Sheshbazzar

Key words there Stevie, "sell THEMSELVES as bondservants" a choice that they made, not that "owners" made and profited from.


Johnny has already cited plenty of verses that clearly show that the Hebrews -bought- and -sold- slaves. Slaves who were taken in battle, and slaves who were stolen or subjugated into slavery by surronding nations.

A moral law made by an all knowing moral god would have simply and CLEARLY outlawed and abolished all involuntary slavery.

Sheshbazzar

A clue Steve, if what you are quoting ends with a "comma" it is only a partial quotation, great for "proof texting" avoiding context and twisting meaning.
Expect to be called out on it every time that you leave a "quote" ending with a comma.

Sheshbazzar

You claim that post #165 does this, but you offer there only your inept and inapt analogies, assertions and faulty reasoning.

sschlichter

You were correct that they were clear. that is only half the battle. They have to be accurate as well.


Your item #2 is referring to Exo 21:12-14.

(Exo 21:12) "Whoever strikes someone so that he dies must surely be put to death. (Exo 21:13) But if he does not do it with premeditation, but it happens by accident, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee.
(Exo 21:14) But if a man willfully attacks his neighbor to kill him cunningly, you will take him even from my altar that he may die.

you said while item #2 is referring to striking any man.

Your item #3 is referring to Exo 21:20-21

(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.

you said when both of these passages are explicitly saying a man, meaning any man. Neither of them says anything about hebrews or otherwise.

Yes, instead of beating that drum again, why not respond to my reply?

sschlichter

then it should be easy to point out the endorsement.

sschlichter

I believe my post alluded to the verses in between the two I cited providing plenty of context.

sschlichter

The slavery is obviously permitted, the mistreatment of slaves is the issue. it is not permitted.

ownership is relative. I have people pay for me to work for them all the time. there are laws that regulate abuses in our economic system. when does it become slavery? 8 hours / day, 16 hours, 7 year agreement. It is voluntary but sometimes necessary. A person who is destitute can sell themselves permanently into slavery (and their descendants apparently) This was allowed. Abuse was not.

~Steve

sschlichter

Yes, same keywords that appear in the passages Lev 25:39 and 47.


he has cited 4 passages (3 from Exo 21 and 1 from lev 25) and none say this at all.

Sheshbazzar

Beating a slave with a rod to the point that he (or she) cannot even get up from the ground for an entire day or more, is not mistreatment in your view?
By the texts that you are citing it most certainly is permitted.

If a man should beat his dog, his cow, or a horse to the point that it could not arise for days, it would be considered mistreatment in almost any society,
however if the victim of such a beating is -only- a wife, or a slave, well, then in that case it simply -must- be called something else.
Down here in Kentucky, a man that beat his horse so severely, in earlier times, would likely not have lived to see the next sunrise, today's courts would lock him away for as long as if he had killed a man.





None of those present day scenarios are slavery Steve, -(And anciently, abuse WAS allowed)-
you have a choice to work, or to not work at your own will.
You are free to walk away from any job at any time.
No person has a right to beat you with a rod to the point that you can't rise from the ground for hours on end.
And not being a slave of those you work for, they DO NOT own you,
if you decide to quit, and to walk away from their employment,
they cannot have you hunted down and be forced to return to their premises against your will.
They do not own your wife or children, and cannot hold them as slaves, neither can they sell them nor trade them,
nor leave them as though they were only so many cattle, as an inheritance of slaves unto their children.
They cannot sell you, nor trade you to a far away master, and so separate from your family, and your home.
You make mockery of men who have suffered under the cruelty and deprivations of real slavery.


Why not just cut out all this evasive dishonesty? It impresses no one here.
Are you Satan's slave, that you must obey, and serve him, by continuing in his ways?

Stephen T-B

So the Hebrews get special treatmnent because they were the Covenanted nation?
Hard luck, then on every other nation on Earth.
By choosing one nation, the Jewish god (and how much more impressive would this claim be if instead of Judean prophets saying the Jews were the One True God's Chosen People, the priests of Baal and other local gods had had a revelation from this One True God and told the Jews - "Yes, there is One True God, and guess what - it's chosen you to be its especial people!") is discriminating against all other nations and races. That discrimination is unequivocally expressed in the rules regarding the treatment of slaves.
These rules were apparently provided by an all-knowing, perfectly-just god which was aware that whatever form slavery took in Israel, it would in later ages become perhaps the most vile and cruel system of mistreatment by humans of humans in the history of Mankind. It would have known that a blanket prohibition - such as the blanket prohibitions on working on the Sabbath and making and worshipping graven images and coveting your neighbour's oxen or wife - would have made it impossible for its devotees ever to have kept slaves.
The reason it didn't is rather obvious.
The Jewish god was a deity invented by the Jews, and as such it endorsed all that was culturally acceptable by the Jews,