Is Christian nationalism un-American?

Can you provide an example of a verse completely void of cross-references, and doesn't fit with the rest of the Bible?

I'm not sure what you mean.

I didn't say you were for human property. I asked you if you agree that prisoners are human property?

I'm guessing you're asking if I can defend Christianity. I don't think you're asking me if I can defend Hinduism, Buddhism, Mohammadism, Scientology, etc.

I honestly don't understand the question. I certainly don't feel any need to defend Christianity or the Bible. Why do you think I even need to?

I absolutely want believers to read the Bible (all of the Bible) 

Me too.

and not just verses ripped out of context by ignorant or dishonest defenders. 

Ah...there always seems to be a catch. I guess you're aware of the usefulness of commentaries. What would you suggest? evilbible.com?

An example of a verse ripped out of context would be Exodus 23:9 as a refutation to the allowance of chattel slavery in Levitucus 25:44-46. Exodus 23:9 says "do not oppress a foreigner...", but a full reading of Exodus 23 reveals this was a direction for judges in legal proceedings regarding foreigners. "Do not favor Israelites in matters of law - be impartial" is another way of saying this. This verse has absolutely nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with legal protocols. The contradiction between these verses is made up. They compliment each other. 

Oh really? There's no complimenting here. All you're doing is suggesting the Israelites were less than honest. They say one thing, and do another. Or they practice humanitarianism against all foreigners, except those who were purchased in the foreign slave market. They can't kidnap them, but as long as they purchased them, abuse is okay?

I'm guessing you're referring to the Barnes commentary.

Even if the verse focused solely on judges, what makes you think a foreign servant wouldn't be involved with judges in a court case? And the command being to judges in treating foreign servants?

I figured a Jewish commentary would be most appropriate and insightful.

I never suggested such a thing.

Are you still insisting that an escaped foreign slave would would be treated to free meals and a life of leisure by the ancient Hebrews?

100% false.  You can hire them as a NORMAL WORKER and PAY THEM.

OR, invite them to be your honored guest.  FREEING SLAVES IS NOT ABUSE

Oh, buying slaves was PURE CHARITY.  Why would anyone even think they might want CHEAP LABOR?

Are you kidding me, the BEST they offer is "treat them as the native born" which was itself APPALLING.

If you were caught picking up sticks on the Sabbath, you would be stoned to death.

Leviticus 19:34 New International Version (NIV)
34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

Haha! Only now, after I've made clear my acceptance of a consensual relationship between Israelites do you stray away from this being a "servanthood" and prefer to call it slavery?! Pick your terms and be consistent, Rod. I'm not playing word games.

That being said, after I wrote this I realized that this type of arrangement would not always be consensual. For instance, a father might sell his daughter into slavery without consulting her, or a young man might serve for a term with the payment being his master's daughter. These situations are not consensual or acceptable.

There is nothing that says permanent slavery of foreigners was by agreement. "Rare" means it still happens. Is "rarely" owning humans moral, Rod? I've never owned a human...not even rarely!

Kidnapping and forced slavery are not one in the same. There were laws against kidnapping. However, there were no laws against buying kidnapped people and/or forced slavery. One problem with your question is that it assumes facts that don't exist. The other is that it ignores what the Levitical law actually does allow.

"You may buy you slave from the heathen nations which surround you. You may bequeath them to you family and they can be permanent slaves." [Paraphrased]

Lev 25:44-46 is part of Mosaic law. Are you really trying to suggest law was not to be taken literally?

Leviticus 19:34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

Mark 16:8  They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

This is how our oldest and best manuscripts of the 1st gospel ends. The other gospels writers made sure to have the witnesses TELL other people and have Jesus show his resurrected self! At a later date, someone (it is supposed it might be a scribe) made an ending for Mark (Mark 16:9-20) to fix this problem. 

(IFF) the foreigner was to be treated as your native-born (THEN) why are there different rules for purchasing foreign permanent slaves and voluntary native born bond-servants?

Shouldn't they be treated exactly the same?

Do you think it's fair to say that your whole argument boils down to, "the Hebrews were really really nice slave owners, so that makes slavery ok if not actually a moral good (in some cases)"?

But, I think you can understand that 2 eyewitnesses are not going to give identical statements.

If it wasn't needed, it would stand for reason it wouldn't have been implemented.

If we can acknowledge that the Bible is a complex form of literature, then we all (even Christians) have to acknowledge that we're just not capable of understanding scripture like we would a modern day instruction manual that we can throw away once we understand it.

You've touched on "assuming no god" a few times now. Why is that? Are you suggesting the Jewish commentaries I've cited assume no god? It seems to me that your own assumptions are more troublesome than anything, friend.

