Exciter

lol

Equinox

He’s arguing that a slave should be free. If he thought that all slaves should be free because slavery is wrong, he would have used that basis to argue that Onesimus should be free. If, on the other hand, he thinks that slavery is justified, but that he’d like this one slave to be free because he is a personal friend, he’d use personal appeals without stating that slavery is wrong. He used personal appeals without stating that slavery is wrong.

Based his own words, it's obvious that he held the second view.

Here is how it is translated by various Bible translating committees (I took the most commonly used ones, and not the KJV because it was done with very little textual support – though it support the “slave” view too) :

NIV: ESV: NASB: CEV: I’m sure these people took all possible meanings into account, and translated based on context, use, and so on. I hope you can understand why I put more credibility in the opinion of the professionals who made these translations than I do in what I read from a message board poster. It’s nothing personal.

Steve wrote:
That’s what I meant. Now that we agree, I fixed my previous statement to be more clear. Do you agree with this now:

Can you imagine doing that – The city doesn’t initially surrender, and during the battle, dozens of men are cornered and surrender, say some in a guard tower, others in a market, others in a stable. 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, while their children (who are being kept as “plunder”) cry “no!! not Daddy!!!!”.

Steve wrote:
No, I’m willing to give you the point that Hebrew slaves were treated better. I’m simply pointing out that laws that protect Hebrew slaves (such as freedom after 6 years) don’t protect foreign slaves, according to the Bible.


Steve wrote:
By not enslaving them. The problem started with the unethical condition of slavery. Asking for a just punishment for a slave is like saying “I beat my wife regularly. How can I beat my pregnant wife so that it doesn’t hurt the nearly full term baby?” To answer either question, one must go back and recognize that the first condition is unethical, and fix that, not just ask how to ethically continue in the unethical framwork.


Sure it is, see Lev 19:13, Ex 20:17, plenty more.


Could you please provide scriptural support for that laws on rape apply to all women?

Why isn't there? The Bible takes the time to tell us that wearing clothes with two different types of thread is wrong. Besides – the Bible doesn’t appear to see it as rape – see below.



Steve wrote:
Because it the Bible doesn’t appear to consider it rape. Rape is the action of one person forcing sexual activity with another person. Slaves are property, thus the change in the laws. You’ll notice that in all other rape laws in the OT, the penalty is death. In the case of misusing property by sexual relations with a slave that is engaged, the punishment is less severe.

Note as before that no punishment is mentioned for having sexual relations with a slave that is not engaged – she is your property, after all.

Why not? Since we’ve seen time and again that the Bible sees slaves as property, foreign slaves are slaves, which are property - not free people.


Good. I’m glad that after myself and others have pointed out that Ex21:21 endorses beating slaves without being punished for it, that you finally agree.


I have no idea, I don’t care, and it’s completely irrelevant. If someone is accused of being mean, I can’t defend them by saying “hey, check out pol pot, he was meaner!”. In fact, by doing so, one admits that the person they are defend is guilty of the charge. The other ANE cultures may have been immoral also, even more immoral for all that it matters here. I think that trying to distract the discussion from the immorality of the Bible by saying – “hey, others were even more immoral” shows both that you know your argument has no merit, as well as showing that you already know the Bible is immoral.

Equinox

sugarhitman

Ha ha its nice how for the first time you failed to respond to the whole post. So I ask again how did you critics make Exodus 21: 20-21 to cover non Hebrew slaves only? Surely such a brilliant cartoonist such as yourself knows? Right?

Johnny Skeptic

Obviously not. If a Hebrew killed a free Hebrew, he was put to death, but if a Hebrew slaveowner killed a slave, he was only punished. That was oppression. In addition, non-Hebrew slaves could be forced to be slaves for life, as item 2 shows, unlike Hebrew slaves who were guaranteed their freedom. That was oppression too.

Of course, and that is what happened since non-Hebrew slaves could be forced to serve for life against their will. Even if all slavery was voluntary, it was wrong to have a double standard for killing free Hebrews, and killing slaves.

Slavery was obviously involuntary for non-Hebrew slaves, at least in some cases, since they could be forced to serve for life.

That will not do. I never said that the Bible condoned killing slaves. It obviously doesn't since it says that if a slaveowner killed a slave, he would be punished. I said "Some texts state that a Hebrew who killed a free Hebrew was put to death, and that a Hebrew who killed a slave was not put to death, only punished. That was wrong."

