Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 12-25-2008, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Johhny, do you have any archaeological/historical proof that may lead you to this opinion which seems to be solely based on confirmation bias?

What an incredibly silly comment.

FYI, Bioarchaeology is a field of study which seeks to understand how people lived in the past. If, a certain population suffered mistreatment,malnutrition, frequent broken ones, etc, then then certain archaelogical evidence would be left behind. Note the following abstract:

Quote:

Abstract: Skeletons represent the most direct evidence of the biology of past populations, and their study provides insight into health and well-being, dietary history, lifestyle (activity), violence and trauma, ancestry, and demography. These areas help inform our understanding of a range of issues, such as the causes and consequences of adaptive shifts in the past (e.g., foraging to farming, sedentarism), the biological impact of invasion and colonization, differential access to food and other resources (e.g., by gender or status), and conflict and warfare. Central to bioarchaeological inquiry are the interaction between biology and behavior and the role of environment on health and lifestyle. Bioarchaeological analysis has traditionally focused on local settings. However, important perspective on general questions of human adaptation is possible both regionally and globally.
Bioarchaeology: The Lives and Lifestyles of Past People

Are you aware of any archaelogical evidence that Jews were mistreating slaves?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

The OT itself tells us that the Hebrews were immoral. It was one of the main topics of the Hebrew prophets. Oppression of the weak, the fatherless, etc. was a common theme in their rebuke to the people..

So was unbelief.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

This is what happens when arnoldo learns a new term ("confirmation bias") and doesn't even understand the OT he tries to defend.

Quote:

Also, if the hebrews were as evil/immoral as you claim other countries would certainly have created historical documents warning their citizens not to become slaves to the jews. . .

Followed by an even sillier comment.

You seem to think that people needed to be *told* that they should avoid becoming slaves. Please show me any ancient texts that recommend to their citizens that they become a slave to *ANY* group of outsiders.

In other words you don't have any historical evidence from any countries that Israel was mistreating slaves.

Sheshonq · 12-25-2008, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

FYI, Bioarchaeology is a field of study

...which has nothing to do this this argument.

Quote:

Are you aware of any archaelogical evidence that Jews were mistreating slaves?

1. You asked for evidence of any kind, and weren't even considering the OT itself.
2. The state of slavery itself is mistreatment. If you disagree, then you should have no problems consenting to be my slave.

Quote:

The OT itself tells us that the Hebrews were immoral. It was one of the main topics of the Hebrew prophets. Oppression of the weak, the fatherless, etc. was a common theme in their rebuke to the people..

So was unbelief.

True, but typically irrelevant comment from you. It doesn't refute my argument that the OT provides the evidence you asked for. In which case, why bring up unbelief since it doesn't help your argument out?

Quote:

You seem to think that people needed to be *told* that they should avoid becoming slaves. Please show me any ancient texts that recommend to their citizens that they become a slave to *ANY* group of outsiders.

In other words you don't have any historical evidence from any countries that Israel was mistreating slaves.

1. In other words - you are asking for proof of the obvious. Next you'll be asking for ancient evidence to prove that fire was hot.
2. You don't consider the OT to be historical evidence?
3. The state of slavery itself is mistreatment. If you disagree, then you should have no problems consenting to be my slave.

arnoldo · 12-25-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

In other words you don't have any historical evidence from any countries that Israel was mistreating slaves.

1. In other words - you are asking for proof of the obvious. Next you'll be asking for ancient evidence to prove that fire was hot.

No, since you claim that Israel was mistreating people from other nations by enslaving them I'm asking for some proof from other nations that this was the case. An example of which is the Egyptian Execration Text which shows the hebrews as slaves, note:

Quote:

Jerusalem is first mentioned in the Egyptian execration texts (20-19th century BCE), when Egypt ruled Canaan. These documents illustrate one of the ways in which Egypt tried to keep its vassals loyal. The names of cities and their rulers were inscribed on clay bowls or figurines of slaves with their hands tied behind their backs. If a vassal revolted, the Egyptian magicians would break the image of the rebel in the hope that this would break his spirit. The names of two rulers of Jerusalem, Shas'an and Y'qar 'am, date from the 20th century.
http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/rennert/history_2.html

If you have extrabiblical evidence of Hebrews enslaving people from other nations please provide.

