Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Exciter · 12-18-2008, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Someone mentioned Ham and his "black heir" in the context of slavery.

Not as you implied, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Which most everybody here (except you) knows played a prominent part in American "christian" justification of enslavement of blacks.

Lol, you need a history lesson, unless you aren't trying to say the United States of America. Before the 18th century people were regarding slavery immoral, probably "christians" to you, since your claim of Christianity kind of floats in the breeze like a feather.

What "christians" are you actually referring to?.... and please don't say "Any that used the Bible to justify slavery", lol you need to break it down just a bit, not everyone is as intelligent about Christianity as you think you are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Caanan was not the father of the black Africans which is plain as day in the bible.

Well see, just saying something is "plain as day in the Bible" does not really show what you are trying to say. Now I will try to maintain some civility and let you try to show that, but please, none of your tin foil stuff, okay?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

People who are going to do what they want will usually find and intentionally misinterpret scripture to justify their deeds.

Except sugarhitman....

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Just like they purposely disregarded the OT slave laws concerning the right to freedom. The point im making.....there is no justification for involuntary slavery whatsoever.

What about Noah's curse on Ham's son and the Canaanites? That sounds like a justification to me, but then I'm not as intelligent as you think you are, probably no one here is, lol.

I agree it might not mean blackskin, lol, why does it upset you so much that you brought up the fact that Christians used it [and still do] to mean Africans that were slaves when no one else did?

sschlichter · 12-18-2008, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equinox

Steve wrote:

Paul was talking to a slave owner to convince the slave owner to set a slave free. Slavery certainly was the topic.

up to 25% of the population were slaves. He was nearly always talking to a slave owner. The topic was not slavery.

Quote:

Fair enough. Dt 20:10

(Deut 20:11) If it accepts your terms and submits to you, all the people found in it will become your slaves.

I think you will find if you do a little research into the word used in this passage, it is not the hebrew word for slave. It is talking about a city that accepts the terms of peace and becomes subject in the form of tribute.

Perhaps you were referring to 20:14

(Deut 20:14) However, the women, little children, cattle, and anything else in the city - all its plunder - you may take for yourselves as spoil. You may take from your enemies the plunder that the LORD your God has given you.

After all the men were killed, you could take the women. However, they were not for slaves. They were to be assimilated into the culture. Their heads were shaved to mark the death of their old life.

(Deut 21:10)
When you go out to do battle with your enemies and the LORD your God allows you to prevail and you take prisoners,
(Deut 21:11) if you should see among them an attractive woman whom you wish to take as a wife,
(Deut 21:12) you may bring her back to your house. She must shave her head, trim her nails,
(Deut 21:13) discard the clothing she was wearing when captured, and stay in your house, lamenting for her father and mother for a full month. After that you may have sexual relations with her and become her husband and she your wife.
(Deut 21:14) If you are not pleased with her, then you must let her go where she pleases. You cannot in any case sell her; you must not take advantage of her, since you have already humiliated her.

Quote:

Note that the only reason men aren’t mentioned as being taken as plunder is because they are to be killed, regardless of whether they surrender or not. Can you imagine doing that - dozens of men are cornered and surrender. You make them give up their weapons, be tied and put in a row. Then you, as an agent of the holy god, take your sword and go down the line, slitting the throat of each, ignoring the pleas for mercy.

No, if they surrender they are to be serfs, forced to pay tribute. (Deut 20:11)

Quote:

I also mentioned that the Bible said buying slaves was fine:

Buying slaves: Lev 25:

yes, but you failed to mention that twice in the same context it is referring to those that sell themselves into slavery.

(Lev 25:39) " 'If your brother becomes impoverished with regard to you so that he sells himself to you, you must not subject him to slave service.

(Lev 25:47) " 'If a resident foreigner who is with you prospers and your brother becomes impoverished with regard to him so that he sells himself to a resident foreigner who is with you or to a member of a foreigner's family,

Quote:

It’s also useful to note that Bible treats Israelite slaves differently from other slaves. Israelite slaves were treated humanely as Steve says – one may notice that when someone talks about being nice to a slave, they’ve often chosen a passage that is talking about Israelite slaves. Notice that in the passage above, one is buying foreign slaves, where inhuman treatment and lifelong slavery are allowed (Israelite slaves are set free after 6 years).

this was already discussed at length. I would also like to point out that you are projecting adjectives onto the text. No inhuman treatment is condoned or commanded.

