Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sugarhitman · 12-23-2008, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following Scriptures from the New American Standard Bible:

Leviticus 25:44-46

"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. 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.
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."

It is interesting to note that right after non-Hebrew slaves are mentioned, we have "But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another." The word "but" is usually used to contrast different ideas or information, in this case different treatment for Hebrews and non-Hebrews. Otherwise, there would have been no need for the writer to use the word "but." The texts indicate that some kinds of treatment that were appropriate for non-Hebrew slaves were not appropriate for Hebrew slaves.

Unbelievable! This post has been answered by me more than once. But I will do so again. These slaves were to be bought and not forced into slavery because that would conflict with Israel's law against oppressing Foriegnors. There is only one differential treatment and that is concerning the length of time that foreign slaves could be held. And the fact that runaway slaves could not be denied freedom shows that this is voluntary....for such a law would not be established in a forced slave system. This kills your argument.

Also if you say Exodus is only about non Hebrew slaves than in that ch the laws concerning injured slaves right to freedom applied to them which also kills your argument.

I already know (as many debaters as well) that you will disregard this and repeat your question again and again and again and again (which shows me that something is quite wrong...very wrong). Persistant repeating IS EVASION.

Again I ask how did you come to the conclusion that Exodus is only about Non Hebrew slaves? "Some other texts?" What does the Hebrew text says? I will gladly post it if you do not know.

"Some other texts" also incorrectly translate the Hebrew word Taphas as rape which is not used in cases of rape. In other words that argument has no water and you know it but yet says "that was wrong" as if this occured.

Very deceptive.

sugarhitman · 12-23-2008, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Gotcha! So is Exodus 21 about Hebrew servants or non Hebrew slaves....I knew I would get you cornered now you are trying to wiggle out of it. I will put this lie to death. So how did you come to the belief that this is only about non-Hebrew slaves? What does the HEBREW text say

Come on you brought forth the accusation now back it up.

You obviously have a problem with reading comprehension. In my post #326, I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I had forgotten that you are frequently evasive, and only reply to arguments that you have cherry-picked. Please be advised that I will not reply to anything that you post until we have finished discussing this post in detail.

When you reply to all of my arguments that I made in my previous post, and after we have discussed all of them at length, then I will discuss Exodus 21:20-21 with you, which in fact I have already done. Ever since you and arnoldo came to these forums, you have both tried to control whose arguments get discussed in order to try to prevent embarrassing yourselves. That unfair tactic will not work anymore.

You like to falsely claim that skeptics are evasive when you have proven on many occasions over the last year that it is you who are evasive. I have lost track of how many times you have conveniently refused to reply to arguments that skeptics have made.

While you are at it, you can reply to my post #328 too.

"after we have discussed them at length" really? well I better not get my hopes up knowing you you will avoid this as you have been found out and will only repeat your non sense and then accuse someone of evasion. Johnny any who have read your posts knows that this is your method which i find hypocritical and distasteful. How long do you think such a method will last without people realizing this insane repeating? I mean do you know how crazy this is? Or has delusion really advanced that far obscuring your ability to see it?

Johnny Skeptic · 12-24-2008, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

"after we have discussed them at length"? Really? Well I better not get my hopes up knowing you you will avoid this as you have been found out and will only repeat your nonsense and then accuse someone of evasion.

No, you are the evasive person here, not me. Your convenient refusal to reply to my post #326 proves that. In addition, your claim that I have been evasive regarding discussing Exodus 21:20-21 is false because I did discuss the passage in my post #324. I am willing to discuss it with you some more, but only if you are willing to reply to my post #326. You have made provable false accusations in this thread, and your evasiveness has been well-known at these forums for many months.

Discrediting what the Bible says about slavery certainly does not depend solely upon whether or not Exodus 21:20-21 is referring to non-Hebrew slaves, or to all slaves. You keep bringing up that passage because you do not want to embarrass yourself by discussing other issues that I discussed in my post #326.

sugarhitman · 12-24-2008, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

"after we have discussed them at length"? Really? Well I better not get my hopes up knowing you you will avoid this as you have been found out and will only repeat your nonsense and then accuse someone of evasion.

No, you are the evasive person here, not me. Your convenient refusal to reply to my post #326 proves that. In addition, your claim that I have been evasive regarding discussing Exodus 21:20-21 is false because I did discuss the passage in my post #324. I am willing to discuss it with you some more, but only if you are willing to reply to my post #326. You have made provable false accusations in this thread, and your evasiveness has been well-known at these forums for many months.

Discrediting what the Bible says about slavery certainly does not depend solely upon whether or not Exodus 21:20-21 is referring to non-Hebrew slaves, or to all slaves. You keep bringing up that passage because you do not want to embarrass yourself by discussing other issues that I discussed in my post #326.

What! No you didn't just go there. your post #326 is the same as #328 and Exodus 21 (which is also in #326) is what is being discussed.

Something is quite wrong indeed.

