CHRISTIANITY HATERS

[Durandal]

The Israelites were hacking out a homeland for themselves and felt they had a right to do so-- in that they were like every other Bronze Age tribe that ruled by the sword and dominated its neighbors through fear and battle. Please don't try to convince me that every other tribe on Earth in the Bronze Age were lovable pacifist sweethearts victimized by the evil, wicked fascist Israelites.

Strawman and red herring. I'm not saying that the Israelites were any better or worse than anyone else, but they did have a "master race" mentality. That you simply cannot deny if you read through Deuteronomy. Please try and stay on the subject matter.

Remember that I am one of the people that think the Bible is not to be taken literally; a collection of tribal campfire stories that either explain and rationalize actions already done or used to rationalize actions about to be taken as a manifestation of "God's Will".

Which is precisely why their mentality is a master race one. They believed that God had given them permission and justification to brutalize their opponents since he had proclaimed them his "chosen people."

The direct, hands-on experience I have within Judaism, and the many Rabbis I consulted in religious school study over in Israel, is that the Jews are to become the Priests in Heaven, serving everyone else. That is the interpretation of "Chosen People" that is considered official by halakhic (religious authority) law.

And which Bible passages, precisely, is that drawn from? The ones where the Israelites raped their opponents' women, or where they enslaved people of other races?

Judaism, like Christianity, has reformed a great deal of its beliefs to conform with modern secular values, "reinterpreting" blatantly straightforward passages in the Bible to mean something completely opposite from their original intent; this whole deal about the Chosen People is a perfect example. You and I both know what it means given the context of the Old Testament and the actions of the Israelites, but Jewish authorities, like Christian ones, want to cling to the idea that the Bible is divinely inspired and infallible in its message, so they reinterpret the meaning of two words while quietly ignoring the blatantly obvious context.

Granted, I don't have a problem with Christians or Jews not wanting to follow the horrific and bigoted attitudes in the Bible, but they should at least admit that the Bible is a seriously bigoted and hateful book.

[Darth Wong]

When I was in university, I would say that all of the Christians I knew were open-minded people who had no problem admitting that the Bible had flaws. Not coincidentally, I thought of Christianity as a nice religion. After meeting fundies, however, I came to realize how massively flawed its originating doctrines are. I still have no problem with Christians like the ones I met in university, but those who defend the Bible in its entirety might as well be defending "Mein Kampf".

[lgot]

You know what amazes me. This debate is not new. It is basically the same debate that happened in the middle of the 19 century having Darwin and Richard Owen facing each other. And Darwin beat Owen over and over. I mean, It is Richard Owen a great scientist, that studied for decades (not like some people try with the annoying justification of having manipulated skulls for 1,2 years) and he lost. Darwin beat him every round, everytime. And those people come here and they are not even able to bring something better than Owen did. How do they suppose want to change something if they cannt do that ? They must bring something much better (after all, the 20 century just helped Darwins teory a bit more) before thinking to argue against Darwin. otherwise is like asking to lose...and all this time here I never seen anyone trying even close to good...

[Coyote]

The problem is, you'll not find the term "master race" anywhere in the Bible, either. I can't recall anywhere in the Bible where the Jews are commanded to lord over the denizens of the Earth; in fact in the Exodus it states that the compact made with God only ensures the survival of the Jews, not their domination. In fact, God only promises them that they will live in misery and will face one threat after another.

The Jews have no missionary impetus-- they are to remain a small and minority race, their survival guaranteed but equally guaranteed is that they will never be masters. This is "chosen of survival", not "chosen to tbe better".

Now, the closest thing that I have found that would be a "better than" concept is that God "chose" to reveal the Torah to the Jews because he found them capable/worthy of accepting the messages and seeing it for what it was.

Now, if you want me to defend God's call to exterminate other people I cannot; we won't be able to conduct a proper trial until we can prove the existence of God and ask him questions. Both are impossible, perhaps they will always be or perhaps not.

My take on Deuteronomy is like much of the rest of the Bible, I doubt it is the word of God and more likely what some power-hungry chieftan added to either defend past actions or rationalize future plans.

I'd think that if God was truly all powerful and wanted a Master Race to dominate everyone, then the odds would be stacked very much in the Jews favor, and we would not have seen the ghettoes, prejudice, pogroms and so on that have plagued the Jews for so long...

[Wicked Pilot]

in fact in the Exodus it states that the compact made with God only ensures the survival of the Jews, not their domination. In fact, God only promises them that they will live in misery and will face one threat after another.

