Johnny Skeptic

But yet you do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead. It is Berggy's position that you deserve to go to hell. If Berggy believes that homosexuals will go to hell, what would your position be about that?

Actually, this is an example that neither you nor Berggy have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about. In the NIV, Exodus 21:20 say "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." If a slaveowner among Moses' group killed one of his own people, he was put to death, but not if he killed slave. The word "punished" most certainly does not mean put to death.

I suppose that you approve that people were put to death for working on the Sabbath Day, and for cursing at their parents.

Consider the following:

http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves.

Many Jews and Christians will try to ignore the moral problems of slavery by saying that these slaves were actually servants or indentured servants. Many translations of the Bible use the word "servant", "bondservant", or "manservant" instead of "slave" to make the Bible seem less immoral than it really is. While many slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn't mean that they were not slaves who were bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock.

The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated.

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave. What kind of family values are these?

The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery. How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

So these are the Bible family values! A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and screws them!

What does the Bible say about beating slaves? It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don't die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

http://answering-christianity.com/sa..._no_limits.htm

The Bible allows rape, slavery, the sex trade, and murder!

Judges 21: 10- 24 :

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

So note, the men hide behind bushes like stalkers, and they wait for the women and once they see the women they rush the women and kidnap them and then basically marry them! This is clear rape, I wonder what missionary Sam Shamoun has to say about this, since the missionary has a lot to say on the subject of muta to which he is always refuted, what will say about men hiding like stalkers and then kidnapping women and marrying them? This is what you call ‘legalized rape’.

The fact is no Christian can explain those disgusting verses.

Numbers 31: 7-18:

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

So Moses and his army basically killed all the boys, including infants and just let the little young girls live. Who knows what they did with these little girls. So these passages basically allowed murder and left all the virgins to themselves whom they obviously slept with, many of these virgins were three year olds as well:

"....The Tannaïtic Midrash Sifre to Numbers in §157 comments on the above quoted commandment of MOSES to kill the Midianite women as well as the male children...."

"....According to the Tannaïte Rabbis, MOSES therefore had ordered the Israelites to kill all women older than three years and a day, because they were "suitable for having sexual relations." [138]...."

"Said Rabbi Joseph, "Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse....."

"A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. "A girl three years old may be betrothed through an act of sexual intercourse," the words of R. Meir. And sages say, "Three years and one day old."....."

Children

Sometimes one has to read a passage twice to believe what has been written in the Sacred Books of Judaism: what has been decreed the way to a holy life by the "sages of blessed memory... whose words are the natural sounds of Judaism" [131]:

Said Rabbi Joseph, "Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And one can be liable on her account because of the law prohibiting intercourse with a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her when she is menstruating, to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer [of what lies beneath]. If she was married to a priest, she may eat food in the status of priestly rations. If one of those who are unfit for marriage with her had intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into the priesthood. If any of those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her had intercourse with her, he is put to death on her account, but she is free of responsibility [M.Nid. 5:4]. Sanhedrin 7/55B [132]

R. Nahman bar Isaac said. "They made the decree that a gentile child should be deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15], so that an Israelite child should not hang around with him and commit pederasty [as he does]."

For said R. Zira, "I had much anguish with R. Assi, and R. Assi with R. Yohanan, and R. Yohanan with R. Yannai, and R. Yannai with R. Nathan b. Amram, and R. Nathan b. Amram with Rabbi [on this matter]: 'From what age is a gentile child deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15]'? And he said to me, 'On the day on which he is born.' But when I came to R. Hiyya, he said to me, 'From the age of nine years and one day.' And when I came and laid the matter before Rabbi, he said to me, 'Discard my reply and adopt that of R. Hiyya, who declared, "From what age is a gentile child deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15]? From the age of nine years and one day."' [37A] Since he is then suitable for having sexual relations, he also is deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [of Lev.15]." Said Rabina, "Therefore a gentile girl who is three years and one day old, since she is then suitable to have sexual relations, also imparts uncleanness of the flux variety." That is self-evident! Abodah Zarah 36B-37A [133]

