.
GW, You studiously avoid.......?
Well I suggest you think again.
The vast majority pschological studies on the matter that give reasonable cause for concern. And physical problems relating to homosexual practise are not secret.
And BTW, it is not a private matter anymore.
Many people are galloping flat out to have it forced upon all children in the public schooling system.
It is naive in the extreme to overturn the values of a society without a pause to consider historic precdent.
Undue haste and a closed mind?
PB
PB - RE 15
Fair enough you did say symptom, though I suggest you'd secretly like to say "cause".
I have a degree in Psychology thanks.
Whereas you have a closed mind.
Nobody will be forcing ANYTHING on my children, be it a preferred mode of sexuality or a belief system.
I do not propose an overturning of the values of our society, rather I welcome a refresh on their interpretation. I don't believe that sexual libertinism is a phrase you can apply to monogamous relationships gay or straight.
My main point is - there can be no differentials in rights. You support a different set of rights for people whose sexuality you are uncomfortable with, but get hot and sweaty about vile slavery. Double standards. Your natural justice and your religion are at odds.
Methinks you protest too much!
well David fyi
It is the Muslim Sharia law that is instigating the stoning, it appears from above, not the proposals of the bishop.
The books of Galations and Romans make it clear that laws cannot save us from our sins, you know, the nature that ties us to habits we really want to dump but can't.
The sin that leaves us floating in a meaningless world, because we are seperated from our creator.
The first and last point of the gospel is not that gays are condemned.
The first and last point is that we are all sinners before God, regardless of our sexual habits.
And that Christ loved us each and all so much that he suffered death on a cross to bring us into relationship with him and free us from sin.
I just cant get excited about the prospect of stoning anyone for their sins.
But I can get excited about the love of Christ for us all and the new life he offers.
PB
GW
again you are showing how little you know about gay culture. True mongamy is a very rare thing in it.
The vast majority of psychologists of the 20th century saw homosexuality as a problem for clients (Enc Britt).
The new 21st century position emerging has not been based on new findings or refutation of old studies but rather political activism.
A case study in this was how the ASA in 1971.
Wikipedia touches upon the matter briefly;-
"In the late 1960s and early 1970s, activists campaigned against the DSM classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, protesting at APA offices and at annual meetings from 1970 to 1973. In 1973 the Board of Trustees voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder category from the DSM, a decision ratified by a small majority (58%) of the general APA membership the following year."
You will note the switch was not based on new research, just a vote! This has been the pattern ever since. Check it out.
In the UK the Sexual Orientation Regulations appear to give legal grounds for schools to be sued if they do not teach CPs alongside marriage.
That would be forcing the subject upon children.
GW
again you are showing how little you know about gay culture. True mongamy is a very rare thing in it.
The vast majority of psychologists of the 20th century saw homosexuality as a problem for clients (Enc Britt).
The new 21st century position emerging has not been based on new findings or refutation of old studies but rather political activism.
A case study in this was how the ASA in 1971.
Wikipedia touches upon the matter briefly;-
"In the late 1960s and early 1970s, activists campaigned against the DSM classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, protesting at APA offices and at annual meetings from 1970 to 1973. In 1973 the Board of Trustees voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder category from the DSM, a decision ratified by a small majority (58%) of the general APA membership the following year."
You will note the switch was not based on new research, just a vote! This has been the pattern ever since. Check it out.
In the UK the Sexual Orientation Regulations appear to give legal grounds for schools to be sued if they do not teach CPs alongside marriage.
That would be forcing the subject upon children.
PB
PB,
Your notion of purely voluntary slavery only applies to other Israelites. You neglect to note the commandments and regulations for ownership of non-Israelites. See Leviticus 25:44ff, and note in particular the contrast with how Jewish slaves are treated in the previous verses. Also note how such slaves are treated as property in Exodus 21:20-21; and the promise that Israel would enjoy slave-holding as vengeance in Isaiah 14:1-2.
For one who claims to know the Scriptures your lack of familiarity with the relevant texts is appalling. Particularly odd in your citing Exodus 21 but not noting the treatment of slaves just a few verses away...
last one tonight GW.
If homosexuality was a neutral lifestyle choice with no drawbacks, an absolute mirror image of hetersexuality in its nature you would be right to lambast me on the equal rights issue.
But you openly admit that you refuse to consider the science on my side of the argument, about the nature of homosexuality.
If it really is real sin and not just a cultural hangup, it is a major mistake to promote it.
You could do worse than consider the ASA case as an objective starting point. American Psychological Association.
PB
Again PB you are selectively quoting the Bible, I can find scores of passages which support slavery.
"Historians Plutarch and Gibson (Decline and fall of the Roman Empire) both said such sexual libertinism was a symptom
of a civilisation nearing its end."
Although they are 2 great historians, do you not think that the study of history has moved on from then? also why not have a look at Gibbons view on the rise of Christianity, you should find it illuminating!
Regards
DD
GW
"Do you not think history has moved on"?
That is a very postmodern view.
I would believe that if what they said was true, it is true. If it isnt true tell me why not and give me authorities. Dont tell me you want to figuratively burn books because they dont suit your agenda.
If you are keen on revisionist history be my guest.
You have totally missed the point about slavery and the bible.
The bible DOES regulate and not forbid a certain kind of slavery;
primarily as a voluntary social security net and community service for criminals etc.
But it clearly outlaws on pain of death the type of slavery inflcited on African; kidnapping and commercial sale of human beings.
understand the difference yet?
TSH+
I nowhere claimed to be an expert on all the passages, in fact in "how to be a theological racist" on this blog I repeatedly said I found this subject very challenging and that I was still studying it so please dont beat up on me for not having got my DD yet.