The only assumption I am making is the men who authored the laws (whether inspired by a god or not) mean exactly what they've said. Given this, there is sufficient reason to believe these laws were directed at believers, and non-believers could be kidnapped, beaten, raped, and otherwise treated as property. Appealing to a god-concept which obviously differs from that of the Israelites (and modern Jews) provides no (rational) defense.

I am not opposed to a formal debate on this topic if you or anyone is interested

You've touched on "assuming no god" a few times now. Why is that? Are you suggesting the Jewish commentaries I've cited assume no god? It seems to me that your own assumptions are more troublesome than anything, friend.

No, I actually wasn't even thinking of the Jewish commentaries when I said that. I don't know what individual Jewish commentators believe.

The only assumption I am making is the men who authored the laws (whether inspired by a god or not) mean exactly what they've said. Given this, there is sufficient reason to believe these laws were directed at believers, and non-believers could be kidnapped, beaten, raped, and otherwise treated as property. Appealing to a god-concept which obviously differs from that of the Israelites (and modern Jews) provides no (rational) defense.

I definitely agree that the men who authored the laws meant exactly what they said. And I also believe that Jesus (and the author) meant exactly what he said when he stated "If your eye offend thee, pluck it out!" Would you agree?

And it would appear here that you don't really think they meant it.

Exodus 21:16 "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."

You've placed an obvious limitation to Israelite men. That the author didn't really mean men as this text suggests point blank they're referring to men in general. 

The Bible doesn't make any claim whatsoever to allowing the rape of foreign women. No where.

And God, in the Bible, never condoned anything remotely close to an allowance for sex outside of marriage. .

The beaten part is interesting because I don't think you're implying that the slave had to be an Israelite to benefit from the law against beating someone to death. Or, are you? Do you think the slave beaten who's life or death determined the outcome of his master could only be a foreign servant? That the law in question was not including the Israelite servant?

The treated as property part seems to be simply a way to make the list appear a bit longer. What does that mean? Is it okay to own a human in, say, a military setting (U.S. army, navy, marines, air force) just so long as soldiers are not treated as they are (property)?

When you immediately default to concept of God, it certainly appears to suggest that you "assume no God". If I'm wrong, I apologize. But that's how it would appear. 

I'm not sure what you mean.

When you are imprisoned under the government. Does the government now own you?

I didn't say you were for human property. I asked you if you agree that prisoners are human property?

No they are not. Bondservants hold slaves. You have already agree having slaves is bad. What about bondservants?

You've touched on "assuming no god" a few times now. Why is that? Are you suggesting the Jewish commentaries I've cited assume no god? It seems to me that your own assumptions are more troublesome than anything, friend.

No, I actually wasn't even thinking of the Jewish commentaries when I said that. I don't know what individual Jewish commentators believe.

You mean other than the Jewish commentaries I've cited? Why would we talk about sources neither of us have used in this discussion? 

Well, if you really want to play the hyper-literalist game, I can point out that this Exo 21:16 still allows kidnapping of men by men...so long as the victim isn't sold...and, apparently women can kidnap whoever they like! But that is taking *exactly* a bit too far. For clarification, I am merely saying the laws taken as a whole (rather than cherry picked) clearly speak to the 'children of Israel' (which would include foreigners who have come to believe in the Hebrew god).

And yes, I most certainly do think they mean what they say.  When we look at the broader context of this Exo 21:16 (the entire chapter), we see trouble being taken to specify "Hebrew slaves" because... there are different rules for foreign slaves. Also, foreigners are disallowed as an option for secondhand daughters (sold into slavery). It is clear distinctions are being made between Hebrew and foreigner wherever confusion might arise. The absence of this distinction in Exo 21:16  means this verse was directed to the nation of Israel FOR the nation of Israel.

The Bible doesn't make any claim whatsoever to allowing the rape of foreign women. No where.

Deuteronomy 21

10 “When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive,11 and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, 12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and [a]trim her nails.13 She shall also [b]remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

And God, in the Bible, never condoned anything remotely close to an allowance for sex outside of marriage. .

Are you unaware of well-respected Biblical figures having concubines? King David had sons with some of his 10 concubines. Concubine

Leviticus 20:10 New International Version (NIV)

10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

The treated as property part seems to be simply a way to make the list appear a bit longer. What does that mean? Is it okay to own a human in, say, a military setting (U.S. army, navy, marines, air force) just so long as soldiers are not treated as they are (property)?

Soldiers are not "property". They sign a contract of their own free will and they obligate themselves to it.  Regardless of what they sign, the US government cannot buy, sell, or rape them. 

