Total posts: 1,044
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Hmmm, I've never considered evilbibledotcom to be a commentary, but I suppose it is. I think relying on more than one commentary would be an good idea, and I certainly wouldn't exclude commentaries written by believers of any Abrahamic faith.
I think evilbible.com is sometimes used as a commentary. It may not officially be referred to as such. But, I think they are a good example of how different sources can go to different extremes. For instance, there's at least one person considered a scholar (or bible scholar). At least by his own profession (but he did write a book). He takes the extreme view that Jesus promoted self body mutilation (Matthew 18:8-9). I think most people, including the most biblically skeptical will readily understand that the removal of one's eye, hand, etc. is not meant literally. Apparently the text invokes a certain contemporary understanding of the usage of extreme language, or hyperbole in conveying a message for most readers whether a believer or not.. If our contemporary culture didn't understand that concept, many people would likely think the same thing as our beloved bible scholar in question.
And I think this is a reason certain conclusions are drawn by contemporary readers about certain scriptures and what they're actually saying. If we can acknowledge that the Bible is a complex form of literature, then we all (even Christians) have to acknowledge that we're just not capable of understanding scripture like we would a modern day instruction manual that we can throw away once we understand it.
I'm not suggessting the Israelites were being dishonest. I'm pointing to the fact that chattel slavery of foreigners wasn't considered contrary to their understanding of humanitarianism.
The real question is whether or not there is a living God that employed these instructions to people who would normally treat a foreigner like a slave? Their understanding of humanitarianism most likely matched that of every other nation's which is why they needed very explicit instructions on how to treat foreigners. And the reason they needed a constant reminder of what they went through in Egypt was because more than likely without the instruction many of them probably would treat foreigners like they were treated in Egypt.
Remember, the penalty for crimes like kidnapping, which is a common theme in chattel slavery was death. So it wouldn't really stand for reason that a given amount of abuse was smiled upon, and then turned to a serious crime frowned upon once some theoretical line was crossed (like kidnapping and murder).
I wouldn't expect an individual considered to be property to go before a judge. ...Moving on.
Moving back for a moment....
Exodus 21:5-6 New International Version (NIV)
5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
I think if judges got involved with Israelite servants, I don't see why they wouldn't with foreign servants.
No. Currently I'm using the Rashi commentary. I figured a Jewish commentary would be most appropriate and insightful.
This is not by any means a promotion for this particular site. I'm just linking it for reference.
Do you feel the same about a Jewish commentary if the author is messianic?
A messianic jew has that same advantage that Rashi has.
Rashi commentary Exodus 23:9:"And you shall not oppress a stranger -: In many places the Torah warns about the stranger [convert] because he has a strong temptation [to return to his former bad ways]."
I probably should see this statement in it's entirety. But if the warning is aimed at the Israelite it certainly makes sense. The warning I see in scripture is to not mistreat the foreigner (convert or not) because mistreating foreigners was the natural practice in that region and time period. It would probably be natural for the Israelite to act as an Egyptian task master.
If the warning is aimed at the foreign convert to not go back to his ways, a bit more insight might be helpful. How would not oppressing a foreigner prevent them from going back to their former bad ways? What exactly was the former bad ways they were to avoid?
I might be completely misunderstanding you though. So, feel free to correct me.
"Convert" makes sense. "Do not oppress the [converted] foreigner" and "take your slaves from the heathen nations" are not referring to the same people.
Conversion wasn't mandatory for one. So your idea that only converted foreigners were not to be oppressed doesn't seem too likely. It falls into the "We can't make you do it (convert), but we can make life very unpleasant for you if you don't" theme.
Of course, if we were to assume there's no God, then the skies the limit on how the Jews would have manipulated scripture to one hand appear humanitarian, and the other allow for abuse (if someone doesn't convert). So what you claim makes sense may very well be the case, but only if we assume no God, and the Jews were simply creating laws that supports abuse for foreigners.
Does it make sense? Well, maybe if we assume the laws were written by self serving humans. If there's a living God that spoke through oracles giving warnings contrary to natural human tendencies, then it really doesn't make sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
You should never argue with religious people because they have magic on their side. When you have magic on your side literally anything you can think of is possible. So, never argue with religious people, unless of course you find it amusing.
How would you describe magic?
When remote tribes (as the saying goes) first saw a white man flick a bick lighter, they considered it magic.
Would you consider the act of creating a universe magic? Or, would it depend on the method (e.g., ex nihilo representing magic)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) the foreigner was to be treated as your native-born (THEN) why are there different rules for purchasing foreign permanent slaves and voluntary native born bond-servants?Shouldn't they be treated exactly the same?Do you think it's fair to say that your whole argument boils down to, "the Hebrews were really really nice slave owners, so that makes slavery ok if not actually a moral good (in some cases)"?
No. It's not fair to say.
