Been getting this from a lot of atheists lately.

[T_Laurich]

So I have a question.
I have noticed a shift in the atheist's material... Where as before they would quote blindly from Ezekiel, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers... Trying to show how God is evil, cruel, and unjust. This was easily refutable...

For instance, When they would quote Deuteronomy 14:9-10
These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat: And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

This is easily refuted by showing them that the NT says we can eat any food.


But lately every time I begin to win an argument, or they cannot show my logic to be fallible, they pull this "slave card".

Exodus 21:20-21
If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

How do you defend yourself from this? How does the bible further explain this?

 

[Joidevivre]

I don't argue with unbelievers. When you discern a heart that is closed, just spend your time interceding for them.

 

[santuzza]

Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free.
And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also[b] is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.

Ephesians 6:5-9

 

[posthuman]

They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity --
for "people are slaves to whatever has mastered them."
(2 Peter 2:19)

they expect you to be aghast at the idea that slavery exists and treatment of slaves was governed by law thousands of years ago. they have a murky, skewed idea of morality that they think they can judge God with.
they don't understand that they are slaves themselves to their own lusts and passions. there are chains on their necks and feet that they don't even know exist.

we are all slaves. we are slaves either to sin or to Christ. if they respond "i am a slave to no one" -- inform them that they are slaves then to their own pride.
we become free only because we we serve a Master who can truly make us free, who adopts us as His own children.

But if the servant declares,
‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’
then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
(Exodus 21:5-6)

↑ here is the picture of the servant of Christ

 

[T_Laurich]

Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free.
And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also[b] is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.

Ephesians 6:5-9

Thank you, but lets pretend I am an atheist...
I would then say, yes but the NT is different from the OT, are you telling me that God took thousands of years to go "WAIT THAT WAS A BAD COMMANDMENT?"...

 

[T_Laurich]

They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity --
for "people are slaves to whatever has mastered them."
(2 Peter 2:19)

they expect you to be aghast at the idea that slavery exists and treatment of slaves was governed by law thousands of years ago. they have a murky, skewed idea of morality that they think they can judge God with.
they don't understand that they are slaves themselves to their own lusts and passions. there are chains on their necks and feet that they don't even know exist.

we are all slaves. we are slaves either to sin or to Christ. if they respond "i am a slave to no one" -- inform them that they are slaves then to their own pride.
we become free only because we we serve a Master who can truly make us free, who adopts us as His own children.

But if the servant declares,
‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’
then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
(Exodus 21:5-6)

↑ here is the picture of the servant of Christ

Again playing an atheist...

I would say "I might be a slave to my desires, but at least I can govern on what my master might be and is. The slave in question here is stuck with a psychopathic master who if he beats him will not be punished since I am his property, how could a just and loving God do this?"

 

[posthuman]

Thank you, but lets pretend I am an atheist...
I would then say, yes but the NT is different from the OT, are you telling me that God took thousands of years to go "WAIT THAT WAS A BAD COMMANDMENT?"...

have a look at Philemon. Paul sent an escaped slave back to his master. & Ephesians - the apostle didn't encourage slaves to run away from their masters. the commandment is not 'bad' but for our instruction. obviously it is better that we live as free men (though not really free, in reality) - and the Bible doesn't call bondage "good" just because laws existed to govern it. here in the USA we have laws about personal defense and if a man breaks into your home and threatens you, the law approves you attacking and even killing him to protect yourself and your family. does that mean that USA law approves of and encourages breaking and entering? or violence? no? then the fact that a law existed 4,000 years ago that punished a man who killed his own slave doesn't mean that the law encouraged slavery.

if we understand that we are slaves, and have masters, then looking at Exodus 21:20-21 ---
does the Master in heaven strike us His servants so that we die?
does the master of the world strike us unto death?

the wicked master won't go unpunished. and who would you rather serve?
slaves don't write the law. and we are all slaves, like it or not. a slave, even if he has a good cause, is subject to the law of his master -- and here is a noble Lord who has paid the price for you! won't you go with Him? why cling to your old wicked master?

 

[posthuman]

Again playing an atheist...

I would say "I might be a slave to my desires, but at least I can govern on what my master might be and is. The slave in question here is stuck with a psychopathic master who if he beats him will not be punished since I am his property, how could a just and loving God do this?"

