Slavery

I don't know about you, I think your on another planet sometimes. Yes, the money that would have went to the parents, went to pay for the childs food.It's in the link. There are many kinds of slavery, it's in the link. That rule is not an absolute. Then you need to read the bible, and study that link, because you are wrong. They weren't punished if the slave lived. We are talking about if they die. No where in the bible does it give permission to kill a slave for no apparent reason. It's all in that link I provided, please go read it, so this conversation can end.If you did kill a slave, your punishment could be death as well. If you hurt your slave, such as taking his eye out, he gets to go free.
Generally speaking mis-treatment of slaves was not tolerated. It's all in the link. Why are you blending the difference between beating a slave to death, and beating a slave and having him not die?That rule is not an absolute. There are many more verses explaining about treating people good, and even explaining why, than there are about treating people bad. You seem to think because it says beating a slave recieves no punishment is a licsense to beat slaves all you want. That a highly ignorant stance to take on it.I didn't call anyone a God hater specifically, but they are in here. Funny you would think I meant you. Because I read the link, actually I am still reading it, as it is very long and complicated. Yet you expect me to explain it to you in a couple of posts. If you rad it, then we could discuss it further, and maybe come up with valid qestions. Could a slave love you? Or is this not possible.
I am certain you could love a slave. Well so does the NT. This may or may not be true, but if it is, then it opens up a can of worms, and then leaves the bible as nothing more than fire starter. How do we know what to believe is from God or not? As our society changes, and our beliefs change we can just start X'ing things out until there is nothing left? I am not twisting anything, the bible is very clear on the subject, and all slavery is not the same. Have you read my definitions? Have you studyed the different translations?What is your definition of slavery? See, you aren't reading the bible. It was law to give food to the poor. There are many rules about giving to the poor:Exodus 23:11
but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what they leave. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove.There are many more. That sounds like a God of compasion to me. How could God be compasionet and cruel at the same time? Easy, we don't fully understand the way of life back then.If there were no slaves, there would be no crops to feed the poor.Some parts of the bible even tells the Jews to treat their slaves just like workers.It's all in that link. What's wrong with you?
This is only a partial description of what happens to a slave owner "IF" he beats his slave. This is not free licsense to beat someone.
Generally speaking, they were encouraged not to do that. It was against the law to do without reason.REgular people would recieve beatings for their wrong doings as well. This beating was not slave specific, and getting stoned (ah getting stoned, I remember that) and beatings was a way of life, and the econically/socially necessary way they survived.In fact if it wasn't for all that, we might not be here today.What you are doing with the descriptions, and rules about slavery, is what the Romans did, the new world, and other cultures did with those rules, and that is mis-read them, mis-interpret them, and selectivly choose which ones to follow. That is what made slavery so horrible, so you are on a level with them. You cruel cruel person.

Look, I have quoted what the Bible says about slavery. All you have done is repeat "Read my link! Read my link!"If there is pertinent material in the link IT IS UP TO YOU TO PRESENT IT. I don't expect you to produce the whole link in a "couple of posts". I expect you to produce something from the link. If you're going to keep touting that link, you have to show us why you accept it above what I have quoted from the Bible.I think I have made my position - and the Bible's position - fairly clear, so I will only address a few of your points: You are really, really, really going to have to explain that. When somebody buys a child as a slave, they give money to the parents. That's what the word "buy" means, and the word "buy" is used in the Bible. The buyer does not receive money from the parents to feed the slave. Yes, and I am talking about the kind of slavery described in the Bible. You are picking and choosing the "good" kinds of slavery that your apologist link describes.There may very well have been exceptional cases which fit your description, but I am talking about the general condition of slavery, which is described in the Bible. I am not going to eat up Percy's bandwidth quoting Exodus 21:21 until you understand it. Read it again: Unless the slave died immediately, there was NO PUNISHMENT. If that isn't free reign to beat your slaves, what is?Owners may have been "discouraged" from beating their slaves, but there was nothing in the law to prevent them from doing it. I prefer the Bible's definitions to yours. As I mentioned, the King James seems to make little distinction between a "slave" and a "servant". According to Bible principles, free servants weren't treated much better than slaves. That's because the rules were written for the convenience of the owners/employers, not the protection of the slaves/employees. You cling to the few limitations that were put on the owners and ignore the almost free reign that they were given. Bullshit.We have crops now and we don't have slaves.And don't claim that it is only our modern technology that makes slavery unnecessary. My grandparents settled this country and raised their first crops with no technology at all, AND they gave to the poor, AND they didn't have slaves.Slavery is not "necessary" - never was, never will be.-------------You are twisting the Bible by pretending that every slave was a poor waif who was adopted for his own good. If I loved a slave, I would set him/her free. Then he/she would not be a slave.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