I wouldn't even suggest that they were really nice slave owners. There's even an incident in the Bible that reveals this. But, the fact that they in normal cases wouldn't be really nice, shows why the law for fair treatment of foreigners existed. If it wasn't needed, it would stand for reason it wouldn't have been implemented.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Mark 16:8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.This is how our oldest and best manuscripts of the 1st gospel ends. The other gospels writers made sure to have the witnesses TELL other people and have Jesus show his resurrected self! At a later date, someone (it is supposed it might be a scribe) made an ending for Mark (Mark 16:9-20) to fix this problem.
This, like a number of other alleged contradictions in the Gospels, are not contradictions. They're simply statements by different eye-witnesses. Even in modern times, statements by eyewitnesses are going to vary. One might leave a detail out, that another witness will include. If eye-witnesses give the same identical statement, this actually causes suspicion because it becomes questionable as to whether or not the eye-witnesses are collaborating.
In the Bible for instance, was there 2 donkeys or one? This at one time (maybe still is) was considered a contradiction because Matthew mentions a donkey and colt, but Mark and Luke only mention the colt. But, I think you can understand that 2 eyewitnesses are not going to give identical statements. And details may be included by one, left out by another.
Putting your verse aside for the moment, would you agree that the eye-witness accounts of the mules (at least) aren't necessarily contradictions?
Another question. Do you think the incidences recorded in the O.T. that specifically deal with the Exodus was fact, or fiction?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
"You may buy you slave from the heathen nations which surround you. You may bequeath them to you family and they can be permanent slaves." [Paraphrased]Lev 25:44-46 is part of Mosaic law. Are you really trying to suggest law was not to be taken literally?
Yeah, by all means, take it literally. Not according to 21st century perception which is usually way off. This is what many atheist activists tend to do. it's disturbing if they also claim to be bible scholars.
The perfect example is the verbal attack on the prophet Elisha. I'll be the first to admit, it looks like it was a blatant revengeful curse on little children mocking a man for his hair loss. Elisha's feelings are hurt, so he commands a couple of bears to tear little children up to revenge his hurt.
And yes, I admit that at first glance it really looks like that. But, I think it would be incredibly stupid to actually think that. Further study shows that it's not even remotely the case. For all we know, Elisha may have even shaved his head out of humility. So being called bald head may have been sort of a compliment?
If you don't believe me, imagine a European monk being getting upset for being called bald head.
But, this is what these alleged atheist bible experts will claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Haha! Only now, after I've made clear my acceptance of a consensual relationship between Israelites do you stray away from this being a "servanthood" and prefer to call it slavery?! Pick your terms and be consistent, Rod. I'm not playing word games.
Yeah I know. I couldn't resist the temptation of being rebuked for saying slave instead of servant.
That being said, after I wrote this I realized that this type of arrangement would not always be consensual. For instance, a father might sell his daughter into slavery without consulting her, or a young man might serve for a term with the payment being his master's daughter. These situations are not consensual or acceptable.
It wasn't an ideal situation, but it was done to alleviate poverty. This was a way to ensure the daughter would be taken care of. But again, it's the decision of the parent. It wasn't mandatory.
There is nothing that says permanent slavery of foreigners was by agreement. "Rare" means it still happens. Is "rarely" owning humans moral, Rod? I've never owned a human...not even rarely!
Well again, you probably couldn't afford one.
Are you against someone having a butler or gentleman's gentleman?
Kidnapping and forced slavery are not one in the same. There were laws against kidnapping. However, there were no laws against buying kidnapped people and/or forced slavery. One problem with your question is that it assumes facts that don't exist. The other is that it ignores what the Levitical law actually does allow.
Strangulation and shooting someone in the head are not one in the same.
So you can feel free to prove to me (the burden's on you) that forced slavery was permissible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Oh, buying slaves was PURE CHARITY. Why would anyone even think they might want CHEAP LABOR?
I have no idea what you're getting on about.
Are you kidding me, the BEST they offer is "treat them as the native born" which was itself APPALLING.If you were caught picking up sticks on the Sabbath, you would be stoned to death.
What is worse in your opinion?
The Israelites were in a warring situation as they were moving towards the promised land. Therefore, just like our own army, and the war industry in general, there were strict rules just like our own army has to follow that we civilians don't.
So you have a guy who was told specifically not to do any work on the Lord's day. The man broke that law knowing full well he wasn't supposed to do that. He didn't need to do it. He could have waited until the following day. It was a very blatant act of rebellion against their law. If he couldn't follow that simple a law, then that's a huge problem because he probably wouldn't follow other instructions that could lead to devastation.
An American (and some westernerners) soldier could at one time be executed for cowardice. This was a law reserved strictly for soldiers, not for civilians. A civilian is not going to be shot for cowardice. Running from fights for a civilian is actually preferable.
Someone who is shot for cowardice during war time is not being belligerent. They may run just out of instinct. They didn't want to, but couldn't help it. But, cowardice is seen as a detriment to an army, therefore the severity of facing a firing squad. So what is worse?
You just made that up on the spot. Citation please.
Leviticus 19:34 New International Version (NIV)
34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.
