Does the Bible condone slavery?

[The Luke]

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

[loco]

...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.

[loco]

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

 

[MCWAY]

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.

[OzmO]

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


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.

[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. :

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]

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]

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

[loco]

...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!

[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!

...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

[loco]

...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.

[MCWAY]

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.

[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.

...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:.

That's rape... plain and simple.


The Luke

[loco]

...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?   

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:.

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.

[MCWAY]

...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.

 

...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!!!!

[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"?

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

[MCWAY]

...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.

[OzmO]

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.

[MCWAY]

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.

[big L dawg]

men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions.

[loco]

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

[big L dawg]

light houses are more helpfull than chuches. -benjamin franklin.

[loco]

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?

[MCWAY]

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.

[big L dawg]

Religion is an Illusion and derives it's strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires

   -Sigmund Freud