Exodus 21:16 clearly imposes the death penalty on anyone who forces another person into slavery, with no specification of the nationality of the victim. IVP New Bible Dictionary upholds the view that this verse applies to all races but there is no grounds in or around the verse to suggest otherwise anyway.
You are 100% correct to say that Hebrew slaves had more rights than others.
But Leviticus 24:44 does not in ANY way suggest that Israelites may force non hebrews into slavery.
So taken with Exdous 21:16 my assertion still stands 100 per cent;
The biblical law enforced the death penalty on any citizen of Israel who forced another person into slavery and sold them as property.
ref the Isaiah ref, if you read it in the amplified bible, which draws out the broader meaning of the Hebrew, you will find a surprisingly different view on this passage;-
The amplified bible is universally respected in its ability to explain deeper meanings of hebrew and greek that are not easily explained in a word for word translation.
I dont know all about this subject, but you have prompted me to look at this passage further.
gnight
PB
pb, medieval nonsense. I feel sorry for you. To actually argue that people you disapprove of should be imprisoned is extraordinary. You're entitled to believe gay people are sinners, but you want to throw them in prison! And this is 2007! Bizarre.
You are obviously a repressed gay man, stuck in a religious closet, obsessed with hating yourself because your church condemns ur orientation. Every nasty thing you write about gay people is just your way of hurting yourself because you hate feeling the way you do. I bet you're married with kids and spend hours looking at gay porn on the net and hate yourself afterwards. Sad, sad, tragic you.
PB.
How little I know? Don't patronise me.
I am well aware of the promiscuous nature of parts of the gay scene as you say - so what? The straight scene is no different. If people want to sleep around, do you want to stop them?
The legislation we are discussing (and you are opposing) affects civil rights of gay couples expecting the same treatment as straight couples in an EQUIVALENT relationship, and single gay people expecting the same civil status as single straight people.
I don't refuse to consider the science - I just don't think there is any.
There is no accepted correlation betweem homosexual orientation and any form of Pychological condition, disorder or pathology. Psychological profiles of sample sets of gay people shows no statistical variation from control groups of straight people. End of.
Your persistent treatment of orientation as a manifestation of physiological or psychological factors sheds more light on your bigotry than anything else.
In my opinion, your worldview precludes you from any objectivity on this issue. For me, I'd rather scoop my eyeballs out with a blunt teaspoon than make love to another man, but if someone else wants to, it doesn't bother me one bit. Fill your boots brother...
In terms of forcing things on kids, I think that discussing the fact that some people have different preferences is an acceptable part of preparation for citizenship. Actively telling kids that one orientation is better than another is not acceptable - which is how you'd like it.
Now back to the point.
Are Gay people correct to expect the same civil liberties as you or not?
A one word answer will suffice thanks...
#25
Jeremy, you may disagree with a lot of what pb says, as I do.
But Ad Hominem attacks don't help your argument.
dp, I've some sympathy with you on your concern about the as hominem attack. Though to be fait, pb's comments are also attacks on individuals. And there's quite a bit of research showing that the more homophobic a man is the more likely he is to be dealing wioth repressed homosexual feelings.
Not sure if you are referring to me here?
You said...
""Do you not think history has moved on"?
I actually said
"do you not think that the study of history has moved on from then?"
Bit different and I would never advocate burning books I'll leave that to the Bible-thumpers.
Re: Plutarch he lived 46-127 so he certainly never wrote about the decline of civilisation, he wrote(as I am sure you know)parallel lives of Famous Greeks and Romans like Alexander and Pompey and that he not generally regarded as a great historian focusing more on anecdotes with moral points.
And if you are so keen on both authors you mentioned then you will of course accept Gibbon's version of the rise of Christainity? well you do accept him to be true(btw he attacks Christianity in his book and actually blames it more for the collapse of the empire rather than homosexuals but you already knew this didn't you?).
I studied Ancient history at uni PB, so if you would like a list of more up to date books I will provide a list-but I would suggest Michael Grant for starters.
And you are completely missing the point re slavery and the Bible, you gave some selected quotes and are twisting them to suit your frame of reference(bit like the history of Christainity).
"The bible DOES regulate and not forbid a certain kind of slavery;
primarily as a voluntary social security net and community service for criminals etc."
Thats guff and I have already answered it on another thread. The Bible gives detailed instructions on what to do with slaves and especially females as war booty ie., let them mourn for a month shave their heads them them-that is some social security net.
And follow the links...
and briefly about all this gay stuff, do you not think that you and other Christains efforts would be better used fighting real evil in the world rather than getting uptight about men kissing and do you believe that you should put homosexuals to death?
DD
A fair point I picked you up wrong on the history quote.
I havent read but think I understand Gibbons view on Christianity ie that the roman empire morphed into a church.
It was not a good thing in my view.
You cant just sweep away Encyclopaedia Britannica when it says the vast majority of psychologists found homosexulity to be a problem.
And the American Psychological Association case was THE landmark case in this field; the group was targetted as a trojan horse into the field; it changed its position through lobbying and intimidation; not new research.
This then initiated a domino effect among other groups.
I think the passages you are referring to about taking wives in war explicitly say they must not be kept as slaves. I will be corrected.
I havent looked at this area as yet.
I'm not twisting bible verses; nobody as shown me to be wrong on anything in this regard yet. check it out.
each attempt has been clearly refuted for anyone who wants to look.
ref monogamy, HM Govt estimated less than 2.5 per cent of the gay population would be interested in civil partnerships.
If you guys are entitled to discuss homosexuality at length then why shouldnt I be?
The Nigeria position is close to a mirror imgae of the UK where people are beginning to be harrased by the police for expressing reservations about homosexuality on religious grouds.
It appears to want to push me into a nasty piegoenhole by forcing one word answers from me but I dont have any.
I guess I would be easier to hate that way.
In an ideal world a theocracy would be nice but they dont work in the real world.
