Johnny Skeptic

But as I showed in my post #523, YOUR OWN LINKS THAT YOU USED AS EVIDENCE show that Pagels and Ehrman do not support Christianity. No rational person would claim that Pagels and Ehrman support Christianity. Will you admit that you were wrong? I assume that you won't. Even if you won't admit that you were wrong, you and everyone else know that you were wrong. In the future, I suggest that you actually read links that you post before you use them as evidence in debates.

You lose hands down. One wonders to what extent you will go to embarrass yourself more than you already have, but what else should should be expected of a person who claimed that the flood was regional according to Dr. Hugh Ross' preposterous guesses that are not supported by any science at all?

Exciter

I looked through this thread and can't find where it says non-hebrew slaves actually got to rest on the sabbath, not that I doubt they did, just courious... could someone show me where I can see that?
You probably won't find burial sites of slaves, they were most likely taken into the Valley of Hinnom .

rizdek

Numbers 31 has Moses admonishing his soldiers for keeping child prisoners and women prisoners, but he does want them to keep the virgin prisoners alive for themselves. Keeping someone "for yourself" sounds a lot like slavery.

Exciter

You are forgetting they didn't have electricity, chocolate, tobacco and the internet in ancient Israel.

Keeping someone "for yourself" was consider foreplay.

arnoldo

Well, the Jews in Egypt were treated harshly solely based upon their ethnicity however this was not the case of the the tribes which inhabited the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Hivites, and the Jebusites. Rather, these tribes were brought under judgment for immorality in much the same way Israel was later sent into exile for disobedience numerouse times. Note Genesis 15:13-16
And what exactly were these tribes guilty of? Note Deuteronomy 12:29-31

Now, if you feel it's immoral to allow tribes to continue burning their children in fire to their pagans gods then perhaps you'll understand why these tribes were treated harshly. . .

Exciter

Yes that would be immoral... but how do you know that people weren't just told that the tribes did these things in order to put them in a bad light, that one passage?

In post#525 you want archaeological evidence of slaves being treated harshly, do you have the same for your claim here, or is it just the one passage?

Sheshonq

Yes. If the Hebrews knew how bad perpetual slavery was in Egypt, then they should not practice perpetual slavery against other peoples.

1. They shouldn't have been slaves in the first place - that is immoral.

2. But if they are gonig to be slaves, they should get all the privileges that hebrew slaves received.

Unnecessary.

1. The state of slavery itself is mistreatment.

2. The Hebrews were morally corrupt for practicing perpetual slavery against other peoples, especially since their own (mythical) history claimed that they suffered badly as perpetual slaves in Egypt.

3. What's more, the fact that they were treated worse than Hebrew slaves is internal evidence from the bible that these slaves were mistreated.

Sheshonq

In point of fact there is no evidence that Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt. We have only been assuming that for the sake of this argument. But there is zero archaeological evidence to support it.

Also wrong. They were enslaved because the Hebrews needed a rationalization for occupying those lands and taking slaves. There is also no evidence for this gross immorality that you are talking about.

Not that it matters much - the bible also says that the children shall not suffer for the sins of the parents. You cannot justify perpetual slavery of an entire group of people based upon what their ancestors may have done 10 generations ago.

What an incredibly silly comment.

1. If you have evidence of this practice, then provide it. You never do; so I don't have high hopes for you this time, either.

2. Even if it did happen, that is no reason to keep an entire group of people enslaved for something that happened 10 generations earlier. By that argument, the Jews were in slavery in Egypt legitimately, because Isaac lied to get Esau's birthright. So Hebrews were rightfully enslaved in Egypt, because they're liars and you can't trust them in open society.

You can't have it both ways - although I'm sure like most fundie apologists, you'll certainly try.

Johnny Skeptic

Two wrongs do not make a right. Non-Hebrew slaves were treated harshly based upon their ethnicity. That was wrong, especially if a supposedly loving God ordered the immoral treatment.

How do you suppose that Abraham's group acquired Canaan, at a friendly tea party? The simple truth is that you do not have any idea whatsoever really happened in Jewish history. All that we have are copies of copies of ancient documents. You simply rubber stamp everything that the Bible says whether or not there is any historical evidence to verify what it claims. Most of the most important claims in the Bible are not even debatable because there are not any ways to verify them except by faith. You claimed that the flood was regional. Why?, certainly not because of any scientific evidence at all. Rather, you are well aware that a global flood did not occur even though the Bible says that a global flood did occur, but you still had to come up with some kind of flood because the Bible said that a flood occured, so you bought Dr. Hugh Ross' preposterous uncorroborated claims that the flood was regional, that is only happened in Mesopotamia, that it was only 22 feet deep (now that is cute), and that, believe it or not, no one in the entire world lived outside of Mesopotamia. Now really, Dr. Ross has obviously missed his calling as a comedian. If you take a pound of the Bible, and mix it with a pound of Biblical predispositionalism, you get a cake of deception. Bon apetit.

sschlichter

I bring up criminals because it forces you to admit there are reasons to keep someone against their will in our culture. You once said it was immoral.

Perhaps there are parallel functions that slavery performed that exist in our culture. Prisons is one example. You agree that it is not immoral to keep a prisoner against his will. What if you had no prison to keep him in. What if you made him work, learn a trade, and rigorously (but not abusively) rehabilitated him through labor. His needs would be met, if diligent, he could prosper and earn his freedom. Is that not possible in the slavery described in the law at least in the case of criminals? It is clear from Exo 22:3 that this is at least a subset of slaves.

Another example we discussed is the destitute. You find it appalling that the destitute sell themselves into servitude, however, take away any and all government services. Everyone you have ever seen who is not working but yet staying alive on some sort of subsidy would be dead without slavery.

They would work, that is true but they were not to be abused - that is made very clear. Work is held in high regard in the law. They were to rest on the sabbath and partook in the festivals (which adds up to many days throughout a year). This is similar down time than you would receive only in daylight hours monday through friday every week.

If they were poor because they had no work ethic, then they will learn one very quickly and earn their freedom if they want it. Exo 21:5 makes it clear that some number of slaves did not want their freedom. If they were poor due to bad luck, then they could be diligent and work for their freedom that much quicker. Either way, slavery saved them. Explain to me what other service or provision would have saved them? Please do not ignore this question. It is an important one. A true skeptic would be interested in at least seeing this form of servitude for what it did provide.

First of all, the law was a national law. The surrounding countries may allow their citizens to be enslaved permanently, but the Isrealites were not to be. Slavery is not an ideal position. This is true in the OT and the NT. It is allowed under certain circumstances (like divorce) , but not preferred. Paul says the same thing in Corinthians...

(1 Cor 7:21) Were you called as a slave? Do not worry about it. But if indeed you are able to be free, make the most of the opportunity.
(1 Cor 7:22) For the one who was called in the Lord as a slave is the Lord's freedman. In the same way, the one who was called as a free person is Christ's slave.
(1 Cor 7:23) You were bought with a price. Do not become slaves of men.

Also, it is hypocritical to not acknowldege the same types of laws in modern countries that apply to citzens that do not apply to foreigners. It is not a statement of racial favoritism, it is a question of citizenry. It was wise to not allow Hebrews to be enslaved permanently. Other nations should have done the same and if they followed God, they would have. It is against the law to hire a worker from another country that is not authorized to work here. It is illegal for other people to live here at all without permission while those born here can come and go as they please.

Why is this not immoral favoritism?