The basis for these rulings is the following Mishnaic passage of Tractate Niddah (filth):

A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. "A girl three years old may be betrothed through an act of sexual intercourse," the words of R. Meir. And sages say, "Three years and one day old." And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And they are liable on her account because of the law prohibiting intercourse with a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her when she is menstruating to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer. If she was married to a priest, she eats heave offering. If one of those who are unfit for marriage has intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into the priesthood. If one of all those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her did so, they are put to death on her account. But she is free of responsibility. If she is younger than that age, intercourse with her is like putting a finger in the eye. (Mishnah Niddah 5:4) [134]

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../precepts.html

Exodus 21:7-11 A father can sell a daughter into slavery to pay a debt. A daughter sold into slavery is not released at the end of six years as is an ordinary male slave.

Exodus 22:29 Firstborn children should be sacrificed to the Lord.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...e/autobio.html

Theodore M. Drange, Ph.D.

My teaching specialties are Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Language, and Theory of Knowledge. I have also taught many other subjects, including Logic, Philosophy of Mind, and Philosophy of Science. Two courses which I invented and which I teach on occasion at WVU are Philosophy of Games and Philosophy of Fundamentalism. The latter course is a critical study of the doctrines of Christian fundamentalism and their philosophical implications.

I received my B.A. degree in 1955 from Brooklyn College (which is now part of CUNY) and my Ph.D. from Cornell University in 1963.

Among my publications are two books. One is in the philosophy of language entitled Type Crossings (The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1966). The other is in the philosophy of religion entitled Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1998).

The laws of the ancient Israelites are hardly the model of morality that advocates of Dominion Theology (or Reconstructionism) make them out to be. It would have been impressive if the Bible had gone against the prevailing cultural norms and had forbidden slavery and the oppression of women. But it did not do that. The Bible condones slavery. [21] It also contains many rules that are discriminatory against women. [22] It is hard to find anything in the Bible that stands out as ethically noble from our point of view today.

In addition, according to the Bible, God also deceived people and caused evil. Some examples of that are the following:

1. He created communication problems between people (Gen, 11:7-9).

2. He sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and certain citizens for the purpose of vengeance (Judges 9:23-24).

3. He sent another evil spirit to torment Saul (1Sa 16:14).

4. He put a lying spirit into the mouths of all his prophets (1Ki 22:22-23).

5. He admitted creating disaster ("evil" in the KJV) (Isa 45:7). [See also Amos 3:6.]

6. He permitted people to have "statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by" (Eze 20:25).

7. He sent certain people a powerful delusion so that they would believe a lie (2Th 2:11).

God also apparently ordered stealing by having the Israelites plunder the Egyptians (Ex 3:22). He ordered the plundering of cities far away from Israel and the enslavement of their people (Dt 20:10-14). [The seven neighboring tribes were to be dealt with still more harshly, as indicated above.] He also ordered 32,000 female virgins to be taken as war plunder (half to go to the soldiers and half to the people) and 32 of them to be for himself (Nu 31:18-40). All of this is highly unethical, to say the least.

Even Biblical doctrines are unethical. A good case could be made that Adam and Eve were victims of entrapment and did not deserve their punishment. And the idea that children are born into the world somehow inheriting Adam and Eve's sin also implies an injustice. As for Jesus's alleged sacrifice for humanity, that too seems unethical. If people deserve a certain punishment, then they ought to receive it. That is what justice is. To knowingly punish the innocent is always morally repugnant. Furthermore, the exclusivist threat of "accept Christ or else be damned for eternity" is unethical. People ought to be provided some way of "opting out" of the entire system. I would say that the most unethical Biblical doctrine of all is that of eternal damnation. [23] It is hard to understand how anyone who interprets the Bible to say that God keeps people alive for purposes of eternal torment, instead of simply annihilating them, could also suggest premise (8) of the Argument from the Bible. And yet there are such.