Yet God destroys the walls of Jerico so the Israelis can go in and kill everyone, then build their glorious Jewish state on the red grass. Why couldn't God protect the citizens of Jerico?

[lgot]

Coyote:

But God clearly guide them in some battles, tell them what to do, promess militar victories, to smash their enemies, all that.

Plus he does not really use race, but to be a follower you must follow the rules of that social group and became a jew. Otherwise would you not get you reward in end. Outsiders are only accepted if they turn to be a hebrew (if I am not mistake, himself would not be but his childs would be). He is very exclusive there.

[Coyote]

Why couldn't God protect the citizens of Jerico?

Couldn't tell you; I don't know the answer. And again, it may well have been a story told and embellished ot make heroes that a nascent nation could point to and feel all warm & chummy about.

I'd wager that much of the quotes in the Bible about "everyone was killed" or the world was destroyed" and so on are hyperbole. Maybe an enemy was so badly beaten that they took to the field and ran away never to be sen again; and that was close enough to warrant saying "all were annihilated" for as far as the Hebrews were concerned that was indeed the case.

Remember, I am not a Biblical literalist-- how many times in our own modern world does someone do something crazy and then say "the Devil made me do it" or "the voices told me" or "I'm on a mission from God" or something else?

"We must invade Canaan and kill everyone there?"
"Why? Can't we just run 'em off?"
"Uhh... God sez to. Yeah. That's it."

[Coyote]

Coyote:

But God clearly guide them in some battles, tell them what to do, promess militar victories, to smash their enemies, all that.

Or he is simply given credit after the fact. Or in the case of Constantine's conversion to Christianity perhaps someone sees something that they interpret as a "sign" or "prophesy" and then chalk up everything that happen for the next few hours/days/weeks to be acts of God. They may very well just be acts of nature or just luck in battle.

Plus he does not really use race, but to be a follower you must follow the rules of that social group and became a jew. Otherwise would you not get you reward in end. Outsiders are only accepted if they turn to be a hebrew (if I am not mistake, himself would not be but his childs would be). He is very exclusive there.

Once converted to be a Jew, you are a Jew fully. What you are talking baout is the prohibition of a convert from marrying a Cohen, one of the priestly classes of Jews-- the priests of the priests, if you get my drift. As the Jews are to be the priests for all nations, the Cohenim are to be the archbishops that see to the holy duties of the Jews themselves. They will be the only ones to perform Temple rites (when it is rebuilt).

Because the Cohenim are suposed to be the top priests, it is the custom that they are not to marry a convert but a convert's child, born fully into Judaism rather than coming in from the outside. Most peole don't follow this custom anymore, although Orthodox Rabbis in Israel won't preside at a marriage of a Cohen and a convert.

[lgot]

Or he is simply given credit after the fact. Or in the case of Constantine's conversion to Christianity perhaps someone sees something that they interpret as a "sign" or "prophesy" and then chalk up everything that happen for the next few hours/days/weeks to be acts of God. They may very well just be acts of nature or just luck in battle.

This was not what they back then trusted, after all the made offerings and pledges before the battle. We may today see it and tell that the writters of the bible are just giving credit to god to already won battle, but the Bible does not. It shows God clearly giving them strategies or what to do in a batle. It shows the belief in God's intervetion to their victory.

Once converted to be a Jew, you are a Jew fully. What you are talking baout is the prohibition of a convert from marrying a Cohen, one of the priestly classes of Jews-- the priests of the priests, if you get my drift.

Oh, yes, It may be that. I just remembered the newly converted have some limitations.
But that little change, The bible is about a chosen people, the jews and such as its limited.
Some christian lately turned it to be about christians not jew with gave a lot of justification to some separatism and intolerance.

[Darth Wong]

You guys are arguing at cross-purposes. Coyote is talking about his own personal God, while you guys are talking about the Biblical God. Perhaps if Coyote explicitly stated that he was talking about a rather different God than the one explicitly described in the Bible (as opposed to simply saying that he's not a Biblical literalist, which implies that he "sort of" believes in the Bible, which in turn leaves all kinds of possibilities open), this would be cleared up.

[lgot]

I understood he was using his personal view, but when he says things "it is not found anywhere in the bible" it narrows the interpretation and leaves to only what we found or not there...
but I see your point of how futile would be to keep a argument with this kind of "confusion"...

