In the incident that spurred this debate offer, it was, in fact, the small group of Christian journalism students who quite literally left the building–leaving Dan to talk unimpeded to the vastly greater numbers who stayed in their seats.

Brian Brown and a rump of true believers may in their hearts believe that Dan has “left the building” the moment he criticizes even a single syllable of the Bible or how people choose to interpret it, and they are free to talk that way among themselves within their small groups.

But John Templeton doesn’t throw tons of money toward NOM (and thus Brian Brown’s paycheck) to talk just to the intellectually incestuous group of those who are already convinced beyond any possibility of changing their mind. He wants to influence the conversation in the culture.

Holy or not, The Bible is a book full of words and ideas. Those can be criticized–in the very way Dan does. To most people–and especially to those that NOM and its supporters want to influence–both internal contradictions within the text and contradictions in how people choose to interpret the text (e.g., ignoring pretty much all of Leviticus except the prohibitions against homosexuality) are perfectly legitimate topics of discussion. They are right there in that room with Dan–just like all the many young journalists who STAYED to hear the rest of Dan’s speech.

The point of the Dan’s words at the journalism conference (or of his upcoming debate with Brian Brown) is not to convince what you call “the other side”–I suspect even Jesus himself couldn’t change Brian Brown’s stance on same-sex marriage–but to convince all of the other people listening in on the debate.

(of course, its all for men, women is not included in the sixyear law (there is even a special part about selling your daughters) and neither seems non-hebrews to be included (ie lifelong slavery))

and does this sounds like apprenice?
“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)

Second, Ken’s whitewashing of Biblical slavery as “apprenticeship” ignores the nightmarish conditions of slaves described in the Bible. The Bible condones beating slaves (Exodus 21:20-21), owning slaves indefinitely (Leviticus 25:44-46) and splitting up families (Exodus 21:4). The enslavement of Noah’s son (Genesis 9:24-27) and of enemies throughout the Bible suggests that slavery was seen as a punishing, humiliating state. I’m sorry, but I don’t buy the argument that Biblical slavery was akin to apprenticeship.

Slavery is evil no matter how cozy the conditions. The bible lists the punishments that can be inflicted on slaves who “err” and death is an option.

Calling “believers” magic book a Grimm Brothers horror story on steroids is telling the truth, something deluded believers have trouble with. If they didn’t, they read the entire book they worship and see the words instead of making believe it says and means something “pleasant”

Yeah, I got that. I was just sloppy in writing it out. But given life spans at that time, many slaves would have spent much, most, or perhaps all of their productive lifetime in servitude of someone else.

Although the slavery of that time may not have been quite as severe as what was seen in the States one most certainly can’t make the case that Ken seems to be attempting to make that the slavery condoned in the bible wasn’t a particularly bad or immoral thing.

Jubilee was not on the 49th anniversary of a persons enslavement, but a calendar date. A slave who became so three weeks before Jubilee was a slave for three weeks until enslaved.

And yes. We are talking two different systems (both different from US pre-antebellum slavery).

Incidentally slavery still exists today. Some forms (usually sexual slavery) within the US.

It is wrong now. It was wrong when included in the Torah. But some versions of slavery (like all moral evils) were more insidious than others.

First, Jubilee occurred every 49 years (seven times seven). Not many slaves in Israel would have been lucky enough to have made it to that 49th year.

Besides, Paul’s instructions on how to treat slaves were to Roman and Greek Christians, not Hebrew, and therefore not likely to have been subject to Jubilee. I know the state of slavery in Roman times was different from the 19th century south, but they weren’t exactly “apprentices.” They were often prisoners of war and their families.

Somehow I don’t think Spartacus was exactly leading a revolt for a 40 hr work week or better school supplies.