This sketch of how the argument might be attacked is admittedly in need of filling out, and that is something done elsewhere, as indicated above. But from the little that has been presented, I hope that the reader has become convinced of the total bankruptcy of the Argument from the Bible.

Johnny: Hatsoff, are you going to embarrass yourself and claim that the Bible provides humans with all of the information that they need in order to live like they ought to live, or it is your position that moral advances have been achieved entirely by humans on their own? If addition, are you going to claim that if God exists, it would not have been helpful at all if the Bible condemned slavery in language that can be easily understood by everyone?

Anat

The Hebrew does not differentiate between slave, servant or any other variant. The males are all 'eved' the females 'ama' or 'shifha'. The main reason there were not have been likely to have been many slaves of the chain-gang type is that there was little economic justification for that in the backwater economy of biblical Palestine, whether 1st Temple or 2nd. For most of the time there were very few public works, and there weren't that many people owning enough property to supply enough labor for many slaves. But I would not be surprised if at certain times of greater economic disparity there was a significant underclass of slaves.

There are 2 types of slaves in Torah - Hebrew and foreign. And the status of the Hebrew slave also depended on sex and on whether one was free-born or born into servitude.

Regarding foreign slaves, see Leviticus 25:45-46:
"Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them may ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land; and they may be your possession. And ye may make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession: of them may ye take your bondmen for ever; but over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigour."

A foreign slave can be bought not just for life, but the whole lineage of that person is enslaved for eternity. And notice that the warning against excessive rigour with a slave is specifically limited to an Israelite slave, thus does not extend to the foreign slave. I don't see any clear objection to slavery here.

Regarding the Hebrew slave, if he is male, his status is rather protected. he cannot be dealt with rigour, he has a chance to be released on the 7th year or the Jubilee. But what if he is married to a slave-woman? Then he has to choose between freedom and family (Exodus 21:4-6 "If his master give him a wife, and she bear him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. But if the servant shall plainly say: I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free; then his master shall bring him unto God, and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever."). A neat situation to be in.

And the female Hebrew slave - well, depends on whom she is married to. If her master or her master's son marries her, she is all set. But if she is married to another slave - she is stuck, as are her children. Too bad for her. so how is this a clear opposition of slavery? How can a legal code that opposes slavery even consider the possibility of children being born into servitude?

And why the need to qualify responsibility for the death on one's slave only to cases where the slave dies on the same day? Clearly the life of a slave was worth less than the life of the free. Especially the way Exodus 21:21 is worded: "Notwithstanding if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his money." The slave is definitely considered property, and less than a human with full rights.

Regarding kidnapping people into servitude:
Although Exodus 21:16 seems to refer to all slaves "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. ", Deuteronomy 24:7 clearly limits the law to a Hebrew slave only: "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and he deal with him as a slave, and sell him; then that thief shall die; so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee."

No, I don't see Torah as making a clear statement against slavery.

Berggy

I never said anything about anyone going to hell. Stop putting words into my mouth.

Have you not even read the post I made to you concerning this passage? It was one of the first that I quoted to you and I told you and showed you, by biblical context, what this passage really said. Yet, how convenient, you ignored it.

You dont seem to understand the context behind God's Judgments within the Bible. The Israelite people "AGREED" to follow God's Laws. They knew the judgments and they agreed to keep them.

Aside from this, the cursing aspect? Thats a bit different, but I dont suppose you would want to hear about that, would you? More fuel for slandering eh?

Concerning all the previous passages that you have brought up, I showed you the difference in what the Bible states about Slavery and you have ignored it. I showed you specifically Exodus 21:16 which covers both kidnapping AND slavery and the penalty for such was death, yet it goes right over you.

The context of Exodus 21:16 clearly shows that no one is allowed to take people and sell them, just like slavers do. There is no way for you or anyone else to get around this. Slavery is condemned and it doesnt matter if it has to do with Israelites or non-Israelites. So, what does this passage in Leviticus mean?

