Freethought & Rationalism Archive

WVIncagold · 12-24-2008, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

up to 25% of the population were slaves. He was nearly always talking to a slave owner. The topic was not slavery.

(Deut 20:11) If it accepts your terms and submits to you, all the people found in it will become your slaves.

I think you will find if you do a little research into the word used in this passage, it is not the hebrew word for slave. It is talking about a city that accepts the terms of peace and becomes subject in the form of tribute.

Perhaps you were referring to 20:14

(Deut 20:14) However, the women, little children, cattle, and anything else in the city - all its plunder - you may take for yourselves as spoil. You may take from your enemies the plunder that the LORD your God has given you.

After all the men were killed, you could take the women. However, they were not for slaves. They were to be assimilated into the culture. Their heads were shaved to mark the death of their old life.

(Deut 21:10)
When you go out to do battle with your enemies and the LORD your God allows you to prevail and you take prisoners,
(Deut 21:11) if you should see among them an attractive woman whom you wish to take as a wife,
(Deut 21:12) you may bring her back to your house. She must shave her head, trim her nails,
(Deut 21:13) discard the clothing she was wearing when captured, and stay in your house, lamenting for her father and mother for a full month. After that you may have sexual relations with her and become her husband and she your wife.
(Deut 21:14) If you are not pleased with her, then you must let her go where she pleases. You cannot in any case sell her; you must not take advantage of her, since you have already humiliated her.

No, if they surrender they are to be serfs, forced to pay tribute. (Deut 20:11)

yes, but you failed to mention that twice in the same context it is referring to those that sell themselves into slavery.

(Lev 25:39) " 'If your brother becomes impoverished with regard to you so that he sells himself to you, you must not subject him to slave service.

(Lev 25:47) " 'If a resident foreigner who is with you prospers and your brother becomes impoverished with regard to him so that he sells himself to a resident foreigner who is with you or to a member of a foreigner's family,

this was already discussed at length. I would also like to point out that you are projecting adjectives onto the text. No inhuman treatment is condoned or commanded.

I already told you what the principle is. Don't abuse slaves or you will be punished. I was not asking you to extend the time. I was asking you to tell me at what time it became immoral. Somewhere between 5 minutes and 47 hours. You have judged 47 hours immoral, so tell me at what point that happened!

I noticed that you do not like to include references and prefer to describe the passage in your own words. Slaves were not treated as proeprty. They were given rights, protected by laws, had the ability to be redeemed, even by themsleves, if they prospered.

No , it says not to beat them. You SHOULD BECOME A POLITICIAN. You have a way with words that seems to fit that line of work.

An eye for an eye is a command not to escalate violence as was the tradition in the time. It is designed to be a restraint on taking revenge (which escalates back and forth) not a command to make sure you take an eye for an eye.

You have his opinion on slavery. You are ignoring it. I think bacht's reply was interesting. You can take this up with him, I am beginning to tire of it.

of course you are alleging that their is no consent on the part of women. The question is did God consent? I am certain you will not find consent from him in those passages?

A) it does not say rape, it could be a matter of seduction. B) it is not talking about the master, it is talking about another man sleeping with someone elses slave. C) the payment is not because the woman is a slave, it is because now the master cannot marry her off as her virgnity will not be provable. D) it is unclear to me that the would-be husband is not the one being paid off.

The whole master always raping his slaves scenario seems to be coming from your mind, not the text.

I suggest that these passages are how the God of Isreal wanted the slaves of Isreal to be treated.

(Lev 19:34) The foreigner who resides with you must be to you like a native citizen among you; so you must love him as yourself, because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

(Deut 10:19) So you must love the resident foreigner because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.

Now, here are some examples of how that was implemented.

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished "(Ex 21.20)

"If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth. (Ex 21.26-27)

This was an incentive not to hit slaves.

You like to point out the beating of slaves in Exo 21. Let's put it into a little context.

This is talking about free men.

(Exo 21:18) "If men fight, and one strikes his neighbor with a stone or with his fist and he does not die, but must remain in bed,
(Exo 21:19) and then if he gets up and walks about outside on his staff, then the one who struck him is innocent, except he must pay for the injured person's loss of time and see to it that he is fully healed.

If a free man strikes another free man and he finally gets up and walks about then the man is not guilty of murder. However, he has to pay for the mans wages lost for those couple of days.

In this same vein.

(Exo 21:20) "If a man strikes his male servant or his female servant with a staff so that he or she dies as a result of the blow, he will surely be punished.
(Exo 21:21) However, if the injured servant survives one or two days, the owner will not be punished, for he has suffered the loss.

However, in this case, the owner will not have to pay for his losses because the fool who struck his own slave is the one that suffered the economic loss. Otherwise the punishment for a free man or a slave is the same.

