South Carolina House adds firing squad to execution methods

[rogue06]

As I have explained clearly and with Biblical references, Old Testament law is incompatible with the concept of chattel slavery in that kidnapping or purchasing someone who had been forced into involuntary servitude was punishable by death, viciously beating one's servants or inflicting injuries from they could not quickly recover was strictly prohibited, and the law required that sanctuary be granted to any servant who felt compelled to flee his master. You have no response to this other than to simply repeat your refuted claims over and over again.

In many ways it was similar to indentured servitude (but provided more rights and protections) that a large number of white colonists endured to pay for their passage to the "New World."


What's funny is that in discussions of slavery in general, most liberals argue that indentured servitude doesn't count, but when it comes to talking about slavery and the Bible then all of a sudden something even less strict than indentured servitude counts.

[Cerebrum123]

If you tolerate something it isn't unheard of to try to establish ground rules to minimize it.

Sort of like how parents might tolerate certain behavior they don't necessarily approve of from their kids, and therefore seek to reign it in and minimize it until they "grow out of it."

Or how smoking is legal, but our country is doing pretty much everything they can to minimize it and restrict it.

[Roy]

Tolerating and approving of are two separate things.

One may temporarily permit something because it is a marked improvement over the alternatives that had been practiced, and then lead them to even a better way.

If it was permitted 'temporarily' there might have been some change during the last 2500 years. There hasn't been. (The reduction in slavery today has nothing to do with any change in scripture).

[rogue06]

If it was permitted 'temporarily' there might have been some change during the last 2500 years. There hasn't been. (The reduction in slavery today has nothing to do with any change in scripture).

Never said that there was a change in Scripture

[Roy]

As I have explained clearly and with Biblical references, Old Testament law is incompatible with the concept of chattel slavery in that kidnapping or purchasing someone who had been forced into involuntary servitude was punishable by death, ...

... unless they were purchased from another tribe (which may or may not have similar laws), or purchased from a father selling his daughter into slavery. OT law is not only compatible with chattel slavery, it lays down rules for implementing it.

You will never agree with this, but that doesn't matter.

The OT is a little unclear on the children of slaves, but it does say that the children of a female slave given to a male servant who subsequently left remained the property of the owner of a female slave, suggesting that breeding slaves was an alternative to buying them.

[Roy]

In many ways it was similar to indentured servitude (but provided more rights and protections) that a large number of white colonists endured to pay for their passage to the "New World."


What's funny is that in discussions of slavery in general, most liberals argue that indentured servitude doesn't count, but when it comes to talking about slavery and the Bible then all of a sudden something even less strict than indentured servitude counts.

Bollocks.

Every liberal I've ever seen commenting on the subject has agreed that the Israelites and the American colonies both had both indentured servitude and chattel slavery. American indentured servitude was akin to OT indentured servitude, and American slavery was akin to OT slavery. Indentured servitude doesn't count as slavery because it isn't slavery, and I've never seen anyone say that it did.

You really should find out if your arguments are before posting them

[Roy]

Never said that there was a change in Scripture

Then according to scripture, slavery is still permitted.

[Mountain Man]

... unless they were purchased from another tribe (which may or may not have similar laws), or purchased from a father selling his daughter into slavery.

False. Again, there is nothing in any of those passages which would permit one to force someone into servitude or to purchase someone who had been forced into servitude against his will, and in fact, doing so was explicitly prohibited and punishable by death.

Scripture Verse: Exodus 21:16

Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

© Copyright Original Source

Notice that this law makes no distinction about where the man in question may have come from, so your "purchase from another tribe" loophole is abject nonsense.

[eider]

That's why we have appeals.

That's why, at least for well over 50 years, it usually takes well over a decade to carry out an execution. So that everything can be gone over not just again, but several times.

Apparently Britain's appeal process wasn't nearly as careful.

True.
But I have noticed a large list of dodgy cases in the US that got executed. And I don't think crimes of passion get much sympathy over your way.

[Roy]

False. Again, there is nothing in any of those passages which would permit one to force someone into servitude or to purchase someone who had been forced into servitude against his will, and in fact, doing so was explicitly prohibited and punishable by death.

Scripture Verse: Exodus 21:16

Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

© Copyright Original Source

Notice that this law makes no distinction about where the man in question may have come from, so your "purchase from another tribe" loophole is abject nonsense.

I see your problem.*

You can't think of any way for someone to become a slave other than by kidnapping them (or you want to pretend you can't).

Of course this leaves you with the intractable problem of how the Israelites could be permitted to purchase slaves from other tribes, if it was illegal to be in possession of a slave purchased from another tribe. Oh, and you've conveniently ignored the issues of daughters being involuntarily sold by their fathers, and of children being raised as slaves from birth.

*The immediate one, anyway. There's a more general one.

P.S. I note I'm being called 'ignorant' by some-one who thinks being permitted to purchase and own another person for their entire life, including bequeathing them to your children, is not chattel slavery.

[Mountain Man]

You can't think of any way for someone to become a slave other than by kidnapping them (or you want to pretend you can't).

There are obviously a number of ways that one might become a slave, but according to Old Testament law, it was explicitly forbidden to force someone into servitude against their will under penalty of death.

Oh, and you've conveniently ignored the issues of daughters being involuntarily sold by their fathers, and of children being raised as slaves from birth.

Sorry, could you point out where it says that fathers can sell their daughters into slavery against the daughter's will?

[Cow Poke]

Let's please take this slavery derail somewhere else, OK? Next, we'll be refighting the War of Northern Aggression.

[Christianbookworm]

Pretty sure there's entire threads dealing with that topic. Christianthinktank has some good articles if anyone is honestly seeking answers. Why do these guys think it's possible for God to immediately get the Israelites to a high standard of morality? They didn't really have the means for a social safety net beyond gleaning and indentured servitude.

Back on topic, why don't they use nitrogen gas to cause hypoxia? And false witnesses get a heavy penalty in proportion to the alleged crime. Wasn't the death penalty more reasonable in times and places with no maximum security prisons?

[Gondwanaland]

OK, you're getting a little emotional here --- murder is the UNLAWFUL taking of a human life.

Okay, now YOU'RE getting a little Pro-Choice here.

So I'll take the same line of reasoning I take when I run into Pro-Choicers telling me that abortion isn't murder - by your logic, China can pass a law making it legal to completely genocide the Uyghurs, and you'd be telling me it's magically not murder, even when it is.

[Cow Poke]

Okay, now YOU'RE getting a little Pro-Choice here.

I am, eh?

So I'll take the same line of reasoning I take when I run into Pro-Choicers telling me that abortion isn't murder - by your logic, China can pass a law making it legal to completely genocide the Uyghurs, and you'd be telling me it's magically not murder, even when it is.

I'm trying to rein in my own use of "murder" regarding abortion, because, sadly, it is legalized killing of innocent life.

I can assure you, I am quite pro-life.

Ya happy?