Rustharold

Punishment for hurting a slave is not equal to the punishment for hurting a free man. The same justice does not apply, this is not equitable, and therefore quite immoral in my mind.

Right after saying eye for eye tooth for tooth..... Exodus 21: 26 goes on to say that if it is a slave that has lost an eye due to his masters abuse; the slave is to be turned out onto the streets. :wave: see ya good luck on your job search.

And, this is supposedly the masters punishment.

Not_Registered

Many foreign people think capitalism is “immoral.�


All parents are heathens.


Yeah, I said (and I quote) “If all slaves were treated appropriately and correctly.� Getting treated not “good� and “unjust� doesn’t fall under those regulations.


Okay, well I’m sure you will provide some explanation as to why my analogy is “rather repulsive�. Let’s read on...


Is this your defense? If so, then as a child you must have received a significantly greater allowance than me. Weren’t you lucky.


Well you got me there. How can I argue against that strong case?


The slavery that birthed oppression and racism. The slavery that “WE� created. Not the slavery the bible defined.


I’m sure they did, but once again, do not equate the slavery of the recent past to the slavery defined in the bible. I never said that slavery should be used, but the slavery defined in the bible is not immoral or wrong. Slavery, when corrupted, as happend in early America leads to great unjustices, but that doesn't make slavery, as the bible defines it, wrong. Communism, in theory, is great.


That reminds me, I need to register.


Reowww! A tad bit cynical are we?


Amen, brother.


Don't be so hard on yourself.


Thanks for pointing this out. The slave becomes a freeman. This is good for the slave, I believe you would agree. And the master’s work force has just shrunk.


See Above.


Poll
This debate seems to be going no where. So, just to establish some basis here, I would like to ask everyone the following question: Is the slavery defined in the bible, the same slavery that was implemented in the early years of America? Is it the same slavery that led to the oppression of and racism toward a certain race?

Possible answers: Yes or No........or some superfluous commentary which circumvents the question.

Hobbs

I'll provide some superfluous commentary which circumvents the question:

This question is irrelevant. It is merely an attempt to circumvent the issue at hand. Whether American slavery was worse than Biblical slavery is not the issue here. The issue at hand is whether slavery as defined in the Bible is worth defending or opposing. Given that the Bible permits a master to beat his slave so severely that it takes the slave a couple of days just to get up again, as long as he doesn't die from the beating, I vote "opposing".


(After all, as the originator of this thread, I oughtta know what the question really is: "How, inquisitive01, do you defend the Bible's condoning of slavery?" It sounds, Not_Registered, like you are attempting to defend Biblical slavery at least in part on the grounds that it wasn't as bad as American slavery. Is that an accurate understanding of your point in taking this poll?)

Sven

If you or Toto were beaten as a child by your parents to make you do certain things is not the point in question. It is that today, people are not allowed to beat neither their children nor their servants nearly to death, but at the time these verses were written, at least the latter was allowed.

In advocating a society which could have slaves, only if all people would follow the teachings of the bible on slaves, you're advocating a society in which people would be allowed to beat their servants nearly to death. And you really think that this would be a good idea? :banghead:

I think this also counts as "superfluous commentary which circumvents the question".

LP675

lol
:notworthy The reference to ‘modern ethics’ intimidated me a bit too.
Hmm…Me too.
Hey wait a minute! You took that out of context!!!!!

You have quite a positive and optimistic outlook. I like it.

Angrillori

So, even Not agrees that a biblically defined slave is:

One human who is owned by another human, and forced to work for the first human, through means including, but not limited to, beatings only severe enough to keep them incapacitated for one or two days. This slave human may also be of age and reason to determine they want to be free, and capable of fending for themselves, yet will still be held in captivity.

OK.

And this is analgous to a father & child how?

Hell, last time I checked, a parent beating their child so severly that they're incapacitated for one or two days is IMPRISONED. Moreover, upon the age where the child can legally make the choice for themselves, that child can choose to be realeased, regardless of the parents' wishes. In fact, there are social workers, police officers, etc. watching to ensure that the guardianship trust position the parent is placed in is being adhered to. If the parent is not making decisions in the best interest of the child who is yet unable to make their own, the state can step in.

A child is not "owned" by the parent, but the parent is allowed to make decisions on behalf of the child until that child is ready to make those choices for itself.

Not_Registered

No.

Many people have referenced slavery as was carried out in the early stages of America. I wanted to know if people thought this slavery was the same as the slavery defined in the bible, which as I made clear in my early post, more resembles that of a servant/master relationship. I would never defend one thing by saying it isn't as bad as another. If that were the case, then anyone could defend pretty much anything that is evil by contrasting it to Hitler.