Johnny can't back up his argument that Exodus 21 is about non Hebrew slaves but yet I shall ask again until he tell us the readers how did he come to the conclusion that Exodus 21 is is about Non Hebrew slaves and what are those "some texts" he mentions. (bet he won't answer)

GOTCHA!

Equinox · 12-24-2008, 06:35 AM

Does anyone care whether Ex 21:21 applies to all slaves or just to non-Hebrew slaves? It seems to me that this whole discussion is irrelevant, because Ex 21:21 clearly endorses inhuman treatment of some slaves, thus showing that the Bible is immoral. Everyone seems to agree on that, so who cares if it included both types of slaves?

Equinox

Johnny Skeptic · 12-24-2008, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

"after we have discussed them at length"? Really? Well I better not get my hopes up knowing you you will avoid this as you have been found out and will only repeat your nonsense and then accuse someone of evasion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Sketpic

No, you are the evasive person here, not me. Your convenient refusal to reply to my post #326 proves that. In addition, your claim that I have been evasive regarding discussing Exodus 21:20-21 is false because I did discuss the passage in my post #324. I am willing to discuss it with you some more, but only if you are willing to reply to my post #326. You have made provable false accusations in this thread, and your evasiveness has been well-known at these forums for many months.

Discrediting what the Bible says about slavery certainly does not depend solely upon whether or not Exodus 21:20-21 is referring to non-Hebrew slaves, or to all slaves. You keep bringing up that passage because you do not want to embarrass yourself by discussing other issues that I discussed in my post #326.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

What! No you didn't just go there. your post #326 is the same as #328 and Exodus 21 (which is also in #326) is what is being discussed.

I didn't what? If you are referring to discussing Exodus 21:20-21, as I said, I did that in my post #324. In addition, as I said, "Discrediting what the Bible says about slavery certainly does not depend solely upon whether or not Exodus 21:20-21 is referring to non-Hebrew slaves, or to all slaves." Further, you did not reply to any of the arguments in my post #326. Here they are again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Okay we have a law that says that foreign residents could not be oppressed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Obviously not. If a Hebrew killed a free Hebrew, he was put to death, but if a Hebrew slaveowner killed a slave, he was only punished. That was oppression.

You did not reply to that argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Non-Hebrew slaves could be forced to be slaves for life. Consider the following Scriptures:

Leviticus 25:44-45

"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."

Those texts obviously refer to non-Hebrew slaves, who could be involuntary made to serve for life. On the other hand, Hebrew slaves were guaranteed their freedom. Consider the following Scriptures:

Exodus 21:2-4

"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."

You did not reply to that argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Would not forced slavery constitute oppression?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Of course, and that is what happened since non-Hebrew slaves could be forced to serve for life against their will. Even if all slavery was voluntary, it was wrong to have a double standard for killing free Hebrews, and killing slaves.

You did not reply to that argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

"But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to kill (murder) him with guile; thou shall take him from my altar, that he may die."

That covers all men and not just Hebrews.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Obviously not. That only refers to when a Hebrew killed a free Hebrew, not to when a Hebrew slaveowner killed a slave. Exodus 21:20-21 say "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." You are obviously wrong. "He shall be punished" certainly does not mean "killed."

You did not reply to that argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Johnny can't back up his argument that Exodus 21 is about non-Hebrew slaves but yet I shall ask again until he tell us the readers how did he come to the conclusion that Exodus 21 is is about non-Hebrew slaves and what are those "some texts" he mentions. (bet he won't answer)

You have lost that bet since, as you surely know, I already answered that in my post #324. Not only that, but as I said previously, "Discrediting what the Bible says about slavery certainly does not depend solely upon whether or not Exodus 21:20-21 is referring to non-Hebrew slaves, or to all slaves."

Here is what I said in my post #324 about Exodus 21:20-21:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

So how did you get Exodus 21:20-21 to cover non- Hebrew slaves only?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Because of the obvious double standard regarding the treatment of Hebrews and non-Hebrews. One Scripture says that Hebrews should not rule ruthlessly over each other. That suggests that is was appropriate to give unfair preferential treatment to Hebrews. In addition, item 2 shows that non-Hebrew slaves could be involuntarily forced to serve as slaves for life.

Since other texts show that non-Hebrews were mistreated, I believe that it is a reasonable possibility that Exodus 21:20-21 refers only to non-Hebrew slaves. Even if I am wrong, the Bible is still at fault because, as I have said before, if a Hebrew killed a free Hebrew, he was put to death, but if a Hebrew slaveowner killed a slave, he was only punished. That was wrong. In addition, Hebrew slaves were guaranteed their freedom if they wanted it, but non-Hebrew slaves could be involuntarily forced to be slaves for life, and were considered to be property that could be put in slaveowner's will. That was wrong too.

One problem that you have is that I can easily afford to be wrong about Exodus 21:20-21 referring only to non-Hebrew slaves since I have other good arguments, but you cannot afford to be wrong about anything because you believe that God is perfect, and fair, and because you do not like to admit that you are wrong.

