Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Butterbean on November 25, 2008, 06:26:31 AM
-
Interesting commentary from www.gotquestions.org.
Question: "Does the Bible condone slavery?"
Answer: There is a tendency to look at slavery as if it was something of the past. It is estimated that there are today 12.3 million people in the world who are subject to slavery: forced labor, sex trade, inheritable property, etc. For more information, please visit - http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2006/. As those who have been redeemed from the slavery of sin, followers of Jesus Christ should be the foremost champions of ending human slavery in the world today. The question arises, though, why does the Bible not speak out strongly against slavery? Why does the Bible, in fact, seem to support the practice of human slavery.
The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw the practice altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many people fail to understand is that slavery in Biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more of a social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their family. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their master.
The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. Black people were considered slaves because of their nationality – many slave owners truly believed black people to be “inferior human beings” to white people. The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrew were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery. At the same time, the Bible does seem to allow for other forms of slavery. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.
Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside-out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God, receiving His salvation – God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, he will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.
Recommended Resource: Hard Sayings of the Bible by Kaiser, Davids, & Brauch.
-
Interesting commentary from www.gotquestions.org.
Question: "Does the Bible condone slavery?"
Answer: There is a tendency to look at slavery as if it was something of the past. It is estimated that there are today 12.3 million people in the world who are subject to slavery: forced labor, sex trade, inheritable property, etc. For more information, please visit - http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2006/. As those who have been redeemed from the slavery of sin, followers of Jesus Christ should be the foremost champions of ending human slavery in the world today. The question arises, though, why does the Bible not speak out strongly against slavery? Why does the Bible, in fact, seem to support the practice of human slavery.
The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw the practice altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many people fail to understand is that slavery in Biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more of a social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their family. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their master.
The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. Black people were considered slaves because of their nationality – many slave owners truly believed black people to be “inferior human beings” to white people. The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrew were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery. At the same time, the Bible does seem to allow for other forms of slavery. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.
Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside-out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God, receiving His salvation – God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, he will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.
Recommended Resource: Hard Sayings of the Bible by Kaiser, Davids, & Brauch.
Terrible apologetics. ::)
-
Terrible apologetics. ::)
Why do you say that?
-
Why do you say that?
Because Christians always come up with these silly rationalisations, such as 'it was appropriate for the time' or 'it is not a handbook on social conduct but a manual on salvation'. Slavery is condoned as a normal part of society in botht the OT and the NT. It is an acceptable practice. It is a different question, what one chooses to do with that information, however.
-
slavery was a necessary evil.
-
Because Christians always come up with these silly rationalisations, such as 'it was appropriate for the time' or 'it is not a handbook on social conduct but a manual on salvation'. Slavery is condoned as a normal part of society in botht the OT and the NT. It is an acceptable practice. It is a different question, what one chooses to do with that information, however.
That's not what the article says. There's a world of difference between the "slavery" mentioned in the Bible and chattel slavery, as we've come to know it (i.e. what was done to black people).
For starters, people could indenture themselves to others to pay off debt. An example of this was Jacob serving his uncle, Laban, for 7 years to pay the dowry for Laban's daughter, Rachel, whom Jacob wanted as his wife.
In the kingdom of Israel, one could only be a "slave" for 7 years max, barring some unusual circumstance. And, God constantly reminded the Israelites, that they needed to treat their servants with kindness and fairness, reminding them of the harsh treatment they received in Egypt.
Deut. 12:12-15
"If your kinsman, a Hebrew man or woman, is sold to you, then he shall serve you six years, but in the seventh year you shall set him free. When you set him free, you shall not send him away empty-handed. You shall furnish him liberally from your flock and from your threshing floor and from your wine vat; you shall give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today.
Ex. 22:21
You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Another MAJOR difference is the treatment of women. It's no secret that, when blacks were brought to America, the white masters raped black women virtually without conscience. In fact, it was considered a hospitality among the affluent of society. Such behavior certainly was not viable in the Bible. And, to top it all off, the very method by which chattel slavery was enacted (namely, snatching black people from Africa and taking them England or America) was absolutely condemned. In fact, it was a capital offense.
Ex. 21:16
"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.
Here is more elaboration on the issue:
Accordingly, I think--to avoid the inflammatory associations that naturally occur for Westerners when something is referred to as 'slavery'--it wise to carefully set out the structure of what we consider 'slavery' today, and compare that to the OT institution of 'Hebrew slavery'. New World slavery differs substantially from most ANE institutions labeled 'slavery', which themselves differed at significant points from OT slavery. We will try to make these distinctions clear, when they are relevant to the discussion.
With this in mind, I want to set out the basic elements associated with historical slavery, as practiced in America before the American Civil War, and to offer some general contrasts with ANE slavery (I will look at OT slavery later in the article). (This is not meant to be exhaustive, but simply to highlight the aspects of the institution that strike our sensibilities today.)
· Motive: Slavery was motivated by the economic advantage of the elite.
So, [NS:ECA:4:1190] point this out: "New World slavery was a unique conjuntion of features. Its use of slaves was strikingly specialized as unfree labor-producing commodities, such as cotton and sugar, for a world market." and Britannica: "By 1850 nearly two-thirds of the plantation slaves were engaged in the production of cotton...the South was totally transformed by the presences of slavery. Slavery generated profits comparable to those from other investments and was only ended as a consequence of the War Between the States." (s.v. "Slavery")
In the ANE (and OT), this was NOT the case. The dominant (statistically) motivation was economic relief of poverty (i.e., 'slavery' was initiated by the slave--NOT by the owner--and the primary uses were purely domestic (except in cases of State slavery, where individuals were used for building projects).
The definitive work on ANE law today is the 2 volume work [HI:HANEL] (History of Ancient Near Eastern Law). This work (by 22 scholars) surveys every legal document from the ANE (by period) and includes sections on slavery. A smattering of quotes will indicate this for-the-poor instead of for-the-rich purpose for most of ANE slavery:
§ "Most slaves owned by Assyrians in Assur and in Anatolia seem to have been (originally) debt slaves--free persons sold into slavery by a parent, a husband, an elder sister, or by themselves." (1.449)
§ "Sales of wives, children, relatives, or oneself, due to financial duress, are a recurrent feature of the Nuzi socio-economic scene…A somewhat different case is that of male and female foreigners, called hapiru (immigrants) who gave themselves in slavery to private individuals or the palace administration. Poverty was the cause of these agreements…" (1.585)
§ "Most of the recorded cases of entry of free persons into slavery [in Emar] are by reason of debt or famine or both…A common practice was for a financier to pay off the various creditors in return for the debtor becoming his slave." (1.664f)
§ "On the other hand, mention is made of free people who are sold into slavery as a result of the famine conditions and the critical economic situation of the populations [Canaan]. Sons and daughters are sold for provisions…" (1.741)
§ "The most frequently mentioned method of enslavement [Neo-Sumerian, UR III] was sale of children by their parents. Most are women, evidently widows, selling a daughter; in one instance a mother and grandmother sell a boy…There are also examples of self sale. All these case clearly arose from poverty; it is not stated, however, whether debt was specifically at issue." (1.199)
· Entry: Slavery was overwhelmingly involuntary. Humans were captured by force and sold via slave-traders.
This was true both for the Islamic slave trade and the European trade. So, Britannica:
"Slaves have been owned in black Africa throughout recorded history. In many areas there were large-scale slave societies, while in others there were slave-owning societies. Slavery was practiced everywhere even before the rise of Islam, and black slaves exported from Africa were widely traded throughout the Islamic world. Approximately 18,000,000 Africans were delivered into the Islamic trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean slave trades between 650 and 1905. In the second half of the 15th century Europeans began to trade along the west coast of Africa, and by 1867 between 7,000,000 and 10,000,000 Africans had been shipped as slaves to the New World.... The relationship between African and New World slavery was highly complementary. African slave owners demanded primarily women and children for labour and lineage incorporation and tended to kill males because they were troublesome and likely to flee. The transatlantic trade, on the other hand, demanded primarily adult males for labour and thus saved from certain death many adult males who otherwise would have been slaughtered outright by their African captors."
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html)
-
(Continued)
In the ANE (and especially the OT), the opposite was the case. This should be obvious from the MOTIVE aspect--these were choices by the impoverished to enter this dependency state, in return for economic security and protection. Some slavery contracts actually emphasized this voluntary aspect!:
"A person would either enter into slavery or be sold by a parent or relative. Persons sold their wives, grandchildren, brother (with his wife and child), sister, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, nephews and niece…Many of the documents emphasize that the transaction is voluntary. This applies not only to self-sale but also to those who are the object of sale, although their consent must sometimes have been fictional, as in the case of a nursing infant." [HI:HANEL:1.665]
This might also be seen from the fact that war/violence was NOT a major source of 'real' slaves in the ANE (nor OT). For example, even though there were large numbers of war-captives in the ANE, they were generally NOT turned into slaves, but rather into tenant-farming, serfs:
"Within all the periods of antiquity, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Hittite, Persian, and other Oriental rulers carried away great masses of captives from their victorious battles. But only an insignificant part of them was turned into slaves; all the others were settled on the land as palace and temple serfs….The question arises, why the masses of war prisoners were not enslaved. Slavery was the optimal form of dependence, and very often there was no shortage of prisoners captured in war. Besides, there were no legal or ethical norms preventing these prisoners from being turned into slaves. But this happened in a negligible percentage of cases, while the overwhelming majority were settled in places specially set aside for them, paid royal taxes, and carried out obligations, including military service." [ABD: s.v. "Slavery, ANE"]
"War is only mentioned as a source of slavery for public institutions. The most frequently mentioned method of enslavement was sale of children by their parents. Most are women, evidently widows, selling a daughter; in one instance a mother and grandmother sell a boy…There are also examples of self sale." [HI:HANEL:1.199]
The same, of course, can be said of Israel. For example, even in wars on foreign soil (e.g., Deut 20.10,10), if a city surrendered, it became a vassal state to Israel, with the population becoming serfs (mas), not slaves (ebed, amah). They would have performed what is called 'corvee' (draft-type, special labor projects, and often on a rotation basis--as Israelites later did as masim under Solomon, 1 Kings 5.27). This was analogous to ANE praxis, in which war captives were not enslaved, but converted into vassal groups:
"The nations subjected by the Israelites were considered slaves. They were, however, not slaves in the proper meaning of the term, although they were obliged to pay royal taxes and perform public works." [ABD, s.v. "Slavery, Old Testament"]
And since most slavery was done through self-sale or family-sale, it was likewise voluntary (at least as voluntary as poverty allows), cf. Lev 25.44 in which the verbs are of 'acquisition' and not 'take' or 'conquer' etc.
· Treatment : Slaves were frequently mistreated by modern standards, and punishments were extreme.
The images we have of the Old American South are filled with mistreatments, and we need no documentation of that here. The ANE, on the other hand, was much less severe, due largely to the differences in the attitudes of the 'master' to the 'slave'. Slavery in the ANE was much more an 'in-house' and 'in-family' thing, with closer emotional attachment. However, there were still some extreme punishments in the ANE, but the biblical witness is of a decidedly better environment for slaves than even the ANE. Exodus 21, for example, is considered by many to be unparalleled in respect to humanitarianism toward slaves, and we shall return to this in detail below. [Suffice it to mention here that Ex 21.21 restricts the treatment of the slave to be no more severe than what the community/elders could do with a regular, free citizen. This restriction on an owner should make one ponder what in the world the word 'property' might mean in such a context! But more on this in a minute…]
But in the ANE slaves were generally protected from over-abuse (under normal conditions, runaways were a problem, as we shall see):
"[Slaves were generally afforded protection from] Excessive Physical punishment. Even chattel slaves appear to have benefited to some extent from this protection" [HI:HANEL:1:43]
And all the records of the period seem to indicate humane treatment:
"First, let us set apart the slaves--the booty of war or in servitude for various reasons--who by definition were totally dependent on their masters, although the latter appear to have treated them fairly humanely, and more like domestic servants." [HI:ELAM, 114]
-
So the term "slave" in the Bible has a different meaning?
-
So the term "slave" in the Bible has a different meaning?
If, by "different meaning", you're referring to something other than indefinite forced servitude (as was the case with chattel slavery with blacks), the answer is "Yes".
-
Yes, a different meaning than the one we typically think of.
And since most slavery was done through self-sale or family-sale, it was likewise voluntary (at least as voluntary as poverty allows), cf. Lev 25.44 in which the verbs are of 'acquisition' and not 'take' or 'conquer' etc.
-
If, by "different meaning", you're referring to something other than indefinite forced servitude (as was the case with chattel slavery with blacks), the answer is "Yes".
so why is it still termed as "slaves" if it's not the same meaning?
-
so why is it still termed as "slaves" if it's not the same meaning?
Not sure but maybe English doesn't have an appropriate word to define the term?
(www.christian-thinktank.com
"Freedom in the ancient Near East was a relative, not an absolute state, as the ambiguity of the term for "slave" in all the region's languages illustrates. "Slave" could be used to refer to a subordinate in the social ladder. Thus the subjects of a king were called his "slaves," even though they were free citizens. The king himself, if a vassal, was the "slave" of his emperor; kings, emperors, and commoners alike were "slaves" of the gods. Even a social inferior, when addressing a social superior, referred to himself out of politeness as "your slave." There were, moreover, a plethora of servile conditions that were not regarded as slavery, such as son, daughter, wife, serf, or human pledge." [HI:HANEL:1.40]
"Guterbock refers to 'slaves in the strict sense,' apparently referring to chattel slaves such as those of classical antiquity. This characterization may have been valid for house slaves whose master could treat them as he wished when they were at fault, but it is less suitable when they were capable of owning property and could pay betrothal money or fines. The meaning 'servant' seems more appropriate, or perhaps the designation 'semi-free'. It comprises every person who is subject to orders or dependent on another but nonetheless has a certain independence within his own sphere of active."
"Freedom in the ancient Near East was a relative, not an absolute state, as the ambiguity of the term for "slave" in all the region's languages illustrates. "Slave" could be used to refer to a subordinate in the social ladder. Thus the subjects of a king were called his "slaves," even though they were free citizens. The king himself, if a vassal, was the "slave" of his emperor; kings, emperors, and commoners alike were "slaves" of the gods. Even a social inferior, when addressing a social superior, referred to himself out of politeness as "your slave." There were, moreover, a plethora of servile conditions that were not regarded as slavery, such as son, daughter, wife, serf, or human pledge." [HI:HANEL:1.40]
hmm.. according to this "slave" was a def. that covered many diff. people according to their status
-
so why is it still termed as "slaves" if it's not the same meaning?
That may be more of a culture thing. For example, in the gospel of John (KJV), it states that 100 pounds of spices were brought to anoint Jesus' body. When you hear the word, "pound", you usually think 16 ounce-measurement. Well, the Greek word for "pound" is litra.
Since the Greek version reads "ἑκατόν λίτρα (hekatron litra)", it translated into "100 pounds" in English.
John 19:39 (KJV)
And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
But, in more contemporary translations (i.e. the New Living Translation [NLT]), it says "75 pounds".
John 19:39 (NLT)
Nicodemus, the man who had come to Jesus at night, also came, bringing about seventy-five pounds of embalming ointment made from myrrh and aloes.
The reason for this is because a Greek "pound" (litra) is 11.5 ounces, which most round up to 12 ounces; whereas, a U.S. pound is 16 ounces. Therefore, 100 litras (Greek) is about 75 pounds (U.S.).
A similar thing applies to the word, "mile". A U.S. "mile" is 5,280 ft.; a Roman "mile" is only about 4,500 ft.
So, just as what comes to our minds, when we hear the word, "pound", or "mile" is different from what the ancient Greeks and Romans thought when they heard the word, "pound" or "mile", what the people in OT times defined as "slave" and what we think, when we hear the term, "slave", are different.
-
I think McWay and Stella are both making the mistake of wishfully filtering the facts here...
Christian apologists (even academics) have the habit of selectively redefining the aspects of Christian history/tradition that embarrass them or offend their (modern) sensibilities.
The FACTS:
-ancient Hebrew peoples practiced BOTH indentured servitude and chattel slavery
-Hebrew slaves were in effect indentured servants and subject to a seven year maximum term; severance pay and basic human rights
-non-Hebrew (Gentile/barbarian) slaves were chattel slaves: no human rights and slaves for life
-non-Hebrew female slaves were in effect sex slaves
Women fell somewhere between the two. They could be sold and were in effect servants for life, but did receive basic human rights, although they had no rights over their own sexual consent.
There are plenty of examples in the Bible of both women and (Gentile) slaves being treated abominably... and many examples of women and (Gentile) slaves being treated as expendable property, even being handed over as rape surrogates (Lott's daughters for example).
The thing such Christian apologists always neglect to mention is that Mosaic and Abrahamic law is strictly understood to apply ONLY to fellow Jews.
"Thou shalt not kill" means "Thou shalt not kill another Jew"...Yahweh demands the lives of all the people of Canaan for example; the Canaanite children specifically are to have their brains dashed out to appease Yahweh's blood lust.
"Thou shalt not steal" means "Thou shalt not steal from a fellow Jew"...but you can steal the lands/wives/slaves/children/goods of the Canaanites and the Philistines.
The reason Abraham is willing to go along with Yahweh's (then a storm god) demand to make a burnt offering sacrifice of his son Isaac (?) is because child sacrifice was NOT uncommon among Jews at the time. The interdiction on killing in the Ten Commandments was not understood to extend to sacrifice, which was not considered a form of murder.
The Luke
-
I think McWay and Stella are both making the mistake of wishfully filtering the facts here...
Christian apologists (even academics) have the habit of selectively redefining the aspects of Christian history/tradition that embarrass them or offend their (modern) sensibilities.
The FACTS:
-ancient Hebrew peoples practiced BOTH indentured servitude and chattel slavery
-Hebrew slaves were in effect indentured servants and subject to a seven year maximum term; severance pay and basic human rights
-non-Hebrew (Gentile/barbarian) slaves were chattel slaves: no human rights and slaves for life
-non-Hebrew female slaves were in effect sex slaves
Women fell somewhere between the two. They could be sold and were in effect servants for life, but did receive basic human rights, although they had no rights over their own sexual consent.
There are plenty of examples in the Bible of both women and (Gentile) slaves being treated abominably... and many examples of women and (Gentile) slaves being treated as expendable property, even being handed over as rape surrogates (Lott's daughters for example).
The thing such Christian apologists always neglect to mention is that Mosaic and Abrahamic law is strictly understood to apply ONLY to fellow Jews.
"Thou shalt not kill" means "Thou shalt not kill another Jew"...Yahweh demands the lives of all the people of Canaan for example; the Canaanite children specifically are to have their brains dashed out to appease Yahweh's blood lust.
"Thou shalt not steal" means "Thou shalt not steal from a fellow Jew"...but you can steal the lands/wives/slaves/children/goods of the Canaanites and the Philistines.
The reason Abraham is willing to go along with Yahweh's (then a storm god) demand to make a burnt offering sacrifice of his son Isaac (?) is because child sacrifice was NOT uncommon among Jews at the time. The interdiction on killing in the Ten Commandments was not understood to extend to sacrifice, which was not considered a form of murder.
The Luke
As usual, The Luke pulling "The Facts" out of his butt, while providing no sources or references.
So, based on your post above("Mosaic and Abrahamic law is strictly understood to apply ONLY to fellow Jews"), God has a problem with Jews being homosexuals, but Gentiles can flame away to their hearts desire? ::)
-
I think McWay and Stella are both making the mistake of wishfully filtering the facts here...
Christian apologists (even academics) have the habit of selectively redefining the aspects of Christian history/tradition that embarrass them or offend their (modern) sensibilities.
The FACTS:
-ancient Hebrew peoples practiced BOTH indentured servitude and chattel slavery
-Hebrew slaves were in effect indentured servants and subject to a seven year maximum term; severance pay and basic human rights
-non-Hebrew (Gentile/barbarian) slaves were chattel slaves: no human rights and slaves for life
-non-Hebrew female slaves were in effect sex slaves
Women fell somewhere between the two. They could be sold and were in effect servants for life, but did receive basic human rights, although they had no rights over their own sexual consent.
There are plenty of examples in the Bible of both women and (Gentile) slaves being treated abominably... and many examples of women and (Gentile) slaves being treated as expendable property, even being handed over as rape surrogates (Lott's daughters for example).
The thing such Christian apologists always neglect to mention is that Mosaic and Abrahamic law is strictly understood to apply ONLY to fellow Jews.
"Thou shalt not kill" means "Thou shalt not kill another Jew"...Yahweh demands the lives of all the people of Canaan for example; the Canaanite children specifically are to have their brains dashed out to appease Yahweh's blood lust.
"Thou shalt not steal" means "Thou shalt not steal from a fellow Jew"...but you can steal the lands/wives/slaves/children/goods of the Canaanites and the Philistines.
The reason Abraham is willing to go along with Yahweh's (then a storm god) demand to make a burnt offering sacrifice of his son Isaac (?) is because child sacrifice was NOT uncommon among Jews at the time. The interdiction on killing in the Ten Commandments was not understood to extend to sacrifice, which was not considered a form of murder.
The Luke
None of them can pull out a single non-apologist piece of information; astounding really... ::)
-
So slavey in the bible contained both definitions?
-
So, based on your post above("Mosaic and Abrahamic law is strictly understood to apply ONLY to fellow Jews"), God has a problem with Jews being homosexuals, but Gentiles can flame away to their hearts desire? ::)
...exactly.
Once beyond the actual "reach" of the god-box (Ark of the Covenant) that physically contained the storm god Yahweh, Jews weren't even required to pray to Yahweh. He was considered a localised deity.
That's why when the Judges ran Israel they openly worshiped the local (Canaanite) child-sacrifice demanding god Baal... because they were living beyond the reach of Yahweh, while he was housed in his box on the mountain of Jebul Madbh (Mount Sinai) in the Valley of Edom (Petra in modern day Jordan).
Proof of this is there for everyone to read in the Book of Judges... some of the Israelite leaders have names such as Jerubaal ("Glory of Baal").
The Luke
-
As usual, The Luke pulling "The Facts" out of his butt, while providing no sources or references.
AMEN!!!! ;D
So, based on your post above("Mosaic and Abrahamic law is strictly understood to apply ONLY to fellow Jews"), God has a problem with Jews being homosexuals, but Gentiles can flame away to their hearts desire? ::)
Of course not!!! As usual, Luke's lack of accuracy is in full display.
I think McWay and Stella are both making the mistake of wishfully filtering the facts here...
Christian apologists (even academics) have the habit of selectively redefining the aspects of Christian history/tradition that embarrass them or offend their (modern) sensibilities.
The FACTS:
-ancient Hebrew peoples practiced BOTH indentured servitude and chattel slavery
-Hebrew slaves were in effect indentured servants and subject to a seven year maximum term; severance pay and basic human rights
-non-Hebrew (Gentile/barbarian) slaves were chattel slaves: no human rights and slaves for life
-non-Hebrew female slaves were in effect sex slaves
Women fell somewhere between the two. They could be sold and were in effect servants for life, but did receive basic human rights, although they had no rights over their own sexual consent.
There are plenty of examples in the Bible of both women and (Gentile) slaves being treated abominably... and many examples of women and (Gentile) slaves being treated as expendable property, even being handed over as rape surrogates (Lott's daughters for example).
The thing such Christian apologists always neglect to mention is that Mosaic and Abrahamic law is strictly understood to apply ONLY to fellow Jews.
"Thou shalt not kill" means "Thou shalt not kill another Jew"...Yahweh demands the lives of all the people of Canaan for example; the Canaanite children specifically are to have their brains dashed out to appease Yahweh's blood lust.
"Thou shalt not steal" means "Thou shalt not steal from a fellow Jew"...but you can steal the lands/wives/slaves/children/goods of the Canaanites and the Philistines.
The reason Abraham is willing to go along with Yahweh's (then a storm god) demand to make a burnt offering sacrifice of his son Isaac (?) is because child sacrifice was NOT uncommon among Jews at the time. The interdiction on killing in the Ten Commandments was not understood to extend to sacrifice, which was not considered a form of murder.
The Luke
Ummm.......NO!! First of all, lest you forgot, Abraham DID NOT sacrifice Isaac; a ram was used in his place. Furthermore, the Israelites were SPECIFICALLY BANNED from performing human sacrifice.
Deut. 12:29-31:
When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land;
Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.
Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
Not only did God not want the Isralites to worship other gods, He did not want them to worship Him the way their neighbors worshipped their deites, which included, among other things, human sacrifice.
Furthermore, if you look at the book of Leviticus, you will see the hiearchy for what sacrifices are acceptable, based on the financial situation of those offering it. Usually, it goes from cattle to sheep to birds. Conspicously absent from that list is PEOPLE.
As for your claim about non-Hebrews being treated as chattel, that's woefully inaccurate, as well.
Lev. 19:34
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
That was mentioned earlier, as was (from the Christian ThinkTank link):
Other references to 'slavery-like' situations in the Mosaic law: The 'Foreign slave".
In addition to the institution of Hebrew servanthood above, the Mosaic law has some material on two other kinds of servant/slave-type situations: captives of war and foreign slaves. There is not much material on these subjects, and, given the intention of the Law to differentiate between Israel and the nations, much of it falls into the exceptional category.
The first case is that of war captives in Deut 20. The scenario painted in this chapter is a theoretical one, that apparently never materialized in ancient Israel. It concerns war by Israel against nations NOT within the promised land. Since Israel was not allowed by God to seek land outside its borders (cf. Deut 2.1-23), such a military campaign could only be made against a foreign power that had attacked Israel in her own territory. By the time these events occurred (e.g. Assyria), Israel's power had been so dissipated through covenant disloyalty that military moves of these sort would have been unthinkable.
But the scenario involved offering peace to a city. If the city accepted peace, its inhabitants would be put to "forced labor" (cf. Gibeon in Josh 9), but this would hardly be called 'slavery' (it is also used of conscription services under the Hebrew kings, cf. 2 Sam 20.24; I Kings 9.15). If the city was attacked and destroyed, the survivors were taken as foreign slaves/servants (but the women apparently had special rights--cf. Deut 21.10ff) under the rubric of the second case (below).
We noted earlier in this essay that these were not 'slaves' in the proper sense of the word, but more 'vassals' or 'serfs'.
The second case is that of foreign slaves within Israel (Lev 25.44f):
Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. 44 "`Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 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. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life
God orders the Israelites to make a distinction between the Hebrew servants and the those of foreign nations. They were:
· Allowed to 'buy' (not take!) slaves from foreign nations around them [Note: these would NOT include the Canaanites, but would be from remote nations. This would make the incidence level of this extremely small, except in the case of royalty or the ruling class. In those days, rulers would often have slaves with special skills, such as writing, teaching, translation, but the lives of these 'slaves' would not be representative of the common "western" slavery under discussion.]
· The temporary resident situation would look more like the Hebrew institution (since the alien would be 'selling himself' as in that case). The main difference would be the absence of the "timed-release" freedom clauses, but the slave-for-life-for-love situation may have been what is behind the 'you CAN make them slaves for life' (implying that it was not automatic.).
· The temporary resident already performed more mundane tasks for the people, for example wood and water services (cf. Deut 29.11: the aliens living in your camps who chop your wood and carry your water. ), in exchange for escape from Egypt or from troubles abroad. But these aliens were not confined to some 'lower class' in the Israelite assembly, since it is obvious that they could rise to affluence and actually BUY Hebrew servants as well:
"`If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan, 48 he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself. (Deut 25.47)
As such, it looks more like the Hebrew institution than the 'western' version.......
-
As far as the rights of women were concerned:
• The case of the female war-captives is remarkable for its 'instant exaltation' of the woman--past slave, past concubine, all the way to full wife(!):
"The position of a female captive of war was remarkable. According to Deuteronomy 20:14, she could be spared and taken as a servant, while Deuteronomy 21:10-11 allowed her captor to take her to wife. While the relationship of the Hebrew bondwoman was described by a peculiar term (note: concubine), the marriage to the captive woman meant that the man 'would be her husband and she his wife.' No mention was made of any act of manumission; the termination of the marriage was possible only by way of divorce and not by sale." [OT:HLBT, 127]
• Finally, it should be noted that the passage says that they "can" make them slaves for life--not that they "were automatically" slaves for life. Somehow, freedom was the default and lifetime slavery only an 'option'.
It should also be recognized that the Law did make some allowance for less-than-ideal praxis in the day (e.g. polygamy, divorce), but nevertheless regulated these practices and placed definite limits and protections around these areas. This foreign semi-slavery seems to have fallen into this category as well.
But even with this class of people being 'below' regular Hebrew slaves, there was still a God-directed humanitarian vision required of Israel--in strong contradiction to other lands…
Let's see some of the data which reveals this perspective.
(1) "Although slaves were viewed as the property of heads of households, the latter were not free to brutalize or abuse even non-Israelite members of the household. On the contrary, explicit prohibitions of the oppression/exploitation of slaves appear repeatedly in the Mosaic legislation. In two most remarkable texts, Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19, Yahweh charges all Israelites to love ('aheb) aliens (gerim) who reside in their midst, that is, the foreign members of their households, like they do themselves and to treat these outsiders with the same respect they show their ethnic countrymen. Like Exodus 22:20 (Eng. 21), in both texts Israel's memory of her own experience as slaves in Egypt should have provided motivation for compassionate treatment of her slaves. But Deuteronomy 10:18 adds that the Israelites were to look to Yahweh himself as the paradigm for treating the economically and socially vulnerable persons in their communities." [HI:MFBW:60]
(2) The classic alienation of insider-outside social stratification (a major component of Western and even Roman slavery) was minimized in Israel by the inclusion of the domestics in the very heart-life of the nation: covenant and religious life. This would have created social bonds that softened much of any residual stigma associated with the servile status. This was accomplished through religious integration into the religious life of the household:
"However, domestic slavery was in all likelihood usually fairly tolerable. Slaves formed part of the family and males, if circumcised, could take part in the family Passover and other religious functions. Moreover, in general there were probably only a few in each household (note: allowing easier access to family bonds)" [OT:I:101]
-
McWay,
You've just illustrated my point for me:
Christian apologists (even academics) have the habit of selectively redefining the aspects of Christian history/tradition that embarrass them or offend their (modern) sensibilities.
...you answered this with a copy and paste that includes a quotation of God's command that the Israelites may take non-Israelites as "slaves for life".
Do you even read the articles you copy and paste?
You even quoted Yahweh's proscription against Israelites worshiping Baal with human sacrifice... don't you realise what questions immediately follow from such a quote:
1-Why did the Israelites need to be told NOT to perform human sacrifice, if they indeed didn't practice it?
2-Why didn't Abraham quote such a proscription against human sacrifice in his defense when God asked him to make a burnt offering of Isaac? (Could it be that such proscription wasn't in force in Abraham's time?... as archaeologists insist it wasn't.)
3-Why are some of the Judges (Book of Judges) named after the heathen child-sacrifice demanding god Baal? Isn't it obvious that the Jews were openly worshiping Baal when beyond the reach of their boxed god?
Chronic apologetics.
The Luke
-
McWay,
You've just illustrated my point for me:
...you answered this with a copy and paste that includes a quotation of God's command that the Israelites may take non-Israelites as "slaves for life".
Do you even read the articles you copy and paste?
You even quoted Yahweh's proscription against Israelites worshiping Baal with human sacrifice... don't you realise what questions immediately follow from such a quote:
1-Why did the Israelites need to be told NOT to perform human sacrifice, if they indeed didn't practice it?
Because, boy genius, the verse I used clearly states that the Israelites WERE NOT to worship God, as their neighbors worshipped their deities. That means you don’t copy the folks that use human sacrifice.
2-Why didn't Abraham quote such a proscription against human sacrifice in his defense when God asked him to make a burnt offering of Isaac? (Could it be that such proscription wasn't in force in Abraham's time?... as archaeologists insist it wasn't.)
At the end of the day, God STOPPED Abe from doing that. And apparently, Abe had the confidence to believe the Lord would provide a way out, as he told his men that both he and Isaac would return.
3-Why are some of the Judges (Book of Judges) named after the heathen child-sacrifice demanding god Baal? Isn't it obvious that the Jews were openly worshiping Baal when beyond the reach of their boxed god?
Israel's falling into apostasy is well-documented. The point, of course, is that they were going AGAINST God's instruction. If God directed them to engage in human sacrifice, He would have had guidelines on how to prep humans, as He does in the book of Leviticus, with livestock. Guess what....NO SUCH PROVISIONS are there.
Why? Because human sacrifice was a no-no!!
Chronic apologetics.
The Luke
More like chronic buffoonery, on your part.
-
More like chronic buffoonery, on your part.
...so, the ancient Israelites:
-DID INDEED practice human sacrifice, but that doesn't count because they did so in worship of Baal rather than Yahweh.
-DID INDEED practice chattel slavery, but that doesn't count either because they also practiced indentured servitude among their own people.
-DID INDEED practice genocide, but that doesn't count because they only waged one genocidal pogrom war against the nation of Canaan and once all the Canaanites were either slaughtered or sold into slavery they never again fought an aggressive war against their neighbors.
Now that I understand your position, it's probably time for me to restate my original point:
Christian apologists (even academics) have the habit of selectively redefining the aspects of Christian history/tradition that embarrass them or offend their (modern) sensibilities.
...so in conclusion: YES... YES the Bible does indeed condone slavery.
Even Jesus himself condoned slavery, albeit in a tacit way... a sort of sin of omission.
The Luke
-
...so, the ancient Israelites:
-DID INDEED practice human sacrifice, but that doesn't count because they did so in worship of Baal rather than Yahweh.
-DID INDEED practice chattel slavery, but that doesn't count either because they also practiced indentured servitude among their own people.
-DID INDEED practice genocide, but that doesn't count because they only waged one genocidal pogrom war against the nation of Canaan and once all the Canaanites were either slaughtered or sold into slavery they never again fought an aggressive war against their neighbors.
Now that I understand your position, it's probably time for me to restate my original point:
...so in conclusion: YES... YES the Bible does indeed condone slavery.
Even Jesus himself condoned slavery, albeit in a tacit way... a sort of sin of omission.
The Luke
Epic Waste of Time...
-
...so, the ancient Israelites:
-DID INDEED practice human sacrifice, but that doesn't count because they did so in worship of Baal rather than Yahweh.
They were instructed NOT to engage in human sacrifice (not to God, or any other deity). Any indication that they did such was a flagrant act of disobedience. But, their wickedness is well-documented:
Jdg 2:11 - And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim
Jdg 3:7 And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and forgot the LORD their God, and served Baalim and the groves.
Jdg 10:6 - And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim, and Ashtaroth, and the gods of Syria, and the gods of Zidon, and the gods of Moab, and the gods of the children of Ammon, and the gods of the Philistines, and forsook the LORD, and served not him.
Jdg 13:1 - And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD delivered them into the hand of the Philistines forty years.
-DID INDEED practice chattel slavery, but that doesn't count either because they also practiced indentured servitude among their own people.
And, the chapter and verse for this would be........(once again, your inherent lack of giving the specifics rears its ugly head).
On the other hand,
This potential forced enslavement seems to run counter to most of the provisions for the widows in Israel, and as such would not be in the spirit of the Law in the least! (A similar situation occurs in Neh 5.5, where the Israelites are being economically forced to sell their sons and daughters to simply maintain their living and homestead.)
· The attempted enslavement of 200,000 Judeans! (2 Chrn 28.8-15).
The Israelites took captive from their kinsmen two hundred thousand wives, sons and daughters. They also took a great deal of plunder, which they carried back to Samaria. 9 But a prophet of the LORD named Oded was there, and he went out to meet the army when it returned to Samaria. He said to them, "Because the LORD, the God of your fathers, was angry with Judah, he gave them into your hand. But you have slaughtered them in a rage that reaches to heaven. 10 And now you intend to make the men and women of Judah and Jerusalem your slaves. But aren't you also guilty of sins against the LORD your God? 11 Now listen to me! Send back your fellow countrymen you have taken as prisoners, for the LORD's fierce anger rests on you." 12 Then some of the leaders in Ephraim -- Azariah son of Jehohanan, Berekiah son of Meshillemoth, Jehizkiah son of Shallum, and Amasa son of Hadlai -- confronted those who were arriving from the war. 13 "You must not bring those prisoners here," they said, "or we will be guilty before the LORD. Do you intend to add to our sin and guilt? For our guilt is already great, and his fierce anger rests on Israel." 14 So the soldiers gave up the prisoners and plunder in the presence of the officials and all the assembly. 15 The men designated by name took the prisoners, and from the plunder they clothed all who were naked. They provided them with clothes and sandals, food and drink, and healing balm. All those who were weak they put on donkeys. So they took them back to their fellow countrymen at Jericho, the City of Palms, and returned to Samaria.
In this passage we see a victorious Northern Kingdom of Israel taking "war captives" of the Southern Kindgom of Judah. The prophet speaks for God and specifically condemns the practice.
· The abuse of the poor by the elite in the Southern Kingdom (Amos)
Hear this, you who trample the needy and do away with the poor of the land, 5 saying, "When will the New Moon be over that we may sell grain, and the Sabbath be ended that we may market wheat?" -- skimping the measure, boosting the price and cheating with dishonest scales, 6 buying the poor with silver and the needy for a pair of sandals, selling even the sweepings with the wheat. (Amos 8.4ff)
One can see here that the ruling elite had begun to exploit and abuse the poor--just another example of how we tend to take acceptable structures and exploit them for selfish ends. No exception here. The fact that the prophets consistently rebuke these oppressive practices should indicate that God NEVER intended them for His people at all!
-DID INDEED practice genocide, but that doesn't count because they only waged one genocidal pogrom war against the nation of Canaan and once all the Canaanites were either slaughtered or sold into slavery they never again fought an aggressive war against their neighbors.
It appears you need to brush up on your Biblical history. Israel drove the Canaanites out of their land, due to (among other things) their practice of such things as human sacrifice. Unfortunately, as Scripture also indicates, the Israelites disobeyed God's laws and undertook the very practices that the Caananites and other folks around them did, to the point that their wickedness exceeded that of their neighbors.
Now that I understand your position, it's probably time for me to restate my original point:
...so in conclusion: YES... YES the Bible does indeed condone slavery.
Even Jesus himself condoned slavery, albeit in a tacit way... a sort of sin of omission.
The Luke
Your conclusion is, as usual, feebly inaccurate.
-
slaves existed at the time the bible was being written
the men who wrote the bible gave instructions on how slaves should act and how slave owners should treat their slaves
we all know that slavery is wrong and we don't need to consult a book of semitic folktales or care about anyone's opinion or interpretation of said book
-
slaves existed at the time the bible was being written
the men who wrote the bible gave instructions on how slaves should act and how slave owners should treat their slaves
we all know that slavery is wrong and we don't need to consult a book of semitic folktales or care about anyone's opinion or interpretation of said book
the problem is that some poeple believe that every world written in the "infallable" word of God, therefore God gave advice/instruction/guidelines with slaves.
-
slaves existed at the time the bible was being written
the men who wrote the bible gave instructions on how slaves should act and how slave owners should treat their slaves
We know that!! That isn't the issue, here. The issue (and the crux of this thread) is that there's a HUGE differences between the "slaves" of the OT and the chattel slaves (i.e. black people in USA/England) of relatively recent memory.
we all know that slavery is wrong and we don't need to consult a book of semitic folktales or care about anyone's opinion or interpretation of said book
Why not?
Who told you that slavery is wrong? Why can’t you impose your will on someone, if you have the military/political might to do so?
If this is simply about the will of man, then you have no such thing as "inalienable" rights. If man can give something to someone; he can take that something away.
-
We know that!! That isn't the issue, here. The issue (and the crux of this thread) is that there's a HUGE differences between the "slaves" of the OT and the chattel slaves (i.e. black people in USA/England) of relatively recent memory.
exactly!
-
The issue (and the crux of this thread) is that there's a HUGE differences between the "slaves" of the OT and the chattel slaves (i.e. black people in USA/England) of relatively recent memory.
...bullshit.
Some of the early Hebrew royalty even kept foreign girls as sex slaves. What exactly is the difference between a chattel slave and an indentured servant who is subject to rape and sexual violence?
The slavery guidelines referred to fellow Hebrew indentured servants (free to walk away unrewarded from their servitude)... non-Hebrew slaves were chattel slaves (under pain of death).
The Book of Judges (Chapter 20), for example, explains how a priests concubine (sex slave) was offered by the priest to an angry gang of Benjamites eager to kill him... she didn't volunteer, she was handed over as a piece of property to be raped to death.
It appears you need to brush up on your Biblical history. Israel drove the Canaanites out of their land, due to (among other things) their practice of such things as human sacrifice.
Deuteronomy details the genocide of the Canaanite people... they weren't driven out. They were slaughtered: man, woman and child... that's genocide. All but one city of resist the Israelites and are subsequently slaughtered.
Under god's express command the Israelites exterminated the Girgashites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, alongside the Canaanites (fellow Semites). That's seven different nations, totaling hundreds of thousands of instances of Yahweh-ordered genocide.
Deuteronomy 7:1-2:
“… the seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them.” ...poor bastards weren't even allowed to make terms.
...and in practice...
Joshua 6:21:
“And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.” ...even the newborn babies Lord? Must we kill the babies too?
Joshua 10:33
(Regarding the city of Gezer)
“…Joshua smote him and his people until he had left him none remaining.” ...Yep, even the babies.
Deuteronomy 2:26-35
(Regarding the Land of Heshbon)
“…we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.” ...Especially the babies.
McWay, you are the worst form of apologist: the willfully deluded.
The Luke
-
the bible is the worst guidebook for morality i can think of. Jealousy, slavery,genocide,rape.
jesus might of had it right.
-
...bullshit.
Some of the early Hebrew royalty even kept foreign girls as sex slaves. What exactly is the difference between a chattel slave and an indentured servant who is subject to rape and sexual violence?
The slavery guidelines referred to fellow Hebrew indentured servants (free to walk away unrewarded from their servitude)... non-Hebrew slaves were chattel slaves (under pain of death).
The Book of Judges (Chapter 20), for example, explains how a priests concubine (sex slave) was offered by the priest to an angry gang of Benjamites eager to kill him... she didn't volunteer, she was handed over as a piece of property to be raped to death.
Deuteronomy details the genocide of the Canaanite people... they weren't driven out. They were slaughtered: man, woman and child... that's genocide. All but one city of resist the Israelites and are subsequently slaughtered.
Under god's express command the Israelites exterminated the Girgashites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, alongside the Canaanites (fellow Semites). That's seven different nations, totaling hundreds of thousands of instances of Yahweh-ordered genocide.
Deuteronomy 7:1-2:
“… the seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them.” ...poor bastards weren't even allowed to make terms.
...and in practice...
Joshua 6:21:
“And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.” ...even the newborn babies Lord? Must we kill the babies too?
Joshua 10:33
(Regarding the city of Gezer)
“…Joshua smote him and his people until he had left him none remaining.” ...Yep, even the babies.
Deuteronomy 2:26-35
(Regarding the Land of Heshbon)
“…we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.” ...Especially the babies.
McWay, you are the worst form of apologist: the willfully deluded.
The Luke
Epic ownage of MCWAY, Stella and all the other fundy gits here...
-
the bible is the worst guidebook for morality i can think of. Jealousy, slavery,genocide,rape.
jesus might of had it right.
I am thinking of doing a research paper on this phenomenon whereby auxialliary 'have' is no longer recognised as the connective of a conditional and due to phonological similarity or as some would argue homophony, the preposition 'of' is inserted. Clearly there is some kind of phonetic issue here but the fact that we see past participles being dropped in favour of the preterite could indicate that it is a morphosyntactic issue... :-\ Very difficult to determine. Internet posting boards are an excellent place to study this phenomenon because studies have shown that the register employed here often mirrors casual spoken speech (and I have indeed heard this construct in North American speech quite often).
Necrosis, if you think about it, how often do you drop the past participle in favour of the preterite as in 'I could of went to the movies'? What is your perception of this sentence? Do you feel that it is acceptable on an intuitive level? This is not a criticism but the information could be used for my research. Thank you.
-
...bullshit.
Some of the early Hebrew royalty even kept foreign girls as sex slaves. What exactly is the difference between a chattel slave and an indentured servant who is subject to rape and sexual violence?
The slavery guidelines referred to fellow Hebrew indentured servants (free to walk away unrewarded from their servitude)... non-Hebrew slaves were chattel slaves (under pain of death).
The Book of Judges (Chapter 20), for example, explains how a priests concubine (sex slave) was offered by the priest to an angry gang of Benjamites eager to kill him... she didn't volunteer, she was handed over as a piece of property to be raped to death.
Deuteronomy details the genocide of the Canaanite people... they weren't driven out. They were slaughtered: man, woman and child... that's genocide. All but one city of resist the Israelites and are subsequently slaughtered.
Under god's express command the Israelites exterminated the Girgashites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, alongside the Canaanites (fellow Semites). That's seven different nations, totaling hundreds of thousands of instances of Yahweh-ordered genocide.
Deuteronomy 7:1-2:
“… the seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them.” ...poor bastards weren't even allowed to make terms.
...and in practice...
Joshua 6:21:
“And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.” ...even the newborn babies Lord? Must we kill the babies too?
Joshua 10:33
(Regarding the city of Gezer)
“…Joshua smote him and his people until he had left him none remaining.” ...Yep, even the babies.
Deuteronomy 2:26-35
(Regarding the Land of Heshbon)
“…we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.” ...Especially the babies.
McWay, you are the worst form of apologist: the willfully deluded.
The Luke
luke how can god be all loving and benevolent yet order the death of people? wait doesnt he know the future, is so he created those people knowing what he would later do, this doesnt make much sense. He literally comitted pre meditated murder. Defeats all loving there, or he doesnt know the future.
-
I am thinking of doing a research paper on this phenomenon whereby auxialliary 'have' is no longer recognised as the connective of a conditional and due to phonological similarity or as some would argue homophony, the preposition 'of' is inserted. Clearly there is some kind of phonetic issue here but the fact that we see past participles being dropped in favour of the preterite could indicate that it is a morphosyntactic issue... :-\ Very difficult to determine. Internet posting boards are an excellent place to study this phenomenon because studies have shown that the register employed here often mirrors casual spoken speech (and I have indeed heard this construct in North American speech quite often).
Necrosis, if you think about it, how often do you drop the past participle in favour of the preterite as in 'I could of went to the movies'? What is your perception of this sentence? Do you feel that it is acceptable on an intuitive level? This is not a criticism but the information could be used for my research. Thank you.
sure, i have to run to the gym now so i will answer later. I am from newfoundland and write causally like i talk which is rather odd. I say things like "where is that to"" insted of "where is that?", i rarely use have and mostly opt for of in my sentences. However, if i was writing a research paper i would correct such mistakes.
i should send you a paper without corrections and let you see how deep it runs, i dont know if i have one at the moment. like i said i will expand later.
-
...bullshit.
Some of the early Hebrew royalty even kept foreign girls as sex slaves. What exactly is the difference between a chattel slave and an indentured servant who is subject to rape and sexual violence?
The slavery guidelines referred to fellow Hebrew indentured servants (free to walk away unrewarded from their servitude)... non-Hebrew slaves were chattel slaves (under pain of death).
BZZZZZZZ.........I'm sorry. That's incorrect. But here are some lovely parting gifts.......
Apparently, you missed your “Hooked on Phonics” session today. Hebrews were NOT allowed to rape their female slaves. If anything, they had to marry them, just as they did a Hebrew woman.
The case of the female war-captives is remarkable for its 'instant exaltation' of the woman--past slave, past concubine, all the way to full wife(!):
"The position of a female captive of war was remarkable. According to Deuteronomy 20:14, she could be spared and taken as a servant, while Deuteronomy 21:10-11 allowed her captor to take her to wife. While the relationship of the Hebrew bondwoman was described by a peculiar term (note: concubine), the marriage to the captive woman meant that the man 'would be her husband and she his wife.' No mention was made of any act of manumission; the termination of the marriage was possible only by way of divorce and not by sale."
4. The Great Escape Clause…?
Deut 23.15 has this fascinating passage:
If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. 16 Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him. (Deut 23.15)
Most commentators understand this to be a reference to non-extradition of a foreign, runaway slave. That is, a slave in another country runs away and flees to Israel. Israel, under this verse and under this understanding, has to allow the runaway to live freely in the land (as a sanctuary), and cannot extradite him/her to their former master. Commentators also note that this is in abject contradiction to ANE and international law of the time:
· "In contrast to the laws of other ancient Near Eastern nations, slaves who flee their owners and come to Israel are not to be returned to their masters, nor are they to be oppressed, but they are to be allowed to live wherever they please (Deut 23:15-16)."[OT:DictOT5, s.v. "Slavery"]
· "Wherever slavery existed, there were slaves who escaped from their masters. Ancient Near Eastern law forbade harboring runaway slaves, and international treaties regularly required allied states to extradite them. The present law, in contrast, permits escaped slaves to settle wherever they wish in the land of Israel and forbids returning them to their masters or enslaving them in Israel." [JPStorah, in loc.]
