Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sabine Grant · 12-26-2008, 05:18 PM

This is a sample of my arguments developed in GRD as I was challenging SGHM in regard with his claims on "Biblical" slavery. The conclusion being the immorality of any system meant to promote the exploitation of human beings :

Quote:

By Sabine Grant :
Conclusion : you deity has no issue with human beings exploiting other human beings. The advantaged and ultimately profiting party is the master or owner of the slave by maintaining the slave into co dependency.

I wonder what type of twisted apologetic argument will pop up? That is if you do not ignore once more what was presented to you.

Quote:

By Sugarhitman :
Now seeing that they have no case for God supporting Involuntary slavery now its exploitation. But does He really?

"Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten...you have reaped treasure together for the last days. Behold the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth."

"For the sighings of the poor, now shall I rise."---God

God does not support Exploitation either.

You don't have a case. (nor a clue)

Quote:

By Sabine Grant :
Slavery is ALWAYS exploitation and I explained why. I will do it one more time : the Masters did NOT equip their slaves with the financial means to become independent and self supportive for their basic living needs. NO wages. That is specifically slavery no matter how "voluntary" you claim it to be. The Masters maintained their slaves co dependent of them on purpose.

I am not sure how long you will ignore that reality. But I guarantee you that each time I will catch you making the same claims, I will make it known each time that you have been challenged to prove that slavery as supported in the Bible is not exploitation of one party by another party. Further, that you have ignored what was presented to you and avoided addressing the specifics of my arguments.

Slavery as practiced by the Hebrews is exploitation. Your God established it and supports it. Case closed.

http://www.freeratio.org/vbb/showthr...60#post5717760

Johnny Skeptic · 12-27-2008, 07:57 AM

Consider the following Scriptures:

Number 31:14-18

"And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Regarding "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves," that was involuntary slavery.

Sheshbazzar · 12-27-2008, 08:35 AM

Not to shift the focus too far, but;

"Now therefore KILL EVERY MALE AMONG THE LITTLE ONES"

Has a certain ring to it doesn't it?
It is quite certain that Herod never ordered the NTs fictional
"slaughter of the innocents".
But what about Moses?
Do you believe the Scriptures?
Do you believe that Moses commanded this infanticide?

Kill all the male infants and children, along with every mother,
But keep every female child and all young virgins alive for yourselves.

What is the danger in a 6 week old male, that requirers him to be slaughtered?
And what is the value of a 6 week old female, that spares her from the same fate?

Exciter · 12-27-2008, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

It was not required that runaway slaves be returned to their owners, but non-Hebrew slaves should not have had to try to run away. They should have been granted their freedom after six years without paying anything just like Hebrew slaves. In addition, what happened when their escape attempts were unsuccessful and they got caught by their owners? Surely they were punished for their escape attempts. If they weren't punished, why call them them slaves at all if they could just walk right out of the door without being stopped? Didn't slaveowners have the right to try to prevent their slaves from escaping, and to try to recapture slaves that they had paid for?

This is why I agree with OT scholars [actual scholars, lol.] that Deuteronomy 23:15 concerns a foreign slave.

It seems odd that an hired servant [lol] could just run next door and thumb he's nose at whomever he was hired by.

Same would go for a theif, who couldn't pay back what he stole double, just doesn't make sense.

Some poor slob who is forced to pay tribute to Israel, because they surrendered rather then fight, could just runaway to another Israeli town and then be practically given the keys to the city and not be oppressed? Not likely.

Then there are the people that the Israeli's bought from the other nations, the ones that could be inherited and served over with the LENGTH OF TIME to be rigorously, or ruthlessly if you prefer [lol], in a sense it would be like if all one Israeli's oxen stampeded over to the next Israeli's farm, the first Israeli justs has to say "Oy vey! It's God's will... God desires freedom."

No. Deuteronomy 23:15 is talking about a slave who escapes from a foreign country.

Now maybe he escapes because he's being mistreated, meh, maybe. More than likely it is because it is the human that desires freedom and he escapes because of that.

I'll give a thumbs up to Moses for coming up with that law, but the slave that escaped better hope he doesn't go into debt while he's running around without a care in the world in ancient Israel, his only chance at freedom will leave him without an eye, missing a tooth or without he's stones.....

YEE

UCH!

arnoldo · 12-27-2008, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exciter

. . . I'll give a thumbs up to Moses for coming up with that law, but the slave that escaped better hope he doesn't go into debt while he's running around without a care in the world in ancient Israel, his only chance at freedom will leave him without an eye, missing a tooth or without he's stones.....