I'm happy to use my freedom of speech to argue my point in a democracy; that means I will accept the laws of a democracy, but express my views on what they should be.
Dave dv - I have made no attacks on individuals at all. It is no different to the constant attacks on Christianity on this blog, its a debate.
PB
when I say the Nigeria position, I am not endorsing the stoning of gays there, which is in Muslim areas.
I was talking about the proposals by the bishop.
A similar but reverse position was this;-
PB
DD
ref post 29
The bible does give detailed regaultions on what to do with slaves but it still forbade kidnapping people to turn them into slaves.
PB
PB
Except if they were citizens of other nations.
Do you agree with Leviticus 20:13:?
Anyone wanting to know more about slavery and the Bible and want a balanced look I would suggest
And follow the relevant links
Cheers]
DD
TSH+ is correct, bp. You are fighting a losing battle trying to say that the Bible does not sanction slavery. There are reputedly about 800 biblical references approving it, thus enabling Augustine to persuade the Christian Church that slavery is God鈥檚 will (City of God, Book XIX, ch. 15). He boasted that Christianity did not make slaves free but made good slaves out of bad ones. The point is that from then until the 19th century Christianity sanctioned slavery and thousands of Christians were slave owners. Yet some people laud Christianity to the skies for finally admitting it was wrong and ending what it shouldn鈥檛 have started in the first place. It鈥檚 a bit like Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams spending 30 years endorsing violence or bigotry and thereby generating tribal hatred and then, having acquired power in the society, claiming credit for making a deal to paper over the wreckage they created.
As for homosexuality, yes, it is true that the Bible never even hints at accepting it. So what? Nor does it accept adultery (all adulterers and adulteresses should be put to death - Leviticus 20:10). Or witches (鈥渢hou shalt not suffer a witch to live鈥 聽鈥 Exodus 22:18). Or shaving and cutting your hair short (鈥淵e shall not round the corners of your head, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard" 聽鈥 Leviticus 19:27). Do you have a beard, bp? School principals are definitely beyond redemption, according to Leviticus. But is all this not a very good reason why we should not take the Bible as a moral guide to life in the 21st century? Gee Dubya is correct: homophobia is sanctioned by an intolerant and oppressive religious ideology, just as slavery was for 1500 years
DD
It must be noted your hyperlink is set up by a group including Wiccan Witches and athiests, so there is no sympathy for the bible there, ie an agenda to discredit the bible.
Anyone with an open mind, put "servant" into this bible search engine and browse the primary evidence, which is the bible.
There is lots of spin on the subject, but read it for yourself.
PB
"It must be noted your hyperlink is set up by a group including Wiccan Witches and athiests, so there is no sympathy for the bible there,"
As I said before it is balanced and their is a Christian there, why not have a look and make your own mind up? It certainly is not a rabid atheist site.
"Anyone with an open mind, put "servant" into this bible search engine and browse the primary evidence, which is the bible."
Hardly what you would call balanced.
"There is lots of spin on the subject, but read it for yourself."
Couldn't agree more! try and get different viewpoints.
Guys- I don't mean to be intrusive, but I've been here with PB before. He will argue dogmatically against pure fact and then, when backed into a corner, will say that he's just learning about this stuff and not to beat him over the head with it. I've honestly arrived at so many brick walls in my discussions with PB - including ones on this very point - that I have concluded it is entirely futile to continue. I just want to give you guys fair warning: I wouldn't expect any rational results out of a conversation with PB on the issue of homosexuality. For whatever reason, he's made up his mind regardless of the facts. Homosexuality is a great evil to be opposed and nothing will make him think otherwise.
DD
I say by all means read your site, but the people putting it together will agressively reject the bible as the divinely inspired word of God; athiests and witches are Christians you say???
You the subjective reading of the subject they have give will be biased in that direction.
For any serious investitigation you need to focus first on the primary evidence, in this case the bible.
You will note that every servant that crosses Christ's path in the gospels is in fact a slave, going by the greek word used.
But you would never guess they were slaves because they are treated with human dignity. You would assume they really were servants.
This is key to understanding how the laws we have both looked at were put into practise in the culture.
Just because the law allowed slaves to be beaten is not the same thing as saying that it called for them all to be beaten to death at reckless random, which seems the burden of your argument.
The verse most often quoted that owners may beat their slaves and face no penalty if they survive several days gives the justification that the slave is the owners property.
my understanding of this, in the context of the gospels picture, is that ownners generally paid a lot of money for a slave and would be mad to destroy their own property.
Perhaps, just perhaps the rationale is that if the owner sets out to kill a slave he is likely to do it on the spot and therefore must pay the penalty. IVP New Bible Dictionary says the penalty is doubtless death, I dont have the bible ref here right now.
However if the slave dies days later it is more likely he did not intend to kill his slave but did it accidentally; so he has destroyed his own property.
I think that is legally a very logical interpretation of what this law was aiming to do.
But let's be honest, I have without fail seen off arrows from a veritable army of archers on this topic over the past few days; EVERY single arrow deflected and broken!!!
What you are doing now is just misquoting the verses and bringing in more and more scriptures and questioning them; if I gave you an answer to every passage in the bible you would just start all over a again because you totally reject it as the word of God.
Let's be honest about that DD.
;-)
PB
yes the bible sanctioned biblical slavery, but it forbids the kidnapping and sale of men as happened in Africa.
Exodus 21 is but one passage which makes this crystal clear. it calls this practise "evil".
In the OT law people sold themselves as slaves for economic security, or they were made slaves in order to repay debts or for stealing, or as POWS etc.
Read about all the servants in the gospels (the greek word means slaves) and see how they were actually really treated.
There is no comparison to the African slave trade, even though in both cases both were property; in ancient Israel they were treated as real people, not animals; read the gospels for yourselves and see.
