|
|
Post by kls on Aug 31, 2018 10:28:15 GMT
Okay? That still doesn't seem to mesh with Exodus 21:16. Or it wouldn't if they saw those people as kidnapped (which I would). You are the one that claimed that slavery in the bible was different than the slavery in the states. In the bible you claimed it was only indentured slavery. It was exactly the same. Slavery is slavery. God actually knew that slavery was wrong, that's why he brought his favorites out of egypt freeing them from slavery wasn't it? But it appears that he only viewed slavery as wrong for a certain kind of people, kinda of discriminatory if you ask me. I have nothing more to say than Exodus 21:16 would not have allowed people to be kidnapped from one continent and brought across an ocean to another to be enslaved. Anything the Bible allowed other than indentured servitude is in conflict with that (at least in view of how I would define kidnapping). The bible is full of contradictory passages. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 31, 2018 11:16:15 GMT
Okay? That still doesn't seem to mesh with Exodus 21:16. Or it wouldn't if they saw those people as kidnapped (which I would). You are the one that claimed that slavery in the bible was different than the slavery in the states. In the bible you claimed it was only indentured slavery. It was exactly the same. Slavery is slavery. God actually knew that slavery was wrong, that's why he brought his favorites out of egypt freeing them from slavery wasn't it? But it appears that he only viewed slavery as wrong for a certain kind of people, kinda of discriminatory if you ask me. That isn't really true. By that argument any form of holding a person is slavery which would mean that slavery isn't even a moral issue in the 21st century. God did not free the Israelites simply on the basis of slavery being wrong. That's too simplistic a reading of the account. After all, Abraham's descendants had been slaves for 400 years prior to their freedom. The reasons were twofold. First, it was time for them to get the land that was promised to them. Second, the Egyptians were mistreating & killing them. The massacre of newborns was the final straw. Life in Israel was indeed discriminatory based on worship. An Israelite could never be an alien resident since they were mandated by covenant to worship and, due to that status, they would be treated differently than those who were not under that mandate. This meant that they could buy and sell slaves on different terms with alien residents but not have a different level of treatment which is the moral component. There are plenty of verses to verify that they weren't to be mistreated, but I like this one at Leviticus 19. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 31, 2018 11:19:01 GMT
You are the one that claimed that slavery in the bible was different than the slavery in the states. In the bible you claimed it was only indentured slavery. It was exactly the same. Slavery is slavery. God actually knew that slavery was wrong, that's why he brought his favorites out of egypt freeing them from slavery wasn't it? But it appears that he only viewed slavery as wrong for a certain kind of people, kinda of discriminatory if you ask me. I have nothing more to say than Exodus 21:16 would not have allowed people to be kidnapped from one continent and brought across an ocean to another to be enslaved. Anything the Bible allowed other than indentured servitude is in conflict with that (at least in view of how I would define kidnapping). The bible is full of contradictory passages. I don;t understand how you can say that as a true statement. Slavery is not kidnapping anymore than killing is the same thing as murder. You are interchanging terms that have nothing to do with each other. There was no reason for anyone to travel for slaves since there were plenty of people that could indenture themselves as well as slaves of foreigners that could be purchased. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Aug 31, 2018 11:30:56 GMT
I have nothing more to say than Exodus 21:16 would not have allowed people to be kidnapped from one continent and brought across an ocean to another to be enslaved. Anything the Bible allowed other than indentured servitude is in conflict with that (at least in view of how I would define kidnapping). The bible is full of contradictory passages. I don;t understand how you can say that as a true statement. Slavery is not kidnapping anymore than killing is the same thing as murder. You are interchanging terms that have nothing to do with each other. There was no reason for anyone to travel for slaves since there were plenty of people that could indenture themselves as well as slaves of foreigners that could be purchased. I was speaking more of the act of capturing an unwilling person to sell him or her into slavery rather than being enslaved itself. The taking of a person sounds like kidnapping to me. |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 31, 2018 12:02:48 GMT
I have nothing more to say than Exodus 21:16 would not have allowed people to be kidnapped from one continent and brought across an ocean to another to be enslaved. Anything the Bible allowed other than indentured servitude is in conflict with that (at least in view of how I would define kidnapping). The bible is full of contradictory passages. I don;t understand how you can say that as a true statement. Slavery is not kidnapping anymore than killing is the same thing as murder. You are interchanging terms that have nothing to do with each other. There was no reason for anyone to travel for slaves since there were plenty of people that could indenture themselves as well as slaves of foreigners that could be purchased. Here you have it, folks--the biblical version of Orwell's 1984. Or:
"Words mean what I choose them to mean."--Humpty Dumpy Your claim there might carry a bit more heft, if we were all speaking ancient Hebrew where 'killing' and 'murder' were indeed two separate words with very different connotations. That might even be true of the ancient Hebrew for kidnap' and 'enslave', though I can find nothing that supports this claim. Since I very much doubt ancient Hebrew is your native tongue, you are simply trying another tired old Xtian tactic of using biblical linguistics to muddy the waters on an issue. Sorry, but what may have been linguistically true for a tribe of Bronze Age sheepherders no longer holds true for today, and hasn't for many, many years. But this is a convenient way to dodge a particular moral issue that god/the bible is notoriously dicey on; hold up a screen of ancient word meanings as a way to justify whatever it is the bible supports that is insupportable to anyone with an active moral sense. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 31, 2018 13:05:40 GMT
I don;t understand how you can say that as a true statement. Slavery is not kidnapping anymore than killing is the same thing as murder. You are interchanging terms that have nothing to do with each other. There was no reason for anyone to travel for slaves since there were plenty of people that could indenture themselves as well as slaves of foreigners that could be purchased. I was speaking more of the act of capturing an unwilling person to sell him or her into slavery rather than being enslaved itself. The taking of a person sounds like kidnapping to me. it can sound like whatever you want but it doesn’t mean it’s a correct application. It isn’t a contradiction and it promotes a false premise of the Bible being full of contradictions without evidence of that being a true statement. Here are the facts regarding slavery: It was allowed and the focus was on treatment. That treatment was to be good and fair. No one was traveling for slaves. The Bible does not address nor has a reason to address how foreigners got slaves. Only that they could be purchased. If the foreigner was following the laws of the land then there was no legal way to just snatch them up. Punishment was perhaps a beating but nothing injurious it else they were freed automatically at best and the master charged at worst. Slavery was not encouraged, championed, or mandated with the exception of conscriptions. None of this is justification. It just is and whether slavery existed in our day or not has no bearing on the promises in scripture or the expectations of its followers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Aug 31, 2018 13:43:41 GMT
captainbryce But isn’t morality subjective according to you? If morality is changing over time then who are to say slavery should have been a moral issue in ancient biblical times?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2018 13:54:31 GMT
Enough with all this wishy washy Christians that try and have their cake and eat...
Does the book of the god of the Christians (and others) permit, allow and or condone the keeping, buying, selling, of other people as slaves, or not?
Straight yes or no answers only.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 31, 2018 14:32:38 GMT
Enough with all this wishy washy Christians that try and have their cake and eat... Does the book of the god of the Christians (and others) permit, allow and or condone the keeping, buying, selling, of other people as slaves, or not? Straight yes or no answers only. My dear, the answer is an unqualified YES. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 31, 2018 17:48:56 GMT
captainbryce But isn’t morality subjective according to you? If morality is changing over time then who are to say slavery should have been a moral issue in ancient biblical times? Yes, I believe that morality is in fact subjective. But you’re missing the point (or perhaps proving mine). You are the one who thinks morality is objective and comes from “god”. Yet the bible indicates that there is nothing immoral about slavery. If morality is objective, and it comes from god, and it never changes, then that would mean that slavery is moral. Do you believe that slavery is moral? Because if you don’t, then not only are you contradicting god, but you are also proving that morality is in fact subjective. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Aug 31, 2018 17:58:40 GMT
captainbryce But isn’t morality subjective according to you? If morality is changing over time then who are to say slavery should have been a moral issue in ancient biblical times? Yes, I believe that morality is in fact subjective. But you’re missing the point (or perhaps proving mine). You are the one who thinks morality is objective and comes from “god”. Yet the bible indicates that there is nothing immoral about slavery. If morality is objective, and it comes from god, and it never changes, then that would mean that slavery is moral. Do you believe that slavery is moral? Because if you don’t, then not only are you contradicting god, but you are also proving that morality is in fact subjective. Listen, dickhead. I don’t believe the “slavery” described in the bible is the same as the slavery that we think of today, which I accept as morally wrong. How many times does it need to be explained to liberal snowflakes like you who are only interested in undermining and discrediting the bible in a feeble attempt to reassure yourself over your apostasy in order to feel less guilty about being sexually involved with men. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Aug 31, 2018 18:00:43 GMT
The Old Testament has a passage explaining that it is ok to beat slaves to death:
Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."
The real issue is that neither Judaism nor Islam condemns slavery.
There were lots of Christian abolitionists.
Not much for the others.
Leviticus 25:44-46: "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."