Right, since the punishment for the beating of a slave resulting in a loss of an eye or tooth was setting the slave free; then it's logical that most jews didn't give a second thought about hitting a slave. . . FYI, for a more scholarly examination of this issue is the following source:

Quote:

Biblical Principles and Abolition

As a concluding argument, let it be clearly stated that the principles set forth by Jesus and His apostles, if followed, would result in the abolition of all types of abusive relationships. Slavery would have been nonexistent if everyone from the first century forward had adhered to Jesus’ admonition in Matthew 7:12: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them.” Any discussion of slavery would be moot if the world had heeded the words of Peter: “Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another, love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous” (1 Peter 3:8).

Truly, the teachings of the Lord and the apostles would have abolished slavery like no other social reform system ever known. As Herb Vander Lugt accurately observed:

Jesus and the apostles didn’t go on an anti-slavery crusade, because doing so would have been futile and a hindrance to their primary mission. The priority of Jesus was the provision of salvation. For the apostles it was the proclamation of the gospel. But both Jesus and the apostles undermined the basis for slavery by making it clear that God equally loves rich and poor, free and slave, male and female. The apostles also welcomed into the church and gave equal status to all who believed, regardless of race, gender, nationality, or social position (1999, p. 26).

Furthermore, an outright condemnation of kidnapping, or slave trading, is found in the New Testament. In 1 Timothy 1:9-10, Paul wrote:

We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine... (NIV, emp. added).
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/368

Johnny Skeptic · 12-27-2008, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

The punishment for beating a slave resulting in a loss of an eye or tooth was the setting the slave free then it logical that most Jews didn't give a second thought about hitting a slave.

The main issue in this thread is whether or not Old Testament slavery was immoral, and it was. The texts clearly show that 1) it was not allowed to involuntarily force Hebrew slaves to be slaves for life, that 2) it was allowed to involuntarily force non-Hebrew slaves to be slaves for life, that 3) it was considered harsh to force Hebrews slaves to be slaves for life, and 4) it was not considered harsh to force non-Hebrew slaves to be slaves for life.

Consider the following Scriptures:

Number 31:14-18

"And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

So much for the claim that many fundamentalist Christians make that the Old Testament does not endorse involuntary slavery.

Sheshbazzar · 12-27-2008, 10:55 AM

Quote:

"We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine"

Fits very well with that scenario that I laid out in Post #412

Quote:

"Now the Hebrew slave-owning master is eighty and five years old, his mind is not as sharp as it used to be, and he often loses count of exactly how many cows and sheep are in his pastures, or how many slaves are now in his ownership, but he does know with pride, that he has never sold off, traded, or freed a single one, but that he might leave all as an inheritance to his children."

This guy never was a slave TRADER, although he kept generations bound in lifelong servitude, and passed them on to his children with the full sanction of The Law of Moses, and also evidently with the same permission granted under the NT, as long as he did not ever sell or trade any of his slaves.
And the only legally provided escape from slavery that his victims could ever hope for would be that they might be blessed by having an eye poked out, or a tooth knocked out by their master.
Of course nature has a way of taking care of such perverted human arrangements, in this case the destruction of the nation of Israel and the scattering of these vile slave masters brought down and put an end to their entire corrupt and unjust system.
And this was done well before the JC character's line of fairy-tale action/adventure comic books were even cobbled together.

arnoldo · 12-27-2008, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

The punishment for beating a slave resulting in a loss of an eye or tooth was the setting the slave free then it logical that most Jews didn't give a second thought about hitting a slave.

The main issue in this thread is whether or not Old Testament slavery was immoral, and it was. The texts clearly show that 1) it was not allowed to involuntarily force Hebrew slaves to be slaves for life, that 2) it was allowed to involuntarily force non-Hebrew slaves to be slaves for life, that 3) it was considered harsh to force Hebrews slaves to be slaves for life, and 4) it was not considered harsh to force non-Hebrew slaves to be slaves for life.

Consider the following Scriptures:

Number 31:14-18

"And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

So much for the claim that many fundamentalist Christians make that the Old Testament does not endorse involuntary slavery.

Note the key word in that passage you quoted, battle. This is describing the result of warfare, not a jewish raid into neighboring tribes for the express purpose of obtaining slaves. In any event the fact that slavery existed in ancient Israel is NOT proof of God's nonexistence anymore than if there had been an 11th commandment stating, "Thou shalt not own slaves,"would be proof of God's existence.

