Why didn't God forbid slavery and other forms of savagery in those times? Better, why did He even ENFORCE those practices? To conform to men's rules at the time?
HW On 6/16/08, Bob Calco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Helio W. > > > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 7:22 AM > > To: ProFox Email List > > Subject: Re: [OT] Male priests marry in Anglican church's first gay > > wedding > > > > > Is this the word of God or not? If not, is the Bible WRONG? > > > > > > " Exodus 21: 20 And if a man smite his slave, with a rod, and he die > > > under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21 But if he live for a > > > day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money. " > > > > > > It most certainly is the Word of God, and it is not wrong. It accurately > records all the rules, customs and regulations of the Jewish theocracy at > the time of Moses (for good and ill). > > Don't forget later on it says things like this: > > Matthew 19 > ---------- > 7 They said to Him, "Why then did MOSES command to give a certificate of > divorce, and put her away? > 8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted > you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." > > The point being that much in the old law was on some level a compromise of > God with the hard, stiff-necked people of Israel. > > There is an analogy in our own Constitutional history--the 3/5 compromise > that said blacks only counted as 3/5ths a person in a census. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise > > Excerpt: > > - - - > The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern > states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which > three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for enumeration > purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of > the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed > by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman. > > Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free > inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other > hand, generally wanted to count slaves at their actual numbers. Since slaves > could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased > representation in the House and the Electoral College; taxation was only a > secondary issue. > - - - > > But few understand that today---they point to this as proof that America as > a whole viewed blacks as less than people. > > On the surface one might be outraged that blacks only counted for 3/5ths a > person--and indeed, this surface appearance of things is used by black > racists like the Right Hon. Rev. Wright, to "prove" American racism again > and again at his pulpit. In fact, it was a compromise supported by opponents > of slavery, and was intended to hasten the demise of slavery. > > But people all too easily refuse to look beyond the surface layer of things, > especially when it supports their own prejudices. > > - Bob > > > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
