Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sschlichter · 12-11-2008, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

The slavery is obviously permitted, the mistreatment of slaves is the issue. it is not permitted.

Beating a slave with a rod to the point that he (or she) cannot even get up from the ground for an entire day or more, is not mistreatment in your view?
By the texts that you are citing it most certainly is permitted.

If a man should beat his dog, his cow, or a horse to the point that it could not arise for days, it would be considered mistreatment in almost any society,
however if the victim of such a beating is -only- a wife, or a slave, well, then in that case it simply -must- be called something else.
Down here in Kentucky, a man that beat his horse so severely, in earlier times, would likely not have lived to see the next sunrise, today's courts would lock him away for as long as if he had killed a man.

Quote:

ownership is relative. I have people pay for me to work for them all the time. there are laws that regulate abuses in our economic system. when does it become slavery? 8 hours / day, 16 hours, 7 year agreement. It is voluntary but sometimes necessary. A person who is destitute can sell themselves permanently into slavery (and their descendants apparently) This was allowed. Abuse was not.

~Steve

None of those present day scenarios are slavery Steve, -(And anciently, abuse WAS allowed)-
you have a choice to work, or to not work at your own will.
You are free to walk away from any job at any time.
No person has a right to beat you with a rod to the point that you can't rise from the ground for hours on end.
And not being a slave of those you work for, they DO NOT own you,
if you decide to quit, and to walk away from their employment,
they cannot have you hunted down and be forced to return to their premises against your will.
They do not own your wife or children, and cannot hold them as slaves, neither can they sell them nor trade them,
nor leave them as though they were only so many cattle, as an inheritance of slaves unto their children.
They cannot sell you, nor trade you to a far away master, and so separate from your family, and your home.
You make mockery of men who have suffered under the cruelty and deprivations of real slavery.

Why not just cut out all this evasive dishonesty? It impresses no one here.
Are you Satan's slave, that you must obey, and serve him, by continuing in his ways?

I beleive the law says that if you have beaten a slave so that they cannot get up then you will be punished.

If you could manage to just stick to the topic I would appreciate it. How you feel about me personally seems to leak out at the end of every post. To me, this is a diversion that does not help. Even if you think I am in league with Satan, pointing it out will not really serve any purpose unless the only purpose you have is to make me go away. If that is the case, just say so and I will not respond to any of your posts. Not a problem at all. Actually, if you beleive me to be a tool of Satan, that might be the best course of action for you.

~Steve

Sheshbazzar · 12-11-2008, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Beating a slave with a rod to the point that he (or she) cannot even get up from the ground for an entire day or more, is not mistreatment in your view?
By the texts that you are citing it most certainly is permitted.

If a man should beat his dog, his cow, or a horse to the point that it could not arise for days, it would be considered mistreatment in almost any society,
however if the victim of such a beating is -only- a wife, or a slave, well, then in that case it simply -must- be called something else.
Down here in Kentucky, a man that beat his horse so severely, in earlier times, would likely not have lived to see the next sunrise, today's courts would lock him away for as long as if he had killed a man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

ownership is relative. I have people pay for me to work for them all the time. there are laws that regulate abuses in our economic system. when does it become slavery? 8 hours / day, 16 hours, 7 year agreement. It is voluntary but sometimes necessary. A person who is destitute can sell themselves permanently into slavery (and their descendants apparently) This was allowed. Abuse was not.

~Steve

None of those present day scenarios are slavery Steve, -(And anciently, abuse WAS allowed)-
you have a choice to work, or to not work at your own will.
You are free to walk away from any job at any time.
No person has a right to beat you with a rod to the point that you can't rise from the ground for hours on end.
And not being a slave of those you work for, they DO NOT own you,
if you decide to quit, and to walk away from their employment,
they cannot have you hunted down and be forced to return to their premises against your will.
They do not own your wife or children, and cannot hold them as slaves, neither can they sell them nor trade them,
nor leave them as though they were only so many cattle, as an inheritance of slaves unto their children.
They cannot sell you, nor trade you to a far away master, and so separate from your family, and your home.
You make mockery of men who have suffered under the cruelty and deprivations of real slavery.

