Originally Posted by sugarhitman

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

Originally Posted by Net2004

don't you know that your god told the israelites to "leave no one alive to breathe"? pagan standards were more humane than the israelite terrorists, here is proof:

1 Samuel 30:1 Then it happened when David and his men came to Ziklag on the third day, that the Amalekites had made a raid on the Negev and on Ziklag, and had overthrown Ziklag and burned it with fire; 2 and they took captive the women and all who were in it, both small and great, without killing anyone, and carried them off and went their way. 3 When David and his men came to the city, behold, it was burned with fire, and their wives and their sons and their daughters had been taken captive.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

I am about to open a thread on why God sought to destroy certain nations.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

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

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

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.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

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.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Johnny as a "former evangelist for 30 years" I marvel at your ignorance. Not only were non-hebrew slaves not forced into slavery.......

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

.......they could redeem themselves or be set free.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Any slave who incurred injury as the result of beatings were by law to be set free.

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?

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

But I have never mentioned the issue of involuntary slavery in this thread.



Not always. Leviticus 25:44-45 say "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."

Regarding "but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly," doesn't that imply harsher treatment of non-Israelites?

Please quote the pertinent Scriptures.

If a slaveowner killed his slave, he was only punished. That was wrong. It was also wrong that if a slaveowner beat his slave and the slave recovered within a few days, he was not punished at all.