I received an email from Darryl Hall of Zion Church yesterday notifying me that this Sunday Darryl will be preaching a sermon titled, “Straw Men: Reasons to Disbelieve”.

The “straw men, reasons to disbelieve (in Yahweh of the Old Testament)” Darryl claims he will be preaching on are as follows:

1. Endorsement of Slavery
Does the Old Testament endorse slavery? Most Christians argue that it does not, but a careful reading of the Bible confirms this. What it (Yahweh) does say about it is rather appalling and disgusting to moral people. Here is a conglomerate of a few of the “slavery” passages in the Old and New Testament:

a. Slave owners were allowed to beat their slaves, but not to the point of serious injury to the eyes or the teeth. It was only acceptable to beat a slave so severely that they were disabled for two days.

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

Exodus 21:26-27 “If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth”

So it’s o.k. to beat your slaves, as long as you don’t break their teeth or eyes and after a day or two they can walk again. More:

Leviticus 25:44-46: “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”

The bible clearly endorses slavery here and in many other passages of the Bible. What about sex with slaves (RAPE), what does Yahweh think about that? Well God’s word tells us right there:

Leviticus 19:20-22: “If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed. The man, however, must bring a ram to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting for a guilt offering to the LORD. With the ram of the guilt offering the priest is to make atonement for him before the LORD for the sin he has committed, and his sin will be forgiven.”

Here is the “justice” of the great wise god of the bible for this situation. If a man rapes his slave, he is to go to church and make an offering and the victim is to be punished harshly, but not unto death. Still comfortable calling this book, “God’s Word?”

There is a great deal many more passages regarding slavery here. Clearly if these 2 books, Exodus and Leviticus are God’s “Uniquely inspired divine infallible inherent” word, then slavery is acceptable to him. In my opinion it is high blasphemy to put these words into the mouth of God. Just as bad and possibly worse than expressing that 911 was God’s will is saying that slavery is o.k. IF God had truly spoken through Moses I expect that God would have once and for all forbidden slavery. Neither Jesus or Paul had the moral insight to do that however, so that by the time of the Civil War here in the US, there was a vociferous debate about the issue of slavery wherein the confederates were on the correct side of scripture, arguing from “God’s Word” their inhuman behaviour.

I will be addressing the other 3 points of Darryl’s upcoming sermon in this blog. He has informed me that they are as follows:

2. Instruction to murder anyone who attempts to lead you away from God.
3. Instruction to murder other tribes who will not convert to God.
4. God limiting Himself would make Him less than God.

F.Y.I., #4 comes from a sermon I objected to which Darryl preached several months ago wherein he claimed that perhaps God limited his knowledge so he could adequately test Abraham. Darryl postulated that God first limited his foreknowledge then test Abraham by asking him to sacrifice (yes cut up and burn) his only son. The limiting of God’s knowledge was necessary in Darryl’s view because otherwise he would have known the outcome and the test (obedience to child sacrifice) would not be necessary.

As I have said before, I am constantly baffled by the extremes people will go to justify this god.

In any case, a violent opposition to slavery and other social injustice is hardly a straw man. The bible is indefensible on this issue, and I look forward to witnessing how far Darryl Hall will adulterate his mind in order to justify this horrible text.

I will post the media file of the sermon along with commentary after the message on Sunday.