PB
John Wright fyi
you are being a shade economical with the truth there.
any objective observer will see I have been labouring to show you passages on the bible on slavery that few people are aware of.
these have been all slapped down by people here who doubtless reject it as the word of god and want to reject it.
not one person has been able to discredit the acutal passages I have shown you.
So to say I am arguing against "pure fact" is just quite amusing.
anyway...
cu
PB
quote PB - breaking news!!
'biblical slavery' fudge?
So what else in the bible can we reject?
go on! - go on! - you know there's more!! - biblical homophobia? - biblical ethnic cleansing? - biblical myths?
Alan
You can reject the entire bible.
You can reject the Love of God.
You can reject the sacrifice made for you on the cross.
You can reject the living risen Jesus Christ.
You can reject real peace with God here and now, knowing all the wrongs of your life are wiped clean and your conscience is clear for the next world.
You can reject the hand of eternal life.
You can reject it all.
I dont know if I have been a bad witness here on these pages; I hope not. I am sure I could have always shown more grace and humility and patience.
But please just think again sometime. please.
PB
I'll tell you what I reject shall I?
I reject inequality; without caveat, without exception, without a second thought.
You do not.
He's off to see if there's anything in the bible worth keeping.
You've been a very good witness PB - don't beat yourself up about it - relax and chill out.
GW, DD
I have been crossexamined by you both for a few days, you have had your fun, I am turning the tables;-
As you have studied Psychology and Ancient History in University can you answer two questions;
1) The U-turn by the American Psychiatric Association (ASA) in the 1970s on homosexuality was a landmark
case that saw the begining of a sea change in the profession on the subject; was the change based on new research (citations please!) or political activism? Which should it have been?
2) Historians Plutarch and Gibbons both saw widespread sexual libertinism as a symptom of a society in steep decline;
In what time and place of history was homosexuality socially accepted by any advanced civilisation that was not
approaching sociological meltdown?
pb
A BIBLE STUDY ON SLAVERY (non-exhaustive);-
Sources of slaves allowed under Old Testament law;-
1) Children of owned slaves, Gen15
2) Thieves who could not make restitution Exodus 22:3
3) Defaulters on debts 2 Kings 4:1
4) Self-sale out of poverty Lev 25: 39-43, 47
5) POWs 2 Sam 21:31, 1Kings9
6) Purchasing people from other nations Lev 25
Kidnapping a man and selling him as a slave brought the death penalty
whether he was hebrew or any other nationality Ex21:16, Deut 24:7
Commercial slave trading is condemned by Paul in 1 Tim 1:10 and by John in Rev 18:13
Hebrew slaves were to be freed after six year and financed
for a new start Exodus 21:2-6, Deut 15:12-18 but this was not the right of non-hebrew slaves.
Non-hebrew slaves were included in all community festivals and celebrations
Ex12, Deut16, and also had the Sabbath rest every week Ex20:10
Relationship between master and slave could be of trust Gen24,39:1-6
Affection Deut 25:16
But discipline could be harsh even fatal Ex21:21*
Though to kill a slave outright carried a penalty Ex21.20
Doubtless death Lev 24:17,22
* Note Ex21:21 appears to make a distinction between penalties for murder and manslaughter; the law explicitly
recognises that the financial value of a slave to his owner mitigates against the motive to kill him.
Women taken in war as wives were not slaves Deut 21.
IVP New Bible Dictionary notes in Palestine in the parables of Jesus slaves were employed in administrative positions,
the labour being recruited on a casual basis. It adds that in domestic slavery they were purchased as an index of wealth.
Where only one or two were owned they worked beside their masters at the same occupations.
Surprisingly, all "servants" mentioned in the gospels are actually slaves, according to the greek.
Jesus used the master slave relationship to illustrate his relationship to his disciples Matt 10:24 and John 13:16
He embarrased them by taking on the slave role John 13
Paul taught slaves were equal to free men in the church Gal3:28 which was "perceived as dangerous to the social and economic
stability of Rome": Dr H Halley's Bible Handbook.
Paul also said slaves were to take their freedom if offered 1 Cor 7:21
In Paul's letter to Philemon, an open letter to the church, he wrote to the slave owner describing the slave as "my son"
and "my own heart" and appealed for him to take the slave back on several conditions. He was to be;-
1) "No longer as a slave"
2) "but more than a slave"
3) "a beloved brother"
4) "both in the flesh" [spiritually]
5) "and in the Lord" [physically]r
6) The slave was to be received as the owner "would receive me [Paul]"
The letter of Philemon is the only book in the bible on slavery and the only subject in the book is slavery.
It is only one chapter long.
It was widely published as a stand alone booklet in the US to campaign for an end to slavery.
Paul did not have the freedom or power to have slavery outlawed in the Roman Empire. To have openly called for it
would likely have been seen as attempting to instigate a slave revolt, about which the Graeco Roman world was eternally
paranoid. Even Christ was very careful how he answered the trap question about whether to pay taxes to Rome or not because
the Pharisees wanted to bring the wrath of Rome down on him.
But some scholars see Paul's approach of creating equality in the church and circulating the letter of Philemon as pressing
forward as much as he could and sowing the seed for changes.
-FIN-
GW, DD
I have been crossexamined by you both for a few days, you have had your fun, I am turning the tables;-
As you have studied Psychology and Ancient History in University can you answer two questions;
1) The U-turn by the American Psychiatric Association (ASA) in the 1970s on homosexuality was a landmark
case that saw the begining of a sea change in the profession on the subject; was the change based on new research (citations please!) or political activism? Which should it have been?
