post tenebras lux

Maybe I needed to link to the 'non-frames' version. Anyway, I was trying to direct him to Chapter 20 of Exodus.

But thanks for mentioning Chapter 21, as verse 2 of Chapter 21 (which goes 'If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing' in the KJV) used the self same hebrew word 'ebed' as used in verse 2 of Chapter 20 (which goes 'I [am] the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.' in the KJV).

Both the bolded words are the same word 'ebed' in the Hebrew original.

achristianbeliever

You know what? I kinda agree with that.

Ok. But I already mentioned my point on this.

Angrillori

Ah, fun with equivocation.

So, being in debt to a credit card company=OWNING another person, being legally able to pass that ownership on to children in your will, with differing levels of rights, and the bible-mandated ability to beat slaves until they can no longer stand as long as they CAN regain their feet in a few days.

Yeah. Right.

You can call all sorts of things slavery, it does not mean they ACTUALLY are slavery. I can call an apple slavery, but it's not.

How many legs would a lamb have if you called a tail a leg?
Four. You can call a tail a leg, but it's still a tail.


Let's have some fun with biblical slavery, shall we?

Exodus 21:20-21
20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

WOW! My credit card companies NEVER come to my house and beat me until I'm near to death. Weird eh?

Exodus 21:29-32
If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death. 30 However, if payment is demanded of him, he may redeem his life by paying whatever is demanded. 31 This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter. 32 If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels [f] of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned.

Notice the difference between what happens when a bull kills a 'person' and when a bull kills a 'slave'. I wonder if the law applies differently if my credit card company's bull kills me...

Another Gem:
Leviticus 25 39-43
39 " 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.

Nice double standard, eh? If being a slave is soooooo wonderful, why the double standard? And why the prohibition to not rule over Israelites ruthlessly. Apparently, lacking any such injunction for foreigners, ruthlessness was expected to your 'actual' slaves?

More from Lev 25
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.

WOW! Owned and passed on to your children. Wow. That's just sick. But, well, Achristianbeliever thinks it's just hunky-dory, what are we to make of that?

More Lev 25
47 " 'If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan, 48 he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself.

I like that one just for the double standard. Hey, if a Jew sells himself, he still gets to redeem himself later. If a foreigner does the same thing? Yeah, SOL. NO SOUP FOR YOU!

Deut 24 goodness
Deuteronomy 24:7
If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you.

Wow, if an Israelite kidnaps another israelite and treats him like a slave he needs to be killed. Neat! And if an Israelite kidnaps a foreigner and treats him like a slave? Oh yeah. he should keep treating him like a slave and beating him until he almost dies. Of course I'm completely allowed to buy myself out of credit card debt at any time, even though I'm not a Jew. Is that the sound of your analogy crumbling?

1 Kings 9
20 All the people left from the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites (these peoples were not Israelites), 21 that is, their descendants remaining in the land, whom the Israelites could not exterminate [a] —these Solomon conscripted for his slave labor force, as it is to this day. 22 But Solomon did not make slaves of any of the Israelites; they were his fighting men, his government officials, his officers, his captains, and the commanders of his chariots and charioteers

Wow, once more it looks like slavery wasn't such a wonderful thing. 'Conscripted' though. Wow, what do you think that means? I wonder if I was conscripted by my credit card company....<looks>....guess not. Wow, you are just the KING of bad analogies.

Just remember, you can call a thing slavery, but that doesn't make it so.
You can call your god loving, but that doesn't make it so either.

Why does apologetics so often boil down to Christians merely changing definitions and pretending it affects reality at all?

Black isn't white.
Smiting isn't loving.
Credit Card Debt isn't slavery.

And before you start the inevitable: different times nonsense, be prepared to answer why the bible's morality then is subjective and based on whatever happens to be the accepted cultural norm of the time.

I thought the claim was that god's morality is objective and universal? So you'll have a hard time convincing me it changes from time to time and place to place. A pragmatic, 'whatever's easiest,' morality doesn't sound particularly compelling, y'know...

Dark Virtue

The term "manservant" is pretty clear in the Bible.

Feel free to look up `ebed in the concordance (05647).

achristianbeliever

Fine. But it doesn't matter what you or I call slavery. The question is what would the writers of the Bible have called slavery?

