Does the Bible condone slavery?

[Hedgehog]

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.

[MCWAY]

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 Luke]

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...it is clearly superseded by the later verse which refers to slaves.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

[OzmO]

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 )  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.

[loco]

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 )  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.

[MCWAY]

...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 )  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.

[loco]

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.

 

[The Luke]

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

[Deedee]

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. 

[MCWAY]

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.

[MCWAY]

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"?

[Deedee]

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.

[The Luke]

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

[MCWAY]

...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 

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.

[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?

...where is that in the old Testament?

The "slaves for life" part has no such consent requirement.


The Luke

[Deedee]

...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. 

[Migs]

 

the appearance of Deedee!

[loco]

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?

[MCWAY]

...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.

[MCWAY]

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.

[Deedee]

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.

[Deedee]

the appearance of Deedee!

Hi Miggy!    Working long hours these days, so replying on a thread about indentured servitude seems appropriate. 

[loco]

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!   

Some posters try to sneak in little things like this and pass it as OT law.  So much for honesty!  

[Deedee]

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.

[Deedee]

That's what I thought!   

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?