You just don't get it, and you are not righteous.I have explained everything, and the link I provided explains the rest, its up to you to understand it. Well we have seen Ex 21:21 about thousand times in this forum, and now that I am studying it, I am finding out something very surprising, and that is that Ex 21:21 may have well been one of the first truely humanitarian laws ever written.HAHA, figure that one out. Yes there was.
Free men and slaves were subject to the same laws, and in some cases, the slaves had more rights than a free man. No I am not. And then they might be dead, way to love a person Ringo316.

No matter how many times you repeat that, it is still false.I have shown a few examples where slaves definitely did not have the same rights. If you disagree, show us where the Bible backs you up. Chapter and verse.And I'm still waiting for you to explain this one: When you sell your children, you receive money for them. You don't give money for the owner to feed them.(By the way, if the parents had the money to feed the children, why would they have to sell them?)That just shows how confused your thinking is. If I loved a slave, I would set him/her free.I would not willingly let a person I loved starve. If I could afford to feed him/her as a slave, why could I not afford to feed him/her as a free person?That is the way to love a person, riVeRrat.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

just so we can all remember what we're talking about - ownership of another human's bodyThis message has been edited by mick, 08-18-2005 04:46 PM

You are persistant, and stubborn, and probably did not read the link I proivided. This is very long to explain, and probably beyind the scope of this forum, but let's walk you through this step by step.First off, what were the punishments of free men when they beat each other? According to the bible. It's seems no matter how many times I say things, you still don't get it.I never said you recieve money for them.Let's take it from the top, your child is starving.
It takes money to feed him.
You don't have the money or the food.
But you know someone who does.
You give your child to that person, and instead of recieving payment, they give food to the child.
That's your payment, that your child gets fed, and gets a chance at life, until a time when situation could change, and then go free.This is not an absolute, but one of the forms of payment. You would not be able to feed that person, because you would then be lacking their labor, or help. If they became your slave, then you would be able to feed them, otherwise they would have to find food elsewhere, or die from starvation.It was already a requirment to feed the poor, so obviously it has more meaning than you think.Answer me this, why would God deliver the Jews from slavery, just to tell them to have slavery again? What sense does that make?

You see, that's your marrowminded view of slavery.Be more specific exactly what kind of slavery that is, and where in the bible does it tell you to do that to your slave for no good reason, then we can talk.*edit* From this link:
Does the Bible condone slavery? | GotQuestions.orgThis message has been edited by riVeRraT, 08-18-2005 07:36 PM

Okay, here's the punishment for killing a free man:

quote:

---

Exo 21:12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

---

and here's the punishment for killing a slave:

quote:

---

Exo 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

---

Note: "punished", not "put to death". A fine, perhaps?But here's the kicker:

quote:

---

Exo 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

---

No punishment at all if the slave dies a lingering death. I guess losing the slave's unpaid labour was punishment enough?So, where is the equality there? But what you're talking about here is adoption. The quotes I gave you from the Bible are specifically about buying slaves.Why do you persist in pretending that every slave was "adopted" by a loving master for his own welfare? The Bible plainly shows that that is not true. I would be able to feed that person if he helped me voluntarily. Why would he not help me voluntarily to grow the food he needed to survive?Come on. It is absolutely ridiculous to pretend that slavery was necessary for the survival of the slaves.On the contrary, slave-owning is a drain on the economy, not a boon. There is all the extra overhead of hiring overseers and slave-catchers. Land has to be taken out of production to provide housing for the slaves. The slave-owners themselves are parasites rather than providing their share of labour.The history of the US (and most other countries) shows that the freehold system is pretty efficient in terms of production. I already answered that: God didn't tell them to have slavery again. Men wrote the Bible.Did you ever read Huckleberry Finn? Tom Sawyer actually felt guilty about harbouring the fugitive slave, Jim. Jim was his friend, but Tom thought that turning Jim over to the slave-catchers was the "right thing to do".That same perverted thinking caused men in the Old Testament to own slaves. And that same perverted thinking caused them to write in the Bible that it was okay to own slaves.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