2) Historians Plutarch and Gibbons both saw widespread sexual libertinism as a symptom of a society in steep decline;
In what time and place of history was homosexuality socially accepted by any advanced civilisation that was not
approaching sociological meltdown?
pb
A BIBLE STUDY ON SLAVERY (non-exhaustive);-
Sources of slaves allowed under Old Testament law;-
1) Children of owned slaves, Gen15
2) Thieves who could not make restitution Exodus 22:3
3) Defaulters on debts 2 Kings 4:1
4) Self-sale out of poverty Lev 25: 39-43, 47
5) POWs 2 Sam 21:31, 1Kings9
6) Purchasing people from other nations Lev 25
Kidnapping a man and selling him as a slave brought the death penalty
whether he was hebrew or any other nationality Ex21:16, Deut 24:7
Commercial slave trading is condemned by Paul in 1 Tim 1:10 and by John in Rev 18:13
Hebrew slaves were to be freed after six year and financed
for a new start Exodus 21:2-6, Deut 15:12-18 but this was not the right of non-hebrew slaves.
Non-hebrew slaves were included in all community festivals and celebrations
Ex12, Deut16, and also had the Sabbath rest every week Ex20:10
Relationship between master and slave could be of trust Gen24,39:1-6
Affection Deut 25:16
But discipline could be harsh even fatal Ex21:21*
Though to kill a slave outright carried a penalty Ex21.20
Doubtless death Lev 24:17,22
* Note Ex21:21 appears to make a distinction between penalties for murder and manslaughter; the law explicitly
recognises that the financial value of a slave to his owner mitigates against the motive to kill him.
Women taken in war as wives were not slaves Deut 21.
IVP New Bible Dictionary notes in Palestine in the parables of Jesus slaves were employed in administrative positions,
the labour being recruited on a casual basis. It adds that in domestic slavery they were purchased as an index of wealth.
Where only one or two were owned they worked beside their masters at the same occupations.
Surprisingly, all "servants" mentioned in the gospels are actually slaves, according to the greek.
Jesus used the master slave relationship to illustrate his relationship to his disciples Matt 10:24 and John 13:16
He embarrased them by taking on the slave role John 13
Paul taught slaves were equal to free men in the church Gal3:28 which was "perceived as dangerous to the social and economic
stability of Rome": Dr H Halley's Bible Handbook.
Paul also said slaves were to take their freedom if offered 1 Cor 7:21
In Paul's letter to Philemon, an open letter to the church, he wrote to the slave owner describing the slave as "my son"
and "my own heart" and appealed for him to take the slave back on several conditions. He was to be;-
1) "No longer as a slave"
2) "but more than a slave"
3) "a beloved brother"
4) "both in the flesh" [spiritually]
5) "and in the Lord" [physically]r
6) The slave was to be received as the owner "would receive me [Paul]"
The letter of Philemon is the only book in the bible on slavery and the only subject in the book is slavery.
It is only one chapter long.
It was widely published as a stand alone booklet in the US to campaign for an end to slavery.
Paul did not have the freedom or power to have slavery outlawed in the Roman Empire. To have openly called for it
would likely have been seen as attempting to instigate a slave revolt, about which the Graeco Roman world was eternally
paranoid. Even Christ was very careful how he answered the trap question about whether to pay taxes to Rome or not because
the Pharisees wanted to bring the wrath of Rome down on him.
But some scholars see Paul's approach of creating equality in the church and circulating the letter of Philemon as pressing
forward as much as he could and sowing the seed for changes.
-FIN-
PB,
classification of homosexuality as a disorder was largely based on late 19th early 20th century psychology - notably Freud - whose work shows a profound disregard for EMPIRICAL (thats evidence to you) SUPPORT.
This work has been superceded. How like you to take a position based on old or incomplete science.
E Hooker in her paper Adjustment of th Overt Male Homosexual as early as 1957 showed that homosexual were no different in their Psychology than the general populace. This studies were replicated by a number of other researchers and this work was the catalyst for the process of declassification of homosexuality.
Hooker also replicated these results with a Lesbian subject group.
I would refer you to Gonsoriek, 1982 who conducted a review of studies comparing Psych profiles of homo- and hetero-sexual sample groups and concluded "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality". You could also look up Kee, 1978; Riess, 1980).
To say the American Psychiatric Society declassified due to political pressure is simply not true. Yes there was a vociferous campaign - but any community subject to inequality can be expected to campaign for redress.
You are talking rubbish PB.
As regards the Bible - I have no interest in it. But I will say this - one cannot abhor slavery and support other forms of inequality without the occasional accusation of hypocrisy. I make just that accusation.
FIN.
PB,
classification of homosexuality as a disorder was largely based on late 19th early 20th century psychology - notably Freud - whose work shows a profound disregard for EMPIRICAL (thats evidence to you) SUPPORT.
This work has been superceded. How like you to take a position based on old or incomplete science.
E Hooker in her paper Adjustment of th Overt Male Homosexual as early as 1957 showed that homosexual were no different in their Psychology than the general populace. This studies were replicated by a number of other researchers and this work was the catalyst for the process of declassification of homosexuality.
Hooker also replicated these results with a Lesbian subject group.
I would refer you to Gonsoriek, 1982 who conducted a review of studies comparing Psych profiles of homo- and hetero-sexual sample groups and concluded "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality". You could also look up Kee, 1978; Riess, 1980).
To say the American Psychiatric Society declassified due to political pressure is simply not true. Yes there was a vociferous campaign - but any community subject to inequality can be expected to campaign for redress.
You are talking rubbish PB.
As regards the Bible - I have no interest in it. But I will say this - one cannot abhor slavery and support other forms of inequality without the occasional accusation of hypocrisy. I make just that accusation.
FIN.
PB,
classification of homosexuality as a disorder was largely based on late 19th early 20th century psychology - notably Freud - whose work shows a profound disregard for EMPIRICAL (thats evidence to you) SUPPORT.
This work has been superceded. How like you to take a position based on old or incomplete science.