I don't even know you would make such a claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
100% false. You can hire them as a NORMAL WORKER and PAY THEM.OR, invite them to be your honored guest. FREEING SLAVES IS NOT ABUSE
No.That's not what I'm talking about.
If a servant is poor, and his provision is withing the household of a master, it would be abuse to send him out unless they provided provision for them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I never suggested such a thing.Are you still insisting that an escaped foreign slave would would be treated to free meals and a life of leisure by the ancient Hebrews?
I wouldn't be surprised if most wouldn't do that on their own accord. That is, if it wasn't for a law mandating it.
A major theme concerning these slavery related verses is the call for Israelites to remember what they went through as foreign chattel slaves. This was because normally the tendency was for anyone (human nature) to abuse foreigners.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Yes. It's considered one of the major religions of the world. No doubt, like Buddhism (another major world religion), some will claim it's not a religion, but a philosophy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Here's an entire list, [LINK]I don't think alleged contradictions is the issue. It's definitely not what I was asking for.You asked specifically for,Can you provide an example of a verse completely void of cross-references, and doesn't fit with the rest of the Bible?And I provided a detailed list of verses completely void of cross-references that don't fit with the rest of the Bible.
Fair enough. When I get the chance to watch a 10 minute video, I'll check this out. i doubt they will say anything different than the usual. But.....we'll see.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't think alleged contradictions is the issue. It's definitely not what I was asking for.Here's an entire list, [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That may actually have been abuse. I think if, on the rare occasion (or if it actually even happened) that a slave was purchased from the foreign market, the Hebrew had a quite a responsibility, and obligation to provide sufficiently for the foreigner.s it immoral to purchase a slave? I guess not, IF YOU FREE THEM IMMEDIATELY.
The idea, in every Hebrew law concerning foreigners, was to treat them respectfully in every situation. The intent from God's perspective was to bless the foreigner. Any forced servitude contradicts that mandate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I'm not sure what you mean.In the current day are you the property of the state?
How did you get I am for prisons therefore I am for human property? Explain to me how those are the same.
I didn't say you were for human property. I asked you if you agree that prisoners are human property?
Can you not defend Religion because it is indefensible or some other reason?
I'm guessing you're asking if I can defend Christianity. I don't think you're asking me if I can defend Hinduism, Buddhism, Mohammadism, Scientology, etc.
I honestly don't understand the question. I certainly don't feel any need to defend Christianity or the Bible. Why do you think I even need to?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Is it immoral to purchase a slave with the intention of providing shelter, work/service, potentially becoming a family member, possibly becoming a family member, and eventually gaining the ability to provide for themselves? Is it better to leave them in the hands of oppressive slave owners?Slaves tend to be abused, but removing the abuse doesn't solve the "problem of slavery"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Technically, most children remain with their parents of their own free will.This fact alone does not prove that child abuse never happens.Technically, most spouses remain with their partners of their own free will.This fact alone does not prove that spousal abuse never happens.Is your argument, IN DEFENSE OF CHATTEL-SLAVERY, really and truly, "the slave masters were really really nice"?Being a nice slave-owner DOES NOT SOLVE THE MORAL PROBLEMS OF SLAVERY
Are you still insisting that a foreign servant could not leave his Hebrew master?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I absolutely want believers to read the Bible (all of the Bible)
Me too.
and not just verses ripped out of context by ignorant or dishonest defenders.
Ah...there always seems to be a catch. I guess you're aware of the usefulness of commentaries. What would you suggest? evilbible.com?
So again, I encourage every believer to read their holy book. I do not mean read it as a devotional, but make a concerted effort to understand what thoughts inspired the words and how they fit together as-is.
Absolutely!
An example of a verse ripped out of context would be Exodus 23:9 as a refutation to the allowance of chattel slavery in Levitucus 25:44-46. Exodus 23:9 says "do not oppress a foreigner...", but a full reading of Exodus 23 reveals this was a direction for judges in legal proceedings regarding foreigners. "Do not favor Israelites in matters of law - be impartial" is another way of saying this. This verse has absolutely nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with legal protocols. The contradiction between these verses is made up. They compliment each other.
Oh really? There's no complimenting here. All you're doing is suggesting the Israelites were less than honest. They say one thing, and do another. Or they practice humanitarianism against all foreigners, except those who were purchased in the foreign slave market. They can't kidnap them, but as long as they purchased them, abuse is okay?
I'm guessing you're referring to the Barnes commentary.
Four precepts evidently addressed to those in authority as judges:
(a) To do justice to the poor. Comparing Exodus 23:6 with Exodus 23:3, it was the part of the judge to defend the poor against the oppression of the rich, and the part of the witness to take care lest his feelings of natural pity should tempt him to falsify evidence.(b) To be cautious of inflicting capital punishment on one whose guilt was not clearly proved. A doubtful case was rather to be left to God Himself, who would "not justify the wicked," nor suffer him to go unpunished though he might be acquitted by an earthly tribunal. Exodus 23:7.
(c) To take no bribe or present which might in any way pervert judgment Exodus 23:8; compare Numbers 16:15; 1 Samuel 12:3; Acts 26:26.
