Exciter

So the forced laborers you call serfs in Deuteronomy 20:!! are being rehabilitated, lol! Christmas is over... no more fruitcake!

WOW! I owe sugarhitman an apology! That's really stretchin' it! You go from a law about people stealing to how an Israeli can get out of debt.

Leviticus 25:49 has nothing to do with theft unless you are going to show another vague reference like you did with Deuteronomy 20:!! and say it could've been you are just going with one definition, lol....
Nobody's say that serial killers should go free, lol.

lol, you are a riot.

Well if you can't control your aim, maybe you should consider squatting when you have to use the toilet, lol, learn to wipe your own ass, flush and put the seat down.

sschlichter

No, they are not. Never said they were.

then apologize to him.

You beleive serial killers should be imprisoned for life? Is this not immoral?

Johnny Skeptic

If what were not the case?

Whether the issue is Old Testament slavery or modern imprisonment, it is immoral to show favoritism to one ethnic group of people. In modern democratic countries, favoritism based upon ethnicity is not allowed by law. Under Old Testament law, it was immoral to guarantee freedom to Hebrew slaves, but not non-Hebrew slaves.

Consider the following translations of Leviticus 25:46:

KJV - And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

NASB - 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.

NIV - 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.

The Amplified Bible - And you shall make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession; of them shall you take your bondmen always, but over your brethren the Israelites you shall not rule one over another with harshness (severity, oppression).

The texts clearly show that there were two standards of treatment, one standard for Hebrew slaves, and another standard for non-Hebrew slaves. There is no doubt that the writer of the verse considered forcing Hebrews to be slaves for life to be unacceptable, and that he considered forcing non-Hebrews to be slaves for life to be acceptable.

Let's discuss how the writer of the verse considered forcing a Hebrew to be a slave for life.

KJV - ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

NASB - you shall not rule with severity over one another.

NIV - you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

The Amplified Bible - you shall not rule one over another with harshness (severity, oppression).

Obviously, the writer believed that involuntary slavery of a Hebrew for life was severe, ruthless, and harsh, but not regarding involuntary slavery for life for a non-Hebrew.

sschlichter

So, slavery would be moral to you if the terms were always the same?

Are you having trouble understanding the question?

sugarhitman

Johnny you are false visualizing again. How do you know that one who sold himself into slavery wanted to be freed again. Some slaves (as the bible says) denied their freedoms to remain with their masters. These people were not treated like African slaves who were thrown in shacks, given one sets of clothing, eating poor food (like pig intestines and other unwanted parts of animals) and beaten (with whips) and maimed and raped. These two systems were completely different.



You have been defeated concerning the lie "Hebrews could abuse slaves" by the JEWISH BIBLE. The only thing you now have is the difference in the length of time that non hebrew and hebrew slaves could be held. But not only could these slaves redeem themselves they had rights that guaranteed their freedom if mistreated or abused. You do not have a case.

Lógos Sokratikós

You're making a point that Hebrew slavery was not that bad as American slavery. Nevertheless Hebrew slavery was not a good thing.

Ah family values.

The NT has...
Nice lifestyle.

Slavery is never good. Slavery is an evil that should not exist, although it is condoned in the Bible.

Of course, I should also add:
Slavery is an evil;
The bible condones slavery;
Ergo the Bible condones an evil.
But also, knowing you, I am sure you don't want to hear that.

Johnny Skeptic

Of course, but Hebrew slaves were always guaranteed their freedom if they wanted it, and non-Hebrew slaves were not always guaranteed their freedom if they wanted it.

Oh really? Well then, you should not have any troube quoting where the Jewish Bible says that non-Hebrew slaves were always guaranteed their freedom if they wanted it. Involuntary servitude for life is abuse regardless of how well a slave is treated.

Johnny Skeptic

I prefer this question: Would it have been more moral, fair, and appropriate if non-Hebrew slaves had always been guaranteed their freedom like Hebrew slaves were?

Let's discuss how the writer of the verse considered forcing a Hebrew to be a slave for life.

KJV - ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

NASB - you shall not rule with severity over one another.

NIV - you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

The Amplified Bible - you shall not rule one over another with harshness (severity, oppression).

Obviously, the writer believed that involuntary slavery of a Hebrew for life was severe, ruthless, and harsh, but not regarding involuntary slavery for life for a non-Hebrew.

Here are some more complete texts that I have posted before:

KJV - And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

NASB - 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.

NIV - 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.

The Amplified Bible - And you shall make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession; of them shall you take your bondmen always, but over your brethren the Israelites you shall not rule one over another with harshness (severity, oppression).

The texts clearly show that there were two standards of treatment, one standard for Hebrew slaves, and another standard for non-Hebrew slaves. There is no doubt that the writer of the verse considered forcing Hebrews to be slaves for life to be unacceptable, and that he considered forcing non-Hebrews to be slaves for life to be acceptable.

Exciter

Yes, ruthlessly and with rigour...

No they protect the immoral slave owner from having to forfeit he's eye, tooth or whatever the immoral slave owner destroyed of the slave. The immoral slave owners are the servants of God and God doesn't want them running around with an eye missing, God doesn't want He's servants that He brought out of Egypt running around with deformities.

lol, actually most OT scholars say that, but I figure that you, sugarhitman, may be a gentleman, a great debater [lol] but you ain't no scholar.

Yeah we do, we have you...

Exciter

I'm trying to clarify it, so thanks. Why weren't the serf/slaves in Deuteronomy 20:!!, H4522 [lol], being rehabilitated?
That was sarcasm, sschlichter and obviously a chance for you to avoid how you stretch Exodus 22:3 about theft to cover Leviticus 25:49, lol.
Very immoral to the seral killer's victim's families, friends and the society that has to put up with them, but hey, your God is a serial killer, but that's another thread shm needs your 'help' in, lol.