Not baiting, not trying to prove a point, I am actually trying to find out the answer to this question from a christian perspective. Please, no atheistic flames, only intelligent rebuttal.

Ok, Christians (at least all of the ones I talked to) tell me that they believe in the teachings of the new testament and that the old testament is obsolete. Thus they are able to adequately distance themselves from such quotes as Exodus 20:21. Basically all Christians tell me that they follow ONLY the new testament and that the old testament has been completely stricken from their belief. But why do Christians still use the old testament when it suits them, such as condemning gays? Jesus preached a message of tolerance, not hate, and the anti-gay message was only in the old testament. Isn't this hypocrisy?

Few Christians that I personally know believe that. Maybe you need to expand your circle a bit.

quote:Originally posted by oc6:

Few Christians that I personally know believe that. Maybe you need to expand your circle a bit.

So you believe that both the old and the new testaments have equal validity? Even exodus 20:21?

Jesus was a Jew, right?

He would have been educated according to many of the OT teachings, right?

Why would they no longer be valid as teachings?

Sure rituals might have changed over time as the two began to split.

I think that Christians who don't read the OT are missing a lot of wonderful scripture, philosophy, and poetry.

I want an actual christian who knows ins and outs of his faith to answer this question. God bless johnny, where are you?

What makes you think I'm not?

Are you a Christian who condemns gays? I just Assumed you're not

ahhh....you lost me....

Exodus

20:21 And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.

Fuck, my bad, 21:20

21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Slowly beating your slaves to death

It's okay with God if you slowly beat your slaves to death. After all, they are your money. Just make sure that they survive at least a day or two after the beating.

What the Bible says about slavery and torture

The Bible's guide to torture

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lamabot:

[B]Fuck, my bad, 21:20



20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. -Biblegateway.com

Explain the connection of these verses to condemning gays.

Do you find any verses condoning homosexuality?

No, What I am saying is that christians I know explain these verses by invoking the anachronism of the old testament "We don't follow that, we follow the teachings of jesus."

Anti gay is Leviticus 18:22

Of course Samuel 1:26 raises some questions...but that's for another thread

I found an interesting Bible verse in which Jesus basically states everything in the OT is true and he did not come here to replace OT law. The verse is Matthew 5:17-19. I made a thread about it here:

http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/006438.html

The OT has been fucked with so much that it's pretty much useless trying to gain any wisdom from it. Either way, the God of the OT is not the God of the NT.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

The OT has been fucked with so much that it's pretty much useless trying to gain any wisdom from it. Either way, the God of the OT is not the God of the NT.

Nonsense. Wisdom can be gleaned from many writings, including the OT. However, most wisdom is what one learns in life...beyond readings.

quote:Originally posted by oc6:

Nonsense. Wisdom can be gleaned from many writings, including the OT. However, most wisdom is what one learns in life...beyond readings.

Well yes, obviously from a higher perspective one can find wisdom in anything and everything, but it is much harder to find it in the OT than it is in the NT. It's just so much more confusing.

quote:Originally posted by Rizzo in a box:

Well yes, obviously from a higher perspective one can find wisdom in anything and everything, but it is much harder to find it in the OT than it is in the NT. It's just so much more confusing.

More confusing how? (just curious)

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:

Not baiting, not trying to prove a point, I am actually trying to find out the answer to this question from a christian perspective. Please, no atheistic flames, only intelligent rebuttal.

Ok, Christians (at least all of the ones I talked to) tell me that they believe in the teachings of the new testament and that the old testament is obsolete. Thus they are able to adequately distance themselves from such quotes as Exodus 20:21. Basically all Christians tell me that they follow ONLY the new testament and that the old testament has been completely stricken from their belief. But why do Christians still use the old testament when it suits them, such as condemning gays? Jesus preached a message of tolerance, not hate, and the anti-gay message was only in the old testament. Isn't this hypocrisy?

Hi Lamabot,

I'm not really sure what your question is.

Slavery in general? The rights of the owner? What kind of rights did the servants have during the time and culture that those were written?