Now, this understanding could be right, and this restrictive an application (i.e., foreigners immigrating to Israel) is argued on the basis of the scope of the allowance ("whatever town"), but it is not clear from the passage that it is to be taken so restrictively. Nor is the (translation supplied) 'come to Israel' very obvious from the text.
If the passage is NOT this restrictive, then what we have here is an escape-clause that says: "if you--Hebrew or foreigner-- run away from a master, as long as you stay within Israel, you are free, and no one can return you to him/her."
This is exactly the understanding given in [HI:HANEL:2,1006]:
"A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to its master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of (Deut 23:16-17). This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations and is explained as due to Israel's own history of slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution."
Think about this conclusion for a moment…Slavery was meant to serve the poor (and thereby, contribute to community strength and health). If a master/slave relationship turns destructive, the value is not being achieved, and it is better for the community for the relationship to dissolve. This was NOT left in the hands of the elite to decide, through appeals and litigation and hearings etc (!!!), but was something the slave could initiate himself/herself. There was a cost--dislocation--but this would have been a tradeoff-driven decision anyway.
The Book of Judges (Chapter 20), for example, explains how a priests concubine (sex slave) was offered by the priest to an angry gang of Benjamites eager to kill him... she didn't volunteer, she was handed over as a piece of property to be raped to death.
As usual, there's the huge gap, between what your claim is and what the Bible actually says (but, what else is new?).
Judges 20:1-6
Then all the sons of Israel from Dan to Beersheba, including the land of Gilead, came out, and the congregation assembled as one man to the LORD at Mizpah. The chiefs of all the people, even of all the tribes of Israel, took their stand in the assembly of the people of God, 400,000 foot soldiers who drew the sword. (Now the sons of Benjamin heard that the sons of Israel had gone up to Mizpah.) And the sons of Israel said, "Tell us, how did this wickedness take place?" So the Levite, the husband of the woman who was murdered, answered and said, "I came with my concubine to spend the night at Gibeah which belongs to Benjamin.
But the men of Gibeah rose up against me and surrounded the house at night because of me. They intended to kill me; instead, they ravished my concubine so that she died. And I took hold of my concubine and cut her in pieces and sent her throughout the land of Israel's inheritance; for they have committed a lewd and disgraceful act in Israel.
In other words, boy genius, this guy didn't give his concubine to be raped (from ch. 19, it appears that the houseguest offered the concubine, along with his own virgin daughter, to the Benjamites). The Benjamites were looking to rape the Levite. But, since he apparently wasn't there, they raped that poor woman to death.
Verse 7-13 give the reaction to this heinous crime:
Behold, all you sons of Israel, give your advice and counsel here."
Then all the people arose as one man, saying, "Not one of us will go to his tent, nor will any of us return to his house. "But now this is the thing which we will do to Gibeah; {we will go up} against it by lot. "And we will take 10 men out of 100 throughout the tribes of Israel, and 100 out of 1,000, and 1,000 out of 10,000 to supply food for the people, that when they come to Gibeah of Benjamin, they may punish {them} for all the disgraceful acts that they have committed in Israel." Thus all the men of Israel were gathered against the city, united as one man. Then the tribes of Israel sent men through the entire tribe of Benjamin, saying, "What is this wickedness that has taken place among you? Now then, deliver up the men, the worthless fellows in Gibeah, that we may put them to death and remove this wickedness from Israel." But the sons of Benjamin would not listen to the voice of their brothers, the sons of Israel.
In short, they went looking for these assailants, in order to put them to death, the standard penalty for raping a married woman.
Deuteronomy details the genocide of the Canaanite people... they weren't driven out. They were slaughtered: man, woman and child... that's genocide. All but one city of resist the Israelites and are subsequently slaughtered.
Under god's express command the Israelites exterminated the Girgashites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, alongside the Canaanites (fellow Semites). That's seven different nations, totaling hundreds of thousands of instances of Yahweh-ordered genocide.[/i]
Deuteronomy 7:1-2:
“… the seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them.” ...poor bastards weren't even allowed to make terms.
Gotta love this!!! The usual skeptic "outrage", regarding Israel and their neighbors, as if the other "-ites" were a bunch of boy scouts, singing "Kuum-bay-yah", when mean old Jehovah and posse decide arbitrarily to wipe them out.
But, as usual, Luke forgets to mention WHY God dealt with those "-ites" in such fashion:
...and in practice...
Joshua 6:21:
“And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.” ...even the newborn babies Lord? Must we kill the babies too?
But, somehow, a prostitute (Rahab) and her family were spared for their assisting Joshua. Exactly, how did she get the message that by repenting and aiding Israel, she and her household would be spared.
Joshua 10:33
(Regarding the city of Gezer)
“…Joshua smote him and his people until he had left him none remaining.” ...Yep, even the babies.
All up in the Kool-Aid and don't know the flavor, aren't you, Luke? In true, foot-in-mouth skeptic fashion, you convenienly left out that the nation that Joshua and the Israelites knocked out the box ATTACKED one of Israel's allies, Gibeon.
But, why let facts hinder your usual blubbering?
Joshua 10:1-6
Now it came about when Adoni-zedek king of Jerusalem heard that Joshua had captured Ai, and had utterly destroyed it (just as he had done to Jericho and its king, so he had done to Ai and its king), and that the inhabitants of Gibeon had made peace with Israel and were within their land, (I thought that Israel didn't make terms with people.....never mind)
that he feared greatly, because Gibeon was a great city, like one of the royal cities, and because it was greater than Ai, and all its men were mighty.
Jos 10:3 Therefore Adoni-zedek king of Jerusalem sent word to Hoham king of Hebron and to Piram king of Jarmuth and to Japhia king of Lachish and to Debir king of Eglon, saying, "Come up to me and help me, and let us attack Gibeon, for it has made peace with Joshua and with the sons of Israel."
So the five kings of the Amorites, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, {and} the king of Eglon, gathered together and went up, they with all their armies, and camped by Gibeon and fought against it.
Then the men of Gibeon sent word to Joshua to the camp at Gilgal, saying, "Do not abandon your servants; come up to us quickly and save us and help us, for all the kings of the Amorites that live in the hill country have assembled against us."
HOW DARE THOSE ISRAELITES KEEP THEIR WORD AND DEFEND THEIR ALLIES FROM THEIR ENEMIES!!!!
Deuteronomy 2:26-35
(Regarding the Land of Heshbon)
“…we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.” ...Especially the babies.
Once again, your lack of accuracy rears its silly head.
Deut. 2:25-35[/i]
'This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you upon the peoples everywhere under the heavens, who, when they hear the report of you, will tremble and be in anguish because of you.'
"So I sent messengers from the wilderness of Kedemoth to Sihon king of Heshbon with words of peace, saying, 'Let me pass through your land, I will travel only on the highway; I will not turn aside to the right or to the left. 'You will sell me food for money so that I may eat, and give me water for money so that I may drink, only let me pass through on foot, just as the sons of Esau who live in Seir and the Moabites who live in Ar did for me, until I cross over the Jordan into the land which the LORD our God is giving to us.' "But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land; for the LORD your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hand, as he is today.
"The LORD said to me, 'See, I have begun to deliver Sihon and his land over to you. Begin to occupy, that you may possess his land.' "Then Sihon with all his people came out to meet us in battle at Jahaz. "The LORD our God delivered him over to us, and we defeated him with his sons and all his people. "So we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed the men, women and children of every city. We left no survivor. "We took only the animals as our booty and the spoil of the cities which we had captured. [/i]
Joshua merely asked to pass through this land en route to the promised land. Had Sihon simply sold them the food and water and left them alone, he would have been fine. Sihon, instead, assaulted Joshua and the Israelites. Guess who came up short.
McWay, you are the worst form of apologist: the willfully deluded.
The Luke
Excuse me, if I don't burst into tears, after such a statement, coming from a factually-challenged, excuse-making blowhard like you. Get a good breakfast into your system, brush up on your comprehension skills, and come back when you can actually string together a few facts, with some accuracy.
-
McWay,
Could you please just highlight the Bible verse which justifies the murdering of newborn babes whose parents have attacked Israel, so I don't have to read any more of that poisonous book?
If you take a city... no matter how long the siege or how egregious the warfare... the murdering of innocent children is ALWAYS immoral. The Bible quotes God directly ordering such indiscriminate genocide, and reports several occasions when such indiscriminate butchery was carried out in accordance with Yahweh's explicit command.
It's an immoral book. If you can justify such hateful brutality and abuse to yourself... then I suppose that's nobodies elses business, but please don't insult the intelligence of those reading this thread by attempting to justify it as a technicality of goat-herder diplomacy.
You cannot defend the indefensible.
It is an immoral book.... Try reading another one.
The Luke
-
McWay,
Could you please just highlight the Bible verse which justifies the murdering of newborn babes whose parents have attacked Israel, so I don't have to read any more of that poisonous book?
If you take a city... no matter how long the siege or how egregious the warfare... the murdering of innocent children is ALWAYS immoral. The Bible quotes God directly ordering such indiscriminate genocide, and reports several occasions when such indiscriminate butchery was carried out in accordance with Yahweh's explicit command.
It's an immoral book. If you can justify such hateful brutality and abuse to yourself... then I suppose that's nobodies elses business, but please don't insult the intelligence of those reading this thread by attempting to justify it as a technicality of goat-herder diplomacy.
You cannot defend the indefensible.
It is an immoral book.... Try reading another one.
The Luke
God can do what he wants to; it is his world. ;D
-
McWay,
Could you please just highlight the Bible verse which justifies the murdering of newborn babes whose parents have attacked Israel, so I don't have to read any more of that poisonous book?
If you take a city... no matter how long the siege or how egregious the warfare... the murdering of innocent children is ALWAYS immoral. The Bible quotes God directly ordering such indiscriminate genocide, and reports several occasions when such indiscriminate butchery was carried out in accordance with Yahweh's explicit command.
It's an immoral book. If you can justify such hateful brutality and abuse to yourself... then I suppose that's nobodies elses business, but please don't insult the intelligence of those reading this thread by attempting to justify it as a technicality of goat-herder diplomacy.
You cannot defend the indefensible.
It is an immoral book.... Try reading another one.
The Luke
Indiscriminate? It appears that you haven't been reading that "poisonous book". What I find interesting is that the skeptics never seem to bring up the instances of human sacrifice and other actions, done by Israel's neighbors (hence the reason for their being relieved of their land).
This has been demonstrated for your conveniently not mentioning the unprovoked attack on Gibeon (an Israeli ally) and its cry to Israel for help. Or an assault on the Israelites themselves, while they were simply passing through foreign territory en route to the Promised Land.
As for justification, I believe it's called "an eye for an eye". It certainly would not be the first time that the punishment for Israel's enemies was merited on them in similar fashion.
And, please spare me the spiel about immorality, as you have continuously justified lying for political expedience (at least, when it favors someone you like, i.e. your screwy claims that the next U.S. president is an atheist, who simply lies about believing in God to get elected). Were someone of your favored political stripe and philosophical bend, I'm sure you'd justify some baby-killing, as well.
-
God can do what he wants to; it is his world. ;D
...isn't it kind of evil to create someone only to have your followers dash the newborns babes out? Kinda cruel really? Now that your nervous system is up and running, here comes the pain!
But I've got a better one... if I created something intrinsically evil, by default, that would be an evil act.
But God created a world with more than it's fair share of evil, pain and suffering... that's pretty evil, but apologists claim that was a necessity to test us and let us exercise our free will.
However, God also created Satan... something intrinsically evil with no redeeming features... in creating Satan God must have known that he was introducing something to the world that would be unable to do anything good, something that would be nothing but evil... is that an evil creative act?
But there's more...
Is Satan responsible for his actions?
Will Satan be judged?
Does Satan have free will?
What if Satan has no free will yet is still going to be judged?
What if Satan does indeed have free will, but he has already committed so many evil deeds that his only chance of redemption on Judgment Day is never to perform any god deed so that he can honestly claim he never knew the difference... is Satan therefore a victim of circumstance? Is God, indirectly, forcing Satan to perform evil against his will?
What if God created Satan to BE evil... isn't that evil?... does that make God evil? Does that make God... Satan?
If God is all loving, how did he create evil?
What if the actual demonstrable provable existence of evil itself (as evidenced by the perpetration of evil acts) is the proof that Satan is the Creator?
If Satan is capable of both good and evil, yet God is only capable of good... does that mean Satan is more powerful than God?
As a fellow sinner, isn't Satan more likely to forgive us our transgressions than Mr Goodie-Two-Shoes God?
That's it... I'm praying to Satan.
The Luke
-
...isn't it kind of evil to create someone only to have your followers dash the newborns babes out? Kinda cruel really? Now that your nervous system is up and running, here comes the pain!
But I've got a better one... if I created something intrinsically evil, by default, that would be an evil act.
But God created a world with more than it's fair share of evil, pain and suffering... that's pretty evil, but apologists claim that was a necessity to test us and let us exercise our free will.
However, God also created Satan... something intrinsically evil with no redeeming features... in creating Satan God must have known that he was introducing something to the world that would be unable to do anything good, something that would be nothing but evil... is that an evil creative act?
But there's more...
Is Satan responsible for his actions?
Will Satan be judged?
Does Satan have free will?
What if Satan has no free will yet is still going to be judged?
What if Satan does indeed have free will, but he has already committed so many evil deeds that his only chance of redemption on Judgment Day is never to perform any god deed so that he can honestly claim he never knew the difference... is Satan therefore a victim of circumstance? Is God, indirectly, forcing Satan to perform evil against his will?
What if God created Satan to BE evil... isn't that evil?... does that make God evil? Does that make God... Satan?
If God is all loving, how did he create evil?
What if the actual demonstrable provable existence of evil itself (as evidenced by the perpetration of evil acts) is the proof that Satan is the Creator?
If Satan is capable of both good and evil, yet God is only capable of good... does that mean Satan is more powerful than God?
As a fellow sinner, isn't Satan more likely to forgive us our transgressions than Mr Goodie-Two-Shoes God?
That's it... I'm praying to Satan.
The Luke
Do you like RPG games like D&D? :)
-
The Luke failed to substantiate his claims about his supposed Hebrew human sacrifice and their supposed slave rape in the Bible. Now The Luke is changing the subject.
-
The Luke failed to substantiate his claims about his supposed Hebrew human sacrifice and their supposed slave rape in the Bible. Now The Luke is changing the subject.
Say it ain't so!!!
-
The Luke failed to substantiate his claims about his supposed Hebrew human sacrifice and their supposed slave rape in the Bible. Now The Luke is changing the subject.
I thought the evidence was provided above.
did god order the killing of children in the bible? yes or no?
-
I thought the evidence was provided above.
did god order the killing of children in the bible? yes or no?
God ordered the destruction of certain nations, yes children and all.
What does that have to do with The Luke's claim that the Bible says that Hebrew men raped their female slaves and that God was okay with it?
-
God ordered the destruction of certain nations, yes children and all.
What does that have to do with The Luke's claim that the Bible says that Hebrew men raped their female slaves and that God was okay with it?
Epic dodging the point...
-
Epic dodging the point...
How so? The thread is about slavery. The Luke made the claims about Hebrew men raping their female slaves in the Bible and about Abraham killing his own son. The Luke was then unable to substantiate his claims, then he changed the subject.
Are you and Necrosis now going to change the subject too?
-
God ordered the destruction of certain nations, yes children and all.
What does that have to do with The Luke's claim that the Bible says that Hebrew men raped their female slaves and that God was okay with it?
As mentioned earlier, in Judges 20, when that concubine was raped and killed, the husband/master brought up the incident before the leaders of Israel who, in turn, demand that the culprits be brought forward to be EXECUTED.
Behold, all you sons of Israel, give your advice and counsel here."
Then all the people arose as one man, saying, "Not one of us will go to his tent, nor will any of us return to his house. "But now this is the thing which we will do to Gibeah; we will go up against it by lot. "And we will take 10 men out of 100 throughout the tribes of Israel, and 100 out of 1,000, and 1,000 out of 10,000 to supply food for the people, that when they come to Gibeah of Benjamin, they may punish them for all the disgraceful acts that they have committed in Israel." Thus all the men of Israel were gathered against the city, united as one man. Then the tribes of Israel sent men through the entire tribe of Benjamin, saying, "What is this wickedness that has taken place among you? Now then, deliver up the men, the worthless fellows in Gibeah, that we may put them to death and remove this wickedness from Israel." But the sons of Benjamin would not listen to the voice of their brothers, the sons of Israel.
When the tribe of Benjamin refused to give up these rapists, it resulted in a full-scale war between Israel and Benjamin, with thousands dead on BOTH SIDES, all of this due to the rape and murder of a concubine (In contrast, how many battles were fought, because a white man raped another man's black female slave in America?).
And, lost in all of this, is the point that the “slavery” in Israel was decidedly UNLIKE chattel slavery, such as what we had with black people in America. When it came to dealing with servants (especially those from foreign lands), the instructions were to treat them fairly, as the Israelites were constantly reminded how badly they were treated in Egypt.
-
You guys are using a toned-down translation.
If memory serves the original refers to the woman as a "concubine"; and she is "offered over" then raped by the Benjamites, and the Levite man is later referenced as her "master" not her "husband".
You'll notice that the word "concubine" has survived in some instances... the other mistranslations are examples of touchy-feely apologist redactions.
Just as:
"I am a jealous god. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
...became...
"I am the Lord, thy god. You shall worship no other god but me."
...chronic revisionist trouble shooting.
The fact that the fundies find their supposedly loving God's demand to kill infant children acceptable is pretty frightening. The fact that they defend and rationalise such genocide is reprehensible and intellectually dishonest.
No toddler should have their head staved in by a sword wielding man because the childs parents practice human sacrifice, or worship baal rather than Yahweh... killing the enemies children as a war policy is genocide.
Genocide... plain... simple... and indefensible.
The Luke
-
You guys are using a toned-down translation.
If memory serves the original refers to the woman as a "concubine"; and she is "offered over" then raped by the Benjamites, and the Levite man is later referenced as her "master" not her "husband".
You'll notice that the word "concubine" has survived in some instances... the other mistranslations are examples of touchy-feely apologist redactions.
Just as:
"I am a jealous god. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
...became...
"I am the Lord, thy god. You shall worship no other god but me."
...chronic revisionist trouble shooting.
The fact that the fundies find their supposedly loving God's demand to kill infant children acceptable is pretty frightening. The fact that they defend and rationalise such genocide is reprehensible and intellectually dishonest.
No toddler should have their head staved in by a sword wielding man because the childs parents practice human sacrifice, or worship baal rather than Yahweh... killing the enemies children as a war policy is genocide.
Genocide... plain... simple... and indefensible.
The Luke
not to mention the fact that god apparently knows the future, hence, he already knew that this event would occur making the killing of children pointless and cruel.
-
You guys are using a toned-down translation.
If memory serves the original refers to the woman as a "concubine"; and she is "offered over" then raped by the Benjamites, and the Levite man is later referenced as her "master" not her "husband".
You'll notice that the word "concubine" has survived in some instances... the other mistranslations are examples of touchy-feely apologist redactions.
Wrong again, Luke. The version I used was the NASB, when I printed the verses from Judges 20, which read like:
Then all the sons of Israel from Dan to Beersheba, including the land of Gilead, came out, and the congregation assembled as one man to the LORD at Mizpah. The chiefs of all the people, even of all the tribes of Israel, took their stand in the assembly of the people of God, 400,000 foot soldiers who drew the sword. (Now the sons of Benjamin heard that the sons of Israel had gone up to Mizpah.) And the sons of Israel said, "Tell us, how did this wickedness take place?" So the Levite, the husband of the woman who was murdered, answered and said, "I came with my concubine to spend the night at Gibeah which belongs to Benjamin.
But the men of Gibeah rose up against me and surrounded the house at night because of me. They intended to kill me; instead, they ravished my concubine so that she died. And I took hold of my concubine and cut her in pieces and sent her throughout the land of Israel's inheritance; for they have committed a lewd and disgraceful act in Israel.
There's no lack of use of the word, "concubine". Furthermore, The Levite man is addressed as BOTH her master and her husband, in chapters 19 and 20 And that's the case in the KJV, NKJV, NIV, and the NASB, even the NLT. So, what are the "touchy-feely apologist redactions", again?
Just as:
"I am a jealous god. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
...became...
"I am the Lord, thy god. You shall worship no other god but me."
...chronic revisionist trouble shooting.
And, where does this happen again?
Ex. 20:3 (KJV)
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Ex. 20:3 (NIV)
You shall have no other gods before me
Ex. 20:3 (NASB)
You shall have no other gods before Me.
The fact that the fundies find their supposedly loving God's demand to kill infant children acceptable is pretty frightening. The fact that they defend and rationalise such genocide is reprehensible and intellectually dishonest.
No toddler should have their head staved in by a sword wielding man because the childs parents practice human sacrifice, or worship baal rather than Yahweh... killing the enemies children as a war policy is genocide.
Genocide... plain... simple... and indefensible.
The Luke
No more frightening than people who condone abortion (especially partial-birth abortion), to get out of raising a child, conceived 90% of the time via fornication.
Or no more frightening than people who think Down's syndrome babies should get axed in the womb, because raising one would be too hard.
Or no more indefensible than someone who think lying for political expedience is good, as long as that deception is about one's reported Christian faith.
-
No more frightening than people who condone abortion (especially partial-birth abortion), to get out of raising a child, conceived 90% of the time via fornication.
Or no more frightening than people who think Down's syndrome babies should get axed in the womb, because raising one would be too hard.
Or no more indefensible than someone who think lying for political expedience is good, as long as that deception is about one's reported Christian faith.
really? you just compared lying to the slaughter of innocent children for no reason. Abortion saves suffering in instances, and most of the time the organism is not alive, it is no more a atrocity to masturbate then to abort a one month old fetus. Down syndrome children suffer tremendously of complications and often die of cancer at an early age. I to think it is wrong, but it is not reckless murder like described in the bible, nor is it from an all loving being. Humans are fallible, god is not suppose to be.
-
really? you just compared lying to the slaughter of innocent children for no reason. Abortion saves suffering in instances, and most of the time the organism is not alive, it is no more a atrocity to masturbate then to abort a one month old fetus. Down syndrome children suffer tremendously of complications and often die of cancer at an early age. I to think it is wrong, but it is not reckless murder like described in the bible, nor is it from an all loving being. Humans are fallible, god is not suppose to be.
You JUST JUSTIFIED baby-killing, by referring to the unborn child as an "organism", instead of a baby. Ultrasound can easily show just how alive the baby is, which is probably why so many abortion advocates CRY about ultrasound being used, prior to an abortion. Why? Could it be that, if a woman see her baby as just that, instead of just an "organism", she'll have second thoughts about having it hacked to bits or charred with a saline solution?
A one-month-old fetus has fingers, toes, and brainwaves, as shown by scientific research (that would be the thing many atheists claim that Christians oppose). Yet, few refer to this, when it comes to the abortion issue.
As for the "loving being" issue, the OT chronicles the lives of a people, who came into existence, because this loving being blessed a barren woman with a child, who would end up being a patriarch. A loving being who save the lives of widows and prostitutes. This loving being, however, is also a just being and as the saying goes, "As a man sows, that shall he also reap". Or, to reference one of the commandments, God punishes those to defy Him and harm His people, to the third and fourth generation.
God blesses collectively and He curses collectively. And, that applies to children, too. They are blessed by their parents' actions and they are also cursed by their parents' actions.
-
You JUST JUSTIFIED baby-killing, by referring to the unborn child as an "organism", instead of a baby. Ultrasound can easily show just how alive the baby is, which is probably why so many abortion advocates CRY about ultrasound being used, prior to an abortion. Why? Could it be that, if a woman see her baby as just that, instead of just an "organism", she'll have second thoughts about having it hacked to bits or charred with a saline solution?
A one-month-old fetus has fingers, toes, and brainwaves, as shown by scientific research (that would be the thing many atheists claim that Christians oppose). Yet, few refer to this, when it comes to the abortion issue.
As for the "loving being" issue, the OT chronicles the lives of a people, who came into existence, because this loving being blessed a barren woman with a child, who would end up being a patriarch. A loving being who save the lives of widows and prostitutes. This loving being, however, is also a just being and as the saying goes, "As a man sows, that shall he also reap". Or, to reference one of the commandments, God punishes those to defy Him and harm His people, to the third and fourth generation.
God blesses collectively and He curses collectively. And, that applies to children, too. They are blessed by their parents' actions and they are also cursed by their parents' actions.
Never heard that before. I would think the majority of abortion advocates wouldn't themselves go through with an abortion.
-
God blesses collectively and He curses collectively. And, that applies to children, too. They are blessed by their parents' actions and they are also cursed by their parents' actions.
...then he fails the moral standard we should require of a god.
The Luke
-
...then he fails the moral standard we should require of a god.
The Luke
And what moral standard would that be?
God doesn't fail man's moral standard, for one simple reason: He's the Creator; man is the created.
-
God doesn't fail man's moral standard, for one simple reason: He's the Creator; man is the created.
...if he condones the murder of his enemies innocent children, then he better not send Jesus back during my lifetime.
I'll kill that self-righteous zombie myself.
The Luke
-
McWay, Loco, Luke opened that can of worms lol :)
Amalikites (sp?) here we go! lol
-
You JUST JUSTIFIED baby-killing, by referring to the unborn child as an "organism", instead of a baby. Ultrasound can easily show just how alive the baby is, which is probably why so many abortion advocates CRY about ultrasound being used, prior to an abortion. Why? Could it be that, if a woman see her baby as just that, instead of just an "organism", she'll have second thoughts about having it hacked to bits or charred with a saline solution?
A one-month-old fetus has fingers, toes, and brainwaves, as shown by scientific research (that would be the thing many atheists claim that Christians oppose). Yet, few refer to this, when it comes to the abortion issue.
wrong it is not a living organism or it wouldnt depend on maternal nutrition and blood supply. It is a parasitic organism by definition at that stage, taking from the host and offering nothing back as of yet.
-
...if he condones the murder of his enemies innocent children, then he better not send Jesus back during my lifetime.
I'll kill that self-righteous zombie myself.
The Luke
If Jesus comes back during your lifetime, the LAST THING that's going to be on your mind is what you're going to do to Him. On the contrary, your top priority will be what's going to happen to YOU.
-
McWay, Loco, Luke opened that can of worms lol :)
Amalikites (sp?) here we go! lol
Yes, if The Luke would simply use the Search option on the board, he would find our multiple, long threads where we have beat that dead horse many times.
But like I said on an earlier post, The Luke failed to substantiate his claim that Hebrew men in the Bible raped their female slaves and God was okay with it, so he changed the subject to this as a cop out.
-
If Jesus comes back during your lifetime, the LAST THING that's going to be on your mind is what you're going to do to Him. On the contrary, your top priority will be what's going to happen to YOU.
...the score so far:
Jesus: nil
Reality: 1
Besides, I'd rather go to Hell... after all Jesus will be there.
The Luke
-
Yes, if The Luke would simply use the Search option on the board, he would find our multiple, long threads where we have beat that dead horse many times.
But like I said on an earlier post, The Luke failed to substantiate his claim that Hebrew men in the Bible raped their female slaves and God was okay with it, so he changed the subject to this as a cop out.
What else is new?
Not only was God not cool with that happening, but (as shown earlier), the Israelites themselves were ENRAGED by that heinous crime. They demanded that the Benjamite men responsible for raping that woman be handed over to them FOR EXECUTION. When that didn’t occur, a war between Israel and Benjamin ensure, costing thousands of lives.
-
But like I said on an earlier post, The Luke failed to substantiate his claim that Hebrew men in the Bible raped their female slaves and God was okay with it, so he changed the subject to this as a cop out.
Are you admitting to the slavery? Isn't it "indentured servitude"?
..."go into your wife's handmaid" anyone?
God doesn't need to ask the handmaid's permission?
You guys are so blinkered... Lott offers his wife and daughters up that they might be "used" rather than having the people of Sodom and Gomorrah rape the Angels visiting his household. Don't the wife and daughters get a vote? Can't the Angel of Death fend for himself?
The Bible is a product of its time... women have no say... women are property... and women slaves are sexual playthings... there are so many examples of this kind of thing in the Bible (many have been raised here) that you guys would be copy-and-pasting flimsy apologist articles and searching for nicer alternate translations till Judgment Day.
The real questions are:
-Why isn't there a prohibition against slavery in the ten commandments? Even Jesus didn't speak out against slavery.
-Why isn't there a commandment prohibiting torture?
-Why isn't there a commandment prohibiting rape?
...don't slavery; torture and rape rank above swearing? ("Lord's name in vain")
Why is a Bigfoot-hunting loser living in Ireland a better more moral authority than your all powerful storm god? Why do you guys feel the need to circle jerk when you don't address the issues you can't defend?
The Luke
-
Are you admitting to the slavery? Isn't it "indentured servitude"?
..."go into your wife's handmaid" anyone?
God doesn't need to ask the handmaid's permission?
You guys are so blinkered... Lott offers his wife and daughters up that they might be "used" rather than having the people of Sodom and Gomorrah rape the Angels visiting his household. Don't the wife and daughters get a vote? Can't the Angel of Death fend for himself?
Where in the Bible does it say that Lot's judgment or his decision was good or Godly? And what does Lot's wife and daughters have to do with slavery, or your claim that the Bible condones Hebrew men raping their female slaves?
The Bible is a product of its time... women have no say... women are property... and women slaves are sexual playthings... there are so many examples of this kind of thing in the Bible (many have been raised here) that you guys would be copy-and-pasting flimsy apologist articles and searching for nicer alternate translations till Judgment Day.
Oh yeah?
Judges 4:4-5
Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. 5 She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came to her to have their disputes decided.
You have yet to list one example where God condones Hebrew men raping their female slaves. You just keep on changing the subject.
The real questions are:
-Why isn't there a prohibition against slavery in the ten commandments? Even Jesus didn't speak out against slavery.
-Why isn't there a commandment prohibiting torture?
-Why isn't there a commandment prohibiting rape?
...don't slavery; torture and rape rank above swearing? ("Lord's name in vain")
Why is a Bigfoot-hunting loser living in Ireland a better more moral authority than your all powerful storm god? Why do you guys feel the need to circle jerk when you don't address the issues you can't defend?
The Luke
1 Corinthians 7:21
Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.
1 Corinthians 7:23
You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 5:1
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Colossians 3:11
Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
1 Timothy 1:9-11
We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
Philemon 1:15-16
Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good— 16no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord.
-
Are you admitting to the slavery? Isn't it "indentured servitude"?
..."go into your wife's handmaid" anyone?
God doesn't need to ask the handmaid's permission?
Ummmm.......you are referring to scenario with Abraham and Sarah, one to produce an heir for Abe, since they were TOO IMPATIENT to wait on God to deliver His promise. To top it all off, this was actually SARAH'S idea; and we have no indication that Hagar objected to her mistress' plan. To the contrary, Hagar was actually gloating that she could have children and Sarah could not, hence starting the beef between the two.
Would you like some Grey Poupon with those toes of yours?
You guys are so blinkered... Lott offers his wife and daughters up that they might be "used" rather than having the people of Sodom and Gomorrah rape the Angels visiting his household. Don't the wife and daughters get a vote? Can't the Angel of Death fend for himself?
One, he didn't offer his wife.
Two, Lot's act was one of cowardice.
And, three, (the part you missed most of all, in your haste to run your mouth), the angles who visit Lot end up BLINDING the would-be rapists and scattering them, leaving Lot and family unharmed.
The Bible is a product of its time... women have no say... women are property... and women slaves are sexual playthings... there are so many examples of this kind of thing in the Bible (many have been raised here) that you guys would be copy-and-pasting flimsy apologist articles and searching for nicer alternate translations till Judgment Day.
What we have is many examples of your having little clue about what you speak. Again, you forget that the men who raped and killed that concubine were sought out to face the DEATH penalty for their crimes. Women weren't property or sexual playthings; in fact, they were allowed to actually own property (i.e. Naomi, who inherited her husband's estate after her husband and sons died).
The real questions are:
-Why isn't there a prohibition against slavery in the ten commandments? Even Jesus didn't speak out against slavery.
-Why isn't there a commandment prohibiting torture?
-Why isn't there a commandment prohibiting rape?
...don't slavery; torture and rape rank above swearing? ("Lord's name in vain")
Why is a Bigfoot-hunting loser living in Ireland a better more moral authority than your all powerful storm god? Why do you guys feel the need to circle jerk when you don't address the issues you can't defend?
The Luke
Now this is TOO FUNNY, coming from someone who's been ducking questions asked of him on another thread for over TWO WEEKS!!!
What part of rape being a capital offense don't you understand? Of course, that would be covered under the adultery commandment. Not to mention the minor fact that Israel was CONSTANTLY instructed to treat foreigners and servants kindly, as they were constanly reminded of the harsh treatment they received in Egypt. The laws of the Torah are based on the Commandments, boy genius.
But, since you’re so quick to yap about the commandments, perhaps you cite #5, you know, the one that says, “Honor your father AND YOUR MOTHER”. Add to that the fact that women, along with their husbands, could defend their daughters' honor, when their names were being slandered by fickle men. So much for "women have no say".
And, what you can't seem to process inside that head of yours is that the "slavery" of OT times was basically of a VOLUNTARY nature, often to keep people from being impoverished or starving to death. It was NOT chattel slavery, in which people (based on race/ethnicity) were kidnapped from a foreign land (another capital offense) and subjected to lifetime enslavement against their will, with no rights or privileges, whatsoever.
Come back when you actually get a clue!!!
-
Ummmm.......you are referring to scenario with Abraham and Sarah, one to produce an heir for Abe, since they were TOO IMPATIENT to wait on God to deliver His promise. To top it all off, this was actually SARAH'S idea; and we have no indication that Hagar objected to her mistress' plan. To the contrary, Hagar was actually gloating that she could have children and Sarah could not, hence starting the beef between the two.
What? Is The Luke now claiming that Abraham raped his wife's female slave? Not only is what MCWAY say above true, but also Abraham married Hagar, the slave:
Genesis 16:3
So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife.
-
What? Is The Luke now claiming that Abraham raped his wife's female slave? Not only is what MCWAY say above true, but also Abraham married Hagar, the slave:
Genesis 16:3
So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife.
Didn’t Luke say something about non-Hebrews slaves not being able to flee from their masters, lest they face death?
I guess, in his haste, he forgot to mention that a pregnant and non-Hebrew (Egyptian) Hagar ran off, once the tension between the two reached a fever pitch. She later returned, under God’s instruction, “ Return to your mistress, and submit yourself to her authority” and was promised that her son would also be the father of a great nation.
-
Genesis 16:3
So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife.
She later returned, under God’s instruction, “Return to your mistress, and submit yourself to her authority”.
...sounds like chattel slavery to me.
On a more serious note... I have actually made a mistake here, I was under the impression that the command to sleep with his wifes handmaid was a direct edict from the tin-pot god Yahweh himself.
My mistuke... I'm at somewhat of a disadvantage here not being fully conversant with the text.
I've actually made a couple of these mistakes (in the "Anything original in the Jesus story" discussion I erroneously conflated Jason of Argonaut fame with Perseus of Gorgon fame), seems I can't just rely on my memory to stir shit on these threads if everyone else is double checking facts and copy and pasting from a plethora of apologist websites.
I'm unexpectedly busy at the moment... so I'll come back tomorrow with an end-of-thread pwning for the fundies (sourced and referenced); if that actually does manage to stump them, then I'll expend more effort sourcing and referencing a further pwning in the "Anything original in the Jesus story" thread (The Sermon on the Mount is up for discussion).
If such efforts are simply dismissed, I won't bother.
So stay tuned readers.
Fundies, you have been warned, signing off...
The Luke
-
this should be good 8) ;D
-
this should be good 8) ;D
That would be a first! :-\
-
...sounds like chattel slavery to me.
Then, you should invest in some Q-Tips. Notice that Sarah and Abraham don’t run off or send any authorities to go after Hagar. Nor is there any record of any harsh punishment for her fleeing.
Most importantly of all, a chattel slave certainly wouldn’t return, with the promise that her son would be the father of a great nation.
On a more serious note... I have actually made a mistake here, I was under the impression that the command to sleep with his wifes handmaid was a direct edict from the tin-pot god Yahweh himself.
My mistuke... I'm at somewhat of a disadvantage here not being fully conversant with the text.
Nothing that a simple read, without being in haste, can't fix.
I've actually made a couple of these mistakes (in the "Anything original in the Jesus story" discussion I erroneously conflated Jason of Argonaut fame with Perseus of Gorgon fame), seems I can't just rely on my memory to stir shit on these threads if everyone else is double checking facts and copy and pasting from a plethora of apologist websites.
I'm unexpectedly busy at the moment... so I'll come back tomorrow with an end-of-thread pwning for the fundies (sourced and referenced); if that actually does manage to stump them, then I'll expend more effort sourcing and referencing a further pwning in the "Anything original in the Jesus story" thread (The Sermon on the Mount is up for discussion).
If such efforts are simply dismissed, I won't bother.
So stay tuned readers.
Fundies, you have been warned, signing off...
The Luke
PLEASE!!!! You've been asked to produce some specific references to support claims you've made for over two weeks now. Yet, all you've done is come up with a whirlwind of excuses. Now, we're supposed to believe that you've suddenly been swamped with so many tasks that you can't produce what you claim to be fact.
Last time, you were supposed to address Loco's question, after you finished training. Either, you have a 13-hour training session; or, this is simply more excuse-making on your part.
-
That would be a first! :-\
Its been good up to this point ON BOTH SIDES. Unfortunately, both sides seem to be using more debate tactics then actually getting down to the facts.
-
Its been good up to this point ON BOTH SIDES. Unfortunately, both sides seem to be using more debate tactics then actually getting down to the facts.
Like what, for example?
-
Fucking hell...why is this shit still going on?
-
Like what, for example?
Well not just this thread, also the other thread of Jesus and original stories.
Are you asking what's been good up to this point or what's been a bunch of debate tactics?
I'll answer you in a bit, have to go somewhere for a while.
Fucking hell...why is this shit still going on?
Because both sides answer questions or respond like polticians ;D
-
Fucking hell...why is this shit still going on?
Then why do you keep coming back? Are you a glutton for punishment? :)
-
Well not just this thread, also the other thread of Jesus and original stories.
Are you asking what's been good up to this point or what's been a bunch of debate tactics?
I'll answer you in a bit, have to go somewhere for a while.
Because both sides answer questions or respond like polticians ;D
Whatever this is, by your comments you seem to enjoy it. :)
-
Whatever this is, by your comments you seem to enjoy it. :)
I do.
Because think of it this way. You know my position on these things. I believe in God, but not the bible as the 100% WOG and accept my that my belief is based solely on faith and not scientific evidence. Both sides represent opposite ends of the spectrum with me being somewhere in the middle.
-
Okay guys, sorry this is a little late, but I’ve been really busy lately… and schooling a bunch of fundies isn’t that high on my list of priorities. But I promised I would… and so I shall…
The topic under discussion was whether the Bible condones slavery… I have been arguing that it does, which I had thought was an opinion beyond reproach or discussion; as the Bible quite explicitly DOES condone slavery. Even Jesus never spoke out against the practice of slavery.
What I hadn’t expected were the underhanded tactics employed by Loco and McWay.
I didn’t think believing Christians would stoop so low as selective quotations and touch-feely new translations… so I’m afraid I’ll have actually go to trouble of making sourced and referenced quotes to back my position.
Does the Bible condone slavery?
Well, slaves are routinely referred to in lists of property throughout the Old Testament, that might give us a hint of how slaves were regarded… we should ask ourselves, would the “indentured servants” McWay insists Old Testament slaves actually were be regarded as property. Surely only chattel slaves were considered such:
Exodus 20:17:
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbours."
Deuteronomy 5:21:
"Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbours.”
Surely the employer of an indentured servant wouldn’t be permitted by holy edict to physically beat his slaves?
Exodus 21:26-27:
"And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."
…well, seemingly a slave owner was permitted to beat his slaves so long as he didn’t either knock out their teeth or blind them in either eye. Doesn’t sound like indentured servitude to me, any beating short of a maiming is considered acceptable?
But surely if these were indeed chattel slaves there would be evidence of slavemasters having the right to put their slaves to death?
Would laws detailing the circumstances of such punishment beatings be considered evidence of this?
Exodus 21:20-21:
"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 they are his property."
…so you can beat your slaves as severely as you like, on condition that you don’t batter them to death on the spot.
If you beat your slave so badly that he dies a couple of days after the beating, then you go “unpunished”. What kind of rationale could explain this? Perhaps the fact that non-Hebrew slaves were considered chattel slaves and explicitly, legally a form of property (ie: no proper human rights).
How else can someone not be punished for beating someone to death because “they are his property”.
What about the terms of servitude?
McWay insists Old Testament slaves were indeed a form of "indentured servant" and were routinely set free with severance pay in the seventh year. This is true for certain Hebrew slaves (male Hebrew slaves):
Deuteronomy 15:12-18:
"And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him."
But to extend such terms to describe ALL Old Testament slaves (as McWay does) is intellectually dishonest… for example, a slaves wife was considered the property of the slavemaster. But even more sinisterly, the infant children of such a freed slave were also considered the property of the slave master. Can a child be an “indentured servant”?
Exodus 21:1-4:
"If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."
Consider that. What type of employer demands that any children you bear while in their employ become the property of the employer… again, sounds like chattel slavery to me.
In fact, these “indentured servants” had so little in the way of human rights that they could be genitally mutilated on the whims of their masters:
Genesis 17:13:
"He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."
Genesis 17:27:
"And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him."
But even more dishonest than any of this, is the deliberate omission by Loco and McWay of the specific terms and conditions that applied to female slaves.
Female slaves were indeed slaves for life… chattel slaves:
Exodus 21:7:
"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."
Non-Hebrew slaves were considered chattel slaves whether male or female:
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."
My assertion that female slaves were chattel slaves subject to rape and sexual violence and legally disenfranchised of their right to their own sexual consent seems to have caused the most consternation. It is a pretty damning indictment… but I don’t understand why I am being Hectored to provide specifics on this. The Bible is replete with examples of such barbarity.
For example: female slaves could be raped… but only at the price of a sacrificed ram. (The female slave would be flogged, but could not be put to death because she was property):
Leviticus 19:20-22:
"And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to a 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."
Women and children were routinely taken for chattel slaves as spoils of war:
Deuteronomy 20:14:
"But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"
If a Hebrew man took a fancy to any female war captive, he could take her as a slave and try her out before deciding whether to keep her. It doesn’t really sound like indentured servitude if the employer has the right to rape the female staff members to decide whether he wants to keep them? Does it?
Deuteronomy 21:10-14:
"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."
…this translation of “humbled” in this sexual context is another example of a softening translation. It should be translated as “...because thou hast raped her”. As it was translated for centuries.
In fact, female slaves had so little control over their own sexual consent that they could be handed over as sexual surrogates:
Genesis 16:1-2:
"Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai."
In fact, not only did female slaves not even have ownership over their own sexual consent (considered the property of their master) but their mistress had right of first refusal on any children she might have… it doesn’t sound much like “indentured servitude” when the employer can gift the employee as a sexual plaything then forcefully adopt any child she might conceive, does it?
Genesis 30:3-4:
"And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her. And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her."
Genesis 30:9-10:
"When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife. And Zilpah Leah's maid bare Jacob a son."
…so, in conclusion:
A non-Hebrew woman living in one of the cities destroyed by marauding Hebrew hoardes would have her husband and infant children slaughtered before her and might only be spared the same fate herself because one of the Hebrew soldiers took a fancy to her… this Hebrew soldier would then forcibly take her back to Israel as a hostage, where, having first suffered the ignominy of having her head shaved and nails clipped, she would be kept under house arrest for a month.
Once the month was up she would then be subject to an indeterminate period of rapings… nothing too severe, just the standard raping female slaves were subject to and possibly a beating if she displeased her master, but not so vicious a beating that she would lose either an eye or a tooth, and if she was beaten to death then it wouldn’t be a continuous savage beating that might kill her on the spot but possibly a beating from which she might die a couple of days later.
If she’s lucky, and her new Hebrew master is somewhat decent enough to be put off by the continuous rape on the threat of torture, then he might let her go.
Once set free she now has to somehow escape to her homeland without being captured by any of the Hebrews involved in the slave trade, if she is actually recaptured then sold as a standard slave she has no hope of ever being set free.
She is now the property of her new master and can be raped; beaten or gifted as a sexual plaything… on the threat of more savage beatings. Should she have children, her children can be taken/stolen from her and forcibly adopted by her master or mistress.
Any children not stolen in this manner will themselves be slaves for life, subject to the same beatings and sexual violence without any hope of reprieve. Male children will be forcibly circumcised in traditional Hebrew style: foreskin cut with a dull bronze blade and excess skin sucked off the penis by the priest with his mouth, despite the fact that such an operation is routinely fatal (up to 10% mortality rate) in a time before antibiotics... even more dangerous if the priest has any sort of STD or mouth infection.
All of this would be well within Hebrew Old Testament Mosaic Law.
Yep, sounds like "indentured servitude" to me... Morons.
I would ask that those reading this thread take the time to call McWay on his bullshit when he starts his apologist bullshit:
-claiming each quotation is an example of a special case
-quoting an apologist translation that exchanges "worker" for "slave/servant"
-picking apart the grammar
-quoting an obscure saying attributed to Jebus which might possibly repeal all Old Testament slavery laws
...thanks. He needs to know he's not winning anyone over.
The Luke
-
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."
"God" condoning and encouraging basic slavery. About as black and white as you can get.
;D
-
"God" condoning and encouraging basic slavery. About as black and white as you can get.
...go Luke!
The Luke
-
We know that!! That isn't the issue, here. The issue (and the crux of this thread) is that there's a HUGE differences between the "slaves" of the OT and the chattel slaves (i.e. black people in USA/England) of relatively recent memory.
Why not?
Who told you that slavery is wrong? Why can’t you impose your will on someone, if you have the military/political might to do so?
If this is simply about the will of man, then you have no such thing as "inalienable" rights. If man can give something to someone; he can take that something away.
I rarely look at the board so I haven't checked this thread in a long time.
Are you really confused about whether slavery is wrong or not. Do you really think "might makes right"?
You don't seem that dumb so all I can guess is that this just some gag on your part or some sort of weird performance art?
-
Straw Man,
McWay and Loco won't be back to this thread so don't expect and answer any time soon.
My long-winded essay above is essentially an end-of-thread post.
The Luke
-
Straw Man,
McWay and Loco won't be back to this thread so don't expect and answer any time soon.
My long-winded essay above is essentially an end-of-thread post.
The Luke
meh...that's ok with me. I haven't looked at the thread in a few weeks either.
I can't believe there would be anyone (christian or otherwise) who would be confused on the subject. It seems it's always the ones who believe that a book written (and edited, redacted, mistranslated, etc..) by men is somehow the word of a god that have all the problems.
-
I can't believe there would be anyone (christian or otherwise) who would be confused on the subject. It seems it's always the ones who believe that a book written (and edited, redacted, mistranslated, etc..) by men is somehow the word of a god that have all the problems.
...the problem on this board is that the fundies don't seem to realise when they are defending the indefensible or sparring far above their weight intellectually.
Loco, for example, has very poor reading comprehension... but then again, English isn't his first language.
I blame most of this on the apologist movement... these assholes are still questioning evolution for Christ's sake! But it's a dishonest discussion, they shout down their opponents then deem the eventual silence of their critics a victory for their simple-minded illogical quibbling.
What they fail to realise is that the academic community won't engage with them NOT because they can't... but because they deem these matters settled. Scientists don't want to discuss these topics because the faith-based anti-science camp's argument doesn't meet the standard necessary to warrant any attention at all.
If a 12 year-old still believes in the literal existence of Santa Claus, then an intervention is warranted... but no one will argue the existence of Santa with a four-year-old... or a 34 year-old.
The Luke
-
Straw Man,
McWay and Loco won't be back to this thread so don't expect and answer any time soon.
My long-winded essay above is essentially an end-of-thread post.
The Luke
I doubt that. I'm interested to see their responses.
-
Straw Man,
McWay and Loco won't be back to this thread so don't expect and answer any time soon.
My long-winded essay above is essentially an end-of-thread post.
The Luke
DEAD WRONG, as usual!! And to think, you delayed all this time, simply to post silliness like this!!
Okay guys, sorry this is a little late, but I’ve been really busy lately… and schooling a bunch of fundies isn’t that high on my list of priorities. But I promised I would… and so I shall…
The topic under discussion was whether the Bible condones slavery… I have been arguing that it does, which I had thought was an opinion beyond reproach or discussion; as the Bible quite explicitly DOES condone slavery. Even Jesus never spoke out against the practice of slavery.
What I hadn’t expected were the underhanded tactics employed by Loco and McWay.
I didn’t think believing Christians would stoop so low as selective quotations and touch-feely new translations… so I’m afraid I’ll have actually go to trouble of making sourced and referenced quotes to back my position.
