Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sugarhitman · 12-26-2008, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Not true because the Hebrew bible makes a distinction between Hebrew Servants and Bondman.

Yes it does -and you continually try to blur the difference. In fact, the Hebrews had THREE kinds of slaves - and Hebrews could be found in two of the three categories:

1. Hired servants
2. Slaves
3. Bonded servants

Three types of servile status are identifiable in Israel's practice: an Israelite became a servant to a fellow Israelite voluntarily as security against poverty, or by birth or purchase (Exod. 21.32 sets the compensation for a slave's death at thirty shekels); Israelites took non-Israelites as slaves through capture in war or purchase; Israelites sold themselves to non-Israelites as security against debt.

"Slavery", The Oxford Companion to the Bible, pages 700 - 701.

Incorrect. They are called "bondmen" in the verse that you yourself just quoted above. Can't you keep your own arguments straight?

Of course, you still lack the courage to answer the real question:

if slavery was immoral, then why was slavery even permitted in the first place?

My prediction is that you will continue to duck, evade, and run from this question no matter how many times it is asked - and no matter who asks it. That's because you realize that there is no way you can justify slavery - but you have no way to explain why the bible tolerates it and even endorses it.

No they don't. In fact, these were the laws for Hebrew servants. Slaves had no such protections. By your own argument, Hebrews are referred to as servants, right? So these verses apply to the Hebrews:

EXO 21:27 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.

EXO 21:32 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.

These protections applied to fellow Jews who were servants - not to the slaves.

Quote:

You don't have a case

In fact I have the winning case - you're just not educated enough on the topic to realize it.

The Jewish bible says "bondmen" and not servants. Hebrews as the bible says were not to be compel to serve as "bondmen" but could sell themselves as such. The laws for injured slaves says "bondmen" and not menservants.

Also why was divorced permitted? the same reason slavery was because this is a world of fallen beings. If God was pro slavery why is this not found in his Kingdom which is promised to replaced that of men?

And why attack the God of the bible when your god Allah is infinitely worse?

Sheshonq · 12-26-2008, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exciter

So the forced laborers you call serfs in Deuteronomy 20:!! are being rehabilitated, lol! Christmas is over... no more fruitcake!

No, they are not. Never said they were.

Let's see.

1. You said the state of slavery was for rehabiliation.
2. These people were in a state of slavery.
3. Therefore, they were being rehabilitated.

The logic is pretty sound that your position *does* imply this.

Either that, or your definition of the purpose of slavery has several gaps and holes in it.

Which conclusion would you prefer?

Sheshonq · 12-26-2008, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The Jewish bible says "bondmen" and not servants.

Apparently it also says "servants' - as I just demonstrated.

Quote:

Hebrews as the bible says were not to be compel to serve as "bondmen" but could sell themselves as such. The laws for injured slaves says "bondmen" and not menservants.

No, I just quoted the law above. It says "servants". You're wrong again.

Quote:

Also why was divorced permitted?

Who cares. It has nothing to do with the topic, and I'm not going to let you drag us down another of your rat holes.

Still waiting - got any courage yet?

if slavery was immoral, then why was slavery even permitted in the first place?

Sheshbazzar · 12-26-2008, 11:00 AM

Were the innocent wifes and children of slaves, through no choice of their own, held in slavery for life, being "rehabilitated"?

sschlichter · 12-26-2008, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

you know that I approve of sending criminals to jail. No intelligent analogy can be made been Old Testament slavery and people who break laws.

ok, criminals freedom can be taken away from them and this is moral. thank you for answering the question.

What activity would you find to be criminal and worthy of the loss of freedom?

Johnny Skeptic · 12-26-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Define fair.

Do you mean fair for Hebrew slaves, or fair for non-Hebrew slaves. If the former, fair was guaranteed freedom. Consider the following Scriptures:

Leviticus 45:26

KJV - And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

NASB - You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

NIV - You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

The Amplified Bible - And you shall make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession; of them shall you take your bondmen always, but over your brethren the Israelites you shall not rule one over another with harshness (severity, oppression).

The texts clearly show that there were two standards of treatment, one standard for Hebrew slaves, and another standard for non-Hebrew slaves. There is no doubt that the writer of the verse considered forcing Hebrews to be slaves for life to be unacceptable, and that he considered forcing non-Hebrews to be slaves for life to be acceptable. The writer obviously considered involuntarily forcing a Hebrew slave to serve for life was rigour, KJV, severe, NASB, ruthless, NIV, and harsh, The Amplified Bible. On the other hand, he obviously approved of involuntarily forcing non-Hebrew slaves to be slaves for life.

sugarhitman · 12-26-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Question? The laws for injured slaves does that encourage or discourages abuse?

There is no such law. The verse you cited says nothing about injury - all it talks about is a runaway.

The "injury" part is just something you added in there yourself, because you were hoping to inflate the strength of your argument.

The Jewish bible says the injured slave law concerns slaves....are they wrong? I mean its their book after all or are you able to define their laws better than they?

Sheshbazzar · 12-26-2008, 11:05 AM

Is it moral to hold any person in perpetual slavery from birth to death?

Lógos Sokratikós · 12-26-2008, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Is it moral to hold any person in perpetual slavery from birth to death?

Liberation wouldn't make it any better. A life has been wasted in service of another with no benefit to the slave.

Sheshonq · 12-26-2008, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

There is no such law. The verse you cited says nothing about injury - all it talks about is a runaway.

The "injury" part is just something you added in there yourself, because you were hoping to inflate the strength of your argument.

The Jewish bible says the injured slave law concerns slaves

1. No, it doesn't. It does not say "injured". If you think it does, then prove it. Hint: you can't, because "injured" is something you added ourself.

2. Apparently it says servants. I just provided the verses to show you. Keep running, it won't help.

Quote:

I mean its their book after all or are you able to define their laws better than they?

I just provided the verses that say "servant". I also provided you with a citation from The Oxford Companion.

I win, you lose.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-26-2008, 11:00 AM	#424
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Were the innocent wifes and children of slaves, through no choice of their own, held in slavery for life, being "rehabilitated"?

12-26-2008, 11:05 AM	#428
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Is it moral to hold any person in perpetual slavery from birth to death?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.