E Hooker in her paper Adjustment of th Overt Male Homosexual as early as 1957 showed that homosexual were no different in their Psychology than the general populace. This studies were replicated by a number of other researchers and this work was the catalyst for the process of declassification of homosexuality.
Hooker also replicated these results with a Lesbian subject group.
I would refer you to Gonsoriek, 1982 who conducted a review of studies comparing Psych profiles of homo- and hetero-sexual sample groups and concluded "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality". You could also look up Kee, 1978; Riess, 1980).
To say the American Psychiatric Society declassified due to political pressure is simply not true. Yes there was a vociferous campaign - but any community subject to inequality can be expected to campaign for redress.
You are talking rubbish PB.
As regards the Bible - I have no interest in it. But I will say this - one cannot abhor slavery and support other forms of inequality without the occasional accusation of hypocrisy. I make just that accusation.
FIN.
PB
Do you agree with Leviticus 20:13:?
"I say by all means read your site, but the people putting it together will agressively reject the bible as the divinely inspired word of God; athiests and witches are Christians you say???"
Again you mis-represent what I said, I said that it was a balanced site in that it gives different viewpoints includiing conservative Christainity.
"But let's be honest, I have without fail seen off arrows from a veritable army of archers on this topic over the past few days; EVERY single arrow deflected and broken!!!"
No you haven't, what you have done is ignore any view which differs from your own which is not the same thing.
"What you are doing now is just misquoting the verses and bringing in more and more scriptures and questioning them; if I gave you an answer to every passage in the bible you would just start all over a again because you totally reject it as the word of God."
Well the same could be said of you! and a nice piece of circular reasoning re: I must accept the bible as the word of your god.
Indeed why not check out what other people who say they accept the Bible as the word of your god have to say like Christain Reconstructuralists, Christian Identity and the KKK...
"2) Historians Plutarch and Gibbons both saw widespread sexual libertinism as a symptom of a society in steep decline;
In what time and place of history was homosexuality socially accepted by any advanced civilisation that was not
approaching sociological meltdown?"
I have already stated my opinion on Plutarch who incidentally wrote at the period when the Roman Empire was at its greatest(The Aurelian Emperors)known as the golden period and which included Hadrian who was one of the greats and also gay. Gibbons ironically saw Christainity as being a greater factor in the decline of the Roman Empire.
Re: the second part of your question. ...our own and bt any enligthened person.
Re: the Bible and slavery see
OT
also
and NT
And John Wright is spot on in his assessment in trying to debate as I have discovered.
GW, DD
now the true colours are showing.
both of you claim to be university educated in ancient history and psycholgy and both of you have sidestepped the questions I posed you on your specialist subjects in post 47.
Read the questions again please. It hink it is only manners, how many of yours have I answered.
As I said you guys have been cross-examining me relentlessly for days on slavery in the bible.
Now it is your turn. Can you give direct answers to the questions in your chosen areas?
If not why are you avoiding them?
PB
PS Do I agree with Leviticus 20:13?
Should people be executed for homosexual sex? My reaction is no.
"Historians Plutarch and Gibbons both saw widespread sexual libertinism as a symptom of a society in steep decline;
In what time and place of history was homosexuality socially accepted by any advanced civilisation that was not
approaching sociological meltdown"
Our own, the Western world.
No Empire fell solely because of "sexual libertinism".
"Should people be executed for homosexual sex? My reaction is no."
So the Bible does get it wrong-occasionaly...
DD
It appears you assume that the nations Israel were attacking were like civilsed modern western european nation states.
Lets not dance around the matter; it is there in black and white that God had judged these nations as evil and he was using Israel to wipe them out in judgement, even though he was royally cheesed off with Israel too.
The bible says the national religion of the states concerned routinely involved;-
-burning their babies to death as a sacrifice to devils
-communing with devils
-trying to contact the dead
-sex with any and all your next of kin
-sex with animals
-anyone sleeps with anyone else's spouse
etc etc
Leviticus 18
Deut 9
Deut 18
Your assumptions about human rights are actually based on a judeo-christian worldview which was not shared by these nations.
You didnt just magic up your own view of morality, you have derived it from judeo Christian sources, if you follow the trail back.
Children and women were also often killed in war because otherwise they would have grown into another generation of warriors bent on destroying Israel and living evil lives.
Deut 9
4"(A)Do not say in your heart when the LORD your God has driven them out before you, 'Because of my righteousness the LORD has brought me in to possess this land,' but it is (B)because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is dispossessing them before you.
5"It is (C)not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm (D)the oath which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
6"Know, then, it is not because of your righteousness that the LORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are (E)a stubborn people."
Lev 18 and Deut 18 list in detail the sexual and witchcraft perversions that these nations practised.
They were trying to wipe out Israel all the time, that was God's response.
You ask, why didnt God just click his fingers and make everyone good?
Not many people want to be made good, Christ said. He said few would enter into heaven and most would go down the broad path to destruction.
Adam rebelled against God and passed that nature onto us all. A rhetorical question, how often do you go to God and ask his forgiveness for wrong things you have done and his help not to do them again?
If God could have clicked his fingers to make us good then Christ would not have needed to die. God wants friends, not robots and we must choose to love him of their own free will or else you are not really a friend.
The crucifixation was God's media campaign to the world: "I love you this much" and he stretched out his arms wide and died.
In effect, this was God clicking his fingers as if by magic to make us good. Have you believed it?
You criticise Israel's conduct but it was mostly a fair and safe place and everyone knew where they stood.
Yet you defend the nations that sacrificed their own children to their God. Stop and think about that.
Israel was to be the model of good conduct to the nations, it was deliberately positioned at the cross-roads of the world so other nations could marvel.
God judged the other nations would not change at that time and it was better to destroy them rather than let them continue sacrificing their babies and having sex with animals and trying to destroy Israel.
