sschlichter

I'm trying to clarify it, so thanks. Why weren't the serf/slaves in Deuteronomy 20:!!, H4522 [lol], being rehabilitated?

[QUOTE=sschlichter;5717170]


They were enemies of war. They were being made subjects due to the loss in a battle. India was a subject of the British Empire. This, in and of itself is not immoral. It depends on the treatment.

[quote]
That was sarcasm, sschlichter and obviously a chance for you to avoid how you stretch Exodus 22:3 about theft to cover Leviticus 25:49, lol.
Ex 22 explained how someone gets themselves into slavery. Lev 25:49 makes it clear that a slave can have possessions, can make money, and can purchase himself out of slavery. A theif (later reformed) could choose both of those paths.

so, is that a yes, that repetitive murder is moral grounds for a lifetime of imprisonment?

Sheshbazzar

Something our pro-slavery advocates have thus far failed to address is the subject of the foreign slaves "wife and children" whom which, whether that slave ever obtains his own freedom or not, are by law to remain the permanent property of their Hebrew master.
These innocents did not "sell" themselves, nor ever willingly enter into slavery, yet by law, from birth to death, were condemned to be treated, traded, and inherited like cattle under the Hebrews.
For example, a certain slave owner at the age of twenty, has his male slave mated with a purchased prime female slave to produce children for him.
They prove to be a very productive coupling, producing seven sons and seven daughters, and thus the Hebrew master has gained for himself fourteen additional slaves in addition to the the two he began with.
In the course of time, the Hebrew master mates each of the seven sons with seven other slave-maidens he has bought, and each of the seven daughters with seven other man-slaves that he has bought with the money produced by their labor.
And they bring forth many further children.
This of course takes time, and the Hebrew master and his first two slaves both getting on in years, and the old man-slave finally dies, perhaps just plain worn-out from a lifetime of hard labor, or then again, perhaps one of those old beatings that left him with undetected internal injuries to his kidneys, liver, or spleen? Who knows? Who cares? Dead is Dead, and he was too old to be productive anymore, and had now became only a liability to the masters estate.
The Hebrew master is now somewhere in his seventies and has well invested and increased his slave-stock for over five decades, no Hebrews in the entire lot, all were foreigners and offspring of foreigners, by law to be his slaves for life (not his life, their lives) to be an inheritance to his children.
Now of course two or three of those second and third generation slaves may have given some thought to buying their freedom (but the MASTER , being the master, did not have to even offer them that opportunity, or to accept any price they might ever contrive to offer)
But that matter was always easily controlled by breeding them as soon and as often as possible so that they would have wives and young ones to be tied down with.

Now the Hebrew slave-owning master is eighty and five years old, his mind is not as sharp as it used to be, and he often loses count of exactly how many cows and sheep are in his pastures, or how many slaves are now in his ownership, but he does know with pride, that he has never sold off, traded, or freed a single one, but that he might leave all as an inheritance to his children.
Care to help this poor old Hebrew out and estimate how many slaves he now owns to give his children?

Every one were born slaves, and kept as slaves, no matter how well treated, freedom from a life of slavery forever remained beyond reach, through no choice or act of their own, they were not "bond" servants, but utterly slaves.
Most dogs allowed a greater freedom of choice and of movement, thus better life to be a Hebrew's dog, than a Hebrew's slave.

sschlichter

Define fair. If two kids go to jail for theft and are sentenced to 5 years and I bail out one because he is my son, then that is fair. They received the same judgment, one paid it, the other received mercy from his parent.

God did not dis-allow hebrews from selling themselves into slavery because it was immoral, he did so because he did not want them in a state of slavery because it was not ideal. The purpose was because they were set apart for the purpose of being a light to the other nations. Being enslaved was no way to go about this and was forbidden. Others that wanted to sell themselves or their families into slavery were allowed to do just that.

Is imprisonment immoral to you under all circumstances? It is an easy question that you avoided 4 times now.

~Steve

sugarhitman

Question? The laws for injured slaves does that encourage or discourages abuse?

The law for runaway slaves does not tell us what slaves it says slaves. Also why would a foreign slave escape from a harsh slave system to another system which critics says also "forces non hebrews into slavery?" That also destroys your argument that Israel forced non hebrews into slavery.


Wheres my apology....im waiting.