Why not just cut out all this evasive dishonesty? It impresses no one here.
Are you Satan's slave, that you must obey, and serve him, by continuing in his ways?

I beleive the law says that if you have beaten a slave so that they cannot get up then you will be punished.

No, Steve, and -you- KNOW it, that The Law says more than that, it also clearly says
"....If the slave recovers after a couple of days, however, then the owner should not be punished,
Which amounts to implied endorsement of, and implied permission for the practice of slave beating.
I asked you this question before, and I'm asking it again;

"Beating a slave with a rod to the point that he (or she) cannot even get up from the ground for an entire day or more, is not mistreatment in your view?
By the texts that you are citing it most certainly is permitted."
(to forestall evasiveness I'm adding, "and that slave owner continues to beat his slave week after week, allowing only for the Law's required interval, that as soon as the slave can rise, the owner is free in his legal rights to beat him again.) Is this not mistreatment in your view?

If you are an honest, loving and compassionate person, you ought not have any problem giving a straightforward yes or no answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

If you could manage to just stick to the topic I would appreciate it. How you feel about me personally seems to leak out at the end of every post. To me, this is a diversion that does not help. Even if you think I am in league with Satan, pointing it out will not really serve any purpose unless the only purpose you have is to make me go away. If that is the case, just say so and I will not respond to any of your posts. Not a problem at all. Actually, if you beleive me to be a tool of Satan, that might be the best course of action for you.

~Steve

Would you like some cheese to go with that whine Steve?
Your inconsiderate, and uncompassionate support of the institution of slavery, while you try to wiggle out of dealing with what the Bible actually says about the subject, does not reflect well at all upon your character.
You are, (or at least, -should- be) in charge of your own character.
I have no feelings at all about you personally, I've never met you, and all I know of you are the opinions that you reveal here.

Maybe you are normally a pretty nice guy, easy going, friendly, and well liked by your family and friends???? I don't know.
But I (and others) do see what you post in these forums, and it does not appear to be the views of a person who sincerely cares for the welfare of his fellow man, nor of one that wishes to impartially examine and discuss the contents of the Bible.
Your posts, rather, clearly indicate that you have "made up your mind" and are now on a predetermined course, with a mission, and an agenda, one that must be obeyed and satisfied at any cost.
Who that one is that you are at work for is only determinable by tenor of your arguments, if you are supporting and advocating a vile institution, and wilfully evading the word of Scripture, then in who's employ do you think you will appear to be?

Whether you respond to any of my posts or not is irrelevant to me, but rest assured that I will continue to respond to your posts, and will continue to point out evasiveness, the errors in your reasoning, and the lack of love and compassion towards your fellow man that is revealed in them.

bacht · 12-11-2008, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Who that one is that you are at work for is only determinable by tenor of your arguments, if you are supporting and advocating a vile institution, and wilfully evading the word of Scripture, then in who's employ do you think you will appear to be?

Whether you respond to any of my posts or not is irrelevant to me, but rest assured that I will continue to respond to your posts, and will continue to point out evasiveness, the errors in your reasoning, and the lack of love and compassion towards your fellow man that is revealed in them.

That's a bit over-the-top isn't it? Even if you're right and Steve's wrong you don't have to be so snide about it. You're a veteran here, you should know that attacking the person rather than the argument is irrelevant and counter-productive.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-11-2008, 11:47 AM

Message to sschlicter: Consider the following Scriptures:

Exodus 21:12-14 (NIV)

"Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death."

Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV)

"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."

The first reference refers to Hebrews. If a Hebrew killed another Hebrew, he was put to death. The second reference refers to non-Hebrews. If a Hebrew killed a non-Hebrew slave, he was not put to death as would have been the case if he had killed another Hebrew. The Hebrew slaveowner was only punished, and was not punished at all if the slave recovered within a few days.

The second reference has to be talking about non-Hebrews because it would not make any sense for Exodus 21:12-14 to say that if a Hebrew killed another Hebrew, he would be put to death, and for Exodus 21:20-21 to contradict that only a few verses later by saying that if a Hebrew killed another Hebrew, he would only be punished.

Are you aware that Hebrew slaves were guaranteed their freedom if they wanted it, but that non-Hebrew slaves were not guaranteed their freedom if they wanted it?