Are you asking about tolerance of the owner, toward the servant? Or whoever might be seeking the vengence toward the owner?

Is there something specific that you are thinking of, in terms of "nowdays", that would relate to the situation and conditions that Ex 21:20,21 would apply to?

Can you give a few examples that you think Jesus was referring to, in reguard to tolerance?

These are just questions pertaining mostly to understanding you questions.



As far as the verses you're asking about, i only looked at the KJV w/ Strong's to see if there were some clues from the words used. (I looked at one other thing, but that was afterwords.. only to see if i might be on the same track.. i'll mention it in abit).

KJV (without the Strong's numbers)

Exo 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

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

some clues that i see (again, just from the two verses...meaning, only those verses, not surrounding verses) are the words rendered as (21:20): smite, rod, servants, under & hand, punished.

Smite can mean anything from hit lightly to kill.

rod is a stick (for punishing, writing, fighting, ruling, walking, etc.) or it can be used figuratively, but it doesnt seem the case here, so ill leave that part alone.

servants, both manservant and maid, could mean (1)..masculine..From H5647; a servant: - X bondage, bondman, servant, (man-) servant. (2)..feminine..Apparently a primitive word; a maidservant or female slave: - (hand-) bondmaid (-woman,) maid (-servant).

The reason i include both the male and the female, is that they both include the idea of "payed" servants, the word for the female also has the idea of "slave"... i'm wondering if it might be due to the rank that women had in that culture... not sure, but something to concider.

'under' and 'hand'.. the word used for hand implies the open one (according to Strong's, i dont know hebrew or greek) indicating power, means, direction, etc.., and the word for 'under' indicates 'bottom' or 'below', so together it seems to me that they are indicating that the person with the rod is the boss (or owner) and the person being hit, is either subordinate or inferior... which almost seems redundant or for emphasis.

'punished'.. according to the Strong's numbers in the KJV w/ Strong's, it appears to me that the same word, " naw-kam' " is used twice. The Strong's definition is:

A primitive root; to grudge, that is, avenge or punish: - avenge (-r, self), punish, revenge (self), [b]X surely, take vengeance.

I highlighted what i think is the most likely. Which i think brings up other questions to look into... what does the Law say is rightful vengenance?.. are there other places in the Law that might shed some light?

(verse 21)If you dont mind, i'm not going to go into as much detail w/ this verse and just give you my initial take on it. The "if he continue", i think, is in reference to the slave, not the owner, so that would mean that it is the slave that is hanging on a day or two, and not the owner beating him slowly, as you put it. Part of the reason i'm leaning this way is at the end of the verse it says "for he is his money".

Like i said before, i've only looked at these two verses, not the others in the chapter, so i wasnt sure what the context is... i say "wasnt" because of the "other thing" that i said i would mention.

After looking at these verses, and after drawing some basic conclusion, i then looked at "Keil & Delitzch Commentary on the Old Testament" (i dont recall ever using it before, so i still havent drawn a conclusion on it... but it was the first and only one i opened to compare to). Anyway, after skimming alittle, it seems as though these are talking about punishments of bodily injuries and deaths that might occured becaused by such.... again, i've only read the two vs. you pointed out, so i could be wrong on this.

Normally i would read the verses, and then the whole chapter, then check definitions, before opening a commentary (and then atleast two of 'em).

Here is what K & D has to say (i'll leave the little bit of Hebrew out.. and change it to **** if you want to see it, ask and i'll see if i can get it to work on Totse..Rust told me how awhile ago, but i'm not sure if i remember):

quote:

Exo_21:20-21

The case was different with regard to a slave. The master had always the right to punish or “chasten” him with a stick (Pro_10:13; Pro_13:24); this right was involved in the paternal authority of the master over the servants in his possession. The law was therefore confined to the abuse of this authority in outbursts of passion, in which case, “if the servant or the maid should die under his hand (i.e., under his blows), he was to be punished” ( **** : “vengeance shall surely be taken”). But in what the **** was to consist is not explained; certainly not in slaying by the sword, as the Jewish commentators maintain. The lawgiver would have expressed this by **** . No doubt it was left to the authorities to determine this according to the circumstances. The law in Exo_21:12 could hardly be applied to a case of this description, although it was afterwards extended to foreigners as well as natives (Lev_24:21-22), for the simple reason, that it is hardly conceivable that a master would intentionally kill his slave, who was his possession and money. How far the lawgiver was from presupposing any such intention here, is evident from the law which follows in Exo_21:21, “Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two (i.e., remain alive), it shall not be avenged, for he is his money.” By the continuance of his life, if only for a day or two, it would become perfectly evident that the master did not wish to kill his servant; and if nevertheless he died after this, the loss of the slave was punishment enough for the master. There is no ground whatever for restricting this regulation, as the Rabbins do, to slaves who were not of Hebrew extraction.

I'm not sure that i can comment further, until i understand your questions better. And without knowing the reference of the tolerance that Jesus taught. (I am guessing you mean "turn the other cheek", but i'm not sure that it specifically applies to a situation such as master/bondservant or boss/employee... in our culture, b/e seems to be the closest i can think of representing m/bs. Culture differences aside, there are times when an employee needs discipline.. our culture, however, is more 'money' oriented on both sides of the relationship, so a monetary punishment (suspension or firing) is the form now... and if someone feels unjustly punished, there is always court... the parallel i see is that these verses are basically the "what to do if it goes to court" (if the employee-- slave-- is unjustly killed, and the "how to determine that "fact").

I hope this helped some. Please keep in mind, i'm not "the authority", if what i post is right, it isnt me, but God guiding me. I do apologize for coming off differently (you know, "holier than thou" sorta thing), but i think if one holds a faith, they should not be wishy-washey about it... cuz basically, i think that is contradictory and hypocritical.... if ya have faith, ya have faith.

BTW, the "God Bless, johnny" is not a means of a simple "wish you well", it is primarily a small prayer that He convict and convert. It is secondarily a "wish you well".

God Bless,

johnny

In Galatians it's remarked that the Old Testament is a guide to bring us to the Son and now that the Son is here, the guide is no longer needed, if I recall correctly.

The part I am having problems with is "For he is his money" or in some versions "For he is his property"

quote:Originally posted by Lamabot:

The part I am having problems with is "For he is his money" or in some versions "For he is his property"

Hi Lamabot,

gotta go to work so this is quik.



Think in terms of say, a farmer nowdays. He doesnt go abusing his equiptment because he needs his equiptment in order to make money.

Hope that makes some sense.

gptta run

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

I'm not sure that i can comment further, until i understand your questions better. And without knowing the reference of the tolerance that Jesus taught. (I am guessing you mean "turn the other cheek",



I consider "turn the other cheek" to be a very practical method of diffusing aggression moreso than an example of tolerance.

What better way to get an aggressor to alter their behavior toward you than to end the need for continued aggression?



edit:

Then again, it could be an act of passive defiance also.



[This message has been edited by oc6 (edited 01-12-2007).]

QUOTE Originally posted by oc6:

I consider "turn the other cheek" to be a very practical method of diffusing aggression moreso than an example of tolerance.

What better way to get an aggressor to alter their behavior toward you than to end the need for continued aggression?

edit:

Then again, it could be an act of passive defiance also.



Hi oc6,

I agree that "turn the other cheek" is not tolerance. You've said it more clearly than i do... i would put it as "it is a command to not seek revenge, where revenge tends to escalate" (or something to that effect.. at anyrate, i would call 'turning the other cheek' as a positive version of "contagious behavior" and revenge being a form of the negative).

The reason i mentioned "turn the other cheek" is that it is the closest thing that i can recall that people might think as "Jesus being or promoting tolerance".

I think Jesus was far from tolerant (in terms of human day-to-day definitions). Where Jesus is tolerant is in the long suffering and patience of God.

God Bless,

johnny