Do you see anything like this concern for slaves in other ancient near east cultures?

If for whatever reason someone had to choose to be a slave in a near eastern culture thousands of years ago without doubt they would receive the best treatment in Israel when compared to other countries such as Egypt, Babylon, Assyria,etc.

So basically it was better in Isreal because they would use lube when they fucked your ass? thats your argument? Your talking the chosen number 1 people by gawd all mighty hisself. The ultimate authority on moral code. Strange how that moral code has changed with the change in culture of man. Guess he aint the alll knowledgable since he could not see that slavery would be a banned institution in the future. Course it sure would of been better if Crow mother had told an native american shaman that they were the chosen people and they would of know of the forecoming of that gawd but thats another thread.

Exciter · 12-24-2008, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equinox

Does anyone care whether Ex 21:21 applies to all slaves or just to non-Hebrew slaves?

lol, yes sugarhitman does so he won't have to answer how he decided to change rigour/rigor to mean LENGTH OF TIME, [lol], and who the African slaves that his Christian brethren used in the African slave trade descended from.

Maybe on the mean streets of the hood he grew up on used rigor to mean LENGTH OF TIME? I have talked to people that grew up on the streets and they use all sorts of gang slang.

Africans had to descend from either Japeth, Shem, or Ham either that they were part of the cargo... or as slaves maybe to take care of all the animals.

Or perhaps they hid out inside of one of the giant's ears or nostrils?

WVIncagold · 12-24-2008, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exciter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equinox

Does anyone care whether Ex 21:21 applies to all slaves or just to non-Hebrew slaves?

lol, yes sugarhitman does so he won't have to answer how he decided to change rigour/rigor to mean LENGTH OF TIME, [lol], and who the African slaves that his Christian brethren used in the African slave trade descended from.

Maybe on the mean streets of the hood he grew up on used rigor to mean LENGTH OF TIME? I have talked to people that grew up on the streets and they use all sorts of gang slang.

Africans had to descend from either Japeth, Shem, or Ham either that they were part of the cargo... or as slaves maybe to take care of all the animals.

Or perhaps they hid out inside of one of the giant's ears or nostrils?

Considering slaves were property it is not totally above the realm of possibility that they would not be considered important enough to be mentioned in the myth of Noah. I mean do you really think free men would muck out that many stalls. or maybe they sold themselves into bondage since like Steve contends this was such a nicey nice condition that it was highly sought after especially since the world was about to end.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-24-2008, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Since other texts show that non-Hebrews were mistreated, I believe that it is a reasonable possibility that Exodus 21:20-21 refers only to non-Hebrew slaves. Even if I am wrong, the Bible is still at fault because, as I have said before, if a Hebrew killed a free Hebrew, he was put to death, but if a Hebrew slaveowner killed a slave, he was only punished. That was wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

So what would the "right" punishment be?

Certainly a punishment other than death, perhaps a moderate beating, the loss of certain privileges, or being deprived of food for a day or two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

In addition, Hebrew slaves were guaranteed their freedom if they wanted it, but non-Hebrew slaves could be involuntarily forced to be slaves for life, and were considered to be property that could be put in slaveowner's will. That was wrong too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Again, what would've been the "correct" course of action for these non-Hebrew slaves?

Consider the following Scriptures:

Exodus 21:2-4

"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free."

What would have been wrong with granting non-Hebrew slaves the same right to be free after serving as slaves for six years without paying anything, or with providing them with other alternatives to involuntary slavery for life?

Are you saying that you approve of involuntary slavery for life?

What the Bible says about slavery is a good example of the needless confusion that the Bible has caused if it was inspired by a God. Since the Bible is not the word of God, that explains why the Christian church has been in disarray regarding many issues for 2,000 years.

Equinox · 12-24-2008, 09:38 AM

Johnny S wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

So what would the "right" punishment be?

Certainly a punishment other than death....

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

Johnny Skeptic · 12-24-2008, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Certainly a punishment other than death.......

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equinox

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.

I do not disagree with the validity of your argument, but your arguments would not deter some Christians at all, including James Holding and Glenn Miller. Holding's web site is called "tektonics.org," and Miller's web site is called "A Christian Thinktank." You will find lots of articles on slavery at those web sites. Holding and Miller are much tougher competition than any fundie at this forum. If arnoldo and sugarhitman used some of Holding's and Miller's arguments against you, you will have more problems than you bargained for. Fundies have not been idle for the last 2,000 years, and they have developed lots of sophisticated arguments that are not easy to refute. For example, I suggest that you go to Holding's web site and type "The Impossible Faith" into the search engine. "The Impossible Faith" is Holding's admittedly flagship article. If you read it, you will find that it is not easy to refute.