When you immediately default to concept of God, it certainly appears to suggest that you "assume no God". If I'm wrong, I apologize. But that's how it would appear. 

It's true, I don't assume your god or the god of the Israelites can possibly be upset by my words...not even "god-concept".  ;-)

FWIW, I no longer have a god-concept of my own, but that doesn't mean I assume there is no god - I just don't believe in yours (or anyone else's).

To try and give a bit more perspective, the question I pose is whether or not the actual existence of Yahweh (OT and NT references being one and the same) has any significance on the actual contexts and meanings in OT scripture?

But if the entire exodus texts are fictional, then the author(s) wouldn't have any accountability to carrying out humanitarian practices, thus would not need to create laws favoring their position.

For clarification, I am merely saying the laws taken as a whole (rather than cherry picked) clearly speak to the 'children of Israel' (which would include foreigners who have come to believe in the Hebrew god).

There's a difference between believing in the Hebrew God, and converting to Judaism.

Psalm 14 King James Version (KJV)
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Do you think this verse is meant in a general sense? Strictly foreigners? Includes or relegated to Israelites? If it includes Israelites, we might have a bit of a problem here.

Why do you find the passage in question abusive?

Deut 21:13

[...] and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

I still, after numerous readings of this text, have yet to see where rape comes in. I always thought it fairly natural for husband and wife to have sexual intercourse at some point.

And God, in the Bible, never condoned anything remotely close to an allowance for sex outside of marriage. .

Are you unaware of well-respected Biblical figures having concubines? King David had sons with some of his 10 concubines. Conc

What is revealed is that David never had a good marriage relationship. His adultery and fornication obviously lead to a lot of problems in his life.

Unfortunately the argument about ownership (owning another human) develops arguments about similarity. The ownership of soldiers may be different (or maybe not so different) from the ownership of an OT servant, but the argument is not about similarity.

To try and give a bit more perspective, the question I pose is whether or not the actual existence of Yahweh (OT and NT references being one and the same) has any significance on the actual contexts and meanings in OT scripture?

No. The Jewish commentaries I cited were obviously written by individuals who believe in the existence of Yahweh ...and so do you.  Even still, your understandings of the meaning of the Bible are quite far apart. 

But if the entire exodus texts are fictional, then the author(s) wouldn't have any accountability to carrying out humanitarian practices, thus would not need to create laws favoring their position.

It is not about what was true, but about what the audience believed to be true. Drawing upon a shared belief can be quite powerful.

For clarification, I am merely saying the laws taken as a whole (rather than cherry picked) clearly speak to the 'children of Israel' (which would include foreigners who have come to believe in the Hebrew god).

There's a difference between believing in the Hebrew God, and converting to Judaism.

No.  A convert to Judaism would necessarily believe in the Hebrew god. I imagine you supplied Matthew 23:15 after searching the Bible for the word "convert".  Unfortunately for you, sharing a word with our discussion does not mean it's relevant. (Matthew 23:15 is a condemnation of self-righteous believers - not converts)

Psalm 14 King James Version (KJV)
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Do you think this verse is meant in a general sense? Strictly foreigners? Includes or relegated to Israelites? If it includes Israelites, we might have a bit of a problem here.

I did specify "the laws". Psalms is not part of the laws.

Why do you find the passage in question abusive?

What passage?  We've discussed quite a few.  Exodus 20:16 was a passage brought up (not by me) in an ignorant attempt to refute (the bad kind of) slavery in the Bible. 

Deut 21:13

[...] and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

I still, after numerous readings of this text, have yet to see where rape comes in. I always thought it fairly natural for husband and wife to have sexual intercourse at some point.

[...] After that, you may be intimate with her and possess her, and she will be a wife for you. [Link]

It seems clear to me sex is happening before 'marriage' and there is little concern of the woman's wishes.  But, hey, it doesn't say "rape", so it must not be that. 

And God, in the Bible, never condoned anything remotely close to an allowance for sex outside of marriage. .

Are you unaware of well-respected Biblical figures having concubines? King David had sons with some of his 10 concubines. Conc

What is revealed is that David never had a good marriage relationship. His adultery and fornication obviously lead to a lot of problems in his life.

That's not the same thing as a Biblical condemnation of sex outside of marriage. In fact, the Bible says David was a righteous man and disobeyed god once (Uriah the Hittite/Bathsheba) and that was not sex with concubines outside of his marriage.

Unfortunately the argument about ownership (owning another human) develops arguments about similarity. The ownership of soldiers may be different (or maybe not so different) from the ownership of an OT servant, but the argument is not about similarity.

I find nothing between soldiers and chattel slaves to be analogous. This is a poor attempt at equivocation.