Simple, it is speaking about endentured servitude, not slavery for since Slavery is condemned like I showed you, the rest of the passages which specifically speak about servants should be taken accordingly to the context, and those passages speak nothing of the kind of treatment of slaves that you seem to think of.

Keeping them hostage? There is "nothing" in this verse about hostages. You are deliberately twisting the meaning of the scriptures where anyone without an agenda and truly wishes to know what the Bible says would know what is being spoken about here.

I showed you what this passage means according to post #22 in this thread. Go back and look at it and consider.....again.

That passage has nothing to do with "sex" slavery. Its talking about a woman being sold off to pay off a debt as the context of all the other scriptures that I have shown you proved it to be so.

It states "IF". Note the word "IF". I assume you know what the word "IF" means, dont you? "IF" not, then I will explain it to you. Its a condition. "IF" this happens, then 'this' will happen. All those things mentioned are "IF" a specific situation happens, not that this was going to happen regardless and even then, its not what your making it out to be.

Even more so, you are ignoring the context of verses 1-2, which are talking about endentured servitude. They work six years and then are released and the Law of God "REQUIRES" them to furnish their former servants with live-stock, food and wine to make sure that they are well off when they leave. More over, while they are serving their masters, they are accorded all the rights as mentioned by all the other scriptures I showed you in post #22 in this thread.

I have showed you what this passage means. Its talking about if this situation happens and the servant dies, the servant will be "avenged", for that is what the word "punished" means. Its the Hebrew word "naqam" and it means to take vengeance on. According to the context of the other passages that I have mentioned in post #22, it means that if a master kills a servant, he will be "EXECUTED". But if the servant lives then the master would "NOT" be executed because he didnt kill the servant and that is all is speaks about in this particular passage.

Seeing as how Ive shot your rediculous and out-of-context arguments to the ground, lets move on.

Christ's attitude towards slavery and indentured servitude is the same as what is written in the Law and the Prophets. They oppose slavery, but support indentured servitude as slavery is wrong, but a contract made to pay off a debt by labor isnt.

You are the one who is disgusting Johhny. How is it that you can quote all the verses from this passage, but you ignore the very last one?

Judges 21:25: In those days there was no king in Isarel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

In context, the situation you described and now the Bible says that these people wree doing what they wanted to do because they believe it was right...IN THEIR OWN EYES.

Their own eyes does not = God's Eyes.

The reason for this is explicetly stated. Only those who were responsible for causing the Israel people to rebel against the Lord were killed. Those who were not, had no part in the punishment.

Your error lies in the fact that your quoting from a collection of commentaries and books written by Rabbis of authentic Judaism that was compiled only a few hundred years "AFTER" Christ left the earth. Its call the Babylonian Talmud of Judaism and it is "NOT" the Law and the Prophets or the Old Testament as you know it as.

There are many differences between the Bible and Judaism, for they are not the same. If you would like to have a formal debate on the basic principles and beliefs of the two, then lets have at it.

Wrong, there is no difference when concerning gender when it comes to the year of release. The phrase "go out" has nothing to do with being released from servitude in verse 7.

The word "offer" is in italics and is not in the original Hebrew text. Even more so, your disgusting habit of taking scriptures out of context is further verified by the fact that in Dueteronomy 21:15-17 states that firstborn children are to received the larger portion of inheritance from their father. Inheritance is given when the father dies, not before and therefore, if the child was to be sacrificed, then they couldnt fulfill this, which means that "YOU" are completely wrong in what your trying to say.

I dont care what this supposed theologian says. He obviously doesnt know the Bible, else he would tell you and show you exactly what I have shown. All those things that you claim are wrong and needless and immoral are not as you claim they are.

1. I see no problem here. The people survived, they were not hurt.

2. Apparently, you dont like reading the entire context. Look at verse 56-57. God is punishing both sides for their evil, for whatever they did. Therefore, you attempt to make God a villian falls flat on its face.

