Johnny Skeptic

But there are other Scriptures where punishment does not mean death, which means that you cannot prove your argument beyond a reasonable doubt, and that I cannot prove my argument beyond a reasonable doubt. What is not beyond a reasonable doubt is that the God of the Old Testament was immoral, and that so were his followers. An article at http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible3.htm reasonably proves that.

sugarhitman

Yeah but my position is stronger than yours because in the previous verses the punishment for killing a man is named whereas the name for your "punishment" is not anywhere in the laws.


Also that site is as bad as SAB I marvel that you would even post such a poor skeptical site as that.

Johnny Skeptic

For the second time, what Runaway slave law you are talking about?

One Scripture says that non-Hebrew slaves could made, which obviously means involuntarily forced, to serve for life. On the other hand, Hebrew slaves were guaranteed their freedom after six years, without paying anything.

Johnny Skeptic

Perhaps, but plenty of other evidence shows that the God of the Bible is immoral. For instance, he killed babies and fetuses at Sodom and Gomorrah, and he killed babies and young children in Egypt when he killed all of the firstborn males, and on some occasions, he ordered the killing of women and children.

With Hurricane Katrina for evidence against God's character, and that he needlessly forces innocent animals to kill each other, who needs the Old Testament? We can discuss those issues at the General Religious Discussions Forum if you wish.

Sheshonq

Hired (indentured) servants are not slaves. No help for your argument.

Says nothing about indentured servants or slaves. Sheesh.

However nothing you quoted supports the claim of slaves treated kindly. Moreover, the non-Hebrews servants were not freed; they were inherited property. Wanna tell me one more time about how humane that kind of life is?

Sorry, but you're still wrong.


I already have researched it. That's why I know that you're dead wrong.

Of course, if you feel otherwise then feel free to back up your unsupported, home-made claim.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

Sheshonq

Are you kidding me?

Just because a particular sanction (death penalty) falls under the category of punishment does *NOT* prove that it was used for slaveowners who mistreated and killed their slaves.

This whole chapter discusses various crimes and their associated punishments. It also discusses *degrees* of punishment, for varying *degrees* of crime. If the punishment for killing a slave was death, then the text would have said so quite clearly. You're making this up as you go, because you can't stand the idea that the Bible clearly treats slaves as lesser citizens than free people.

Sheshonq

Actually, that is precisely why your position is WEAKER, not stronger.

The preceding verses specifically spell out the death penalty.
This verse about a slaveowner killing a slave does NOT mention it.

So then the fact that the death penalty was NOT spelled out for the slaveowner who killed his slave means that it was deliberately omitted.
You lose.

Exciter

Which is stretching it to mean LENGTH OF TIME. so you don't have to even consider that the God you say desires freedom [lol, God has desires] really doesn't according to His supposed divinely written word.

No, the length of time non hebrew slaves could be kept is mentioned as forever. The LENGTH OF TIME for Israeli's is already dealt with in Leviticus 25:40 and that they are to be as an hired servant...
No, they are not to make a fellow Israeli work like a slave, like the Egyptians did to them they are to treat them like an hired servant...

IOW don't do like what was done to you by the Egyptians in

Exodus 1:13 (KJV)

13And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour:

0r

Exodus 1:14 (KJV)

And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in morter, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour.

The NIV uses ruthlessly in place of rigour/rigour in both Exodus passages and it does not mean the Egyptians were being strict as in the LENGTH OF TIME, but the work they were doing was strict, ruthless, etc. that is what Moses is saying not to do to Israeli's treat them with rigour as far as the work they are to do, or have they mis-translated that as well?

arnoldo

Johhny, do you have any archaeological/historical proof that may lead you to this opinion which seems to be solely based on confirmation bias? For example, if you could provide links of archaelogical evidence of slaves who suffered mistreatment under the immoral hebrews this would be helpful. Also, if the hebrews were as evil/immoral as you claim other countries would certainly have created historical documents warning their citizens not to become slaves to the jews. . .

Sheshonq

What an incredibly silly comment.

The OT itself tells us that the Hebrews were immoral. It was one of the main topics of the Hebrew prophets. Oppression of the weak, the fatherless, etc. was a common theme in their rebuke to the people.

This is what happens when arnoldo learns a new term ("confirmation bias") and doesn't even understand the OT he tries to defend.

Followed by an even sillier comment.

You seem to think that people needed to be *told* that they should avoid becoming slaves. Please show me any ancient texts that recommend to their citizens that they become a slave to *ANY* group of outsiders.