If he had allowed the women and children etc of the condemned nations to live they would have continued to sacrificed more babies to Moloch etc and have sex with animals and trying to destroy his light to the nations, Israel.
Moloch was part of Baal worship which plagued Israel and is basically the pagan religion which transported in various forms all over the world, involving human sacrifice.
At that time, Israel was to be God's light out of that darkness; there was no magic internation human rights commission to protect all those unborn children from being burnt alive.
Israel was God's light and justice, in spite of all their failings Deut 9, above.
Personally, I am not going to question God's call.
PB
DD
okay you pressed me for a yes/no answer on Lev 21 and I gave you one.
Your response was entirely predictable, because the assumption you carry through everything here is that the "bible does get it wrong".
Had I answered yes I would have been a rabid homophobe.
Heads you win tails I lose.
Actually i have answered your predictable reaction numerous times.
No, the bible does not get it wrong.
once again...
I dont believe in theocracies because I dont think they have a good track record.
I am happy to live in a democracy and excercise freedom of speech on such matters.
The church is the kingdom of God and has no authority to put anyone to death. That is the right/responsibility of the political system in which its members live, whatever that may be.
The OT law was civil law for the theocratic state of Israel, which no longer exists in that political form.
I do think that severe punishments for extra-marital sex, murder, child abuse and sexual perversion would be helpful for any democracy to an extent. think of the suffering caused by abortions, conjugal betrayals, fatherless children etc.
But it is a total moot point if the society does not think that way because they will not allow such laws; the character and conscience of a society are therefore more key; that is where the church comes in its prophetic role.
Still holding out on a proper answer to my question on your chosen subject in post 47?
PB
I have already answered this...
but
"Children and women were also often killed in war because otherwise they would have grown into another generation of warriors bent on destroying Israel and living evil lives."
That is a disgusting comment and if you fail to see what is wrong with it, then I pity you.
"You ask, why didnt God just click his fingers and make everyone good?"
Would have been a damn sight simpler than killing people.
"A rhetorical question, how often do you go to God and ask his forgiveness for wrong things you have done and his help not to do them again?"
never, because I do not believe in your genocidal god nor for that matter the rest of them. Indeed your posts remind me why I don't-cheers!
"Yet you defend the nations that sacrificed their own children to their God. Stop and think about that."
No I am questioning your justification for the massacre of children.
"Israel was to be the model of good conduct to the nations, it was deliberately positioned at the cross-roads of the world so other nations could marvel."
No it was actually a supertious backward theoacracy.
"If he had allowed the women and children etc of the condemned nations to live they would have continued to sacrificed more babies to Moloch etc and have sex with animals and trying to destroy his light to the nations, Israel."
Another disgusting comment which incidentally contradicts Deut. 24:16, again if you cannot see what is so wrong with what you wrote then I do pity you.
Sometimes I agree with R Dawkins and sometimes not but in regards to you he has hit the nail on the head.
Well PB, you yourself said that every word in the Bible is true, the only response that I can get from your reply is that some parts are more true than others and on this point it goes beyond the pail even for you(the person who justifies the slaughter of children). So on this point you disagree with your god abd Bible-what other parts of the Bible do you disagree with?
I thought all these laws were eternal? and if these laws only apply to bronze age primitive theocracies-which is basically the OT then stop quoting them.
I answrered your question.
I have answered the question on the scientific reasons for the declassification of homosexuality.
As I said in 48, the body of scientific researh in question started with Evelyn Hooker published 1957. Over the next 15 or so years other researchers were able to replicate, corroborate, and add to this research and this work culminated in Freedman's publication 1971. These are the Citations you requested, so what are you blathering about?
Homosexuality was delisted from the register of mental disorders in 1973 due to the weight of empirical evidence.
What part of 47 that was aimed at me have I sidestepped?
I gave you a direct answer to the section of 47 I felt was addressed to me.
Declassification of homosexuality was as a result of weight of eveidence - studies bracketed in time by Hooker 1957 and Freedman 1971.
I have specifically answered your question.
There is no correlation between disorder and homosexuality. There is evidence to for this. I have shown it to you.
What is your point?
DD
I will let the readers make their own judgements based on your last few posts.
But you have studiously avoided my history question, in post 47, just for the record.
As you can see, Will has just put a new thread on which agrees with my bible study in post 47, on slavery above almost to the word.
It will be very interesting to see what direction GW and yourself jump now.
PB
I would like a response to either 58 or 59 please.
DD is the History buff, and I am the Psych grad.
Question 1 of post 47 was clearly addressed to me. I have answered it.
The shibboleth thread is irrelevant to me as I have no interest in the bible's stance on slavery.
I have shown there was scientific evidence for the decalssifiaction of homosexulaity as a disorder. Evidence you denied even existed.
WHAT SAY YOU, BIGOT?
The only one sidestepping stuff here is you PB.
Since the beginning of this thread I have said one cannot rail against the inequality of slavery and uphold inequality in civil rights simultaneously. You refuse to address this hypocrisy.
After 60 or more posts - will you concede the untenable duality of your position please?
I am sure readers will make up their own minds.
I answered your questions in M 52 and 54 . I think the problem is that I have not given the answer that yuou wanted me to give.
History question - answer should have been in times and places according to the question.
Psychaitry question - should have been specifically about what APA based its decisions on. You need to be able to link any psychaitric citations to the APA at that time and place. All accounts I have read show it was a political decision that it was not qualified to take; it was only a trade guild and not qualified to make such calls.
ref the slavery and homosexuality "hypocrisy", I have not been trying to address it; I have simply been pointing out what the bible says about both. Your quarrel is with God who wrote it.
PB
fao Dylan Dog
Is the bible right to regulate taking POW wives?