Obviously not. That only refers to when a Hebrew killed a free Hebrew, not to when a Hebrew slaveowner killed a slave. Exodus 21:20-21 say "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 he is his money." You are obviously wrong. "He shall be punished" certainly does not mean "killed."

Because of the obvious double standard regarding the treatment of Hebrews and non-Hebrews. One Scripture says that Hebrews should not rule ruthlessly over each other. That suggests that is was appropriate to give unfair preferential treatment to Hebrews. In addition, item 2 shows that non-Hebrew slaves could be involuntarily forced to serve as slaves for life.

sugarhitman

>< Ahhh so in other words you are assuming because "some texts says" which shows you are not sure but yet you say "that was wrong" implying that this occured. How deceptive....but that will not work on me.


"Some texts" wrongly translate the Hebrew word "Taphas" as meaning rape which it does not so it it would be no surprise if these texts uses "ruthlessly" implying the right to abuse servants or slaves . So Johnny what does it say in the Jewish bible in Exodus 21?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to sugarhitman: I had forgotten that you are frequently evasive, and only reply to arguments that you have cherry-picked. Please be advised that I will not reply to anything that you post until we have finished discussing this post in detail.

Obviously not. If a Hebrew killed a free Hebrew, he was put to death, but if a Hebrew slaveowner killed a slave, he was only punished. That was oppression.

Non-Hebrew slaves could be forced to be slaves for life. Consider the following Scriptures:

Leviticus 25:44-45

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 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."

Those texts obviously refer to non-Hebrew slaves, who could be involuntary made to serve for life. On the other hand, Hebrew slaves were guaranteed their freedom. Consider the following Scriptures:

Exodus 21:2-4

"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free."

Of course, and that is what happened since non-Hebrew slaves could be forced to serve for life against their will. Even if all slavery was voluntary, it was wrong to have a double standard for killing free Hebrews, and killing slaves.

Obviously not. That only refers to when a Hebrew killed a free Hebrew, not to when a Hebrew slaveowner killed a slave. Exodus 21:20-21 say "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 he is his money." You are obviously wrong. "He shall be punished" certainly does not mean "killed."

Exciter

Um, because I found you saying rigor means the LENGTH OF TIME, for the second time insteresting, that's all,

You still have failed [as always] to back that up, lol. Wait let me guess you have another kewl web site that you got that from! Don't blame me if everyone under the Son [sic] laughs at you.


I have not done that, and you are saying Johnny Skeptic has, so it his post to deal with. sugar, perhaps you are taking on too many giants, you may need to go on another vacation.


Why Johnny Skeptic feels that it does? Damn you are dense if you actually think that I agree with everything Johnny Skeptic says, asks, or the way he posts, but you seem to have personal and emotional issuses with both our styles, you either evade them or resort to your own brand of siilliness, lol, not that I'm against joviality, but you get bent out of shape when the same is done to you and resort to preaching and throwing up "unknown" 'Christian' profanity. You might as well post goatse pics, lol.

Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following Scriptures from the New American Standard Bible:

Leviticus 25:44-46

"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have--you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession.
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."

It is interesting to note that right after non-Hebrew slaves are mentioned, we have "But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another." The word "but" is usually used to contrast different ideas or information, in this case different treatment for Hebrews and non-Hebrews. Otherwise, there would have been no need for the writer to use the word "but." The texts indicate that some kinds of treatment that were appropriate for non-Hebrew slaves were not appropriate for Hebrew slaves.

sugarhitman

Gotcha! So is Exodus 21 about Hebrew servants or non Hebrew slaves....I knew I would get you cornered now you are trying to wiggle out of it. I will put this lie to death. So how did you come to the belief that this is only about Non Hebrew slaves? What does the HEBREW text say?


Come on you brought forth the accusation now back it up.

Johnny Skeptic

You obviously have a problem with reading comprehension. In my post #326, I said:

When you reply to all of my arguments that I made in my previous post, and after we have discussed all of them at length, then I will discuss Exodus 21:20-21 with you, which in fact I have already done. Ever since you and arnoldo came to these forums, you have both tried to control whose arguments get discussed in order to try to prevent embarrassing yourselves. That unfair tactic will not work anymore.

You like to falsely claim that skeptics are evasive when you have proven on many occasions over the last year that it is you who are evasive. I have lost track of how many times you have conveniently refused to reply to arguments that skeptics have made.

While you are at it, you can reply to my post #328 too.