First of all, I'm not using any "touchy-feely" new translations of the Bible. When quoting verses, I stated which version I used, which is usually the NASB or the KJV. If I use anything other than that, I make the indication that I do such. And, Loco ususally does the same.
Listen to what you just said, “I’m afraid I’ll havt to actually go to trouble of making sourced and referenced quotes to back my position”. Genius, that’s what you’re supposed to do. Instead, you resort to making claims out your behind, which makes refuting them that much easier.
And, the topic ALSO under discussion was “slavery” in OT times vs. “slavery” as we’ve come to know it (i.e. chattel slavery) and whether the two were one and the same. It clearly is not, for reasons mentioned multiple times, supported by multiple historical references.
Does the Bible condone slavery?
Well, slaves are routinely referred to in lists of property throughout the Old Testament, that might give us a hint of how slaves were regarded… we should ask ourselves, would the “indentured servants” McWay insists Old Testament slaves actually were be regarded as property. Surely only chattel slaves were considered such:
Exodus 20:17:
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbours."
Deuteronomy 5:21:
"Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbours.”
Nothing in either of those verses suggests that the manservants/maidservants in question are chattel slaves.
Surely the employer of an indentured servant wouldn’t be permitted by holy edict to physically beat his slaves?
Exodus 21:26-27:
"And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."
…well, seemingly a slave owner was permitted to beat his slaves so long as he didn’t either knock out their teeth or blind them in either eye. Doesn’t sound like indentured servitude to me, any beating short of a maiming is considered acceptable?
Ummmm…..genius, did you bother to read the tail end of that verse, he shall let him go free? Chattel slaves (i.e. black slaves in the USA) didn't get to go free AT ALL, no matter HOW SEVERELY they were beaten. BTW, husbands got beaten as well, if they slander the names of their wives. I guess that makes them “slaves” as well. The "tooth" and "eye" things appear to be examples of the severity of injury that would warrant a breach of contract, allowing a "slave" to go free. I doubt that those two cases were exhaustive.
But surely if these were indeed chattel slaves there would be evidence of slavemasters having the right to put their slaves to death?
Would laws detailing the circumstances of such punishment beatings be considered evidence of this?
Exodus 21:20-21:
"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 they are his property."
…so you can beat your slaves as severely as you like, on condition that you don’t batter them to death on the spot.
If you beat your slave so badly that he dies a couple of days after the beating, then you go “unpunished”. What kind of rationale could explain this? Perhaps the fact that non-Hebrew slaves were considered chattel slaves and explicitly, legally a form of property (ie: no proper human rights).
How else can someone not be punished for beating someone to death because “they are his property”.
Chattel slaves could be beaten without ANY punishment, whatsoever, as was the case with black slaves in this country (USA). So, this spiel of yours basically holds little weight.
What about the terms of servitude?
McWay insists Old Testament slaves were indeed a form of "indentured servant" and were routinely set free with severance pay in the seventh year. This is true for certain Hebrew slaves (male Hebrew slaves):
Deuteronomy 15:12-18:
"And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him."
But to extend such terms to describe ALL Old Testament slaves (as McWay does) is intellectually dishonest… for example, a slaves wife was considered the property of the slavemaster. But even more sinisterly, the infant children of such a freed slave were also considered the property of the slave master. Can a child be an “indentured servant”?
For some strange reason, you think foolish and false criesof my being “intellectually dishonest” can hide your visibly weak claims. I did not claim that ALL Old Testaments slaves fell under the 7-year rule. In fact, I posted information, specifically outline the guidelines for how non-Hebrews were treated in certain situations, something to the tune of “The Foreign Slave”. Try reading, for once, before you make such screwy accusations.
And, in true toe-munching Luke fashion, you put the kabosh to your own argument: And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.. In other words, Hebrew women were under the 7-year rule, too. OOPS!!!!
-
Exodus 21:1-4:
"If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."
Consider that. What type of employer demands that any children you bear while in their employ become the property of the employer… again, sounds like chattel slavery to me.
Once again, the lack of “Hooked on Phonics” training rears its silly head. The reason the wife and children remain under the employ of the master is because….THE MASTER GAVE THE MALE SERVANT THE WIFE, IN THE FIRST PLACE!! Had you bothered reading the data I posted on this matter, you would have known that, if the master gives a female servant to his male servant for a wife, it's effectively the same effect as his giving a daughter for wife. The master has paid for the woman's food, lodging, clothes, etc.
In other words, should the male servant cough up the dough for a dowry, he gets to leave with the wife (and the kids).
However, as verse 3 indicated, which you clearly didn’t read, if the man and wife came together to serve this master, they leave together (with the kids).
In fact, these “indentured servants” had so little in the way of human rights that they could be genitally mutilated on the whims of their masters:
Genesis 17:13:
"He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."
Genesis 17:27:
"And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him."
Lack of reading comprehension, thy name is Luke. Did you somehow miss the terms, “He that is born in thy house” or “All the men of his house”? That means EVERY MALE, from the master, on down to the maleservant, gets circumcised. And (with regards to the Genesis verse), that happens to the grown men, simply because this is when the circumcision covenant began. Males, from that time forward, were circumcised, after they were EIGHT DAYS OLD.
But even more dishonest than any of this, is the deliberate omission by Loco and McWay of the specific terms and conditions that applied to female slaves.
Female slaves were indeed slaves for life… chattel slaves:
Exodus 21:7:
"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."
Try that again, boy genius. Female slaves could be married and once that happens, the term, maidservants goes bye-bye.
You'd know that, had you bothered to read the next four verses, boy genius:
Verse 8-11
If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
That means that someone else can marry her, and once he does, she becomes a WIFE. That ain't chattel slavery. Furthermore, he can't sell her off to another nation, which would be the very antithesis of chattel slavery (in which people can be sold, anywhere, anytime, for any reason, without their consent).
Non-Hebrew slaves were considered chattel slaves whether male or female:
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."
If that were the case, the women would NOT BE ABLE TO BE REDEEMED. And, you mentioned earlier (which pretty much torpedoes this argument of yours), severe injury or mistreatment VOIDS the arrangement, allowing them to go free.
Once again, that ain't chattel slavery.
My assertion that female slaves were chattel slaves subject to rape and sexual violence and legally disenfranchised of their right to their own sexual consent seems to have caused the most consternation. It is a pretty damning indictment… but I don’t understand why I am being Hectored to provide specifics on this. The Bible is replete with examples of such barbarity.
You’re being “Hectored”, because (as is often the case), your claims are inaccurate. All one has to do is see from where you’re getting such foolishness, read it for himself, and commence the dissecting, appropriately. That’s probably why you usually hide your specific references.
For example: female slaves could be raped… but only at the price of a sacrificed ram. (The female slave would be flogged, but could not be put to death because she was property):
Leviticus 19:20-22:
"And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to a 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."
Operation FOOT-IN-MOUTH is a-go for Luke. Weren’t you just blubbering, not that long ago, about that Levite’s concubine who got assaulted and raped? I guess you conveniently forgot that, when the Levite reported what happened, the Israelite leaders demanded that the Benjamites responsible BE PUT TO DEATH (there ain’t no mention about any ram sacrifices).
Furthermore, from that particular verse, there is no mention of RAPE. Lying carnally with a woman implies that the sex is voluntary. The reason she gets flogged, INSTEAD OF KILLED (as what normally happens when betrothed women start creeping), is because she’s not married or betrothed yet. It ain’t official until the would-be redeemer actually coughs up the $$$$$$.
Verse 29 of this same chapter instructs fathers not to make prostitutes out of their daughters. In sexual purity and marital terms, the same applied for female servants.
Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.
Women and children were routinely taken for chattel slaves as spoils of war:
Deuteronomy 20:14:
"But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"
If a Hebrew man took a fancy to any female war captive, he could take her as a slave and try her out before deciding whether to keep her. It doesn’t really sound like indentured servitude if the employer has the right to rape the female staff members to decide whether he wants to keep them? Does it?
You missed the part, where he must give her a month to mourn. Then, he must MARRY her. Once that happens, she gets treated like any other wife. Non-Hebrew women, once married, became effectively HEBREWS, with all rights and privileges. Again see Ruth. She was a Moabitess. Yet, when her first husband died, she was redeemed and treated the EXACT same way that a Hebrew wife was treated, with regards to property inheiritance and care.
And, O non-comprehending one, there is no "trying her out" issue at all. He can't touch her for at least a month. And, if he wants get busy with her, HE HAS TO MARRY HER. If he divorces here after that, he gets NOTHING for casting her away. On the contrary, he has to pay for her care, especially if they have kids together. The firstborn from this dissolved marriage BECOMES HIS HEIR, when he dies.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14:
"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."
…this translation of “humbled” in this sexual context is another example of a softening translation. It should be translated as “...because thou hast raped her”. As it was translated for centuries.
That’s from the KJV version. Where is this other version that supposedly translates “humbled” as “raped”? The Hebrew word for "humbled" is "anah", which means "put down, oppressed, afflicted". The word "rape" is not used, in the translation of "anah".
So, that means, boy genius, you have to go the the painful inconvenience to show that (in the ancient Hebrerw text) a word, other than "anah" was used in that text, and this other word means "raped".
In fact, female slaves had so little control over their own sexual consent that they could be handed over as sexual surrogates:
Genesis 16:1-2:
"Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai."
You screwed up the last time you tried this trick, Luke. Exactly where is it stated that Hagar did NOT consent to this agreement and was raped? If she had not wanted to do the deed, she could have simply refused and/or RUN AWAY (as she did once Sarah started mistreating her, which started from Hagar’s apparent GLOATING over the fact that she could have kids and Sarah could not).
And, as Loco indicated, Abraham MARRIED Hagar, before they did the deed and had Ishmael.
In fact, not only did female slaves not even have ownership over their own sexual consent (considered the property of their master) but their mistress had right of first refusal on any children she might have… it doesn’t sound much like “indentured servitude” when the employer can gift the employee as a sexual plaything then forcefully adopt any child she might conceive, does it?
Genesis 30:3-4:
"And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her. And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her."
Genesis 30:9-10:
"When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife. And Zilpah Leah's maid bare Jacob a son."
…so, in conclusion:
A non-Hebrew woman living in one of the cities destroyed by marauding Hebrew hoardes would have her husband and infant children slaughtered before her and might only be spared the same fate herself because one of the Hebrew soldiers took a fancy to her… this Hebrew soldier would then forcibly take her back to Israel as a hostage, where, having first suffered the ignominy of having her head shaved and nails clipped, she would be kept under house arrest for a month.
Once the month was up she would then be subject to an indeterminate period of rapings… nothing too severe, just the standard raping female slaves were subject to and possibly a beating if she displeased her master, but not so vicious a beating that she would lose either an eye or a tooth, and if she was beaten to death then it wouldn’t be a continuous savage beating that might kill her on the spot but possibly a beating from which she might die a couple of days later.
If she’s lucky, and her new Hebrew master is somewhat decent enough to be put off by the continuous rape on the threat of torture, then he might let her go.
Once set free she now has to somehow escape to her homeland without being captured by any of the Hebrews involved in the slave trade, if she is actually recaptured then sold as a standard slave she has no hope of ever being set free.
She is now the property of her new master and can be raped; beaten or gifted as a sexual plaything… on the threat of more savage beatings. Should she have children, her children can be taken/stolen from her and forcibly adopted by her master or mistress.
In conclusion, your claims are utterly ridiculous and demonstratively FALSE. Nothing in those verses indicates any lack of consent by the female servants involved. In fact, as the verses clearly state (which you apparently missed, in your usual foolish haste), the master had to MARRY these women, before any children could be had. This was not some wanton raping, with reckless abandon (as what happened with black women in America).
You don’t marry “sexual playthings”, boy genius. The fact that Jacob did this means that he is on the hook for the care of these women and their children, REGARDLESS of their servant-status.
Any children not stolen in this manner will themselves be slaves for life, subject to the same beatings and sexual violence without any hope of reprieve. Male children will be forcibly circumcised in traditional Hebrew style: foreskin cut with a dull bronze blade and excess skin sucked off the penis by the priest with his mouth, despite the fact that such an operation is routinely fatal (up to 10% mortality rate) in a time before antibiotics... even more dangerous if the priest has any sort of STD or mouth infection.
All of this would be well within Hebrew Old Testament Mosaic Law.
Yep, sounds like "indentured servitude" to me... Morons.
If you keep quiet sometimes, no one will know how bone-headed your drivel can be. Circumcision was required for ALL HEBREWS MALES, period. It started with Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac. Were any of them slaves, genius? NO!!! Jacob and Esau got circumcised, too. And, so did Jacob’s male children (those from Rachel, the wife he initially wanted; Leah, the one he was tricked into marrying; and their respective servants, who were willing pawns in a one-upmanship game, between rival sisters).
And, if that weren’t enough, Einstein, circumcision (a mere removing of foreskin) occurred, when these boys were EIGHT DAYS OLD, hardly the traumatic experience you so cluelessly make it out to be. Jacob had 12 sons. If your claims were actually true, only ONE or two would have survived circumcision.
On the contrary, per the book of Exodus, which you seem to be so eager to quote, the Hebrews multiplied GREATLY, when they were in Egypt. That flies right in the fact of the alleged “10% mortality rate” (a claim for which you apparently have nothing to support).
I would ask that those reading this thread take the time to call McWay on his bullshit when he starts his apologist bullshit:
-claiming each quotation is an example of a special case
-quoting an apologist translation that exchanges "worker" for "slave/servant"
-picking apart the grammar
-quoting an obscure saying attributed to Jebus which might possibly repeal all Old Testament slavery laws
...thanks. He needs to know he's not winning anyone over.
The Luke
You have continued in your usual fashion of utterly false claims, inserting things into texts that are not there, shooting yourself in the foot by clearly glossing over parts of Scripture, that UNDERMINE the very argument you try to make.
Worst (and most pathetically) of all, you whine like T.O. after a Cowboys loss, flinging stupid accusations, hoping that it will prop up your feeble arguments. No one is twisting your words, using “touch/feely” translations of the Bible, or any of that other nonsense you keep spewing. Your takes are weak, demonstratively false, and utterly unsupported.
That’s why it troubles you so much to actually produce references (if you can actually do that). A simple read of the facts burns your brittle claims to the ground.
-
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."
If that were the case, the women would NOT BE ABLE TO BE REDEEMED. And, you mentioned earlier (which pretty much torpedoes this argument of yours), severe injury or mistreatment VOIDS the arrangement, allowing them to go free.
Once again, that ain't chattel slavery.
so they had some morals regarding the treatment of slaves. Still slaves, held against their will, procured from other nations.
You shold run for office. ;) ;D
God's a slaver lol
-
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."
so they had some morals regarding the treatment of slaves. Still slaves, held against their will, procured from other nations.
You shold run for office. ;) ;D
God's a slaver lol
Procured from other nations, yes. Held against their will........NOT quite!!!
Recall that people could volunteer to indenture themselves, usually to avoid poverty. As mentioned earlier, regarding Hagar, she left after the tension between her and Sarah began to hit the boiling point. Notice again that no one was dispatched to bring her back, and we have no record of any punitive damages done to her, as a result of her fleeing. She left of her own free will; she returned of her own free will.
Severe mistreatment (i.e. major injury) voided any indebtedness. For females, marriage into the family bumped the status of the foreign female to full-fledged wife.
Neither was the hallmark of chattel slavery.
-
Procured from other nations, yes. Held against their will........NOT quite!!!
Recall that people could volunteer to indenture themselves, usually to avoid poverty. As mentioned earlier, regarding Hagar, she left after the tension between her and Sarah began to hit the boiling point. Notice again that no one was dispatched to bring her back, and we have no record of any punitive damages done to her, as a result of her fleeing. She left of her own free will; she returned of her own free will.
Severe mistreatment (i.e. major injury) voided any indebtedness. For females, marriage into the family bumped the status of the foreign female to full-fledged wife.
Neither was the hallmark of chattel slavery.
People that are "bought" are not volunteering themselves and still the common word used is slavery not indentured servitude or someone who owes.
Indentured servitude is considered primitive and wrong in modern times. People still have choices. It may have been written in one account with Sarah, but "god" telling his followers to go and buy people liek they are property IS slavery. no getting as around that.
-
People that are "bought" are not volunteering themselves and still the common word used is slavery not indentured servitude or someone who owes.
Indentured servitude is considered primitive and wrong in modern times. People still have choices. It may have been written in one account with Sarah, but "god" telling his followers to go and buy people liek they are property IS slavery. no getting as around that.
Ever heard of buying out someone’s contract? That’s done in the business world, on a regular basis.
If I have a maid, that’s works for me for, say $50,000/yr for 7 years, it means I’m paying her $350,000 for her tenure with me. If she works in my house for 3 years, I have $200,000 left to pay her. If you like my maid and she wants to work for Team Ozmo, that means you’d pay me at least 200K (assuming I sell her contract to you at cost), for her services.
The foreign-slave thing worked in similar fashion. Again, nowhere in the text does it indicate that the servants have no say in the matter; that's an assumption on your part.
People do have choices and, as stated before, many of them indentured themselves to avoid living in poverty. Among those choices would be continuing to work for the family, should the head of the family croak.
"A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to its master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of (Deut 23:16-17). This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations and is explained as due to Israel's own history of slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution." – Raymond Westbrook, “A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law” (From the "Christian ThinkTank" link).
-
Ever heard of buying out someone’s contract? That’s done in the business world, on a regular basis.
If I have a maid, that’s works for me for, say $50,000/yr for 7 years, it means I’m paying her $350,000 for her tenure with me. If she works in my house for 3 years, I have $200,000 left to pay her. If you like my maid and she wants to work for Team Ozmo, that means you’d pay me at least 200K (assuming I sell her contract to you at cost), for her services.
The foreign-slave thing worked in similar fashion. Again, nowhere in the text does it indicate that the servants have no say in the matter; that's an assumption on your part.
People do have choices and, as stated before, many of them indentured themselves to avoid living in poverty. Among those choices would be continuing to work for the family, should the head of the family croak.
"A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to its master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of (Deut 23:16-17). This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations and is explained as due to Israel's own history of slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution." – Raymond Westbrook, “A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law” (From the "Christian ThinkTank" link).
They are not talking about any of that here. they are not talking about buying work contracts.
Leviticus 25:44-46:
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
They didn't say workers, contract workers, voluntary workers etc. They said slaves. If they meant otherwise they'd have said that.
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.
Buying "contracted workers" is never designated as 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."
More designation of property.
I can appreciate your burden in this. But you can only spin something so far before it becomes silly.
-
Ozmo,
You're wasting your time... McWay can't even tell the difference between 10% mortality rate and a 10% survival rate. He's a moron.
On the contrary, per the book of Exodus, which you seem to be so eager to quote, the Hebrews multiplied GREATLY, when they were in Egypt. That flies right in the fact of the alleged “10% mortality rate” (a claim for which you apparently have nothing to support).
His claim that Old Testament slavery was a form of indentured servitude is at odds with two thousand years consensus of Western thought: theologians, linguists; archaeologists; Bible scholars. I've now shown that conclusively.
He skips over the "slaves for life" edict covering foreign war captives. That's pretty explicit.
He skips over the routine beating of slaves (only maiming is punishable).
He skips over children being bought and sold as slaves (how can a child consent to being an indentured servant?)
This all reminds me of his continuous claims that Yahweh didn't condone genocide... he wailed and wailed for explicit quotations, when they were listed for him he simply dismissed them on the grounds that:
-god is the creator and can do what he wants
-god rewards people collectively and punishes people collectively, hence the child murder
-god doesn't need to meet any moral standard
-there is nothing wrong with abusing an asymmetrical power relationship: why can't you do what you want if you are more powerful? etc
No rational person would be convinced by his apologetics... his fellow "Allah-akhbar!" fundies Loco and Colossus500 don't count (neither rational nor proper people).
The Luke
-
They are not talking about any of that here. they are not talking about buying work contracts.
Leviticus 25:44-46:
They didn't say workers, contract workers, voluntary workers etc. They said slaves. If they meant otherwise they'd have said that.
From whom are they buying these folks? That would be their previous employers/masters. Again, see the maid example.
Or, as mentioned awhile back and later in this post, people, foreigners and Hebrews, could sell themselves.
Buying "contracted workers" is never designated as property.
More designation of property.
I can appreciate your burden in this. But you can only spin something so far before it becomes silly.
There's no burden in this for me. The willing as inherited property is not that much different than, say, a butler who has worked in the same family for two or three generations (i.e. Alfred to the Wayne family, to use a theatrical example). And, there's no spinning involved. Again, the question was asked as to whether or not the "slavery" of the OT was similar to chattel slavery of black people. I have shown that it is not and the reasons why it is not.
Even today, people can easily be designated as "property". Try joining the military. If you mutilate or injure yourself, via doing something stupid (especially to avoid combat), you can be charged with destruction of government property. Does that mean that you become a slave by joining the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines? No. Hence the reason, we have what is known as an "all-volunteer" military.
Ozmo,
You're wasting your time... McWay can't even tell the difference between 10% mortality rate and a 10% survival rate. He's a moron.
His claim that Old Testament slavery was a form of indentured servitude is at odds with two thousand years consensus of Western thought: theologians, linguists; archaeologists; Bible scholars. I've now shown that conclusively.
You mean theologians, archaeologists, and Bible scholars, such as Raymond Westbrook, Louis Feldman, or any of the others mentioned here?
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/bookabs.html#HI:HANEL (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/bookabs.html#HI:HANEL)
And, of course, you can't support your claims about the alleged dangers of circumcision. Heck, it didn't dawn on you that circumcision was required for ALL MALES in Israel, regardless of their status (and that in most cases, that was done AT INFANCY, hardly the traumatic and deadly experience you tried to make it).
He skips over the "slaves for life" edict covering foreign war captives. That's pretty explicit.
Ummm....genius. I not only addressed that, but I've shown that such was NOT the case.
From the "Other references to 'slavery-like' situations in the Mosaic law: The 'Foreign slave" section of the CTT link:
The second case is that of foreign slaves within Israel (Lev 25.44f):
Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. 44 "`Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 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. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life
God orders the Israelites to make a distinction between the Hebrew servants and the those of foreign nations. They were:
· Allowed to 'buy' (not take!) slaves from foreign nations around them [Note: these would NOT include the Canaanites, but would be from remote nations. This would make the incidence level of this extremely small, except in the case of royalty or the ruling class. In those days, rulers would often have slaves with special skills, such as writing, teaching, translation, but the lives of these 'slaves' would not be representative of the common "western" slavery under discussion.]
· The temporary resident situation would look more like the Hebrew institution (since the alien would be 'selling himself' as in that case). The main difference would be the absence of the "timed-release" freedom clauses, but the slave-for-life-for-love situation may have been what is behind the 'you CAN make them slaves for life' (implying that it was not automatic.).
· The temporary resident already performed more mundane tasks for the people, for example wood and water services (cf. Deut 29.11: the aliens living in your camps who chop your wood and carry your water. ), in exchange for escape from Egypt or from troubles abroad. But these aliens were not confined to some 'lower class' in the Israelite assembly, since it is obvious that they could rise to affluence and actually BUY Hebrew servants as well:
"`If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan, 48 he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself. (Deut 25.47)
As such, it looks more like the Hebrew institution than the 'western' version.
If foreigners can become rich, obviously they aren't MANDATED to be slaves for life. In fact, this Deut. verse shows a scenario in which a HEBREW can SELL HIMSELF to a foreign master. That would not happen if foreigners were designated as lifetime chattel.
Plus, you conveniently forgot about the Hagar example. Was she a foreigner? YES!! Was she enslaved for life? NO!! Was she punished for leaving Sarah and Abraham? NO!!!
And, of course, you gloss over the fact that, per the very verses you just listed, men could leave the homes of their masters WITH THEIR FAMILIES. Foreign women could marry their masters, getting the full wife status of Hebrew women (i.e. Ruth), or they can marry someone else with the same thing occuring.
He skips over the routine beating of slaves (only maiming is punishable).
Wrong again, Luke!!!
"Although slaves were viewed as the property of heads of households, the latter were not free to brutalize or abuse even non-Israelite members of the household. On the contrary, explicit prohibitions of the oppression/exploitation of slaves appear repeatedly in the Mosaic legislation. In two most remarkable texts, Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19, Yahweh charges all Israelites to love ('aheb) aliens (gerim) who reside in their midst, that is, the foreign members of their households, like they do themselves and to treat these outsiders with the same respect they show their ethnic countrymen. Like Exodus 22:20 (Eng. 21), in both texts Israel's memory of her own experience as slaves in Egypt should have provided motivation for compassionate treatment of her slaves. But Deuteronomy 10:18 adds that the Israelites were to look to Yahweh himself as the paradigm for treating the economically and socially vulnerable persons in their communities." - Ken Campbell, "Marriage and Family in the Biblical World".
This "routine beating" spiel is also one that you cannot support. If such were the case, these slaves would be leaving on a regular basis, which according to Biblical texts, they are allowed to do.
Deut. 23:15
If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. 16 Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him.
As I mentioned to Ozmo, earlier:
"A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to its master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of (Deut 23:16-17). This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations and is explained as due to Israel's own history of slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution." - Raymond Westbrook, “A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law”
He skips over children being bought and sold as slaves (how can a child consent to being an indentured servant?)
Is the child planning to go on strike and NOT stay with his mother and father? Again, the father can leave with his family (Hebrew or foreigner). Furthermore,
And, while you're on the subject of skipping over stuff, you might want to get your own house in order by:
- Producing the alleged text Deut 21. that claims uses a word other than "anah" (humbled), to show that a foreign female was "raped".
- Female slaves were chattel slaves for life
This all reminds me of his continuous claims that Yahweh didn't condone genocide... he wailed and wailed for explicit quotations, when they were listed for him he simply dismissed them on the grounds that:
-god is the creator and can do what he wants
-god rewards people collectively and punishes people collectively, hence the child murder
-god doesn't need to meet any moral standard
-there is nothing wrong with abusing an asymmetrical power relationship: why can't you do what you want if you are more powerful? etc
No rational person would be convinced by his apologetics... his fellow "Allah-akhbar!" fundies Loco and Colossus500 don't count (neither rational nor proper people).
The Luke
Excuse me!!! I've discussed at length how and why God brought judgment on certain people (Ozmo can tell you that, firsthand). I never "wailed" for explicit quotations" on that particular issue, boy genius. On the other hand, regarding the issues about which I HAVE ASKED you to provide references to support your claims, you've FAILED to produce those time and time again.
As far as moral standards go, what I've said is that God is the one who makes the standards, not man. Therefore, your screwball claim of God not needing to meet any moral standard rings hollow.
Your quit about asymmetrical power is equally as foolish. If the Israelites could do whatever they wanted, they would have possessed the very thing you keep falsely and bone-headedly claimed they did: chattel slaves. Instead, you see NUMEROUS references in the OT that Israel was to treat their foreigners kindly, as He constantly reminded His people of how badly they were treated in Egypt.
Lev 19:33,34
And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Not only was abuse NOT tolerated, but the Biblical texts (including those which you quoted, ultimately undermining your own takes) states what the penalties are for such abuse: Stiff fines, release of servants without compensation, and (in extreme cases) DEATH.
If Israel could do whatever they wanted, there would have been no clauses that set foreign servants free, no clauses that allowed foreigners to get rich and have Hebrews work for them in Israel, no clauses that allowed foreign women to be have identical marital status as Hebrew women did, etc.
Your blathering about rationality, while making silly statements and reading claims into Bible verses that simply are not there, makes for good comedy, as does your standard for who’s proper and who’s not.
-
Okay guys, sorry this is a little late, but I’ve been really busy lately… and schooling a bunch of fundies isn’t that high on my list of priorities. But I promised I would… and so I shall…
The topic under discussion was whether the Bible condones slavery… I have been arguing that it does, which I had thought was an opinion beyond reproach or discussion; as the Bible quite explicitly DOES condone slavery. Even Jesus never spoke out against the practice of slavery.
No. Your claim is that Hebrew men in the Bible raped their female slaves and that God was okay with this. You posted this long thread and yet you still fail to support your bold claim.
By the way, not speaking against slavery does not automatically condone it. The Bible does not condemn slavery in general, but neither does the Bible promote or condone slavery. The Bible however does condemn certain types of slavery and it also condemns the mistreatment of slaves.
What I hadn’t expected were the underhanded tactics employed by Loco and McWay.
I didn’t think believing Christians would stoop so low as selective quotations and touch-feely new translations… so I’m afraid I’ll have actually go to trouble of making sourced and referenced quotes to back my position.
What's with the personal attacks and false accusations now? Are you losing it? You are the one who stoop so low. I have already told you:
Get your facts straight, young Skywalker!
I'm not an American.
I read the Bible daily, sometimes in one English translation, some times in another English translation, some times in one Spanish translation and some times in another Spanish translation. They all say the same thing, just in different languages.
I tend to quote from the New International Version(NIV) because it is a modern English translation which is easier to read and understand by modern English speaking people than the old King James English is. There is nothing wrong with that.
The NIV is a completely new translation of the Bible made by 100 scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts.
The core translation group consisted of fifteen Biblical scholars. The translation took ten years and involved a team up to 100 people from the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The range of those participating included over twenty different denominations such as Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Assemblies of God, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Mennonites, Nazarenes, Presbyterians, Wesleyan and more. That they were from so many different denominations helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias.
Does the Bible condone slavery?
Well, slaves are routinely referred to in lists of property throughout the Old Testament, that might give us a hint of how slaves were regarded… we should ask ourselves, would the “indentured servants” McWay insists Old Testament slaves actually were be regarded as property. Surely only chattel slaves were considered such:
Exodus 20:17:
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbours."
Deuteronomy 5:21:
"Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbours.”
The Luke,
Did you even bother to read your own translation of your own Bible? None of the verses you posted support your claim. They actually prove you wrong.
Slavery dates back to beyond recorded history, and Jewish Law in the Bible regarding indenture slavery was actually a huge improvement on the treatment of slaves and provided for ways in which slaves could gain their freedom. The Bible also condemns certain types of slavery. No need for me to quote Bible verses. I'll just use yours.
Surely the employer of an indentured servant wouldn’t be permitted by holy edict to physically beat his slaves?
Exodus 21:26-27:
"And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."
…well, seemingly a slave owner was permitted to beat his slaves so long as he didn’t either knock out their teeth or blind them in either eye. Doesn’t sound like indentured servitude to me, any beating short of a maiming is considered acceptable?
A slave who suffers permanent injury as a result of the master's beating is released from servitude.
Yeah, sounds just like chattel slavery. ::)
These verses prove you wrong.
But surely if these were indeed chattel slaves there would be evidence of slavemasters having the right to put their slaves to death?
Would laws detailing the circumstances of such punishment beatings be considered evidence of this?
Exodus 21:20-21:
"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 they are his property."
…so you can beat your slaves as severely as you like, on condition that you don’t batter them to death on the spot.
If you beat your slave so badly that he dies a couple of days after the beating, then you go “unpunished”. What kind of rationale could explain this? Perhaps the fact that non-Hebrew slaves were considered chattel slaves and explicitly, legally a form of property (ie: no proper human rights).
How else can someone not be punished for beating someone to death because “they are his property”.
In other words, in the Bible the master might have owned the slave, but unlike in chattel slavery, he did not own the slave's life. If a master killed his slave, the master was surely punished. You do not see that in chattel slavery.
What about the terms of servitude?
McWay insists Old Testament slaves were indeed a form of "indentured servant" and were routinely set free with severance pay in the seventh year. This is true for certain Hebrew slaves (male Hebrew slaves):
Deuteronomy 15:12-18:
"And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him."
But to extend such terms to describe ALL Old Testament slaves (as McWay does) is intellectually dishonest… for example, a slaves wife was considered the property of the slavemaster. But even more sinisterly, the infant children of such a freed slave were also considered the property of the slave master. Can a child be an “indentured servant”?
Exodus 21:1-4:
"If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."
Consider that. What type of employer demands that any children you bear while in their employ become the property of the employer… again, sounds like chattel slavery to me.
In fact, these “indentured servants” had so little in the way of human rights that they could be genitally mutilated on the whims of their masters:
Genesis 17:13:
"He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."
Genesis 17:27:
"And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him."
MCWAY already enlightened you on circumcision laws in the Bible. This has nothing to do with slavery and actually, by circumcising their male slaves, the Israelites showed equality since all Israelite males were circumcised too, including their own children.
But even more dishonest than any of this, is the deliberate omission by Loco and McWay of the specific terms and conditions that applied to female slaves.
Female slaves were indeed slaves for life… chattel slaves:
Exodus 21:7:
"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."
Obviously, you are the only one being dishonest here. You purposely left out the rest of the above passage:
Exodus 21:7-9 (New International Version)
"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter."
Non-Hebrew slaves were considered chattel slaves whether male or female:
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."
My assertion that female slaves were chattel slaves subject to rape and sexual violence and legally disenfranchised of their right to their own sexual consent seems to have caused the most consternation. It is a pretty damning indictment… but I don’t understand why I am being Hectored to provide specifics on this. The Bible is replete with examples of such barbarity.
Your assertion has been and continues to be wrong and dishonest. Such a large post with nothing to back this up. If "The Bible is replete with examples of such barbarity", then why are you unable to provide a single example of this?
For example: female slaves could be raped… but only at the price of a sacrificed ram. (The female slave would be flogged, but could not be put to death because she was property):
Leviticus 19:20-22:
"And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to a 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."
Women and children were routinely taken for chattel slaves as spoils of war:
Deuteronomy 20:14:
"But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself"
If a Hebrew man took a fancy to any female war captive, he could take her as a slave and try her out before deciding whether to keep her. It doesn’t really sound like indentured servitude if the employer has the right to rape the female staff members to decide whether he wants to keep them? Does it?
Deuteronomy 21:10-14:
"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."
…this translation of “humbled” in this sexual context is another example of a softening translation. It should be translated as “...because thou hast raped her”. As it was translated for centuries.
In fact, female slaves had so little control over their own sexual consent that they could be handed over as sexual surrogates:
Genesis 16:1-2:
"Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai."
In fact, not only did female slaves not even have ownership over their own sexual consent (considered the property of their master) but their mistress had right of first refusal on any children she might have… it doesn’t sound much like “indentured servitude” when the employer can gift the employee as a sexual plaything then forcefully adopt any child she might conceive, does it?
Genesis 30:3-4:
"And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her. And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her."
Genesis 30:9-10:
"When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife. And Zilpah Leah's maid bare Jacob a son."
…so, in conclusion:
A non-Hebrew woman living in one of the cities destroyed by marauding Hebrew hoardes would have her husband and infant children slaughtered before her and might only be spared the same fate herself because one of the Hebrew soldiers took a fancy to her… this Hebrew soldier would then forcibly take her back to Israel as a hostage, where, having first suffered the ignominy of having her head shaved and nails clipped, she would be kept under house arrest for a month.
Once the month was up she would then be subject to an indeterminate period of rapings… nothing too severe, just the standard raping female slaves were subject to and possibly a beating if she displeased her master, but not so vicious a beating that she would lose either an eye or a tooth, and if she was beaten to death then it wouldn’t be a continuous savage beating that might kill her on the spot but possibly a beating from which she might die a couple of days later.
If she’s lucky, and her new Hebrew master is somewhat decent enough to be put off by the continuous rape on the threat of torture, then he might let her go.
Once set free she now has to somehow escape to her homeland without being captured by any of the Hebrews involved in the slave trade, if she is actually recaptured then sold as a standard slave she has no hope of ever being set free.
She is now the property of her new master and can be raped; beaten or gifted as a sexual plaything… on the threat of more savage beatings. Should she have children, her children can be taken/stolen from her and forcibly adopted by her master or mistress.
Any children not stolen in this manner will themselves be slaves for life, subject to the same beatings and sexual violence without any hope of reprieve. Male children will be forcibly circumcised in traditional Hebrew style: foreskin cut with a dull bronze blade and excess skin sucked off the penis by the priest with his mouth, despite the fact that such an operation is routinely fatal (up to 10% mortality rate) in a time before antibiotics... even more dangerous if the priest has any sort of STD or mouth infection.
The Luke,
How can you spew so much ignorance after quoting the Bible verses yourself? Those verses clearly prove that a Hebrew male was not allowed to have sex with his slave without first marrying her, which means that her status was elevated from that of a slave to that of a wife, with all the rights and privileges of an Israelite wife.
All of this would be well within Hebrew Old Testament Mosaic Law.
Yep, sounds like "indentured servitude" to me... Morons.
I would ask that those reading this thread take the time to call McWay on his bullshit when he starts his apologist bullshit:
-claiming each quotation is an example of a special case
-quoting an apologist translation that exchanges "worker" for "slave/servant"
-picking apart the grammar
-quoting an obscure saying attributed to Jebus which might possibly repeal all Old Testament slavery laws
...thanks. He needs to know he's not winning anyone over.
The Luke
No, you have sunk to a new low. You are either ignorant or dishonest. From this post, it seems to me that you are a little bit of both. Go back and read the very Bible verses that you posted. They actually contradict your claims.
And you still owe me a couple of replies on the thread "Is there anything original in the Jesus story?"
I'm waiting. Your workouts are way too long.
-
I read a lot of self-serving bullshit here... and most of it is of an evasive nature.
McWay and Loco,
Rather than correct all the silly mistakes you guys make (confusing mortality and survival rates for example), perhaps you could correct my misreading of this passage:
Exodus 21:20-21:
"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 they are his property."
...am I right in thinking, seeing as the above verse expressly says so, that if a slavemaster beats his slave with a stick so severely that the slave dies THREE days after the beating, that the slavemaster goes UNPUNISHED because he had the right to beat the slave... because the slave is his property... and the fact that the slave wasn't killed on the spot proves the masters restraint (ie: no intent to maim the slave thereby setting the slave free), so again he goes unpunished.
Isn't that a proper reading?
The Luke
-
No. Your claim is that Hebrew men in the Bible raped their female slaves and that God was okay with this. You posted this long thread and yet you still fail to support your bold claim.
Did you even bother to read your own translation of your own Bible? None of the verses you posted support your claim. They actually prove you wrong.
AMEN!!! Remember that Levite's concubine. The men that raped her were marked for DEATH. The Israelites demanded that they be handed for EXECUTION.
Get your facts straight, young Skywalker!
I'm not an American.
I read the Bible daily, sometimes in one English translation, some times in another English translation, some times in one Spanish translation and some times in another Spanish translation. They all say the same thing, just in different languages.
I tend to quote from the New International Version(NIV) because it is a modern English translation which is easier to read and understand by modern English speaking people than the old King James English is. There is nothing wrong with that.
The NIV is a completely new translation of the Bible made by 100 scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts.
The core translation group consisted of fifteen Biblical scholars. The translation took ten years and involved a team up to 100 people from the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. The range of those participating included over twenty different denominations such as Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Assemblies of God, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Mennonites, Nazarenes, Presbyterians, Wesleyan and more. That they were from so many different denominations helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias.
It doesn't matter whether you're an American or not, or what is your native tongue. Luke's screwball claims aren't valid in any language. And, no matter what version of the Bible you use (I prefer the NASB, myself), what Scripture says and what Luke claims it says are as different as night and day.
A slave who suffers permanent injury as a result of the master's beating is released from servitude.
Yeah, sounds just like chattel slavery. ::)
In short, the abusive master is not only minus the services of his servant (Hebrew or otherwise), but he just cost himself a ton of money. Using the maid example from my response to Ozmo, if I did something stupid and mistreated my maid, I would no longer have a housekeeper PLUS I'd be out several hundred thousand dollars.
These verses prove you wrong.
In other words, in the Bible the master might have owned the slave, but unlike in chattel slavery, he did not own the slave's life. If a master killed his slave, the master was surely punished. You do not see that in chattel slavery.
And, like Hagar, the foreign slave had the right to leave, due to mistreatment.
The Luke,
How can you spew so much ignorance after quoting the Bible verses yourself? Those verses clearly prove that a Hebrew male was not allowed to have sex with his slave without first marrying her, which means that her status was elevated from that of a slave to that of a wife, with all the rights and privileges of an Israelite wife.
To top it all off, if the master tried to sell off a repeatedly-raped servant girl, he'd get pennies on the dollar (or shekel), because few, if any, men would pay for a "used" bride. To get top coin, the girl had to be a VIRGIN.
No, you have sunk to a new low. You are either ignorant or dishonest. From this post, it seems to me that you are a little bit of both. Go back and read the very Bible verses that you posted. They actually contradict your claims.
And you still owe me a couple of replies on the thread "Is there anything original in the Jesus story?"
Take a number!!
I'm waiting. Your workouts are way too long.
;D
-
What? That's it? The Luke, are you even going to address my response to your long, useless post? Talk about evasive nature. ::)
I read a lot of self-serving bullshit here... and most of it is of an evasive nature.
McWay and Loco,
Rather than correct all the silly mistakes you guys make (confusing mortality and survival rates for example), perhaps you could correct my misreading of this passage:
Exodus 21:20-21:
"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 they are his property."
...am I right in thinking, seeing as the above verse expressly says so, that if a slavemaster beats his slave with a stick so severely that the slave dies THREE days after the beating, that the slavemaster goes UNPUNISHED because he had the right to beat the slave... because the slave is his property... and the fact that the slave wasn't killed on the spot proves the masters restraint (ie: no intent to maim the slave thereby setting the slave free), so again he goes unpunished.
Isn't that a proper reading?
The Luke
Corporal punishment was common in those days and were not limited to slaves. A free man could get a beating too.
Though a slave was his/her master's property temporarily, the slave's body was not the master's property. The master was not allowed to injure the slave because a slave who suffers permanent injury as a result of the master's beating is released from servitude. Likewise, the master was not allowed to have sex with his slave without first marrying her, which means that her status was elevated from that of a slave to that of a wife, with all the rights and privileges of an Israelite wife.
The slave's life was not the master's property either because if the master killed his slave, the master was surely punished.
You do not see the above in chattel slavery.
Now, are you going to address my response to your post or are you going to continue to avoid it?
-
What? That's it? The Luke, are you even going to address my response to your long, useless post? Talk about evasive nature. ::)
Corporal punishment was common in those days and were not limited to slaves. A free man could get a beating too.
Though a slave was his/her master's property temporarily, the slave's body was not the master's property. The master was not allowed to injure the slave because a slave who suffers permanent injury as a result of the master's beating is released from servitude. Likewise, the master was not allowed to have sex with his slave without first marrying her, which means that her status was elevated from that of a slave to that of a wife, with all the rights and privileges of an Israelite wife.
The slave's life was not the master's property either because if the master killed his slave, the master was surely punished.
You do not see the above in chattel slavery.
Now, are you going to address my response to your post or are you going to continue to avoid it?
...none of that answers my question.
The Luke
-
...none of that answers my question.
The Luke
If you say so! ::)
Are you going to address my response to your earlier, long post or are you going to continue to avoid it?
You completely avoided MCWAY's response too.
-
Straw Man,
McWay and Loco won't be back to this thread so don't expect and answer any time soon.
My long-winded essay above is essentially an end-of-thread post.
The Luke
::)
-
I read a lot of self-serving bullshit here... and most of it is of an evasive nature.
McWay and Loco,
Rather than correct all the silly mistakes you guys make (confusing mortality and survival rates for example), perhaps you could correct my misreading of this passage:
You mean silly mistakes like this?
- Claiming that female slaves were chattel for life, while simultaneously citing a foreign female slave that left on her own accord, without punishment (i.e. Hagar).
- Spouting that females could be raped without conscience, despite posting a passage in which a concubine was raped, and the assailants were sought out to be EXECUTED.
Exodus 21:20-21:
"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 they are his property."
...am I right in thinking, seeing as the above verse expressly says so, that if a slavemaster beats his slave with a stick so severely that the slave dies THREE days after the beating, that the slavemaster goes UNPUNISHED because he had the right to beat the slave... because the slave is his property... and the fact that the slave wasn't killed on the spot proves the masters restraint (ie: no intent to maim the slave thereby setting the slave free), so again he goes unpunished.
Isn't that a proper reading?
The Luke
Loco called you out on that foolishness earlier, not citing the the complete passage in a feeble attempt to make your assertion stick.
BTW, exactly what was the punishment for that master, anyway? Hmmm......Oh that's right, it's DEATH!!!!
Ex. 21:12
He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
-
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."
From whom are they buying these folks? That would be their previous employers/masters. Again, see the maid example.
Or, as mentioned awhile back and later in this post, people, foreigners and Hebrews, could sell themselves.
There's no burden in this for me. The willing as inherited property is not that much different than, say, a butler who has worked in the same family for two or three generations (i.e. Alfred to the Wayne family, to use a theatrical example). And, there's no spinning involved. Again, the question was asked as to whether or not the "slavery" of the OT was similar to chattel slavery of black people. I have shown that it is not and the reasons why it is not.
Even today, people can easily be designated as "property". Try joining the military. If you mutilate or injure yourself, via doing something stupid (especially to avoid combat), you can be charged with destruction of government property. Does that mean that you become a slave by joining the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines? No. Hence the reason, we have what is known as an "all-volunteer" military.
You mean theologians, archaeologists, and Bible scholars, such as Raymond Westbrook, Louis Feldman, or any of the others mentioned here?
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/bookabs.html#HI:HANEL (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/bookabs.html#HI:HANEL)
And, of course, you can't support your claims about the alleged dangers of circumcision. Heck, it didn't dawn on you that circumcision was required for ALL MALES in Israel, regardless of their status (and that in most cases, that was done AT INFANCY, hardly the traumatic and deadly experience you tried to make it).
Ummm....genius. I not only addressed that, but I've shown that such was NOT the case.
From the "Other references to 'slavery-like' situations in the Mosaic law: The 'Foreign slave" section of the CTT link:
The second case is that of foreign slaves within Israel (Lev 25.44f):
Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. 44 "`Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 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. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life
God orders the Israelites to make a distinction between the Hebrew servants and the those of foreign nations. They were:
· Allowed to 'buy' (not take!) slaves from foreign nations around them [Note: these would NOT include the Canaanites, but would be from remote nations. This would make the incidence level of this extremely small, except in the case of royalty or the ruling class. In those days, rulers would often have slaves with special skills, such as writing, teaching, translation, but the lives of these 'slaves' would not be representative of the common "western" slavery under discussion.]
· The temporary resident situation would look more like the Hebrew institution (since the alien would be 'selling himself' as in that case). The main difference would be the absence of the "timed-release" freedom clauses, but the slave-for-life-for-love situation may have been what is behind the 'you CAN make them slaves for life' (implying that it was not automatic.).
· The temporary resident already performed more mundane tasks for the people, for example wood and water services (cf. Deut 29.11: the aliens living in your camps who chop your wood and carry your water. ), in exchange for escape from Egypt or from troubles abroad. But these aliens were not confined to some 'lower class' in the Israelite assembly, since it is obvious that they could rise to affluence and actually BUY Hebrew servants as well:
"`If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan, 48 he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself. (Deut 25.47)
As such, it looks more like the Hebrew institution than the 'western' version.
If foreigners can become rich, obviously they aren't MANDATED to be slaves for life. In fact, this Deut. verse shows a scenario in which a HEBREW can SELL HIMSELF to a foreign master. That would not happen if foreigners were designated as lifetime chattel.
Plus, you conveniently forgot about the Hagar example. Was she a foreigner? YES!! Was she enslaved for life? NO!! Was she punished for leaving Sarah and Abraham? NO!!!
And, of course, you gloss over the fact that, per the very verses you just listed, men could leave the homes of their masters WITH THEIR FAMILIES. Foreign women could marry their masters, getting the full wife status of Hebrew women (i.e. Ruth), or they can marry someone else with the same thing occuring.
Wrong again, Luke!!!
"Although slaves were viewed as the property of heads of households, the latter were not free to brutalize or abuse even non-Israelite members of the household. On the contrary, explicit prohibitions of the oppression/exploitation of slaves appear repeatedly in the Mosaic legislation. In two most remarkable texts, Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19, Yahweh charges all Israelites to love ('aheb) aliens (gerim) who reside in their midst, that is, the foreign members of their households, like they do themselves and to treat these outsiders with the same respect they show their ethnic countrymen. Like Exodus 22:20 (Eng. 21), in both texts Israel's memory of her own experience as slaves in Egypt should have provided motivation for compassionate treatment of her slaves. But Deuteronomy 10:18 adds that the Israelites were to look to Yahweh himself as the paradigm for treating the economically and socially vulnerable persons in their communities." - Ken Campbell, "Marriage and Family in the Biblical World".
This "routine beating" spiel is also one that you cannot support. If such were the case, these slaves would be leaving on a regular basis, which according to Biblical texts, they are allowed to do.
Deut. 23:15
If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. 16 Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him.