Quote:

No, I’m not. If I wanted to extend the time as long as possible, I would have said 47 hours. I used a time less than half of what the word of god says to be charitable to you. What do you think the passage means? Here it is:

Ex 21:20

I already told you what the principle is. Don't abuse slaves or you will be punished. I was not asking you to extend the time. I was asking you to tell me at what time it became immoral. Somewhere between 5 minutes and 47 hours. You have judged 47 hours immoral, so tell me at what point that happened!

Quote:

The same chapter shows that if you, though negligence, kill someone’s slave, you have to pay the owner 30 shekels. That’s quite different from killing a person, which earlier passages show carries the death penalty. In the Bible, non-hebrew slaves aren’t people, they are property.

I noticed that you do not like to include references and prefer to describe the passage in your own words. Slaves were not treated as proeprty. They were given rights, protected by laws, had the ability to be redeemed, even by themsleves, if they prospered.

Quote:

not clear to you? You've got to be kidding - it said you could beat them so severely they couldn't get up for many hours. As long as they can get up after two days, and you haven't taken out an eye or a tooth, then anything apparently goes.

You are scary. Please don’t become a cop, or worse a politician. And could you refrain from voting?

No , it says not to beat them. You SHOULD BECOME A POLITICIAN. You have a way with words that seems to fit that line of work.

An eye for an eye is a command not to escalate violence as was the tradition in the time. It is designed to be a restraint on taking revenge (which escalates back and forth) not a command to make sure you take an eye for an eye.

Quote:

Again, he’s talking about the subject, and says nothing to condemn it. That speaks volumes. Augustine wrote many books, giving opinions on all kinds of things, even minor things. If he did see anything wrong with slavery, don’t you think he’d have mentioned it, at least once?

You have his opinion on slavery. You are ignoring it. I think bacht's reply was interesting. You can take this up with him, I am beginning to tire of it.

Quote:

as far as treatment of non-hebrew slaves went, it also appears that raping slaves was allowed. In Gen, both Abraham’s and Jacob’s wives give one of their female slaves to be impregnated by their master’s husband, and no consent from the slave is needed.

of course you are alleging that their is no consent on the part of women. The question is did God consent? I am certain you will not find consent from him in those passages?

Quote:

in Lev. 19:20, where if a man has sex with a female slave who is engaged to be married, then he is punished and must make an animal sacrifice. This is both a far cry from raping a person, and no punishment is mentioned for raping a slave who isn’t engaged – after all, she’s the master’s property. I can find no mention in the Bible of anything being wrong with raping slaves.

A) it does not say rape, it could be a matter of seduction. B) it is not talking about the master, it is talking about another man sleeping with someone elses slave. C) the payment is not because the woman is a slave, it is because now the master cannot marry her off as her virgnity will not be provable. D) it is unclear to me that the would-be husband is not the one being paid off.

The whole master always raping his slaves scenario seems to be coming from your mind, not the text.

I suggest that these passages are how the God of Isreal wanted the slaves of Isreal to be treated.

(Lev 19:34) The foreigner who resides with you must be to you like a native citizen among you; so you must love him as yourself, because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

(Deut 10:19) So you must love the resident foreigner because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.

Now, here are some examples of how that was implemented.

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished "(Ex 21.20)

"If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth. (Ex 21.26-27)

This was an incentive not to hit slaves.

You like to point out the beating of slaves in Exo 21. Let's put it into a little context.

This is talking about free men.

(Exo 21:18) "If men fight, and one strikes his neighbor with a stone or with his fist and he does not die, but must remain in bed,
(Exo 21:19) and then if he gets up and walks about outside on his staff, then the one who struck him is innocent, except he must pay for the injured person's loss of time and see to it that he is fully healed.

If a free man strikes another free man and he finally gets up and walks about then the man is not guilty of murder. However, he has to pay for the mans wages lost for those couple of days.

In this same vein.