Sheshonq · 12-25-2008, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

1. In other words - you are asking for proof of the obvious. Next you'll be asking for ancient evidence to prove that fire was hot.

No, since you claim that Israel was mistreating people

No, I claimed that :

1. Israel was immoral - as evidenced by its own Old Testament. This answers your request for proof that they were immoral.
2. The state of slavery itself is mistreatment. If you disagree, then you should have no problem consenting to be my slave. You skipped answering that. I think we know why.

Try again.

Quote:

If you have extrabiblical evidence of Hebrews enslaving people from other nations please provide.

Why do I need extra-biblical evidence? The OT plainly spells out that they did. If you're not familiar with the OT, please just say so, arnoldo.

ROLFMAO

Sheshonq · 12-25-2008, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I hve noticed that no one will answer these sorts of questions. It is strange to be so comfortable jumping into another culture 3000 years and 3000 miles away to judge what is wrong.

The problem with your line of non-reasoning is that the God of the bible is presented as having eternal, not situational, morals. If slavery is truly wrong, then it should have been wrong 3000 years ago. Either that, or slavery isn't really wrong in the first place.

We make the same argument against murder; why not slavery? Answer: because the slavery example shines an uncomfortable light upon biblical standards of morality, and calls into question the bible literalist viewpoint that there is an eternal, unchanging moral standard.

Quote:

However, to be able to judge, you must have a rule to judge against. It is obvious to me that the judgment is arbitrary.

What is obvious to the uninformed is recognized by others as foolishness.

Quote:

If you alter our culture (take away jails, take away government services, take way electricity, peace with neighboring countries, etc, etc)

None of which is culture. Perhaps you need to review the definition of culture?

Quote:

you will find that the law will start to make sense.

No, you will not. Of course, I could make the same argument for murder: if you remove all the trappings of civilization, then murder becomes understandable and acceptable.

Either you accept the argument for murder and the argument for slavery, or you reject them both. You cannot create a convenient distinction between the two.

Quote:

I have also noticed that no one will venture into the treatment of slaves of other cultures of the times.

Probably because it is irrelevant to the question at hand. An eternal morality is not impacted by the treatment of slaves in other cultures.

arnoldo · 12-25-2008, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I hve noticed that no one will answer these sorts of questions. It is strange to be so comfortable jumping into another culture 3000 years and 3000 miles away to judge what is wrong.

The problem with your line of non-reasoning is that the God of the bible is presented as having eternal, not situational, morals.

So basically your saying that a Loving God would not allow slavery to exist whatsoever, correct?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

If slavery is truly wrong, then it should have been wrong 3000 years ago. Either that, or slavery isn't really wrong in the first place.

If a person goes into debt and then has to pay off his debt with his labor what is wrong with that?

Sheshonq · 12-25-2008, 11:47 PM

Quote:

The problem with your line of non-reasoning is that the God of the bible is presented as having eternal, not situational, morals. So basically your saying that a Loving God would not allow slavery to exist whatsoever, correct?

I'm saying that if something is morally wrong, then - according to how your bible defines morals - then it doesn't change over time. Like murder. It's morally wrong now, and 3000 years ago.

Do you believe that slavery is morally wrong? Yes or No?

You've avoided that question in the past - how typical of you. My bet is that if this were murder we were discussing, you would have no problem saying that it's wrong. But because the bible approves of slavery, you're unwilling to take a position on it and state definitively that it is wrong.

Quote:

If slavery is truly wrong, then it should have been wrong 3000 years ago. Either that, or slavery isn't really wrong in the first place.

If a person goes into debt and then has to pay off his debt with his labor what is wrong with that?

Are you being intentionally evasive?