3. The explanation to this is that this was not the Gods of the Bible who did this, for Samual, the prophet of the Lord, annointed David in the manner of kings before the Spirit of the Lord left Saul and this supposed evil spirit from the same God came upon him. David was to become the next king as The Lord God was repentive that he made Saul king as stated in Samual 15:35.

In 1 Samual 18:10-11 it specifically states that the evil spirit came upon Saul and after he prophesied, he threw the Javalin at David, intending to kill him. David was annointed by Samual to be the next king and because of this God would NOT be the one trying to kill the future King of Israel.

Simply put, the evil spirit was from those who oppose God, which would be Satan. Therefore, you have your answer.

4. The one who sent the lying spirit into the mouths of the prophets was not the God of the Bible. The Prophet Micaiah was prophesying saying that the word of the Lord was that he "saw" the Lord sitting on the throne asking if there was a spirit that would go be a lying mouths in all the prophets that these kings would ask.

Micaiah told him that if he went, the King of Israel, to this place, he would not come back alive. If he did then the word of the Lord was not with this prophet. The King of Israel died in that place and was buried shortly afterwards, which completely shows that this Lord, who sent the lying spirit, was not the GOd of the Bible.

Obvious, you dont know how to read Johnny.

5. Wrong. The Hebrew word for "create" when in contrast to the words "darknesn" and "evil" is the Hebrew word "bara" and it also means to cut down as well as to create. This would mean that the Lord makes Light and Good and destroys darkness and evil.

So much for what you want it to say

6. Did you stop to consider how this was done? From the beginning of the chapter it is spoken about how God gave the Israelites laws to govern theri lives but they continually rebelled against them. So, in verses 23-24, God scattered them among the heathen and "that" is how they got laws and statutes and werent good and that they shouldnt live by. God gave them want they wanted, for they continually rebelled against him.

This is no way is wrong. It was the allowing of the Israelites to go their own way just as Dueteronomy 32:20 says that God will do if you continue to say "No, go away" to them.

7. This is the same as #6. God is giving them what they wanted. You want to have pleasure in unrighteousness? Well, you get what you ask for. You choose to go against God and then you must deal with the consequences.

1. It wasnt theft. The word "borrow" is the Hebrew word "sha'al sha'el" and it means to ask, demand, to request, to inquire of, to ask for one's self, to interrogate. It "NEVER" means to steal - Exodus 3:22

2. Those people were to be destroyed for the amount of evil that they were involved in. Human sacrifice, gross and disgusting sexuality that is forbidden and unnatural by God's Law and nature and they worshipped false Gods. Even more so, that was no en-slavement - Dueteronomy 20:10-14

3. This has been gone over before - you are in error and I have shown how you were.

I have answered all of your questions with true answers from the Bible. You have not a leg of credibility to stand on to say that the Bible is immoral or the Gods of the Bible are un-ethical when the reasons for what happened are not as you make them out to be.

The simple truth of the matter is that you have blatantly taken verses out of context, you have tried to force me to say things that I have never even begun to say and you have changed the subject from one thing to another in a rediculous attempt to hold on to what shred of dignity you have left, but and I have no desire to sit here and go through this time and time again.

Either put some true evidence where your mouth is, or shut it. If you wish to debate about a given subject, lets have at it. As I have shown with just this questions that you continue to pose, in a perile attempt of slandering and demonizing the Bible and those that believe it; I can easily prove that you are wrong.

Good Day Johhny. If you wish to debate, give me a ring.

Berggy

The entire distinction between a true slave and indentured servitude resides completely within the difference between Exodus 21:16 and Deuteronomy 24:7 and the rest of the passages concerning bondmen and bondmaids which were accorded rights as shown by Exodus 21:2-21.

Even more so, I think i like Deuteronomy 23:16. The servant that would escape to you from someone else is not to be returned and that servant shall serve in one of the places that the servant escaped to and he was "NOT" to be oppressed.