(Exo 21:20) "If a man strikes his male servant or his female servant with a staff so that he or she dies as a result of the blow, he will surely be punished.
(Exo 21:21) However, if the injured servant survives one or two days, the owner will not be punished, for he has suffered the loss.

However, in this case, the owner will not have to pay for his losses because the fool who struck his own slave is the one that suffered the economic loss. Otherwise the punishment for a free man or a slave is the same.

Do you see anything like this concern for slaves in other ancient near east cultures?

sugarhitman · 12-19-2008, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exciter

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Someone mentioned Ham and his "black heir" in the context of slavery.

Not as you implied, though.

Lol, you need a history lesson, unless you aren't trying to say the United States of America. Before the 18th century people were regarding slavery immoral, probably "christians" to you, since your claim of Christianity kind of floats in the breeze like a feather.

What "christians" are you actually referring to?.... and please don't say "Any that used the Bible to justify slavery", lol you need to break it down just a bit, not everyone is as intelligent about Christianity as you think you are.

Well see, just saying something is "plain as day in the Bible" does not really show what you are trying to say. Now I will try to maintain some civility and let you try to show that, but please, none of your tin foil stuff, okay?

Except sugarhitman....

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Just like they purposely disregarded the OT slave laws concerning the right to freedom. The point im making.....there is no justification for involuntary slavery whatsoever.

What about Noah's curse on Ham's son and the Canaanites? That sounds like a justification to me, but then I'm not as intelligent as you think you are, probably no one here is, lol.

I agree it might not mean blackskin, lol, why does it upset you so much that you brought up the fact that Christians used it [and still do] to mean Africans that were slaves when no one else did?

Actually if you read the so called Noah's curse (Genesis 9 25-27) it really was a prophecy. The conflict between Israel and the Caananites ending in victory for Israel (all Israel's enemies who will be subdued) and the grafting in of the Gentiles into the nation of Israel (Gentile Jews the so called "Christians" ).

Don't understand? let me break it down.

Verse 25 The nations Israel were supposed to destroy to posses the Holy Land were the Caananites. But instead of obeying God the Jews made covenants with these nations which God foretold would become "thorns" in Israel's side. Not only did these Pagans introduced Paganism into Israel they also warred against them. In the prophets it is foretold that in the time of the rule of the Messiah "there will no more be a pricking brier unto the house of Israel." and that those who attacked Israel would become Israel's servant. (All nations will be ruled by the King of Israel the coming Messiah).

Verse 26 "Blessed be the Lord God of Shem" the nation of Israel is descended from Shem and Israel is the only nation which recognized the one and only True God thus "The God of Israel."

Verse 27 "God shall enlarge Japheth and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem" This speaks of Gentile converts who become "grafted in branches" into the nation of Israel becoming "joint heirs of the promises."

This isn't about slavery and cannot even begin to justify slavery.

Exciter · 12-19-2008, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Actually if you read the so called Noah's curse (Genesis 9 25-27) it really was a prophecy.

lol, okay a prophecy about justifying slavery then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The conflict between Israel and the Caananites ending in victory for Israel (all Israel's enemies who will be subdued) and the grafting in of the Gentiles into the nation of Israel (Gentile Jews the so called "Christians" ).

And all these enemies came from Ham's descendants, lol. Where did all the black folks that eventually were used by your Christian brethern in the African/american slave trade decend from?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Don't understand? let me break it down.

lol, this should be good for entertainment purposes let me put on my tinfoil hat...

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Verse 25 The nations Israel were supposed to destroy to posses the Holy Land were the Caananites. But instead of obeying God the Jews made covenants with these nations which God foretold would become "thorns" in Israel's side. Not only did these Pagans introduced Paganism into Israel they also warred against them. In the prophets it is foretold that in the time of the rule of the Messiah "there will no more be a pricking brier unto the house of Israel." and that those who attacked Israel would become Israel's servant. (All nations will be ruled by the King of Israel the coming Messiah).

Verse 26 "Blessed be the Lord God of Shem" the nation of Israel is descended from Shem and Israel is the only nation which recognized the one and only True God thus "The God of Israel."

Verse 27 "God shall enlarge Japheth and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem" This speaks of Gentile converts who become "grafted in branches" into the nation of Israel becoming "joint heirs of the promises."

lol, you left out all the parts where drunken butt raped Noah says that they are to be slaves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

This isn't about slavery and cannot even begin to justify slavery.