How lame must a skeptic's argument be if they have to bring up verses I already brought up beforehand?

That's your opinion. personally if I was lived back then I would rather be one of them becoming an Israelite slave than a free man living with the Amorites.

And if morals are subjective then if you call God evil that doesn't make it so either.

When did I ever say it wasn't?

I don't remember saying that. Show me where I did.

I'm not arguing with anything so far. What's your point? I looked at a concordance and you can use ebed for manservant and bondage. Big deal. I find it actually supports my point.

Angrillori

So, let's get this straight:

The writers of the bible indicate that Slavery is ownership of another human being, AS PROPERTY, to be sold, willed to descendants, ordered and commanded and brooked no disobedience, bought, and offered all the rights and priviledges as a peice of furniture, to be treated as less than human.

And you say the writers of the bible thought slavery = credit card debt?



How absurd must be the xian faith when they're reduced to that kind of mad equivocation.

Interesting to note your defense of biblical slavery ("Hey, look how much better it is to be a slave of an Israelite than to be a free Amorite") in addition to being 100% unsupported, is exactly (exactly) the same argument offered by slaveowners in the US. ("Look how much better it is to be my slave than to be a free tribesman.") I assume this means you support US slavery as long as a slaveowner thinks he's offering a better life to his slaves than they would have had when free?

And besides saying "I think beating slaves near to death is perfectly fine" you didn't actually address the atrocity outlined in Exodus 21:20-21. Just thought I'd point that out.

Of course if your defense was the implicit: "Hey, what's good and moral is just whatever's practical at the time, you can't expect god to stand up for his morality back in the bronze age, besides, everyone else was doing it!" Then I'll let that stand for it's own. A better criticism of xianity, and defense of atheism I couldn't dream of offering.

Dark Virtue

My point is that you are taking it out of context.

mdarus

I don't think it is accurate to say that the Mosaic code "endorses" slavery. It certainly allows it. It fails to even begin to call for abolition of slavery. It certainly reflects the cultural context of the existance of slavery. However, it appears to be an attempt to put some limits on the abuse that was done at the time. It may be possible to see some "endorsement" of the practice in the context of the wars of conquest in reference to the plight of captives. But this can be easily argued to be an allowance as well.

I also think it is incorrect to view the Mosaic Code as an ethic or system of morality. It is a part of that in that it is a legal code. A legal code generally limits human societies on the most basic levels. A legal code is not capable of communication how people should behave. It can usually only prescribe appropriate punishments for illegal behavrior. It defines the lower limit of acceptable behavior. An ethic has a higher standard than a legal code. An ethic is much more limiting. The Mosaic Code does seem to make some attempts at defining a positive ethic by giving some positive commands but it is unfair to judge a legal code by its failure to define the complete ethic.

The most common and reasonable excuse I have heard for the posting of the Ten Commandments is as an illustration for some of the sources for our legal system. The Mosaic Code demonstrates some of the same principles still used to differentiate between premeditation, accidental homicide, etc. At a time when punishment was usually much more severe than the crime, the Mosaic Code was a major step in a good direction. There are some who may hope posting The Big Ten would inspire ethics. However, those same people at their more sane moments would agree that laws generally fail to commend ethics.

mata leao

'D" accurate historical portrayal vs. aspirational . The Bible is dead set accurate in its portrayal of violence, greed, sexual imoorality, human exploitation.....

NOGO

Slavery is part of a system whereby a man can legally buy another.

Our current morality forbids this.

In biblical times buying people was ok and Yahweh approved of it when it concerned non-Israelites. He was less accepting when it was Hebrew people.

This logically flows from the idea that Yahweh freed the Israelites from Egypt which is referred to the house of slavery.

A man sold himself into slavery if he had debts that he could not pay. Today we declare bankruptcy.

People who translate bibles do not like to use the word slavery because it is hard to explain how the so called people of God had slaves. Servant is much easier to accept.

In Rome and Greece some slaves looked after their master's business, they were very well treated and some even became wealthy. But slavery is slavery. Even for the bible when a man ceased to be a slave he became free.
FREE!!

Free is the keyword. Slavery is the opposite of freedom. This cannot be confused with anything we do today.

Bottom line.
Yahweh's morality allowed it; ours does not.