Therefore, according to the context of all of this. Foreign servants were not to be oppressed, just like Hebrew servants were not to be oppressed as stated by the numerous passages that explicetly state that there is to be One Law between those of the Israel people and strangers, such as exodus 12:49, Leviticus 24:22, Numbers 15:16, Numbers 15:29.

There is a difference. It lies within the fact that there was a law showing that you are not to treat Hebrew servants like crap and there are laws to show you that you are not to treat foreign servants like crap.

Bottom-line; Exodus 21:6 and Deuteronomy 24:7 specifically condemn slavery. Therefore, all those instances that do not fall under what is spoken of in these two passages is "not" slavery, but indentured servitude.

jeremyp

So much debate turning on the nuances of the translations of various phrases in the Bible. I can't help thinking that if the Bible is the Word of God and God condemns slavery, there would be a commandment in it:

"Thou shalt not enslave other people".

That would have saved centuries of misery and cruelty.

Berggy

You must study to find the truth of what the Bible says, just like 2 Timothy 2:15, 1 Thessalonians 5:21 and Acts 17:11. Sometimes the truth resides within the meaning of a particular word that must be researched or the meaning is found by Biblical context, which can only be seen if you let the Bible interpret itself.

Even more so, on a simpler note, cant you read Exodus 21:6 and Deuteronomy 24:7 and understand what its talking about in contrast to the other passages?

The Bible condemns slavery, for what is being described in those two passages is what amounts to it. They steal people and sell them as merchandise, slavery. Those caught doing so, were to be executed and obviously, as a result of this commandment, those who bought them to have them as slaves, would have been executed as well - for they had taken part in it.

Dr Rick

The Bible makes it clear that Hebrews are not to be slaves:

Leviticus 25:39-43 And if one of your brethren who dwells by you becomes poor, and sells himself to you, you shall not compel him to serve as a slave. As a hired servant and a sojourner he shall be with you, and shall serve you until the Year of Jubilee. And then he shall depart from you—he and his children with him—and shall return to his own family. He shall return to the possession of his fathers. For they are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. You shall not rule over him with rigor, but you shall fear your God.

But non-Hebrews can clearly be enslaved:

Leviticus 25:44-46 And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.

In case there is any doubt, the Bible offers this helpful rule for slave owners:

Exodus 21:20,21 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

And the great advice isn't just confined to the OT:

1 Peter 2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Titus 2:9-10 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.

Colossians 3:22-25 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism.

Berggy

Uh-huh...and ignore all the other evidence I have shown to clarify what is slavery and what is indentured servitude.

Anat

So how much should a foreigner owe to justify enslaving not only him but his children, even to the point of being passed on in inheritence for generations?

How much should a father owe to justify having his daughter and her children enslaved for life, if she had the misfortune of being married off to a slave?

Berggy

We are still talking about indentured servitude, not slavery. Even more so, this passage must be taken into context of those other passages regarding indenturered servants such as the ones mentioned earlier. This means, specifically, that these children of the strangers, all though the people would be forever serving the people of Israel, at the seventh year from when they started serving them, they would be released and then the Israelites would go out and get more servants. The cycle would continue.

As I have said, we are talking about indentured servitude here, not slavery. For a slave cannot be allowed to grow rich with material wealth, yes? Consider verses after Leviticus 25:45-46, especially verse 47.

Note that the word for "stranger" is the same Hebrew word that is used in verse 45, which is "toshab" and it means a stranger, an emigrant, sojourning in a strang country, where he is not naturalized. Even more so, the context of this word is clarified by verse 44, which are the heathen, but notice what verse 47 is speaking of.

The stranger, who is part of the same heathen strangers beind spoken about in the previous verses, is allowed to grow "RICH". True slaves are "NEVER" allowed to become wealthy. They are given enough to survive and most of the time, they dont even get that much. Slaves do not have the luxury nor the ability to become rich in a slavers world.

Therefore, this cannot possibly be talking about slaves at all.