Do we have to read the Jerusalem Talmud to see this like the Heli was Mary's Father thingy you talked about in the other thread?

sschlichter · 12-19-2008, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exciter

And all these enemies came from Ham's descendants, lol. Where did all the black folks that eventually were used by your Christian brethern in the African/american slave trade decend from?

In the argument about religion in America and the founding fathers, it is typically argued that America was founded on enlightenment ideals so that Christians cannot claim a Christian heritage (and a return to them), except for the practice of slavery. In this case it seems, America was the most Christian of nations.

sugarhitman · 12-19-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exciter

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Actually if you read the so called Noah's curse (Genesis 9 25-27) it really was a prophecy.

lol, okay a prophecy about justifying slavery then.

And all these enemies came from Ham's descendants, lol. Where did all the black folks that eventually were used by your Christian brethern in the African/american slave trade decend from?

lol, this should be good for entertainment purposes let me put on my tinfoil hat...

lol, you left out all the parts where drunken butt raped Noah says that they are to be slaves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

This isn't about slavery and cannot even begin to justify slavery.

Do we have to read the Jerusalem Talmud to see this like the Heli was Mary's Father thingy you talked about in the other thread?

Canaanites here covers all enemies of Israel and of the Gentile converts....you have a lot to learn my old friend.

Exciter · 12-19-2008, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Canaanites here covers all enemies of Israel and of the Gentile converts....you have a lot to learn my old friend.

lol, you left out all the parts where drunken butt raped Noah says that they are to be slaves.

arnoldo · 12-19-2008, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equinox

Steve wrote:

Paul was talking to a slave owner to convince the slave owner to set a slave free. Slavery certainly was the topic.

up to 25% of the population were slaves. He was nearly always talking to a slave owner. The topic was not slavery.

(Deut 20:11) If it accepts your terms and submits to you, all the people found in it will become your slaves.

I think you will find if you do a little research into the word used in this passage, it is not the hebrew word for slave. It is talking about a city that accepts the terms of peace and becomes subject in the form of tribute.

Perhaps you were referring to 20:14

(Deut 20:14) However, the women, little children, cattle, and anything else in the city - all its plunder - you may take for yourselves as spoil. You may take from your enemies the plunder that the LORD your God has given you.

After all the men were killed, you could take the women. However, they were not for slaves. They were to be assimilated into the culture. Their heads were shaved to mark the death of their old life.

(Deut 21:10)
When you go out to do battle with your enemies and the LORD your God allows you to prevail and you take prisoners,
(Deut 21:11) if you should see among them an attractive woman whom you wish to take as a wife,
(Deut 21:12) you may bring her back to your house. She must shave her head, trim her nails,
(Deut 21:13) discard the clothing she was wearing when captured, and stay in your house, lamenting for her father and mother for a full month. After that you may have sexual relations with her and become her husband and she your wife.
(Deut 21:14) If you are not pleased with her, then you must let her go where she pleases. You cannot in any case sell her; you must not take advantage of her, since you have already humiliated her.

No, if they surrender they are to be serfs, forced to pay tribute. (Deut 20:11)

yes, but you failed to mention that twice in the same context it is referring to those that sell themselves into slavery.

(Lev 25:39) " 'If your brother becomes impoverished with regard to you so that he sells himself to you, you must not subject him to slave service.

(Lev 25:47) " 'If a resident foreigner who is with you prospers and your brother becomes impoverished with regard to him so that he sells himself to a resident foreigner who is with you or to a member of a foreigner's family,

this was already discussed at length. I would also like to point out that you are projecting adjectives onto the text. No inhuman treatment is condoned or commanded.

I already told you what the principle is. Don't abuse slaves or you will be punished. I was not asking you to extend the time. I was asking you to tell me at what time it became immoral. Somewhere between 5 minutes and 47 hours. You have judged 47 hours immoral, so tell me at what point that happened!

I noticed that you do not like to include references and prefer to describe the passage in your own words. Slaves were not treated as proeprty. They were given rights, protected by laws, had the ability to be redeemed, even by themsleves, if they prospered.

