Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Angrillori · 08-09-2004, 02:20 PM

When did you stop beating your wife?

Quick. Give me a simple precise answer.

Angrillori · 08-09-2004, 02:27 PM

See:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#complexq

Sometimes a question doesn't have a simple answer. I stand by my earlier: In every way which is important, there is a correspondance between early american slavery (both American/African and European/Native American) and biblical slavery.

By the same token:

Were early European on Native American slaveries exactly the same as American on African slavery? Does that make either one good? Of course not. Because the important bits, the parts that make it bad, well, those correspond.

Both of those, and the biblical slavery, BAD. Very BAD. Morally repugnant. BAD.

Not_Registered · 08-09-2004, 02:31 PM

If others would submit an answer to the question I posed I would also greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

Amaleq13 · 08-09-2004, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not_Registered

Amaleq13, thank you for your reply to the question. Could you please also offer your reasons as to why you think they are not exactly the same, if you believe so.

Beyond the clearly relevant fact that both involve ownership of another person, I'm not familiar enough with the specific variations to comment.

inquisitive01 · 08-09-2004, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angrillori

See:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#complexq

Sometimes a question doesn't have a simple answer. I stand by my earlier: In every way which is important, there is a correspondance between early american slavery (both American/African and European/Native American) and biblical slavery.

By the same token:

Were early European on Native American slaveries exactly the same as American on African slavery? Does that make either one good? Of course not. Because the important bits, the parts that make it bad, well, those correspond.

Both of those, and the biblical slavery, BAD. Very BAD. Morally repugnant. BAD.

If one has a servant OR a maid, and treats him/her as another human being, and possibly even gives them food and shelter (maybe other things) in return for their service, is that also considered morally repugnant (or, BAD)?

I agree that IF anyone did not treat their servants/maids with respect then, yes, that would be bad. However, if perhaps only a few treated their servants badly, is that sufficient enough to draw the overall, general conclusion of BAD?

The terms "bondman" and "bondmaid" (Deuteronomy 15:15 and Leviticus 25) do seem to be referring to actual slaves as a "possession." However, though slavery is considered BAD today, back then it was likely considered the norm (a way of life).

Leviticus 25:53 is particularly interesting in this context: And as a yearly hired servant shall he be with him: and the other shall not rule with rigour over him in thy sight.

Angrillori · 08-09-2004, 05:15 PM

Then why the double standard:

Lev 25:39
39 " 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. "

Sounds like there's a difference between servant and slave here. Hell, even if you do own a fellow israelite (whom you have to free at Jubilee) you're not supposed to treat him like a biblical slave.

Plus, you keep using the word servant--that's very disingenious. Use owned servant to be a bit more truthful. I can hire maids. They're my servants. They are not my slaves.

One whom you own and can beat near unto death, as long as they can get up after a couple of days, one whom you can will to your family if you die before they do, one whose children you also own, is a slave. Not merely a servant.

And slavery, once again, is bad.

Owning another human. Is bad.
Depriving another human of the freedom you have. Is bad.
Beating another human you own until they are near to death. Is bad.

The fact that slavery was the norm, "back in them days" does not make it good. (Hell, it was the norm in Georgia up until a hundred forty years ago.) That doesn't make it good.

The bible says:
You can own the people from neighboring countries.
You can capture them by force.
You can force them to work for you.
You can will them to your children when you die.
You can own their children.
You can beat them near unto death.
You cannot do this to fellow Israelites, only those "others."

Now, if you call it an "owned servant you can beat and pass on through your family, and force to do your work, and deprive of freedom" then, sure, you can stop calling it a slave. To do less is to specifically deny whatthe bible calls slavery.

Angrillori · 08-09-2004, 05:20 PM

Holy smokes,

Did you read the context around the verse you supplied Inq? (Lev 25:53?)

It's actually showing how you should treat an Israelite NOT like a slave. It is saying exactly the OPPOSITE of what you are.

You should NOT treat a slave as " a yearly hired servant shall he be with him: and the other shall not rule with rigour over him in thy sight." unless he is an Israelite whom you are NOT to treat as a slave.

Check out the whole last half of Lev 25. It pretty much blows your argument out of the water. Being a biblical slave was NOT something you wanted. In fact, the bible specifically prohibits treating other Israelites AS slaves. And mandates the freeing of Israelites in servitude at Jubilees, or when they are "redeemed" by relatives.

Hell, it even says that when OTHER nations enslave Hebrews, the OTHER nations need to allow Hebrews to be redeemed. A courtesy they sure don't allow the slaves from other countries that the Hebrews own!

inquisitive01 · 08-09-2004, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angrillori

Then why the double standard:

Lev 25:39
39 " 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. "

Sounds like there's a difference between servant and slave here. Hell, even if you do own a fellow israelite (whom you have to free at Jubilee) you're not supposed to treat him like a biblical slave.

Plus, you keep using the word servant--that's very disingenious. Use owned servant to be a bit more truthful. I can hire maids. They're my servants. They are not my slaves.

One whom you own and can beat near unto death, as long as they can get up after a couple of days, one whom you can will to your family if you die before they do, one whose children you also own, is a slave. Not merely a servant.

And slavery, once again, is bad.

Owning another human. Is bad.
Depriving another human of the freedom you have. Is bad.
Beating another human you own until they are near to death. Is bad.

The fact that slavery was the norm, "back in them days" does not make it good. (Hell, it was the norm in Georgia up until a hundred forty years ago.) That doesn't make it good.

The bible says:
You can own the people from neighboring countries.
You can capture them by force.
You can force them to work for you.
You can will them to your children when you die.
You can own their children.
You can beat them near unto death.
dYou cannot do this to fellow Israelites, only those "others."

Now, if you call it an "owned servant you can beat and pass on through your family, and force to do your work, and deprive of freedom" then, sure, you can stop calling it a slave. To do less is to specifically deny whatthe bible calls slavery.

So is our current prison system (depriving one of freedom, prisoners beating other prisoners to death, etc.) considered "bad" by you?

Angrillori · 08-09-2004, 07:15 PM

Our prison system would be bad if it were like the slavery in the bible.

If: prison guards were allowed to beat prisoners near unto death, without repurcussion.
If: prisoners were all for life, regardless of offense.
If: many were incarcerated merely for being members of neighboring countries.
If: prisoners' children were also condemned to a lifetime of prison.
If: prisoners could be bought and sold, and owned by prison owners.

inquisitive01 · 08-09-2004, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angrillori

Our prison system would be bad if it were like the slavery in the bible.

If: prison guards were allowed to beat prisoners near unto death, without repurcussion.
If: prisoners were all for life, regardless of offense.
If: many were incarcerated merely for being members of neighboring countries.
If: prisoners' children were also condemned to a lifetime of prison.
If: prisoners could be bought and sold, and owned by prison owners.

Who said anything about prison guards? Is it not bad for one to lose his/her freedom, then potentially be subject to BAD things such as being beaten to death (i.e., by other prisoners) or gang-raped? Do these things not sound BAD to you? I'm only referring to those prisoners with life-long terms (without the possibility of parole), btw, NOT those who get a few days or weeks in jail for since we are referring to slaves for life also in this context.

Does being in a cage, or a small room with bars, for the rest of your life (let's say you're only 25) sound GOOD to you?

Going further with this type of "logic": Sometimes we all feel like "slaves" at work, so does this mean we should all quit our jobs? Should our children quit school if they feel like a "slave" to their homework?

The term "slave" could even potentially mean "those people of Slavic origin (SE Europe)." However, to my knowledge, I don't know of ANYWHERE in the Bible (KJV) where the actual term "slave" is used. I do see bondman and bondmaid in it, though. I use the term "servant" in the KJV context related to the beginnings of this thread, and feel that, although it may possibly (not definitely) mean "slave," one cannot and should not simply assume that it does mean "slave"... especially if one assumes all "slaves" were treated in the same manner. Obviously, it's extremely likely that some were treated well, while others were not treated well.

Should we blame this (poor treatment of some slaves) on the Bible? Or, should we blame this on those who chose not to treat their slaves well? Only you can make that call (I know which I would blame already).

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

08-09-2004, 02:20 PM	#51
Angrillori Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: A world less bright without WinAce. Posts: 7,482	When did you stop beating your wife? Quick. Give me a simple precise answer.

08-09-2004, 02:27 PM	#52
Angrillori Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: A world less bright without WinAce. Posts: 7,482	See: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism....html#complexq Sometimes a question doesn't have a simple answer. I stand by my earlier: In every way which is important, there is a correspondance between early american slavery (both American/African and European/Native American) and biblical slavery. By the same token: Were early European on Native American slaveries exactly the same as American on African slavery? Does that make either one good? Of course not. Because the important bits, the parts that make it bad, well, those correspond. Both of those, and the biblical slavery, BAD. Very BAD. Morally repugnant. BAD.

08-09-2004, 02:31 PM	#53
Not_Registered Regular Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: U.S. Posts: 312	If others would submit an answer to the question I posed I would also greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

08-09-2004, 05:15 PM	#56
Angrillori Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: A world less bright without WinAce. Posts: 7,482	Then why the double standard: Lev 25:39 39 " 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. " Sounds like there's a difference between servant and slave here. Hell, even if you do own a fellow israelite (whom you have to free at Jubilee) you're not supposed to treat him like a biblical slave. Plus, you keep using the word servant--that's very disingenious. Use owned servant to be a bit more truthful. I can hire maids. They're my servants. They are not my slaves. One whom you own and can beat near unto death, as long as they can get up after a couple of days, one whom you can will to your family if you die before they do, one whose children you also own, is a slave. Not merely a servant. And slavery, once again, is bad. Owning another human. Is bad. Depriving another human of the freedom you have. Is bad. Beating another human you own until they are near to death. Is bad. The fact that slavery was the norm, "back in them days" does not make it good. (Hell, it was the norm in Georgia up until a hundred forty years ago.) That doesn't make it good. The bible says: You can own the people from neighboring countries. You can capture them by force. You can force them to work for you. You can will them to your children when you die. You can own their children. You can beat them near unto death. You cannot do this to fellow Israelites, only those "others." Now, if you call it an "owned servant you can beat and pass on through your family, and force to do your work, and deprive of freedom" then, sure, you can stop calling it a slave. To do less is to specifically deny whatthe bible calls slavery.

08-09-2004, 05:20 PM	#57
Angrillori Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: A world less bright without WinAce. Posts: 7,482	Holy smokes, Did you read the context around the verse you supplied Inq? (Lev 25:53?) It's actually showing how you should treat an Israelite NOT like a slave. It is saying exactly the OPPOSITE of what you are. You should NOT treat a slave as " a yearly hired servant shall he be with him: and the other shall not rule with rigour over him in thy sight." unless he is an Israelite whom you are NOT to treat as a slave. Check out the whole last half of Lev 25. It pretty much blows your argument out of the water. Being a biblical slave was NOT something you wanted. In fact, the bible specifically prohibits treating other Israelites AS slaves. And mandates the freeing of Israelites in servitude at Jubilees, or when they are "redeemed" by relatives. Hell, it even says that when OTHER nations enslave Hebrews, the OTHER nations need to allow Hebrews to be redeemed. A courtesy they sure don't allow the slaves from other countries that the Hebrews own!

08-09-2004, 07:15 PM	#59
Angrillori Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: A world less bright without WinAce. Posts: 7,482	Our prison system would be bad if it were like the slavery in the bible. If: prison guards were allowed to beat prisoners near unto death, without repurcussion. If: prisoners were all for life, regardless of offense. If: many were incarcerated merely for being members of neighboring countries. If: prisoners' children were also condemned to a lifetime of prison. If: prisoners could be bought and sold, and owned by prison owners.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.