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 31, 2018 19:20:59 GMT
Yes, I believe that morality is in fact subjective. But you’re missing the point (or perhaps proving mine). You are the one who thinks morality is objective and comes from “god”. Yet the bible indicates that there is nothing immoral about slavery. If morality is objective, and it comes from god, and it never changes, then that would mean that slavery is moral. Do you believe that slavery is moral? Because if you don’t, then not only are you contradicting god, but you are also proving that morality is in fact subjective. Listen, dickhead. No thanks...(blocked forever now). |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 31, 2018 21:39:51 GMT
Listen, dickhead. I don’t believe the “slavery” described in the bible is the same as the slavery that we think of today, which I accept as morally wrong.
Astonishing how semantics can cover up any multitude of sins.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2018 1:09:08 GMT
The bible condones slavery, how do Christians justify it as a moral authority? Mostly they pretend that what is in the bible isn't "real" slavery. It's more like working for people. That fact that, for instance, those people own you, and are allowed to beat you to death, is generally ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Sept 2, 2018 7:42:55 GMT
The bible condones slavery, how do Christians justify it as a moral authority? Mostly they pretend that what is in the bible isn't "real" slavery. It's more like working for people. That fact that, for instance, those people own you, and are allowed to beat you to death, is generally ignored. Where does it say they are allowed to beat slaves to death? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2018 10:15:38 GMT
Mostly they pretend that what is in the bible isn't "real" slavery. It's more like working for people. That fact that, for instance, those people own you, and are allowed to beat you to death, is generally ignored. Where does it say they are allowed to beat slaves to death? Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." Pretty clear. You can beat your servant to death, and it's fine so long as he takes more than two days to die. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Sept 2, 2018 10:55:56 GMT
Where does it say they are allowed to beat slaves to death? Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." Pretty clear. You can beat your servant to death, and it's fine so long as he takes more than two days to die. LOL So in other words it is prohibited to beat slaves to death. Making your claim demonstrably false. |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 2, 2018 13:04:21 GMT
Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." Pretty clear. You can beat your servant to death, and it's fine so long as he takes more than two days to die. LOL So in other words it is prohibited to beat slaves to death. Making your claim demonstrably false. This comes from the website Rational Christianity: Ex 21:20-21: Could masters beat slaves to death?
The NIV translates Ex 21:21 as, "...but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." While there is an argument for this translation,2 it is not necessarily the correct translation, so I am using the standard meaning of "he is not to be punished if the slave survives for a day or two."
Most likely, this law was intended to distinguish between cases where a slave died as a direct result of their master's mistreatment and where they died of natural causes. It could of course be the case that a slave was severely beaten but didn't succumb to their injuries for a few days. In that situation, the case could have been brought before the priests and they could have used common sense and ruled that it was murder (cf. Dt 17:8-11). One should keep in mind that the laws given in the OT are examples, not legalese. For instance, Ex. 21:33-34 mentions only an ox or donkey falling into a pit, but that hardly means that if another animal fell into someone's pit the owner wouldn't receive compensation.
This suggests merely that a slave owner could have been punished for murder if the presiding priests used 'common sense' (which was probably no more common than it is in much of today's jurisprudence--humans will be humans no matter the span of millenia their actions exist across), but we have no evidence as to how commonplace that punishment was--or indeed, if it was ever evoked. And I can find no source in any place I've looked that states a specific punishment for the beating death of a slave by his master, in the bible or anywhere else, beyond this rather vague one. Meaning that in a social/religious framework which offered any number of detailed proscriptions, taboos and punishments for any number of acts from the mundane to the momentous, the very fact that no more specific set of proscriptions and punishments than what Exodus offers regarding the beating death of slaves seems to have been recorded, makes for the pretty clear implication that masters beating their slaves to death was not an act that was taken more than fairly casually in actual practice, and quite probably rarely, or never, met with anything more than a fairly casual 'punishment'. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 2, 2018 13:48:07 GMT
Where does it say they are allowed to beat slaves to death? Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." Pretty clear. You can beat your servant to death, and it's fine so long as he takes more than two days to die. You might find it interesting that the current law (or last I checked anyway) in Virginia is a year and a day and has nothing to do with slavery. That is, if the person dies within one year and one day of some battery then the person who battered him might be found guilty of murder, after that it is no longer a murder. He can however be found guilty of other very serious offenses, a point you might be missing. An argument goes that owners do not deliberately damage their own property and it was therefore not an issue at various times. Brawls can break out, even in this modern civilized world. As others have mentioned it is necessary that there be some rule to decide whether the person was close to death, although perhaps not obviously, anyway and how much that had to do with his death. Some time span is chosen arbitrarily. There is nothing "magic" nor "scientific" about the time span of a year and a day. It is just the time span arbitrarily chosen. It all sounds very brutal, but it is just practical. You have to remember also that Bible times were necessarily brutal as it was a much more brutal world without our modern network of legal facilities and personnel. |
|