As I mentioned to Ozmo, earlier:
"A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to its master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of (Deut 23:16-17). This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations and is explained as due to Israel's own history of slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution." - Raymond Westbrook, “A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law”
Is the child planning to go on strike and NOT stay with his mother and father? Again, the father can leave with his family (Hebrew or foreigner). Furthermore,
And, while you're on the subject of skipping over stuff, you might want to get your own house in order by:
- Producing the alleged text Deut 21. that claims uses a word other than "anah" (humbled), to show that a foreign female was "raped".
- Female slaves were chattel slaves for life
Excuse me!!! I've discussed at length how and why God brought judgment on certain people (Ozmo can tell you that, firsthand). I never "wailed" for explicit quotations" on that particular issue, boy genius. On the other hand, regarding the issues about which I HAVE ASKED you to provide references to support your claims, you've FAILED to produce those time and time again.
As far as moral standards go, what I've said is that God is the one who makes the standards, not man. Therefore, your screwball claim of God not needing to meet any moral standard rings hollow.
Your quit about asymmetrical power is equally as foolish. If the Israelites could do whatever they wanted, they would have possessed the very thing you keep falsely and bone-headedly claimed they did: chattel slaves. Instead, you see NUMEROUS references in the OT that Israel was to treat their foreigners kindly, as He constantly reminded His people of how badly they were treated in Egypt.
Lev 19:33,34
And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Not only was abuse NOT tolerated, but the Biblical texts (including those which you quoted, ultimately undermining your own takes) states what the penalties are for such abuse: Stiff fines, release of servants without compensation, and (in extreme cases) DEATH.
If Israel could do whatever they wanted, there would have been no clauses that set foreign servants free, no clauses that allowed foreigners to get rich and have Hebrews work for them in Israel, no clauses that allowed foreign women to be have identical marital status as Hebrew women did, etc.
Your blathering about rationality, while making silly statements and reading claims into Bible verses that simply are not there, makes for good comedy, as does your standard for who’s proper and who’s not.
Maids are "asked" or "apply" to work. they aren't : Bought. They aren't people's property. PEOPLE ARE NOT PROPERTY People are not willed to children. And you cannot make people "maids for life. In the military you NOT property. You are bound by a contract/commitment and it is your CHOICE to enter it and every 2/4 years you have the choice to leave. (you don't have to run away ::)) Soldiers are NOT considered SLAVES.
Your entire reasoning/justification is ridiculous
It's an unbelievable monster spin that's reflects poorly on your credibility. I see why Luke can accuse you of intellectual dishonesty although dishonesty is a word i wouldn't use. Instead, I'd say intellectual tunnel vision. I think you are just bound by your faith to see it the way you do in the face of legitimate challenges because you see yourself to have only 2 choices. 1. Believe it and accept it all 2. don't believe it and be lost. I didn't expect you to agree about a burden although everyone here sees you loco shoulder it.
It's too bad, for those of you that believe the Bible is the 100% WOG, that, God couldn't have written more concise and clear. He even screwed up the 10 commandments.
-
Well Loco and McWay,
(I hope you don't mind me lumping you both together), I'm beginning to think you guys might be right about everything. I've read all the stuff you guys post, and once you guys explain why it doesn't really mean what it says, I then have to reassess my own reading comprehension.
Assuming you guys are indeed right about all of this... slave doesn't mean slave in the Bible etc, God has the right to order the slaughter of children etc...
I don't really understand any of that.
So perhaps the best way for this thread to wrap up would be for me to admit that you guys are right about everything.
And if you are, I'll happily defer to your expertise here, so either of you could easily explain why my interpretation of this pretty explicit passage must be so, so wrong. :
Exodus 21:20-21:
"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 they are his property."
...am I right in thinking, seeing as the above verse expressly says so, that if a slavemaster beats his slave with a stick so severely that the slave dies THREE days after the beating, that the slavemaster goes UNPUNISHED because he had the right to beat the slave... because the slave is his property... and the fact that the slave wasn't killed on the spot proves the masters restraint (ie: no intent to maim the slave thereby setting the slave free), so again he goes unpunished.
Isn't that a proper reading?
The Luke
-
Well Loco and McWay,
(I hope you don't mind me lumping you both together), I'm beginning to think you guys might be right about everything. I've read all the stuff you guys post, and once you guys explain why it doesn't really mean what it says, I then have to reassess my own reading comprehension.
Assuming you guys are indeed right about all of this... slave doesn't mean slave in the Bible etc, God has the right to order the slaughter of children etc...
I don't really understand any of that.
So perhaps the best way for this thread to wrap up would be for me to admit that you guys are right about everything.
And if you are, I'll happily defer to your expertise here, so either of you could easily explain why my interpretation of this pretty explicit passage must be so, so wrong. :
The Luke
The Luke,
Please address MCWAY separately!
Please stop dancing around the question. Where in the Bible does it say that Hebrew men were allowed by God to rape their female slaves? Please substantiate your bold claim!
-
The Luke,
Please address MCWAY separately!
Please stop dancing around the question. Where in the Bible does it say that Hebrew men were allowed by God to rape their female slaves? Please substantiate your bold claim!
...I was of the impression that I had explained that to the satisfaction of any reasonable person.
But...
You guys seem so sure, and are able to explain why Bible passages don't really mean what they say so easily, that I'm beginning to think you guys might well be right about everything.
Can either of you guys explain why my interpretation of:
Exodus 21:20-21:
"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 they are his property."
...am I right in thinking, seeing as the above verse expressly says so, that if a slavemaster beats his slave with a stick so severely that the slave dies THREE days after the beating, that the slavemaster goes UNPUNISHED because he had the right to beat the slave... because the slave is his property... and the fact that the slave wasn't killed on the spot proves the masters restraint (ie: no intent to maim the slave thereby setting the slave free), so again he goes unpunished.
Isn't that a proper reading?
...must be wrong?
I'm sure you guys are right and that my interpretation must be wrong. It's just that I'm not so good at researching why Bible verses often don't really mean what they explicitly state in plain language.
Please help out a poor deluded atheist. 'Tis the season of Jebus' birthday after all.
The Luke
-
...I was of the impression that I had explained that to the satisfaction of any reasonable person.
But...
You guys seem so sure, and are able to explain why Bible passages don't really mean what they say so easily, that I'm beginning to think you guys might well be right about everything.
Can either of you guys explain why my interpretation of:
...must be wrong?
I'm sure you guys are right and that my interpretation must be wrong. It's just that I'm not so good at researching why Bible verses often don't really mean what they explicitly state in plain language.
Please help out a poor deluded atheist. 'Tis the season of Jebus' birthday after all.
The Luke
Go ahead, quote the Bible verse that "explicitly state in plain language" that Hebrew men were allowed by God to rape their female slaves.
Your avoidance of mine and MCWAY's response to your "long-winded essay" is amazing!
-
Go ahead, quote the Bible verse that "explicitly state in plain language" that Hebrew men were allowed by God to rape their female slaves.
Your avoidance of mine and MCWAY's response to your "long-winded essay" is amazing!
...how about I happily admit that I was wrong about everything.
I'll do that as soon as one of you guys answers my question.
The Luke
-
...how about I happily admit that I was wrong about everything.
I'll do that as soon as one of you guys answers my question.
The Luke
Spare me the sarcasm! You made the bold claim. Own up to it!
Go ahead, quote the Bible verse that "explicitly state in plain language" that Hebrew men were allowed by God to rape their female slaves.
-
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."
Maids are "asked" or "apply" to work. they aren't : Bought. They aren't people's property. PEOPLE ARE NOT PROPERTY People are not willed to children. And you cannot make people "maids for life. In the military you NOT property. You are bound by a contract/commitment and it is your CHOICE to enter it and every 2/4 years you have the choice to leave. (you don't have to run away ::)) Soldiers are NOT considered SLAVES.
Now, you get the point (sort of). People can be "willed to children" in the same light as a family butler. He once worked for the father; he continues to work for the son, of his own accord, with the option of leaving (again, see the Hagar example).
Soldiers are NOT considered slaves. But you made the case about people being designated as property. People being called property and actually being property are two separate matters. A soldier is not a slave or property; he volunteered to be in the Army. Yet, if he intentionally injures himself (particularly to avoid combat), he can be charged with "destruction of government property". If he runs away, before completing his service to the military, he is AWOL.
No, you can't make people "maids for life". As the Biblical text states, the servants HAVE THE OPTION OF STAYING OR GOING.
Deut 15.12
But if your servant says to you, "I do not want to leave you," because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, 17 then take an awl and push it through his ear lobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your maidservant.
That's for Hebrews. For non-Hebrews....
Deut 25.47
If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan, he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself
Foreign slaves can also sell themselves, for as long as they wish. They can be redeemed (the women); they can become rich and eventually hire Hebrew servants, if they so choose.
There is no mandate that foreigners become indefinite slaves, WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT, with no rights whatsover. That's the gist of the argument. Slaves under Israel WERE NOT chattle slaves (i.e. black people in the USA).
Back to the maid example, if I die, and my maid loves my family and wants to stay in my home, I can arrange it so that my estate CONTINUES TO PAY HER, after my death. She can now work for my wife, and/or my grown kids.
Your entire reasoning/justification is ridiculous
It's an unbelievable monster spin that's reflects poorly on your credibility. I see why Luke can accuse you of intellectual dishonesty although dishonesty is a word i wouldn't use. Instead, I'd say intellectual tunnel vision. I think you are just bound by your faith to see it the way you do in the face of legitimate challenges because you see yourself to have only 2 choices. 1. Believe it and accept it all 2. don't believe it and be lost. I didn't expect you to agree about a burden although everyone here sees you loco shoulder it.
It's neither tunnel vision, nor intellectual dishonesty. Your claim is that these foreign slaves are permanent property and that they have absolutely no say in the matter, which is absolutely not true. Nowhere is it indicated in Scripture that any servant can be made such for life, WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.
-
Spare me the sarcasm! You made the bold claim. Own up to it!
Go ahead, quote the Bible verse that "explicitly state in plain language" that Hebrew men were allowed by God to rape their female slaves.
...I think we all know who's avoiding what question here.
You're both running scared from explaining the Exodus 21:20-21 verses: ""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 they are his property."
Regarding your challenge... how about you first quote the post of mine where I used the words "explicitly state in plain language" regarding the raping of female slaves.
I used those words in reference to a different topic (beating slaves)... what you are doing is deliberately misquoting me in order to take a quote out of context. That's weak.
You would agree that Hebrew men were allowed to take female slaves as war captives and either make them "slaves for life" (Leviticus 25:44-46) or forcibly marry them under the threat of being released (as foreigners in the Land of Israel where any Hebrew could enslave them again); or the threat of a possibly fatal beating? It says so in Exodus 21:8.
Isn't forced marriage, to a woman you bought as a slave, a form of rape?
Especially seeing as the woman is under the threat of being discarded in a hostile foreign land if she "pleases not her master" (Exodus 21:8).
That's rape... plain and simple.
The Luke
-
...I think we all know who's avoiding what question here.
Yes, you are.
You're both running scared from explaining the Exodus 21:20-21 verses: ""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 they are his property."
Running? ;D
I already responded to that post.
Regarding your challenge... how about you first quote the post of mine where I used the words "explicitly state in plain language" regarding the raping of female slaves.
I used those words in reference to a different topic (beating slaves)... what you are doing is deliberately misquoting me in order to take a quote out of context. That's weak.
You would agree that Hebrew men were allowed to take female slaves as war captives and either make them "slaves for life" (Leviticus 25:44-46) or forcibly marry them under the threat of being released (as foreigners in the Land of Israel where any Hebrew could enslave them again); or the threat of a possibly fatal beating? It says so in Exodus 21:8.
Isn't forced marriage, to a woman you bought as a slave, a form of rape?
Especially seeing as the woman is under the threat of being discarded in a hostile foreign land if she "pleases not her master" (Exodus 21:8).
That's rape... plain and simple.
The Luke
Make up your mind. First you claimed that according to the Bible, Hebrew men were allowed by God to rape their female slaves. Now you are admitting that the Bible does not say that?
You are the one doing the interpreting of scripture. You are the one taking what the Bible "explicitly state in plain language" and twisting it.
English may not be my native language, but I do know what "husband" and "wife" mean.
I hope you've learned your lesson. Do your research first before you ever again make a bold claim like this about the Bible.
-
...I was of the impression that I had explained that to the satisfaction of any reasonable person.
But...
You guys seem so sure, and are able to explain why Bible passages don't really mean what they say so easily, that I'm beginning to think you guys might well be right about everything.
Can either of you guys explain why my interpretation of:
...must be wrong?
That's been done, at least twice, boy genius. But, just in case the amensia keeps kicking into gear.....
The passage state that the master is to be punished, IF THE SERVANT DIES UNDER HIS HAND. That means the master is responsible for the servant's death.
And, as clearly pointed out, in verse 12, which you apparently did not or cannot read, that punishment was DEATH!!!
I'm sure you guys are right and that my interpretation must be wrong. It's just that I'm not so good at researching why Bible verses often don't really mean what they explicitly state in plain language.
Please help out a poor deluded atheist. 'Tis the season of Jebus' birthday after all.
The Luke
Then look for some "Hooked on Phonics" tapes under your tree.
;D
...I think we all know who's avoiding what question here.
You're both running scared from explaining the Exodus 21:20-21 verses: ""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 they are his property."
It's quite simple, as stated multiple times: Slave lives; master lives. slave dies; master dies.
Again look for the "Hooked on Phonics" tapes under your tree.
Regarding your challenge... how about you first quote the post of mine where I used the words "explicitly state in plain language" regarding the raping of female slaves.
I used those words in reference to a different topic (beating slaves)... what you are doing is deliberately misquoting me in order to take a quote out of context. That's weak.
You would agree that Hebrew men were allowed to take female slaves as war captives and either make them "slaves for life" (Leviticus 25:44-46) or forcibly marry them under the threat of being released (as foreigners in the Land of Israel where any Hebrew could enslave them again); or the threat of a possibly fatal beating? It says so in Exodus 21:8.
Isn't forced marriage, to a woman you bought as a slave, a form of rape?
Especially seeing as the woman is under the threat of being discarded in a hostile foreign land if she "pleases not her master" (Exodus 21:.
That's rape... plain and simple.
The Luke
Incorrect, boy genius!! You really aren’t that good at reading Bible passages, because you also missed verse 16. If a man doesn’t volunteer to go and serve someone, he’s being stolen, taken against his will. Verse 16 states that stealing people from their homeland and selling them is ALSO PUNISHABLE BY DEATH.
Same goes for women. If you kidnap them from their land, against their will, guess what happend to you..........DEATH!!!!
-
...so, I'm right in thinking that a slavemaster who batters his slave into a coma with a stick (but is careful not to knock out any of his teeth or poke out either of the slaves eyes), and the slave dies three days later without ever waking up from his coma... then the slavemaster is off the hook and goes UNPUNISHED, because "they are his property"?
So you could break all of your slaves bones with a stick, so long as you were careful... that way, when he (or she) dies MORE THAN TWO DAYS LATER from septicemia or some such languid malady... and do all this with IMPUNITY because the slave "is his (the slavemasters) property".
"Thou shalt not kill" doesn't apply, because you only battered a slave to death.
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" doesn't apply, because if you did indeed blind or de-tooth a slave, you aren't punished... you're just out of pocket because you have to make the slave homeless.
Just want to be sure I understand your all loving God exactly.
I'm right then, I've been so wrong about so much in this thread... I just want to be sure... I've got the gist of things right here?
Sounds like great fun... you could make a game of it: Knocked out an eye or a tooth? No problem, seeing as you're going to have to set him free now, you might as well just break every bone in his hands; feet; arms and legs while you're at it... that way, if he does die, it'll be a week later or so... slavemaster off the hook! If he survives, well then, he's homeless now... and maimed to boot!
That'll teach 'em!
The Luke
-
...so, I'm right in thinking that a slavemaster who batters his slave into a coma with a stick (but is careful not to knock out any of his teeth or poke out either of the slaves eyes), and the slave dies three days later without ever waking up from his coma... then the slavemaster is off the hook and goes UNPUNISHED, because "they are his property"?
STTTRRRRIIIKKKKKEEEEE ONE!!!! The verse states what happens if the servant dies UNDER the master's hand. That means the master is responsible for his demise.
Boy, do you know how to gobble your own feet or not? Are we now to believe that the ancient Hebrews had medical equipment that can determine that someone is comatose vs. that someone being deceased? The Hebrew word for the phrase, “if he continues” is “amad", which means "to arise or stand upright." If he’s comatose, he obviously can’t do that.
Once again, if a pathetic attempt to back your cracked-up assertions, you derive some wacky scenario, in order to read something into a Bible verse that ain't there.
So you could break all of your slaves bones with a stick, so long as you were careful... that way, when he (or she) dies MORE THAN TWO DAYS LATER from septicemia or some such languid malady... and do all this with IMPUNITY because the slave "is his (the slavemasters) property".
STTTRRRIIIIIKE TWO. Do you have any idea how utterly DUMB that statement of yours is? Why would you break your slave's bones, genius? How is he going to work your fields, tend to your horses, settle your accounts, tend to your flocks, or do anything THAT YOU PAY HIM TO DO, with all of his bones broken?
On top of that, you're on the hook for his medical care and the provisions for his family, not to mention you'd have to get someone else to take his place, WHICH WILL ALSO COST YOU MONEY!!!!
If you don't get help at Charter, please get help somewhere.
"Thou shalt not kill" doesn't apply, because you only battered a slave to death.
SSSSSTTTTTRRRRRIIIKKKEEE EE THREEEE........YEEEEEEER OUUUUUUT!!!!! See Ex. 21:12....AGAIN, boy genius
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" doesn't apply, because if you did indeed blind or de-tooth a slave, you aren't punished... you're just out of pocket because you have to make the slave homeless.
Nope, he finds somewhere else to work! And you're out of pocket, not to mention the elders of Israel will want to have a "chat" with you
Just want to be sure I understand your all loving God exactly.
I'm right then, I've been so wrong about so much in this thread... I just want to be sure... I've got the gist of things right here?
Sounds like great fun... you could make a game of it: Knocked out an eye or a tooth? No problem, seeing as you're going to have to set him free now, you might as well just break every bone in his hands; feet; arms and legs while you're at it... that way, if he does die, it'll be a week later or so... slavemaster off the hook! If he survives, well then, he's homeless now... and maimed to boot!
That'll teach 'em!
The Luke
On top of being incredibly stupid, your statements here betray the very verses you so mindlessly posted. Those and others clearly depict how servants were to be treated and the consequences for mistreatment for their masters, the most severe of which is.....DEATH!!!!
That effectively skewers your claims about these people being chattel slaves, especially with the verses indicating God's CONSTANT REMINDER to the Israelites of how badly they were treated in Egypt, and how they were to be just and fair to their servants.
One of these days, you'll come up with some factual statements, with the references that back them up.
-
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."
Now, you get the point (sort of). People can be "willed to children" in the same light as a family butler. He once worked for the father; he continues to work for the son, of his own accord, with the option of leaving (again, see the Hagar example).
You are still dancing around the lev verses to justify your points. A butler is NOT inherited property. The whole idea is laughable.
Soldiers are NOT considered slaves. But you made the case about people being designated as property. People being called property and actually being property are two separate matters. A soldier is not a slave or property; he volunteered to be in the Army. Yet, if he intentionally injures himself (particularly to avoid combat), he can be charged with "destruction of government property". If he runs away, before completing his service to the military, he is AWOL.
Hence, soldiers are NOT a good example of your justification of property and slavery in the bible.
No, you can't make people "maids for life". As the Biblical text states, the servants HAVE THE OPTION OF STAYING OR GOING.
The biblical texts say you can make people your slaves for life. period. In other words, I am justified to take people from other nations , give them to my children and make them my slaves for life because GOD said so in the bible.
Deut 15.12
Foreign slaves can also sell themselves, for as long as they wish. They can be redeemed (the women); they can become rich and eventually hire Hebrew servants, if they so choose.
There is no mandate that foreigners become indefinite slaves, WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT, with no rights whatsover. That's the gist of the argument. Slaves under Israel WERE NOT chattle slaves (i.e. black people in the USA).
Slaves are slaves. If they weren't slaves they'd be called workers. How they are treated, obtained, or retained whether it be in America or in biblical times differs little. Salves are viewed as property in the bible as well as in 1800 Mississippi. There is no getting around it.
Back to the maid example, if I die, and my maid loves my family and wants to stay in my home, I can arrange it so that my estate CONTINUES TO PAY HER, after my death. She can now work for my wife, and/or my grown kids.
She would never be considered property.
It's neither tunnel vision, nor intellectual dishonesty. Your claim is that these foreign slaves are permanent property and that they have absolutely no say in the matter, which is absolutely not true. Nowhere is it indicated in Scripture that any servant can be made such for life, WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.
No, my claim is that slavery is instructed by God in the bible. Slavery is immoral. Property is still property permanent or not. People are not property.
-
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."
You are still dancing around the lev verses to justify your points. A butler is NOT inherited property. The whole idea is laughable.
Hardly!! I've addressed the issue directly. A butler's service IS inherited property. And much like a modern-day butler, a foreigner could choose to stay OR LEAVE his master's employ. Once again, see the Hagar example. She, of her own free will, left Sarah and Abraham, when Sarah started mistreating her. She was NOT FORCED to stay, nor was she punished when she returned.
Hence, soldiers are NOT a good example of your justification of property and slavery in the bible.
You were hung up people being designated as property. My military analogy makes the point that, even in the 21st century, people can be designated as "property", without actually being property. That's why you can be charged with "destruction of government property", if you injure yourself intentionally (especially to avoid serving in combat).
The biblical texts say you can make people your slaves for life. period. In other words, I am justified to take people from other nations , give them to my children and make them my slaves for life because GOD said so in the bible.
You can make them.........IF THEY VOLUNTEER TO DO SO. You can do that with Hebrew servants, too......IF THEY AGREE TO TERMS. Once again, Hagar was a foreign servant or slave. She was NOT FORCED TO SERVE Sarah and Abraham for life. Slaves (foreign or Hebrews) can sell themselves to the service of others. There would hardly be need to mention that, if foreigners were deemed lifetime slaves, no questions asked.
You can buy them (either buy out their masters' contracts or the people SELL THEMSELVES to you). But, no, you can't just take them from other nations. Ex. 21:16 states that kidnapping someone from a foreign land was punishable by death.
Deut 15.12
Slaves are slaves. If they weren't slaves they'd be called workers. How they are treated, obtained, or retained whether it be in America or in biblical times differs little. Salves are viewed as property in the bible as well as in 1800 Mississippi. There is no getting around it.
It "differs little" that someone sells himself to another's employ vs. someone get kidnapped from his own land?
It "differs little" that someone, in seven years, can be free vs. someone being enslaved FOR LIFE?
It "differs little" that someone can serve another for life, if he so chooses vs. someone serving for life, whether he wants to do so or not?
It "differs little" that any major injury frees a man of his servitude obligation vs. someone being literal property, no matter what the master does to him?
It "differs little" that a master must MARRY a slave girl, if he fancies her and she consents (thus, elevating her status to full-blown wife) vs. the master going to slave row to get all the black booty he wants with no consequence or obligation?
It "differs little" that a master killing a servant warranted DEATH for that master vs. one killing a servant, having little-to-no consequence?
It "differs little" that kidnapping someone from a foreign land warranted DEATH vs. doing such being encouraged and highly financially rewarded?
"Slaves are slaves"? I beg to differ!!!!
She would never be considered property.
More like, she would never be property (again, see the military reference).
No, my claim is that slavery is instructed by God in the bible. Slavery is immoral. Property is still property permanent or not. People are not property.
Property is not property, in this case, because the "slaves" of the OT ARE NOT chattel, as black people were. That's like saying service is immoral, which it is not. The "slavery" of the OT is not forced, makes no designation based on race or color, designates rights and responsibilities, and gives the benefit of the doubt, regarding any violations or wrongdoings, to the SERVANT, not the master.
-
men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions.
-
men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions.
And humans never do good to those in need so fully and joyfully as when they do it because of their faith in Jesus Christ, and the love for others which Christ brings to their hearts.
"We atheists have to accept that most believers are better human beings"
Roy Hattersley
Monday September 12, 2005
Guardian
Hurricane Katrina did not stay on the front pages for long. Yesterday's Red Cross appeal for an extra 40,000 volunteer workers was virtually ignored.
The disaster will return to the headlines when one sort of newspaper reports a particularly gruesome discovery or another finds additional evidence of President Bush's negligence. But month after month of unremitting suffering is not news. Nor is the monotonous performance of the unpleasant tasks that relieve the pain and anguish of the old, the sick and the homeless - the tasks in which the Salvation Army specialise.
The Salvation Army has been given a special status as provider-in-chief of American disaster relief. But its work is being augmented by all sorts of other groups. Almost all of them have a religious origin and character.
Notable by their absence are teams from rationalist societies, free thinkers' clubs and atheists' associations - the sort of people who not only scoff at religion's intellectual absurdity but also regard it as a positive force for evil.
The arguments against religion are well known and persuasive. Faith schools, as they are now called, have left sectarian scars on Northern Ireland. Stem-cell research is forbidden because an imaginary God - who is not enough of a philosopher to realise that the ingenuity of a scientist is just as natural as the instinct of Rousseau's noble savage - condemns what he does not understand and the churches that follow his teaching forbid their members to pursue cures for lethal diseases.
Yet men and women who believe that the Pope is the devil incarnate, or (conversely) regard his ex cathedra pronouncements as holy writ, are the people most likely to take the risks and make the sacrifices involved in helping others. Last week a middle-ranking officer of the Salvation Army, who gave up a well-paid job to devote his life to the poor, attempted to convince me that homosexuality is a mortal sin.
Late at night, on the streets of one of our great cities, that man offers friendship as well as help to the most degraded and (to those of a censorious turn of mind) degenerate human beings who exist just outside the boundaries of our society. And he does what he believes to be his Christian duty without the slightest suggestion of disapproval. Yet, for much of his time, he is meeting needs that result from conduct he regards as intrinsically wicked.
Civilised people do not believe that drug addiction and male prostitution offend against divine ordinance. But those who do are the men and women most willing to change the fetid bandages, replace the sodden sleeping bags and - probably most difficult of all - argue, without a trace of impatience, that the time has come for some serious medical treatment. Good works, John Wesley insisted, are no guarantee of a place in heaven. But they are most likely to be performed by people who believe that heaven exists.
The correlation is so clear that it is impossible to doubt that faith and charity go hand in hand. The close relationship may have something to do with the belief that we are all God's children, or it may be the result of a primitive conviction that, although helping others is no guarantee of salvation, it is prudent to be recorded in a book of gold, like James Leigh Hunt's Abu Ben Adam, as "one who loves his fellow men". Whatever the reason, believers answer the call, and not just the Salvation Army. When I was a local councillor, the Little Sisters of the Poor - right at the other end of the theological spectrum - did the weekly washing for women in back-to-back houses who were too ill to scrub for themselves.
It ought to be possible to live a Christian life without being a Christian or, better still, to take Christianity à la carte. The Bible is so full of contradictions that we can accept or reject its moral advice according to taste. Yet men and women who, like me, cannot accept the mysteries and the miracles do not go out with the Salvation Army at night.
The only possible conclusion is that faith comes with a packet of moral imperatives that, while they do not condition the attitude of all believers, influence enough of them to make them morally superior to atheists like me. The truth may make us free. But it has not made us as admirable as the average captain in the Salvation Army.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5283079-103390,00.html
-
light houses are more helpfull than chuches. -benjamin franklin.
-
light houses are more helpfull than chuches. -benjamin franklin.
Benjamin Franklin
Constitutional Convention, 1787:
In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor.… and have we not forgotten this powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: “that God governs in the affairs of man.” And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?
-
And humans never do good to those in need so fully and joyfully as when they do it because of their faith in Jesus Christ, and the love for others which Christ brings to their hearts.
"We atheists have to accept that most believers are better human beings"
Roy Hattersley
Monday September 12, 2005
Guardian
Hurricane Katrina did not stay on the front pages for long. Yesterday's Red Cross appeal for an extra 40,000 volunteer workers was virtually ignored.
The disaster will return to the headlines when one sort of newspaper reports a particularly gruesome discovery or another finds additional evidence of President Bush's negligence. But month after month of unremitting suffering is not news. Nor is the monotonous performance of the unpleasant tasks that relieve the pain and anguish of the old, the sick and the homeless - the tasks in which the Salvation Army specialise.
The Salvation Army has been given a special status as provider-in-chief of American disaster relief. But its work is being augmented by all sorts of other groups. Almost all of them have a religious origin and character.
Notable by their absence are teams from rationalist societies, free thinkers' clubs and atheists' associations - the sort of people who not only scoff at religion's intellectual absurdity but also regard it as a positive force for evil.
The arguments against religion are well known and persuasive. Faith schools, as they are now called, have left sectarian scars on Northern Ireland. Stem-cell research is forbidden because an imaginary God - who is not enough of a philosopher to realise that the ingenuity of a scientist is just as natural as the instinct of Rousseau's noble savage - condemns what he does not understand and the churches that follow his teaching forbid their members to pursue cures for lethal diseases.
Yet men and women who believe that the Pope is the devil incarnate, or (conversely) regard his ex cathedra pronouncements as holy writ, are the people most likely to take the risks and make the sacrifices involved in helping others. Last week a middle-ranking officer of the Salvation Army, who gave up a well-paid job to devote his life to the poor, attempted to convince me that homosexuality is a mortal sin.
Late at night, on the streets of one of our great cities, that man offers friendship as well as help to the most degraded and (to those of a censorious turn of mind) degenerate human beings who exist just outside the boundaries of our society. And he does what he believes to be his Christian duty without the slightest suggestion of disapproval. Yet, for much of his time, he is meeting needs that result from conduct he regards as intrinsically wicked.
Civilised people do not believe that drug addiction and male prostitution offend against divine ordinance. But those who do are the men and women most willing to change the fetid bandages, replace the sodden sleeping bags and - probably most difficult of all - argue, without a trace of impatience, that the time has come for some serious medical treatment. Good works, John Wesley insisted, are no guarantee of a place in heaven. But they are most likely to be performed by people who believe that heaven exists.
The correlation is so clear that it is impossible to doubt that faith and charity go hand in hand. The close relationship may have something to do with the belief that we are all God's children, or it may be the result of a primitive conviction that, although helping others is no guarantee of salvation, it is prudent to be recorded in a book of gold, like James Leigh Hunt's Abu Ben Adam, as "one who loves his fellow men". Whatever the reason, believers answer the call, and not just the Salvation Army. When I was a local councillor, the Little Sisters of the Poor - right at the other end of the theological spectrum - did the weekly washing for women in back-to-back houses who were too ill to scrub for themselves.
It ought to be possible to live a Christian life without being a Christian or, better still, to take Christianity à la carte. The Bible is so full of contradictions that we can accept or reject its moral advice according to taste. Yet men and women who, like me, cannot accept the mysteries and the miracles do not go out with the Salvation Army at night.
The only possible conclusion is that faith comes with a packet of moral imperatives that, while they do not condition the attitude of all believers, influence enough of them to make them morally superior to atheists like me. The truth may make us free. But it has not made us as admirable as the average captain in the Salvation Army.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5283079-103390,00.html
I mentioned that in Migs’ thread a couple of days ago. Nobody goes running to the humanist centers during a crisis. I don't recall their having any food banks, shelters, or major humanitarian programs for disaster relief. However, when calamity strikes, it's folks like those in Salvation Army, who are on the front line, doing what that guy that some atheists swear doesn't exist instructed them to do: Feed the hungry, clothed the naked, and comfort the afflicted.
-
Religion is an Illusion and derives it's strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires
-Sigmund Freud
-
Religion is an Illusion and derives it's strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires
-Sigmund Freud
"I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. I’ve never been much impressed by the kalam cosmological argument, and I don’t think it has gotten any stronger recently. However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it."
- Antony Flew, British philosopher and former, long time atheist
-
Suppose we've chosen the wrong god.Every time we go to church we're just making him mader.
-Homer Simpson.
-
I've lost track of this thread...
I'm still not even sure if my question regarding Exodus 21:8 has been answered or not?
Am I right in thinking that the following passage:
Exodus 21:20-21:
"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 they are his property."
...allows slavemasters to beat their slaves (male or female) to death with a stick, just so long as the slave doesn't die immediately but survives at least two days after the beating?
If the slave dies having succumbed to the injuries inflicted by his bat wielding master more than two days after the beating, then the master goes UNPUNISHED?
Am I getting that right?
First we had McWay justifying the fact that the Bible condones the killing of innocent children, with impunity, just so long as they are the children of the people Yahweh has designated as enemies of Israel.
Now we have McWay justifying the fact that the Bible condones the beating to death of slaves, with impunity, just so long as they die slowly from a maiming rather than being killed outright because Yahweh has designated these people as property.
Am I getting this right?
It's hard to tell... 'cos this is getting really surreal really quickly.
The Luke
-
Hardly!! I've addressed the issue directly. A butler's service IS inherited property. And much like a modern-day butler, a foreigner could choose to stay OR LEAVE his master's employ. Once again, see the Hagar example. She, of her own free will, left Sarah and Abraham, when Sarah started mistreating her. She was NOT FORCED to stay, nor was she punished when she returned.
You were hung up people being designated as property. My military analogy makes the point that, even in the 21st century, people can be designated as "property", without actually being property. That's why you can be charged with "destruction of government property", if you injure yourself intentionally (especially to avoid serving in combat).
You can make them.........IF THEY VOLUNTEER TO DO SO. You can do that with Hebrew servants, too......IF THEY AGREE TO TERMS. Once again, Hagar was a foreign servant or slave. She was NOT FORCED TO SERVE Sarah and Abraham for life. Slaves (foreign or Hebrews) can sell themselves to the service of others. There would hardly be need to mention that, if foreigners were deemed lifetime slaves, no questions asked.
You can buy them (either buy out their masters' contracts or the people SELL THEMSELVES to you). But, no, you can't just take them from other nations. Ex. 21:16 states that kidnapping someone from a foreign land was punishable by death.
It "differs little" that someone sells himself to another's employ vs. someone get kidnapped from his own land?
It "differs little" that someone, in seven years, can be free vs. someone being enslaved FOR LIFE?
It "differs little" that someone can serve another for life, if he so chooses vs. someone serving for life, whether he wants to do so or not?
It "differs little" that any major injury frees a man of his servitude obligation vs. someone being literal property, no matter what the master does to him?
It "differs little" that a master must MARRY a slave girl, if he fancies her and she consents (thus, elevating her status to full-blown wife) vs. the master going to slave row to get all the black booty he wants with no consequence or obligation?
It "differs little" that a master killing a servant warranted DEATH for that master vs. one killing a servant, having little-to-no consequence?
It "differs little" that kidnapping someone from a foreign land warranted DEATH vs. doing such being encouraged and highly financially rewarded?
"Slaves are slaves"? I beg to differ!!!!
More like, she would never be property (again, see the military reference).
Property is not property, in this case, because the "slaves" of the OT ARE NOT chattel, as black people were. That's like saying service is immoral, which it is not. The "slavery" of the OT is not forced, makes no designation based on race or color, designates rights and responsibilities, and gives the benefit of the doubt, regarding any violations or wrongdoings, to the SERVANT, not the master.
Go back to the passage i keep pasting on every post. If any of what you said was true they wouldn't have used the word SLAVE. AND, the word "property" is used to describe the word slave.
It is what is is. The God you and loco worship endorses slavery and genocide.
-
It is what is is. The God you and loco worship endorses slavery and genocide.
::)
No.
As if you cared about slavery and genocide anyway.
If the God I worship endorsed casual sex and homosexuality, you'd worship Him too.
Whatever you wanna keep telling yourself to make yourself feel better about the life of unaccountability you live, OzmO!
-
I've lost track of this thread...
I'm still not even sure if my question regarding Exodus 21:8 has been answered or not?
What question would that be?
Am I right in thinking that the following passage:
Exodus 21:20-21:
"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 they are his property."
...allows slavemasters to beat their slaves (male or female) to death with a stick, just so long as the slave doesn't die immediately but survives at least two days after the beating?
If the slave dies having succumbed to the injuries inflicted by his bat wielding master more than two days after the beating, then the master goes UNPUNISHED?
Am I getting that right?
NOPE!!! How many times do you have to be told that, boy genius?
First we had McWay justifying the fact that the Bible condones the killing of innocent children, with impunity, just so long as they are the children of the people Yahweh has designated as enemies of Israel.
Now we have McWay justifying the fact that the Bible condones the beating to death of slaves, with impunity, just so long as they die slowly from a maiming rather than being killed outright because Yahweh has designated these people as property.
Am I getting this right?
It's hard to tell... 'cos this is getting really surreal really quickly.
The Luke
How does that saying go again, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing the same way and expecting a different result”?
If that’s the case, Luke needs to hit the rubber room with the quickness. What part of “Slave lives, master lives; slave dies; MASTER DIES!” don’t you quite understand?
You’re the one with the hang-up on the time issue, ridiculously trying to fuse some sort of technicality out of it. If that weren’t enough silliness, you’re now trying to conjure up some screwy scenario about breaking people’s bones, without knocking out eyes or teeth, as a way to avoid punishment (as if a master would be STUPID enough to injure his servant to the point where he can't do the job he's being paid to do, along with having to pay for his medical care and family provisions).
-
Go back to the passage i keep pasting on every post. If any of what you said was true they wouldn't have used the word SLAVE. AND, the word "property" is used to describe the word slave.
What I've said IS true, and I showed you the Bible verses and other supporting references to prove it.
The issue here appears to be that you're stuck on the words, "slave" and "property". That's why part of this discussion has been and continues to be, whether the "slave" of the OT is equivalent to the "slave" that we've come to know in recent history (i.e. chattel slave).
Case in point, you said ealier that a soldier really isn’t "property". If that’s the case, why is it that a soldier can be charged with “destruction of government property, if he injures himself, specifically to avoid combat?
If a soldier can be seen as “property” in one aspect, without his actually being such in the purest sense, why do you have such a hangup, regarding foreign "slaves" and the title of “property”, even though they aren’t kidnapped or forced into lifetime servitude and can be elevated in social status, based on a number of scenarios?
It is what is is. The God you and loco worship endorses slavery and genocide.
Now, you're trying to have it both ways. Whenever we discuss the Amalekites, you declare that God should have assimilate them into Israel's culture. While that wasn't done with the Amalekites, it WAS DONE with other people in the OT. And this form of servitude was how that was conducted.
Make up your mind, here. What's to be done with Israel's enemies, do they get assimilated or do they get destroyed?
-
What I've said IS true, and I showed you the Bible verses and other supporting references to prove it.
The issue here appears to be that you're stuck on the words, "slave" and "property". That's why part of this discussion has been and continues to be, whether the "slave" of the OT is equivalent to the "slave" that we've come to know in recent history (i.e. chattel slave).
Case in point, you said ealier that a soldier really isn’t "property". If that’s the case, why is it that a soldier can be charged with “destruction of government property, if he injures himself, specifically to avoid combat?
If a soldier can be seen as “property” in one aspect, without his actually being such in the purest sense, why do you have such a hangup, regarding foreign "slaves" and the title of “property”, even though they aren’t kidnapped or forced into lifetime servitude and can be elevated in social status, based on a number of scenarios?
Now, you're trying to have it both ways. Whenever we discuss the Amalekites, you declare that God should have assimilate them into Israel's culture. While that wasn't done with the Amalekites, it WAS DONE with other people in the OT. And this form of servitude was how that was conducted.
Make up your mind, here. What's to be done with Israel's enemies, do they get assimilated or do they get destroyed?
Again if anything you said holds any water, they wouldn't have used the word slavery and people in the military would be called property or slaves. All of this is not true. In black and white they are called slaves and you and loco struggle to find any way to justify this through flawed weak logic like soldiers destroying government property. Asinine.
I'm not arguing what should have been done at this point. God ordered a genocide. End of story.
You worship a slaver and genocider. It's cool, i don't ever think you would do anything like that.
-
Again if anything you said holds any water, they wouldn't have used the word slavery and people in the military would be called property or slaves. All of this is not true. In black and white they are called slaves and you and loco struggle to find any way to justify this through flawed weak logic like soldiers destroying government property. Asinine.
There's no struggling involved (although, they're called "bondmen" in the KJV, from the Hebrew word,abad, meaining to labour or to work for another, to serve another by labour). Neither of us need to justify someone selling themselves into servitude to avoid things like starvation, especially when they can elevate themselves to prominence and ARE NOT forced to lifetime servanthood.
Plus, I didn't say "soldiers destroying goverment property". I used the soldier analogy to make the point that someone can be considered property in certain aspects (i.e. prosecution for an offense), without being actual property in the truest sense.
I'm not arguing what should have been done at this point. God ordered a genocide. End of story.
You worship a slaver and genocider. It's cool, i don't ever think you would do anything like that.
I worship a healer, Creator, and deliverer. That is cool, indeed. ;D
-
::)
No.
As if you cared about slavery and genocide anyway.
If the God I worship endorsed casual sex and homosexuality, you'd worship Him too.
Whatever you wanna keep telling yourself to make yourself feel better about the life of unaccountability you live, OzmO!
why do you think anyone needs to be held accountable. If your god exists, he should be held accountable for the terrible job he has done. Children dying, murder,rape,starvation,natural disasters etc etc...
sure you will try to lay the blame back on humans for all this, but he knew the future and still fooked up, it is on his watch that millions of children starve for no reason. A couple million children dying for man eating an apple? for sins? a bit extreme is it not.
-
why do you think anyone needs to be held accountable. If your god exists, he should be held accountable for the terrible job he has done. Children dying, murder,rape,starvation,natural disasters etc etc...
What exactly will be the punitive sentence for this supposedly mean, poor-performing old God, atheists holding their collective breaths (until they turn blue), waving "There is no God!" signs?
;D
sure you will try to lay the blame back on humans for all this, but he knew the future and still fooked up, it is on his watch that millions of children starve for no reason. A couple million children dying for man eating an apple? for sins? a bit extreme is it not.
I’m sorry. I thought you guys like that silly thing called FREE WILL.
People disobey God's instruction and then act surprised when disaster, dysfunction, disease, and death occur. Ain't that rich?
I guess you missed that last commandment, "Thou shalt not covet". There's plenty of food. But, some people want to be greedy, selfish, and cruel. And other people suffer as a result.
And, as Loco mentioned earlier via that article, when tragedy does strike folks, it's the servants of that mean old pesky God, who come to their aid. Meanwhile, Team "Free-thinkers" are simply flapping their gums. I've seen plenty of folks from the Salvation Army and other humanitarian places help out in times of need. Where are the "Rationale/Reason Army" centers with folks that feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and comfort those that mourn?
-
And, as Loco mentioned earlier via that article, when tragedy does strike folks, it's the servants of that mean old pesky God, who come to their aid. Meanwhile, Team "Free-thinkers" are simply flapping their gums. I've seen plenty of folks from the Salvation Army and other humanitarian places help out in times of need. Where are the "Rationale/Reason Army" centers with folks that feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and comfort those that mourn?
...they are called scientists and so far they've trounced God.
Antibiotics have saved more lives than wars have ever taken. Hygiene has increased the world's population ten fold. The percentage of people living in poverty worldwide decreases every year. The invention of the nuclear bomb has effectively put paid to the trend of increasingly severe and increasingly frequent wars.
Just because scientists aren't pushing Bibles on starving people doesn't mean they aren't helping. Industrialised agriculture has effectively eliminated starvation for half of the human race, give science another hundred years and God will look like a shady snake oil salesman.
I think it was George Bernard Shaw who succinctly noted that "twenty five percent of human suffering is toothache".
Praying won't alleviate toothache... or any other malady.
The Luke
-
...they are called scientists and so far they've trounced God.
Antibiotics have saved more lives than wars have ever taken. Hygiene has increased the world's population ten fold. The percentage of people living in poverty worldwide decreases every year. The invention of the nuclear bomb has effectively put paid to the trend of increasingly severe and increasingly frequent wars.
Hygiene has been around for centuries. Maybe, just maybe, if you actually digest a Bible verse or two (when you're not preoccupied with making ridiculous claims about them), you'd notice a few OT chapters where instruction is given to the Israelites on how to keep disease down.
And, the statement I made was with regarding to people giving IMMEDIATE aid to those in need. Scientists aren't handing out food or providing shelter to victims of natural disasters.
Just because scientists aren't pushing Bibles on starving people doesn't mean they aren't helping. Industrialised agriculture has effectively eliminated starvation for half of the human race, give science another hundred years and God will look like a shady snake oil salesman.
Notwithstanding the fact that the gist of my statement was in regards to humanitarian aid and disaster relief (or the fact that many contributers to industrialized agriculture are/were Christians, anyway), that's what the so-called Enlightenment folks were saying a couple of centuries ago.
Alas, that has not happened. Guys with lab coats weren't joining the requested number of volunteers for the Red Cross, to help victims of Hurricane Katrina. Try reading and digesting the material, before flapping them lips, next time.
I think it was George Bernard Shaw who succinctly noted that "twenty five percent of human suffering is toothache".
Praying won't alleviate toothache... or any other malady.
The Luke
Yet, we have millions of testimonies from people nationwide regarding their healing, due to prayer. But, what else is new?
-
Yet, we have millions of testimonies from people nationwide regarding their healing, due to prayer. But, what else is new?
...you make a good point McWay.
I knew a guy who visited Lourdes (as a busker, trying to scrounge up some money). He told me that when you enter the Holy Grotto itself there are many strings strung up overhead across the span of the cave just filled with walking sticks left behind by those who came to Lourdes lame and left healed.
There isn't one single wooden leg.
There isn't one single glass eye.
There isn't one single rubber hand.
The Luke
-
...you make a good point McWay.
I knew a guy who visited Lourdes (as a busker, trying to scrounge up some money). He told me that when you enter the Holy Grotto itself there are many strings strung up overhead across the span of the cave just filled with walking sticks left behind by those who came to Lourdes lame and left healed.
There isn't one single wooden leg.
There isn't one single glass eye.
There isn't one single rubber hand.
The Luke
Perhaps, if you visit there, you'll be healed of your comprehension disorder, which (from the bulk of your posts) would REALLY NEED an act from the Almighty to cure.
;D
-
Perhaps, if you visit there, you'll be healed of your comprehension disorder, which (from the bulk of your posts) would REALLY NEED an act from the Almighty to cure.
...maybe I'll send my slave as proxy on my behalf.
Then beat him to death with a stick when he comes back... in accordance with scripture.
The Luke
-
What exactly will be the punitive sentence for this supposedly mean, poor-performing old God, atheists holding their collective breaths (until they turn blue), waving "There is no God!" signs?
;D
I’m sorry. I thought you guys like that silly thing called FREE WILL.
People disobey God's instruction and then act surprised when disaster, dysfunction, disease, and death occur. Ain't that rich?
I guess you missed that last commandment, "Thou shalt not covet". There's plenty of food. But, some people want to be greedy, selfish, and cruel. And other people suffer as a result.
And, as Loco mentioned earlier via that article, when tragedy does strike folks, it's the servants of that mean old pesky God, who come to their aid. Meanwhile, Team "Free-thinkers" are simply flapping their gums. I've seen plenty of folks from the Salvation Army and other humanitarian places help out in times of need. Where are the "Rationale/Reason Army" centers with folks that feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and comfort those that mourn?
if he knew the future then none of what you said makes sense.
Its reasonable to conclude god could create a world without suffering since he is omnipotent while still allowing free will. The fact that this scenario does not exist and that there is ample suffering(exactly what we would find without a god) indicates that there is no god and suffering exists because the world is ruled by chaos.
-
...you make a good point McWay.
I knew a guy who visited Lourdes (as a busker, trying to scrounge up some money). He told me that when you enter the Holy Grotto itself there are many strings strung up overhead across the span of the cave just filled with walking sticks left behind by those who came to Lourdes lame and left healed.
There isn't one single wooden leg.
There isn't one single glass eye.
There isn't one single rubber hand.
The Luke
luke, mcway likes to present arguments that contain a multitude of fallicies. Like the one above,argument ad populum.
He thinks religious people momentarily being cured of borderline illnesses (back pain, trouble walking) is evidence of a god. Meanwhile, like you have outlined, not a single miraculous healing has ever been recorded. Not to mention the logical burden one must bare if god does heal the sick at this grotto. That is, god is an asshole. Yes, he heals people at this grotto who ask for help for no apparent reason yet lets children starve everyday, die via aids, parasites etc... how can you reconcile an all-loving god with something that heals as he pleases and lets countless cries for help go unheard.
We have options.
-god doesnt exist, and these cures are all simple physiological placebos perhaps due to adrenaline. This is a safe conclusion as no outright miracles have ever been recorded nor documented by skeptics.
-god only heals minor health issues and either cannot heal larger issues like AIDS or doesnt care, making him less then perfect.
If god is healing people at a grotto and not the dying children of the world when he could, then shame on him.
-
Perhaps, if you visit there, you'll be healed of your comprehension disorder, which (from the bulk of your posts) would REALLY NEED an act from the Almighty to cure.
Maybe then I might understand what this Bible verse means:
Exodus 21:20-21:
"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 they are his property."