(d) To vindicate the rights of the stranger Exodus 23:9 - rather, the foreigner. (Exodus 20:10 note.) This verse is a repetition of Exodus 22:21, but the precept is there addressed to the people at large, while it is here addressed to the judges in reference to their official duties. The caution was perpetually necessary. Compare Ezekiel 22:7; Malachi 3:5. The word rendered "heart" is more strictly "soul," and would be better represented here by feelings.
Even if the verse focused solely on judges, what makes you think a foreign servant wouldn't be involved with judges in a court case? And the command being to judges in treating foreign servants?
Well, Ellicott says
(9) Thou shalt not oppress a stranger.—See Note on Exodus 22:21. The repetition of the law indicates the strong inclination of the Hebrew people to ill-use strangers, and the anxiety of the legislator to check their inclination.
Pulpit commentary:
Verse 9. - Thou shalt not oppress a stranger. This is a repetition of Exodus 22:21, with perhaps a special reference to oppression through courts of justice. For thou knowest the heart of a stranger. Literally, "the mind of a stranger," or, in other words, his thoughts and feelings. Thou shouldest therefore be able to sympathise with him. CEREMONIAL LAWS (vers. 10-19).
Even Barnes' commentary included this statement:
This verse is a repetition of Exodus 22:21, but the precept is there addressed to the people at large
Even in you're own (dubious) scenario, where most foreigners purchased as slaves are eventually set free, some become permanent slaves (and all are presumably property for a time). How does your understanding of "Do not oppress foreigners" square with that? After all, the verse doesn't say 'do not oppress *most* foreigners!
Forced servitude is oppression.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Even if the purchased foreign permanent slaves never tried to escape and were never "abused" (other than what was considered acceptable slave labor at the time), this does not magically make this type of (chattel, property) slavery moral.Slaves tend to be abused, but removing the abuse doesn't solve the "problem of slavery"
I'm guessing you're still focused on the idea that a foreign slave couldn't leave their master.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please explain if you believe A and B are in conflict.(A) Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.(B) You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life,do you not understand?Do you think it's relative?These are probably what they had in mind when telling an Israelite he could, if he chose to, keep the FOREIGN servants for a lifetime. So normally where a foreign servant might decide to purchase their freedom if able, they may instead decide to stay with their master for life.WHO CARES? IF YOUR PERMANENT SLAVE DOESN'T WANT TO ESCAPE, THAT DOESN'T MAKE SLAVERY MORAL!!!!!!Leviticus 25:46 You can bequeath them FOREIGN SLAVES to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life,but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.It doesn't mention the sentiment of the servant (whether or not he's okay with it). but........BECAUSE IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE.Exodus 21:5 New International Version "But if the ISRAELITE BOND-servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,'THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PURCHASING AND OWNING PERMANENT FOREIGN SLAVES.it also doesn't mention whether or not it's okay with the master. But there doesn't seem to be much arguing here.BECAUSE IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE.How is this "very important"? What difference does it make if chattel-slavery was OPTIONAL or MANDATORY?I wouldn't mind answering the question except that it's not chattel slavery (Or, I don't see it that way). Therefore, how can I possibly answer that question?WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF PURCHASING AND OWNING PERMANENT FOREIGN SLAVES WAS OPTIONAL OR MANDATORY?
The question is whether or not a foreign slave could leave his Hebrew master. if he was able to leave, then the situation is not chattel slavery. That's the accusation. So, if you wish to prove that a foreign purchased slave did not have free will to leave, go ahead.
Keep in mind, purchasing a slave was a risky venture, because a slave could run away. And what protection did the purchaser have? Probably none.
More than likely, if this even happened, the purchaser would have been quite wealthy, would have provided appropriate accommodations. So more than likely a foreign purchased slave would not have sought release (where would he go?).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The Hebrews certainly operated a 'two-tier' system for Hebrew and non-Hebrews. Hebrew 'slaves' were certainly better off than foriegn 'slaves' and I'd say its fair to say hebrews slaves were held under conditions resembing 'indetured servitude' but foreigners were essentially chattel.My impression is that the Hebrews attude to slavery was entirely typical of the time and place.
Where does your impression come from?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The Hebrews certainly operated a 'two-tier' system for Hebrew and non-Hebrews. Hebrew 'slaves' were certainly better off than foriegn 'slaves' and I'd say its fair to say hebrews slaves were held under conditions resembing 'indetured servitude' but foreigners were essentially chattel.My impression is that the Hebrews attude to slavery was entirely typical of the time and place.
It was. That's why they had those repetitive laws, and constantly reminded about their time spent in Egyptian bondage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Kill your engine is pretty explicit. But it certainly doesn't mean to open your hood and take a sledge hammer to it. it simply means, turn the key in your ignition to the left...and the explicit wording of the Bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Okay. I'll try to remember that the part about Hebrew slavery S1 is okay with.I find little reason to object to an agreement made between consenting adults
Best I can tell, you're making a bald assertion that most slave 'relationships' were temporary. I don't buy that, but it does not matter.By arguing most slaves (at best) were temporary you've allowed some permanent slavery. Not to mention, chattel slavery is not characterized by the length of time served, but by humans being owned (which is exactly what Levitical law allows). Is owning humans for any length of time moral, Rod?