[macman]

I just wanted to add my 2 cents here..Zarove I am a Christian and as a Christtian I find your posts embrassing to say the least..First of all you are not listening to and answering questions you are too busy talking to yourself and if you do not have time to spellcheck (or maybe you can't read I don't know) you should not post..you make us all look like idiots..

The verse in Matthew 4:8 where Jesus was shown all the kingdoms does not imply the Earth is flat....the point of the story was the power Jesus was offered not the shape of the earth..you could not see all the kingdoms of the earth even if it was flat..most scholars believe that either it was a vision or dream that Satan show Jesus..

Be gentle on me this is my first time

[Darth Wong]

I just wanted to add my 2 cents here..Zarove I am a Christian and as a Christtian I find your posts embrassing to say the least..First of all you are not listening to and answering questions you are too busy talking to yourself and if you do not have time to spellcheck (or maybe you can't read I don't know) you should not post..you make us all look like idiots..

True ...

The verse in Matthew 4:8 where Jesus was shown all the kingdoms does not imply the Earth is flat....the point of the story was the power Jesus was offered not the shape of the earth..

The purpose of the story is irrelevant. If taken literally, it means the Earth is indeed flat.

you could not see all the kingdoms of the earth even if it was flat..

Yes you could. Given clear visibility and a flat Earth, you could indeed have a direct line of sight to every kingdom on Earth. That's the whole point; the passage in question only works if Earth is flat.

most scholars believe that either it was a vision or dream that Satan show Jesus..

Which is fine, unless they decide to interpret OTHER parts of the Bible literally. The Bible is either literal and inerrant or it's not; one must choose.

Be gentle on me this is my first time

*warily sheathes sword*

[lgot]

macman:

The verse in Matthew 4:8 where Jesus was shown all the kingdoms does not imply the Earth is flat....the point of the story was the power Jesus was offered not the shape of the earth..you could not see all the kingdoms of the earth even if it was flat..most scholars believe that either it was a vision or dream that Satan show Jesus..

Totally true, the story is not about flat earth. But it shows the writter believed this. He only put Jesus there because back them that was his belief. It was just natural (I do not see how this is very important. If that was the greatest mistake of bible then that would be really a nitpick)

[macman]

I am a little confused..most Christians I know consider the Bible inerrant..(I know that is a hot button but let is slide just for a minute) but when you say literal you mean every verse literal in the sense that\God is a chicken because it tooks about in Psalms that He covers the world with His feathers and wings...it would seem clear to anybody that not all the Bible is literal...

Some part are..especially the historical stories and the Life of Jesus and the Book of Acts....

Most of it are teachings (like the parables of Jesus) to show us how to love and to help us undertand the nature of God....

I am sure that 2 Timothy 3:16 has been quoted a million times

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"

Note that it states that all Scripture is from God (meaning it is suppose to
be in the Bible) and that it is useful for teaching and so forth..no where does it say that the Bible is to be taken literally..and the early church leaders never believed that either..if you read the Nicene creed which is a excellent summing up of basic christian beliefs does it mention taking the bible literally.....

i hope this is not off thread.......

[macman]

Hi Igot

I agree that it is not important to the story but it goes to show how some people can argue all day about some minor point (Did Jesus actually see all the Kingdoms at one time) and miss the whole point of the story

I just read my last post..I am beginning to spell like Zarove so good noght all

[lgot]

I am a little confused..most Christians I know consider the Bible inerrant..(I know that is a hot button but let is slide just for a minute) but when you say literal you mean every verse literal in the sense that\God is a chicken because it tooks about in Psalms that He covers the world with His feathers and wings...it would seem clear to anybody that not all the Bible is literal...

The problem is not most of the christians does not take it letter by letter, it is the occasional morom who comes here that or either do it (believe there is a lot) or then those who chose which portion of the bible must be taken and which is just a representation.
Search around ,there is people who actually claims to the earth to be young as the bible or the noah story to be real...
That is really annoying.

Some part are..especially the historical stories and the Life of Jesus and the Book of Acts....

No offense but there is no such thing. There is no historical stories of Jesus (hence the gospels contratict each other a lot) and actually much of the writtings there are meant to have meanings of not historical vallue.

Most of it are teachings (like the parables of Jesus) to show us how to love and to help us undertand the nature of God....

If you mean, it is too take literally the message (which I am sure, any time Darth Wong will show you that this is message is very relative as well), fine. But not the facts.

Code: Select all

and the early church leaders never believed that either..if you read the Nicene creed which is a excellent summing up of basic christian beliefs does it mention taking the bible literally..... 