Knowing you, since you do not want to embarrass yourself more than you already have, you only have two options, to pretend that you have adequately replied to my arguments before, and to refuse to reply to them anymore. I discussed my opinions in detail in this post regarding a number of issues.

If you are not going to reply to all of this post, don't bother to reply to any of it because if you don't, I will not reply to any of your reply other than to tell you that I will not reply to it.

We will see who the evasive party is here.

arnoldo · 12-24-2008, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Since other texts show that non-Hebrews were mistreated, I believe that it is a reasonable possibility that Exodus 21:20-21 refers only to non-Hebrew slaves. Even if I am wrong, the Bible is still at fault because, as I have said before, if a Hebrew killed a free Hebrew, he was put to death, but if a Hebrew slaveowner killed a slave, he was only punished. That was wrong.

So what would the "right" punishment be?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

In addition, Hebrew slaves were guaranteed their freedom if they wanted it, but non-Hebrew slaves could be involuntarily forced to be slaves for life, and were considered to be property that could be put in slaveowner's will. That was wrong too.

Again, what would've been the "correct" course of action for these non-hebrew slaves?

arnoldo · 12-24-2008, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equinox

Does anyone care whether Ex 21:21 applies to all slaves or just to non-Hebrew slaves? It seems to me that this whole discussion is irrelevant, because Ex 21:21 clearly endorses inhuman treatment of some slaves, thus showing that the Bible is immoral.

Is it also immoral that if a slave loses an eye/tooth due to mistreatment he is set free?

Quote:

Ex 21:26
26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. 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.

WVIncagold · 12-24-2008, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVIncagold

Prove you know what a god wants.

To know what God wants? Well read the Bible sir.

That does not prove YOU know what god wants. it proves you know how to read. The Babel is a book of jewish myth and fairy tales from the bronze age of man.

Again prove you know what god wants.

WVIncagold · 12-24-2008, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVIncagold

so beatoing is not abuse? wow you are the compasionate one. I gues rape is assualt with a friendly weapon around your thought process. Roman slave was an example since it is the one that is most documentedand adopted through out its conquered world. condoning any type of slavery is moraly reprehensible and trying in anyway to condone it shows a support for bigotry and abuse of your fellow man. accepting the bible as a word of righteousness yet hand waving the abuse of fellow man and a god unable to utter these seven words "thou shalt not enslave your fellow man" when there are 613 ...count them 613 comandments in the babble about what people should not do. the bible condones slavery as a good thing. So if you support the bible you support slavery. its very simple. no amount of handwaving can dismiss it. your premis is that its is not condoned because there is punishment for slave owners. Give that some thought will you. Slave owners. Slave owners. Slave owners can be punished for killing their slaves. Seriously are you going to keep trying to assert that slavery is not condoned in the bible? Then why would there be punishement for a SLAVE owner. SLAVE owner. cant say it enough. Your argumnent is silly and contrived. The institution of slavery is condoned accepted and expressed very well in the babel.

I did not say it wasn't. I just reject your slim definition of what slavery is.

good, maybe you will answer the question I posed to your compatriot. You are in a position to judge what level of punishment is wrong universally for all cultures. Please educate us. If a single spanking is not wrong but punishment that makes someone sore for up to 23 hours is wrong. Please give me the universal ruling on when it became immoral.

You must know, or you could not judge the law.

~Steve

Great hand waving, and doing the three monkey see no evil, hear no evil, speakl no evil........wait your defending slavery so speaking evil your more than embracing. so you have no problem with bondage self servitude? All cultures are not being judged here. Only the babel and thereby the jewish and Xian. If you like you can go start another thread on those other cultures in the appropriate forum.
single spanking and one that makes you sore ( i love Xians you just love to inflict abuse on children and others using physical punishment) are both wrong. but that is not what is being discussed. we are talking slavery. Here is a test. Sell yourself to me for indentured servitude for one day. I will loan you a handsome sum. but when your done with your time ( one day) your wife and children belong to me. to do so with them as i so wish. You obviosly do not have a probvlem with that arangment since slavery (the indentured type) is such a nicey nice institution and your bible condones its use by your own argument.
Xians insit that there babel is the moral teachings of a GAWD! That is why you are defending the instituion of slavery because your gawd declared it as moral therefore you need to do mental gymnastics in order to process it.
an all knowing gawd would have known that slavery was immoral and declared it as such. I mean he gave pretty specific in the 613 other comandments you now find placed in the babel. But eating shellfish was a higher priority to your gawds morality then men owning another human was.
Proof the gawd of the babel is not omniscient or omnimoral is the bible and slavery.

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

12-24-2008, 06:35 AM	#335
Equinox Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Michigan, USA Posts: 897	Does anyone care whether Ex 21:21 applies to all slaves or just to non-Hebrew slaves? It seems to me that this whole discussion is irrelevant, because Ex 21:21 clearly endorses inhuman treatment of some slaves, thus showing that the Bible is immoral. Everyone seems to agree on that, so who cares if it included both types of slaves? Equinox

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.