We don't even know if any foreign purchases even happened. And if it did, it probably would have been very rare. If the permanent slavery was by agreement, like as with the Hebrew servant who loved his master, what would be your problem?
Kidnapping a foreigner is punishable by death. Why do you think there was such an extreme penalty for kidnapping/forced slavery, but it would have been okay to force a foreigner to remain against his will, and be able to practice general abuse?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
One doesn't. They've removed that freedom when they committed a crime. Committing crimes remove freedom.If I gave you the choice to be a slave and work for me and be a slave but be imprisoned. What choice do you have of not being a slave? Please do answer.
The state doesn't own prisoners. The prisoners can choose community service. Whatever result they choose they are not human property.
Is a prisoner free to go and come as they please? If they're not property of the prison, they should be able to leave when they want, and come back when they want to eat and sleep. Kind of like the drunk on The Andy Griffith show.
Missing the human property part
Please refer to my prior comment.
I am for prisons and community service esc things. Just don't like the human property part.
Is this a confession that prisoners are human property?
Why because you Religions is indefensible or am asking for a truism when trying to ask you to defend your Religion?
I may not be clear on what you mean.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Well, people become believers just by the reading the Bible. So I don't think this to be a wise recommendation in terms of your purpose. What I think you're really suggesting is to read the Bible, but don't study it.I'm quite happy to let the words of the Bible speak for themselves. Let every Christian read what should be the single most important collection of literature to them. It doesn't take a Biblical scholar, historian, or language expert to comprehend chattel slavery is condoned in the Bible.
Just because you ignore the verses that contradict the idea of permissive chattel slavery, doesn't mean others will. When asking people to read the Bible, it's not a good idea to assume they will see as you see.
My theory (if I can borrow that phrase from Keith) is that if someone wants to see the Bible refuted, they will immediately accept the interpretation of the typical atheist activist. They read the verse that by contemporary interpretation looks like a support of chattel slavery at first glance, and accept it as a nail in the coffin. Then they get mad when other people actually study what the scriptures are actually saying, and conclude otherwise.
We Americans aren't all that great at phrasing terms.
"Watch your step" is one example.
In Japan, they try to accommodate westerners by putting up signs saying "Watch your steps". It's a misspelling of the last word, but makes a lot more sense. Can you though imagine a Japanese person suggesting that Americans are only concerned with watching just one step? And that after watching that first step down the stairs, take their eyes off the stairs and looking up the rest of the time, allowing them to misstep and tumble down the rest of the stairway?
I think a Japanese person would understand that it's an issue of language interpretation or translation, and that Americans are not really promoting carelessness, or partial-carefulness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life,Clearly, the practice of permanent chattel-slavery was not condemned in the law.Buying permanent foreign slaves was not MANDATORY. So what? Why does this matter to you?
Yes it was condemned.
What part of
Exodus 23:9 "Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.
do you not understand?
Do you think it's relative? It's okay to beat a servant to death with a rod, but not okay to skin them alive?
They might die, or escape, or be released voluntarily, or purchase their freedom. This feels like a rhetorical question.
It is a rhetorical question.
These are probably what they had in mind when telling an Israelite he could, if he chose to, keep the servants for a lifetime. So normally where a foreign servant might decide to purchase their freedom if able, they may instead decide to stay with their master for life.
Leviticus 25:46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
It doesn't mention the sentiment of the servant (whether or not he's okay with it). but........
Exodus 21:5 New International Version "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,'
it also doesn't mention whether or not it's okay with the master. But there doesn't seem to be much arguing here.
How is this "very important"? What difference does it make if chattel-slavery was OPTIONAL or MANDATORY?
I wouldn't mind answering the question except that it's not chattel slavery (Or, I don't see it that way). Therefore, how can I possibly answer that question?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You are telling me that is a good deal. Become slave labor or being a prison slaved? You just admitted having slaves is wrong so what is going on here?Do you agree the people who engaged with 7 year slave labor or imprisoning people while owing them did a wrong thing? Do also tell me what they did wrong.
I'm just as confused as you are. First off, it wasn't slave labor. It was voluntary servitude along with laws meant to protect the Israelite from abuse.
Do you take issue with community service as alternative to doing time?
What did these Israelites do to deserve indentured servitude? If they owed a substantial amount of money, they could work it off by volunteering servitude. Or, they damaged property, or stole from an individual, they could volunteer servitude.
In your very first response you said yes slavery is wrong yet here you are discussing how we shouldn't tolerate foreign slaves but 7 year seems to be okay. Do you agree with it and why?
I agreed that slavery, and even servitude is bad.
What I meant was it's bad that people steal, damage property, owe money, commit crimes in general that causes the indentured servitude model to exist. It would be ideal to not need these servant scenarios, but I believe it's a better alternative to imprisonment. Particularly since it's obvious servants become equivalent to family members at times.
