Does the Bible condone slavery?

[loco]

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.  

[loco]

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. 

[MCWAY]

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.

[Deedee]

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.

[loco]

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.

[loco]

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.

[Deedee]

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.

[MCWAY]

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.

[Deedee]

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.

[loco]

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.

[loco]

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?

[MCWAY]

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?

[OzmO]

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.

[Deedee]

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.

[Deedee]

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.

[MCWAY]

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?

[The Luke]

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.

[OzmO]

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.

[OzmO]

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.

[loco]

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.

[OzmO]

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.   

[OzmO]

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 )  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?

[MCWAY]

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.

[MCWAY]

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 )  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.

[MCWAY]

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?