Originally posted by sonship
You kind of switched subjects on me.

I wanted the bible contradicting itself - a sample.

I guess I did and while I can quote you a host of cotradictions, none bother me as much as the moral issues that are brushed aside. In Leviticus I can give you both a contradiction, a quote and a moral issue as you requested. However, it still changes the subject to some degree.

" However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"

Originally posted by RJHinds
“All right,” the Lord said. “You may bake your bread with cow dung instead of human dung.”

This god of yours is a big softie.

I cant stop myself imagining Michael Palin as Ezikiel and John Cleese as God.
😀

Originally posted by wolfgang59
This god of yours is a big softie.

I cant stop myself imagining Michael Palin as Ezikiel and John Cleese as God.
😀

This god of yours is a big softie.

Now if that's the position you want to take, don't turn around latter and quote people like Richard Dawkins on sadistic, dictator, tyrant, blankity-blank deity.

Are you sure you want to stick to the "softie" criticism ?
You may be tempted to change to the "meanie" criticism when the discussion is Noah, Sodom and Gamorrah, or the Canaanites.

Originally posted by sonship

This god of yours is a big softie.

Now if that's the position you want to take, don't turn around latter and quote people like Richard Dawkins on sadistic, dictator, tyrant, blankity-blank deity.

Are you sure you want to stick to the "softie" criticism ?
You may be tempted to change to the "meanie" criticism when the discussion is Noah, Sodom and Gamorrah, or the Canaanites.

You're not very smart are you?

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Ezikiel 4:12

"And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight."

More dung-eating

Kings 18:27
“But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and
to thee, to speak these words? Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on
the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?”

Originally posted by wolfgang59
You're not very smart are you?

You're not very smart are you?

I cant stop myself imagining Michael Palin as Ezikiel and John Cleese as God.

Astounding intelligence ! Dazzling mental powers !!

Who would dare argue with a guy who can't stop imagining Michael Palin as Ezikiel [sic] and John Cleese as God?

Mike Palin sounds like a relative to Sarah Palin US vice presidental candidate.
Who's John Cleese anyway?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
More dung-eating

Kings 18:27
“But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and
to thee, to speak these words? Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on
the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?”

There was no dung eating there. It was only a threat made by a representative of the King of Assyria to get the people of Judah to surrender without a fight. 😏

Originally posted by sonship
Mike Palin sounds like a relative to Sarah Palin US vice presidental candidate.
Who's John Cleese anyway?

You're not very smart are you?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
You're not very smart are you?

I am sure he would know him if he saw him. But many Americans can remember the names of our own actors. Knowing the names of Bristish actors does not make one smart. 😏

Originally posted by sonship
Mike Palin sounds like a relative to Sarah Palin US vice presidental (sic)candidate.

GSWILL sounds like a relative to jaywill

Originally posted by wolfgang59
You're not very smart are you?

This is the second time you asked this question.

How about you answer my first question first then I'll answer yours?

Do you want stick with a position that God is a "softie" and abandon the more popular criticism of new atheists that He is too mean ?

You answer me on that and I'll talk about how smart I think I am.
If you don't answer then I won't.

I guess I did and while I can quote you a host of cotradictions, none bother me as much as the moral issues that are brushed aside. In Leviticus I can give you both a contradiction, a quote and a moral issue as you requested. However, it still changes the subject to some degree.

I am not sure that I would agree with moral issues being "brushed aside" merely because they may be addressed elsewhere in Scripture from where you see some detail mentioned.

I always continue to read the entire revelation of the Bible realizing that sometimes important factors are not always found in one place.

" However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"

"However" opening verse 44 follows verse why the differentiation between treatment of the Israelites as opposed to the non-Israelite.

"For [they] are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God. As for your male and female slaves whom you may have - you may acquire ... from the pagan nations ..."

God is allowing the Israelites to purchase not kidnap, slaves. Kidnapping was a crime punishable by death (Exodus 21:16).

God says that the Hebrews are His servants all since the liberation from Egypt.
So the "However" involves the distinction. There is a difference established in the Isrealite servant / employee relationship and the foreign workers in Israel. Leviticus 25:42-49 does not regard the foreign worker as nothing more than property.

We should examine what precedes the text. There are other considerations as well.

These foreign workers cannot be compared to the kidnapped chattel slaves of the antebellum South. Stricter measures were required for resentful foreigners than for foreigners in Israel cooperating as aliens willing to follow Israel's laws and thereby assimilating with the threocratic nation.

Since only Israelites were allowed to own land (that is land which belonged ultimately to their God Yahweh) foreigners who weren't in Israel just for business purposes were incorporated into the Israelite homes to serve there. They could choose to live elsewhere. If they chose to live in the land and would not follow on to become Israelites following Mosiac law God wanted them as servant / employee workers for the Jews.

Strangers in the land could choose the option to be released and become persons of means. Poor foreigners wanting to live in Israel were limited to voluntary servitude as the only probable option.

"Now if the means of the stranger [ger] or of the sojourner [toshab] with you becomes sufficient ..." is provision for the foreigner who rises economically.

" ... and a countrymen [Israelite] of yours becomes so poor with regard to him as to sell himself to a stranger who is sojourning with you, or to the descendants of a stranger's family, then he shall have redemption right after he has been sold. One of his brothers may redeem him, or his uncle, or his uncle's sib, may redeem him, or one of his blood relatives from his family may redeem him; or if he propers, he may redeem himself." (See Lev. 25:42-49)

As to moral obligation, what did God command the Israelites concerning the stranger in the land?

Levititicus 19:33-34 commanded them to love such - "When a stranger [ger] resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God."

Can you imagine any law on an slave ship leaving Africa that the whites should love the slave as they love themselves ? We see a difference in the slavery of the laws of Moses and the antebellum slavery of the Southern US.

Other things need to be examined and considered. But these should not be overlooked.

Foreign settlers could not acquire the land in Israel. The land belonged to God (Lev. 25:23; Josh. 22:19) . God loaned it to the families of Israel.

An option for the foreigner (nokri) could be to become an alien (ger) if he embraced Israel's ways fully. Then he would no longer be a permanent outsider. Allowances were made for aliens in gleaning laws and other provisions.

Presumably these aliens was not forced to remain in Israel. Neither did they have to feel totally excluded from the host country. We can see from the lives of Rehab (from Jericho) and Ruth (the Moabitess) that emproved economic situation, status perks were theirs as well as right to sacred celebrations.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Rather than quote you a passage I will tell you that I find the casual manner in which the bible condones slavery and murder most at odds with the most fundamental concepts of Christianity.

One can hardly compare Deuteronomy and Leviticus to Christianity.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
GSWILL sounds like a relative to jaywill

"You're not very smart are you?"

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
I guess I did and while I can quote you a host of cotradictions, none bother me as much as the moral issues that are brushed aside. In Leviticus I can give you both a contradiction, a quote and a moral issue as you requested. However, it still changes the subject to some degree.

" However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the fore ...[text shortened]... e people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"

This has been hashed over time and again in this forum.

The Mosaic laws have never applied to Christians, especially gentiles.