Freethought & Rationalism Archive

inquisitive01 · 08-09-2004, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angrillori

Then why the double standard:

Lev 25:39
39 " 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. "

Sounds like there's a difference between servant and slave here. Hell, even if you do own a fellow israelite (whom you have to free at Jubilee) you're not supposed to treat him like a biblical slave.

Plus, you keep using the word servant--that's very disingenious. Use owned servant to be a bit more truthful. I can hire maids. They're my servants. They are not my slaves.

One whom you own and can beat near unto death, as long as they can get up after a couple of days, one whom you can will to your family if you die before they do, one whose children you also own, is a slave. Not merely a servant.

And slavery, once again, is bad.

Owning another human. Is bad.
Depriving another human of the freedom you have. Is bad.
Beating another human you own until they are near to death. Is bad.

The fact that slavery was the norm, "back in them days" does not make it good. (Hell, it was the norm in Georgia up until a hundred forty years ago.) That doesn't make it good.

The bible says:
You can own the people from neighboring countries.
You can capture them by force.
You can force them to work for you.
You can will them to your children when you die.
You can own their children.
You can beat them near unto death.
You cannot do this to fellow Israelites, only those "others."

Now, if you call it an "owned servant you can beat and pass on through your family, and force to do your work, and deprive of freedom" then, sure, you can stop calling it a slave. To do less is to specifically deny whatthe bible calls slavery.

I did NOT say that "just because slavery was the norm back in those days" made it "good." However, I did say, or at least mean, this (forgive me if it's not exact words, though): "It (slavery) was likely not considered as being BAD in those days (as it would be considered BAD today), but was likely considered the norm."

Edited Addition: Also, whether or not the beating of slaves was considered the "norm" by each individual slave owner, would require knowledge (or perhaps a survey) of each individual slave owner's beliefs in this regard.

Emp-JohnIV · 08-09-2004, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inquisitive01

I did NOT say that "just because slavery was the norm back in those days" made it "good." However, I did say, or at least mean, this (forgive me if it's not exact words, though): "It (slavery) was likely not considered as being BAD in those days (as it would be considered BAD today), but was likely considered the norm."

Edited Addition: Also, whether or not the beating of slaves was considered the "norm" by each individual slave owner, would require knowledge (or perhaps a survey) of each individual slave owner's beliefs in this regard.

What about the fact that a perfact God endorced slavery? If god was perfect back then why has he changed his mind about slavery now, or is it still alright but the damn liberials wont let us put the Canaanites in there place!

inquisitive01 · 08-10-2004, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emp-JohnIV

What about the fact that a perfact God endorced slavery? If god was perfect back then why has he changed his mind about slavery now, or is it still alright but the damn liberials wont let us put the Canaanites in there place!

Endorsement of slavery by God? Where? Was that somewhere in the 10 Commandments, or some other commandments, that I have perhaps overlooked (i.e., Thou shalt have slaves.)? Perhaps the "endorcement" you're referring to was by man and man alone (?).

Toto · 08-10-2004, 12:26 AM

Commandment number 10 sounds like an endorsement of slavery:

X. You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male or female slave, nor his ox or ass, nor anything else that belongs to him.

Narapoia · 08-10-2004, 12:47 AM

Inquisitive and Not
Not Serious/ I am in the market for a slave, I'm sick of washing my clothes, preparing my food and doing household chores. I'm also sick of working for myself so how bout I come on over to your country (As taking of slaves from other countries is okay in the bible) capture you and you be my slaves. Don't worry I will treat you just like it says in the bible, you will not be paid but will be otherwise cared for but just remember the beating you are allowed to get for insubordination or unsatisfactory work. Also, once you become my slave any children you have will become my property as well.
Not serious end/

Do you find any part(s) of this unacceptable? Remember you will be treated just as sanctioned in the bible so it is not immoral according to your earlier statements.

Assuming you could own slaves would you be perfectly happy to switch places with them? If no then you are breaking the biblical command of treating others as you would want them to treat you.

unregistered_user_1 · 08-10-2004, 01:15 AM

Anyone mind telling me how it is that xians like those AIG goons can rant on about how "evolution" is the cause of racism/slavery, etc yet Darwin himself said that you couldn't subdivide people into different "races" and he himself hated slavery..

BUT.....it's the xians who wind up defending biblical slavery itself which was used as justification for "modern slavery" and at the same time they say the bible contributed to ending slavery???

:banghead: :huh:

PS: I am the original non-registered user around here, so :Cheeky:

Sven · 08-10-2004, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not_Registered

Now you use the term servants? What happened to slaves. Unless you're saying today's society has slaves, your point is erroneous. If our society today doesn't have slaves, they can't be beaten. So this proves nothing as to whether or not the beating of slaves can lead to a "productive" society.

You sidestepped the issue once again. Your point was that slaves had to be beaten from time to time to be productive. Our society today shows that people don't have to be beaten to be productive. Case closed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

This is one of the most ridiculous straw man I've ever seen.
No, it means that beating of children and servants/slaves should be forbidden.

Maybe you have too much faith in "pretty please."

