Slavery in the Bible

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 32
--> @BrotherDThomas
you talk shit. fuck off
--> @disgusted



.
disgusted,

Oh, oh, I see that you are still healing from my posts to you that show you to be as ignorant as Dr. "C&P" Franklin. You'll heal in time, don't worry.


.
--> @SkepticalOne

I am having difficulty understanding your confusion. Do you believe foreign slaves and Israelite servants operated under the same rules? I mean, the passage alludes to different rules for each. The last line draws to mind the jubilee and the option for redemption - neither of which would be available to permanent slaves. This alone is different (and worse) treatment than native slaves. Having your liberty amputated is a fairly significant mistreatment!

I think that's like asking if I, an American citizen operate under the same rules as an immigrant not yet naturalized? We're under the same laws, but different rules may apply since the immigrant is not yet a citizen.

So to answer your question, yes. However, there were rules applied specifically for foreign residences that didn't apply to Israelites.

Any confusion on my part may be partially due to having to refer to a link to another thread. I stated I was glad you linked it, but it does pose it's problems.

I'll just stop you there because you're lost already. As an attempted proof you provided (out of context) a verse [LINK] which seems to suggest (all) law applies equally to foreigner and Hebrew alike. When the context is added though, it is clear this verse is not talking about the law in general, but a specific law.
Okay, I just looked at the link. So can you please explain to me why my statement was out of context?

I ask you to rephrase this paragraph/question. There are a lot of moving parts in there.

Sure.

In reference to the verse in question in Deuteronomy, the one you feel I'm being dishonest about, from what I understand from another comment of yours in a different thread, you stated (if I'm not mistaken) that the reference to the slave is strictly aimed at the Israelite.

Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch, T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (eds). IVP:2003

"In contrast to the laws of other ancient Near Eastern nations,slaves who flee their owners and come to Israel are not to be returned to their masters, nor are they to be oppressed, but they are to be allowed to live wherever they please (Deut 23:15-16).

So basically I'm just inquiring as to whether or not that's true. Is that your stance on that verse?

--> @keithprosser
Religion ... pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
That could almost be the central creed of atheist humanism.
There's no claim that I know of that stresses Jesus' reference to pure religion is restricted to Christianity.

Where the challenge lies however, is when each individual is challenged with a proposition they normally wouldn't take, or think they would ever need to.

An example.

Is there anyone you don't love? Someone you could just assume stay away from. You don't love them because they don't deserve it. if you became a Christian, Jesus may challenge you to love (put into charitable practice) the unlovable person you don't feel any responsibility towards.
--> @disgusted
You dont get it
--> @RoderickSpode
I am having difficulty understanding your confusion. Do you believe foreign slaves and Israelite servants operated under the same rules? I mean, the passage alludes to different rules for each. The last line draws to mind the jubilee and the option for redemption - neither of which would be available to permanent slaves. This alone is different (and worse) treatment than native slaves. Having your liberty amputated is a fairly significant mistreatment!I 
I think that's like asking if I, an American citizen operate under the same rules as an immigrant not yet naturalized? We're under the same laws, but different rules may apply since the immigrant is not yet a citizen.
It is a matter of laws which lay out exploitation of non-citizens. It is not at all like you suggest.

Okay, I just looked at the link. So can you please explain to me why my statement was out of context?

It has been explained in post #19 of this thread.  Let me know what isn't clear:

"As for Exodus 12:49, it refers to passover restriction[s]. Including the passage before verse 49 provides all the context that could possibly be needed to understand it properly. I've bolded the law verse 49 references [which is not all law].

"48 A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it. 49 The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you."

In short, exodus 12:49 was never meant to broadly suggest mosaic law applies to foreign slaves.

"In contrast to the laws of other ancient Near Eastern nations,slaves who flee their owners and come to Israel are not to be returned to their masters, nor are they to be oppressed, but they are to be allowed to live wherever they please (Deut 23:15-16).

So basically I'm just inquiring as to whether or not that's true. Is that your stance on that verse?

Absolutely, I agree - slaves fleeing from foreign owners/nations were not to be returned to their owners. This does not mean foreign slaves fleeing Hebrew owners were not to be returned or that slaves in general were not to be oppressed. Are we in agreement?



Bump