Amaleq13 · 12-11-2008, 01:07 PM

Please avoid accusing or suggesting that someone is lying as it is prohibited by the rules. Stick to the facts and let the readers decide whether a member has been deliberately deceptive.

Sheshbazzar · 12-11-2008, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Who that one is that you are at work for is only determinable by tenor of your arguments, if you are supporting and advocating a vile institution, and wilfully evading the word of Scripture, then in who's employ do you think you will appear to be?

Whether you respond to any of my posts or not is irrelevant to me, but rest assured that I will continue to respond to your posts, and will continue to point out evasiveness, the errors in your reasoning, and the lack of love and compassion towards your fellow man that is revealed in them.

That's a bit over-the-top isn't it? Even if you're right and Steve's wrong you don't have to be so snide about it. You're a veteran here, you should know that attacking the person rather than the argument is irrelevant and counter-productive.

Not being snide about it.
The question is, and has been for quite some time now;

Quote:

"....If the slave recovers after a couple of days, however, then the owner should not be punished,
Which amounts to -implied endorsement- of, and -implied permission- for the practice of slave beating.
I asked you this question before, and I'm asking it again;

"Beating a slave with a rod to the point that he (or she) cannot even get up from the ground for an entire day or more, is not mistreatment in your view?
By the texts that you are citing it most certainly is permitted."
(to forestall evasiveness I'm adding, "and that slave owner continues to beat his slave week after week, allowing only for the Law's required interval, that as soon as the slave can rise, the owner is free in his legal rights to beat him again.) Is this not mistreatment in your view?

If you are an honest, loving and compassionate person, you ought not have any problem giving a straightforward yes or no answer.

Steve, and anyone else attempting to uphold "Scriptural values" needs to deal with and find an honest answer to the question, (and other like questions) both for his own benefit, and so that he no longer misleads others.
Continually resorting to a retreat into evasiveness is not an answer.
So thus arises an ethical problem which only he can solve,
Why, if the Bible is true, does he need to evade the implications of what it says?
Not an attack on his person, but an attempt to get him to confront the evident partiality and evasiveness that he displays in thread after thread, and in post after post.
To deal honestly with the truth of the matter, Because the truth, (if and when he ever gets around to accepting it),
WILL set him Free!,
and then he will, at long last be free, free indeed, from the chains of men's contrivations and lies.
So I am here laboring not for his shame, nor for his harm, but for his benefit.
And because I am caring, compassionate, and sinciere in my love towards him,
I will continue in honestly addressing all that is in his best interest.

Ooops! now my true feelings really are leaking out!

andrewcriddle · 12-11-2008, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to sschlicter: Consider the following Scriptures:

Exodus 21:12-14 (NIV)

"Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death."

Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV)

"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."

The first reference refers to Hebrews. If a Hebrew killed another Hebrew, he was put to death. The second reference refers to non-Hebrews. If a Hebrew killed a non-Hebrew slave, he was not put to death as would have been the case if he had killed another Hebrew. The Hebrew slaveowner was only punished, and was not punished at all if the slave recovered within a few days.

The second reference has to be talking about non-Hebrews because it would not make any sense for Exodus 21:12-14 to say that if a Hebrew killed another Hebrew, he would be put to death, and for Exodus 21:20-21 to contradict that only a few verses later by saying that if a Hebrew killed another Hebrew, he would only be punished.

Hi Johnny

I am not sure whether or not you are right here.

On the whole it seems simpler to take 21:12-14 as the general rule and 21:20-21 as a special case involving the manslaughter by a master of a slave whether Hebrew or non-Hebrew. There is another special case in 21:2-3, dealing with killing of burglars, where the issue of Hebrew or non-Hebrew burglars is not involved.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic · 12-11-2008, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to sschlicter: Consider the following Scriptures:

Exodus 21:12-14 (NIV)

"Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death."

Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV)

"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."

The first reference refers to Hebrews. If a Hebrew killed another Hebrew, he was put to death. The second reference refers to non-Hebrews. If a Hebrew killed a non-Hebrew slave, he was not put to death as would have been the case if he had killed another Hebrew. The Hebrew slaveowner was only punished, and was not punished at all if the slave recovered within a few days.

The second reference has to be talking about non-Hebrews because it would not make any sense for Exodus 21:12-14 to say that if a Hebrew killed another Hebrew, he would be put to death, and for Exodus 21:20-21 to contradict that only a few verses later by saying that if a Hebrew killed another Hebrew, he would only be punished.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Criddle

I am not sure whether or not you are right here.

On the whole it seems simpler to take 21:12-14 as the general rule and 21:20-21 as a special case involving the manslaughter by a master of a slave whether Hebrew or non-Hebrew.

Are you saying that there was no distinction between Hebrew slaves and non-Hebrew slaves? We already know that Hebrew slaves were guaranteed their freedom, and that non-Hebrew slaves were not guaranteed their freedom, and were considered to be property that could be put in a Hebrew slaveowner's will. Many fundamentalist Christians claim that slaves were treated well. How is beating or killing slaves treating them well? A Hebrew slaveowner was not punished at all for beating his slave if the slave recovered within a few days. That was wrong.

Sheshbazzar · 12-11-2008, 01:51 PM

For ANY slave,
The question is, and has been for quite some time now;

"....If the slave recovers after a couple of days, however, then the owner should not be punished, since the slave is his property.
Which amounts to -implied endorsement- of, and -implied permission- for the practice of slave beating.
And the -right-to-total-ownership- of another human being

I asked you this question before, and (revised) I'm asking it again;
Beating a slave with a rod so severely that he (or she) cannot even get up from the ground for an entire day or more, and that slave owner continues to so beat his slave week after week, allowing only for the Law's required interval, that as soon as the slave can rise, the owner is free and in his legal rights to beat him again.
Is this not mistreatment in your view?
By the texts that you are citing it is most certainly permitted.

If you are an honest, loving and compassionate person, you ought not have any problem giving a straightforward answer.

andrewcriddle · 12-11-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Are you saying that there was no distinction between Hebrew slaves and non-Hebrew slaves? We already know that Hebrew slaves were guaranteed their freedom, and that non-Hebrew slaves were not guaranteed their freedom, and were considered to be property that could be put in a Hebrew slaveowner's will..

There clearly were important distinctions between how Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves were treated, I'm just not sure that Exodus 21:20-21 is only referring to non-Hebrew slaves.

Andrew Criddle

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-11-2008, 11:47 AM	#184
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to sschlicter: Consider the following Scriptures: Exodus 21:12-14 (NIV) "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death." Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV) "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." The first reference refers to Hebrews. If a Hebrew killed another Hebrew, he was put to death. The second reference refers to non-Hebrews. If a Hebrew killed a non-Hebrew slave, he was not put to death as would have been the case if he had killed another Hebrew. The Hebrew slaveowner was only punished, and was not punished at all if the slave recovered within a few days. The second reference has to be talking about non-Hebrews because it would not make any sense for Exodus 21:12-14 to say that if a Hebrew killed another Hebrew, he would be put to death, and for Exodus 21:20-21 to contradict that only a few verses later by saying that if a Hebrew killed another Hebrew, he would only be punished. Are you aware that Hebrew slaves were guaranteed their freedom if they wanted it, but that non-Hebrew slaves were not guaranteed their freedom if they wanted it?

12-11-2008, 01:07 PM	#185
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	Please avoid accusing or suggesting that someone is lying as it is prohibited by the rules. Stick to the facts and let the readers decide whether a member has been deliberately deceptive.

12-11-2008, 01:51 PM	#189
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	For ANY slave, The question is, and has been for quite some time now; "....If the slave recovers after a couple of days, however, then the owner should not be punished, since the slave is his property. Which amounts to -implied endorsement- of, and -implied permission- for the practice of slave beating. And the -right-to-total-ownership- of another human being I asked you this question before, and (revised) I'm asking it again; Beating a slave with a rod so severely that he (or she) cannot even get up from the ground for an entire day or more, and that slave owner continues to so beat his slave week after week, allowing only for the Law's required interval, that as soon as the slave can rise, the owner is free and in his legal rights to beat him again. Is this not mistreatment in your view? By the texts that you are citing it is most certainly permitted. If you are an honest, loving and compassionate person, you ought not have any problem giving a straightforward answer.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.