(pretending you're an atheist )
what makes you think you can govern who your master is?
if you admit that you are a slave to your own desires, can you change your own desires?
if you're a slave to your own pride, how can you be free from it?
the god of this age is the psychopathic master who will beat you even until you are dead - but there is a Master in heaven, who even though he might punish us, does so as a Father who is teaching His children. this is a new thing! for the Jews, before Christ, they were not adopted as sons, like we can be now - but even so they served a good Master, not a wicked one. how much better is the gospel of Jesus Christ!
in Him we have freedom as sons! so i willingly become His servant.

 

[Word_Swordsman]

So I have a question.
I have noticed a shift in the atheist's material... Where as before they would quote blindly from Ezekiel, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers... Trying to show how God is evil, cruel, and unjust. This was easily refutable...

For instance, When they would quote Deuteronomy 14:9-10
These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat: And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

This is easily refuted by showing them that the NT says we can eat any food.


But lately every time I begin to win an argument, or they cannot show my logic to be fallible, they pull this "slave card".

Exodus 21:20-21
If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

How do you defend yourself from this? How does the bible further explain this?

Noah was told to eat whatever he wanted. That was the Noahic Covenant applicable to the entire world of descendants, well, all generations forever.

The Mosaic Covenant must be understood only to apply to the Hebrew tribes. The covenant God offered whether they accepted or not, served to mark that people group as distinct, chosen by God because of promise to Abraham. The accumulation of sin on earth required a huge Law of sin and death ministration. Nothing was deemed filthy food-wise since God approved all foods for Noah previously. However, some food categories were deemed not suitable for sacrifice, being too common and less desirable choices.

In the millennium of Moses there were unimaginable numbers of slaves usually resulting from wars. They were considered by world governments to be merchandise, especially if taken captive from an enemy nation. It didn't make sense to just turn them loose to return to fight. It was actually humane to take on a slave that otherwise would likely face starvation, or not be able to find home, his city burned down, family dead or taken captive. At least he would eat and have shelter, working for his lodging. Lots of Americans lived like that during the Great Depression, whole families taking very hard labor jobs (their children too) for bare sustenance.

Notice how the scoffers zero in on that one small passage of a long chapter about how to deal with slaves, and bondsmen. If a family fell into poverty they commonly "let out" a child to work to settle a family debt. Meanwhile that child might find a better provision while growing up. Hebrew bondsmen had to be let go after 6 years service, the debt cancelled no matter how large. The atheists don't want to discuss such facts, do they?

A lot of that chapter is common sense behavior, really quite fair especially knowing the history and cultures involved. All you need of those is contained in the scriptures, no outside reading necessary. But for many folks it all has to be spelled out just like laws are written in great detail for lawbreakers today. Read the whole chapter, then look at Ex 21:20-21. Tell them their challenge is moot unless they will examine the whole of it with you. If they decline, you are proper both scripturally and academically to ignore their challenge. True debates have excellent rules that prohibit attacks with partial facts. Short of that all you have is argument, which is almost always fruitless, always divisive.

 

[T_Laurich]

(pretending you're an atheist )
what makes you think you can govern who your master is?
if you admit that you are a slave to your own desires, can you change your own desires?
if you're a slave to your own pride, how can you be free from it?
the god of this age is the psychopathic master who will beat you even until you are dead - but there is a Master in heaven, who even though he might punish us, does so as a Father who is teaching His children. this is a new thing! for the Jews, before Christ, they were not adopted as sons, like we can be now - but even so they served a good Master, not a wicked one. how much better is the gospel of Jesus Christ!
in Him we have freedom as sons! so i willingly become His servant.

I can assure you I am not an atheist

But I would say, that as a human being I have control of my desires. For instance if I am hungry yet need to save money, I can subside my desire to eat lobster and instead eat some noodles and make my desire my finance. Vice versa, if I deem my hunger a better desire I can subside my desire for a financially secure life, and eat lobster. I have control over what I allow to govern me. In the same sense, pride only takes a hold of your life if you allow it or deem it worthy of a master. I am not suggesting it is easy to break certain chains. But, it can be done. However, it can become a juggling act.

Do you have a refute against the Exodus 21, through another OT quote... Or would you say that the best way to refute it would be to do it through a eternal slavery standpoint? I can see where you are going with your point, problem is it can become a rabbit trail in a discussion, hence my hindrance.