It is very relative. There is momments in the history that the catholic church took it literally yes. There is others the catholic church choose to ignore it or even to create a faith that is beyond the bible (The Mary story for example).
Right now I know some protestants around here who follow some passages of the bible literally yes, even to dressing like the hebrews and stuff. Interpretation is something that a text like the bible turns to very important and is subject to many twists.

I agree that it is not important to the story but it goes to show how some people can argue all day about some minor point (Did Jesus actually see all the Kingdoms at one time) and miss the whole point of the story

Well, it was fine. (I agree this point is irrelevant) but the topic was about the flat earth. I believe no one forget the meaning, but it was just not important to the topic here, even if it is important in another place I guess.

[Coyote]

Lord Wong brings up a good point, my personal views about God are not in lock-step with the Biblical version.

In some of my arguments with Fundamentalists regarding religion and Biblical literalism I refer to an acquaintence of mine, Rabbi Lawrence Kelemen, who has undertaken a lot of theological study into the Bible and its meanings. He, too, puts the Bible in a perspective of allegory and metaphor, and tries to figure out what the logical truth of things would be, given observable fact.

For example, regarding the Jericho story in the Bible (since it came up earlier in the thread), Rabbi Kelemen points out in his book, "Permission to Believe" that according to the work of archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon, who did an in-depth survey of Jericho's ruins that "... it may have been an earthquake, which the Israelites attributed to Divine intervention".

I can also reflect on my own archaeology classes in the region. Although I never did a dig at Jericho my instructor, Prof. Steve Rosen, informed the class that while the walls of Jericho did indeed collapse at a time corresponding to Israelite entry into Canaan there is no burn layer or destruction evidence that we would find at other sites that had been militarily attacked-- the walls just fell. An earthquake (the region is plagued by them, it is part of the Sirro-African Rift and very active) would account for that and someone may have decided that it was and act of God.

With Constantine it may have been the same; the Roman Empire was founded where it is at the Tiber because Romulus saw a flight of eagles overhead when he came to its banks and later Constantine changed his religion because he supposedly saw a vision of a cross in the sunlight. He converted and his troops were victorious, and in a culture where superstition and godly intervention on a personal level are expected the conclusion was, from Constantine's pov, logical.

[macman]

Actually the Catholic church of old just made up things like the whole idea of relics because back then only the priests would read the bible and the common people would have no idea..that is why the Catholic so opposed men like Martin Luther and William Tyndale (who did an early English translation of the bible) because they did not want the everyday people writing the people and thinking for themselves...evil times

The problem today is that many people still do not read it they watch some quack on TV and just start assuming all kind of horrible, stupid things. My problem is that many people believe that all Christians believe these things and it is just not true....

I worked as senior editor for pat Robertsons TV show for several years and when people found out I voted for Al Gore they could not believe that any Christian could vote for a Democrat (Just a note..I did not like Gore all that much..I just thought he was better than the other guy). My point is that these people thought that a Christian had to be a republican and believed that the Bible back them up...I mean that is to stupid a position to even deserve a response but these nice intelligent people believed it with all their might.....

I actually read the Bible to learn how to live a better Christian life and it is my hope that I can show my faith in my life not just by screaming I am a Christian.....

[The Yosemite Bear]

Yeah, information is power, they can't have folks knowing anything.

Yeah, my long standing retort has been I believe. It's those con men and the people that believe in the con-men that scare me.

[XPViking]

Coyote,

I don't mean to hijack this thread or anything, but can you recommend any good books on archaeology related to Biblical sites? As well, do you know if anyone has discovered Pharoah's army at the bottom of the Red Sea?

XPViking

[Coyote]

The textbook I used in class is the best, I actually have limited exposure to Biblical Archaeology outside my classes. It is (as you can imagine) an area to be read warily since a lot of agenda-ridden types populate the field.

Right off the top of my head I'd say look at the texts by Dr. Amnon Ben-Tor, he wrote the textbook for my class and it is very informative. Kathleen Kenyon and Yigal Yaddin also provide informative works.

I'll poke around in some of my sources at Ben-Gurion University (it's a big field of study there) and see if i can find some more references-- some of the links may be in Hebrew but they will refer to books that are in English, so that can be misleading.

A lot of these archaeologists are real characters, the guy that discovered the Dead Sea scrolls dressed in Bedouin gear all the time and rode a horse everywhere, on weekends he retired to a greenhouse and did pottery.