I think it means you can beat your slave to death with a stick just so long as the slave survives at least one or two days after the beating... then you go UNPUNISHED, because a slave is property, not a proper human being.
McWay tells me I'm wrong... and I'm sure he is right... but he hasn't explained it yet.
Come on McWay, you say you have explained this... I can't find the post... I've read your references to Exodus 20:21-22, but all they say is that a slavemaster wouldn't beat his slave to death for financial reasons...
Then why is there an explicit allowance by which those who do beat their slaves to death can go completely unpunished...? No eye for an eye, no tooth for a tooth?
Why is this...? Is it really because "they are his property"?
The Luke
-
There's no struggling involved (although, they're called "bondmen" in the KJV, from the Hebrew word,abad, meaining to labour or to work for another, to serve another by labour). Neither of us need to justify someone selling themselves into servitude to avoid things like starvation, especially when they can elevate themselves to prominence and ARE NOT forced to lifetime servanthood.
Plus, I didn't say "soldiers destroying goverment property". I used the soldier analogy to make the point that someone can be considered property in certain aspects (i.e. prosecution for an offense), without being actual property in the truest sense.
I worship a healer, Creator, and deliverer. That is cool, indeed. ;D
In the lev verse does it say bondsman or slave in the kjv?
Also, add jealous, insecure, egotistical, murderer, and masochist to your list. 8)
-
Also, add jealous, insecure, egotistical, murderer, and masochist to your list. 8)
...what these nutters never address is what this tin-box storm god is doing to his followers.
Imagine if you were an ancient Hebrew soldier... the Levite priest goes into the tent/tabernacle containing the Ark of the Covenenant, comes out a couple of minutes later and issues a list of cities and peoples you are to destroy on gods orders.
Soldiers don't mind fighting... that's what they train for... but imagine being told that god himself has ordered you to kill women and children. All the women... all the children... the elderly... even the newborns.
Why would Yahweh, or any god, demand that his followers slaughter children in the hundreds and thousands... why would a god expose his faithful soldiers to such a terrible mental burden?
Imagine the severity of your post traumatic disorder after you've caved in the heads of a couple of hundred defenseless women; children; toddlers; and newborns with a blunt bronze sword... especially when you know god has commanded you to do so... can you be a conscientious objector in such a circumstance? Will god be displeased if you don't butcher as many children as possible?
Could a Hebrew soldier say "Okay God, I'll kill the Canaanites and burn their cities, but I draw the line at hacking newborn babies to death!"?
If these sinful children and old folks really needed killing... why didn't Yahweh do it himself?
Why didn't Yahweh just nuke these cities, like he did Sodom and Gomorrah? Why turn his followers into guilt addled dysfunctional war veterans? Why make war criminals of your "flock"?
Some "chosen people"... chosen to do God's dirty work, and compensated with the right to enslave and abuse foreigners.
The Luke
-
In the lev verse does it say bondsman or slave in the kjv?
It's bondmen.
Lev. 25:44-46.
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, [shall be] of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
Also, add jealous, insecure, egotistical, murderer, and masochist to your list. 8)
No, thanks!!! ;D
...what these nutters never address is what this tin-box storm god is doing to his followers.
Imagine if you were an ancient Hebrew soldier... the Levite priest goes into the tent/tabernacle containing the Ark of the Covenenant, comes out a couple of minutes later and issues a list of cities and peoples you are to destroy on gods orders.
Soldiers don't mind fighting... that's what they train for... but imagine being told that god himself has ordered you to kill women and children. All the women... all the children... the elderly... even the newborns.
Why would Yahweh, or any god, demand that his followers slaughter children in the hundreds and thousands... why would a god expose his faithful soldiers to such a terrible mental burden?
And what these screwball skeptics fail to address is the reason why judgment hits these people. Take the Amalekites for example, As usual, in true "God-can-do-no-right" fashion, they forget that these folks assaulted Israel for over three hundred years unprovoked. It started as they were leaving Egypt. And guess who got targeted:
1 Sam. 15:2
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
Deut 25:17-19
Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt;
How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God.
Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it.
And, of course, it never dawns on our skeptic buddies that, if the Amalekites had REPENTED and made amends with Israel (or any of the other people they assaulted), they would have been forgiven and spared.
Nope!!! The skeptics "nutters" continue to act, as if the Amalekites and others like them were simply roasting marshmallows and singing campfire songs, when mean old Jehovah and crew went on the warpath.
Imagine the severity of your post traumatic disorder after you've caved in the heads of a couple of hundred defenseless women; children; toddlers; and newborns with a blunt bronze sword... especially when you know god has commanded you to do so... can you be a conscientious objector in such a circumstance? Will god be displeased if you don't butcher as many children as possible?
God will be displeased, if His instructions are not followed. Apparently Saul and his armies missed that post-traumatic disorder thing. They were too busy dividing up all the loot and livestock that they were ordered to destroy.
Could a Hebrew soldier say "Okay God, I'll kill the Canaanites and burn their cities, but I draw the line at hacking newborn babies to death!"?
I suppose he could have. We've seen example of people interceding on the behalf of others (i.e. Moses, when he asked God to spare the Israelites after that golden calf incident).
But, after three-centuries-plus of having THEIR BABIES killed and their people assaulted and crops destroyed by the Amalekites, I think the sympathy factor may have reached the ZERO mark.
If these sinful children and old folks really needed killing... why didn't Yahweh do it himself?
Why didn't Yahweh just nuke these cities, like he did Sodom and Gomorrah? Why turn his followers into guilt addled dysfunctional war veterans? Why make war criminals of your "flock"?
Once again, you manage to puncture your own foot. Plus, you forgot about the Flood. ;D
Some "chosen people"... chosen to do God's dirty work, and compensated with the right to enslave and abuse foreigners.
The Luke
One minute, you're complaining about people being completely wiped out; the next, you're blubbering about their being spared (of course, your spiel about abuse is quite false, as has been shown repeatedly.
Or, did you forget that God constantly told the people to treat strangers and foreigners kindly, when they came to Israel, as He reminded them of how badly they were treated in Egypt?
-
Yeah and the definition of bondman is:
bond⋅man [bond-muhn] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -men.
1. a male slave.
2. a man bound to service without wages.
give it up McWay ;)
-
Maybe then I might understand what this Bible verse means:
Exodus 21:20-21:
"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 they are his property."
I think it means you can beat your slave to death with a stick just so long as the slave survives at least one or two days after the beating... then you go UNPUNISHED, because a slave is property, not a proper human being.
McWay tells me I'm wrong... and I'm sure he is right... but he hasn't explained it yet.
Wrong again, boy genius. I think the amnesia is kicking into gear, again. The first part of the verse, which you apparently can't quite digest, is that the master is PUNISHED if his servant dies under his hand. That means if the master IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS DEATH.
Come on McWay, you say you have explained this... I can't find the post... I've read your references to Exodus 20:21-22, but all they say is that a slavemaster wouldn't beat his slave to death for financial reasons...
Then why is there an explicit allowance by which those who do beat their slaves to death can go completely unpunished...? No eye for an eye, no tooth for a tooth?
Why is this...? Is it really because "they are his property"?
The Luke
No, nutrient-deprived one!!!! Once again, in your haste to flap your lips incessantly, you once again forgot that the little verse, just a few lines up.
Ex. 21:12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be PUT TO DEATH.
The concept is simple (which is the kind that fly clean over your head): Slave lives; master lives......slave dies; MASTER DIES.
-
if he knew the future then none of what you said makes sense.
Its reasonable to conclude god could create a world without suffering since he is omnipotent while still allowing free will. The fact that this scenario does not exist and that there is ample suffering(exactly what we would find without a god) indicates that there is no god and suffering exists because the world is ruled by chaos.
He did create that world. And, He gave man free will to maintain that perfection by obedience to God or to ruin it by disobedience to Him. Guess which option man picked.
Once again, we see the classic attempt to duck responsibility, blaiming God for man's disobedience and the consequences that follow.
-
Some Christians tend to look more to the "Jesus message" than to look in other parts of the Bible.
Ie, they focus more on how Jesus is described, what he said, and how he acted more than anything.
So with the "Jesus perspective", Christianity doesn't condone slavery.
The "Jesus perspective" is also one of tolerance, forgiving and non-violence.
Which is in stark contrast to other passages in the Bible, where cities are demolished, thousands of babies are killed and genocide is common practice.
-
Some Christians tend to look more to the "Jesus message" than to look in other parts of the Bible.
Ie, they focus more on how Jesus is described, what he said, and how he acted more than anything.
So with the "Jesus perspective", Christianity doesn't condone slavery.
The "Jesus perspective" is also one of tolerance, forgiving and non-violence.
Which is in stark contrast to other passages in the Bible, where cities are demolished, thousands of babies are killed and genocide is common practice.
You are correct in one sense. However, what people forget is that the forgiveness aspect of the Lord is shown in BOTH the Old and New Testaments.
God forgave Israel for its apostasy, with Moses interceding on the people's behalf. There's an entire Biblical book about a prophet who ACTUALLY GETS MAD WITH GOD, for sparing people (enemies of Israel) after they repented, instead of destroying them, as He warned He would do.
And, even with the Amalekites, they had over three hundred years to repent and make amends with Israel, before judgment hits them.
Instead, they continued their assaults and were dealt with in kind.
Buddhists refer to it as "karma"; Christians say "You reap what you sow". With the particular case of the Amalekites, the prophet Samuel reflects that concept when dealing with Amalek. He told the Amalekite king that his people (including his mother) would be made childless, just as his sword made other women childless.
Personally, I think three centuries is "tolerant" enough. But that's just me.
-
The concept is simple (which is the kind that fly clean over your head): Slave lives; master lives......slave dies; MASTER DIES.
...EXCEPT if the slave takes more than twenty four hours to die. You forgot that exception.
This verse you keep quoting refers to Hebrew men:
Exodus 21:12
"He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be put to death."
...it is clearly superseded by the later verse which refers to slaves.
Exodus 21:20-21:
"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 they are his property."
...pretty simple really.
Beat a HEBREW MAN to death, then you are put to death.
Beat a SLAVE to death, then you are punished (not "put to death", just "punished"), except if the slave doesn't die immediately... then you go completely UNPUNISHED because slaves are "property", and presumably no one could determine whether you intended to kill your slave.
That's pretty explicit... murder isn't murder if you murder a slave, you might even go completely unpunished because slaves are "property".
The Bible condones slavery. Simple fact.
McWay, please just take a moment to digest the kind of absurdities you are defending here... read some of the illogical apologist drivel you have served up in this thread. Don't just react defensively, read back at some of the odious stupidity you are pushing as some form of logical argument:
-God can punish people collectively for the sins of their ancestors
-newborn children can be butchered in genocidal pogroms because of their ancestors sins
-slaves can be beaten to death
-slavery is alright if you have the military might to enforce it
-women taken as war spoils can be forced into marriage then abandoned if they don't "please" their new "husband"
...your insistence that the Bible is the LITERAL WORD OF GOD has you defending the righteousness of rape; slavery; genocide and infanticide.
Take a moment and think about what an affront to common human decency your extremist religious views are... I ask you, don't just retaliate... don't just react... don't just dismiss... CONSIDER THIS.
Look at what you are arguing against... moral absolutes: rape, slavery, genocide and infanticide are ALWAYS wrong... under ALL circumstances... at ALL times. Your god thinks otherwise.
What a piece of shit Yahweh is.
The Luke
-
For those who see "god" as just, moral and good, it's impossible to see the bible as the 100% infallible WOG and not have monster contradictions and conflicts.
Slavery(bondman ;D) is condoned
Murder is condoned
Genocide is condoned
Killing babies/children is condoned
All of which goes against (as Luke has pointed out) common human decency. In the OT all men are not created equal as some men are property.
These books in the OT are written be primitive men, in a primitive time.
It's a good thing Christians don't live their lives with the examples set by the God they worship in the Bible.
-
For those who see "god" as just, moral and good, it's impossible to see the bible as the 100% infallible WOG and not have monster contradictions and conflicts.
Slavery(bondman ;D) is condoned
Murder is condoned
Genocide is condoned
Killing babies/children is condoned
All of which goes against (as Luke has pointed out) common human decency. In the OT all men are not created equal as some men are property.
These books in the OT are written be primitive men, in a primitive time.
It's a good thing Christians don't live their lives with the examples set by the God they worship in the Bible.
No, not really!
This thread is about slavery, not murder or genocide/infanticide. The Luke made multiple bold claims about slavery in the Bible which he failed to substantiate, and when he found himself up against the wall, he changed the subject to OzmO's favorite subject, which has nothing to do with this thread...oldest trick in the book, and pretty cowardly if you ask me. I even called him out on a couple of dishonest moves and he ignored me. The Luke, I'm still waiting for your reply to my response to your long winded essay on this thread. Don't think I forgot.
OzmO, please stop hijacking STella's thread and stick to the subject, which is slavery in the Bible. If you want to continue to beat that the horse, there is the old genocide/infanticide thread where you, MCWAY and I discussed this at length and you finally decided to abandon the discussion, only to bring up the subject here and there at random to throw threads off subject.
Here is the thread
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=162141.msg2317794#msg2317794
Back to slavery. OzmO, in the Old Testament all men are created equal because all men, whether black or white, whether Israelite or not, could become slaves. It was not a racial type slavery like was practiced in Europe and America. The Bible does clearly condemn that type of slavery. And this is part of the reason why it was Christian abolitionists who had the greatest influence in abolishing slavery in England and in America.
In the New Testament, the Bible puts slave traders down at the same level as adulterers, perverts, liars and perjurers. Looks like a clear condemnation to me.
1 Timothy 1:10
for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.
In the Old Testament, the Bible clearly condemns the type of slavery that was practiced in England and in America:
Exodus 21:16
"Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death."
Looks like a clear condemnation to me.
And as MCWAY already showed, there were laws forbidding a master from injuring or killing his slave. Obviously, these laws were clearly there to protect the slaves and not to harm them, no matter how The Luke wants to twist scripture, stretch the truth and play games.
Slavery was around long before the Bible, and even if I did not believe in God at all, I would still look at the Old Testament laws on slavery with admiration because of how they uniquely improve the quality of life and protects slaves in ancient times, unlike the types of racist slavery we see everywhere else, including what we saw in Europe and in American in modern times.
Now we can move on and discuss why the Bible didn't just plainly condemn and flat out abolish all types of slavery, which is already addressed in the STella's opening post for this thread. However, if you are not stisfied with that particular answer, we can discuss it further.
-
...EXCEPT if the slave takes more than twenty four hours to die. You forgot that exception.
This verse you keep quoting refers to Hebrew men:
Exodus 21:12
"He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be put to death."
...it is clearly superseded by the later verse which refers to slaves.
Exodus 21:20-21:
"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 they are his property."
...pretty simple really.
Beat a HEBREW MAN to death, then you are put to death.
Beat a SLAVE to death, then you are punished (not "put to death", just "punished"), except if the slave doesn't die immediately... then you go completely UNPUNISHED because slaves are "property", and presumably no one could determine whether you intended to kill your slave.
There you go, sinking your own argument again. That's why the part, "if he continue...", is in the verse. That is a basic (but hardly exhaustive) manner to determine whether or not the master's punishment was responsible for the man's death.
If the servant has mortal injuries, that means that he died BY THE MASTER'S HAND. If that happens, master goes bye-bye.
The servant isn't going to get chastised, resume his usual working duties in the field or in the office, and suddenly drop dead (as much as you would like the scenario to happen to make your screwy point).
BTW, what, boy genius, is this supposed other-than-death punishment? And, the law doesn't simply apply to Hebrews, because Hebrews could have Hebrew or non-Hebrew servants. And non-Hebrews could have Hebrew servants.
That's pretty explicit... murder isn't murder if you murder a slave, you might even go completely unpunished because slaves are "property".
The Bible condones slavery. Simple fact.
McWay, please just take a moment to digest the kind of absurdities you are defending here... read some of the illogical apologist drivel you have served up in this thread. Don't just react defensively, read back at some of the odious stupidity you are pushing as some form of logical argument:
-God can punish people collectively for the sins of their ancestors
He sure can!! He can also (and does) reward people collectively for the righteous behavior. Creators tend to do that. He who gave life has the right to take it away. NEXT!!!!
-newborn children can be butchered in genocidal pogroms because of their ancestors sins
Yep. Again, it's called "Karma" (by Buddhists) or "you reap what you sow" (by Christians). The Amalekites made women childless with the sword (300 years plus, with little-to-no hint of repentance); their women became childless by the sword.
-slaves can be beaten to death
They can be; but the masters get put to death, if that happens.
-slavery is alright if you have the military might to enforce it
Military might is not the determining factor. Something had to be done with the remnants of Israel's enemies. Plus, you forget that people sold themselves into servitude
-women taken as war spoils can be forced into marriage then abandoned if they don't "please" their new "husband"
Wrong again! They don't get abandoned; they get redeemed and the marriage is hardly forced.
If there's one person who has little room to talk about odious stupidity, it's you. Your concocting the scenario of a master breaking the bones of his servant (leaving his eyes and teeth intact) and crippling him, yet going unpunished, because he supposedly lived more than 48 hours.
...your insistence that the Bible is the LITERAL WORD OF GOD has you defending the righteousness of rape; slavery; genocide and infanticide.
Earth to Luke, did I not discuss, in no uncertain terms, that raping someone warranted the DEATH PENALTY (i.e. what happened with that Levite's concubine)? Apparently, you dropped a dumbbell on your head, during your last workout.
As for the rest, it apparently hasn't dawned on you that something had to be done with the remnants of Israel's enemies, i.e. those who attacked them without provocation. They either get completely wiped out, assimilated into Israel's society, or left to starve to death.
But, why let that stand in the way of a standard, "God-is-a-meanie" rant?
For those who see "god" as just, moral and good, it's impossible to see the bible as the 100% infallible WOG and not have monster contradictions and conflicts.
Slavery(bondman ;D) is condoned
Murder is condoned
Genocide is condoned
Killing babies/children is condoned
All of which goes against (as Luke has pointed out) common human decency. In the OT all men are not created equal as some men are property.
These books in the OT are written be primitive men, in a primitive time.
Oh really!!? Then explain (and I think I mentioned this before) what happened at World War II.
When the Japanese hit Pearl Harbor, did those bombs simply hit the military, or did women and children get blasted?
Now, look at Hiroshima......same question applies!!!
Now was America right or wrong to hit Hiroshima, after Pearl Harbor, KNOWING that the A-bomb's destruction would not be limited to Japanese soldiers?
It's a good thing Christians don't live their lives with the examples set by the God they worship in the Bible.
- Israel gets assaulted, assailants seemingly go unpunished (or forgiven, after repentance) - We get the "Why doesn't God do something?" spiel.
- Israel retaliates, assimilates the remnants of their enemies - You complain about "slavery".
- Israel retalitates, completely destroying its enemies - Here comes the genocide routine.
Take a moment and think about what an affront to common human decency your extremist religious views are... I ask you, don't just retaliate... don't just react... don't just dismiss... CONSIDER THIS.
Look at what you are arguing against... moral absolutes: rape, slavery, genocide and infanticide are ALWAYS wrong... under ALL circumstances... at ALL times. Your god thinks otherwise.
Then, I take it that you're a pro-life guy, who demands an end to abortion and capital punishment for rapists or anyone who kidnaps someone from another land to be sold into slavery.
What a piece of shit Yahweh is.
The Luke
Yep!! How dare He avenge those who attack His people!! Or, spare those who do wrong but repent. Or, give them a second (or third or fourth) chance to redeem themselves. Or find widows new husbands, or give barren women children, etc.
-
Yep!! How dare He avenge those who attack His people!! Or, spare those who do wrong but repent. Or, give them a second (or third or fourth) chance to redeem themselves. Or find widows new husbands, or give barren women children, etc.
;D
-
BTW, what, boy genius, is this other-than-death punishment? The verse says that if the slaves dies, by the master's hand, the master is put to death.
No it doesn't...
That's what it says about Hebrew men... when it comes to slaves, you can beat them to death with a stick and only be "punished", not put to death... if the slave dies any more than 24 hours after the attack, you go UNPUNISHED because slaves are "property".
The distinction is pretty clear: kill a (Hebrew) man, put to death... kill your slave, "punished" rather than put to death... if the slaves dies a day after the beating, no punishment at all because they are "property".
Here's the verse in case you missed it... it's pretty explicit. Plain black and white, beat your slave to death with a stick... if he takes more than a day to die, you face no punishment at all! Because slaves are "property".
Exodus 21:20-21:
"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 they are his property."
Why are you the only Bible expert in the world who has this unique reading of this passage...?
Why can't you find another apologist expert to quote to back up your unique reading of this verse? I thought that was your specialty?
The only other way to read this passage would be that "he" refers to slavemaster. In which case the reading would imply that if the slavemaster beats his slave to death over the course of a couple of days, he goes unpunished if the slave dies.
Either way... that's pretty obvious evidence that the Bible condones slavery.
Indentured servants aren't subject to being beaten with a stick. Chattel slaves are.
The Luke
-
Yes, the bible condones slavery. That first article doesn't dispute that.
The question seems to be whether some forms of slavery are better than others. For the unfortunates who are slaves, the answer would probably be "yes," although that does not excuse the ignobleness of human ownership in all its forms. In today's world, one can't simply set a cat on fire, or beat a dog to death without facing prison time, and/or a fine. However, the dog and cat are still considered property. In days past, there were rules for the treatment of slaves, but they were still considered property, in the same way that domesticated animals today are considered property.
What use is it to say that slavery didn't exist, that people weren't considered property (even if they were well-fed and spoiled, the way many pets are today) when it's quite clear that it did, and they were? That's what's dishonest, disingenuous.
I think for the atheist, there is no reason to argue the point. The bible, written by men, simply chronicles the times, which included various forms of slavery. If anything, it points to the silliness of the idea that an omnipotent God, all-seeing, all-knowing, would include such banality; trite stories concerning the treatment of slaves, in his one and only oeuvre, designed to be the guiding light for a much more enlightened millennium to come.
-
No it doesn't...
That's what it says about Hebrew men... when it comes to slaves, you can beat them to death with a stick and only be "punished", not put to death... if the slave dies any more than 24 hours after the attack, you go UNPUNISHED because slaves are "property".
The distinction is pretty clear: kill a (Hebrew) man, put to death... kill your slave, "punished" rather than put to death... if the slaves dies a day after the beating, no punishment at all because they are "property".
I'm sorry. Where is that "Hebrew" part, again, especially in cases where Hebrews served other Hebrews and non-Hebrews did as well?
Here's the verse in case you missed it... it's pretty explicit. Plain black and white, beat your slave to death with a stick... if he takes more than a day to die, you face no punishment at all! Because slaves are "property".
Exodus 21:20-21:
"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 they are his property."
Why are you the only Bible expert in the world who has this unique reading of this passage...?
What "unique reading"? The verse says, 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 they are his property.
Plain black and white, if a servant dies under his master's hand (i.e. the master's beating is responsible for his death), the master get punished. And, last time I checked, there was only ONE PUNISHMENT for killing another man (free or bond, Hebrew or non-Hebrew)......DEATH!!!!
Once again, where and what is this supposed non-death punishment for a master who kills his servant?
Why can't you find another apologist expert to quote to back up your unique reading of this verse? I thought that was your specialty?
Ummmmm......boy genius, didn't Stella and I BOTH post the link to particular site with lots of data, regarding this matter. You'd better stay away from the gym; those long workouts have deprived the oxygen to your cranium.
The only other way to read this passage would be that "he" refers to slavemaster. In which case the reading would imply that if the slavemaster beats his slave to death over the course of a couple of days, he goes unpunished if the slave dies.
Either way... that's pretty obvious evidence that the Bible condones slavery.
Indentured servants aren't subject to being beaten with a stick. Chattel slaves are.
The Luke
Ummmm....NOOOOOO!!!
One, Israel's servants were NOT chattel slaves. Hebrews could leave their masters' employ after 7 years, if they chose to do so; non-Hebrews could leave under different circumstances. Neither were allowed to be abused or killed; and there were stiff penalties if that occured, including DEATH!!!
Two, beating beaten with a stick did NOT simply apply to servants. I mentioned this before. Husbands got beaten by the priests for slandering their wives' good name and character. Grown sons were chastised, as well, for disobeying their fathers and mothers.
-
Yes, the bible condones slavery. That first article doesn't dispute that.
The question seems to be whether some forms of slavery are better than others. For the unfortunates who are slaves, the answer would probably be "yes," although that does not excuse the ignobleness of human ownership in all its forms. In today's world, one can't simply set a cat on fire, or beat a dog to death without facing prison time, and/or a fine. However, the dog and cat are still considered property. In days past, there were rules for the treatment of slaves, but they were still considered property, in the same way that domesticated animals today are considered property.
Point taken, Deedee! But, dogs and cats can’t ask to leave or to stay. Nor, can they work their way up the ranks and become rich, with other dogs and cats working for them.
You can't marry a dog or cat......yet (the way these courts are acting in this country, you never know). And, of course, you won’t get the electric chair or the gas chamber, if you kill a dog or cat.
What use is it to say that slavery didn't exist, that people weren't considered property (even if they were well-fed and spoiled, the way many pets are today) when it's quite clear that it did, and they were? That's what's dishonest, disingenuous.
The key here is what this “ownership” entails. What exactly makes them "property"? Is it how they are procured? How they are treated? Length of servitude? Those are some of the issues addressed here.
I think for the atheist, there is no reason to argue the point. The bible, written by men, simply chronicles the times, which included various forms of slavery. If anything, it points to the silliness of the idea that an omnipotent God, all-seeing, all-knowing, would include such banality; trite stories concerning the treatment of slaves, in his one and only oeuvre, designed to be the guiding light for a much more enlightened millennium to come.
The "do-anything-you-want-for-as-long-as-you-want-with-no-consequence" aspect of chattel slavery does NOT apply in this case, in the Old Testament. So, is the objection simply being called "property"?
-
Actually there is some hierarchy when it comes to working animals. Husky sled dogs for instance... the lead dog receives benefits, like more meat than others as he is more valuable to the owner. This dog is more apt to be bred. Of course they can't "leave" as they are animals, but many working dogs enjoy a very nice retirement, spent frolicking and lying in the sun till death. But as lovely as their lives are, they are property, in the sense that humans once were.
As for that passage referring to punishment for killing or harming a slave, you say that its vagueness implies that punishment was death, although in certain parts of the OT, when death is called for, it is expressed in a clear manner. The vagueness here could imply that the slave owner simply got his ass beat. There are other forms of punishment much less severe also noted in the OT, so what's to say the cruel slave owner didn't just get flogged, or had his temple privileges revoked, etc...
Ownership implies just that. Humans who were property were forcibly circumcised, which must have been excruciating and potentially life threatening for a grown man... if one who came upon his time for emancipation decided to stay (perhaps he was too much of a screw up to make it as a free man) he was marked with an "aul" to indicate he was now owned for life. Much like wearing a dog tag. Yes, it is how they are procured... as in, children sold for provisions, through an act of aggression, etc. Yes, it is how they were treated. The fact that rules needed to be implemented, implies in itself that slaves were mistreated.
Of course, for the times, the Hebrews were progressives, but by today's standards, not so much.
-
What "unique reading"? The verse says, 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 they are his property.
...you are emphasizing the wrong part.
How did Deedee characterize your argument again...? Oh yeah... "dishonest" and "disingenuous".
The verse clearly states that a master can go free if he beats his slave to death with a stick on condition that the slave survive at least one day... if the "He soever who doth smitest a man so that he dies, shall himself be put to death" really did apply to slaves, why bother to repeat the prohibition with an emphasis on slaves as distinct from "men"?
Why provide an exception for slaves that doesn't apply to the fatal battering of "men"?
Why allow the perpetrator of a capital crime to go free and UNPUNISHED if the victim takes a day to die? No such loophole applies to "men".
Why explain the loophole for the killing of slaves with the term "...for they are his property."?
Why not accept the passage for what it is...? Proof positive that the Bible condones slavery.
A seven year term limit for Hebrew slaves obviously doesn't apply to the foreigners made "slaves for life".
If you must live your life according to the dictates of some hateful primitive book... read it properly.
The Luke
-
...you are emphasizing the wrong part.
How did Deedee characterize your argument again...? Oh yeah... "dishonest" and "disingenuous".
The verse clearly states that a master can go free if he beats his slave to death with a stick on condition that the slave survive at least one day... if the "He soever who doth smitest a man so that he dies, shall himself be put to death" really did apply to slaves, why bother to repeat the prohibition with an emphasis on slaves as distinct from "men"?
Because some Rhodes scholar like you would try to invent some bonehead scenario, in which someone could beat his slave to death, without reprecussion.
I call it the "anti-Luke" clause ;D
Why provide an exception for slaves that doesn't apply to the fatal battering of "men"?
Why allow the perpetrator of a capital crime to go free and UNPUNISHED if the victim takes a day to die? No such loophole applies to "men".
Why explain the loophole for the killing of slaves with the term "...for they are his property."?
Again, it's the "anti-Luke" clause, just in case any geniuses like you try to argue that slaves aren't really men and you can kill them without punishment (i.e. break all his bones, except for his teeth, leave his eyes undamages, hoping he survives for at least two days).
If that servant dies by his master's hand, that master dies. The "if he continue...." part means the punishment was not severe enough to cause death and that he can continue with his normal duties (thus a subsequent death of the servant is NOT the master's fault). I know you keep trying to paint some imaginary scenario of a slave being beaten severely, surviving for two days and then dropping dead. But, that simply isn't the case here.
And, there's the question you REPEATEDLY KEEP DUCKING: What is this so-called punishment, besides the death penalty, for a master killing his servant?
Why not accept the passage for what it is...? Proof positive that the Bible condones slavery.
A seven year term limit for Hebrew slaves obviously doesn't apply to the foreigners made "slaves for life".
If you must live your life according to the dictates of some hateful primitive book... read it properly.
The Luke
"Read it properly"?, this coming from the poster boy of the phonically-challenged, who apparently can't grasp the fact that foreigners could not be made "slaves for life", UNLESS THEY AGREE TO DO SO THEMSELVES?
You even forgot that part, while foolishly making reference to Hagar (a foreigner) who left her master's/mistress' employ OF HER OWN FREE WILL and returned OF HER OWN FREE WILL.
-
"Read it properly"?, this coming from the poster boy of the phonically-challenged, who apparently can't grasp the fact that foreigners could not be made "slaves for life", UNLESS THEY AGREE TO DO SO THEMSELVES?
...where is that in the old Testament?
The "slaves for life" part has no such consent requirement.
The Luke
-
...where is that in the old Testament?
The "slaves for life" part has no such consent requirement.
The Luke
I'll just add to that by saying, that in today's world we do have a version of slavery reminiscent of that referenced in the OT. It's the kind of slavery wherein people go into enormous debt to someone in order to be smuggled into the US, or some other country. I'm thinking specifically of those slave rings that import Asians for instance, and make them work like dogs, living in deplorable conditions, to "buy" back their freedom, or "work off the debt." There are similar schemes in other countries where impoverished people sell their daughters to brothel owners, where the child also has to "repay" the debt, which includes food and living quarters.
NO ONE would consider this kind of servitude anything other than revolting... and it is considered slavery. We put people into prison for it, even though those who deal in this sort of thing are simply following the dictates of the OT. They are "lenders" collecting on a debt.
-
:o
the appearance of Deedee!
-
There are similar schemes in other countries where impoverished people sell their daughters to brothel owners, where the child also has to "repay" the debt, which includes food and living quarters.
Does the OT condone this?
-
...where is that in the old Testament?
The "slaves for life" part has no such consent requirement.
The Luke
Actually, it does (as has been mentioned before).
Lev. 25:44
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids..
The Israelites had to BUY (not take) bondmen/maids, servants, "slaves", whatever from other lands. There are only two ways to do that:
1) They buy out the foreigners' servitude contracts from their previous employers (or "buy them" from their old masters).
2) THEY SELL THEMSELVES INTO YOUR SERVICE (they agree to serve you).
Foreign slaves sometimes came from other countries, fleeing from cruel masters. If that was the case, Israel was ordered NOT to return them to those masters.
Deut. 23:15-16
Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:
He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.
And, as you've conveniently forgotten.....AGAIN....H agar: a non-Hebrew woman who left her master's employ, on her own and returned on her own. Plus, it turns out that she DID NOT serve Abe and Sarah for life.
-
Does the OT condone this?
NOPE!!!
Lev. 19:29
Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.
-
Again, it's the "anti-Luke" clause, just in case any geniuses like you try to argue that slaves aren't really men and you can kill them without punishment (i.e. break all his bones, except for his teeth, leave his eyes undamages, hoping he survives for at least two days).
If that servant dies by his master's hand, that master dies. The "if he continue...." part means the punishment was not severe enough to cause death and that he can continue with his normal duties (thus a subsequent death of the servant is NOT the master's fault). I know you keep trying to paint some imaginary scenario of a slave being beaten severely, surviving for two days and then dropping dead. But, that simply isn't the case here.
And, there's the question you REPEATEDLY KEEP DUCKING: What is this so-called punishment, besides the death penalty, for a master killing his servant?
Exodus is pretty clear about which crimes are punishable by death. Killing your slave ain't one of them. Should an ox gore a free man or woman, the punishment is death or whatever fine is deemed worth the life. Kill a slave, and 30 shekels paid to the owner pretty much absolve the ox owner.
1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.
2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.
14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.
15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
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.
17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
18 And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:
19 If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.
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.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.
27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.
28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.
29 But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
30 If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.
31 Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.
32 If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
-
:o
the appearance of Deedee!
Hi Miggy! :) Working long hours these days, so replying on a thread about indentured servitude seems appropriate. ;D
-
NOPE!!!
Lev. 19:29
Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.
That's what I thought! ;D
Some posters try to sneak in little things like this and pass it as OT law. So much for honesty! ::)
-
Does the OT condone this?
Were women sex slaves. Yes. I'm sure women like Hagar loved being shoved into the beds of disgusting old men.
And what difference does it make if the slaves are making dim sum, sewing crappy garments, or doing anything else 20 hours a day to work off a debt. Fact is, they can't leave, they live however their slave masters deem appropriate, and are beaten if they don't comply. If you're saying that isn't slavery, then there is no hope for you.
-
That's what I thought! ;D
Some posters try to sneak in little things like this and pass it as OT law. So much for honesty! ::)
Your reading comprehension really sucks. Whoever said that was OT law?
-
Were women sex slaves. Yes. I'm sure women like Hagar loved being shoved into the beds of disgusting old men.
No, it was not condoned by the OT. The Luke already made that claim and failed to substantiate it. A Hebrew man had to marry his slave if he wanted to have sex with her, in which case her status was elevated to that of a wife, with all the benefits and privileges as any other Israelite wife.
And what difference does it make if the slaves are making dim sum, sewing crappy garments, or doing anything else 20 hours a day to work off a debt. Fact is, they can't leave, they live however their slave masters deem appropriate, and are beaten if they don't comply. If you're saying that isn't slavery, then there is no hope for you.
Not a sex slave, but yes, a slave. Who said that isn't slavery? Don't put words in my mouth. Don't say Hebrew men were allowed by OT law to have sex with their slaves when they weren't.
-
Your reading comprehension really sucks. Whoever said that was OT law?
Thank you! My apologies! Your writing ability is obviously not the best either! I wasn't sure that's what you were saying, though your post seemed to imply it. That's why I asked you, but you never answered.
I'll just add to that by saying, that in today's world we do have a version of slavery reminiscent of that referenced in the OT. It's the kind of slavery wherein people go into enormous debt to someone in order to be smuggled into the US, or some other country. I'm thinking specifically of those slave rings that import Asians for instance, and make them work like dogs, living in deplorable conditions, to "buy" back their freedom, or "work off the debt." There are similar schemes in other countries where impoverished people sell their daughters to brothel owners, where the child also has to "repay" the debt, which includes food and living quarters.
NO ONE would consider this kind of servitude anything other than revolting... and it is considered slavery. We put people into prison for it, even though those who deal in this sort of thing are simply following the dictates of the OT. They are "lenders" collecting on a debt.
-
Exodus is pretty clear about which crimes are punishable by death. Killing your slave ain't one of them. Should an ox gore a free man or woman, the punishment is death or whatever fine is deemed worth the life. Kill a slave, and 30 shekels paid to the owner pretty much absolve the ox owner.
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.
The word "punished" is from the Hebrew word, naqam, which means to avenge or take revenge, or vengeance to be taken for blood.
With no other form of punishment listed, there appears to be but one punishment for a man who kills his servant.......DEATH!!!
That's what was being discussed, earlier: What happens to the MASTER who kills his servant, a MASTER whose "slave" dies at his hand.
-
No, it was not condoned by the OT. The Luke already made that claim and failed to substantiate it. A Hebrew man had to marry his slave if he wanted to have sex with her, in which case her status was elevated to that of a wife, with all the benefits and privileges as any other Israelite wife.
Leviticus 19:20-22: "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."
So if a female slave was betrothed and her owner raped her, or had sex with her, he needed to bring a sacrifice to God and all would be forgiven. (Of course, she would be whipped or beaten.)
If a man were to have sex with, or rape, a free woman, one or both would be executed. The life of a slave wasn't worth as much, as she was merely property. And there seems to be no such punishment for raping your unbetrothed slaves, so I'm going to surmise that it was just fine with everybody.
-
The word "punished" is from the Hebrew word, naqam, which means to avenge or take revenge, or vengeance to be taken for blood.
With no other form of punishment listed, there appears to be but one punishment for a man who kills his servant.......DEATH!!!
That's what was being discussed, earlier: What happens to the MASTER who kills his servant, a MASTER whose "slave" dies at his hand.
Yup
Leviticus 24:21-22
Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death. You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.
-
Leviticus 19:20-22: "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."
So if a female slave was betrothed and her owner raped her, or had sex with her, he needed to bring a sacrifice to God and all would be forgiven. (Of course, she would be whipped or beaten.)
If a man were to have sex with, or rape, a free woman, one or both would be executed. The life of a slave wasn't worth as much, as she was merely property. And there seems to be no such punishment for raping your unbetrothed slaves, so I'm going to surmise that it was just fine with everybody.
Nope. That has already been discussed.
Operation FOOT-IN-MOUTH is a-go for Luke. Weren’t you just blubbering, not that long ago, about that Levite’s concubine who got assaulted and raped? I guess you conveniently forgot that, when the Levite reported what happened, the Israelite leaders demanded that the Benjamites responsible BE PUT TO DEATH (there ain’t no mention about any ram sacrifices).
Furthermore, from that particular verse, there is no mention of RAPE. Lying carnally with a woman implies that the sex is voluntary. The reason she gets flogged, INSTEAD OF KILLED (as what normally happens when betrothed women start creeping), is because she’s not married or betrothed yet. It ain’t official until the would-be redeemer actually coughs up the $$$$$$.
Verse 29 of this same chapter instructs fathers not to make prostitutes out of their daughters. In sexual purity and marital terms, the same applied for female servants.
Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.
-
Thank you! My apologies! Your writing ability is obviously not the best either! I wasn't sure that's what you were saying, though your post seemed to imply it. That's why I asked you, but you never answered.
My writing ability is fine, and my post was clear. And please don't start with the "you put words in my mouth" thing you enjoy so much in an attempt to side track threads.
If you think that the indentured servitude of today is slavery, i.e. people forced into labor to repay some debt, be it for transportation to another country, or what have you, then you must agree that what is written about in the OT is slavery as well. It's precisely the same thing.
-
Were women sex slaves. Yes. I'm sure women like Hagar loved being shoved into the beds of disgusting old men.
It appears that she did. Not only did she agree to go through with the deal, but the tension between her and Sarah was due to Hagar’s gloating over the fact that she could have children and Sarah could not.
He went in to Hagar, and she conceived; and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her sight.
And Sarai said to Abram, "May the wrong done me be upon you. I gave my maid into your arms, but when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her sight. May the LORD judge between you and me."
But Abram said to Sarai, "Behold, your maid is in your power; do to her what is good in your sight." So Sarai treated her harshly, and she fled from her presence.
Now the angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, by the spring on the way to Shur.
He said, "Hagar, Sarai's maid, where have you come from and where are you going?" And she said, "I am fleeing from the presence of my mistress Sarai."
Then the angel of the LORD said to her, "Return to your mistress, and submit yourself to her authority."
Moreover, the angel of the LORD said to her, "I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be too many to count."
Sarah started mistreating Hagar, due to her gloating about her pregnancy with Ishmael, and Hagar left. She went back, at the instruction of the angel of the Lord, and was promised that her descendants would be greatly multiplied.
And what difference does it make if the slaves are making dim sum, sewing crappy garments, or doing anything else 20 hours a day to work off a debt. Fact is, they can't leave, they live however their slave masters deem appropriate, and are beaten if they don't comply. If you're saying that isn't slavery, then there is no hope for you.
What Loco is saying is that this scenario was NOT reflected in the OT.
-
Nope. That has already been discussed.
Perhaps a woman might have a better idea of what it was like for other females back then. Women as a whole were considered property. And I'm certain that if a woman refused to "lay carnally" with some rich old goatherd of her "own volition' her life would be made more miserable than either of us could imagine. So I really don't care what you've discussed. But thank you.
-
My writing ability is fine, and my post was clear.
I don't think so!
And please don't start with the "you put words in my mouth" thing you enjoy so much in an attempt to side track threads.
You started it by putting words in my mouth.
If you think that the indentured servitude of today is slavery, i.e. people forced into labor to repay some debt, be it for transportation to another country, or what have you, then you must agree that what is written about in the OT is slavery as well. It's precisely the same thing.
Yes, they are both a form of slavery. What's your point? I never said it wasn't. The OT does not condone sex slaves.
-
Perhaps a woman might have a better idea of what it was like for other females back then. Women as a whole were considered property. And I'm certain that if a woman refused to "lay carnally" with some rich old goatherd of her "own volition' her life would be made more miserable than either of us could imagine. So I really don't care what you've discussed. But thank you.
Don't change the subject! We're discussing slavery in the Bible in this thread. Why don't you start a new thread about arranged marriages, or a new thread about women rights?
-
Perhaps a woman might have a better idea of what it was like for other females back then. Women as a whole were considered property. And I'm certain that if a woman refused to "lay carnally" with some rich old goatherd of her "own volition' her life would be made more miserable than either of us could imagine. So I really don't care what you've discussed. But thank you.
Loco was right on the money.
In fact, a full-scale war, between the Israelites and Benjamites started, fueled by this incident. The Israelites demanded the Benjamite men, who raped that woman, be brought forth for EXECUTION. The Benjamites refused and the feud began.
Why would a war ensue between the tribes, if all it would have taken was a couple of rams to atone for this woman’s violation?
Furthermore, mere slandering of a woman's virtue got you fined 100 shekels and beat down by the priests.
But, rather than address that fact that your claim about the OT's laws about women being raped was false, you're resorting to dismissing Loco's response altogether.
Hagar's life was made "more miserable than either one of us could ever imagined", because Sarah's mistreatment of her AFTER the deed was done, due in part to Hagar chiding Sarah over Sarah's barrenness.
What was that you were saying earlier about being disingenious?
-
No, not really!
This thread is about slavery, not murder or genocide/infanticide. The Luke made multiple bold claims about slavery in the Bible which he failed to substantiate, and when he found himself up against the wall,
I think he nailed it in black and white. Slavery is condoned int e BIBLE. You worship a God that condones slavery.
he changed the subject to OzmO's favorite subject, which has nothing to do with this thread...oldest trick in the book, and pretty cowardly if you ask me. I even called him out on a couple of dishonest moves and he ignored me. The Luke, I'm still waiting for your reply to my response to your long winded essay on this thread. Don't think I forgot.
So what? I don't care. the on Luke and look to him to answer you. Don't know why he hasn't. Genocide is another thing the God you worship does.
OzmO, please stop hijacking STella's thread and stick to the subject, which is slavery in the Bible. If you want to continue to beat that the horse, there is the old genocide/infanticide thread where you, MCWAY and I discussed this at length and you finally decided to abandon the discussion, only to bring up the subject here and there at random to throw threads off subject.
Here is the thread
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=162141.msg2317794#msg2317794
Sorry, NO. I'll do what ever i want. If you don't like it, don't respond, don't read it.
Back to slavery. OzmO, in the Old Testament all men are created equal because all men, whether black or white, whether Israelite or not, could become slaves. It was not a racial type slavery like was practiced in Europe and America. The Bible does clearly condemn that type of slavery. And this is part of the reason why it was Christian abolitionists who had the greatest influence in abolishing slavery in England and in America.
In the New Testament, the Bible puts slave traders down at the same level as adulterers, perverts, liars and perjurers. Looks like a clear condemnation to me.
1 Timothy 1:10
for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.
In the Old Testament, the Bible clearly condemns the type of slavery that was practiced in England and in America:
Exodus 21:16
"Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death."
Looks like a clear condemnation to me.
If it's a condemnation then it's also a contradiction because the "Lev" verses are pretty clear. Deal with it.
And as MCWAY already showed, there were laws forbidding a master from injuring or killing his slave. Obviously, these laws were clearly there to protect the slaves and not to harm them, no matter how The Luke wants to twist scripture, stretch the truth and play games.
Slavery was around long before the Bible, and even if I did not believe in God at all, I would still look at the Old Testament laws on slavery with admiration because of how they uniquely improve the quality of life and protects slaves in ancient times, unlike the types of racist slavery we see everywhere else, including what we saw in Europe and in American in modern times.
Now we can move on and discuss why the Bible didn't just plainly condemn and flat out abolish all types of slavery, which is already addressed in the STella's opening post for this thread. However, if you are not stisfied with that particular answer, we can discuss it further.
If "slavery" was all that back then, then why didn't God denounce it to begin with? So what does he do? He gives instruction of how to "Slave".
Nice.
Wake up.
-
I don't think so!
You don't pay my salary so it doesn't matter.
You started it by putting words in my mouth.
Yes, they are both a form of slavery. What's your point? I never said it wasn't. The OT does not condone sex slaves.
I'm not going to get caught up in your convoluted web of "you said, I said" nonsense, so forget it.
As for slavery, my point was simply to answer the question of the original post. There are pages and pages in this thread stating that slavery as condoned by the OT really isn't slavery... that it was some benevolent welfare system, etc. If you compare it to similar situations today, with people forced into labor to repay a debt, situations as a I listed earlier, it is indeed considered slavery, and those who engage in it today are imprisoned. That is all. Diid I address you personally? No.
-
Loco was right on the money.
In fact, a full-scale war, between the Israelites and Benjamites started, fueled by this incident. The Israelites demanded the Benjamite men, who raped that woman, be brought forth for EXECUTION. The Benjamites refused and the feud began.
Why would a war ensue between the tribes, if all it would have taken was a couple of rams to atone for this woman’s violation?
Furthermore, mere slandering of a woman's virtue got you fined 100 shekels and beat down by the priests.
But, rather than address that fact that your claim about the OT's laws about women being raped was false, you're resorting to dismissing Loco's response altogether.
Hagar's life was made "more miserable than either one of us could ever imagined", because Sarah's mistreatment of her AFTER the deed was done, due in part to Hagar chiding Sarah over Sarah's barrenness.
What was that you were saying earlier about being disingenious?
I don't like getting into it with people who make it personal, and go emotional. Not because I'm disingenuous :)
I'm no scholar but are you really going to try to claim that that whole battle was over a concubine? You know I'm sure, that there was tons of animosity going around, with anger between the tribes stewing in the pot for some time before the whole debacle. The fateful night in Gibeah started out with Levite getting no hospitality anywhere, which was a horrible breech of manners to begin with, then was threatened with sodomy, and finally they simply threw the piece of property out to the frothing at the mouth crowd like a piece of meat. That would be the concubine. Her death was just an excuse.
-
I think he nailed it in black and white. Slavery is condoned int e BIBLE. You worship a God that condones slavery.
So what? I don't care. the on Luke and look to him to answer you. Don't know why he hasn't. Genocide is another thing the God you worship does.
Sorry, NO. I'll do what ever i want. If you don't like it, don't respond, don't read it.
If it's a condemnation then it's also a contradiction because the "Lev" verses are pretty clear. Deal with it.
If "slavery" was all that back then, then why didn't God denounce it to begin with? So what does he do? He gives instruction of how to "Slave".
Nice.
Wake up.
I could ask the same of you. One minute, you're complaining about God condoning slavery, with regarding to the remnants of Israel's defeated enemies (particularly those who attacked Israel without cause); the next, you're complaining that one of Israel's fiercest enemies got almost completely destroyed, instead of being assimilated into Israel's society.
Which is it? Do they get assimilated or get obliterated? And, what supposed to happen to the Israelites, if God instructs them to do one and they do the other?
-
Dedee and Ozmo,
Your hammering away against a brick wall of stoopid here... check out McWay's explanation for Yahweh's edict that Hebrew soldiers were to kill all the elderly and children during their genocidal pogroms:
Yep. Again, it's called "Karma" (by Buddhists) or "you reap what you sow" (by Christians). The Amalekites made women childless with the sword (300 years plus, with little-to-no hint of repentance); their women became childless by the sword.
