rizdek

Amazing the extent to which bible apologists will compartmentalize their thinking to justify/rationalize the biblical position on issues. Clearly the people who wrote the books that eventually became the bible didn't have anything against slavery. It is apparent they did not think their god had anything against slavery or partial treatment of slaves who were foreigners vs "home" slaves. This continued through the NT. No where is there a clear statement that slavery is wrong. However, the people who wrote the bible were very vocal on other things they thought were wrong, i.e. homesexuality, incest, wrongful killing, stealing, etc. Even though these "sins" were prevalent, the bible had no problem speaking out against them, but on slavery....silence. In fact, as is highlighted by the apologists, the bible is quite specific on how to treat slaves, which suggests condoning slavery. And this somehow makes sense to bible apologists. As has been mentioned earlier, the words of the bible becomes "clay" in the hands of a innovative apologist.

Exciter

Yet you don't offer any sources.
Not necessarily, you just have a jaded veiw of life which is probably why you are content to sit on your duff and wait for someone or something ie. a God to give you what you want.
I actually do, but the majority are in their position because they made bad decisions and/or allowed themselves to be put into bad circumstances.

Yes, and the majority that are not in my situation are in their position because they made bad decisions and/or allowed themselves to be put into bad circumstances.

Sheshonq

That's indentured servitude.
If you think it applies to true slaves, then quote the verses.

Or maybe you could just support your claims above. Getting right down to the meat of this would help everyone out - if there is any meat behind your claims.

Johnny Skeptic

Not non-Hebrew slaves. 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).

Consider the following excerpts from the aforementioned Scriptures:

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.

Sheshonq

No you're the one who is confused.

1. You claimed -without evidence or citation - that the reason Moses ordered the killing of men and children was because they represented a threat of idolatry among the Hebrews. The children couldn't be integrated into Hebrew society, and since there was no one to care for them they needed to be killed. Do you plan to cite any verse or reasoning to prove this?

2. About the children now: you also have not explained yet why impressionable children, after having lived in a different culture for seven years, wouldn't adopt that culture - in which case they would not be idolaters, but worshipping the Hebrew god. And in which case, your made-up reason for Moses killing them would collapse under the weight of its own nonsense. I don't have to prove anythign here; it is your claim that impressionable children would not adopt Judaism while living as slaves among Jews for seven years. That claim is the underpinning of your rationalization for Moses ordering their deaths. Since it's a critical part of your claim about Moses' order to kill the children, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that these children would not have adopted the Jewish religion. I do not have a burden of proof here.

3. You have also been running from the additional question: if Moses was so afraid of idolatry in Israel that he felt the need to order the slaughter of children to avoid having idolatry break out, then why did he make an exemption for the foreign women? Why did Moses allow them to be brought back as slaves and wives? Teenage (and adult) women are far more likely to be active and knowledgeable worshippers of idols, not impressionable or easily changed like children. If Moses was truly afraid of idolatry (thus ordering th slaughter or children), then why the exemption for women?

Answer: the reason the women were spared is because capture of women from other tribes is a tradition with a long history in the ANE. The men were killed for obvious reasons; the children were killed to make sure that there would be no blood feuds or retribution later on - and to make sure that the women would bear children by their new Hebrew husbands / slaveowners. With their first set of children dead, the foreign women would have no ties to their former tribe. So Moses' order to kill the children had nothing to do with any fears of rampant idolatry breaking out in Israel. On the contrary, it was an aspect of ancient Mideast culture playing itself out. So your attempt to rationalize Moses' order to slaughter the children based on fears of idolatry is nonsense. The Hebrew slaughter of these children remains immoral.

This is the admission that you're trying to avoid making.

I'm not confused at all. See the above.

And any law that "protects the Hebrews" by requiring the slaughter of children is still immoral.

Sheshonq

1. Except this passage refers to indentured servants, not slaves. Neither you nor sschlicter are going to be allowed to blur this distinction.

2. If you think that Hebrew slaves were better off than other ANE slaves, then by all means - prove it.

Johnny Skeptic

Yes, God is quite tolerant. He allowed Hebrews to be terrorized by, among other parties, the Philistines, Nebuchadnezzar, and the Roman emperor Trajan. In the early part of the second century, Trajan went to Palestine to put down a Jewish uprising. He killed 500,000 Jews. Now what crime did Jewish babies who were killed by those parties commit against God? Would you have people believe that if Jews had acted appropriately, God would not have injured or killed any of them with storms, disease, and famines?

Further evidence of God's tolerance is his allowance of divorce during Old Testament times, even though marriage is the supposed basis of the family. It is quite odd that such a strict God, who ordered the death penalty for all kinds of things, would allow divorce. Jesus supposedly said that Moses allowed divorce because the people's hearts were hard. That is not likely. If anything, the God of the Bible was very strict, and not likely have allowed divorce. Allowing divorce would have been out of character for the God of the Old Testament.

Why do you suppose that God waited for thousands of years to send Jesus to the world? Wouldn't sooner have been much better than later? After all, the book of Hebrews says that Jesus provide a better covenant.

The Bible is obviously a fairy tale.

arnoldo

Free will requires it, people are free to do good or evil.

Sheshbazzar

But sugar was not talking about ANE slaves when he asserts that all of "us" are slaves, he is addressing the present state of affairs as it is seen through his distorted view.
I am perhaps somewhat older than you, and am well acquainted with the living circumstances of hundreds of my acquaintances and family members.
My parents, aunts and uncles all received Social Security assistance and all have lived quite comfortably in their "golden years", for several it has been the best time of their entire lives, and for some, even the first time in their entire lives that they were finally able to count on a steady source of income, a roof over their heads, and sufficient food to eat.
Yes, most Americans do enjoy a higher standard of living, and desire to maintain a much stronger social support net-work than that of most Third World nations, and the ideal has always been to lift up, and to encourage other nations to the adopting of higher standards of social responsibility;
"Most of the world, and most of history" provides us the examples of what is unacceptable, and of what it is desirable for civilized nations to strive to rise above, rather than simply being employed as standing excuses for how low we can allow ourselves to sink.

Patrick F

Boy you really have to be able to twist scripture in your mind to believe this. The law allows for a sever beating of slaves, even girl slaves, and with a rod.

How on earth can you twist this to say this protects a slave? This law means that if you just arbitrarily decided a woman (that you own) isn't working fast enough, you can beat her with a rod almost to the point of death and as long as she survives, then you completely get away it. You're actually allowed to do under Yahweh's law.