As soon as I figure out how to post pictures here I'll load up some pix of my digs in the Bet Shean valley.

[Durandal]

The problem is, you'll not find the term "master race" anywhere in the Bible, either. I can't recall anywhere in the Bible where the Jews are commanded to lord over the denizens of the Earth; in fact in the Exodus it states that the compact made with God only ensures the survival of the Jews, not their domination. In fact, God only promises them that they will live in misery and will face one threat after another.

He said it was acceptable for them to take slaves from other races and unacceptable to marry women from other races. That sounds an awful lot like a "master race" mentality to me.

The Jews have no missionary impetus-- they are to remain a small and minority race, their survival guaranteed but equally guaranteed is that they will never be masters. This is "chosen of survival", not "chosen to tbe better".

You're confusing lording over someone with thinking you're better than they are. Even if the Nazis never succeeded anywhere, they'd still have a master race mentality by thinking that they were better than everyone else. The Jews thought this as well, because they didn't marry outside their race, and they took slaves from every other race except their own.

Now, the closest thing that I have found that would be a "better than" concept is that God "chose" to reveal the Torah to the Jews because he found them capable/worthy of accepting the messages and seeing it for what it was.

Of course. They were a violent, bigoted, aggressive, expansionist people. It's no surprise that God chose to reveal his own violent, bigoted, aggressive and expansionist ways to them. The big question is why he chose them out of everyone else. There were other brutal nations out there, as well. This also introduces something of a "chicken and egg" question. Were the Jews violent and bigoted before they had the Torah "revealed" to them, or where they peaceful at first, and then God corrupted them with his bigoted precepts and rules?

Now, if you want me to defend God's call to exterminate other people I cannot; we won't be able to conduct a proper trial until we can prove the existence of God and ask him questions. Both are impossible, perhaps they will always be or perhaps not.

That has no bearing on the question of whether the Israelites had a master race attitude. They claimed that their God had called them the "Chosen People," refused to intermarry with other nations or races, and took slaves from every nation but their own. If it walks like a duck ...

My take on Deuteronomy is like much of the rest of the Bible, I doubt it is the word of God and more likely what some power-hungry chieftan added to either defend past actions or rationalize future plans.

That is irrelevant when determining whether the Jews thought they were better than everyone else.

If we assume that you're correct, and Deuteronomy was simply written by a power-hungry bigot, then that only strengthens my argument. He wrote those words and slapped "Divinely Inspired" on them precisely because he thought his people were better than everyone else, and his people bought into it. That makes them racist bigots, and racist bigots automatically come with a master race mentality most of the time, anyway.

I'd think that if God was truly all powerful and wanted a Master Race to dominate everyone, then the odds would be stacked very much in the Jews favor, and we would not have seen the ghettoes, prejudice, pogroms and so on that have plagued the Jews for so long...

That's because the God of the Jews is a fictional character. The Jews thought that he had chosen them and used that as an excuse to do the shit they did. You're introducing nothing but red herrings into this argument. No one cares whether or not God is real, who his master race is, or if he actually spoke to Jewish prophets and writers. The fact remains that the earily Israelites demonstrated all the characteristics we'd ascribe to a master race mentality today, so they had a master race attitude.

[Coyote]

He said it was acceptable for them to take slaves from other races and unacceptable to marry women from other races. That sounds an awful lot like a "master race" mentality to me.

The Jews were forbidden to marry women outside of the Hebrew tradition because the ethnic content of being Jewish is traced through the mother, not the father, as it usually is in other culture. If the Hebrews took women from outside the tribe, the resultant offspring would not be considered "Jewish". This has nothing to do with foreign women being considered inferior.

It is felt that when a Jew marries a non-Jew, then the family will "compromise" on raising children Jewish and the child will grow up missing a vital link to his/her culture and background. S/he will have no link to the faith and will drift away from the population of Jews --a population that doesn't have a lot of people to begin with.

That is the prohibition on intermarriage. The prohibition is not the same for women because if a Jewish woman has chldren from non-Jewish men, the children will be born Jewish. Still, in a marriage to a non-Jewish man the "compromise" aspect looms and like most conservative social povs, any sex from multiple partner or outside marriage is frowned upon.

As for the slaves, remember that it was the custom of all races/nations/tribes to take slaves; the Jews were a tribe that wanted to end the practice of slavery within their own community but knew they could not guarantee the same if they were captured by others. In a way, your argument could be construed that you support more slavery, by criticising the Jews effort to end it within their ranks.