Sheshonq

Yes it does -and you continually try to blur the difference. In fact, the Hebrews had THREE kinds of slaves - and Hebrews could be found in two of the three categories:

1. Hired servants
2. Slaves
3. Bonded servants

Three types of servile status are identifiable in Israel's practice: an Israelite became a servant to a fellow Israelite voluntarily as security against poverty, or by birth or purchase (Exod. 21.32 sets the compensation for a slave's death at thirty shekels); Israelites took non-Israelites as slaves through capture in war or purchase; Israelites sold themselves to non-Israelites as security against debt.

"Slavery", The Oxford Companion to the Bible, pages 700 - 701.

Incorrect. They are called "bondmen" in the verse that you yourself just quoted above. Can't you keep your own arguments straight?

Of course, you still lack the courage to answer the real question:

if slavery was immoral, then why was slavery even permitted in the first place?

My prediction is that you will continue to duck, evade, and run from this question no matter how many times it is asked - and no matter who asks it. That's because you realize that there is no way you can justify slavery - but you have no way to explain why the bible tolerates it and even endorses it.

No they don't. In fact, these were the laws for Hebrew servants. Slaves had no such protections. By your own argument, Hebrews are referred to as servants, right? So these verses apply to the Hebrews:

EXO 21:27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.

EXO 21:32 If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

These protections applied to fellow Jews who were servants - not to the slaves.

In fact I have the winning case - you're just not educated enough on the topic to realize it.

Sheshonq

Yes, it is. The capture and forced servitude of another person is immoral.

Which is not slavery, but punishment - and as a way to protect society at large. Your rebuttal fails.

This is simply not correct. In addition to indentured servitude, slaves were also bought from the surrounding nations and taken as prisoners of war. Such slaves became the permanent property of the Israelites - including the children of such slaves. There is nothing rehabilitory about that.

Three types of servile status are identifiable in Israel's practice: an Israelite became a servant to a fellow Israelite voluntarily as security against poverty, or by birth or purchase (Exod. 21.32 sets the compensation for a slave's death at thirty shekels); Israelites took non-Israelites as slaves through capture in war or purchase; Israelites sold themselves to non-Israelites as security against debt.

"Slavery", The Oxford Companion to the Bible, pages 700 - 701.

No need to. Your example is a form of punishment, combined with indentured servitude to pay off a debt. It is not slavery. You may continue the attempt to blur the distinction - but I will be here to draw the distinction again for you.

Johnny Skeptic

Sure, in the context of this thread, which is Old Testament slavery, it would have been fair if non-Hebrew slaves were guaranteed the same rights that Hebrew slaves were guaranteed. The texts clearly show that the writer of the texts that I quoted considered it harsh to involuntarily force a Hebrew to be a slave for life, but not for a non-Hebrew to be forced to be a slave for life.

Sure, but Old Testament laws about slavery did not apply to a father bailing his son out of jail. In addition, all kids who go to jail are not guaranteed that they will get bailed out, but the Old Testament guaranteed all Hebrews their freedom if they wanted it, but not all non-Hebrew slaves. Why was there a difference in the laws.

Same as before.

On the contrary, the texts clearly endorse involuntary slavery for life for non-Hebrews. It only takes basic reading skills to understand that.

I find that to be quite odd since you did not answer my question. I said:

Do you intend to answer the question? If so, please post a yes or no and an explanation.

Ok, you said "Is imprisonment immoral to you under all circumstances?" My first answer is that the main issue in this thread is "Was Old Testament slavery moral?" The correct answer is "no." You keep trying to divert attention away from the fact that the texts clearly endorse involuntary slavery for non-Hebrews, but not for Hebrews. My second answer is no, which you already know because you know that I approve of sending criminals to jail. No intelligent analogy can be made been Old Testament slavery and people who break laws.

Sheshonq

Your attempt at parallel is non-tangent on the critical point of whether the person has done anything wrong, broken any laws, or being in debt.

It amazes me that people can actually argue for a moral basis for slavery without their heads exploding.

Sheshonq

There is no such law. The verse you cited says nothing about injury - all it talks about is a runaway.

The "injury" part is just something you added in there yourself, because you were hoping to inflate the strength of your argument.

Johnny Skeptic

The laws discourage abuse, but I have never argued otherwise. You are obviously not aware that involuntary slavery for life is abuse.

You keep saying that, but you have never quoted the texts. Please quote them. I am not aware of any Old Testament Scriptures that guarantee non-Hebrew slaves their freedom. Are you?