sschlichter

You are assuming that the slave is not a type of bond servant that is selling himself into slavery. Who are you buying a Hebrew salve from. You are taking someone into your house and having a coventnat with them for 6 years. Part of the agreement is that if he has kids, they will stay in servitude (not clear from here, for how long). The mother will stay with them so they are not separated from her. The man is now free to make a living and buy his wife out of service. You are assuming it is like the evil slavery of our recent history. (which may have been the case but that is not endorsed here).


The lesson here seems quite adequate to me. If a man kills another man, he should be put to death. If it was an accident, he will be allowed to live.

do not Kill. This seems like a good way to enforce that law to me.

Notice there is no endorsement to beat a slave. A man that beats his slave is to be punished. The salve sold himself to the master and now has no business not working or stealing. If the slave does, then the master has the right to correct them. If he does it too harshly and causes any type of permanent dmage then he is to be punished.

when my kids lied or stole or were disrespectful (when they were younger) I spanked them. Sometimes it hurt for a while. If I hurt them physically as it indicates when someone does not get up after a day then I would expect someone to call social services. What is the problem with this?

again, you are assuming that this type of slavery looks like the evil slavery in America. Consider Abraham who had a man that was his servant. Did Abraham buy him at one time? Eliezer was from Damascus and Abraham, since he had no sons, was concerned that Elizer was going to inherit all of Abrahmas possessions. Was he a slave or was he something else. I expect you will find that to be the nature of the slavery that is being endorsed here.

slavery was not an ideal situation. If other people wanted to sell themselves into slavery, then that was their choice. However, the God of Isreal did not want his people to be in a position of permanent servitude. he wanted them to know that they were 'owned' by him.

It does not say what the punishment is in that passage.

yes, it does not advocate the mistreatment of slaves. I am going to say that.

ye, he was wrong. I suiggest you look at the law on the subject of divorce as an example and then look at Jesus' treatment of this issue. It may shed some light on the difference between endorsing something and dealing with people where they are at.

sschlichter

I expect that people did mistreat slaves. However, it does not mean that it was endorsed. None of these passages allow mistreatment.

~Steve

Stephen T-B

So arnoldo and sschlichter, what about this:
"Something all these apologists overlook, of course, is that an 'omniscient'
god, even in the Bronze-Age era, would have known how the practice of slavery would change when God-fearing Europeans discovered the New World and began their sugar and cotton plantations.
Such a god would have known the potential for evil within such a system, and regardless of slavery's 'benign' nature in the Ancient World, would have ensured that later generations were in no doubt that it disapproved of slavery as much as it did of working on the Sabbath and worshipping graven images.

Either the Jewish god isn't omniscient, or it is omniscient and didn't care,
or it is a human creation, and reflects its human creators' view of the world." (S T-B)

Johnny Skeptic

That is false. Consider the following:

Item 1

Exodus 21:2-4 (NIV)

"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."

Item 2

Exodus 21:12-14 (NIV)

"Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death."

Item 3

Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV)

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

Item 4

Leviticus 25:44-45 (NIV)

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 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. 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."

Regarding item 1, please note that after six years, a Hebrew slave gained his freedom, but item 4 shows that slaves from other nations could be forced to be slaves for life. Part of item 4 says "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." That is a good example of racial bigotry, but what else should one expect from a race of people who appointed themselves as God's chosen people. Chosen for what?

Regarding item 2, if a Hebrew deliberately killed another Hebrew, he was put to death, but item 3 shows that if a Hebrew deliberately killed a non-Hebrew slave, he was not put to death, only punished, but not punished at all if the slave recovered in a day or two. Item 3 does not specifically say non-Hebrew, but non-Hebrew is implied because it would not make any sense for item 2 to talk about Hebrews, and for item 3 to also talk about Hebrews. In other words, it would not make any sense for item 2 to say that a Hebrew should be put to death if he killed another Hebrew, and for item 3 to say that if a Hebrew killed another Hebrew, he would only be punished.

There is clearly an endorsement, or allowance, for a Hebrew slaveowner to kill a non-Hebrew slave without being put to death, but if a Hebrew killed another Hebrew, he was put to death. In addition, some texts guarantee eventual freedom for Hebrew slaves, and some texts do not allow non-Hebrew slaves to ever gain their freedom if their Hebrews masters do not want to give them their freedom.

Stephen T-B

" a different set of rules applied for Hebrew slaves, and for non-Hebrew slaves" (Johnny Skeptic) as indeed, different rules applied to the Jews in general so as to distinguish them from the surrounding gentiles. They were/are the Chosen. Gentiles weren't/aren't the Chosen.

Encouraged by their prophets, who they believed were mouthpieces of their god, the Jews committed many instances of ethnic cleansing.
They worshipped a racist god - and these distinctions between the treatment of Jewish slaves and non-Jewish slaves are an unequivocal demonstration of that fact.

Johnny Skeptic

And ancient Jews put their own people to death for practicing the freedom of religion by worshipping other Gods, a right that is now guaranteed in all democratic countries in the world.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to sschlicter: Please reply to my post #124.

Sheshbazzar

The provision of a statute specifically regulating the practice of slave beating is an ipso facto endorsement of the practice.
If the practice of slave beating was not officially endorsed, no such regulation would have ever been issued.
Given such rules, a master was given lease, and was within his "gawd given rights" to beat his slaves at will, day in and day out.
The primitive gawd of the Hebrew's, as their great king, by setting up such rules regarding slave beating, gave His official legal endorsement to the practice.
The institution of slavery, involuntary servitude, is endorsed throughout the Bible, never once is it denounced, or the permission from The Law, to beat slaves, and to buy, sell, and treat all non-Hebrew slaves like animals, ever denounced or revoked.
And I stress INVOLUNTARY servitude, slavery that is slavery indeed, Men, women, and children being bought and sold against their will, being driven by force, threat, and THE "RULE of LAW" to a miserable life of slavery, being deprived of freedom of choice, freedom of movement, and freedom from legally sanctioned by "God", and by Government, abuse.

And just what "social services" would slaves be able to call on back then? The Priesthood and Goverment that upheld and enforced these unjust slavery laws?

bacht

Someone's probably pointed this out already: Don't compare ancients with moderns, compare them with their contemporaries. Have you investigated the practices of Assyrians or Persians or Macedonians?

You seem to be on a mission to demonstrate that the Bible writers were evil. That's an easy sell, but you can't just assert it, you have to show how they were worse than others of the same era. If you have something against modern believers that's another issue.

Sheshbazzar

Not a true statement, nor analysis of the text.
A man that beats his slave IS NOT to be punished, unless that slave is "unable to get up after a day or two". NO punishment for the slave master if the beating only leaves the slave permanently disfigured, lamed, incapacitated, blinded, or deaf, just as long as he is able "to get up after a day or two".
IE His "Master" is standing over him with rod in hand threatening more, or that he will turn use of it on that slaves wife and children, unless that slave gets back up on his goddamned feet this minute!
Oh isn't Hebrewgods "justice" and "love" just amazing?