...can you imagine that?
Blood soaked Hebrew savages charging through the streets of a burning city staving in the heads of screaming toddlers dropped by their butchered parents, shouting: "Karma!" ...cave in another newborns skull: "Karma!" ...hacking into a crib with a blunt edged bronze machete: "Karma!"
Imagine some deluded sword brandishing fundie explaining in Hebrew to a proto-arabic speaking Canaanite child: "Sorry, kid, my storm-god-in-a-box wants you dead".
The Luke
PS-some excellent posts though... I like Dedee's style.
-
I could ask the same of you. One minute, you're complaining about God condoning slavery, with regarding to the remnants of Israel's defeated enemies (particularly those who attacked Israel without cause); the next, you're complaining that one of Israel's fiercest enemies got almost completely destroyed, instead of being assimilated into Israel's society.
Which is it? Do they get assimilated or get obliterated? And, what supposed to happen to the Israelites, if God instructs them to do one and they do the other?
I'm not complaining. I'm pointing out immoral and contradicting behavior of the God identified in the OT based on the incorrect premise that the Bible is the 100% infallible WOG.
Genocide is NEVER justified.
Slavery in any capacity is not moral and NEVER justified.
It's that simple unless you futilely endeavor to justify it.
-
Dedee and Ozmo,
Your hammering away against a brick wall of stoopid here... check out McWay's explanation for Yahweh's edict that Hebrew soldiers were to kill all the elderly and children during their genocidal pogroms:
...can you imagine that?
Blood soaked Hebrew savages charging through the streets of a burning city staving in the heads of screaming toddlers dropped by their butchered parents, shouting: "Karma!" ...cave in another newborns skull: "Karma!" ...hacking into a crib with a blunt edged bronze machete: "Karma!"
Imagine some deluded sword brandishing fundie explaining in Hebrew to a proto-arabic speaking Canaanite child: "Sorry, kid, my storm-god-in-a-box wants you dead".
The Luke
PS-some excellent posts though... I like Dedee's style.
I see your point, however it still amazes me the lengths people will go to justify their believes even the face of simple straight forward verses. We have Hebrew soldiers being told to kill infants because some priest says "god" told him to do it. And then thousands of years later with all our advancements in society we still have people who will try to justify it. And, to the best of my experiences on this forum, these are good honorable people who will at times fiddle with intellectual dishonesty to maintain their beliefs.
PS- I agree, i love DeeDee's style. Always have.
-
I think he nailed it in black and white. Slavery is condoned int e BIBLE. You worship a God that condones slavery.
Really? Nailed it in black and white, all of his claims? Where is raping a female slave condoned in the Bible? Where is mistreating or killing a slave condoned in the Bible? If The Luke nailed it in black and white, why has he not responded?
So what? I don't care. the on Luke and look to him to answer you. Don't know why he hasn't. Genocide is another thing the God you worship does.
Sorry, NO. I'll do what ever i want. If you don't like it, don't respond, don't read it.
Aren't we moody tonight? Touched a nerve or something OzmO? So do what you want, change the subject when you run out of arguments, derail and hijack other people's threads. Be a troll.
Knock yourself out and bring up genocide/infanticide at will, then run when I challenge you to continue our discussion on that very subject...cowardly. ::)
If it's a condemnation then it's also a contradiction because the "Lev" verses are pretty clear. Deal with it.
If "slavery" was all that back then, then why didn't God denounce it to begin with? So what does he do? He gives instruction of how to "Slave".
Nice.
Wake up.
"If" it's a condemnation? Read those verses again. Either it is a condemnation or it is not. Which is it, OzmO? Can't admit that it clearly is a condemnation? And also, did or didn't God provide laws to protect slaves in ancient times? Proof right there that you've already made up your mind no matter what the Bible says, whether it's slavery, genocide, or infanticide. You are the one in need to wake up. You are the one who fiddles with intellectual dishonesty to maintain your dis-belief in the Bible, and to maintain your belief in your own personal god which you've conveniently created for yourself.
-
Really? Nailed it in black and white, all of his claims? Where is raping a female slave condoned in the Bible? Where is mistreating or killing a slave condoned in the Bible? If The Luke nailed it in black and white, why has he not responded?
Whether Luke responds or not doesn't change the fact that Slavery is instructed by GOd in the OT. I figured you'd defer to Luke and run away from it.
Aren't we moody tonight? Touched a nerve or something OzmO? So do what you want, change the subject when you run out of arguments, derail and hijack other people's threads. Be a troll.
Like i said, if you don't want to respond to it, don't. If you choose to respond to it then you are also doing what you are accusing me of. I'm not wrapped so tight that I'm sitting here and whining like a baby about someone bringing something else into the discussion. I figure i'd head your drama train off at the pass so we wouldn't spend post after post arguing about hijacking threads. Cry me a river already. Build a bridge and get over it. Threads evolve and often go many different directions. If you want luke or me or someone else to stay on a subject, respond only to that subject. You can even say: I repsond to this aspect or subject on another thread and provide a link to it. Or not. I don't care. w/e
I've gone point by point with McWay on this. So if you want to make this one of your stupid drama-laced arguments about who said what or who meant what or who's runnign away from waht go argue with yourself. Or, be a man, and debate slavery or genocide or what ever. I don't care. I'm interested in your POV, debate, etc.. but not the other.
Knock yourself out and bring up genocide/infanticide at will, then run when I challenge you to continue our discussion on that very subject...cowardly. ::)
who's running? Here you are whining like a little baby about me trolling, whining about Luke not answering your questions, all the while, you can not face the fact that you worship a GOD that commitment Genocide and supports slavery.
"If" it's a condemnation? Read those verses again. Either it is a condemnation or it is not. Which is it, OzmO? Can't admit that it clearly is a condemnation? And also, did or didn't God provide laws to protect slaves in ancient times? Proof right there that you've already made up your mind no matter what the Bible says, whether it's slavery, genocide, or infanticide. You are the one in need to wake up. You are the one who fiddles with intellectual dishonesty to maintain your dis-belief in the Bible, and to maintain your belief in your own personal god which you've conveniently created for yourself.
Read the verse again. Maybe you'll get the courage to face reality. GOD supports slavery.
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."
Just imagine, someone acquiring a female "bondman" from mexico and not paying them and treating them as property all their lives and then passing that on to any children they might have. ::) Yeah, God, thanks for the guidance, the example, and the lunacy.
And maybe you should re-read what i said. It doesn't matter what those versus from another book written at another time said. the Lev verses are clear and if you want to bathe in the fantasy that your book of stories were written by GOD then it's a contradiction.
How pathetic. Here we have slavery being wrong and you trying to act as if GOD was making it easier on slaves. The REAL GOD WOULD HAVE MADE A COMMANDMENT AGAINST IT OR AT LEAST TOLD HIS MANY OBEDIENT PROPHETS TO SAY HE SAID IT WAS WRONG.
-
So i've said my piece loco.
So here you go:
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."
Even if slave is replaced with Bondsman, it's still the same thing. And a real man of God, a christian, a decent man, a decent muslim, a decent buddist, a decent atheist, etc. would buy the slaves and let them go free, (hence they would no longer be slaves 8)) because the real GOD would either tell him to or by his example inspire him to.
But that's not the case.
Now can you stay on topic or are you going to beat your drama drum and argue other BS?
-
Really? Nailed it in black and white, all of his claims? Where is raping a female slave condoned in the Bible? Where is mistreating or killing a slave condoned in the Bible? If The Luke nailed it in black and white, why has he not responded?
Indeed!! We still have yet to hear his answer, regarding Exodus 21, namely what the supposed punishment was for a master killing his servant (other than the death penalty).
Knock yourself out and bring up genocide/infanticide at will, then run when I challenge you to continue our discussion on that very subject...cowardly. ::)
But, what I find amazing is that none of the Bible critics want to address the Amalekites' action in all this. There's no outrage on their unprovoked assault on the Israelites, as they left Egypt, or their continued assault on Israel for over 300 years. Nor, do they address the Amalekites, destroying the crops and nearly driving the Israelites to the point of starvation (as you pointed out on your link to the other thread).
If Israrel retalitates but assimilate the survivors, they whine about "slavery". If Israel retaliates and completely destroys their enemien, cue the genocide blubbering.
Nope! Israel was supposed to stand idly by and get beat down century after century, while their God leave them unprotected. ::)
"If" it's a condemnation? Read those verses again. Either it is a condemnation or it is not. Which is it, OzmO? Can't admit that it clearly is a condemnation? And also, did or didn't God provide laws to protect slaves in ancient times? Proof right there that you've already made up your mind no matter what the Bible says, whether it's slavery, genocide, or infanticide. You are the one in need to wake up. You are the one who fiddles with intellectual dishonesty to maintain your dis-belief in the Bible, and to maintain your belief in your own personal god which you've conveniently created for yourself.
That was the crux of the article Stella linked in the first place: the "slavery" of the OT was NOT the chattel slavery that black people endured. You couldn't just treat people any kind of way. And, there were SEVERE consequences if you did.
-
So i've said my piece loco.
So here you go:
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."
Even if slave is replaced with Bondsman, it's still the same thing. And a real man of God, a christian, a decent man, a decent muslim, a decent buddist, a decent atheist, etc. would buy the slaves and let them go free, (hence they would no longer be slaves 8)) because the real GOD would either tell him to or by his example inspire him to.
But that's not the case.
That is the case, which is what Loco and I have been mentioning the whole time. In fact, they didn't even have to be bought in some cases. They could run from a cruel master and find sanctuary in Israel. And the Israelites were ordered NOT to return them to their former masters.
Another aspect, which you didn't address, is that these foreigners COULD VOLUNTARILY SELL THEMSELVES into service. That's part of the "buy the slaves" thing you just mentioned.
That's the key, here. The foreigners had say in the manner.
And, as Loco and I have both indicated, the women could marry and be elevated to being full-blown wives, with all the priveleges that Hebrew wives had.
I'm not complaining. I'm pointing out immoral and contradicting behavior of the God identified in the OT based on the incorrect premise that the Bible is the 100% infallible WOG.
As I stated earlier, look at the example of WWII. We got attacked, unprovoked, by the Japanese. They didn't relent, didn't repent, or try to make amends.
We dropped the A-Bomb and did so, KNOWING that women and children would be destroyed. Was that "immoral"?
Genocide is NEVER justified.
Slavery in any capacity is not moral and NEVER justified.
It's that simple unless you futilely endeavor to justify it.
Then what happens to the Amalekites, Ozmo? If you assimilate them (as you've recommended in the past), you've just condoned the "slavery"; if you don't, you either destroy them or leave them to die.
-
I see your point, however it still amazes me the lengths people will go to justify their believes even the face of simple straight forward verses. We have Hebrew soldiers being told to kill infants because some priest says "god" told him to do it. And then thousands of years later with all our advancements in society we still have people who will try to justify it. And, to the best of my experiences on this forum, these are good honorable people who will at times fiddle with intellectual dishonesty to maintain their beliefs.
PS- I agree, i love DeeDee's style. Always have.
I often feel the same way.
We have a group of people, attacking the Israelites without provocation, for over three centuries, targeting their feeble, destroying their crops, nearly driving them to starvation. And they'd been doing similar things to other folks as well.
But, nobody's supposed to do anything about that. No one is supposed to stop the Amalekites, least of all, the God who promised to protect and provide for them.
I guess, by certain folks standards, the USA shouldn't have knocked Hitler and Nazi Germany out the box. Destroying that empire must have been immoral, because our bombs and missiles killed Nazi women and their children. We shouldn't have put the A-Bomb on Japan, for their hitting us at Pearl Harbor or their continued attacks on us.
As for the priest issue, we've discussed that before as well. For their three-centuries-plus of assaults on Israel (and other nations), the edict was that Amalek was to be completely wiped out, everyone and everything. So, if Samuel were not relaying the Lord's instruction, why is he ANGRY that Saul spared the Amalekite king (and a few others), along with the choice livestock and booty of war? Why does Saul end up LOSING THE THRONE of Israel, because of his actions?
-
I don't like getting into it with people who make it personal, and go emotional. Not because I'm disingenuous :)
I'm no scholar but are you really going to try to claim that that whole battle was over a concubine? You know I'm sure, that there was tons of animosity going around, with anger between the tribes stewing in the pot for some time before the whole debacle. The fateful night in Gibeah started out with Levite getting no hospitality anywhere, which was a horrible breech of manners to begin with, then was threatened with sodomy, and finally they simply threw the piece of property out to the frothing at the mouth crowd like a piece of meat. That would be the concubine. Her death was just an excuse.
I never said that this feud was completely about what happened to this woman. But, this incident was the proverbial back-breaking straw (
The Benjamite rapists should have been handed over to be executed; they were not. And, that sparked the conflict.
But, that example was used to make the point. You claimed that a servant girl could be raped, and the only consequence would be having to cough up a ram. That is NOT the case. Raping bethrothed/married women warranted the death penalty.
-
What Loco is saying is that this scenario was NOT reflected in the OT.
How so? How does it differ?
I'll respond to the Hagar thing here. She may have enjoyed elevated pregnancy status, but was she "asked" if she wanted to "lie" with Abe in the first place? Offered an opt out "nah, I'll take a pass on the old guy"? No, as it says, she was "given." Very Handmaid's Tale. No doubt the plight of many slave girls. Hagar the Egyptian is a horrid story of slave mistreatment, (Yahweh never punished Sarah) and plenty of others were likely used and abused in the same way.
That the Levite slept like a babe while his concubine was being gang raped to death outside speaks less of the "rules" set out in the OT, but volumes of what was actually tolerated.
Indentured servitude didn't end with biblical days. Lots of Irish and others came to the Americas that exact way a few centuries ago. It was a harsh, terrible life, and as documentation shows, women were often sexually exploited, abused, raped, etc. A lowly slave/servant didn't have much recourse against a powerful and wealthy owner. Where would she (or he) go anyway? Today we have human trafficking. More of same.
Yet you think somehow, magically, primitive desert dwellers living thousands of years ago were more evolved. That's very Disney-esque.
I'm sure in 6030 people will look back at us and say, "wow, they were savages, but look how moral. They didn't rape or kill, but on the off chance they did, offenders were all punished. We can ascertain this from their books of written law."
-
That is the case, which is what Loco and I have been mentioning the whole time. In fact, they didn't even have to be bought in some cases. They could run from a cruel master and find sanctuary in Israel. And the Israelites were ordered NOT to return them to their former masters.
Another aspect, which you didn't address, is that these foreigners COULD VOLUNTARILY SELL THEMSELVES into service. That's part of the "buy the slaves" thing you just mentioned.
That's the key, here. The foreigners had say in the manner.
And, as Loco and I have both indicated, the women could marry and be elevated to being full-blown wives, with all the priveleges that Hebrew wives had.
None of that changes that fact that they were slaves and slavery was instructed by God if you, as you do, take the bible as the WOG.
As I stated earlier, look at the example of WWII. We got attacked, unprovoked, by the Japanese. They didn't relent, didn't repent, or try to make amends.
We dropped the A-Bomb and did so, KNOWING that women and children would be destroyed. Was that "immoral"?
No doubt immoral. If we had the full power of the almighty I'm sure we could have found another way.
You see, we didn't have the power of GOD in 1945. We were men, finding way to end a war, not God.
Then what happens to the Amalekites, Ozmo? If you assimilate them (as you've recommended in the past), you've just condoned the "slavery"; if you don't, you either destroy them or leave them to die.
Assimilating them doesn't condone slavery. What of the refugees we took in WW2? Did they become slaves? What of the war criminals we incarcerated in WW2? did they become slaves? did they become property? Did we will them to our children?
-
Very Handmaid's Tale.
...probably the most frightening movie ever made. Loco and McWay would fit right in.
The Luke
-
I often feel the same way.
We have a group of people, attacking the Israelites without provocation, for over three centuries, targeting their feeble, destroying their crops, nearly driving them to starvation. And they'd been doing similar things to other folks as well.
But, nobody's supposed to do anything about that. No one is supposed to stop the Amalekites, least of all, the God who promised to protect and provide for them.
I guess, by certain folks standards, the USA shouldn't have knocked Hitler and Nazi Germany out the box. Destroying that empire must have been immoral, because our bombs and missiles killed Nazi women and their children. We shouldn't have put the A-Bomb on Japan, for their hitting us at Pearl Harbor or their continued attacks on us.
As for the priest issue, we've discussed that before as well. For their three-centuries-plus of assaults on Israel (and other nations), the edict was that Amalek was to be completely wiped out, everyone and everything. So, if Samuel were not relaying the Lord's instruction, why is he ANGRY that Saul spared the Amalekite king (and a few others), along with the choice livestock and booty of war? Why does Saul end up LOSING THE THRONE of Israel, because of his actions?
There's a difference here. We didn't commit genocide. And based on what you just said, God didn't make good on his promises at first.
-
The word "punished" is from the Hebrew word, naqam, which means to avenge or take revenge, or vengeance to be taken for blood.
With no other form of punishment listed, there appears to be but one punishment for a man who kills his servant.......DEATH!!!
That's what was being discussed, earlier: What happens to the MASTER who kills his servant, a MASTER whose "slave" dies at his hand.
i just don't see where that is so evident, as again, the death penalty is clearly stated as punishment right before and after this admonishment. Vengeance doesn't necessarily mean death. Maiming a slave bought freedom, whereas a free man would have enjoyed an eye for an eye justice. Why then would a slave enjoy equal justice for murder? That, plus the fact that the punishment for an ox goring was decidedly different depending on whether the victim was slave or free, leads me to interpret it otherwise.
-
Dedee and Ozmo,
Your hammering away against a brick wall of stoopid here... check out McWay's explanation for Yahweh's edict that Hebrew soldiers were to kill all the elderly and children during their genocidal pogroms:
...can you imagine that?
Blood soaked Hebrew savages charging through the streets of a burning city staving in the heads of screaming toddlers dropped by their butchered parents, shouting: "Karma!" ...cave in another newborns skull: "Karma!" ...hacking into a crib with a blunt edged bronze machete: "Karma!"
Samuel pretty much summed it up, here.
Then Samuel said, "Bring me Agag, the king of the Amalekites." And Agag came to him cheerfully. And Agag said, "Surely the bitterness of death is past." But Samuel said, "As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women." And Samuel hewed Agag to pieces before the LORD at Gilgal.
As the saying goes, again, "You reap what you sow" or, if you prefer, "Karma", "what goes around comes around", etc.
Imagine some deluded sword brandishing fundie explaining in Hebrew to a proto-arabic speaking Canaanite child: "Sorry, kid, my storm-god-in-a-box wants you dead".
The Luke
PS-some excellent posts though... I like Dedee's style.
Or, imagine some screwball skeptic, having to tell the Israelite children, "Sorry, I know these Amalekite people have been killing your friends, their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great grandparents, etc., and scorching the crops so you can't eat. But, God can't do anything to stop them, or some atheists/agnostics will accuse Him of being a big, bad meanie some 3000+ years from now."
-
I see your point, however it still amazes me the lengths people will go to justify their believes even the face of simple straight forward verses. We have Hebrew soldiers being told to kill infants because some priest says "god" told him to do it. And then thousands of years later with all our advancements in society we still have people who will try to justify it. And, to the best of my experiences on this forum, these are good honorable people who will at times fiddle with intellectual dishonesty to maintain their beliefs.
PS- I agree, i love DeeDee's style. Always have.
I don't understand what the big deal about slavery is. It isn't as though some form of it hasn't been a part of our world since the beginning of time, and it's not like Yahweh invented it. If I were a believer I would just assert that God knew it would always be with us, so wrote down a few rules as to how best to deal with the unfortunates.
I always liked your posts too Ozmo. We share many of the same views. We're moderates. :)
-
Or, imagine some screwball skeptic, having to tell the Israelite children, "Sorry, I know these Amalekite people have been killing your friends, their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great grandparents, etc., and scorching the crops so you can't eat. But, God can't do anything to stop them, or some atheists/agnostics will accuse Him of being a big, bad meanie some 3000+ years from now."
...aren't the children innocent of their parents crimes?
Surely a newborn baby can't be macheted to death because his parents were bandits?
Maybe their god told them to kill Israelite children?
The Luke
-
I never said that this feud was completely about what happened to this woman. But, this incident was the proverbial back-breaking straw (
The Benjamite rapists should have been handed over to be executed; they were not. And, that sparked the conflict.
But, that example was used to make the point. You claimed that a servant girl could be raped, and the only consequence would be having to cough up a ram. That is NOT the case. Raping bethrothed/married women warranted the death penalty.
But not slave girls. If one was pressured to have sex, the coughing up of a ram sacrifice pretty much obliterated the offense. According to the passage I quoted for you.
-
...probably the most frightening movie ever made. Loco and McWay would fit right in.
The Luke
lol! The book was frightening too, but that Hagar-like scene in the movie where Robert Duvall, Natasha Richardson and Faye Dunaway consummate the relationship is truly grotesque.
-
I don't understand what the big deal about slavery is. It isn't as though some form of it hasn't been a part of our world since the beginning of time, and it's not like Yahweh invented it. If I were a believer I would just assert that God knew it would always be with us, so wrote down a few rules as to how best to deal with the unfortunates.
I always liked your posts too Ozmo. We share many of the same views. We're moderates. :)
Thanks DeeDee :)
It's the immorality of slavery not being denounced by God but instead being instructed by God that's not Godly. That's the issue I'm debating.
-
Or, imagine some screwball skeptic, having to tell the Israelite children, "Sorry, I know these Amalekite people have been killing your friends, their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great grandparents, etc., and scorching the crops so you can't eat. But, God can't do anything to stop them, or some atheists/agnostics will accuse Him of being a big, bad meanie some 3000+ years from now."
Although i don't agree with you post at all, it made me laugh pretty good lol ;D
-
How so? How does it differ?
I'll respond to the Hagar thing here. She may have enjoyed elevated pregnancy status, but was she "asked" if she wanted to "lie" with Abe in the first place? Offered an opt out "nah, I'll take a pass on the old guy"? No, as it says, she was "given." Very Handmaid's Tale. No doubt the plight of many slave girls. Hagar the Egyptian is a horrid story of slave mistreatment, (Yahweh never punished Sarah) and plenty of others were likely used and abused in the same way.
Hagar left, when Sarah started mistreating her. And, only under advisement by the angel of the Lord (and the promise of Ishmael's being prosperous) did she return. So, I'd say that, if she weren't cool with marrying Abe and found that to be a form of mistreatment, she could have departed.
And remember that the beef between the two started, because Hagar apparently started flaunting her pregnancy in Sarah's face. If I'm not mistaken, few things scarred the soul of an Anicent Near East woman more than not being able to have children. Getting poked in the eye with that by your handmaid-turned-rival wife couldn't have set well with her (notwithstanding the fact that it was Sarah's idea in the first place).
That the Levite slept like a babe while his concubine was being gang raped to death outside speaks less of the "rules" set out in the OT, but volumes of what was actually tolerated.
Point taken. But, the text states that the houseguest handed over the Levite's concubine (he actually offered both her and his own daughter).
Either the Levite wasn't there when it happen. Or, he did hand her over to those Benjamites, failing to add that part to his report to the Israelite elders.
That doesn't dismiss the fact that the rapists were to be punished by death for their deeds.
Indentured servitude didn't end with biblical days. Lots of Irish and others came to the Americas that exact way a few centuries ago. It was a harsh, terrible life, and as documentation shows, women were often sexually exploited, abused, raped, etc. A lowly slave/servant didn't have much recourse against a powerful and wealthy owner. Where would she (or he) go anyway? Today we have human trafficking. More of same.
Yet you think somehow, magically, primitive desert dwellers living thousands of years ago were more evolved. That's very Disney-esque.
I'm sure in 6030 people will look back at us and say, "wow, they were savages, but look how moral. They didn't rape or kill, but on the off chance they did, offenders were all punished. We can ascertain this from their books of written law."
No one said that these offenses didn't occur. But, when they did, there were stiff consequences for that happening. Are we more "evolved" than those folks were? By and large, we don't execute rapists today. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court just overturned a LA state law that gave the death penalty to child rapists, claming it was "cruel and unusual punishment" to execute these dudes, simply because the girl survived the abuse.
You're right about the indentured servant thing. But, what you left out what that, when the abuses became too frequent and out of control, the Irish settlers had the option of leaving. So, those in the slave trade ended up getting slaves that were very conspicuous (i.e. black people), deemed them "chattel", and were designed to be slaves for life.
They were kidnapped from their homeland (contrary to Biblical law); they were severely beaten and killed (with no punishment given to those responsible); the women were indeed RAPED (repeatedly and often, with no penalty at all to their assailants). Any children produced from this received NO inheritance, not even freedom.
If you did any of those things to an OT servant (Hebrew or non-Hebrew), you got severely punished for such.
-
...aren't the children innocent of their parents crimes?
Surely a newborn baby can't be macheted to death because his parents were bandits?
Children are innocent of being delinquent on the mortgage of their parent's homes, too. But, if the parents lose their jobs (particularly, for doing something that got them fired), the kids are going to get tossed on the streets, as well.
Children can be deformed, because their mothers smoke crack or drink alcohol. They can have AIDS, because their mothers were permiscuous. They can starve, because their mothers are strung out on dope or running the streets doing wrong.
Sometimes in life, kids pay for their parents' wrongdoing. Or, as the saying goes, "the sins of the fathers get passed onto the sons".
Maybe their god told them to kill Israelite children?
The Luke
And the provocation for that would be........
-
But not slave girls. If one was pressured to have sex, the coughing up of a ram sacrifice pretty much obliterated the offense. According to the passage I quoted for you.
Pressured by whom? The verse you quote talks about lying carnally with a woman. That implies consent. Otherwise it's rape. Add to that the provision about not offering up daughters to be whores.
In terms of purity, offering up a slave girl for prostitution was much the same as doing do to your own daughter.
Even a master had to marry a servant girl, before having sex with her, which means he had to provide for her as a wife. And, if he dismissed her, her firstborn child became the heir and got the master-turned-husband's estate, once he died.
-
Children are innocent of being delinquent on the mortgage of their parent's homes, too. But, if the parents lose their jobs (particularly, for doing something that got them fired), the kids are going to get tossed on the streets, as well.
Children can be deformed, because their mothers smoke crack or drink alcohol. They can have AIDS, because their mothers were permiscuous. They can starve, because their mothers are strung out on dope or running the streets doing wrong.
...you are so right. That is exactly the same thing as genocide and butchering newborn babies to death in their cribs.
And the provocation for that would be........
...Perhaps the Canaanite god ordered his followers to kill Hebrew children the same way Yahweh ordered the slaughter of Canaanite children?
But then again, you don't believe in the existence of the Canaanite god... that would just be silly right? Some imaginary storm god contained in a box who insists on his followers killing other people's children.
Totally ridiculous right.
The Luke
-
...you are so right. That is exactly the same thing as genocide and butchering newborn babies to death in their cribs.
...Perhaps the Canaanite god ordered his followers to kill Hebrew children the same way Yahweh ordered the slaughter of Canaanite children?
But then again, you don't believe in the existence of the Canaanite god... that would just be silly right? Some imaginary storm god contained in a box who insists on his followers killing other people's children.
Totally ridiculous right.
The Luke
We also need to keep in mind that this account is written by the Hebrews. So it's perfectly reasonable to think they would embellish and exaggerate the "evilness" of the Amalikites.
-
...you are so right. That is exactly the same thing as genocide and butchering newborn babies to death in their cribs.
No, this is to make the point that, when people do wrong, others (including their children) may suffer the consequences for it. What happened to the Amalekites was that principle, taken to the extreme.
...Perhaps the Canaanite god ordered his followers to kill Hebrew children the same way Yahweh ordered the slaughter of Canaanite children?
1) Where are the Amalekites ordered to do that and why (notwithstanding the issue that the Amalekites jumped the Israelites, as they were leaving Egypt).
2) On a unrelated (but back to the topic at hand) note, what is this punishment for a master killing a servant, that is NOT the death penalty?
But then again, you don't believe in the existence of the Canaanite god... that would just be silly right? Some imaginary storm god contained in a box who insists on his followers killing other people's children.
Totally ridiculous right.
The Luke
Who said I didn't? The enemies of Israel worshipped other gods (Baal, Dagon, etc.). Of course, they didn't fare too well, when matching up with you-know-who, as Elijah demonstrated. But that's another issue.
We also need to keep in mind that this account is written by the Hebrews. So it's perfectly reasonable to think they would embellish and exaggerate the "evilness" of the Amalikites.
But, as Loco asked, on the other thread, why would they embellish about being instructed to destroy them completely, WITHOUT taking their gold, silver, and choice lifestock (something the Israelites were actually HAPPY to have)? And, why did their king get dismissed and ultimately replaced for doing that?
-
Who said I didn't? The enemies of Israel worshipped other gods (Baal, Dagon, etc.). Of course, they didn't fare too well, when matching up with you-know-who, as Elijah demonstrated. But that's another issue.
...are you saying you believe Baal, Dagon and the other heathen gods were real gods like Yahweh, but were trounced by Yahweh?
You believe the Middle East was home to several actual real life gods with attendant followers 3000 years ago?
The Luke
-
But, as Loco asked, on the other thread, why would they embellish about being instructed to destroy them completely, WITHOUT taking their gold, silver, and choice lifestock (something the Israelites were actually HAPPY to have)? And, why did their king get dismissed and ultimately replaced for doing that?
Who knows that they didn't? Remember, this is historical record written by the victors with out the INTERNET, pictures, video, media or CNN. Who knows that that wasn't just used as a scapegoat for disposing the king?
The claim that a race of people is evil down to the infant or destined to be evil is ludicrous.
-
Who knows that they didn't? Remember, this is historical record written by the victors with out the INTERNET, pictures, video, media or CNN. Who knows that that wasn't just used as a scapegoat for disposing the king?
The claim that a race of people is evil down to the infant or destined to be evil is ludicrous.
The Israelites weren't the victors against Babylon, Greece, or Rome. And, they spent a good hunk of time bowing to the Phillistines. Yet, they wrote the historical record in their dealings with these people. And, unless you have some information to the contrary, I will take the Biblical account as valid.
A scapegoat?
Israel just kicked the crap out of an enemy that had been dogging them for over 300 years. Their king is groveling at their feet. The people are doing the backstroke in Amalekite gold and silver, with some new cows and sheep to boot.
Yet, they're MAD at Saul and want him gone? ???
On the contrary, they were THRILLED, elated by their victory. But, the Lord was anything but thrilled, because Saul didn't follow directions and he lied about the situation to Samuel (who, even in his anger about the situation, did NOT want Saul displaced from being king).
The claim isn't that they were evil down to the infant. The point is that the infants suffered, because of the behavior of their evil parents. That happens unfortunately in many areas of life, then and now.
-
Maybe Saul didn't kill enough of the children?
The Luke
-
The Israelites weren't the victors against Babylon, Greece, or Rome. And, they spent a good hunk of time bowing to the Phillistines. Yet, they wrote the historical record in their dealings with these people. And, unless you have some information to the contrary, I will take the Biblical account as valid.
A scapegoat?
Israel just kicked the crap out of an enemy that had been dogging them for over 300 years. Their king is groveling at their feet. The people are doing the backstroke in Amalekite gold and silver, with some new cows and sheep to boot.
Yet, they're MAD at Saul and want him gone? ???
On the contrary, they were THRILLED, elated by their victory. But, the Lord was anything but thrilled, because Saul didn't follow directions and he lied about the situation to Samuel (who, even in his anger about the situation, did NOT want Saul displaced from being king).
The claim isn't that they were evil down to the infant. The point is that the infants suffered, because of the behavior of their evil parents. That happens unfortunately in many areas of life, then and now.
That's the problem with historical record. Much of it derives from one source and I guess you have decided to choose to believe the one source you have. It's understandable although not objective. But what is totally objective these days? Even with all our technology and multiple sources there is still an absence of objectivity to one degree or another.
In the end, however, you have an act of genocide on god's orders.
how often did this happen?
# "When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." Deuteronomy 7:1-2, NIV. 1
# "...do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..." Deuteronomy 20:16, NIV
-
That's the problem with historical record. Much of it derives from one source and I guess you have decided to choose to believe the one source you have. It's understandable although not objective. But what is totally objective these days? Even with all our technology and multiple sources there is still an absence of objectivity to one degree or another.
In the end, however, you have an act of genocide on god's orders.
how often did this happen?
# "When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." Deuteronomy 7:1-2, NIV. 1
# "...do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..." Deuteronomy 20:16, NIV
A number of times. The reason for it happening..........
Deut 20:17-18
But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.
And some of these abomoinations were..........
Deut. 12:29-31
When the LORD thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land;
Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.
Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
Lev. 20:1-6
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.
And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not:
Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.
And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.
It appears that the Lord isn't thrilled about these guys, sacrificing their own children to Molech and other deities. And, just in case anyone tries to say anything silly, the Lord makes it clear that He DOES NOT want Israel to worship these gods OR to worship Him the way their neighbors worship their gods.
That's the reason they get displaced from their land.
-
That's the reason they get displaced from their land.
...so when the Hebrews smashed up these cities they would have stormed into Molech's temples and found the newborn babies that were being washed for sacrifice... and smashed their heads in with blunted swords?
I can understand Yahweh demanding the perpetrators of human sacrifice be put to death... but why put to death the victims of human sacrifice? Isn't that kinda defeating the purpose?
The Luke
-
Hagar left, when Sarah started mistreating her. And, only under advisement by the angel of the Lord (and the promise of Ishmael's being prosperous) did she return. So, I'd say that, if she weren't cool with marrying Abe and found that to be a form of mistreatment, she could have departed.
And remember that the beef between the two started, because Hagar apparently started flaunting her pregnancy in Sarah's face. If I'm not mistaken, few things scarred the soul of an Anicent Near East woman more than not being able to have children. Getting poked in the eye with that by your handmaid-turned-rival wife couldn't have set well with her (notwithstanding the fact that it was Sarah's idea in the first place).
Depart is a nice word, something you do after you give two weeks notice as a free person. Slaves couldn't leave. They were indentured. The edict refers to not chasing after slaves once they've escaped to another land, but didn't stop anyone from locking up their slaves or beating them savagely to dissuade them from doing so. Much the same as slaves today. The can "leave" as well, if they manage to escape.
Perhaps having sex with an 84-year-old man was better than the mistreatment Hagar received at the hands of Sarah. What does mistreatment mean anyway? Daily beatings, withholding food, public humiliation... it doesn't say. Must have been bad to flee into a desert fraught with danger.
It doesn't really matter what the beef was, since the OT states that slaves were not to be murdered, makes no allowances for petty jealousy and female competitiveness, and casting a woman and her child into the desert was akin to murder. Only goes to illustrate that those with power and wealth could pretty much do as they wanted, just like today. Yahweh didnt seem to mind the ill treatment of Hagar either. Guess because he was okay with slavery.
Point taken. But, the text states that the houseguest handed over the Levite's concubine (he actually offered both her and his own daughter).
Either the Levite wasn't there when it happen. Or, he did hand her over to those Benjamites, failing to add that part to his report to the Israelite elders.
That doesn't dismiss the fact that the rapists were to be punished by death for their deeds.
It's just as likely that the tribes entertained their bloodlust once the Levite complained that the Benjamites tried to murder him. And of course, they were displeased with the behavior of this tribe to begin with.
People were executed for having non-approved sex in general, but apparently not in the case of slave girls. Again, unless, that passage I quoted is incorrect.
No one said that these offenses didn't occur. But, when they did, there were stiff consequences for that happening. Are we more "evolved" than those folks were? By and large, we don't execute rapists today. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court just overturned a LA state law that gave the death penalty to child rapists, claming it was "cruel and unusual punishment" to execute these dudes, simply because the girl survived the abuse.
You're right about the indentured servant thing. But, what you left out what that, when the abuses became too frequent and out of control, the Irish settlers had the option of leaving. So, those in the slave trade ended up getting slaves that were very conspicuous (i.e. black people), deemed them "chattel", and were designed to be slaves for life.
They were kidnapped from their homeland (contrary to Biblical law); they were severely beaten and killed (with no punishment given to those responsible); the women were indeed RAPED (repeatedly and often, with no penalty at all to their assailants). Any children produced from this received NO inheritance, not even freedom.
If you did any of those things to an OT servant (Hebrew or non-Hebrew), you got severely punished for such.
I would argue that the death penalty for rape wasn't doled out so much for the harm it did the victim, but rather because it defiled a man's valuable asset. A deflowered unbetrothed girl was worthless and damaged goods. I think the fact that rapists were given the option of marrying their victims and working off the bride-price proves that. So no, don't find that particularly heartwarming.
There may have been stiff consequences but we have those as well. Doesn't deter everyone, and not everyone is caught. Wealthy powerful people in particular get away with crime, and are in the perfect position to exploit others. The story of Sarah and Hagar proves nothing was different back then. As do the atrocities suffered by the indentured in centuries past, and those of the slaves we import today.
What difference does it make that indentured servitude gave way to chattel slavery? The point was it was a terrible life and the indentured were abused. You claim this wasn't true of biblical slaves, but common sense and the history of indentured servitude leading up to today would say otherwise.
Of course slaves in biblical times were beaten. Men were forcibly circumcised. Women were given to old men as surrogate birthing vessels. They were marked as possessions. They couldn't always leave with their families if these were owned as well. Was it as bad as chattel slavery? No, and for some there was an end in sight after 7 years. You could say they were a better class of slave masters. If you're offered a choice between being shot in the head or burned at the stake, most would choose the shooting, but all would prefer neither.
-
Dedee,
Where were you for the first few pages of this thread?
I've been fighting the good fight against these "Post a link!"; "Quote the scriptural verse!"; "Prove it didn't!" ignoramae all alone.
The Luke
-
Dedee,
Where were you for the first few pages of this thread?
I've been fighting the good fight against these "Post a link!"; "Quote the scriptural verse!"; "Prove it didn't!" ignoramae all alone.
The Luke
Fighting would hardly be the word to describe your factually-challeneged posts. The reason you get asked to produce specific references is because, boy genius, YOU KEEP MAKING SPECIFIC CLAIMS.
If Loco or I make a claim to the contrary, we will support that with specific references, which anyone can view for himself and make their own assessment of the situation. For some reason, neither one of us like pulling claims out of our hind-quarters, only to dine on our own feet (in true Lukan fashion), when the actual facts don't match our claims in the least.
It's rather cute to think that running to Deedee gets you off the hook, regarding backing your statements (namely, your claims that a master who killed his servant got something other than the death penalty). But, it's what I've come to expect from certain skeptics......always running to "Mommy" (no offense, Deedee) when they can't make their statements stand on their own merits.
-
Depart is a nice word, something you do after you give two weeks notice as a free person. Slaves couldn't leave. They were indentured. The edict refers to not chasing after slaves once they've escaped to another land, but didn't stop anyone from locking up their slaves or beating them savagely to dissuade them from doing so. Much the same as slaves today. The can "leave" as well, if they manage to escape.
Yet, no one went after Hagar. And she returned of her own will. The fact that Hagar was not Hebrew is simply an example of foreign servants, not being under the lock-and-key scenario that some have claim foreigners were.
Perhaps having sex with an 84-year-old man was better than the mistreatment Hagar received at the hands of Sarah. What does mistreatment mean anyway? Daily beatings, withholding food, public humiliation... it doesn't say. Must have been bad to flee into a desert fraught with danger.
The problem with your assessment, Deedee, is that we have NO indication of any mistreatment by Sarah, PRIOR to her concocting the idea to have Abe produce the promised child through Hagar. Once Hagar gets pregnant, then we see the static building. After all, Sarah is barren and Hagar is boasting about her pregnancy (and perhaps, more favorable treatment from Abe). Again, few things hurt ANE women more than NOT being able to have kids. I think Sarah's having her plan backfire in her face (combined with Hagar's antagonizing) became more than she could bear.
It doesn't really matter what the beef was, since the OT states that slaves were not to be murdered, makes no allowances for petty jealousy and female competitiveness, and casting a woman and her child into the desert was akin to murder. Only goes to illustrate that those with power and wealth could pretty much do as they wanted, just like today. Yahweh didnt seem to mind the ill treatment of Hagar either. Guess because he was okay with slavery.
Murder is what could have potentially happened had Hagar stayed much longer, especially after Sarah finally had Isaac. Furthermore, nothing was going to happen to Hagar, once she left Abe and Sarah, as Mr. Meanie, Yahweh, promised BOTH Hagar and Abraham that Ishmael would father a great nation, as well. This something HE DID NOT have to do, as the original deal was that Abe's seed was to be greatly multiplied via a child FROM SARAH.
It's just as likely that the tribes entertained their bloodlust once the Levite complained that the Benjamites tried to murder him. And of course, they were displeased with the behavior of this tribe to begin with.
People were executed for having non-approved sex in general, but apparently not in the case of slave girls. Again, unless, that passage I quoted is incorrect.
The specific sex acts that warranted death involved adultery, bestiality, and homosexuality. With regards to the passage you quote, the slave girl consents but the money has not changed hands for her official bethrothment. That is why she is NOT executed. Once it becomes official, she is effectively MARRIED, making any consentual sex on her part......ADULTERY (which is punishable by death).
I would argue that the death penalty for rape wasn't doled out so much for the harm it did the victim, but rather because it defiled a man's valuable asset. A deflowered unbetrothed girl was worthless and damaged goods. I think the fact that rapists were given the option of marrying their victims and working off the bride-price proves that. So no, don't find that particularly heartwarming.
The rapists weren't given the option. The bride and her family (Dad, in particular) exercised that option. And this applied to single women. The only reason he's being kept alive is to ensure that the victim has PERMANENT material care. If she had that already, the rapist would have been put the sword, almost immediately.
There may have been stiff consequences but we have those as well. Doesn't deter everyone, and not everyone is caught. Wealthy powerful people in particular get away with crime, and are in the perfect position to exploit others. The story of Sarah and Hagar proves nothing was different back then. As do the atrocities suffered by the indentured in centuries past, and those of the slaves we import today.
The issue wasn't whether or not people try (successfully or not) to be above the law, but whether the law itself is a just and fair one. There are people who cheat our tax system and exploit others to get more money. That doesn't make our tax system a bad one.
What difference does it make that indentured servitude gave way to chattel slavery? The point was it was a terrible life and the indentured were abused. You claim this wasn't true of biblical slaves, but common sense and the history of indentured servitude leading up to today would say otherwise.
The difference is that the system was designed TO PREVENT ABUSE from happening and severely punsihed the perps, when it did. Chattel slavery stripped people of virtually all human rights, thus making the abuse entrenched within the system itself.
Of course slaves in biblical times were beaten. Men were forcibly circumcised. Women were given to old men as surrogate birthing vessels. They were marked as possessions. They couldn't always leave with their families if these were owned as well. Was it as bad as chattel slavery? No, and for some there was an end in sight after 7 years. You could say they were a better class of slave masters. If you're offered a choice between being shot in the head or burned at the stake, most would choose the shooting, but all would prefer neither.
Slaves were beaten; so were sons, husbands, and other folks.
As for circumcision, most of that occured at infancy. The adult males, if they wanted to participate in Hebrew traditions and worship, were circumcised, too. We've already discussed the women issue. The men had to marry them and treat them as wives. If they discarded them, they were STILL on the hook for their care, including leaving the lion's share of their estate to the firstborn, from that dissolved union.
None of that happened with chattel slaves. A black woman's child from white man DID NOT have rights to his father's estate, whatsoever. And the black woman certaintly DID NOT get treated the way a white wife would.
The men could indeed leave with their families. The only issue was the marital status of the now-former servant PRIOR to his departure. If he entered servitude married; then he left with his wife and kids. If he entered single and didn't marry; he left single and unmarried.
If he left single but got married, and the master provided his bride, he could not leave with his wife and kids.....UNLESS he paid the dowry for her, which is no different than what he would have had to do for the master's daughter. As the saying goes, "No romance without FINANCE!!! " ;D
-
Dedee,
Where were you for the first few pages of this thread?
I've been fighting the good fight against these "Post a link!"; "Quote the scriptural verse!"; "Prove it didn't!" ignoramae all alone.
The Luke
I pop in and out, but seems you all were doing fine. A lot of this stuff is reruns. ;D
Besides, no one is going to change anyone's mind. We're just... arguing. :)
-
McWay,
Ad hominem attacks aside, a close reading of this thread would plainly demonstrate that several impartial readers have been won over by MY argument. You've only got Loco...
I have proved ALL my claims to the satisfaction of any rational person... if this subset doesn't include you then that's your problem.
On the contrary, you've so far justified and defended slavery; rape; genocide and infanticide... how can you even call yourself a Christian at this point?
You're so entrenched in your literal-word-of-god mindset that you can't accept the plain black and white reality of hat the Bible actually says. Take that beam out of your eye my friend...
The Bible goes much further than just condoning slavery.
It condones rape; brutality; genocide; infanticide; genital mutilation; torture; and all sorts of exploitation.
But worst of all... it deludes otherwise honest people into believing such abominations can be condoned.
The Luke
-
Yet, no one went after Hagar. And she returned of her own will. The fact that Hagar was not Hebrew is simply an example of foreign servants, not being under the lock-and-key scenario that some have claim foreigners were.
The first time she ran away out of desperation. We have no idea how much stealth was involved, and since Sarah hated her guts, seems unlikely she would have sent out a search party anyway. Second time, Hagar was cast out, basically sent to die out in the desert, the ultimate mistreatment of one's slave. (Which she remained even after her forced sexual relationship with Abe. She was a slave/concubine of the lowest order, certainly not a second wife. Sarah says as much.)
The problem with your assessment, Deedee, is that we have NO indication of any mistreatment by Sarah, PRIOR to her concocting the idea to have Abe produce the promised child through Hagar. Once Hagar gets pregnant, then we see the static building. After all, Sarah is barren and Hagar is boasting about her pregnancy (and perhaps, more favorable treatment from Abe). Again, few things hurt ANE women more than NOT being able to have kids. I think Sarah's having her plan backfire in her face (combined with Hagar's antagonizing) became more than she could bear.
Doesn't matter. You're making excuses. If it was okay for Sarah to mistreat Hagar over jealousy... seeing as how she was still her slave, it stands to reason that others applied extreme punishment to their own slaves. If jealousy was a good enough reason to throw a defenseless person into the desert, what happened when someone did something really bad, like lose a goat or something? Guess you could beat the crap out of them, put them into a coma maybe.
The OT doesn't allow that. Seems you could take Sarah's example to surmise that it happened though. That's my point.
Murder is what could have potentially happened had Hagar stayed much longer, especially after Sarah finally had Isaac. Furthermore, nothing was going to happen to Hagar, once she left Abe and Sarah, as Mr. Meanie, Yahweh, promised BOTH Hagar and Abraham that Ishmael would father a great nation, as well. This something HE DID NOT have to do, as the original deal was that Abe's seed was to be greatly multiplied via a child FROM SARAH.
Hagar was lucky Yahweh intervened. How many others didn't garner his attention?
The rapists weren't given the option. The bride and her family (Dad, in particular) exercised that option. And this applied to single women. The only reason he's being kept alive is to ensure that the victim has PERMANENT material care. If she had that already, the rapist would have been put the sword, almost immediately.
Really, where does it say that? I'm actually curious, as I have never seen it. You're right though, I misspoke. It wasn't the rapist's choice. But normally, a girl would be taken care of in the material sense, once she was married or sold off into slavery. No one would marry used goods. It was a good deal actually. Any sadistic, boil-infested, goat-feces encrusted, snaggle-toothed cretin could simply lie in wait, rape the prettiest girl in the village and voila, if dad said okay, she was his to rape for the rest of her miserable life, and hopefully they brought forth lots of snaggle-toothed babies. :)
The issue wasn't whether or not people try (successfully or not) to be above the law, but whether the law itself is a just and fair one. There are people who cheat our tax system and exploit others to get more money. That doesn't make our tax system a bad one.
It IS the issue at this point! At least one person on this thread has pointed to the laws of the OT to INSIST and PROVE that no crimes could have POSSIBLY occurred, (those such as slavemasters pressuring their slaves for sex). Those constitute half the posts.
My point is just because there are semi-just laws in place, doesn't mean people aren't abused, or that they represent a just institution.
All anyone has to do is read the stories in the OT to see that half of it is a veritable lust-fest, some of it savagely violent, that many heros and heroines flouted the laws and were unpunished for it. There are stories where deceit, cunning, behind the scenes machinations and crime are basically rewarded.
- Joseph's brothers kidnap and sell him. They go unpunished. Later when he's famous, Joseph plays with their heads.
- Lot's daughters get him liquored up and have sex with him. (Disgusting! :-X) Their incest goes unpunished.
- Dinah is raped and when the rapist tries to do the right thing, her brothers insist everyone in the village be circumcised as a sign of good faith, then while the men are still writhing in pain days later, go in like cowards and kill everyone, even the innocents. No one is punished. Where were the elders?