The best thing I have found was
The verses before in Exodus 21:18-19 say the same thing for non-slaves.
And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed: If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.

So this shows its not only for slaves but as a moralistic view/law... Do unto all the same because we are all humans.

Later in Exodus 21:26-27 it says that if a slave is hurt to a physical point that they will never recover... They shall be set free...
And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.
And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.


This gives an incentive to not even beat your slaves for fear of lost property.

 

[T_Laurich]

Noah was told to eat whatever he wanted. That was the Noahic Covenant applicable to the entire world of descendants, well, all generations forever.

The Mosaic Covenant must be understood only to apply to the Hebrew tribes. The covenant God offered whether they accepted or not, served to mark that people group as distinct, chosen by God because of promise to Abraham. The accumulation of sin on earth required a huge Law of sin and death ministration. Nothing was deemed filthy food-wise since God approved all foods for Noah previously. However, some food categories were deemed not suitable for sacrifice, being too common and less desirable choices.

In the millennium of Moses there were unimaginable numbers of slaves usually resulting from wars. They were considered by world governments to be merchandise, especially if taken captive from an enemy nation. It didn't make sense to just turn them loose to return to fight. It was actually humane to take on a slave that otherwise would likely face starvation, or not be able to find home, his city burned down, family dead or taken captive. At least he would eat and have shelter, working for his lodging. Lots of Americans lived like that during the Great Depression, whole families taking very hard labor jobs (their children too) for bare sustenance.

Notice how the scoffers zero in on that one small passage of a long chapter about how to deal with slaves, and bondsmen. If a family fell into poverty they commonly "let out" a child to work to settle a family debt. Meanwhile that child might find a better provision while growing up. Hebrew bondsmen had to be let go after 6 years service, the debt cancelled no matter how large. The atheists don't want to discuss such facts, do they?

A lot of that chapter is common sense behavior, really quite fair especially knowing the history and cultures involved. All you need of those is contained in the scriptures, no outside reading necessary. But for many folks it all has to be spelled out just like laws are written in great detail for lawbreakers today. Read the whole chapter, then look at Ex 21:20-21. Tell them their challenge is moot unless they will examine the whole of it with you. If they decline, you are proper both scripturally and academically to ignore their challenge. True debates have excellent rules that prohibit attacks with partial facts. Short of that all you have is argument, which is almost always fruitless, always divisive.

Can I have the scripture for the Mosiac law saying Moses can eat anything...

Also I like how you pointed out that they zero in on what fits their needs... Thank you.

 

[sassylady]

They are just not on the same page as a Christian and you could talk till you are blue in the face and never "win". I just would not bother with it. Just pray for them.

 

[Seifer5]

Read verse 20; that's clear the master of the house is punished if he were to kill a servant unjustified .


Exodus 21:21 "Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

If the death did not occur right away, then he will not be punished. This just doesn't make sense when you first read this verse,
because the point that this is directed to is that this servant was a slave to him. It is looking at the loss as being financial only.

The point, that has to enter into the judgment is the act of the servant. What was he doing at the time of being hit with the rod?
Was he attacking the master , or stealing from the master?

There is no set rule; dealing with master & slave, when it involves discipline. By law you must judge each and every act as it comes before the judge independently. Every case has it's own set of circumstances surrounding it, & each case is judged by itself.

 

[Deadtosin]

T_Laurich, I would say "The hebrews themselves had been slaves for generations. God gave them rules up to and including setting them free after 7 years with liberal flocks and goods. It's easy for you to decide what is right and wrong standing here in the 21st century, but you are referencing another time and place. God was morality and justice in an immoral world. teaching that if you had a slave that you should treat him with respect, care for him and then set him free. Do you believe that all laws are God's will? In that time people had slaves, yes even God's own people were slaves"

and as brothers have already pointed out indeed we are all slaves to something or someone.

 

[posthuman]

I can assure you I am not an atheist

i believe it!

But I would say, that as a human being I have control of my desires. For instance if I am hungry yet need to save money, I can subside my desire to eat lobster and instead eat some noodles and make my desire my finance. Vice versa, if I deem my hunger a better desire I can subside my desire for a financially secure life, and eat lobster. I have control over what I allow to govern me. In the same sense, pride only takes a hold of your life if you allow it or deem it worthy of a master. I am not suggesting it is easy to break certain chains. But, it can be done. However, it can become a juggling act.