Also, the master of a slave was instructed to treat the slave with respect, and if the master had a day off work then so did the slave-- like the commandment for Shabbat, the Sabbath, when it was said "neither shall you work, nor your wife, nor her maidservant, nor your worker in the field, nor even your oxen." Damn, even the animals got to chill out. Years before the Humane Society or PETA.

You are vehement in your dislike for the actions of the Hebrews without being fully aware of the social contexts that are represented, or the time period.

Slavery was common back then, this was a more civilized take on slavery. You can't take the Bronze Age cultures and just expect them to wake up one morning and pull the Emanicpation Proclomation out of their asses. You seem to expect this and say, "well, the Hebrews didn't fast-forward three thousand years of social enlightenment, so they are therefore evil."

[Durandal]

The Jews were forbidden to marry women outside of the Hebrew tradition because the ethnic content of being Jewish is traced through the mother, not the father, as it usually is in other culture. If the Hebrews took women from outside the tribe, the resultant offspring would not be considered "Jewish". This has nothing to do with foreign women being considered inferior.

Yeah, and only blacks were slaves because it was good for the economy and had nothing to do with their skin color. Give me a break.

Abraham was now old and well advanced in years, and the LORD had blessed him in every way. He said to the chief servant in his household, the one in charge of all that he had, "Put your hand under my thigh. I want you to swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I am living, but will go to my country and my own relatives and get a wife for my son Isaac.

Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, "You have been unfaithful; you have married foreign women, adding to Israel's guilt. Now make confession to the LORD, the God of your fathers, and do his will. Separate yourselves from the peoples around you and from your foreign wives." The whole assembly responded with a loud voice: "You are right! We must do as you say.

Care to explain these two quotes? Or how about the sons of Ham, who were meant to be servants for everyone else, and how they just happened to be black?

It is felt that when a Jew marries a non-Jew, then the family will "compromise" on raising children Jewish and the child will grow up missing a vital link to his/her culture and background. S/he will have no link to the faith and will drift away from the population of Jews --a population that doesn't have a lot of people to begin with.

And this has nothing to do with the Jews thinking that they were better than everyone else. Suuuuuure.

That is the prohibition on intermarriage. The prohibition is not the same for women because if a Jewish woman has chldren from non-Jewish men, the children will be born Jewish. Still, in a marriage to a non-Jewish man the "compromise" aspect looms and like most conservative social povs, any sex from multiple partner or outside marriage is frowned upon.

As for the slaves, remember that it was the custom of all races/nations/tribes to take slaves; the Jews were a tribe that wanted to end the practice of slavery within their own community but knew they could not guarantee the same if they were captured by others. In a way, your argument could be construed that you support more slavery, by criticising the Jews effort to end it within their ranks.

This is hysterical. There is no indication anywhere that the Jews wanted to end slavery.

Also, the master of a slave was instructed to treat the slave with respect, and if the master had a day off work then so did the slave-- like the commandment for Shabbat, the Sabbath, when it was said "neither shall you work, nor your wife, nor her maidservant, nor your worker in the field, nor even your oxen." Damn, even the animals got to chill out. Years before the Humane Society or PETA.

How generous, except you forgot:

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property].

It's OK to beat your slave as long as he isn't mortally wounded.

And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

If a man has sex with a female slave who is engaged, the female slave is to be whipped while nothing happens to the man! Wow! Look at those Israelites! They sure are generous! Let's not even talk about the fact that there is apparently no punishment for raping slave women who aren't engaged. Apparently, they are fair game.

You are vehement in your dislike for the actions of the Hebrews without being fully aware of the social contexts that are represented, or the time period.

That's because I don't care about the social contexts. There was a social context for Nazi-Germany, as well; that doesn't excuse their actions.

Slavery was common back then, this was a more civilized take on slavery. You can't take the Bronze Age cultures and just expect them to wake up one morning and pull the Emanicpation Proclomation out of their asses. You seem to expect this and say, "well, the Hebrews didn't fast-forward three thousand years of social enlightenment, so they are therefore evil."

Another red herring. The Jews thought they were better than everyone else, so they had a master race mentality, end of story. We're not arguing over whether or not everyone else did; we're arguing over whether the Jews did. Your attempts to throw the debate off-course by trying to excuse their attitude are nothing more than red herrings and tacit admissions of defeat.

Furthermore, no one is running around today holding the other Bronze Age cultures as "holy," unlike people who honor Moses, a vicious mass-murderer and terrorist, in churches and synagogues.