It was eye for an eye. Punishment for killing someone was death. If he continue in a day or two, means, if he was ok in a a day or two, not if he died in a day or two. (where do you get this stuff?)Slave's unpaid labor, is sort of correct.
When a free man beat another free man, the one to be found wrong was punished by giving up possessions. A slave could not give up posessions, since he was property of the owner. The owner would lose his labor for the time he spent down, and inturn hurt himslef, or his business, or his household, so it was probably undesirable to do that.
So it was exactly equal in that respect, and was a very radical change from the slavery of the day, and represents the start of humanitarism, and equal rights for all. This is all described in the link I gave you, if you would have read it. You are the only one really persisting with this, as I think most others reading this have read that link, which would lead you to a better understanding of slavery of the OT.
I also don't find the guy an apologist, as he makes no apologys for anything, but just describes in detail (full picture) slavery of the OT, and ANE.He also makes the comparasons to other slavery from other nations, and new world slvaery, and you canplainly see that it is not the same. Your claiming that the bible shows that this is cleary not true, please give the reference.In the link I provided he explains how it was in some cases:

quote:

---

Sale of family peers highlight this 'oddness' of the notion of 'property' when applied to people:

​

"A person would either enter into slavery or be sold by a parent or relative. Persons sold their wives, grandchildren, brother (with his wife and child), sister, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, nephews and niece" [HI:HANEL:1:665]

​

And this implied range of freedom/slavery can be seen all over the ANE. Buying and Selling, for example, can be the contractual terminology for child adoption:

​

"Older children were adopted by reimbursing their parents for the expenses of feeding and raising them. These transactions were recorded as if they were sales." *references removed because it is messing with the code of the forum*

---

You mean voluntary slave owner? You little slave owner you. Let's get one thing clear......again......and that is, I am not for slavery, or do I think it is a good thing, based on what I know. I am totally against. It may have been necessary in the OT, and I do not understand it completely, but as we go here, I am starting to understand why.I also feel that any slavery before or after the OT slavery was merely man twisting God's laws to suite his own selfish, and horrible ways. It also is like a plan of the devil, to change the definition of slavery completely, and make it so horrible, that people like us today would not understand the slavery of the OT.Combine that with web-sites like evilbible.com, and religious tolerence.org, and slavery of the OT gets a completly wrong picture painted of it, then it's used as an exuse to not accept the bible, or God's word as valid. Slave catching and trading was highly regulated, and punishble by death.
Exodus 21:
16 "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death. Absolutly. Then for you the bible is invalid, and not really God's holy word. It may be due to your lack of complete understanding of it, or not being led by the Holy Spirit.when I started in on this thread, I was being led by nothing more than the Spirit, as were the people who wrote the bible. No as we break it down, slavery of the OT is starting to make more sense.About the only thing you can really question is slave trading with aliens, but the Lord your God had this to say to about it:Exodus 22: 21 "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.Then again in:Exodus 23:9 "Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.So the slaves that had the least favoritism according to the laws, were to be treated nice, in recognition of what the Jews themselves went through. They could not be oppressed. It was against the law. Instead the bible teachs them how to love each other.This kind of interupts my vision of slaves ebing ruthlessly beaten for no good reason, and harsh treatment towards them, by God's standards, and then puts the blame stricly on men when slaves are treated bad.How could a verse like this ever be possible if slaves were treated bad?But if your servant says to you, "I do not want to leave you," because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, 17 then take an awl and push it through his ear lobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your maidservant. (Deut 15.16f)

You have got to be kidding.Putting an awl through his earlobe isn't bad treatment? Fastening him to the door by his earlobe isn't bad treatment? I have asked you before: is that something that you would do to an adopted child?And notice, if you go back to verse 12, that this applies to a Hebrew servant/slave.But before we get into that, let's look back at Exodus for a little clarification:

quote:

---

Exo 21:2 If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
Exo 21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
Exo 21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
Exo 21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
Exo 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.