That is a description of indentured servitude. We are talking about slavery. Don't pretend they are the same, arnoldo. That silly playground trick isn't going to work with me, or anyone else here.

sugarhitman · 12-26-2008, 12:26 AM

Okay, what does the Hebrew bible says concerning these things?
Could slave owners abuse their slaves? "And if a man smite the eye of his BONDMAN, or the eye of his BONDWOMAN, and destroy it; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake."

"And if he smite out his BONDMAN'S tooth, or his BONDWOMAN'S tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."

'Thou shall not deliver unto his master a BONDMAN which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with you, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of your gates, where it liketh him best: THOU SHALL NOT OPPRESS HIM."

These are Translations from the JPS the JEWISH bible. These laws clearly serve to protect slaves.

You all don't have a case....period.

Sheshonq · 12-26-2008, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Okay, what does the Hebrew bible says concerning these things?
Could slave owners abuse their slaves? "And if a man smite the eye of his BONDMAN, or the eye of his BONDWOMAN, and destroy it; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake."

These are indentured servants. What do you think "bond" referred to?

Quote:

'Thou shall not deliver unto his master a BONDMAN which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with you, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of your gates, where it liketh him best: THOU SHALL NOT OPPRESS HIM."

1. Which does not mention anything about the master mistreating the servant- it simply mentions that he ran away. Contrary to all your claims above, no mention of mistreatment. It may shock you to realize it, but people hate captivity even if they aren't being mistreated.

2. And even hiding the servant does not free him from his servitude.

Quote:

These are Translations from the JPS the JEWISH bible. These laws clearly serve to protect slaves.

No, but they clearly demonstrate that you don't know how to support your arguments.

1. The first verse applies to indentured servants, not slaves. You lose.
3. The second verse says nothing about mistreatment of servants - only how to deal with runaways. And it also does not provide for their freedom, either. You lose again.

You, like arnoldo, lack the courage to address the real problem: if slavery was immoral, then why was slavery even permitted in the first place?

Quote:

You all don't have a case....period.

I have more than a case - I have a winning argument.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-26-2008, 01:41 AM

Message to arnoldo, sugarhitman, and sschlicter: Consider the following Scriptures from the KJV:

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJV

Leviticus 25:44-46

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

The NASB translates the verses as follows:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NASB

44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have--you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you.

45 Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession.

46 You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

The NIV translates the verses as follows:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NIV

44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.

45 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.

46 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.

The Amplified Bible translates the verses as follows:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Amplified Bible

44 As for your bondmen and your bondmaids whom you may have, they shall be from the nations round about you, of whom you may buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover, of the children of the strangers who sojourn among you, of them you may buy and of their families that are with you which they have begotten in your land, and they shall be your possession.

46 And you shall make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession; of them shall you take your bondmen always, but over your brethren the Israelites you shall not rule one over another with harshness (severity, oppression).

It is reasonable to assume that the writer of those verses believed that is was acceptable to force non-Hebrew slaves to involuntarily be slaves for life, and that is was not acceptable to force Hebrew slaves to involuntarily be slaves for life.

It is also reasonable to assume that the writer of those verses considered forcing a Hebrew to be a slave for life was ruling with rigour according to the KJV, or ruling with severity according to the NASB, or ruling ruthlessly according to the NIV, or ruling with harshness, severity, or oppression according to The Amplified Bible.

Regarding verse 46, the use of the word "but" in all four translations indicates a double standard, one standard of treatment for Hebrew slaves, and another standard of treatment for non-Hebrew slaves.

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

12-26-2008, 12:26 AM	#378
sugarhitman Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: georgia Posts: 2,726	Okay, what does the Hebrew bible says concerning these things? Could slave owners abuse their slaves? "And if a man smite the eye of his BONDMAN, or the eye of his BONDWOMAN, and destroy it; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake." "And if he smite out his BONDMAN'S tooth, or his BONDWOMAN'S tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake." 'Thou shall not deliver unto his master a BONDMAN which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with you, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of your gates, where it liketh him best: THOU SHALL NOT OPPRESS HIM." These are Translations from the JPS the JEWISH bible. These laws clearly serve to protect slaves. You all don't have a case....period.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.