Do you have a refute against the Exodus 21, through another OT quote... Or would you say that the best way to refute it would be to do it through a eternal slavery standpoint? I can see where you are going with your point, problem is it can become a rabbit trail in a discussion, hence my hindrance.

The best thing I have found was
The verses before in Exodus 21:18-19 say the same thing for non-slaves.
And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed: If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.

So this shows its not only for slaves but as a moralistic view/law... Do unto all the same because we are all humans.

Later in Exodus 21:26-27 it says that if a slave is hurt to a physical point that they will never recover... They shall be set free...
And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.
And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.


This gives an incentive to not even beat your slaves for fear of lost property.

i like all this! you're right it might be better to stick with the OT ↑
- in any case i don't think we need to try to get away from talking about slavery, because we can lead someone to the gospel of Christ through it, as i was hoping i could talk my way toward with my previous posts. an atheist who brings the subject up probably expects us to duck and run for cover, but we don't need to at all.

but the OT laws governing slavery, in historical context, are examples of justice & mercy - like you showed me, they can be defended internally, and also..
compare the code of Hammurabi --

If he put out the eye of a man's slave, or break the bone of a man's slave, he shall pay one-half of its value.

under this, if i maim your slave, i have to pay you half the value of him or her, but the slave remains a slave no matter what.
God's law shows compassion to the slave, but the law of the world does not.

 

[didymos]

(...)
How do you defend yourself from this? How does the bible further explain this?...

Pull Isaiah 65:1-2 (NIV) on them;
they won't listen whatever you say.

 

[T_Laurich]

To everyone saying that they do not discuss such things, that is perfectly okay... But please do not ask me too do the same. I know none of you have so thank you.

I personally love to give atheists some evidence that some Christians are not Christians because of blind faith. But have supported their faith upon reason, science, logic, and truth. I personally love to debate the existence of God with everyone... Christian, Atheist, Islamic, Mormon. It doesn't matter... I love to know why people believe the way they do.

I understand that no amount of reason or proof will ever make anyone believe in Christ. I understand that it is 100% up to them and God. It's a personal relationship. But I whole-heartedly believe to those who put "reason" over "emotion" (stereotypical speaking) that giving them examples of how Christians believe in God through their parameters could help them as well believe in God.

 

[Seifer5]

I want to correct something,. I used the word unjustified, and its not in that verse.

I know these verses are hard to understand in modern times, But its true that salves back then; we're property . Especially in that part of the world. There's just no getting around that. And it meant money lost if their servant died .

There may not be any Atheist that cares about that history ; or care to read carefully . The Bible records life as it is.

But, if they did anything unjustified, then naturally, the community would make them pay. And a judge, which they had to govern these laws, would have to judge the situation accordingly. God sets the laws, but the Bible can't cover every hypothetical situation . Rather gives the good sense that people proceed from. God is judge, and He can deal with these situations ultimately. I rather let Him handle it.

A non believer just won't care.

 

[Deadtosin]

[h=1]1 Peter 3:15King James Version (KJV)[/h] [SUP]15 [/SUP]But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

 

[Jamal]

So I have a question.
I have noticed a shift in the atheist's material... Where as before they would quote blindly from Ezekiel, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers... Trying to show how God is evil, cruel, and unjust. This was easily refutable...

Explaining God's "cruelty" in the OT wouldn't so much of a problem of so many Christians weren't lying and claiming God loves everyone. This demonic trick sets Christians up to lose any debate by the wicked simply accusing God or the Christian of hate. God's "cruelty" in the OT is just justice administered to the wicked.

But lately every time I begin to win an argument, or they cannot show my logic to be fallible, they pull this "slave card".

Exodus 21:20-21
If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

How do you defend yourself from this? How does the bible further explain this?

If a man strikes a slave and the slave dies, it's murder and the killer is to be executed. If the slave survives, then no execution. But, referring back to v18-19, if the slave is not killed, but injured, then the slave master would be compensated for the lost productivity of the salve. This is the same treatment as if a non-slave is attacked (except the compensation would go to the injured party, not the master).

FIY, the KJV has a much better translation of these two verses, 20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.