You focus on the allowed beating of slaves. If slaves are lazy and insubordinate then they need some incentive to work (i.e. a beating). The bible doesn't tell masters they must beat their slaves. It says beating is allowed, being that it is necessary as an incentive to work. In fact, some slaves became slaves voluntarily, and thus were probably effecient workers for their masters. They probably never needed incentive to work because they knew what they were getting in to, thus beatings weren't necessary. Some slaves even chose to stay a slave under their master instead of being set free. Why? Were they sadist or masochist? No, I'm sure they had pleasant relationships with their masters because they did what was asked of them and needed no beatings as incentive.

The bible has restrictions that were there to prevent masters from abusing their slaves. As I have stated, one can look at a child/father relationship and see the same issues arrise as in the slave/master relationship. Fathers are allowed to beat their children, but warned not to abuse this right. Some fathers abuse their children and that is wrong. Does that mean child birth should be illegal. That's a rhetorical question, but a hint for those who don't know the answer: it begins with an N. My father, and many others, raised me in accordance with bible regulations. I was beat, but not abused, when needed. Eventually, I didn't need physical incentive to obey. My father and I have a great relationship as I'm sure many slaves/masters of the day did. Just as some fathers should not be fathers because they abuse the role, some masters (owners of slaves) do the same.

I am not saying we should implement slavery in our country because we see how that, if mistreated, can lead to oppression and racism. Because of the incorrect implementation of slavery does this make slavery as defined in the bible wrong? Communisn, by its definition, is not bad. Many people continue to reference the recent past slavery in America as if this takes away from the bible's definition of slavery because some individuals conducted it improperly. As I have said, if I tell someone to roll a strike and they don't doesnt that make rolling a strike wrong. Slavery, as defined in the bible is not wrong. No one has said anything to prove that it is. All people have done so far is reference that beating was allowed, as part of the slavery defined by the bible, in an attempt to equate it altogether to the slavery of early America. If this is not the goal then one must be trying to say that beating someone that wont work as an incentive to work is wrong. No pain to anyone ever (even if necessary). And I thought Christians were the ones with the fluffy beliefs.

If you look in the bible many slaves (or servants) were even given important tasks to do. Was this the case of the slavery of early America? I never said slavery wasn't harsh, because, yes, sometimes beatings are necessary if the slave is not obedient. But, sentencing a criminal to life in jail is also harsh, but necessary. But beating an obedient slave just because you despise him is not a disciplinary action. It is an action influenced by hatred alone. This is not the slavery defined in the bible. Very few people have even referenced the bible in there reason for why its slavery is wrong. Very Very few. I would think that if you want to prove the slavery as defined in the bible to be wrong, you would use the bible to do so. But, no, most choose to reflect on slavery as we know it. The slavery of early America. So, that is why I choose to ask the question I asked in my previous post. I wanted to get some separation and refocus on the issue of slavery as defined in the bible.

inquisitive01

I don't believe the verse you are referring to condones slavery at all. Even today, those who are more wealthy can have servants and/or maids (the term "maid" seems further proof that servant does not equal "slave"). A waitor or waitress at a restaurant could be considered a servant, but most would not consider him or her a "slave."

The "Not_Registered" user was correct in how the term "servant," when confused with "slave," can bring up the negative views (rightly so) of how slaves were treated in recent history (prior to Lincoln's era). Therefore, even if "servants" were truly "slaves," this does NOT mean that they were treated poorly, but may have simply acted as servants (maybe even nannies) in return for food, shelter, or even some form of payment (etc.).

Amaleq13

Do you consider "allowing" the beating of slaves to be morally justifiable?

What seems inconsistent to me with regard to the an omniscient and omnibenevolent entity such as God is supposed to be is the fact that there is no hint anywhere that owning another human being is morally wrong.

As you point out, all that is indicated is a relatively more kind approach to owning another human being. This is entirely consistent with the notion that the Bible was created by humans who held somewhat different beliefs from their contemporaries but entirely inconsistent with the notion that it originates from an entity whose perspective is not limited to the thinking of mortals at the time it was written.

Sven

No amount of babble will change the fact that a society in which it is not allowed to beat servants/slaves nearly to death is better than a society in which it is allowed. Your "defense" is laughable.

And a hint: Our societies are productive today despite beating of servants not being allowed.

Are they? At least in Germany, they are forbidden to do it.
And as said above, this is irrelevant. The only thing which is relevant which society is better. See above.

This is one of the most ridiculous straw man I've ever seen.
No, it means that beating of children and servants/slaves should be forbidden.

Children don't need to be beaten. Many, many people were brought up without a beating but nevertheless are quite decent people.

Quite simply: To allow one human to beat another is (morally) wrong (except in self-defense, of course). Why don't you comprehend this?

[snipped remaining blather]

Edited to add:
You also ignored in your entire answer that we're not simply talking about beating but about beating nearly to death. Do you also think that fathers should be allowed to beat their children nearly to death?