---

This is the same law as you mentioned in Deuteronomy, but before it was "sanitized" a little. Remember, Exodus 21 is right after the Ten Commandments were brought down from the mountain. This is the "explanation" of the Ten Commandments. This is the real deal, the closest thing we have to what was carved in stone by the hand of God.Notice that if the Hebrew slave got married and had chilren while he was a slave, the wife and children did not go free with him.How's that for a choice? You can go free, but your wife and kids remain slaves. What would you do?And you don't call that bad treatment?Bear in mind also that there is nothing said about the wife and children going free ever. And you don't call that bad treatment?But even that treatment - which you call "nice" - was only for Hebrew slaves. Foreigners had no such protection:

quote:

---

Lev 25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Lev 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begot in your land: and they shall be your possession.
Lev 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor.

---

The "adoption" that you and your apologist website are harping on, applies only to Hebrew servants/slaves. As ugly as their treatment was - in your own quote, by the way - the treatment of foreign slaves was much worse.Obviously, slavery was as ugly in Old Testament times as it is in any time.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Thank God we live in a world now where piercing ear lobes is considered harsh treament, after all who would want to pierce themselves, or have a piercing done to them for one reason or another?http://www.bmeworld.com/flesh/
piercing - Google Search
Results 1 - 10 of about 4,670,000 for piercing I don't have to notice, I already toched base on the differences between hebrew slaves, and aliens. This is why you have to read the link, because it gets complicated.The mistake you and others are making is to blend it all together, when there are very specific differences between types of slaves, and slavery of other cultures. That's only if the master gives him the wife.
We are talking about the days of arranged marriages. Most of that stuff was to keep a race going, as 1 in every 2 children born died before the age of 5.The wife is the masters property, not the slaves.
If the slave met his own wife, she goes with him. All Hebrew slaves could go free after a period of time.Slaves from other nations, or aliens were not following God at the time, and the Hebrews were the only righteous ones, so God instructed them to kill off surrounding countries, and then take care of the women and children, by taking them as slaves. If they left them there, they would surely die, or be ravaged by worse than the Hebrews.
At least with the Hebrews they were going to get fair treatment according to the law. Why do you say that, when I cleary explained how the Hebrews should treat aliens. Are you reading my posts?
Go back and read my last post again about the treatment of aliens. "So the slaves that had the least favoritism according to the laws, were to be treated nice, " Was my quote.The treatment was the same, it would appear that they could not go free. Probably punishment from God for living in such a horrible way, remember the Hebrews were the only righteous people in the only one true God's eyes.DT 10:18 He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. 19 And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt.Inother words, don't treat them any less than you would treat yourselfs. I guess that equates to harsh treatment in your eyes.Well at least now you are starting to understand that there were different kinds of slaves, even though you still don't get it.
*edit* And that slavery was a form of adoption.This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 08-19-2005 02:28 PM

There's a difference between voluntary piercings and boring a hole in a slave's ear with an awl. Modern piercing is almost a surgical procedure. Boring a hole with an awl is carpentry.Let's do an experiment: go down to Home Depot and buy an awl.Now jam it through your youngest daughter's earlobe. Do you think she would consider that bad treatment? Do you think your wife would consider that bad treatment? Do you think the Child Welfare authorities would consider that bad treatment?Now fasten her earlobe to the door for a while. The Bible doesn't specify how long, but a few minutes should be plenty. Do you think your child would consider that bad treatment? Bingo.The operative word here is "property". The wife was not an "adopted child", as you claim. She was property.Tell us now, how is that the same as with free men? Was a free man's wife also the property of another man? But not their wives and children, who were the property of the master - in your own words. If the Bible says otherwise anywhere, please give us chapter and verse. That is exactly what I, and others, have been trying to tell you is a bad thing. Killing the men and enslaving the women and children is a bad thing. Therefore, it was probably not the will of a loving God. The writers of the Bible just claimed it was the will of God to try to justify their own evil actions. Ever hear the expression, "Live free or die"? I think it's the state motto of Vermont. Funny how some people would rather die than be slaves, isn't it? Fight for freedom and all.Why pretend that the children of Israel were doing the women and children a favour by enslaving them? They would probably rather have died alongside their husbands and fathers. No. As I have quoted the Bible many, many times in this thread, the treatment of foreign slaves was pretty harsh - and in no way comparable to the treatment of Hebrew slaves - and in no way comparable to the treatment of free men. And I quoted the Bible. You are contradicting what the Bible says. The problem is that you are ignoring the slaves who were treated badly. You are ignoring what the Bible plainly says about how foreign slaves were treated.Never mind the occaisional master who treated his slaves well. The issue that you have to address is the slaves who were treated badly - in accordance with what the Bible clearly says.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