- Tamar is raped by her half-brother, who then despises her. Her brother finally avenges her a couple of years later. The elders aren't brought into it at all.
- Jacob is so greedy he blackmails his starving brother Esau, then deceives his dying blind father into giving him his brother's birthright. His mother is complicit.
- After Jacob toils for seven years, what's his name renegs on their deal and switches Leah for Rachel on the wedding night, then blackmails another seven years of work out of Jacob to earn the wife he really wanted.
- Sarah gives her slave Hagar to her old man, then mistreats and casts her out when she becomes preggers herself.
- King David has an affair with Bathsheba, then has her husband disappeared. No problem.
Those are off the top of my head. So, one revolting thing after another...do you find it IMPOSSIBLE that some lust-filled slave owner wouldn't take advantage of a young slave girl? Come on! Those primitive people were obsessed with sex one way or another. And of course they would get away with it. And of course it was expected. And it continued throughout history.
And even if they married these girls, these were basically sham marriages, the women were second class concubines with no inheritance rights for themselves. They had to be clothed and fed. Which happened anyway since they were slaves.
Slaves were beaten; so were sons, husbands, and other folks.
As for circumcision, most of that occured at infancy. The adult males, if they wanted to participate in Hebrew traditions and worship, were circumcised, too. We've already discussed the women issue. The men had to marry them and treat them as wives. If they discarded them, they were STILL on the hook for their care, including leaving the lion's share of their estate to the firstborn, from that dissolved union.
None of that happened with chattel slaves. A black woman's child from white man DID NOT have rights to his father's estate, whatsoever. And the black woman certaintly DID NOT get treated the way a white wife would.
The men could indeed leave with their families. The only issue was the marital status of the now-former servant PRIOR to his departure. If he entered servitude married; then he left with his wife and kids. If he entered single and didn't marry; he left single and unmarried.
If he left single but got married, and the master provided his bride, he could not leave with his wife and kids.....UNLESS he paid the dowry for her, which is no different than what he would have had to do for the master's daughter. As the saying goes, "No romance without FINANCE!!! " Grin
Free folks were beaten by the elders for single crimes or trangressions. Slaves could be beaten or abused just for being in the path of an owner in a bad mood.
Circumcision occurred in infancy, except in the cases where foreign born were enslaved. And I beg to differ about the "woman issue." If someone lusted after a slave girl, they were taken as second class concubines, and their off-spring were given some inheritance rights, but not those of real marriage progeny. Ishmael got nuttin! Leah and Rachel "gave" their slaves to be bred, but took those children away and raised them as their own. The concubines were unimportant details. I'm aware that slaves who married people belonging to the owner, weren't allowed to take them once they left unless the owner approved. And there's a difference in hoping to pursue someone you've not kissed, to losing a beloved wife and children that are a part of your heart That must have been a wonderful way to live.
Slavery in biblical times may have been a way of getting what we would call the homeless off the street, a way for families to pay off debt, or pay for a crime, it was still slavery, no matter how much you like to sugar coat and excuse it. Actually, if Yahweh had spoken out against it back then, perhaps chattel slavery as we knew it in the South would've never occurred.
The specific sex acts that warranted death involved adultery, bestiality, and homosexuality. With regards to the passage you quote, the slave girl consents but the money has not changed hands for her official bethrothment. That is why she is NOT executed. Once it becomes official, she is effectively MARRIED, making any consentual sex on her part......ADULTERY (which is punishable by death).
I don't follow. It specifically says that the reason she is not put to death is her slave status. Says nothing about money changing hands.
And what of the law decreeing that any woman found not to be a virgin on her wedding night was to be stoned? How does that mesh with slaveowners having sex with their betrothed slaves and this not being a particularly bad thing?
-
...oh, the pwning... the pwning.
The Luke
-
In biblical times, how did slave owners use extortion and blackmail to avoid releasing Hebrew slaves when their time was up?
Simple, after his 6 year indentured servitude, you simply refused to sell him his wife and children. He was free to leave without, but if he truly loved his family... then his only choice was to swear an oath to stay a slave forever. Yahweh has good business sense!
21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
-
One question arises after all this.
Why would a decent person with morals decide to use a book like the Bible as a source for their life philosophy?
-
One question arises after all this.
Why would a decent person with morals decide to use a book like the Bible as a source for their life philosophy?
...brainwashing by means of pervasive propaganda.
The Luke
-
It only took 10 pages for everyone to express that they interpret the OT differently lol
-
One question arises after all this.
Why would a decent person with morals decide to use a book like the Bible as a source for their life philosophy?
Because of other sound philosophies contained in it and the doctrine for salvation.
It's unfortunate for them as they have to make excuses, spin, deny or ignore blatant instances of slavery, murder, rape, genocide etc..
-
The first time she ran away out of desperation. We have no idea how much stealth was involved, and since Sarah hated her guts, seems unlikely she would have sent out a search party anyway. Second time, Hagar was cast out, basically sent to die out in the desert, the ultimate mistreatment of one's slave. (Which she remained even after her forced sexual relationship with Abe. She was a slave/concubine of the lowest order, certainly not a second wife. Sarah says as much.)
Nothing in the text suggests that this was a forced arrangement, especially with Hagar's holding her pregnancy with Ishmael over Sarah's head.
Doesn't matter. You're making excuses. If it was okay for Sarah to mistreat Hagar over jealousy... seeing as how she was still her slave, it stands to reason that others applied extreme punishment to their own slaves. If jealousy was a good enough reason to throw a defenseless person into the desert, what happened when someone did something really bad, like lose a goat or something? Guess you could beat the crap out of them, put them into a coma maybe.
The OT doesn't allow that. Seems you could take Sarah's example to surmise that it happened though. That's my point.
My point is that, notwithstanding that Hagar's being sent away had more to do Hagar and Ishmael's well-being, the laws don't become unfair or unjust, simply because somebody has broken or abused them. Our legal system is, perhaps, the best in the world today. But, there are STILL those who break the law or use legal loopholes to get away with abuse.
After 15 years of bickering between the two (especially with Sarah finally having Isaac), the dysfunction had finally reach the breaking point. Of course, had Abe and Sarah followed the Lord's instructions, none of this would have occured.
Hagar was lucky Yahweh intervened. How many others didn't garner his attention?
God promised Abe that Ishmael would be the father of a great nation, which is why (even though it probably broke his heart to do it) Abe sent Hagar and Ishmael away.
Really, where does it say that? I'm actually curious, as I have never seen it. You're right though, I misspoke. It wasn't the rapist's choice. But normally, a girl would be taken care of in the material sense, once she was married or sold off into slavery. No one would marry used goods. It was a good deal actually. Any sadistic, boil-infested, goat-feces encrusted, snaggle-toothed cretin could simply lie in wait, rape the prettiest girl in the village and voila, if dad said okay, she was his to rape for the rest of her miserable life, and hopefully they brought forth lots of snaggle-toothed babies. :)
You could say something similar for our legal system. Any "sadistic, boil-infested, goat-feces encrusted, snaggle-toothed cretin could simply lie in wait", rape a pretty girl, and (with the help of a good lawyer), get a simple slap-on-the-wrist jail sentence which, once served, gets him off the hook as he's "paid his debt to society". Meanwhile the victim lives her life with a broken body, scarred psyche, a stack of medical bills, lost wages, etc.
Your statement makes the rather odd assumption that fathers simply didn't care for their daughters and would not make the right call for them, which is quite off-the-wall.
Exodus 22:16-17 covered the family, making the call, regarding marriage:
And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
Deut. 22 covers the death penalty for rapists who assault married/betrothed women.
Deu. 22:25-26.
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
Verses 28-29:
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days
It IS the issue at this point! At least one person on this thread has pointed to the laws of the OT to INSIST and PROVE that no crimes could have POSSIBLY occurred, (those such as slavemasters pressuring their slaves for sex). Those constitute half the posts.
My point is just because there are semi-just laws in place, doesn't mean people aren't abused, or that they represent a just institution.
All anyone has to do is read the stories in the OT to see that half of it is a veritable lust-fest, some of it savagely violent, that many heros and heroines flouted the laws and were unpunished for it. There are stories where deceit, cunning, behind the scenes machinations and crime are basically rewarded.
Again, my point is that people breaking and/or abusing the laws DOESN'T automatically equate to an unjust institution. Otherwise, you'd have to scrap our legal system, as it's had more than its share of violations and loopholes. As far as this laundry list of yours goes, you've left out a few details, which I'll be mroe than happy to include ;D
- Joseph's brothers kidnap and sell him. They go unpunished. Later when he's famous, Joseph plays with their heads.
You forgot one thing. His brothers told their father that Joseph had been killed by a wild animal. No one else knew about what really happened....UNTIL THE BROTHERS CONFESSED TO JOSEPH, not knowing who he was. And, Joseph FORGIVES them, stating that what they meant for evil, God meant for good. If Joseph (the victim in this scenario) can pardon his brothers, I think you can too, Deedee. :)
- Lot's daughters get him liquored up and have sex with him. (Disgusting! :-X) Their incest goes unpunished.
And who's going to do the punishing? Sodom and Gommorah was in flames.
- Dinah is raped and when the rapist tries to do the right thing, her brothers insist everyone in the village be circumcised as a sign of good faith, then while the men are still writhing in pain days later, go in like cowards and kill everyone, even the innocents. No one is punished. Where were the elders?
On the contrary, Levi and Simeon were indeed punished for their actions.
Gen. 49:5-7
Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty[are in their habitations.
my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall.
Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.
- Tamar is raped by her half-brother, who then despises her. Her brother finally avenges her a couple of years later. The elders aren't brought into it at all.
Last time I checked, Tamar and half-brothers Absalom and Ammnon were children of KING DAVID. As a matter of fact, part of the reason why Absalom takes matters into his own hands, regarding his sister (Absalom and Tamar shared both parents), is because David has Ammon exiled, instead of executed. And which elders are going to overrule the KING, anyway?
- Jacob is so greedy he blackmails his starving brother Esau, then deceives his dying blind father into giving him his brother's birthright. His mother is complicit.
Once again, when you don't follow the Lord's instructions, you get dysfunction. Isaac and Rebekah were told that the younger brother (Jacob) was to received the birthright. The blackmail, while deceptive indeed, held little actual consequence. When it comes to the birthright, the FATHER was the one who issued that to the son. Isaac, however, disregards the Lord's instruction and proceeds to bestow the birthright on Esau.
Rebekah overhears this and, fearing that God will not keep his promise (much like her mother-in-law), she hatches the plot with Jacob.
- After Jacob toils for seven years, what's his name renegs on their deal and switches Leah for Rachel on the wedding night, then blackmails another seven years of work out of Jacob to earn the wife he really wanted.
Rough translation.......You reap what you sow. The deceiver got deceived.
- Sarah gives her slave Hagar to her old man, then mistreats and casts her out when she becomes preggers herself.
Not quite. One, Hagar is a willing participant. Two, Hagar starts gloating about her pregnancy and Sarah's inability to have children; Three, Sarah doesn't throw Hagar out, once Sarah becomes pregnant. Hagar apparently passed her condescending ways to Ishmael, who was picking on/bullying Isaac.
Four, it was ABRAHAM, not Sarah, who made the final decision, regarding Hagar. And, he did that, only because God reiterated His promise that both Hagar and Ishmael would be prosperous and have their care provided for them. Otherwise, they would have stayed, REGARDLESS of Sarah's bickering.
- King David has an affair with Bathsheba, then has her husband disappeared. No problem.
Try that again. It's the prophet Nathan, who confronts David, pointing out his evil deed. David confesses and surrendered himself to the death penalty. But, Nathan informs him that, per the Lord's instructions, he and Bathsheba will be spared. But, their son will die. And, as a result of his treachery, the sword will not leave his household. And, based on what happened with his family, particularly his children, that curse kicked into gear more severely than David could have ever imagined.
Those are off the top of my head. So, one revolting thing after another...do you find it IMPOSSIBLE that some lust-filled slave owner wouldn't take advantage of a young slave girl? Come on! Those primitive people were obsessed with sex one way or another. And of course they would get away with it. And of course it was expected. And it continued throughout history.
Those "primitive" people are no more obsessed with sex than our society is today. And, once again, the issue here isn't whether abuse occured within a legal system or society. It's whether or not the laws crafted, spoke our AGAINST SUCH ABUSE and PUNISHED THOSE ABUSERS, accordingly.
And even if they married these girls, these were basically sham marriages, the women were second class concubines with no inheritance rights for themselves. They had to be clothed and fed. Which happened anyway since they were slaves.
Free folks were beaten by the elders for single crimes or trangressions. Slaves could be beaten or abused just for being in the path of an owner in a bad mood.
Circumcision occurred in infancy, except in the cases where foreign born were enslaved. And I beg to differ about the "woman issue." If someone lusted after a slave girl, they were taken as second class concubines, and their off-spring were given some inheritance rights, but not those of real marriage progeny.
Nope!!! Per the laws of Israel, the firstborn of the "hated" wife got the bulk of the father's estate. As for the "bad mood" thing, that doesn't mesh with the laws given the Israelites. They were instructed REPEATEDLY to be kind to the stranger or the foreigner and NOT to be cruel to those who served them. Why? Because of how they were treated in Egypt, about which the Lord was quick to remind them.
That's why these laws were in place, to punish those who were cruel.
Ishmael got nuttin! Leah and Rachel "gave" their slaves to be bred, but took those children away and raised them as their own. The concubines were unimportant details. I'm aware that slaves who married people belonging to the owner, weren't allowed to take them once they left unless the owner approved. And there's a difference in hoping to pursue someone you've not kissed, to losing a beloved wife and children that are a part of your heart That must have been a wonderful way to live.
Once again, you forgot that God promised Abraham that Ishmael would prosper and be the father of a great nation. This He did, IN ADDITION to fulfilling the original deal of Abe's seed being made great via a child THROUGH Sarah.
As for the marriage issue, you again leave out the fact that the servants can and often DID leave with their families. The underlying issue was marital status, prior to servitude. If a man came into servitude single; that's how he left. If he entered married, he left married, with his kids.
And, if he entered single but married while serving his master. He had two options: One, stay under his master's employ to be with his wife and kids; Two, PAY THE DOWRY to get his wife and kids, as he would have had to do with a man's daughter (since the master provided the bride).
Slavery in biblical times may have been a way of getting what we would call the homeless off the street, a way for families to pay off debt, or pay for a crime, it was still slavery, no matter how much you like to sugar coat and excuse it. Actually, if Yahweh had spoken out against it back then, perhaps chattel slavery as we knew it in the South would've never occurred.
There's no sugar-coating involved. And, what you say makes no sense, given the facts.
God instructed that Hebrew servants were freed after 7 years; non-Hebrews were freed via other means; blacks weren't to be freed AT ALL.
God spoke out against kidnapping people from their homeland (doing so warranted DEATH); yet white people kidnapped blacks from America, with none dying for their actions.
God instructed that masters must marry any servant women, before having sex with them. Yet, white men raped black women for centuries, without mercy or conscience.
God instructed that if a servant got maimed, he was released from servitude; Yet, whites maimed and cripped blacks, with no freedom given to them for their injury.
God instructed that a master who killed his slave got the DEATH penalty; How many white masters got strung up for killing their slaves, again?
God instructed that the firstborn of the "hated" wife got the bulk of his father's estate. How many black children, fathered by white masters, got a piece of the plantation?
In fact, that's one of the points, here. Violation of how to treat those in serviture is what LED TO CHATTEL SLAVERY, in the first place.
I don't follow. It specifically says that the reason she is not put to death is her slave status. Says nothing about money changing hands.
That was being bethroted means: Someone has paid the dowry for a wife. If she consents, but no money has changed hands for her to be a wife to someone else, there is no betrothement, hence no adultery and no death penalty.
And what of the law decreeing that any woman found not to be a virgin on her wedding night was to be stoned? How does that mesh with slaveowners having sex with their betrothed slaves and this not being a particularly bad thing?
Simple, as explained above. Once, the $$$$$$ for the dowry has changed hands, the betrothement is official. Effectively, the woman is married. Therefore, if she has sex with someone else, she has committed adultery. By law, BOTH she and the other guy get stoned to death.
Slaveowners CANNOT have sex with their servant girls, if they're betrothed to another man. In fact, they can't have sex with their servant girls AT ALL, unless they marry them first.
In biblical times, how did slave owners use extortion and blackmail to avoid releasing Hebrew slaves when their time was up?
Simple, after his 6 year indentured servitude, you simply refused to sell him his wife and children. He was free to leave without, but if he truly loved his family... then his only choice was to swear an oath to stay a slave forever. Yahweh has good business sense!
21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
That was explained earlier, in part by the very verses you just listed.
Verse 3 indicates that, if the guy came into servitude MARRIED, then his wife must also go with him.
Then, there's verse 4. Again, the key is that the master gave him the wife (i.e. the servant DID NOT PAY the dowry). Once the servant pays the dowry, he gets his wife an kids and goes on his merry way.
-
McWay,
Ad hominem attacks aside, a close reading of this thread would plainly demonstrate that several impartial readers have been won over by MY argument. You've only got Loco...
I have proved ALL my claims to the satisfaction of any rational person... if this subset doesn't include you then that's your problem.
And these "impartial" readers would be............
Deedee? Ummmm....NO!!
Ozmo? Hardly?
Deicide? PLEASE
L Dawg? As if!!!!
Since we've had this discussion before, long prior to your putting your 2 cents into the equation, we pretty much know from those discussions (and others), what people's beliefs were from the start.
On the contrary, you've so far justified and defended slavery; rape; genocide and infanticide... how can you even call yourself a Christian at this point?
Defending rape? Apparently, you've missed the multiple statements I've made, regarding rapists getting the DEATH PENALTY. As for the rest of your spiel, what I've stated is God's actions for PROTECTING His people (as He promised He would do) from people who continuously attacked them without provocation. But, apparently, that part slipped your mind as well.
You're so entrenched in your literal-word-of-god mindset that you can't accept the plain black and white reality of hat the Bible actually says. Take that beam out of your eye my friend...
The Bible goes much further than just condoning slavery.
It condones rape; brutality; genocide; infanticide; genital mutilation; torture; and all sorts of exploitation.
But worst of all... it deludes otherwise honest people into believing such abominations can be condoned.
The Luke
The black-and-white of the Bible takes this rather spurious claim of yours to the cleaners.
Rape? Yep! Nothing says condoning of rape like capital punishment for the offenders.
Genocide/infanticide/slavery.........I'm sorry!!! What was supposed to be done about Israel's enemies again, particularly the ones that targeted their feeble and most vulnerable, scorched their crops, and kept assaulting them for over three centuries?
Genital mutilation? That foreskin being taken away at infancy.......OH THE HUMANITY!!!!! ::)
BTW, the clock's still ticking. You were supposed to inform us of what the punishment was (other than the death penalty) for a master killing his servant. But, of course, in true Lukan fashion, you will duck the issue, hoping that someone else will cover your behind.
-
You could say something similar for our legal system. Any "sadistic, boil-infested, goat-feces encrusted, snaggle-toothed cretin could simply lie in wait", rape a pretty girl, and (with the help of a good lawyer), get a simple slap-on-the-wrist jail sentence which, once served, gets him off the hook as he's "paid his debt to society". Meanwhile the victim lives her life with a broken body, scarred psyche, a stack of medical bills, lost wages, etc.
Your statement makes the rather odd assumption that fathers simply didn't care for their daughters and would not make the right call for them, which is quite off-the-wall.
Most rapists get at least 7 years. Big difference is that the victim isn't then offered as a prize or reward for the crime. I think most victims would prefer the medical bills over being thrown into marriage with the scummy criminal.
I would say that the OT justice and customs mirror what goes on in Saudi Arabia today, so I'm going to say that yes, probably many fathers made terrible calls for the daughters, based on societal pressures, not her happiness.
Deut. 22 covers the death penalty for rapists who assault married/betrothed women.
Deu. 22:25-26.
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
Verses 28-29:
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days
That's what I though. Goes back to punishment meted out for messing with a man's property rather than harm to the victim. The betrothed woman already belongs to someone so the death penalty is applied. The unbetrothed girl is damaged goods so the father can either give his daughter to the rapist, or shut up. There is no further punishment in that case.
Gotta run but will answer the rest.
-
And these "impartial" readers would be............
Deedee? Ummmm....NO!!
Ozmo? Hardly?
Deicide? PLEASE
L Dawg? As if!!!!
Since we've had this discussion before, long prior to your putting your 2 cents into the equation, we pretty much know from those discussions (and others), what people's beliefs were from the start.
Defending rape? Apparently, you've missed the multiple statements I've made, regarding rapists getting the DEATH PENALTY. As for the rest of your spiel, what I've stated is God's actions for PROTECTING His people (as He promised He would do) from people who continuously attacked them without provocation. But, apparently, that part slipped your mind as well.
The black-and-white of the Bible takes this rather spurious claim of yours to the cleaners.
Rape? Yep! Nothing says condoning of rape like capital punishment for the offenders.
Genocide/infanticide/slavery.........I'm sorry!!! What was supposed to be done about Israel's enemies again, particularly the ones that targeted their feeble and most vulnerable, scorched their crops, and kept assaulting them for over three centuries?
Genital mutilation? That foreskin being taken away at infancy.......OH THE HUMANITY!!!!! ::)
BTW, the clock's still ticking. You were supposed to inform us of what the punishment was (other than the death penalty) for a master killing his servant. But, of course, in true Lukan fashion, you will duck the issue, hoping that someone else will cover your behind.
A case could made for me NOT being impartial. But also, there is the fact that i DO believe in God. I just don't believe the bible in its entirety is his word. We have also been able to keep this discussion between you and i from digressing to ad-hom. Luke brings very good points and does the research i am too lazy or unmotivated to do. The Lev verses were key because they are pretty straight forward.
As for justifying genocide, because thats what I think you are doing when you ask what was Israel supposed to do. I don't know what the answer is supposed to be. I just know that genocide is probably one of the most evil things that can be done. And this was done by the very entity that's supposed to be all that is good. I also know that history is written to justify the actions of the victors. It always is. So the account of the amalikites is more than tainted. Yeah scorched crops = killing children.
In addition, circumcision is ridiculous. It's taken until just in the last 10 years for most of American society/medical proffesion to see how stupid it is.
-
Most rapists get at least 7 years. Big difference is that the victim isn't then offered as a prize or reward for the crime. I think most victims would prefer the medical bills over being thrown into marriage with the scummy criminal.
I’d hardly considered a lifetime of having your wages garnished or the death penalty a “prize”, for a crime committed. Plus, even with our system giving seven years (and that's hardly a minimum, as I've seen rapists get less than that), that still leaves the victim with a lifetime of trauma and a stack of bills for medical care. I'd say they don't want the bills or the marriage. They'd want the perp to suffer and the payment of the bills, NOT to come out of their own pocket.
I would say that the OT justice and customs mirror what goes on in Saudi Arabia today, so I'm going to say that yes, probably many fathers made terrible calls for the daughters, based on societal pressures, not her happiness.
I would beg to differ. The "societal pressure" would be to restore the honor of the daughter and the family. Care for that young woman is the one (AND ONLY) reason, the perp is being kept alive. Otherwise, he's getting his own personal rock concert or the sword.
That's what I though. Goes back to punishment meted out for messing with a man's property rather than harm to the victim. The betrothed woman already belongs to someone so the death penalty is applied. The unbetrothed girl is damaged goods so the father can either give his daughter to the rapist, or shut up. There is no further punishment in that case.
Not quite. The family gets the dowry, whether the marriage takes place or not. And, the issue is care for the daughter, as she's been violated.
Plus, for the betrothed woman, "for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter"... It is seen as the equivalent of murder.
Gotta run but will answer the rest.
No problem. See you when you get back!! ;D
-
A case could made for me NOT being impartial. But also, there is the fact that i DO believe in God. I just don't believe the bible in its entirety is his word. We have also been able to keep this discussion between you and i from digressing to ad-hom. Luke brings very good points and does the research i am too lazy or unmotivated to do. The Lev verses were key because they are pretty straight forward.
Straight-forward but incomplete, as you left out the other verses, which I cited to make the points about non-Hebrew servants.
As for justifying genocide, because thats what I think you are doing when you ask what was Israel supposed to do. I don't know what the answer is supposed to be. I just know that genocide is probably one of the most evil things that can be done. And this was done by the very entity that's supposed to be all that is good. I also know that history is written to justify the actions of the victors. It always is. So the account of the amalikites is more than tainted. Yeah scorched crops = killing children.
Once again, you're leaving out the other passages clearly explain the full extent of the Amalekites' actions (BTW, if the crops get scorched and the Israelites can't provide food for their families, what do you think happens to THEIR CHILDREN?).
You said you don't know what supposed to be done. And, that's the point. SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE, about the folks attacking Israel. But what do you do:
Nothing? Then, you blame God for not coming to the aid of His people.
Assimilate them? Then here comes all the complaints about “slavery”, that we've discussed for 10 pages.
Leave them to starve to death? Then, accusations of cruelty start flying.
Utterly destroy them completely? Cue the genocide cries.
Plus, we've discussed your claims of history being written by the victors, a spurious one at best, consideirng a lot of the OT was written, when Israel was in BONDAGE to other nations (i.e. Babylon). Plus, there remains the question (as it relates to the Amalekites) as to why Saul would lose his throne for DEFEATING a long-time enemy AND walking away with all of their wealth and livestock, which the Israelites were PLEASED to have.
In addition, circumcision is ridiculous. It's taken until just in the last 10 years for most of American society/medical proffesion to see how stupid it is.
Apparently, they're not Jewish. And, just what were men planning to do with that foreskin, anyway? ;D
-
Straight-forward but incomplete, as you left out the other verses, which I cited to make the points about non-Hebrew servants.
Are they from the same book?
Once again, you're leaving out the other passages clearly explain the full extent of the Amalekites' actions (BTW, if the crops get scroched and the Israelites can't provide food for their families, what do you think happens to THEIR CHILDREN?).
You said you don't know what supposed to be done. And, that's the point. SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE, about the folks attacking Israel. But what do you do:
Nothing? Then, you blame God for not coming to the aid of His people.
Assimilate them? Then here comes all the complaints about “slavery”, that we've discussed for 10 pages.
Leave them to starve to death? Then, accusations of cruelty start flying.
Utterly destroy them completely? Cue the genocide cries.
Plus, we've discussed your claims of history being written by the victors, a spurious one at best, consideirng a lot of the OT was written, when Israel was in BONDAGE to other nations (i.e. Babylon). Plus, there remains the question (as it relates to the Amalekites) as to why Saul would lose his throne for DEFEATING a long-time enemy AND walking away with all of their wealth and livestock, which the Israelites were PLEASED to have.
Assuming God is omnipotent, he could have teleported them (amalikites) to another planet that sustains life but is uninhabited.
Problem solved. ;D
-
Verses 28-29:
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days
...McWay, do you even read the verses you are quoting?
That verse clearly states that the punishment for rape in this instance is 50 shekels of silver... if the victims father doesn't want the hassle of having to sell on damaged goods he can also insist on the forcible marriage of the rapist to his daughter. No death penalty for rape if the woman isn't owned.
Plain, simple, black and white fact... why quote such a verse if you are trying to argue the contrary?
50 shekels in exchange for permanent ownership of the victim... sounds like a rapists fantasy.
Also, I believe you owe me an apology... doesn't the "because he hath humbled her" use of the Hebrew word "anah" in this instance clearly demonstrate my claim that the proper translation in a sexual context is "rape"?
Seems you have undermined two of your own arguments at once.
Regarding the Amelkites, couldn't god have simply insisted that the Hebrews adopt all the children under 12 rather than butcher them? Couldn't Yahweh be bothered to tell his eager genocidists that the murder of innocent children is always wrong? Even when it would have saved thousands of innocent children? Isn't that lazy?
The Luke
-
...McWay, do you even read the verses you are quoting?
That verse clearly states that the punishment for rape in this instance is 50 shekels of silver... if the victims father doesn't want the hassle of having to sell on damaged goods he can also insist on the forcible marriage of the rapist to his daughter. No death penalty for rape if the woman isn't owned.
Plain, simple, black and white fact... why quote such a verse if you are trying to argue the contrary?
50 shekels in exchange for permanent ownership of the victim... sounds like a rapists fantasy.
Apparently, YOU can't read the verses, Luke.
I already differentiated the issue between a married/betrothed woman and a non-married/betrothed one. For the latter, the family gets the dowry....WHETHER THE MARRIAGE TAKES PLACES OR NOT. That's in Exodus, which you conveniently left out, in your haste to make this inaccurate post.
Therefore, the father is not left with “having to sell damaged goods”. The money is already there.
For the former, the care for the daughter is already in place. Therefore, the rapist get put to death.
Also, I believe you owe me an apology... doesn't the "because he hath humbled her" use of the Hebrew word "anah" in this instance clearly demonstrate my claim that the proper translation in a sexual context is "rape"?
Seems you have undermined two of your own arguments at once.
I owe you no such thing. In fact, you just undermined your own argument, as your initial claim was NOT that the term, “anah” meant rape. You said that it was a “softening” of the supposed correct translation of the text. Now, you’re claiming that the word was used correctly?
You’re talking about two DIFFERENT texts. One is in Deut. 21, which speaks of a woman being DIVORCED from her husband; hence you have the “humbled” part.
The other is Deut. 22, in which the context CLEARLY INDICATES that the woman was raped.
Per that text (and that of Ex. 22), if the woman is raped and the family decides that the marriage will occur, he CANNOT DIVORCE HER, PERIOD!! Nothing voids his obligation of material care (the sole reason he is being kept alive).
In short, you have the generic word, “anah”, used in both texts. But, you have specific form of being “humbled” clearly spelled out. One form is divorce; the other form is rape.
Regarding the Amelkites, couldn't god have simply insisted that the Hebrews adopt all the children under 12 rather than butcher them? Couldn't Yahweh be bothered to tell his eager genocidists that the murder of innocent children is always wrong? Even when it would have saved thousands of innocent children? Isn't that lazy?
The Luke
Ummmm…….that would be the assimilation part, about which you’ve been whining, when referencing the verses about taking the little ones from foreign enemies of Israel.
Given the 300+ years that the Amalekites had to repent of their actions, the judgment on them can hardly be called “lazy”.
It goes back to what I’ve said earlier. No matter what scenario goes down, you will find some reason to complain about the judgment brought upon the Amalekite people.
-
For the former, the care for the daughter is already in place. Therefore, the rapist get put to death.
The other is Deut. 22, in which the context CLEARLY INDICATES that the woman was raped.
So you agree that we are referring to a rape... and if the woman has the right of marriage refusal, as you insist these supposedly emancipated right-having women of Old Testament times did indeed have, (I seriously doubt any of these tribal women had any rights over their own sexual consent), then we should assume that none of these rape victims ever married their rapists?
Right? No woman is ever going to willingly marry their rapist (with no possible recourse to divorce).
...so the rapist goes free, just 50 shekels of silver: no flogging, no beating, no stoning, no death penalty.
Just a downpayment of 50 shekels and perhaps a dowry (paid to the owner of the woman, not the woman herself).
So what does the victim get?
She doesn't get the compensation... she can't be betrothed as no one will marry a non-virgin... so no-husband, no lovers (adultery), no children, no income, no life and no prospect of a life.
...and the rapist just gets hit in the wallet... all because the woman wasn't "owned" when the guy jumped and raped her.
How can anyone apologise for this... condoning slavery? The women were slaves, let alone the actual slaves.
The Luke
-
So you agree that we are referring to a rape... and if the woman has the right of marriage refusal, as you insist these supposedly emancipated right-having women of Old Testament times did indeed have, (I seriously doubt any of these tribal women had any rights over their own sexual consent), then we should assume that none of these rape victims ever married their rapists?
Well, looka here!! The chief town crier about "intellectual dishonesty" is indulging in a healthy dose himself.
Your initial claim about the term "anah" is that it was a softening of the translation. Now, you switch your story, claiming that it was correct.
Plus, as you feebly attempted to leave out, the comparsion I used was between Deut. 21 and Deut. 22
One is in Deut. 21, which speaks of a woman being DIVORCED from her husband; hence you have the “humbled” part.
The other is Deut. 22, in which the context CLEARLY INDICATES that the woman was raped.
That's two different scenarios, in which one involves divorce and the other involves rape.
Right? No woman is ever going to willingly marry their rapist (with no possible recourse to divorce).
...so the rapist goes free, just 50 shekels of silver: no flogging, no beating, no stoning, no death penalty.
Just a downpayment of 50 shekels and perhaps a dowry (paid to the owner of the woman, not the woman herself).
Ummm....the so-called owner was her father. Fathers care for their daughters until they got married, a concept apparently lost on you.
So what does the victim get?
She doesn't get the compensation... she can't be betrothed as no one will marry a non-virgin... so no-husband, no lovers (adultery), no children, no income, no life and no prospect of a life.
...and the rapist just gets hit in the wallet... all because the woman wasn't "owned" when the guy jumped and raped her.
If that's the case, why are you complaining? Is this woman simply supposed to go without her material need addressed, simply for being the victim of a horrible crime?
And, unless I missed something, I see nothing preventing the father from giving his daughter the dowry, especially if she is firstborn (and he has no sons).
Plus, 50 shekels was hardly just a "hit in the wallet".
How can anyone apologise for this... condoning slavery? The women were slaves, let alone the actual slaves.
The Luke
If they were "slaves", there would be NO penalty whatsoever for their being assaulted (as was the case with black women during U.S. slavery). What white dudes got strung up, if a married/engaged black woman got violated? Where was the clause, giving black women status as wives, and their firstborn (from the white fathers) a "double portion" of the master's estate?
-
You could say something similar for our legal system. Any "sadistic, boil-infested, goat-feces encrusted, snaggle-toothed cretin could simply lie in wait", rape a pretty girl, and (with the help of a good lawyer), get a simple slap-on-the-wrist jail sentence which, once served, gets him off the hook as he's "paid his debt to society". Meanwhile the victim lives her life with a broken body, scarred psyche, a stack of medical bills, lost wages, etc.
Are you saying that just because there are flaws in todays legal system it sort of gives the Bible a pass for having fcuked up values?
Explain how that works bro.
-
Plus, as you feebly attempted to leave out, the comparsion I used was between Deut. 21 and Deut. 22
One is in Deut. 21, which speaks of a woman being DIVORCED from her husband; hence you have the “humbled” part.
The other is Deut. 22, in which the context CLEARLY INDICATES that the woman was raped.
...I'm right about the translation of "anah" as rape in a sexual context.
Deuteronomy 21 refers NOT to a "woman being DIVORCED" as you put it, but a war-slave forcibly taken as a wife, dragged back to Israel from her homeland, then dismissed because she has "pleased not her master".
The phrase "set free" which you have paraphrased as DIVORCED, as used in the Bible is not an honest reflection of the situation. She was literally made homeless... with only the clothes on her back because her master no longer enjoyed raping or beating her... she is thrown into the street; in a strange land. Should she manage to work her way across the border she must now run the gauntlet of the slavetraders from whom the Hebrews bought their slaves.
It doesn't say "husband" it says "master".
Your argument about punishment and chattel slavery is patently ridiculous.
The Romans practiced chattel slavery for 1,100 years... yet since the inception of the Roman state they had most of the exact same laws regarding the treatment of slaves.
A Roman did not have the legal right to put a slave to death without good cause... but the standard of what constituted "good cause" was as simple as entertainment. Slaves were daily forced into mortal combat in the arena for just such cause and it was not only legal, the industries patrons included the Emperor himself.
A Roman did not have the legal right to blind or de-tooth a slave... but in practice slaves could be beaten to death on the grounds of some imaginary insult, and slaves were often fed live to rabid dogs, in households, solely for the purposes of maintaining discipline.
Women had the right to divorce their husbands too... but that was contingent upon the husband granting the divorce. In practice, women leaving their husbands were often just beaten to death by a husband who is well within his rights to do so (honour killing).
Slavemasters could indeed free their female slaves and marry them... in practice it never happened. Slave owners would routinely rape their female slaves, with impunity.
Women in the ancient world did not have ownership of their own sexual consent... that is a recent concept.
Why you think none of this happened among the early Israelites when the loopholes making such barbarity and brutality perfectly legal are clearly stated in the Hebrew legal texts is beyond me.
Even when the Roman empire became mostly Christian all these practices continued.
The Luke
-
McWay,
Your position seems to get weaker and weaker.
There is plenty of divine direction in the bible; just not 100% of it.
-
...I'm right about the translation of "anah" as rape in a sexual context.
No, you are not. First, you claimed that "anah" was a SOFTENING of the supposed original translation (Of course, you never provide what the alleged original word and translation actually is), since that word DOES NOT translate directly as "rape".
Now, you're trying to flip the script and say that you got the word right, equating the context of the verse from Deut. 21 with that of Deut. 22. That is patently false and inaccurate, as those verses are talking about TWO different scenarios.
To top it all off, the guy CAN'T TOUCH the woman for at least a month. Then, he has to marry her, before any sex goes onward. If this were an issue of rape, there'd be no "hands-off" time, whatsoever.
Deuteronomy 21 refers NOT to a "woman being DIVORCED" as you put it, but a war-slave forcibly taken as a wife, dragged back to Israel from her homeland, then dismissed because she has "pleased not her master".
The phrase "set free" which you have paraphrased as DIVORCED, as used in the Bible is not an honest reflection of the situation. She was literally made homeless... with only the clothes on her back because her master no longer enjoyed raping or beating her... she is thrown into the street; in a strange land. Should she manage to work her way across the border she must now run the gauntlet of the slavetraders from whom the Hebrews bought their slaves.
It doesn't say "husband" it says "master".
Ummmmm.....you might want to look at that again, Luke.
Deut. 21:13-14
And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
I'm sorry! Where is that "pleased not her master" part, again?
Last time I checked, if you let your wife go, that’s called a DIVORCE. That means that, REGARDLESS of her being originally a foreign servant, any monetary/material compensation to which a former wife (and her children) would be entitled, this woman would get . That is clearly indicated in the subsequent verses in that chapter.
Your argument about punishment and chattel slavery is patently ridiculous.
The Romans practiced chattel slavery for 1,100 years... yet since the inception of the Roman state they had most of the exact same laws regarding the treatment of slaves.
A Roman did not have the legal right to put a slave to death without good cause... but the standard of what constituted "good cause" was as simple as entertainment. Slaves were daily forced into mortal combat in the arena for just such cause and it was not only legal, the industries patrons included the Emperor himself.
What does Rome have to do with the price of tea in China? Per Biblical law, A master could not put his servant to death AT ALL. If he did, guess what happened to him.....HE GOT PUT TO DEATH.
Of course, you've been making the claim to the contrary for days now. Yet, as usual, when asked to produce the goods to support your statement, you come up with squat.
A Roman did not have the legal right to blind or de-tooth a slave... but in practice slaves could be beaten to death on the grounds of some imaginary insult, and slaves were often fed live to rabid dogs, in households, solely for the purposes of maintaining discipline.
Women had the right to divorce their husbands too... but that was contingent upon the husband granting the divorce. In practice, women leaving their husbands were often just beaten to death by a husband who is well within his rights to do so (honour killing).
And??? This ain't Rome, thus no "honour killing". You kill your wife; you get put to death, end of story.
Why you think none of this happened among the early Israelites when the loopholes making such barbarity and brutality perfectly legal are clearly stated in the Hebrew legal texts is beyond me.
A lot of stuff is "beyond you". A prime example of that was your silly claim that the man in Deut. 21 not being referenced as a "husband". The text clearly states that he IS just that, a husband. But, that simple fact was beyond you.
Even when the Roman empire became mostly Christian all these practices continued.
The Luke
Roman law and the laws in the OT are two completely different issues. Attempting to equate the two, hoping to make your claims stick, is quite weak.
-
Nothing in the text suggests that this was a forced arrangement, especially with Hagar's holding her pregnancy with Ishmael over Sarah's head.
lol, this is getting silly. Hagar was a slave. She was "given" to be bred. She had no choice to say yes or no. She was told, take off your clothes, go lie over there and the old man will be with you in a moment. She did as she was told or she was punished. That's called force.
Abe took her in the typical sham slave/concubine marriage (although some scholars dispute that she was even married) and when she displeased the "real" wife, she was given a "divorce" and "freedom" in the manner that you have deemed so just and benevolent. She was cast out into the desert with nothing but the clothes on her back.
My point is that, notwithstanding that Hagar's being sent away had more to do Hagar and Ishmael's well-being, the laws don't become unfair or unjust, simply because somebody has broken or abused them. Our legal system is, perhaps, the best in the world today. But, there are STILL those who break the law or use legal loopholes to get away with abuse.
After 15 years of bickering between the two (especially with Sarah finally having Isaac), the dysfunction had finally reach the breaking point. Of course, had Abe and Sarah followed the Lord's instructions, none of this would have occured.
You and loco spent half the thread posting the laws as "proof" that people never mistreated or harmed others. Now you seem to agree that just because laws are in place doesn't mean people will obey them.
Which is it?
I posted those other stories to illustrate that obviously the laws didn't matter at all, since people constantly flouted them. People didn't get punished because others "didn't tell" or they were forgiven, or who even knew what the hell was going on out in the desert boonies to enforce them. You keep focussing on the death penalty, as though everyone who deserved it, got it. Simeon et al, were guilty of murder, were they executed? Reuben slept with his father's concubine? Was he executed?
And further, we're to believe that people who have no problems viciously murdering an entire village, slicing open pregnant women, killing children, would somehow balk at killing, raping, or severely beating a slave because "it's against the law"?
Again, you have only evidence that there were laws to assert that slaves were well-treated, whereas the documented history of indentured servitude a few hundred years ago, the brutality of today's islamic fundamentalism which mirrors the Hebrew customs, and common sense tells a totally different story.
-
Deut. 21:13-14
And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
I'm sorry! Where is that "pleased not her master" part, again?
Last time I checked, if you let your wife go, that’s called a DIVORCE. That means that, REGARDLESS of her being originally a foreign servant, any monetary/material compensation to which a former wife (and her children) would be entitled, this woman would get . That is clearly indicated in the subsequent verses in that chapter.
Yes, she was kidnapped to another country, forcibly had her hair shaved, given slave clothes and given a month to stop worshiping her own gods. Which is what the reference to mother and father means. The priests and elders wanted to be sure that the women didn't "infect" the men with unholy ideas before they went on to rape them.
They went through the sham slave/concubine marriage thing, and if the dude didn't like her after the first assault, he put her out onto the street, without having to give her anything, no money, nothing, except her freedom. It was extremely just and benevolent. ::) I don't know where you keep going with this equality with other wives business. The slaves were released out into the street, with not a single thing.
-
No, you are not. First, you claimed that "anah" was a SOFTENING of the supposed original translation (Of course, you never provide what the alleged original word and translation actually is), since that word DOES NOT translate directly as "rape".
A softening of a translation yes, but your attempt to imply that I claimed the text had been tampered with is just more of your continuous falsification-by-deliberate-misquoting tactic.
...in that context it should be translated as "rape". Many scholars did just that when translating that verse. Only moderns translations written by apologists avoid the phrases "defiled"; "shamed" and "raped" in favour of "humbled"... the context is obvious.
If I read a modern police report in which someone had "molested" a child, I would know that in a sexual context the word translates as a sexual assault... I would simply be wrong to insist the proper translation was "to annoy", as "molested" was translated in the 19th century.
The same applies here.
And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.[/i]
I'm sorry! Where is that "pleased not her master" part, again?
...you are just playing the translation game here. One of the popular translations has the bolded part rendered as: "...if she pleases not her master..."
Besides, the idea that a woman can be discarded simply because the husband doesn't enjoy schtooping her kinda undermines your argument that slave wives had equal rights to Hebrew wives.
What does Rome have to do with the price of tea in China? Per Biblical law, A master could not put his servant to death AT ALL. If he did, guess what happened to him.....HE GOT PUT TO DEATH.
...aren't you forgetting the verse that states a master is not punished for beating his slave to death with a stick (provided the slave takes more than 24 hours to die), because the slave is "his property".
...aren't you also forgetting that a master who beats his slave to death is "punished"; it does not explicitly state that he is put to death, and every instance warranting the death penalty is explicitly delineated in the Old Testament (even to the point of repetition).
These same laws governing the treatment of slaves also applied through most of the Roman Empire... but no one would make your silly argument that Roman slaves were some form of "indentured servants" as we know how the laws were actually applied. Roman slaves were little more than chattel slaves... just like the slaves in the Bible.
Only true-believers unable to reconcile slavery with their modern sensibilities argue otherwise.
The Luke
-
I’d hardly considered a lifetime of having your wages garnished or the death penalty a “prize”, for a crime committed. Plus, even with our system giving seven years (and that's hardly a minimum, as I've seen rapists get less than that), that still leaves the victim with a lifetime of trauma and a stack of bills for medical care. I'd say they don't want the bills or the marriage. They'd want the perp to suffer and the payment of the bills, NOT to come out of their own pocket.
To answer something you keep insisting: THERE WAS NO DEALTH PENALTY FOR RAPES PERPETRATED ON UNENGAGED GIRLS.
The father was given the bride-price and hopefully everyone could avoid further shame on the family by marrying off the girl to her rapist. How you can think this is somehow great on a woman's psyche is incredible. That being married to your assailant with somehow relieve the trauma is really repulsive.
Where are you getting this 'lifetime of wages" garnishing business from? People who married the regular way didn't spend a lifetime paying off the bride price, and as in the case of Dinah's rapist, the father was so wealthy he could have paid it off several times over in one shot.
-
Once again, you forgot that God promised Abraham that Ishmael would prosper and be the father of a great nation. This He did, IN ADDITION to fulfilling the original deal of Abe's seed being made great via a child THROUGH Sarah.
As for the marriage issue, you again leave out the fact that the servants can and often DID leave with their families. The underlying issue was marital status, prior to servitude. If a man came into servitude single; that's how he left. If he entered married, he left married, with his kids.
And, if he entered single but married while serving his master. He had two options: One, stay under his master's employ to be with his wife and kids; Two, PAY THE DOWRY to get his wife and kids, as he would have had to do with a man's daughter (since the master provided the bride).
Who cares what God said or did? You're excusing abuse of a slave/concubine by saying, "oh well, God intervened so all was good." What about all the other cases he didn't intervene? God really has no part in this discussion.
As for the other... so, if an owner gave a new slave a wife in order that they should breed, rightfully so, the kids and wife belong to the owner, to sell at will if he wished, and if he happened to feel so inclined, to refuse to sell them to the slave once his time was up. The only option for the impoverished slave was to give himself over to perpetual servitude if he wanted to remain with his family.
Sounds exactly like chattel slavery to me.
-
...I'm right about the translation of "anah" as rape in a sexual context.[...]
I thought this was a good post The Luke.
-
You and loco spent half the thread posting the laws as "proof" that people never mistreated or harmed others. Now you seem to agree that just because laws are in place doesn't mean people will obey them.
Deedee,
What's with you and OzmO? You bring me up in your posts, only to then refuse to "get into it" with me when I respond. If you and OzmO don't want to "get into it" with me, then leave me out of your posts and give MCWAY a proper response.
Deedee,
Please do quote me saying that God's laws are "'proof' that people never mistreated or harmed others." When did I say that? When have I denied that Israelites, or anybody, can and have disobeyed God's laws or attempted to find ways around them? Stop putting words in my mouth!
The Luke, I'm still waiting for your responses, on this and the other threads...The Sermon on the Mount? Death by Crucifixion? Josephus? Remember?
-
Yes, she was kidnapped to another country, forcibly had her hair shaved, given slave clothes and given a month to stop worshiping her own gods. Which is what the reference to mother and father means. The priests and elders wanted to be sure that the women didn't "infect" the men with unholy ideas before they went on to rape them.
The kidnapping thing isn’t a factor, because (as mentioned earlier), the penalty for kidnapping someone from their homeland was DEATH. Therefore, the only time this happens is was during the aftermath of combat, in which the opponent was the aggressor.
They went through the sham slave/concubine marriage thing, and if the dude didn't like her after the first assault, he put her out onto the street, without having to give her anything, no money, nothing, except her freedom. It was extremely just and benevolent. ::) I don't know where you keep going with this equality with other wives business. The slaves were released out into the street, with not a single thing.
Not quite, Deedee. As pointed out, once he married her, she becomes his WIFE. If he divorces here, because "he has found no delight in her", that makes her the "unloved" (NASB) or "hated" (KJV) wife. And, that means that she gets entitled to care. Plus, if her son is the ex-husband's firstborn, he gets the bulk of his father's estate, upon Dad's demise.
Who cares what God said or did? You're excusing abuse of a slave/concubine by saying, "oh well, God intervened so all was good." What about all the other cases he didn't intervene? God really has no part in this discussion.
On the contrary, He does indeed. The whole reason that Abe and Sarah did this mess in the first place is because they grew impatient, wondering if God was really going to deliver on His promise to give them a child.
We have NO indication of any mistreatment of Hagar, prior to her getting pregnant, and NO report that she was forced into doing this. The drama between the women starts, once Hagar gets pregnant.