No , it says not to beat them. You SHOULD BECOME A POLITICIAN. You have a way with words that seems to fit that line of work.

An eye for an eye is a command not to escalate violence as was the tradition in the time. It is designed to be a restraint on taking revenge (which escalates back and forth) not a command to make sure you take an eye for an eye.

You have his opinion on slavery. You are ignoring it. I think bacht's reply was interesting. You can take this up with him, I am beginning to tire of it.

of course you are alleging that their is no consent on the part of women. The question is did God consent? I am certain you will not find consent from him in those passages?

Quote:

in Lev. 19:20, where if a man has sex with a female slave who is engaged to be married, then he is punished and must make an animal sacrifice. This is both a far cry from raping a person, and no punishment is mentioned for raping a slave who isn’t engaged – after all, she’s the master’s property. I can find no mention in the Bible of anything being wrong with raping slaves.

A) it does not say rape, it could be a matter of seduction. B) it is not talking about the master, it is talking about another man sleeping with someone elses slave. C) the payment is not because the woman is a slave, it is because now the master cannot marry her off as her virgnity will not be provable. D) it is unclear to me that the would-be husband is not the one being paid off.

The whole master always raping his slaves scenario seems to be coming from your mind, not the text.

I suggest that these passages are how the God of Isreal wanted the slaves of Isreal to be treated.

(Lev 19:34) The foreigner who resides with you must be to you like a native citizen among you; so you must love him as yourself, because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

(Deut 10:19) So you must love the resident foreigner because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.

Now, here are some examples of how that was implemented.

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished "(Ex 21.20)

"If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth. (Ex 21.26-27)

This was an incentive not to hit slaves.

You like to point out the beating of slaves in Exo 21. Let's put it into a little context.

This is talking about free men.

(Exo 21:18) "If men fight, and one strikes his neighbor with a stone or with his fist and he does not die, but must remain in bed,
(Exo 21:19) and then if he gets up and walks about outside on his staff, then the one who struck him is innocent, except he must pay for the injured person's loss of time and see to it that he is fully healed.

If a free man strikes another free man and he finally gets up and walks about then the man is not guilty of murder. However, he has to pay for the mans wages lost for those couple of days.

In this same vein.

(Exo 21:20) "If a man strikes his male servant or his female servant with a staff so that he or she dies as a result of the blow, he will surely be punished.
(Exo 21:21) However, if the injured servant survives one or two days, the owner will not be punished, for he has suffered the loss.

However, in this case, the owner will not have to pay for his losses because the fool who struck his own slave is the one that suffered the economic loss. Otherwise the punishment for a free man or a slave is the same.

Do you see anything like this concern for slaves in other ancient near east cultures?

If for whatever reason someone had to choose to be a slave in a near eastern culture thousands of years ago without doubt they would receive the best treatment in Israel when compared to other countries such as Egypt, Babylon, Assyria,etc.

sugarhitman · 12-19-2008, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

up to 25% of the population were slaves. He was nearly always talking to a slave owner. The topic was not slavery.

(Deut 20:11) If it accepts your terms and submits to you, all the people found in it will become your slaves.

I think you will find if you do a little research into the word used in this passage, it is not the hebrew word for slave. It is talking about a city that accepts the terms of peace and becomes subject in the form of tribute.

Perhaps you were referring to 20:14

(Deut 20:14) However, the women, little children, cattle, and anything else in the city - all its plunder - you may take for yourselves as spoil. You may take from your enemies the plunder that the LORD your God has given you.

After all the men were killed, you could take the women. However, they were not for slaves. They were to be assimilated into the culture. Their heads were shaved to mark the death of their old life.

(Deut 21:10)
When you go out to do battle with your enemies and the LORD your God allows you to prevail and you take prisoners,
(Deut 21:11) if you should see among them an attractive woman whom you wish to take as a wife,
(Deut 21:12) you may bring her back to your house. She must shave her head, trim her nails,
(Deut 21:13) discard the clothing she was wearing when captured, and stay in your house, lamenting for her father and mother for a full month. After that you may have sexual relations with her and become her husband and she your wife.
(Deut 21:14) If you are not pleased with her, then you must let her go where she pleases. You cannot in any case sell her; you must not take advantage of her, since you have already humiliated her.