Why am I answering your questions? Can you actually defend your Religion?
I don't know why you're answering my questions. And I don't need to defend my religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Who cares if it was "normal" or not.It expressly allows the practice, which is the opposite of condemning the practice.
Condemning the practice of what? it can't be the practice of chattel slavery since it was not chattel slavery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I agree with American positions because for one reason they are based on things tangible whereas the Bible is based on the intangible. Are you actually going to defend your specific Christianity or are you going to carry on engaging with whataboutism?
What you agree with is irrelevant. Is that really your argument? What does what you agree with have to do with the argument?
By the way, this argument is not uncommon. The argument about biblical slavery takes a very typical course. It turns into the public announcement we just saw earlier where the argument becomes more of a demand for agreement. That, and that on-line look I get questioning why I would support chattel slavery, no matter what has been proposed to the contrary.
And often it turns to someone explaining how something is okay because they are okay with it.
What a luxury though, I have to admit. Wouldn't it be nice to win every argument allowing us to always get our way just by arguing something tangible and intangible? "It must be this way because Omar/Spode says this way is tangible, the other way intangible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
This isn't an extraordinary claim, sir. An extraordinary claim would be something like "I can fly like Superman"...or, "I once held my breathe for two weeks". We could rightly expect some substantial evidence in these cases.My claim is quite mundane in comparison, and I've pointed to evidence that is sufficiently appropriate.
At this point the only evidence I'm seeing is that the Bible condones chattel slavery because S1, Omar, 3RU7AL and Keith Prosser say so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I wasn't asking if you understood the agreement. I was asking if you thought Israelite indentured servitude was immoral?I understand the indentured servitude agreement between Israelites to be an exchange of service for forgiveness of debt or help with necessities beyond the purchasing power of the would-be servant. It could be that one individual needed a cow, but couldn't afford it. However, he could trade 7 years for a cow. I'm not sure how it would work if he needed two cows...is that still seven years, or would it be 2 service terms? At any rate, it was an agreement for servanthood, not slavery, and individuals would have entered into these arrangements willingly. When I speak of slavery in the Bible, this is not what I mean.
No, and it is irrelevant. Even if it were not the norm, it is still accurate to say chattel slavery is expressely condoned by the Bible.
It most certainly is relevant. If most of the foreign servant relationships end up temporary, there must be a good reason. These foreign servants must be going somewhere. Where do you think the released foreign servant goes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
They don't have the same provision. But doesn't mean they don't have any provision. Just not the same. The foreigner for one, is probably not going to have a clan to go back to. Their provision lies more in becoming a citizen.The sentence in question makes it clear that provision does not apply to foreigners who may be 'slaves for life'.
Let's look at Abram in Genesis, the earliest representative of Israelite history
Genesis 15:3 New International Version And Abram said, "You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir."
Can you imagine a chattel slave situation where the master ends up giving his daughter to his slave?
No way. If the servant is more part of the family, then it's logical for the master to give his daughter's hand in marriage to his servant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, this is the text that I'm referring to in my question to S1, and to you as well.
There are going to be some people who grow up in church, that don't read the bible a whole lot who will, at least for a time, believe the claim that the bible supports chattel slavery. There are going to probably more who read the claim, and immediately accept it with no question who already have a bent towards the bible, Christianity, Abrahamic religion, monotheism, or religion in general. Once people start to question the empirical demanding claim that the bible supports chattel slavery (or any other demonizing claim) the atheist activist orgs that make these claims will get exposed for what they are. Especially since they'll generally admit that they're not bible scholars, historians, Hebrew/Greek and biblical language experts.
You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life
The person who readily accepts the claim that the bible supports chattel slavery will read the claims without any questioning. The inquisitive person will wonder why the slaves for life option wasn't automatic? The former person may not understand how significant that actually is. They might say "who cares?"
If the Israelites practiced chattel slavery this law would be automatic. They would own them for life, and the only alternative if they wanted to dismiss the foreign servant's service would be to basically kick them out. If they're brutal enough to force them into life servitude, they wouldn't have any problem abandoning them to the elements. That would be another type of abuse unless that foreigner has another place to go, or unless he's acquired enough money to survive on his own.
I mentioned to S1 that from the structure of the sentence, it's pretty clear that the option implied that these foreigners were not always made into permanent servants. Actually, I was being generous. In reality, most of the time they probably ended up temporary. So unless you can prove otherwise, we have to wonder how the master/servant combinations ended? Since the relationships obviously ended, it's obvious that a foreign slave could leave their master. Because the scripture basically implies so.
So no, quoting scripture (especially one I've been referring to leading into the statement I made) is meaningless. As of right now, I'm extremely suspicious of the claim, and consequently some of it's claimants.
So I'll ask the question to you I asked S1. What do you think were the circumstances that lead up to a foreign servant eventually leaving their master?
