Not_Registered

The above is the question I am still asking that all, who would be so nice as to oblige me, would answer.

Angrillori, I honestly don't see how this question is loaded or how it is anything like the "when did you stop beating your wife" question. I'm honestly not trying to load any questions. It's just a simple question. The answer to your question is I don't have a wife. I would appreciate it if you could either answer my question or show me how it is misleading or loaded (or whatever) so I can change the question. I'm not trying to be tricky here. It's a simple question.

Hobbs, I'm not being irrelevant. This line of question will go somewhere. If you do not want to answer the question that is fine.

For all, if this question seems loaded could you please show me where it is loaded and provide an alternate question which isn't loaded. Again, I am not trying to be tricky or anything of the sort. Thanks.

Toto

By definition, a police officer is allowed to make an arrest in certain legally defined situations. There are other situations where a police officer is not allowed to make an arrest, and may be sued for "false arrest."

So your question is irrelevant and badly phrased, and appears to be a device for avoiding the discussion, which is probably why no one has answered it up to now.

What does this have to do with the topic, slavery in the Bible?

Angrillori

I'll repeat an earlier bit that was addressed to Inq. when he originally brought up the idea of prison=bad.

"Glad I didn't commit any crime which the social contract I'm entered into with my government declared would be punished by a life sentence. Notice the difference:

1) I had the choice to be imprisoned--don't do the crime, don't do the time.
2) Slaves (or, owned servants whom you can beat near unto death, whose children you also own and who will remain owned by your family even after you die) didn't have that choice.
3) Slavery was always a life sentence, and extended into later generations.
4) Prison sentences vary based on the crime you chose to commit to be imprisoned, and do not include the imprisonment of your children.
5) Guards are not allowed to beat prisoners near unto death.
6) Slave owners are allowed to beat their slaves near unto death.

But most importantly, #1. I choose to enjoy the protection and benefits of the US government. Part of that choice is a choice to follow its rules. If I choose not to follow those rules, then in exchange for enjoying the benefits of the US government, I am choosing to be imprisoned for terms which that government has established.

It's called citizenship, or a social contract.

A Midianite, captured by Hebrews, doesn't seem to be quite the same eh?"

I agreed, by being a citizen of the U.S., to be arrested by agents of the U.S. if I broke one of its rules.

The U.S. agreed to protect me from other countries, to protect my individual rights and freedoms, and all that other good stuff in the Constitution.

This is somewhat different from a rapmaging army killing my family, kidnapping me against my will, forcing me to work, for the rest of my life for strangers, and then forcing my children into the same servitude.

I am, and I hope most are, disgusted by your transparent attempts to liken the two. Slavery is Bad. I can see how it may be difficult for you to admit that, seeing as your 'moral guidebook' says the opposite. But, no amount of verbal obfuscation, will change the fact that:

Owning another person, forcing them to work for you, even against their will, without the opportunity to be freed, being allowed to beat this person near unto death, being able to will this person and their descendants to future descendants of your own, is wrong.

Angrillori

Inq. One more thing:

you said
Outside the obvious (that the bible is referring to people who were owned, for life, could be beaten without consequence, and whose children were also property), are you seriously saying that slavery isn't slavery as long as slaves are treated differently?

Heck, in America's south, some slaves were well treated. Does that make the slavery that existed there good? Or does it make it any less slavery? Of course not. The institutionalized ownership of other human beings who were forced against their will, including by beatings near unto death, to serve masters for their entire lives, and the lives of their descendants,who could be bought and sold, who had no say in ther treatment or purchase or sale is slavery. You can call it gibbledypoofing, but it'll also be slavery. And it is BAD.

inquisitive01

Hobbs (I believe), at the beginning of this thread (the OP), stated that I said the following (which I did):

I still believe this (the quote by me above), regardless of your speculations, so I guess this thread truly is futile.

Amaleq13

You interpret the verse to read like this?:

"And if [an owner] smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and [the owner] die under [the servant's] hand; [the servant] shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if [the owner] continue a day or two, [the servant] shall not be punished: for [the servant] is [the owner's] money."(KJV)

What translation do you think supports your reading? It makes no sense to me when read this way.

"And if [an owner] smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and [the servant] die under [the owner's] hand; [the owner] shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if [the servant] continue a day or two, [the owner] shall not be punished: for [the servant] is [the owner's] money."

This, on the other hand, is entirely sensible and I don't think it is a coincidence that every translation I've read interprets it this same way.

Gullwind

How does Inq's interpretation of that one particular verse alter the laws the bible lays out condoning slavery? Whether the verse refers to a slave being beaten or a slave beating his master, the fact remains that one is a slave and one is the master.

Angrillori

Absolutely.

Even if we throw coherence out the window, and accept that the master is the slave's property, as Inq's interpretation demands, the point remains that the bible says:

A) Members of other countries could be captured and forced to work for Israelites against their will.
B) Israelite servants were not allowed to be treated as badly as these slaves.
C) Israelites could sell these slaves, and buy them.
D) These slaves were slaves for life.
E) Israelites could include these slaves in their wills, and pass them on to descendants.
F) The descendants of the slaves were considered slaves, and the property of the owner.

Any one of which alone would be appalling.

Note however, that conventional use of language does defeat Inq's interpretation, allowing everyone else to add:

G) Masters could beat their slaves near unto death, and as long as the slave could regain his feet after a couple of days, the bible holds the master blameless.

(Does anyone else see Inq. as Bill Clinton when he says "I don't believe the 'he' refers to what it does. You see, it all depends on the meaning of the word 'is.' The Israelites did not have slavery relations with those people.")

Sven

Why should I answer your questions while you ignore my simple yes/no-questions? Here they are again:

If your neighbor beat his children so severe that they need two days to recover, wouldn't you interfer?
If your neighbor beat his servant so severe that he needed two days to recover, wouldn't you interfer?
If your neighbor beat his slave [assuming for the moment that this wasn't forbidden by law] so severe that he needed two days to recover, wouldn't you interfer?
Or would you interfer in the former two cases, but not in the latter? If yes, why?

Calzaer

Hey, that's a system of slavery I could get used to! A slave can beat his master almost to death without reprecussions!

So much for Not's assertion that "slaves just need to be beaten"... it's the master who's getting beat!