And, the ONLY REASON that Abe agrees that Hagar and Ishmael should leave is because of God's promise that He will care for both Hagar and Ishmael, making Ishmael's descendants numerous, as well.
Once again, you are making the gross assumption, with little to back it, that Hagar was an unwilling participant in this whole surrogate thing. The problem with that is that, per the text, we have NO indication that Abe did anything with Hagar, PRIOR to Sarah's idea that she have this promised child.
As for the other... so, if an owner gave a new slave a wife in order that they should breed, rightfully so, the kids and wife belong to the owner, to sell at will if he wished, and if he happened to feel so inclined, to refuse to sell them to the slave once his time was up. The only option for the impoverished slave was to give himself over to perpetual servitude if he wanted to remain with his family.
Sounds exactly like chattel slavery to me.
I beg to differ. For starters, in chattel slavery, the servant would likely not have that option, whatsoever. Plus, there'd be no law stating that, if a guy came under servitude with his wife, that he'd be allowed to leave with his wife. If the master were allowed to be that cold, he could keep the guy's wife, even if the servant brought his wife with him. But, that's not how it goes.
Plus, there are the other laws mentioned earlier: No kidnapping from foreign lands, status as full wife for foreign women, who get married; servitude being VOIDED, upon major injury of the servants; masters PUT TO DEATH for killing servants, etc.
And, there's the issue of the Jubilee. The servant, after seven years, doesn't leave his former master's house "impoverished".
Deut. 15:12-14
And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.
And, why did they do this?
Verse 15-18
And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.
And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee;
Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.
It shall not seem hard unto thee, when thou sendest him away free from thee; for he hath been worth a double hired servant to thee, in serving thee six years: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all that thou doest.
So, it appears that, if the male servant is leaving, he's leaving with a healthy amount of livestock, grain, or whatever capital his master has. I'm quite sure the master wouldn't mind negotating, to get some of those sheep, oxen, grain, wine, etc. back, in exchange for the former servant's wife and kids.
To answer something you keep insisting: THERE WAS NO DEALTH PENALTY FOR RAPES PERPETRATED ON UNENGAGED GIRLS.
The father was given the bride-price and hopefully everyone could avoid further shame on the family by marrying off the girl to her rapist. How you can think this is somehow great on a woman's psyche is incredible. That being married to your assailant with somehow relieve the trauma is really repulsive.
Did you not read what I posted? "I'd say they don't want the bills or the marriage. They'd want the perp to suffer and the payment of the bills, NOT to come out of their own pocket.
Where are you getting this 'lifetime of wages" garnishing business from? People who married the regular way didn't spend a lifetime paying off the bride price, and as in the case of Dinah's rapist, the father was so wealthy he could have paid it off several times over in one shot.
Rape isn't the "regular way". And, in certain circumstances, such as the penalty for besmirching a young woman's character and virginity, there was a lifetime penalty: DOUBLE THE BRIDE-PRICE and marriage (care for the bride) FOR LIFE.
-
lol, this is getting silly. Hagar was a slave. She was "given" to be bred. She had no choice to say yes or no. She was told, take off your clothes, go lie over there and the old man will be with you in a moment. She did as she was told or she was punished. That's called force.
And the punishment was.......
If Hagar didn't want to participate, or feared being punished for not participating, she could have simply LEFT, which is exactly what she did, once Sarah started to mistreat her. And, that was due to a combination of Sarah's jealousy and Hagar's antagonizing.
Abe took her in the typical sham slave/concubine marriage (although some scholars dispute that she was even married) and when she displeased the "real" wife, she was given a "divorce" and "freedom" in the manner that you have deemed so just and benevolent. She was cast out into the desert with nothing but the clothes on her back.
Displeasing the "real" wife was not the determining factor. Abe DID NOT want to let Hagar and Ishmael leave. Once again, the ONLY reason he does that is because he is promised by God that Hagar and Ishmael will prosper and that Ishmael descendants will become great.
You and loco spent half the thread posting the laws as "proof" that people never mistreated or harmed others. Now you seem to agree that just because laws are in place doesn't mean people will obey them.
Which is it?
What are you talking about? Loco and I NEVER CLAIMED that people never mistreated and harmed others. What we said is that there were STIFF PENALTIES, when those abuses took place. And, both of us gave examples of that, some of which you've tried to dismiss.
I posted those other stories to illustrate that obviously the laws didn't matter at all, since people constantly flouted them. People didn't get punished because others "didn't tell" or they were forgiven, or who even knew what the hell was going on out in the desert boonies to enforce them. You keep focussing on the death penalty, as though everyone who deserved it, got it. Simeon et al, were guilty of murder, were they executed? Reuben slept with his father's concubine? Was he executed?
And further, we're to believe that people who have no problems viciously murdering an entire village, slicing open pregnant women, killing children, would somehow balk at killing, raping, or severely beating a slave because "it's against the law"?
Again, you have only evidence that there were laws to assert that slaves were well-treated, whereas the documented history of indentured servitude a few hundred years ago, the brutality of today's islamic fundamentalism which mirrors the Hebrew customs, and common sense tells a totally different story.
Once again, you're confusing the two issues, the laws put in place vs. THE ABUSE of those laws. As I've said repeatedly, even our laws in the USA (as great as many of them are) HAVE BEEN ABUSED AND BROKEN IN THE PAST AND CONTINUE TO BE ABUSED AND BROKEN TODAY. That doesn't mean that our legal system is garbage and needs to be scrapped.
-
A softening of a translation yes, but your attempt to imply that I claimed the text had been tampered with is just more of your continuous falsification-by-deliberate-misquoting tactic.
I'm not implying it. I'm flat-out saying it, and I have YOUR OWN WORDS as proof.
...in that context it should be translated as "rape". Many scholars did just that when translating that verse. Only moderns translations written by apologists avoid the phrases "defiled"; "shamed" and "raped" in favour of "humbled"... the context is obvious.
If I read a modern police report in which someone had "molested" a child, I would know that in a sexual context the word translates as a sexual assault... I would simply be wrong to insist the proper translation was "to annoy", as "molested" was translated in the 19th century.
The same applies here.
No, it does not. First of all, Deut. 21 is referring to a divorce. In the verses, she is MARRIED to the man.
Second of all, I cited the KJV, which is HARDLY shy about using terms like "defiled" or "shamed". And while the word, "raped" isn't used, the term, "force her and lie with her" clearly is, which means the woman was raped.
So, quit making excuses for the fact that your claims don't match what the text says, in this regards. Deut. 21 says nothing about rape. The woman in that text is being "humbled", because her husband has divorced her. And, according the the subsequent verses (and others), she ain't leaving empty-handed, if that happens.
...you are just playing the translation game here. One of the popular translations has the bolded part rendered as: "...if she pleases not her master..."
Then, name that translation. I posted the KJV; the NASB says the same thing. In fact, the phrase, "If she pleases not her master" IS NOT in Deut. 21, whatsoever.
Besides, the idea that a woman can be discarded simply because the husband doesn't enjoy schtooping her kinda undermines your argument that slave wives had equal rights to Hebrew wives.
If you'd bothered to continue reading Deut. 21, you'd see just how false this statement of yours actually is. The wife not only DOES NOT just get discarded, but her firstborn son becomes the heir to his fortune.
...aren't you forgetting the verse that states a master is not punished for beating his slave to death with a stick (provided the slave takes more than 24 hours to die), because the slave is "his property".
...aren't you also forgetting that a master who beats his slave to death is "punished"; it does not explicitly state that he is put to death, and every instance warranting the death penalty is explicitly delineated in the Old Testament (even to the point of repetition).
Aren't you forgetting that the verse states that the master, whose servant dies UNDER HIS HAND, get punished. That means the master is responsible for his death. "If he continues" means that he gets up, that he stands, that he's able to resume his duties. If he doesn't continue and he dies, guess who's responsible....THE MASTER; guess who gets punished.....THE MASTER.
No one beaten that severely is simply going to get up, go back to work, and collapse two days later, as much as you'd like to paint that scenario to salvage your ridiculous claim.
And, since you want to talk about "forgetting" stuff, for the nth time, what is this alleged punishment besides the death penalty for a master killing his servant. You've had several days to answer this question. So, what's the hold up?
There's only ONE PUNISHMENT listed for a man "smiting another man"........DEATH, no fine, no sacrifice......DEATH!!!!!
These same laws governing the treatment of slaves also applied through most of the Roman Empire... but no one would make your silly argument that Roman slaves were some form of "indentured servants" as we know how the laws were actually applied. Roman slaves were little more than chattel slaves... just like the slaves in the Bible.
Only true-believers unable to reconcile slavery with their modern sensibilities argue otherwise.
The Luke
Wrong again. You tried equating the two earlier and failed miserably at that. For example, there's no "good cause" for killing a servant (if you do so, you DIE) and you certainly can't make sport of him. You can't maim the guy or he goes free.
-
Then, name that translation. I posted the KJV; the NASB says the same thing. In fact, the phrase, "If she pleases not her master" IS NOT in Deut. 21, whatsoever.
...I'm sorry, I thought the King James Version was:
Exodus 21:8:
"If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her."
...I never claimed I was referencing Deuteronomy, you did that in order to deliberately misquote me. This habit you have of selectively quoting verses, then misquoting your opponents claims is dishonest.
Falsification-by-misquoting is a tactic used only by those who subconsciously know they are in the wrong.
I claimed the word "anah" should be translated as "raped"/"defiled"/"shamed" due to the sexual context of the passage.... I claimed the translation had been softened or toned down.
You then dishonestly misquote and misrepresent what I said... this is only so you can avoid the point of my argument, and everyone reading can see through this blatantly disingenuous tactic.
First, you claimed that "anah" was a SOFTENING of the supposed original translation (Of course, you never provide what the alleged original word and translation actually is), since that word DOES NOT translate directly as "rape".
...I never made any claim that "anah" was some form of interpolation, I claimed that in the context it is being mistranslated. I never "alleged" there was any original word or original translation.
You have decided to invent these claims, solely in order to deride me for making them... that's no way to debate any subject.
Why do you persist in this silly misquoting?
I'm assuming it is a deliberate tactic... but I would withdraw my objection if is just a genuine lack of aptitude regarding reading comprehension.
The Luke
-
The subject of this Forum is "Does the bible condone slavery?".
Clearly the answer is yes.
Regardless of the finer detail - MCWAY himself has pointed out the bible contains rules for taking, keeping and releasing slaves.
No matter how 'well' you keep a slave... slavery is wrong.
Despite this clear and simple reasoning, MCWAY will not concede this point. He'll probably go down one of the following routes;
1) The meaning of "slave" back then was different to a "slave" today
2) Slavery was designed to protect the victim somehow
3) God works in mysterious ways.
The reason he can't concede the point is that MCWAY believes all morality comes from his god, and 'that' morality is unchanging. I'm sure MCWAY would admit that slavery is wrong, however that means the bible must also say that it's wrong. This is why he is so desperate to perform the breathtaking mental gymnastics to defend the bibles position on slavery.
How far off the mark am I MCWAY?
-
The subject of this Forum is "Does the bible condone slavery?".
Clearly the answer is yes.
Regardless of the finer detail - MCWAY himself has pointed out the bible contains rules for taking, keeping and releasing slaves.
No matter how 'well' you keep a slave... slavery is wrong.
Despite this clear and simple reasoning, MCWAY will not concede this point. He'll probably go down one of the following routes;
1) The meaning of "slave" back then was different to a "slave" today
2) Slavery was designed to protect the victim somehow
3) God works in mysterious ways.
The reason he can't concede the point is that MCWAY believes all morality comes from his god, and 'that' morality is unchanging. I'm sure MCWAY would admit that slavery is wrong, however that means the bible must also say that it's wrong. This is why he is so desperate to perform the breathtaking mental gymnastics to defend the bibles position on slavery.
How far off the mark am I MCWAY?
You only need to read the endless explanations and and debate tactics
-
It's obvious that McWay is arguing the indefensible, but the thread remains interesting just from a morbid-curiosity standpoint.
I'd still really like this question answered:
...are you saying you believe Baal, Dagon and the other heathen gods were real gods like Yahweh, but were trounced by Yahweh?
You believe the Middle East was home to several actual real life gods with attendant followers 3000 years ago?
...as a strict atheist/rationalist I'd be interested in McWay's opinion of this? Sort of an insight into his madness as it were...
Does the Bible's insistence upon referring to these other deities as "gods" put them on a par with Yahweh himself?
Is Yahweh the one and only god because he managed to kill off the followers of these other gods?
There are more worshipers praying to Yahweh now than ever before, so why can he no longer physically manifest himself (as he did through the Ark in Old testament times)?
Does Yahweh NEED us to pray to him...? Could doubt have killed him off the way it seemingly killed off his brother gods Baal and Dagon?
The Luke
-
Interesting commentary from www.gotquestions.org.
Question: "Does the Bible condone slavery?"
Answer: There is a tendency to look at slavery as if it was something of the past. It is estimated that there are today 12.3 million people in the world who are subject to slavery: forced labor, sex trade, inheritable property, etc. For more information, please visit - http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2006/. As those who have been redeemed from the slavery of sin, followers of Jesus Christ should be the foremost champions of ending human slavery in the world today. The question arises, though, why does the Bible not speak out strongly against slavery? Why does the Bible, in fact, seem to support the practice of human slavery.
The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw the practice altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many people fail to understand is that slavery in Biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more of a social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their family. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their master.
The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. Black people were considered slaves because of their nationality – many slave owners truly believed black people to be “inferior human beings” to white people. The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrew were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery. At the same time, the Bible does seem to allow for other forms of slavery. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.
Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside-out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God, receiving His salvation – God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, he will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery.
Recommended Resource: Hard Sayings of the Bible by Kaiser, Davids, & Brauch.
Slavery is wrong regardless of its forms. Whether it is slavery due to social class or race, it is wrong regardless. A book inspired by the all knowing, all powerful, all good God should not "make rules" about slavery, it should condemn it totally and completely.
-
...I'm sorry, I thought the King James Version was:
Exodus 21:8:
"If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her."
...I never claimed I was referencing Deuteronomy, you did that in order to deliberately misquote me. This habit you have of selectively quoting verses, then misquoting your opponents claims is dishonest.
Falsification-by-misquoting is a tactic used only by those who subconsciously know they are in the wrong.
That's a bunch of BS, Luke. These are YOUR OWN WORDS, from Reply 251, posted, December 15, 2008, 03:10:21 PM
...I'm right about the translation of "anah" as rape in a sexual context.
Deuteronomy 21 refers NOT to a "woman being DIVORCED" as you put it, but a war-slave forcibly taken as a wife, dragged back to Israel from her homeland, then dismissed because she has "pleased not her master".
The phrase "set free" which you have paraphrased as DIVORCED, as used in the Bible is not an honest reflection of the situation. She was literally made homeless... with only the clothes on her back because her master no longer enjoyed raping or beating her... she is thrown into the street; in a strange land. Should she manage to work her way across the border she must now run the gauntlet of the slavetraders from whom the Hebrews bought their slaves.
It doesn't say "husband" it says "master".
Once again, you resort to false claims about being misquoted, to hide your faulty claims. A simple acknowledgement that you cited EXODUS 21, by mistake, would have sufficed. The saddest part of it all is that I knew all along that you were citing Exodus 21. Instead of simply saying you goofed, you went to the usual bleat-whine-false accusation mode. The LAST thing I need to do is misquote your statements. Your phrases are in clear black-and-white for any and all to see.
And, if that weren't enough, Exodus 21 isn't even talking about " but a war-slave forcibly taken as a wife, dragged back to Israel from her homeland'. It's in reference to a Hebrew man's daughter.
I claimed the word "anah" should be translated as "raped"/"defiled"/"shamed" due to the sexual context of the passage.... I claimed the translation had been softened or toned down.
You then dishonestly misquote and misrepresent what I said... this is only so you can avoid the point of my argument, and everyone reading can see through this blatantly disingenuous tactic. ...I never made any claim that "anah" was some form of interpolation, I claimed that in the context it is being mistranslated. I never "alleged" there was any original word or original translation.
YES, YOU DID!!! I can just as easily show that in YOUR OWN WORDS, just as I did when you foolishly denied that you claimed that the "please not her master" phrase was in Deut. 21.
The translation was not toned down; otherwise, Deut. 22 would NOT contain the words, "lay hold on her, and lie with her". That's a clear indication that the "humbled" part refers to RAPE.
You have decided to invent these claims, solely in order to deride me for making them... that's no way to debate any subject.
Why do you persist in this silly misquoting?
I'm assuming it is a deliberate tactic... but I would withdraw my objection if is just a genuine lack of aptitude regarding reading comprehension.
The Luke
Please!!! What you did was blatantly MIX-UP the context of both Deut. 21 and Deut. 22. Both use the word, "anah", which means "humbled" But, Deut. 21 clearly spells out the context of that word's use, with regards to DIVORCE; while Deut. 22 make the clear scenario of rape (i.e. a man laying hold of a woman BY FORCE and lying with her).
-
The subject of this Forum is "Does the bible condone slavery?".
Clearly the answer is yes.
Regardless of the finer detail - MCWAY himself has pointed out the bible contains rules for taking, keeping and releasing slaves.
No matter how 'well' you keep a slave... slavery is wrong.
Based on what? Whose morality makes "slavery" wrong and why?
It is those details that we are discussing. And the gist of STella's thread (and the links that both she and I have used) is to make the point that the "slavery" that immediately comes to mind (i.e. chattel slavery, involving black people) WAS NOT what is being mentioned in the OLD TESTAMENT.
Then, of course, there's the minor question of what was to be done with the remnant of Israel's enemies after warfare, which certain critics are reluctant to address.
Again, do you:
a) Assimilate them into Israelite society? If so, HOW?
b) Leave them to starve and die
c) Destroy them completely
Despite this clear and simple reasoning, MCWAY will not concede this point. He'll probably go down one of the following routes;
1) The meaning of "slave" back then was different to a "slave" today
2) Slavery was designed to protect the victim somehow
3) God works in mysterious ways.
The reason he can't concede the point is that MCWAY believes all morality comes from his god, and 'that' morality is unchanging. I'm sure MCWAY would admit that slavery is wrong, however that means the bible must also say that it's wrong. This is why he is so desperate to perform the breathtaking mental gymnastics to defend the bibles position on slavery.
How far off the mark am I MCWAY?
Quite off, in certain aspects.
1) Your claim that I'm somehow "desperate to perform breathtaking mental gymastics....." is utterly false. It's actually one of the easier things I've done on this forum.
2) Even if "God works in mysterious ways", this issue ain't one of them.
3) As for the definition of "slave" part, you're late to the party. Both STella and I pointed that out at the beginning of this thread. And, that's the crux of the entire issue.
Merely stating that "slavery is wrong", without giving the reasons why makes your statement hollow. If, as you claim, that morality is changing, then it can just as easily revert to chattel slavery being RIGHT. Who exactly is making the rules, here?
-
It's obvious that McWay is arguing the indefensible, but the thread remains interesting just from a morbid-curiosity standpoint.
I'd still really like this question answered:
...as a strict atheist/rationalist I'd be interested in McWay's opinion of this? Sort of an insight into his madness as it were...
Does the Bible's insistence upon referring to these other deities as "gods" put them on a par with Yahweh himself?
Is Yahweh the one and only god because he managed to kill off the followers of these other gods?
There are more worshipers praying to Yahweh now than ever before, so why can he no longer physically manifest himself (as he did through the Ark in Old testament times)?
Does Yahweh NEED us to pray to him...? Could doubt have killed him off the way it seemingly killed off his brother gods Baal and Dagon?
The Luke
Even in your own silliness, you just answered your own questions.
How many Molech followers have you seen around here?
Run into any Ashoreth poles, lately?
Do you see any rallies by atheists, demanding that temples of Dagon get their tax-exempt status revoked? ;D
You, of all people, should be the LAST one, blubbering about unanswered questions. If I had a dollar for every item you've ducked, I could retire, pay off my house, put my kids through college, and take my wife on a Caribbean cruise (with change, to spare) ;D .
Loco's still waiting to the answers to his questions (on another thread, as am I). Plus, there's the little matter here of your procuring the alleged penalty for a master killing his servant, BESIDES the death penalty.
-
Based on what? Whose morality makes "slavery" wrong and why?
You need to ask why slavery is wrong? Do you not understand empathy?
It is those details that we are discussing. And the gist of STella's thread (and the links that both she and I have used) is to make the point that the "slavery" that immediately comes to mind (i.e. chattel slavery, involving black people) WAS NOT what is being mentioned in the OLD TESTAMENT.
I think I made it clear that 'all' slavery is wrong... is this you deliberately confusing the issue?
Then, of course, there's the minor question of what was to be done with the remnant of Israel's enemies after warfare, which certain critics are reluctant to address.
Again, do you:
a) Assimilate them into Israelite society? If so, HOW?
b) Leave them to starve and die
c) Destroy them completely
Ah, this is the... 'slavery benefited the victim' approach. Surely as god helped the Israelites to win these battles, couldn't god of helped the victims with further miracles?
Quite off, in certain aspects.
1) Your claim that I'm somehow "desperate to perform breathtaking mental gymastics....." is utterly false. It's actually one of the easier things I've done on this forum.
2) Even if "God works in mysterious ways", this issue ain't one of them.
3) As for the definition of "slave" part, you're late to the party. Both STella and I pointed that out at the beginning of this thread. And, that's the crux of the entire issue.
MCWAY it's not one of the easier things you've done... just because you 'think' you've "done" it doesn't make it true... Oh, and the crux is that the bible does condone slavery - regardless of arguments of the particular form of slavery.
Merely stating that "slavery is wrong", without giving the reasons why makes your statement hollow. If, as you claim, that morality is changing, then it can just as easily revert to chattel slavery being RIGHT. Who exactly is making the rules, here?
That's fantastic - only apologist could possibly say that the statement "slavery is wrong" is "hollow". Let's just say for the sake of argument that you're correct, and morality is unchanging... could you explain to the forum, just what forms of slavery are okay today? Obviously these would be the forms of slavery you support and fit in with your moral world view.
-
...I'm right about the translation of "anah" as rape in a sexual context.
Deuteronomy 21 refers NOT to a "woman being DIVORCED" as you put it, but a war-slave forcibly taken as a wife, dragged back to Israel from her homeland, then dismissed because she has "pleased not her master".
The phrase "set free" which you have paraphrased as DIVORCED, as used in the Bible is not an honest reflection of the situation. She was literally made homeless... with only the clothes on her back because her master no longer enjoyed raping or beating her... she is thrown into the street; in a strange land. Should she manage to work her way across the border she must now run the gauntlet of the slavetraders from whom the Hebrews bought their slaves.
...well there is an apology warranted right here McWay. (Not from me).
When I wrote the above post I was aware that the bolded part comes from Exodus 21:8... I was drawing a parallel NOT directly quoting from Deuteronomy 21. You'll notice I didn't reference the "please not her master" quotation as being part of the same verse.
What I was trying to show was that if a female Hebrew slave taken as a wife could be dismissed because she "pleases not her master" (Exodus 21:8 ); then why would you insist that a foreign war slave forcibly taken as a FOREIGN slave wife then dismissed because the soldier/husband similarly "have no delight in her" was anything other than a slave with no rights to her own sexual consent?
If a Hebrew woman SOLD to a Hebrew man has a "master" instead of a HUSBAND (Exodus 21:8 ), then how can a a foreign war captive slave not have a MASTER too?
Why would her husbands lack of "delight in her" (Deut 21:14) also constitute grounds for the same type of dismissal unless she also had a "master", RATHER than a husband.
Perhaps I should have spelled out the parallels more explicitly.
Regarding my comments on a "softening" of the translation...
The translation of "anah" in both SEXUAL contexts should be "raped"... it's the same situation, the same phrasing and the same context.
The two phrases:
Deuteronomy 21:14 "...because thou hast humbled her."
...and...
Exodus 21:8 "...seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her."
....are identical in the original Hebrew aren't they?
Both should carry the same translation that the phrase "anah" (in a sexual context) carries in Deuteronomy 22:28-29
"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her."
So if it's "raped" in Deuteronomy 22:29 (as you McWay insist), then it should be "raped" in both Deuteronomy 21:14 and Exodus 21:8... similar sexual contexts, similar situations, same word.
But the ACTUAL translations are (King James Version quoted throughout this post):
Deuteronomy 22:29 "...humbled her." ...This one you, McWay, insist refers to a RAPE.
Deuteronomy 21:14 "...humbled her."
Exodus 21:8 ..."dealt deceitfully with her."
Perhaps I am being too severe in insisting the translation should be "raped"... but using "humbled" and "dealt deceitfully" instead of DEFILED; SHAMED; ABUSED etc IS INDEED A SOFTENING OF THE TRANSLATION.
You can't argue that "rape" is only warranted in Deut 22:29 because of the "lay hands upon her" inference of forced sex, NOT when Deut 21:14 involves a captured foreign war slave... taken by force as a slave and forcibly married.
Which was the whole thrust of my argument.
The Luke
-
MCWAY are certain acts 'moral/ethical' because God commands them, or does God command them because they are 'moral/ethical'?
-
...well there is an apology warranted right here McWay. (Not from me).
When I wrote the above post I was aware that the bolded part comes from Exodus 21:8... I was drawing a parallel NOT directly quoting from Deuteronomy 21. You'll notice I didn't reference the "please not her master" quotation as being part of the same verse.
What I was trying to show was that if a female Hebrew slave taken as a wife could be dismissed because she "pleases not her master" (Exodus 21:8 ); then why would you insist that a foreign war slave forcibly taken as a FOREIGN slave wife then dismissed because the soldier/husband similarly "have no delight in her" was anything other than a slave with no rights to her own sexual consent?
Another pitiful attempt to cover your exposed behind.
You weren't aware that what you quoted came from Exodus 21. Otherwise,
1) You wouldn't have used the phrase, "Deuteronomy 21 refers NOT to a "woman being DIVORCED" as you put it, but a war-slave forcibly taken as a wife, dragged back to Israel from her homeland, then dismissed because she has "pleased not her master". "
2) You would have known that Exodus 21 was NOT talking about a foreign women but about Hebrew women, specifically daughters.
If a Hebrew woman SOLD to a Hebrew man has a "master" instead of a HUSBAND (Exodus 21:8 ), then how can a a foreign war captive slave not have a MASTER too?
Why would her husbands lack of "delight in her" (Deut 21:14) also constitute grounds for the same type of dismissal unless she also had a "master", RATHER than a husband.
Because the text in Deut. 21 clearly states that, upon marriage, the foreign woman, becomes a WIFE and the man becomes a HUSBAND. The word "master" does not appear in that text, whatsoever.
Deut. 21:13
And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
Perhaps I should have spelled out the parallels more explicitly.
You weren't trying to make parallels. You got your signals crossed, pure and simple.
Regarding my comments on a "softening" of the translation...
The translation of "anah" in both SEXUAL contexts should be "raped"... it's the same situation, the same phrasing and the same context.
The two phrases:
Deuteronomy 21:14 "...because thou hast humbled her."
...and...
Exodus 21:8 "...seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her."
....are identical in the original Hebrew aren't they?
NOPE!!!
The phrase for "humbled" is anah
The phrase for "hath dealt deceitfully with her" is bagad, which means "to deal faithlessly" or "to offend".
Both should carry the same translation that the phrase "anah" (in a sexual context) carries in Deuteronomy 22:28-29
"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her."
Says who?
So if it's "raped" in Deuteronomy 22:29 (as you McWay insist), then it should be "raped" in both Deuteronomy 21:14 and Exodus 21:8... similar sexual contexts, similar situations, same word.
Wrong, boy genius!!! What I said was that the word, "anah" simply means "humbled". It's the context of the surrounding words that describes HOW the woman get humbled.
But the ACTUAL translations are (King James Version quoted throughout this post):
Deuteronomy 22:29 "...humbled her." ...This one you, McWay, insist refers to a RAPE.
Deuteronomy 21:14 "...humbled her."
Exodus 21:8 ..."dealt deceitfully with her."
Once again, it's time for you to hit the "Hooked on Phonics" sessions.
I insist that Deut. 22 refers to rape, BECAUSE THE SURROUNDING WORDS SAYS THAT SHE WAS RAPED (the man "lay hold on her, and lie with her")
That phrase DOES NOT APPEAR in Deut. 21 (nor does anything like such appear there). The "humbled" part is due to the woman being divorced.
Nor does that phrase appears in Ex. 21 (in fact, "anah" doesn't appear in that passage AT ALL).
Perhaps I am being too severe in insisting the translation should be "raped"... but using "humbled" and "dealt deceitfully" instead of DEFILED; SHAMED; ABUSED etc IS INDEED A SOFTENING OF THE TRANSLATION.
No, it is not. That is the translation of the words actually used in the Hebrew. If there's any issue of rape in the equation, it is clearly spelled out in the text, as is the case with Deut. 22.
You can't argue that "rape" is only warranted in Deut 22:29 because of the "lay hands upon her" inference of forced sex, NOT when Deut 21:14 involves a captured foreign war slave... taken by force as a slave and forcibly married.
Which was the whole thrust of my argument.
The Luke
Yes, I can make the argument, because rape is ALL about force. There's no 30-day waiting period for someone who intends on raping a woman.
-
McWay,
I dismiss your criticisms as it is becoming more and more obvious that you cannot differentiate between what the text actually contains and the inference you imply, and I'll wait till Dedee reads my post and see what he thinks.
I quoted one passage (with a reference) then added in a quote from a nearly identical passage to draw a parallel between the two... because the parallel illustrates my point.
Let me give you an analogy by means of a joke:
I put it to you that the phrase "The king is dead. Long live the king!" uttered upon the demise of a monarch and recognition of the heir apparent is, in fact, a reference to the inevitable return and resurrection of our true lord... Elvis Presley. These members of the Royal Guard are in fact acknowledging their true allegiance to the King of Rock and Roll... when he returns they will cast off their fealty to the monarch with a polite "Thank you, thank you very much..."
The red is a direct quote referenced to the name in orange, the green is an obvious parallel (used here for comic effect), it is not necessarily also attributable to the same source. It was quoted to draw a comic parallel between Elvis Presley and the Royal Guard... I'm not misquoting the members of the Royal Guard. To claim such merely illustrates your lack of intellect.
Should I entertain the stupidity of some fool who insists no Royal Guard would ever utter such an insubordinate dismissal to his royal superior? because he foolishly doesn't understand the context? should I post sources?
Dedee will get it.
The Luke
-
McWay,
I dismiss your criticisms as it is becoming more and more obvious that you cannot differentiate between what the text actually contains and the inference you imply, and I'll wait till Dedee reads my post and see what he thinks.
I'm sorry, isn't Deedee a woman? ;D
I know what the text contains, which is what makes it so easy to tear your silly claims apart.
I quoted one passage (with a reference) then added in a quote from a nearly identical passage to draw a parallel between the two... because the parallel illustrates my point.
First, you didn't make any parallels from the start. You simply screwed up your verses. Deut. 21 and Deut. 22 talk about a woman being "humbled", using the exact same word, "anah".
Since "anah" DOES NOT MEAN "rape", the surrounding text determined how this humbling occurs to the women. In one, it's divorce; in the other, it's rape.
Let me give you an analogy by means of a joke:
I put it to you that the phrase "The king is dead. Long live the king!" uttered upon the demise of a monarch and recognition of the heir apparent is, in fact, a reference to the inevitable return and resurrection of our true lord... Elvis Presley. These members of the Royal Guard are in fact acknowledging their true allegiance to the King of Rock and Roll... when he returns they will cast off their fealty to the monarch with a polite "Thank you, thank you very much..."
The red is a direct quote referenced to the name in orange, the green is an obvious parallel (used here for comic effect), it is not necessarily also attributable to the same source. It was quoted to draw a comic parallel between Elvis Presley and the Royal Guard... I'm not misquoting the members of the Royal Guard. To claim such merely illustrates your lack of intellect.
Should I entertain the stupidity of some fool who insists no Royal Guard would ever utter such an insubordinate dismissal to his royal superior? because he foolishly doesn't understand the context? should I post sources?
Dedee will get it.
The Luke
Again, the pitiful excuses go onward.
-
McWay,
We'll see what Dedee has to say... I think you have poor reading comprehension and a poor grasp of metaphor (which might explain your religiosity).
I explained my post, (I even explained the post YOU and YOU alone think demonstrates me misquoting a Bible verse: which I didn't) my explanation makes sense... according to the King James Version "anah" is translated as "humbled" in each of the three instances.
YOU insist that in Deut: 22 the translation should be "raped", but then are affronted by my claim that it should be "raped" in all three instances (Deut: 21; Deut: 22 and Ex: 18).
You are a fool... I had thought your dismissals, evasions, equivocation and deliberate misquoting were an array of tactics utilised by a sane person attempting to rationalise his religious delusions... but now I see the truth.
You aren't being dismissive... it's a defense tactic: a hysterical blindness that deletes unanswerable questions from your consciousness.
You aren't evading my counter arguments... you don't understand them and dismiss by default.
You neither equivocate nor prevaricate... you simply don't know you don't know.
You don't misquote... you misinterpret.
I won't be short with you any further McWay... you are to be pitied. I'll say a prayer for you, and atheists prayers are worth double points.
Merry Mithras.
The Luke
-
the book is filled with plagiarism's and lies can we at least agree on that?
-
MCWAY - still no sensible reply?
-
The kidnapping thing isn’t a factor, because (as mentioned earlier), the penalty for kidnapping someone from their homeland was DEATH. Therefore, the only time this happens is was during the aftermath of combat, in which the opponent was the aggressor.
Not quite, Deedee. As pointed out, once he married her, she becomes his WIFE. If he divorces here, because "he has found no delight in her", that makes her the "unloved" (NASB) or "hated" (KJV) wife. And, that means that she gets entitled to care. Plus, if her son is the ex-husband's firstborn, he gets the bulk of his father's estate, upon Dad's demise.
On the contrary, He does indeed. The whole reason that Abe and Sarah did this mess in the first place is because they grew impatient, wondering if God was really going to deliver on His promise to give them a child.
We have NO indication of any mistreatment of Hagar, prior to her getting pregnant, and NO report that she was forced into doing this. The drama between the women starts, once Hagar gets pregnant.
And, the ONLY REASON that Abe agrees that Hagar and Ishmael should leave is because of God's promise that He will care for both Hagar and Ishmael, making Ishmael's descendants numerous, as well.
Once again, you are making the gross assumption, with little to back it, that Hagar was an unwilling participant in this whole surrogate thing. The problem with that is that, per the text, we have NO indication that Abe did anything with Hagar, PRIOR to Sarah's idea that she have this promised child.
I beg to differ. For starters, in chattel slavery, the servant would likely not have that option, whatsoever. Plus, there'd be no law stating that, if a guy came under servitude with his wife, that he'd be allowed to leave with his wife. If the master were allowed to be that cold, he could keep the guy's wife, even if the servant brought his wife with him. But, that's not how it goes.
Plus, there are the other laws mentioned earlier: No kidnapping from foreign lands, status as full wife for foreign women, who get married; servitude being VOIDED, upon major injury of the servants; masters PUT TO DEATH for killing servants, etc.
And, there's the issue of the Jubilee. The servant, after seven years, doesn't leave his former master's house "impoverished".
Deut. 15:12-14
And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.
And, why did they do this?
Verse 15-18
And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.
And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee;
Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.
It shall not seem hard unto thee, when thou sendest him away free from thee; for he hath been worth a double hired servant to thee, in serving thee six years: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all that thou doest.
So, it appears that, if the male servant is leaving, he's leaving with a healthy amount of livestock, grain, or whatever capital his master has. I'm quite sure the master wouldn't mind negotating, to get some of those sheep, oxen, grain, wine, etc. back, in exchange for the former servant's wife and kids.
Did you not read what I posted? "I'd say they don't want the bills or the marriage. They'd want the perp to suffer and the payment of the bills, NOT to come out of their own pocket.
Rape isn't the "regular way". And, in certain circumstances, such as the penalty for besmirching a young woman's character and virginity, there was a lifetime penalty: DOUBLE THE BRIDE-PRICE and marriage (care for the bride) FOR LIFE.
MCWAY, first off merry christmas! I'll answer this, but I do find these posts are getting longer and longer and it's tough to answer everything unless you have a lot of stamina. ;D
You've brought up the death penalty in almost every post, which leads me to believe that you think just because a law is in place, there will be no crime committed. I'm looking at it from the perspective that people are people, and once someone has power over another, the law will be circumvented.
You say the New and Old T's don't condone slavery as we think of it, but you're limiting peoples' perceptions to slavery in the south. There is plenty of evidence that slavery exists today. One can go to Haiti and purchase a young girl for $500. Laos, much the same. I've given you other examples, and for all intents and purposes, you're saying that you condone this. The UN, most civilized westernized countries deplore it. Yet, it's the same basic slavery as set out in the OT, and approved of, by Jesus.
If nothing else, you're certainly condoning polygamy, as do the old and new T's, so I suppose that story of the young 8-year-old girl denied divorce in Saudi Arabia fills your heart with a warm feeling? It's got both the polygamy and slavery (selling a child into indentured servitude) aspect going for it.
The Luke: I am female. :D
-
The Luke: I am female. :D
...apologies, pre-presuming that apologies should be warranted for presupposing gender. Anyway, apologies again.
I don't think we've bumped into each other on the boards much, but I must admit I'm very impressed with your posts Dedee. In fact I'm going to adopt some of your excellent tactics for future logic-versus-brick-wall discussions.
I really enjoyed watching you take McWay to task in this thread by avoiding his evasive side steps and continuously hammering away at the central theme. Some excellent arguments, and your writing style is nicely structured and flows very well... articulate too.
I would be interested to know if you have also noticed how selective McWay (and Loco somewhat) are regarding what they will and will not answer?
I've noticed that every point proffered is countered with the same obstructionist checklist:
-total dismissal... "Kevin Bacon was not in Footloose. Prove it!"
-site the source/reference... "I don't accept IMDB as a source, and I refuse to watch Footloose".
-prove your point siting only the source I accept... "Where in the Harry Potter books is Kevin Bacon even mentioned?"
-prove a negative... then Hectored if you either attempt to; explain you can't; or ignore the demand
"That doesn't prove... Why can't you prove... When are you going to prove Kevin Bacon starred in Footloose, only quoting the works of JK Rowling?"
-falsification by deliberate misquote...
"You still haven't posted that reference from ANY "Harry the Potmaker" book PROVING that Sir Francis Bacon directed the movie Loosefoot, like you promised you would!"
-copy and paste... "Here's an interview with the director of Footloose; Herbert Ross, in which he NEVER once mentions anyone named "Kevin Bacon": http://www.JebusFreaksWhoDenyKevinBaconStarredInFootloose.org ...there is also a lengthy commentary by Reverend CouldDisproveGravity wherein he clearly proves that the multiple references to someone identified only as "Kevin" is, in fact, famous actor Kevin Costner, a personal friend of the director."
Am I the only person who recognizes this pattern?
Is McWay a former Scientologist or something?
It seems as if he's been trained in obstructionist debating techniques.
The Luke
-
McWay,
We'll see what Dedee has to say... I think you have poor reading comprehension and a poor grasp of metaphor (which might explain your religiosity).
I explained my post, (I even explained the post YOU and YOU alone think demonstrates me misquoting a Bible verse: which I didn't) my explanation makes sense... according to the King James Version "anah" is translated as "humbled" in each of the three instances.
YOU insist that in Deut: 22 the translation should be "raped", but then are affronted by my claim that it should be "raped" in all three instances (Deut: 21; Deut: 22 and Ex: 18).
No, I DID NOT insist that the translation should be "raped". Get you bifocals out and get your facts straight. The translation for "anah" is simply "humbled". The way the woman is being humbled, in Deut. 22, is via rape, BECAUSE OF WHAT THE SURROUNDING TEXTS SAYS. What part of that ain't sinking in to that grey matter"
You are a fool... I had thought your dismissals, evasions, equivocation and deliberate misquoting were an array of tactics utilised by a sane person attempting to rationalise his religious delusions... but now I see the truth.
You aren't being dismissive... it's a defense tactic: a hysterical blindness that deletes unanswerable questions from your consciousness.
You aren't evading my counter arguments... you don't understand them and dismiss by default.
You neither equivocate nor prevaricate... you simply don't know you don't know.
You don't misquote... you misinterpret.
I won't be short with you any further McWay... you are to be pitied. I'll say a prayer for you, and atheists prayers are worth double points.
Merry Mithras.
The Luke
Please refrain from projecting your shortcomings onto me. I don't need them.
I don't need to misquote you (as you miserably cry, every time you shoot yourself in the foot). Nor, do I need to evade your counter-arguments. It is addressing these very counter-arguments that makes you resort to this pointless sniveling.
-
You need to ask why slavery is wrong? Do you not understand empathy?
I understand it just fine. The question was asked for one reason: If you claim something is "wrong", then you need to cite the moral reason for it and on what authority such is based.
I think I made it clear that 'all' slavery is wrong... is this you deliberately confusing the issue?
And, I made it clear, when I asked on what authority is your statement made.
Ah, this is the... 'slavery benefited the victim' approach. Surely as god helped the Israelites to win these battles, couldn't god of helped the victims with further miracles?
And these "miracles" would be what (assuming the gross assumption that you and other Bible critics wouldn't find a reason to whine about that, too)?
Again, what's to be done with these folks?
MCWAY it's not one of the easier things you've done... just because you 'think' you've "done" it doesn't make it true... Oh, and the crux is that the bible does condone slavery - regardless of arguments of the particular form of slavery.
It took little effort on my part, no "mental gymnastics" contrary to your claim. And, the crux is that the "slavery" listed in the OT DOES NOT resemble that of chattel slavery (what's usually associated with the term), whatsoever.
We know that chattel slavery is wrong and can list the specifics as to why it is such (i.e. kidnapping someone from his homeland, stripping them of all human dignities, being able to assault and rape them without consequence; no chance of servants becoming financially/socially prominent, no accountability for children fostered by sexual assault/rape, etc.). However, the question has been asked as to what (and what authority) makes the "slavery" described in the OT wrong and why, something neither you nor your fellow critics have addressed.
That's fantastic - only apologist could possibly say that the statement "slavery is wrong" is "hollow". Let's just say for the sake of argument that you're correct, and morality is unchanging... could you explain to the forum, just what forms of slavery are okay today? Obviously these would be the forms of slavery you support and fit in with your moral world view.
You might want to read what I said again: Merely stating that "slavery is wrong", without giving the reasons why, makes your statement hollow.
And, that led to my question to you regarding why, if morality is always changing, reverting to chattel slavery AGAIN would be wrong.
Again, who's making the rules, here?
-
MCWAY, first off merry christmas! I'll answer this, but I do find these posts are getting longer and longer and it's tough to answer everything unless you have a lot of stamina. ;D
You've brought up the death penalty in almost every post, which leads me to believe that you think just because a law is in place, there will be no crime committed. I'm looking at it from the perspective that people are people, and once someone has power over another, the law will be circumvented.
I don't disagree with you on that one. But the issue isn't whether or not the Israelites violated their laws (that is quite clear as the OT points out, on multiple occasions, that they "did evil in the sight of the Lord). It's basically about those laws themselves.
People weren't supposed to be abused in the manners you've described, when relating to OT laws. And there were punishments to be meted, when such violations occur.
As I've said, our laws in the USA are quite just (in my view, anyway). Yet, we have people who abuse them and circumvent them.
You say the New and Old T's don't condone slavery as we think of it, but you're limiting peoples' perceptions to slavery in the south. There is plenty of evidence that slavery exists today. One can go to Haiti and purchase a young girl for $500. Laos, much the same. I've given you other examples, and for all intents and purposes, you're saying that you condone this. The UN, most civilized westernized countries deplore it. Yet, it's the same basic slavery as set out in the OT, and approved of, by Jesus.
The comparisons to slavery in the South is due to the fact that chattel slavery in the South is what usually comes to mind when slavery is mentioned.
As for your claim about Haiti and Laos, what specifically is being deplored? Is it her merely being in servitude or is it particular abuses (rape, physical abuse, inability to socially advance, etc.)?
There's a big difference being getting someone to be a maid or a hired hand, working crops, and procuring someone to be assaulted without consequence.
If nothing else, you're certainly condoning polygamy, as do the old and new T's, so I suppose that story of the young 8-year-old girl denied divorce in Saudi Arabia fills your heart with a warm feeling? It's got both the polygamy and slavery (selling a child into indentured servitude) aspect going for it.
The Luke: I am female. :D
Why would a 8-year-old girl being put in a marriage fill my heart up with a warm feeling? My feeling would be that, if any female is involved in marriage, she should be of decent age (here's it's 18, though slightly younger female can marry under certain conditions). Secondly, polygamy is a bad idea (the grief that Abe underwent with Sarah and Hagar, along with Jacob's woes and those of King David, clearly demonstrate that).
-
...apologies, pre-presuming that apologies should be warranted for presupposing gender. Anyway, apologies again.
I don't think we've bumped into each other on the boards much, but I must admit I'm very impressed with your posts Dedee. In fact I'm going to adopt some of your excellent tactics for future logic-versus-brick-wall discussions.
I really enjoyed watching you take McWay to task in this thread by avoiding his evasive side steps and continuously hammering away at the central theme. Some excellent arguments, and your writing style is nicely structured and flows very well... articulate too.
Indeed, she is. That makes discussions with her far more entertaining then they are with you.
I would be interested to know if you have also noticed how selective McWay (and Loco somewhat) are regarding what they will and will not answer?
Perhaps, she'd be interested in seeing the long laundry lists of items you've evaded FOR WEEKS.
I've noticed that every point proffered is countered with the same obstructionist checklist:
-total dismissal... "Kevin Bacon was not in Footloose. Prove it!"[/quote]
Your arguments weren't dismissed. They were addressed directly.
-site the source/reference... "I don't accept IMDB as a source, and I refuse to watch Footloose".
Once again, you use this to pardon your own laziness or lack of ability to support your claims. No one has refused to look at anything. If someone makes a claim about the laws of Israel, as it relates to a particular subject, there is NO NEED to cite the ENTIRE BIBLE, when a couple of chapters and verses from a specific book will suffice.
That is what has been asked of you REPEATEDLY, when you make your silly statements. Yet, you come up with the flimsiest excuses as to why you can't do it.
-prove your point siting only the source I accept... "Where in the Harry Potter books is Kevin Bacon even mentioned?"
Another dead-wrong statement on your part. This is but more of your blubbering, when someone looks up a particular subject matter and find the diametric opposition between your claims and the actual facts.
-prove a negative... then Hectored if you either attempt to; explain you can't; or ignore the demand
"That doesn't prove... Why can't you prove... When are you going to prove Kevin Bacon starred in Footloose, only quoting the works of JK Rowling?"
You get "Hectored", because (as stated earlier) when people do the research on a particular topic, and bring it to the forefront, they find the HUGE GAP between your assertions and the actual data on the matter at hand.
That's been shown repeatedly on your limp-wristed "challenge" about the account of Jesus Christ. Several details claims you made were shown to be patently FALSE (both about Jesus Christ and about the other figures from whom Jesus was supposedly crafted).
When Loco or I make a claim, we give the specific references (both intra- and extra-Biblical) to support them. You, on the other hand, spout utter gibberish, which can easily be sliced to ribbons with a few clicks of the mouse.
-falsification by deliberate misquote...
"You still haven't posted that reference from ANY "Harry the Potmaker" book PROVING that Sir Francis Bacon directed the movie Loosefoot, like you promised you would!"
Your usual crying towel, when cornered. No one has to misquote you, because your bone-headed statements can be easily cited (every jot and tittle) for all to see. A prime example is your foolish cry that you didn't make reference to Deut. 21, when citing a passage, regarding a woman who "pleaseth not her master". You clearly did that, and I cited the reply #, date, time, and EVERY SINGLE WORD YOU SAID.
-copy and paste... "Here's an interview with the director of Footloose; Herbert Ross, in which he NEVER once mentions anyone named "Kevin Bacon": http://www.JebusFreaksWhoDenyKevinBaconStarredInFootloose.org ...there is also a lengthy commentary by Reverend CouldDisproveGravity wherein he clearly proves that the multiple references to someone identified only as "Kevin" is, in fact, famous actor Kevin Costner, a personal friend of the director."
The "copy and paste" is for one simple reason: There's nothing to hide. The statements I make have the facts and scholarship behind them to back it. And, anyone can view that, at his/her convenience, make his/her own decisions about the information, and respond accordingly.
Am I the only person who recognizes this pattern?
Is McWay a former Scientologist or something?
It seems as if he's been trained in obstructionist debating techniques.
The Luke
No, I've been "trained" on how to dismantle arguments from Biblical skeptics like you, how to carve through the rhetoric and condescending remarks, get to the meat of your argument (what little there is), and thoroughly pick it apart, using facts, citing references, and giving insight from scholars on the subject matter.
-
It's fucken Mithras Day for fucks sake, take a break McWay.
The Luke