No, if they surrender they are to be serfs, forced to pay tribute. (Deut 20:11)

yes, but you failed to mention that twice in the same context it is referring to those that sell themselves into slavery.

(Lev 25:39) " 'If your brother becomes impoverished with regard to you so that he sells himself to you, you must not subject him to slave service.

(Lev 25:47) " 'If a resident foreigner who is with you prospers and your brother becomes impoverished with regard to him so that he sells himself to a resident foreigner who is with you or to a member of a foreigner's family,

this was already discussed at length. I would also like to point out that you are projecting adjectives onto the text. No inhuman treatment is condoned or commanded.

I already told you what the principle is. Don't abuse slaves or you will be punished. I was not asking you to extend the time. I was asking you to tell me at what time it became immoral. Somewhere between 5 minutes and 47 hours. You have judged 47 hours immoral, so tell me at what point that happened!

I noticed that you do not like to include references and prefer to describe the passage in your own words. Slaves were not treated as proeprty. They were given rights, protected by laws, had the ability to be redeemed, even by themsleves, if they prospered.

No , it says not to beat them. You SHOULD BECOME A POLITICIAN. You have a way with words that seems to fit that line of work.

An eye for an eye is a command not to escalate violence as was the tradition in the time. It is designed to be a restraint on taking revenge (which escalates back and forth) not a command to make sure you take an eye for an eye.

You have his opinion on slavery. You are ignoring it. I think bacht's reply was interesting. You can take this up with him, I am beginning to tire of it.

of course you are alleging that their is no consent on the part of women. The question is did God consent? I am certain you will not find consent from him in those passages?

A) it does not say rape, it could be a matter of seduction. B) it is not talking about the master, it is talking about another man sleeping with someone elses slave. C) the payment is not because the woman is a slave, it is because now the master cannot marry her off as her virgnity will not be provable. D) it is unclear to me that the would-be husband is not the one being paid off.

The whole master always raping his slaves scenario seems to be coming from your mind, not the text.

I suggest that these passages are how the God of Isreal wanted the slaves of Isreal to be treated.

(Lev 19:34) The foreigner who resides with you must be to you like a native citizen among you; so you must love him as yourself, because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

(Deut 10:19) So you must love the resident foreigner because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.

Now, here are some examples of how that was implemented.

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished "(Ex 21.20)

"If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth. (Ex 21.26-27)

This was an incentive not to hit slaves.

You like to point out the beating of slaves in Exo 21. Let's put it into a little context.

This is talking about free men.

(Exo 21:18) "If men fight, and one strikes his neighbor with a stone or with his fist and he does not die, but must remain in bed,
(Exo 21:19) and then if he gets up and walks about outside on his staff, then the one who struck him is innocent, except he must pay for the injured person's loss of time and see to it that he is fully healed.

If a free man strikes another free man and he finally gets up and walks about then the man is not guilty of murder. However, he has to pay for the mans wages lost for those couple of days.

In this same vein.

(Exo 21:20) "If a man strikes his male servant or his female servant with a staff so that he or she dies as a result of the blow, he will surely be punished.
(Exo 21:21) However, if the injured servant survives one or two days, the owner will not be punished, for he has suffered the loss.

However, in this case, the owner will not have to pay for his losses because the fool who struck his own slave is the one that suffered the economic loss. Otherwise the punishment for a free man or a slave is the same.

Do you see anything like this concern for slaves in other ancient near east cultures?

If for whatever reason someone had to choose to be a slave in a near eastern culture thousands of years ago without doubt they would receive the best treatment in Israel when compared to other countries such as Egypt, Babylon, Assyria,etc.

Gentlemen, I do believe concerning slavery our God is clearly innocent.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-20-2008, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Gentlemen, I do believe concerning slavery our God is clearly innocent.

Obviously not since Hebrew slaves were guaranteed their freedom, and non-Hebrew slaves were not guaranteed their freedom, and were considered to be property that could be passed on as an inheritance. In addition, slaveowners were not put to death if they killed their slaves, and were not punished at all if they beat their slaves and the slaves recovered within a few days. That was wrong.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.