First of all let me state a few biblical assumptions;
1) God considered Israel wicked, but had promised to fulfill his purposes through her and was constantly battling her wicked human nature so she did not embarrass him
in front of the surrounding pagan nations.
2) The nations surrounding Israel were even more wicked; their national religion (Baal worship) involved child sacrifices, incest, bestiality, necromancy, devil worship etc etc
God forged the nation of Israel out of nothing, out of one man. Israel was only too aware of the heathen practises going on around it and was constantly fighting against God
to adopt such practises. A few examples were being ruled by a King instead of God and polygamy, both of which God opposed, but tolerated.
Throughout the history of Israel they were being seduced by Baal worship, even drawn into sacrificing their children etc and being judged and punished by God for it.
My understanding is that slavery was another heathen practise Israel were engaged in but that God regulated it. He gave slaves in Israel human rights and recognised them as human beings, where they were not in surrounding nations. Howbeit, God always intended to wean his people away from the practise, as was done by the end of the New Testament; evidenced by Letter to Philemon, and early church fathers; Also read Shibboleth's essay on slavery posted by Will Crawley on this blog.
Now in Deut 21 we see that God also gave regulations for how to take a wife in battle. Did God order it be done? no! It seems clear it was regulating another existing heathen practise. I would understand that rape and pillage would have been common practise by heathens in war; but did God expect more from the Israelites, who would doubtless have been aware of such customs and tempted to engage in them? The answer is yes, God did expect more from his people.
From the law in Deut 21, we can deduce what was normal heathen practise; POW women could be raped on the battlefield and sold as slaves.
But what did God demand?
If a Jewish soldier desired a POW as a wife, he was to take her into his home and dress her well. She was to shave her hair and pare her nails and let her mourn her parents for a month. Respected commentator Matthew Henry says God's regulations of a month cooling down ensured enraged lust did not govern matters on the battlefield.
He says that her hair and nails were cut to remove much of her beauty and to ensure her prospective husband was not blinded by lust for her. He notes that it is implicit that being in the Jew's house for a month she would be required to worship Jehovah or he could not marry her, as it would be an unequal yoke.
Then if she worshipped God, after a month he could "go in to her" and be her husband. But what about consent? It should be noted that arranged marriage was the norm in this society, though there were exceptions. So generally, the personal consent of a women was not necessarily normal for her to be betrothed in this culture.
Was this fair? Not by our modern standards but doubtless it was working towards improvements. Matthew Henry notes that the New Testament forbade heart-lust, where the Old Testament only forbade actual adultery. So he rightly points out the New testament gospel in much superior to the Old Testament laws in this regard, ref POW wives. While in heathen cultures women were ( are still! ) treated like second class citizens, this would have been at least partially the practise in Israel because of heathen influence, but not by God's design. In Eden men and women were equal, though different. In the New Testament Christ was very countercultural in treating women as equal human beings and Paul also noted their equality with man. So as with slavery, the change in perspective in how women were treated from OT to NT is quite stark and part of God's plan.
Lastly, if the POW wife did not please the soldier he was to make her a free woman and was forbidden from selling her as a slave, which was doubtless normal heathen practise.
The Old Testament law was for the state of Israel, not for the church. While some overlap IS stated explicitly in the New Testament, Romans, Galations and Hebrews make it clear that Christians all over the world are NOT required to observe Jewish law eg animal sacrifices, circumcision and dietry laws are cited as three examples of things not required of Christians.
As with slavery, I would suggest it is malicious to assume that it was normal practise in Jewish culture to exploit and abuse the law. While slave owners were allowed to beat their slaves it is unfair to imply that slave owners were wicked people who habitually enjoyed beating slaves all day and every day; slaves were expensive and it would hardly have made sense to treat them thus. All the dignified and respected "servants" Christ met and spoke of in the NT were actually slaves, so it was clearly not the culture to habitually abuse slaves as animals in Israel; quite the opposite in fact.
By the same token, while a cynic could say the POW wives regulations might appear open to exploitation, I cannot see anywhere that suggests this would have been a normal part of Jewish culture. If you can find evidence for this then make your case by all means, but to prosecute such a case on pure assumption declares extreme prejudice and undermines your argument and credibility.
Doubtless you will still not be satisifed with this commentary.
But as with slavery, God's regulations of what was common practise in the region at the time gave serious protections to both slaves and POW wives that would have doubtless far exceeded normal practise in surrounding nations. God was working towards evident improvements in both matters by the end of the New Testament; sexual equality and freedom for slaves.
Judging these issues at this time by your 21st century values is a bit misleading and unfair; because you have at least partly imbued your standards from the New Testament, however unconsciously, as it has had such influence on this legal and cultural foundations of the west. The impact of it upon our language and thinking now is almost inestimable.
If you had so many million semi-pagan people several thousand years BC and you were responsible for governing them how would you do it? They have no concept of 21st century human rights, they only see what all their heathen neighbours are doing; full-on slavery where the subjects are not considered human; where women are considered second class citizens; where child sacrifice, incest, bestiality, necromancy and idol worship and normal everyday practise.
How do you think you would guide and develop the character of such a nation in the midst of this without removing their human rights, ie their freedom of thought, freedom of expression, their free will? Because the whole point of God creating man was to give him free will so he could choose to accept or reject God as his friend.
Lastly, the crux of this whole argument for many is homosexuality; can the biblical view on it really matter today? My response is that the same New Testament books which speak of equality for women and dignity, equality and, later, freedom for slaves also explicitly forbid homosexuality without qualification.
The entire context of marriage from Genesis to Revelation is heterosexual and homosexuality is never mentioned but in a negative context again from Gensesis to Revelation. There is no qualification or wavering in the text. I have never seen a serious argument to justify homosexuality from the bible and I have spent some time looking.
But I believe that meeting the living Christ and sustained discipleship with him offers us new life and freedom from our all sins, myself included.
ENDS