And again, it's a very important question in relation to the allegation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Public service announcement: if you believe there is no chattel slavery in the Bible...READ YOUR BIBLE.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Who cares if it was "normal" or not.It expressly allows the practice, which is the opposite of condemning the practice.
Hopefully S1 will care enough to answer the question.
You're welcome to answer it too by the way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Forget about bond-servants. Stop conflating bond-servants (voluntary contract laborers) and slavery. Stop muddying the waters.We're all talking about the part of the holy scripture that says you can buy permanent foreign slaves and bequeath them to your children.
No, that portion of scripture relating to making a foreign slave permanent I don't directly relate to the military. I relate the general suggestion that owning a human being is evil to the military and the prison system.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I believe I understand your view fairly well. Please correct any mistakes: You are against chattel slavery. You oppose sexual slavery. You find beating slaves without punishment wrong.Unfortunately for you, these are all expressly endorsed by the Bible and not to be confused with the indentured servitude available exclusively to Israelites.
First question that comes to mind, do you include the Israelite 7 year servitude as a valid alternative to imprisonment, or do you include that in the overall assessment that the Bible endorses the evil institution of slavery?
Since this seems to be a major verse used to suggest the promotion of slavery in the bible:
Leviticus 25:44-46 New International Version (NIV)
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 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. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 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. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Would you agree that the underlined statement suggests that making a foreign servant a slave for life was an option, therefore making the lifelong slaves was not the norm? Or at least an even or substantially fair amount of the master/foreign slave relationship did not result in lifetime servitude? In other words, the author made it clear that lifelong servitude was not automatic. Would you agree?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Like I said in the post right before this one, there are different levels of the ownership of another human being. Since the argument for biblical slavery centers around the ownership of another human being, then how do they compare them to contemporary institutions that own human beings?
That's why I brought up the military.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Yes.So can we agree having slaves is a bad thing?
Also, servants masters are bad for having human property?
Depends on what you mean. The argument against biblical slavery is owning another human being. So if that's the case, what about the (American) military and prisons?
What about the 7 year voluntary servitude scenario laid out for an Israelite? They were given a choice between serving (and being owned) for 7 years to pay off damages or an act of theft, or go to prison (where they will also be owned).
People seem to have different levels of what is acceptable ownership of another human, and even different levels of what is acceptable in terms of biblical servitude. Some seem to be okay with the 7 year scenario, but not with the purchasing of a foreign slave. Or, they just want to focus on foreign slaves because they just think focusing on that make for a stronger case.
Where do you yourself draw the line on what is acceptable ownership of a human, from modern contemporary institutions I referred to, to biblical references to slavery/servitude?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No. At least I don't think so. Why would you think that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I think they are, but if you would read my post to Castin, it may shed more light on my view.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If you read my last post to Castin, I think I more or less addressed this. If not, let me know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Well, actually the reason why an Israelite could have at times kept an Israelite servant for life would be the decision of the servant up for release.I thought you were only allowed to keep an Israelite slave for six or seven years, then he gets to decide if he wants to leave or stay on as a permanent slave. Were foreign slaves given this choice?
Exodus 21:5-6
…5But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children; I do not want to go free,’ 6then his master is to bring him before the judges.And he shall take him to the door or doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he shall serve his master for life.
What S1 believes is that when an Israelite took in a runaway foreign slave, he would not have taken him in if the slave escaped from a fellow Israelite. The problem is that the idea contradicts a number of scriptures that make it clear that they were not to abuse foreigners. Pretty much period.
The potential problem when someone doesn't believe in God is that they assume the authors in the Bible have created scripture in their own minds. Therefore, there must be a catch to any Biblical command stressing peaceful, fair, charitable treatment of others...including, or especially foreigners. Basically because of human nature. You know the phrase looking for the good in the bad? (Or something like that.) Well, sometimes some people look for the bad in the good. This would be a good example. It complicates things even more when, they're convinced there has to be evil in scripture. So when they see a verse stressing respect for brethren in the same sentence as referring to foreign slaves, or a verse that states an Israelite may purchase a foreign slave and keep him for life, they believe they found that evil that they perceived must be there. That catch.
Imagine a Canaanite slave ran away from his master, seeking refuge from the Israelites. If the Israelites return him, he's a gonner. So due to Hebrew law, he takes the slave into his home. However, he makes him a slave in the harshest sense of the word. So the slave runs away to the house of a different Israelite. According to people who believe the scripture referring to harboring a runaway foreign slave only applies to slaves who ran away from foreign masters, that person would refuse to take the slave in because he's not obligated. Or, not permitted to. For one, the forcing of the slave to remain with the abusive Israelite would actually be considered kidnapping which was a very serious crime. And again, it violated their law against mistreatment of foreigners anyway.
The authors were just not thinking about 21st century political correctness. They didn't know they had to word everything properly so as not to mislead us folks way here in the future. And one insensitive to 21st century thought slip up would render them evil. When they talked about how an Israelite could if he wanted (Obviously wasn't mandatory) keep a foreign servant for life, they I believe were speaking in the positive so to speak that there's mutual agreement between a foreigner servant and the Israelite master. Just like between the Israelite master and servant.