Maybe you really like to make up strawmen. Fact is (a) that children can be brought up without beating them (b) societies can be productive without beating people.

Quote:

And many people who weren't beaten are crack addicts, criminals, bums, etc.

Any many people who were beaten are crack addicts, criminals, bums, etc.
Your point, please?

Quote:

As someone once said, "This is one of the most ridiculous straw man I've ever seen."

Thanks that you realize yourself that your claims are empty.

Quote:

No. But, the bible doesn't condone masters to beat their slaves nearly to death.

It says something close to this:
"21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

Beating someone so severe that he needs two days to recover is OK?
Beating your children (your analogy!) so severe that they need two days to recover is OK?

If your neighbor beat his children so severe that they need two days to recover, wouldn't you interfer?
If your neighbor beat his servant so severe that he needed two days to recover, wouldn't you interfer?
If your neighbor beat his slave [assuming for the moment that this wasn't forbidden by law] so severe that he needed two days to recover, wouldn't you interfer?
Or would you interfer in the former two cases, but not in the latter? If yes, why?

Quote:

The bible has verses that allow the freeing of the master's slave if that slave should be maimed.

It also says that slaves are not allowed to flee from their master - even if they are beaten so severe that they need two days to recover. Children today, on the other hand, are taken care of by the government if they have parents who beat them o severe that they need two days to recover. Kind of sinks your analogy completely.

Quote:

It also speaks of [...] treating a slave as a person among you.

Which verse do you have in mind?

Quote:

Any person with common sense could view the overall picture and see God wasn't telling the masters to beat their slaves to near death.

Nobody claims that he does. Only that he explicitely allows it - which is just as worse. And the overall picture of the bible is simply contradictory, because there's no way to harmonize verses like this with "love your neighbor". Only in the mind of the morally bankrupt.

I repeat for the last time: "Quite simply: To allow one human to beat another is (morally) wrong (except in self-defense, of course). Why don't you comprehend this?"

I'm fed up with this discussion. Christians are talking about loving each other all the time, but when asked about specific points, you get answers like this. It's really sickening.

Sven · 08-10-2004, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not_Registered

(b) God wants all masters to have the right to discipline their slaves when needed.

Since it is clear that one doesn't have to discipline people to make them productive, your god is either incompetent for not realizing this/making this clear in the bible, or malevolent. You choose.

Sven · 08-10-2004, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not_Registered

.

Question:
Do you view the slavery defined in the bible to be the exact same as the slavery implemented in the early stages of America. If not, then why?

Once again, I would greatly appreciate it if you all could reply with your answer to this question. Thanks.

As Angrillori said: Of course they are not exactly the same (different place, time, amount of slaves, etc.). But regarding the imporant, moral points, they are exactly the same.

Sven · 08-10-2004, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by inquisitive01

I agree that IF anyone did not treat their servants/maids with respect then, yes, that would be bad. However, if perhaps only a few treated their servants badly, is that sufficient enough to draw the overall, general conclusion of BAD?

You also don't get it. The question is not if anyone treated his servants/slaves bad or not - the problem is that bad treatment is allowed explictely.

Quote:

The terms "bondman" and "bondmaid" (Deuteronomy 15:15 and Leviticus 25) do seem to be referring to actual slaves as a "possession." However, though slavery is considered BAD today, back then it was likely considered the norm (a way of life).

So do you think there is no absolute moral? Just curious, because this is one of the points vigorously defended by most Christians.

[snipped part addressed by Angrillori]

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

08-10-2004, 12:26 AM	#64
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Commandment number 10 sounds like an endorsement of slavery: X. You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male or female slave, nor his ox or ass, nor anything else that belongs to him.

08-10-2004, 12:47 AM	#65
Narapoia Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: I don't even know any more Posts: 1,086	Inquisitive and Not Not Serious/ I am in the market for a slave, I'm sick of washing my clothes, preparing my food and doing household chores. I'm also sick of working for myself so how bout I come on over to your country (As taking of slaves from other countries is okay in the bible) capture you and you be my slaves. Don't worry I will treat you just like it says in the bible, you will not be paid but will be otherwise cared for but just remember the beating you are allowed to get for insubordination or unsatisfactory work. Also, once you become my slave any children you have will become my property as well. Not serious end/ Do you find any part(s) of this unacceptable? Remember you will be treated just as sanctioned in the bible so it is not immoral according to your earlier statements. Assuming you could own slaves would you be perfectly happy to switch places with them? If no then you are breaking the biblical command of treating others as you would want them to treat you.

08-10-2004, 01:15 AM	#66
unregistered_user_1 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Just north of here. Posts: 544	Anyone mind telling me how it is that xians like those AIG goons can rant on about how "evolution" is the cause of racism/slavery, etc yet Darwin himself said that you couldn't subdivide people into different "races" and he himself hated slavery.. BUT.....it's the xians who wind up defending biblical slavery itself which was used as justification for "modern slavery" and at the same time they say the bible contributed to ending slavery??? :banghead: :huh: PS: I am the original non-registered user around here, so :Cheeky:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.