I believe that both your approach and my approach can be useful.

Exciter · 12-24-2008, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Since other texts show that non-Hebrews were mistreated, I believe that it is a reasonable possibility that Exodus 21:20-21 refers only to non-Hebrew slaves. Even if I am wrong, the Bible is still at fault because, as I have said before, if a Hebrew killed a free Hebrew, he was put to death, but if a Hebrew slaveowner killed a slave, he was only punished. That was wrong.

So what would the "right" punishment be?

Moses should have murdered the immoral slave owner like he did to that Egyptian guy in Exodus 2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

In addition, Hebrew slaves were guaranteed their freedom if they wanted it, but non-Hebrew slaves could be involuntarily forced to be slaves for life, and were considered to be property that could be put in slaveowner's will. That was wrong too.

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

Not to allow slavery, since as sugar put it....

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

God desires freedom.

lol, God has desires, how human of Him!

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equinox

Does anyone care whether Ex 21:21 applies to all slaves or just to non-Hebrew slaves? It seems to me that this whole discussion is irrelevant, because Ex 21:21 clearly endorses inhuman treatment of some slaves, thus showing that the Bible is immoral.

Is it also immoral that if a slave loses an eye/tooth due to mistreatment he is set free?

Yes, unless the poor ex-slave also got heaps of reparation since running around with one eye or teeth missing would probably ruin the ex-slaves chances at getting a good job.

The poor ex-slave would probably be forced to become a slave again and the vicious cycle of slavery would repeat itself.

Do an experiment, cover one of your eyes and try to do your favorite pastimes... not very easy is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Ex 21:26
26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. 27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.

Yeah, set the slave free or else you'll get your eye gouged out, the ex-slave will probably have to become a slave again like I said.

After all it was so much better to be a slave under Moses the lawgiving muderer then being a slave to some other tribe, lol!

WVIncagold · 12-24-2008, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equinox

Johnny S wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Certainly a punishment other than death....

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

Bingo! ding ding ding give the man a prize!>

<

sugarhitman · 12-24-2008, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Since other texts show that non-Hebrews were mistreated, I believe that it is a reasonable possibility that Exodus 21:20-21 refers only to non-Hebrew slaves. Even if I am wrong, the Bible is still at fault because, as I have said before, if a Hebrew killed a free Hebrew, he was put to death, but if a Hebrew slaveowner killed a slave, he was only punished. That was wrong.

Certainly a punishment other than death, perhaps a moderate beating, the loss of certain privileges, or being deprived of food for a day or two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Again, what would've been the "correct" course of action for these non-Hebrew slaves?

Consider the following Scriptures:

Exodus 21:2-4

"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free."

What would have been wrong with granting non-Hebrew slaves the same right to be free after serving as slaves for six years without paying anything, or with providing them with other alternatives to involuntary slavery for life?

Are you saying that you approve of involuntary slavery for life?

What the Bible says about slavery is a good example of the needless confusion that the Bible has caused if it was inspired by a God. Since the Bible is not the word of God, that explains why the Christian church has been in disarray regarding many issues for 2,000 years.

It doesn't matter if this service was for life. The Runaway slave law makes this obsolete. If slaves felt they were treated harshly and unjustly this law guaranteed their freedom. 1. Slaves had the CHOICE to sell or not sell themselves into slavery, they could not be forced. 2. The slave injury laws discouraged abuse. 3. The Runaway slave law gave slaves the right to leave harsh slave masters.

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."

Not only are you wrong about Israeli slavery being Involuntary and Exodus 21 about non hebrew slaves you are also wrong by saying Hebrews could kill slaves and only be punished. I ask if it isn't death than what is this punishment. Johnny said they were "only punished" without realizing that death is punishment nor can he name what was this punishment.

Assumptions leads to false visualization.

Sheshonq · 12-24-2008, 10:04 PM

Quote:

These slaves were to be bought and not forced into slavery because that would conflict with Israel's law against oppressing Foriegnors.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

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

No, it doesn't.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

1. Slaves had the CHOICE to sell or not sell themselves into slavery, they could not be forced.

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

Quote:

2. The slave injury laws discouraged abuse.

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

Quote:

3. The Runaway slave law gave slaves the right to leave harsh slave masters.

How silly and how wrong. No it does not.

Quote:

Also Exodus 21 concerning the immediate death of a slave the punishment according to Rabbis and Jewish Torah students was death

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.

Quote:

...which is punishment which agrees with Leviticus 24: 17 "And he that killeth ANY MAN shall surely be put to death."

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

Quote:

Assumptions leads to false visualization.

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

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.