Originally Posted by arnoldo

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

Originally Posted by Equinox

Johnny S wrote:
Come on - you've been tricked into accepting the premise that slavery is an OK framework to work in. Here is what I wrote yesterday in response to the same question from Steve:


For the correct, ethical response, you have to back up and not enslave them in the first place. The problem started with the unethical condition of slavery.

Asking for a just punishment for a slave is like saying “I beat my wife regularly. How can I beat my pregnant wife so that it doesn’t hurt the nearly full term baby?” To answer either question, one must go back and recognize that the first condition is unethical, and fix that, not just ask how to ethically continue in the unethical framwork.

Arnoldo, this also applies to beating a slave so severely that she loses an eye or such. It's immoral from the start.

Equinox

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I hve noticed that no one will answer these sorts of questions.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

It is strange to be so comfortable jumping into another culture 3000 years and 3000 miles away to judge what is wrong. However, to be able to judge, you must have a rule to judge against. It is obvious to me that the judgment is arbitrary.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

If you alter our culture (take away jails, take away government services, take way electricity, peace with neighboring countries, etc, etc) you will find that the law will start to make sense.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I have also noticed that no one will venture into the treatment of slaves of other cultures of the times. That is a better judge as it is from the same context.

Originally Posted by Exciter

Yes they have, a God that desires freedom, lol, should not have allowed slavery in the first place....


Not if you take what it says and not do what you tried in post #307 with Deut 20:11, or like sugarhitman tries in two posts that the word rigor means LENGTH OF TIME, lol.

You at least tried to show something to back up what you believe and I commend your effort.

Any idea what sugarhitman is 'talking' about when he says rigor means LENGTH OF TIME?




Don't forget, we also have to do like you tried in post #307 with Deut 20:11, use H5647 instead of 4522 so there are more options to satisfy your believe that it wasn't forced labor like Deut 20:11 is meaning, of course if we only use what is offered.

Yes we should, but then nobody expects anyone to believe in the other cultures of the times' God beliefs and concepts.

Originally Posted by sschlicter

It is strange to be so comfortable jumping into another culture 3,000 years and 3,000 miles away to judge what is wrong. However, to be able to judge, you must have a rule to judge against. It is obvious to me that the judgment is arbitrary. If you alter our culture (take away jails, take away government services, take way electricity, peace with neighboring countries, etc, etc) you will find that the law will start to make sense.

Originally Posted by sschlicter

I have also noticed that no one will venture into the treatment of slaves of other cultures of the times. That is a better judge as it is from the same context.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

It doesn't matter if this service was for life. The Runaway slave law makes this obsolete.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

If slaves felt they were treated harshly and unjustly this law guaranteed their freedom.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Also Exodus 21 concerning the immediate death of a slave the punishment according to Rabbis and Jewish Torah students was death...which is punishment which agrees with Leviticus 24: 17 "And he that killeth ANY MAN shall surely be put to death."

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

There is no such law. In fact, it was the opposite:

LEV 25:44 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.

LEV 25:45 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

LEV 25:46And 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.

This last sentence makes it clear that the only rule against oppression was on fellow Hebrew indentured servants. There was no such law for foreign slaves.


No, it doesn't.


Sorry; it guaranteed no such thing. What a laugh.


1. You're wrong - they could be sold for debts.

2. You skipped the part about true slaves - what you're talking about are fellow Hebrew indentured servants. In fact, Exodus 21 is only talking about indentured servants. These rights did not extend to actual slaves. If you don't know the difference between and indentured servant and a slave, then maybe you ought to show some initiative and educate yourself.

LEV 25:39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:

LEV 25:40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile.

The first verse says "be sold unto thee" - indicating that someone else was doing the selling. It was forced upon him, thus disproving your claim that it had to be voluntary;

The second verse again demonstrates the distinction between:

(a) fellow Hebrews as indentured servants, who enjoyed all these protections; vs
(b) true slaves who did not have these protections



Which is both stupid and irrelevant, since:

1. the law is irrelevant if it isn't followed;
2. this "discouragement of abuse" only applied to fellow Hebrew indentured servants;
3. the law still codified that slaves were property, not people


How silly and how wrong. No it does not.


That is not what the Rabbis and Torah students said. Nor is it what Exodus says.

EXO 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

It says nothing about death. You're making that up, because you don't have the courage to admit that the bible condones slavery and creates a second class of people that are only granted inferior rights to free citizens.


Too bad that didn't apply to indentured servants or slaves.

And being unfamiliar with the facts of ancient Hebrew life causes you to embarrass yourself.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What Runaway slave law are you referring to?

One Scripture says that slaves could made, which means involuntarily forced, to serve for life.



What about non-Hebrew slaves who were treated well and wanted there freedom, but were not guaranteed their freedom like Hebrew slaves were?

That is false. The texts say that if a slaveowner killed a slave, he was only punished. If a man punishes his child, he certain does not kill his child. You obviously do not even understand basic grammar. You have not provided any evidence that punished means the same thing as killed. The Old Testament is quite clear whenever it mentions the death penalty. Your game of semantics will not work.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

It doesn't matter if this service was for life. The Runaway slave law makes this obsolete.