I am getting tired of your logic.
The choice was up to the slave. There is no feeling in the earlobe, and the door was to back up your skin so you won't rip off the ear. The equivelent of a modern day ear peircing gun which is painless, I know I had it done. There you go again, lumping all the definitions of slave into one meaning, there might not be hope for you. You just supplied that verse, go baack and read your own posts, and let me go fishing. That is only your opinion, since you weren't alive at the time, and do not fully understand the reasons for going to war.So I guess we should have never persued trying to kill hitler then?
Since what your saying is there is no justifiable reason to go to war, right?What did we do with Japan after we bombed the crap out of them? Look at them now. Nothing has changed in the world. Ladies and gentlemen, introducing Ringo316 spokesman for entire nations of people that lived 4000 years ago.....drum role please.Maybe because slavery was such a part of life, that they would have been insulted if the hewbrews didn't take care of the woman and children, and then the Hebrews would have been considered cruel. Wow, circle jerk!!You haven't provided any verse that I haven't explained what it meant. It is quite clear how they should have been treated, since the Hebrews were once slaves themselves. You just refuse to accept it, and I think this conversation is not making any more logical, or intelligent advances. Uh?
Exodus 22:21 "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.Can this be any clearer? Exodus 22:21 "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.Exodus 22:21 "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.Exodus 22:21 "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.and here:Exodus 23: 9 "Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.Exodus 23: 9 "Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.Exodus 23: 9 "Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt."in accordance with what the Bible clearly says."One law does not justify you to break another law, all the laws must be followed, to be following God.sheesh.

quote:

---

There is no feeling in the earlobe...

---

Having pierced my own ears, thirteen times, with a safety-pin, four of those times in the earlobe, I have to say that this statement is very hard for me to swallow. Unless I am some mutant with feeling earlobes, this statement is utter crap. Forgive the bluntness.I haven't followed the thread, and I don't know if I'll back-read it, but the fact that you use such questionable evidence as support for one of your points makes me very hesitant to take you seriously.

quote:

---

The equivelent of a modern day ear peircing gun which is painless, I know I had it done.

---

Trust me. What you describe is not the equivalent of a modern piercing gun. I know. I did what you describe but with a much smaller, and probably much sharper, chunk of metal.This message has been edited by John, 08-19-2005 06:55 PM

---

No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Well, let's see if I can find any substance among all of your insults: The slave had the choice of leaving his family behind or staying a slave forever. Nice choice. Which would you take? Hmm.... Care to try my little experiment on yourself? Then tell me there's no feeling in the earlobe. Now, you were the one who said that the master was justified in keeping the wife, because she was his "property". You used the word "property". That was your definition, not mine. Wrong. Where did I ever say anything about justification for going to war? We were talking about slavery. Remember?And, if I recall correctly, we didn't kill all of the men in Germany, did we? And, if I recall correctly, we didn't enslave all of the women and children, did we?What we did was help the survivors. That's what I've been suggesting all along that the children of Israel should have done. Don't you think they might have been "insulted" a little by having their husbands and fathers massacred? Don't you think that might have been considered a little "cruel"?Put yourself in their shoes: your town has been destroyed, your husband, father, uncles, brothers, etc. have all been killed. What's the first thing you think of? "Boy, I'm going to be really miffed if these guys don't feed us."I don't think so. How about this one:

quote:

---

Lev 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever....

---

What was your explanation for that one again? But the "other law" allowed them to beat their slaves halfway to death, to separate families, etc. Obviously, they didn't consider that mistreatment.I do.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.