Sheshbazzar

It seems that all Judeao-Christian literature has from the beginning, been composed with an agenda of holding mankind in perpetual enslavement.
The Torah makes a big deal of delivering the Hebrew's from slavery in Egypt, and servitude to "other gods".
YHWH "delivers" them, but never actually sets anyone free, for all so "delivered" are ever after then bound to be His slave servants, to surrender, and to "serve" and to ever submit to His will without complaint.
If "He", YHWH issued a command to slaughter innocent children, and hock horses, what slave of his could oppose His demands?
According to the Torah, it is YHWH, that issued the slave laws, laws that licensed involuntary slavery, and dealing in slave traffic, the buying, selling, and treatment of fellow humans as though they were cattle.
The so called "New Testement" is not one whit better, sure its promoters now like to play their semantic word games to cover up the unpopular word slave, but the end result is still lifelong enslavement to their bogus god and their bankrupt religion.
The mouthpieces of gawd used to say "YHWH says", now some say "Jesus says" but all that either (or whether they be one or the same) have ever said are only those words that these fabricators of lies have put into "his" mouth, to make him "speak" through the agency of their preachings and writings. Let the truth damn them evermore.

Sheshbazzar

The religious like to threaten us that we will be damned by their god(s) for eternity on the Judgement Day.
But they are the ones who are damned to slave under their gawd(s) in the here and now.

Toto

Chili the oracle and replies that just encourage him have been split off here.

sschlichter

I apologize for my sporadic responses. I have been terribly busy.

I actually beleive I responded to each biblical reference that you gave in post #94. I see the practice of slavery being curbed and regulated in each of those references. I also saw that you were assuming that slavery is involuntary on the part of the slave. I also pointed out that it was unlawful to capture and kidnap people supporting the view that slavery was a voluntary option for the poor. (Exo 21:6) Which of those 4 references in post #94 do you feel is an endorsement of the abuse of a slave that does not require we assume what you are assuming about OT slavery?

Again, I apologize for the frequency of my replies.

~Steve

sschlichter

well, what does it it say?

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,"

No endorsement here. There is an acknowledgement of that fact that it occurs and a punishment when it does occur.

"If you drink and drive and kill someone, you will go to jail"

is this an endorsement of drunk driving, somehow?

but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

No endorsement here either. How can you tell if the person has beaten there slave. Well, if they get up and are unharmed, then they will not be punished.

To follow my analogy,

If the alleged drunk driver, takes a blood / alcohol test and it is apparent he was not drinking and the person he hit was not permanently harmed then he is free to go.

What are you seeing is an endorsement of mistreatment?

Johnny Skeptic

No, the opening post clearly shows that the mistreatment of non-Hebrew slaves was not reasonably curbed.

No, I never said that, but I did say that freedom was guaranteed to Hebrew slaves, but not to non-Hebrew slaves. I have only made an issue out of how slaves were treated, not how they were acquired.

I already replied to that in my post #140. Here it is again:

Some of the passages clearly endorse, or allow, if you will, the wrongful abuse of non-Hebrew slaves. Consider the following:

Item 1

Exodus 21:2-4 (NIV)

"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free."

Item 2

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."

Item 3

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."

Item 4

Leviticus 25:44-45 (NIV)

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 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."

Regarding item 1, please note that after six years, a Hebrew slave gained his freedom, but item 4 shows that slaves from other nations could be forced to be slaves for life. Part of item 4 says "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." That is a good example of racial bigotry, but what else should one expect from a race of people who appointed themselves as God's chosen people. Chosen for what?

Regarding item 2, if a Hebrew deliberately killed another Hebrew, he was put to death, but item 3 shows that if a Hebrew deliberately killed a non-Hebrew slave, he was not put to death, only punished, but not punished at all if the slave recovered in a day or two. Item 3 does not specifically say non-Hebrew, but non-Hebrew is implied because it would not make any sense for item 2 to talk about Hebrews, and for item 3 to also talk about Hebrews. In other words, it would not make any sense for item 2 to say that a Hebrew should be put to death if he killed another Hebrew, and for item 3 to say that if a Hebrew killed another Hebrew, he would only be punished.

Notice there is no endorsement to beat a slave. A man that beats his slave is to be punished.

More accurately, if a Hebrew slaveowner killed a non-Hebrew slave, he would only be punished, and not punished at all if he severely beat his non-Hebrew slave and the slave recovered within a few days. On the other hand, if a Hebrew killed another Hebrew, he was put to death. In addition, some texts guarantee eventual freedom for Hebrew slaves, but the same right to freedom was not guaranteed to non-Hebrew slaves, who were sometimes passed on as inherited property.

The texts clearly show an unfair double standard based upon racial bigotry. Simply stated, some texts endorse, or allow, the murder of non-Hebrew slaves, while other texts forbid the murder of Hebrews.

sschlichter

Was it immoral for early would-be immigrants from Europe to sell themselves as bond servants to wealthy Americans so the purchaser would pay for their trip and take care of them during their servitude? I don't think so.

It definitely was immoral to kidnap people from Africa and force them into servitude.

These are both called slavery. Only one is immoral. Please provide proof that the Torah is endorsing the latter version. I am sure as a good skeptic, you would not want me to take your word for it.

~Steve

sschlichter

yes, it is simply stated, but is it just as simple to find a passage that endorses the murder of a non-hebrew slave? Please point it out to me.

As far as racial bigotry, that is not the case, it is covenantal, not racial. If foreigners want to sell themselves into slavery, then they are welcome to, however the Hebrews were Gods property, and he did not want them to sell themselves to someone else.

In this there is evidence that the slavery we are talking about is voluntary.

(Lev 25:39) " 'If your brother becomes impoverished with regard to you so that he sells himself to you, you must not subject him to slave service.


(Lev 25:47) " 'If a resident foreigner who is with you prospers and your brother becomes impoverished with regard to him so that he sells himself to a resident foreigner who is with you or to a member of a foreigner's family,

All the verses in between are the ones you are focusing on. they do not disallow a foreigner to sell himself into permanent slavery. It also is clear from this passage that foreigners resided among them and prospered and were not taken as slaves.

You keep replying with the same passages. post #165 points out more clearly that their is no endorsement of abuse.

~Steve

Johnny Skeptic

Message to sschlichter: I will not reply to your comments about me claiming that slavery was involuntary because, as I have told you before, I have never said that slavery was involuntary, only that non-Hebrew slaves were sometimes treated unfairly.

Yes, because you keep refusing to admit that items 2 and 3 in the opening post show that there was an unfair double standard for Hebrews, and non-Hebrews.

For at least the third time, here is what I said:

Perhaps you have trouble understanding what you read. I thought that my comments were clear and easy to understand. It must be that your predispositionalism has caused you to believe that God has to be loving and fair no matter what the texts say. I suggest that you take what I said to a local college English professor and get him to explain what I said to you. Before you do, please make sure to go back and read the opening post again, especially items 2 and 3. Item 2 leaves no doubt whatsoever that if a Hebrew killed another Hebrew, he would be put to death. Item 3 is most likely referring to non-Hebrews slaves because, as I said, "it would not make any sense for item 2 to say that a Hebrew should be put to death if he killed another Hebrew, and for item 3 to say that if a Hebrew killed another Hebrew, he would only be punished."

Are you aware the Hebrew slaves were guaranteed their freedom, but that non-Hebrew slaves were not guaranteed their freedom, and could be put in a Hebrew slaveowner's will as inherited property?

Sheshbazzar

And we are just supposed to accept your mutilated "proof text"?
The original Scriptural citation is a single paragraph, containing no verse divisions, and is ONE, a unity of language construction which you have conveniently avoided quoting in full, so lets try it again;

<snip straw-argumet>
If there is a law permitting and regulating it, there is then what is known as an implied endorsement.

Lets see Steve, we don't normally or legally practice slavery any more, but the same attitude that you are here endorsing is still prevalent and much in practice.
There are still a lot of men who like to beat on and abuse their wives, but if the wife is able to get back up on her feet in a day or two, then it must be concluded that she is unharmed, and the husband should not be punished, because she is his wife and she belongs to him?

Frankly, Steve, you abuse the Scripture, and your "analogy" is deficient in that it does not at all deal with -the subject- the ownership of, and the use of willful abuse and cruelty against other humans.