But could a foreign servant leave their master? I think if we get over the idea that a foreign slave would abhor being a servant in a wealthy house (It could only be a wealthy person making it probably fairly rare), as opposed to living a life of possible horrific misery, then it may not be so hard to believe. They could leave if they were abused (in spite of what some think), and could become wealthy. If they became wealthy they obviously wouldn't be a servant anymore.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
What is evident is that a foreign servant can leave.No, Leviticus explicitly states foreign slaves can be kept permanently...as in... forever [LINK].
Yeah, but this is true with Israelite slaves. They can be kept permanently as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
How much difference does it take to make it 'significant'? From what I've read about Egyptian, Hityite and Baylonian slavery laws and practice there isn't much diference. So I suppose I do claim there is no significant difference.A very early condemnation of slavery is found on the Cyrus Cylinder from the 6th century BC. The Persian ing Cyrus the Great decreed:"I prevent slavery and my governors andsubordinates are obliged to prohibit exchanging men and women as slaves within their ownruling domains. Such a traditions should be exterminated the world over.”The Hebrews had no monoply on the moral,high ground about slavery!
I think part of the problem is your idea that Hebrews (and Christianity) think they have a monopoly on higher ground morality.
A couple of biblical texts dismiss this idea (if one should ever obtain such an idea from reading scripture). The parable of the Good Samaritan is one example. This one, albeit a parable, revealed that a gentile could easily practice true religion as well as anyone. The example (Samaritan) used in the parable was meant to show this idea of greater Hebrew morality false to religious Jews.
The other would be Cornelius the Centurion, a non-Christian. The Bible actually said this man was a good man (relative to mankind). And if the Bible says some one person was good, they were definitely good. But this was said about a man who wasn't a believer yet.
It doesn't matter if some other nations were humanitarian as Israel, or even more. A revelation doesn't necessarily mean a message no one else knows about, or practices. But there is most definitely significant differences in the Israelite practice of servitude. The allowance for a runaway servant to remain free from their oppressor would be one significant difference. There may have been other nations with the same law, but probably with most, the idea was unheard of. Also, the idea of a foreigner getting wealthy, becoming a successful citizen, and even owning a (Hebrew....of all people) servant was unheard of in probably most NME nations.
An excerpt from the book A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (2 vols) by Raymond Westbrook.
Quote reference Hans Gustav Guterbock.
"Guterbock refers to 'slaves in the strict sense,' apparently referring to chattel slaves such as those of classical antiquity. This characterization may have been valid for house slaves whose master could treat them as he wished when they were at fault,but it is less suitable when they were capable of owning property and could pay betrothal money or fines. The meaning 'servant' seems more appropriate, or perhaps the designation 'semi-free' .It comprises every person who is subject to orders or dependent on another but nonetheless has a certain independence within his own sphere of active."
I think most people would agree that the term slavery is not easy to define, therefore puzzling as to how so many people are literally demanding that slavery in the Bible means chattel slavery.
Reminds me of those old western movies where a lynch mob gets restless, and wants to hang someone not yet proven to be guilty.
From Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology (4 vols), David Levinson and Melvin Ember (eds), Henry Holt:1996
"Scholars do not agree on a definition of "slavery." The term has been used at various times for a wide range of institutions, including plantation slavery, forced labor, the drudgery of factories and sweatshops, child labor, semi voluntary prostitution, bride-pricemarriage, child adoption for payment, and paid-for surrogate motherhood.Somewhere within this range, the literal meaning of "slavery" shifts into metaphorical meaning, but it is not entirely clear at what point. Asimilar problem arises when we look at other cultures. The reason is that the term "Slavery" is evocative rather than analytical, calling to mind a loose bundle of diagnostic features.These features are mainly derived from the most recent direct Western experience with slavery, that of the southern United States, the Caribbean, and Latin America. The present Western image of slavery has been haphazardly constructed out of the representations of that experience in nineteenth-century abolitionist literature, and later novels, textbooks, and films...From a global cross-cultural and historical perspective, however, New World slavery was a unique conjunction of features...In brief, most varieties of slavery did not exhibit the three elements that were dominant in the New World: slaves as property and commodities; their use exclusively as labor; and their lack of freedom..."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I think what you're proposing is a possibility, but would have to be orchestrated by God.I guess it would be real as long as it was present or in the moment, away from creation and into pure awareness time does not exist in the way we experience it anyways so the only thing we truly experience is what is in the "now". But, if we were to be revisiting the past per say, we would be present but what we witnessed of the past wouldn't be, it's simply revisiting energetic imprints that have already transpired. It would be more like the Christmas Carol movie I'm afraid, where you could see what was taking place but not able to interact with it. Beyond that I'm not really sure I could only speculate but good points. As we discussed though there could be loop holes with minimal abilities.
But that's just a different type of time travel. Even in the Christmas Carol, Mr. Scrooge needed a guide to lead him into the past and future in a dimension or plane where no one could hear or see him. This type of time travel would be strictly of a divine nature.
Created: