Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 12-26-2008, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

If you could provide links of archaelogical evidence of slaves who suffered mistreatment under the immoral Hebrews this would be helpful.

Involuntary slavery for life is mistreatment, and it is immoral.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-26-2008, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

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

For the third time, what Runaway slave law are you talking about? Did you invent that claim all by yourself, or do you by chance have some documented evidence that supports your claim?

sugarhitman · 12-26-2008, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

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?

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.

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.

Not true because the Hebrew bible makes a distinction between Hebrew Servants and Bondman. Like Exodus 21 "If you buy a Hebrew SERVANT...."
vs if you smite a "BONDMAN."

Just like in Leviticus 25 "...thou shall not compel him to serve as a bondservant...but as a hired servant."

The fact is nowhere are Hebrew servants in the Jewish bible are called "bondman" but servants. The laws for injured "BONDMEN" and for "Runaway BONDMAN" shows that these laws are for slaves. There are clear distinctions between bondmen and hebrew servants.

You don't have a case

Johnny Skeptic · 12-26-2008, 02:23 AM

Message to arnoldo: I invite you to participate in my thread at
http://www.freeratio.org/vbb/showthr...37#post5716937 at the Evolution/Creation Forum. The title is "Dr. Hugh Ross - the global flood." You are a fan of Dr. Ross, and of his organization that is called "Reasons to Believe." You believe his absurd claim that the flood was regional. You should know better than to believe that.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-26-2008, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

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

What Runaway slave law? The texts clearly indicate that a Hebrew slaveowner could force a non-Hebrew slave to involuntarily serve for life.

Runaway to where, out into a desert, on foot, with a big load of food, clothing and other items, and possibly being beaten if the slave was caught?

sugarhitman · 12-26-2008, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

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

I accept your implied admission of defeat since you have refused at least three times to provide any evidence regarding a Runaway slave law.

You must be joking right?

Johnny Skeptic · 12-26-2008, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I accept your implied admission of defeat since you have refused at least three times to provide any evidence regarding a Runaway slave law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

You must be joking right?

No, I thought that you were joking because you conveniently refused to provide any evidence about a Runaway slave law that somehow made involuntary slavery for life obsolete. What in the world were you talking about?

My post #380, which you conveniently refused to reply to, shows that non-Hebrew slaves were treated unfairly.

Evasiveness is a sign of weakness. Your refusal to discuss a Runaway slave law indicates that you know that you made an invalid argument.

sugarhitman · 12-26-2008, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

You must be joking right?

No, I thought that you were joking because you conveniently refused to provide any evidence about a Runaway slave law that somehow made involuntary slavery for life obsolete. What in the world were you talking about?

My post #380, which you conveniently refused to reply to, shows that non-Hebrew slaves were treated unfairly.

Evasiveness is a sign of weakness. Your refusal to discuss a Runaway slave law indicates that you know that you made an invalid argument.

The Jewish bible proves you wrong.

And im not repeating myself any longer.......you clearly do not have a case (well maybe a case of severe ignorance).

Johnny Skeptic · 12-26-2008, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

You must be joking right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

No, I thought that you were joking because you conveniently refused to provide any evidence about a Runaway slave law that somehow made involuntary slavery for life obsolete. What in the world were you talking about?

My post #380, which you conveniently refused to reply to, shows that non-Hebrew slaves were treated unfairly.

Evasiveness is a sign of weakness. Your refusal to discuss a Runaway slave law indicates that you know that you made an invalid argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The Jewish bible proves you wrong.

Wikipedia says the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The term Hebrew Bible is a generic reference to those books of the Bible originally written in Biblical Hebrew (and Biblical Aramaic). The term closely corresponds to contents of the Jewish Tanakh and the Protestant Old Testament (see also Judeo-Christian) but does not include the deuterocanonical portions of the Roman Catholic or the Anagignoskomena portions of the Eastern Orthodox Old Testaments. The term does not imply naming, numbering or ordering of books, which varies, see also Biblical canon.

As Wikipedia says, "The term closely corresponds to contents of the Jewish Tanakh and the Protestant Old Testament." We have been discussing Protestant Old Testaments, not the Hebrew Bible. According to Protestant Old Testaments, non-Hebrew slaves could be forced to involuntarily serve for life. I am not aware of any Protestant Old Testament Scriptures that confirm your claim that a Runaway slave law made involuntary slavery for life obsolete. I assume that you aren't either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

And I'm not repeating myself any longer.

No, you would not be repeating yourself because you have never provided sufficient evidence in this thread that a Runaway slave law made involuntary slavery for life obsolete. If you did, which post(s) was it? Well, er, uh.......

Since new people frequently come to this forum, and would not be aware that you supposedly would be repeating yourself unless they read all of your posts in this thread, you at least ought to be willing to restate or repost your position for their sake.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-26-2008, 03:42 AM

Message to sugarhitman: My post #380, which you conveniently refused to reply to, clearly shows that treatment of non-Hebrew slaves was unfair.

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

12-26-2008, 02:23 AM	#384
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to arnoldo: I invite you to participate in my thread at http://www.freeratio.org/vbb/showthr...37#post5716937 at the Evolution/Creation Forum. The title is "Dr. Hugh Ross - the global flood." You are a fan of Dr. Ross, and of his organization that is called "Reasons to Believe." You believe his absurd claim that the flood was regional. You should know better than to believe that.

12-26-2008, 03:42 AM	#390
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to sugarhitman: My post #380, which you conveniently refused to reply to, clearly shows that treatment of non-Hebrew slaves was unfair.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.