rizdek

What is the scriptural basis for this conjecture? Or any basis for that matter, other than the physical fact that unless god miraculously "created the floodwater and then made it disappear" a worldwide flood could not have occurred because water does not compress and if the tallest mtn was covered...it would still be covered. But that's what us skeptical people believe...it never happened.

Sheshbazzar

No Steve, Exodus 21:5 does not make any such thing "clear".
Consider what it really says and -in context;
The application of this vow has nothing to do with a slave actually loving his slave master, but is a legally contrived blackmail to force the slave to either enter into an agreement to permanent slavery, or else- be forced to abandon his wife and children.

This has been covered before, the wife and children through no fault nor choice of their own, are to remain the masters permanent -slaves-
for the entire duration of their lives, regardless of what choice the man and husband makes.

And the only way for that male slave to remain with his wife and children is to take on a vow that also condemns him to a life of permanent slavery.

Don Corleone and gang could not have cooked up a better scheme; making that poor and powerless slave an "offer that he couldn't refuse"
-in agreeing, that servant must now and forever after "kiss the ring".

Net2004

but your yhwh ordered the jews to massacre all of the cannanite children.if they (pagans)burnt a few of thier children then this does not mean they burnt all of thier children, otherwise the cannanites would of died out. your 2 faced christian hypocrisy does not allow yhwh to look evil.

sschlichter

Was it immoral to force the fruit of the labor of those countries to be taken as war reparations? easy question. Why is that you are so clear on what is immoral for a culture you cannot understand but so ambiguous as to what is immoral right in front of your face?

sschlichter

it was easily avoidable. This only applied when the wife was supplied by the owner. If he was married befroe then the slave took his wife.

Johnny Skeptic

Why is it so clear to you that is was acceptable to treat non-Hebrew slaves harshly by forcing them to be involuntarity be slaves for life? Why are you so sure what happened back then? All that we have are copies of copies of ancient texts?

Consider the following Scriptures:

Leviticus 45:26

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 word "but" appears in all four translations. It is used to distinguish between two different methods of treatment regarding two different groups of people, Hebrews and non-Hebrews.

Consider the following excerpts from the aforementioned Scriptures:

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).

Those texts clearly show that the writer believed that it was immoral for Hebrew slaves to be forced to be slaves for life. We know that because previously in the same sentence, involuntarily forcing non-Hebrew slaves to be slaves for life was endorsed, followed by the word "but," which as I said "is used to distinguish between two different methods of treatment regarding two different groups of people, Hebrews and non-Hebrews."

Simply stated, the texts endorse treatment, meaning involuntary slavery for life, for non-Hebrew slaves that was considered harsh treatment for Hebrew slaves.

Regarding the runaway slave law, first of all, slaves should not have had to try to run away since Hebrew slaves were guaranteed their freedom after six years, without paying anything. Second of all, if non-Hebrew slaves were caught by their owners in the process of trying to run away, it is probable that they would have been punished. Consider the following Scriptures regarding non-Hebrew slaves:

KJV: they shall be your bondmen for ever

NASB: you can use them as permanent slaves.

NIV: You can.......make them slaves for life.

The Amplified Bible: of them shall you take your bondmen always.

Based upon those Scriptures, it is reasonable to assume that owners of non-Hebrew slaves had the right to try to prevent them from escaping, and to punish them if they were caught.

Most importantly, why is it so clear to you that a God inspired the Bible? If you wish to answer that question, please start a new thread at the General Religious Discussions Forum. If you do not wish to do that, I understand because Christianity is not logically, historically, and scientifically defensible.

You will never be able to reasonably prove, using reliable historical methods of research, that ancient followers of the God of the Bible were admirable people. They lived by the sword just like everyone else did, and they appointed themsevles to be God's chosen people out of misplaced pride and egotism. Nothing in history suggests that Jews are God's chosen people. Their prophets seldom wrote propheices about other groups of people because they did not care about other groups of people. They hated Tyre because of its wealth, and they wanted God to destroy Tyre, so they dreamed up the Tyre prophecy, and they dreamed other prophecies that predicted the destruction of their enemies. It is an outrageous and outlandish notion that a loving God would camp out in one small region of the world for thousands of years, and turn his back on the rest of the people in the world.

sschlichter

Montesquieu

"What a wonderful thing is the Christian religion! it seems to aim only at happiness in a future life, and yet it secures our happiness in this life also."

Rousseau

Shall we say that the gospel story is the work of the imagination? My friend, such things are not imagined;

Voltaire

"As a result of a hierarchy of nations, Negroes are thus slaves of other men ... a people that sells its own children is more condemnable than the buyer; this commerce demonstrates our superiority; he who gives himself a master was born to have one."

Raynal, educated as a Jesuit

Kant

"The Negroes of Africa have received from nature no intelligence that rises above the foolish.

Two issues.

One) You ignore the role of Christianity in enlightenment philosophy.

Two) You seem to also ignore any ambiguity on the role of slavery in society among enlightenment philosophers. You seem to have a double standard. Is it because you are able to understand the context of enlightenment philosophy better than that of the Law?

sschlichter

Lets stick to the subject that you requested me to join. How about if you answer the question that I asked you to please make a point to answer in my last post.

Answer me what would have happened to the subset of slaves who became slaves out of destitution? Without slavery, how do you propose they would have survived?

Johnny Skeptic

But I have never argued against the institution of slavery in this thread. That is another matter entirely. All that I have discussed in this thread is an unfair double standard. Here is what I said in the opening post:

It is really quite simple. As I showed in another post, Hebrews considered it to be harsh to force Hebrews to be slaves for life, but did not consider it to be harsh to force non-Hebrews to be slaves for life. That was immoral, regardless of whether or not the institution of slavery was moral.

sschlichter

well, post #47 clearly points out that you used to feel that the institution of slavery as outlined in the law is immoral. Apparently, you have come around.

ok, so now the only issue you have is favoritism, then please respond to my questions on favoritism among citizenry.