Sheshonq · 12-27-2008, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

FYI, for a more scholarly examination of this issue is the following source:

Which is not a scholarly treatment at all; it's an apologetic website that recycles other apologetics. The end goal is to to find a way rationalize the biblical support for slavery against modern moral standards that say slavery is wrong. In doing so, it trots out all the tired, broken arguments that we've heard before.

The reality is that if the bible honestly, truly thought slavery was wrong, it would have outlawed it, just like it outlaws murder or stealing. It failed to do so. Therefore even though modern society knows slavery is immoral, the bible falls down on this regard by failing to declare it so.

Slavery is not comparable to divorce. Divorce wa the result of breaking of a marital arrangement. Slavery was the result of being captured in war or sold by slave traders.

This amateur site also tries to equate slavery with forced imprisonment for crime, ignoring the glaring difference between (a) capturing a person to do manual work for you and (b) punishing a person for a crime committed and locking them away for the safety of society.

Finally the discussion of abolition in the NT is downright silly. If the NT actually intended to abolish slavery, then Christ and the apostles were amazingly silent on that topic. It isn't enough to say - as this website tries to do -- "if these high moral principles had been followed, then slavery would have been abolished." Well then - why weren't these high moral principles followed by Christ and the apostles and the early church? Wasn't that what Christ and the apostles were supposed to be doing? Acting out those high principles, providing an example, and exhorting others to adhere to the high moral principles? Where are the commands from Christ or the apostles to slaveowners to free their slaves? Where are the examples of well-to-do Christians freeing their slaves because they realize that slavery is incompatible with these high moral principles?

Don't bother looking; you won't find any examples. That's because the NT likewise does not consider slavery immoral.

SO:
A scholarly discussion of slavery? Not at all. arnoldo has done what he always does: toss out another whacko christian site that tries to put lipstick on a pig.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-27-2008, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

The punishment for beating a slave resulting in a loss of an eye or tooth was the setting the slave free then it logical that most Jews didn't give a second thought about hitting a slave.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

The main issue in this thread is whether or not Old Testament slavery was immoral, and it was. The texts clearly show that 1) it was not allowed to involuntarily force Hebrew slaves to be slaves for life, that 2) it was allowed to involuntarily force non-Hebrew slaves to be slaves for life, that 3) it was considered harsh to force Hebrews slaves to be slaves for life, and 4) it was not considered harsh to force non-Hebrew slaves to be slaves for life.

Consider the following Scriptures:

Number 31:14-18

"And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

So much for the claim that many fundamentalist Christians make that the Old Testament does not endorse involuntary slavery.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Note the key word in that passage you quoted, battle. This is describing the result of warfare, not a Jewish raid into neighboring tribes for the express purpose of obtaining slaves. In any event the fact that slavery existed in ancient Israel is NOT proof of God's nonexistence anymore than if there had been an 11th commandment stating, "Thou shalt not own slaves,"would be proof of God's existence.

It was still involuntary slavery, and it was immoral.

Please note that the main issue in this thread is not the existence of the God of the Bible, but whether or not Old Testament slavery was immoral, and it was. If you wish to debate the existence of the God of the Bible, I will be happy to do that at the General Religious Discussions Forum, or at the Existence of God Forum. How about it?

Also, please note that it was considered harsh to force a Hebrew slave to be a slave for life, and that practice was forbidden, and that it was not considered to be harsh to force a non-Hebrew slaves to be a slave for life, and that practice was allowed.

You are well-known for being evasive. Many months ago, you admitted that you are evasive in a private message that you sent me. Please be advised that you will not be able to divert attention away from the fact there was an immoral double-standard of treatment for Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves.

Do you intend to defend your absurd claim that the flood was regional? If so, you can do so in a thread at the Evolution/Creation Forum that I recently started. The link is http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=258947. A regional flood at Mt. Ararat that was only 22 feet deep according to Dr. Ross? Now please.

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

12-27-2008, 07:57 AM	#492
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Consider the following Scriptures: Number 31:14-18 "And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Regarding "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves," that was involuntary slavery.

12-27-2008, 08:35 AM	#493
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Not to shift the focus too far, but; "Now therefore KILL EVERY MALE AMONG THE LITTLE ONES" Has a certain ring to it doesn't it? It is quite certain that Herod never ordered the NTs fictional "slaughter of the innocents". But what about Moses? Do you believe the Scriptures? Do you believe that Moses commanded this infanticide? Kill all the male infants and children, along with every mother, But keep every female child and all young virgins alive for yourselves. What is the danger in a 6 week old male, that requirers him to be slaughtered? And what is the value of a 6 week old female, that spares her from the same fate?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.