More From The Bigoted Left!

[Roy]

The law in Leviticus describes indentured servitude. While not an ideal system, it's nothing like the kind of slavery in the American south. They were given food and shelter in exchange for their work. There were also regulations put in place to curb abuse.

This is also true of slavery in the American south.

For example, from the 1860 slave code of the District of Colombia:

That if any master or mistress of any servant whatsoever, or overseer by order or consent of any such master or mistress, shall deny, and not provide sufficient meat, drink, lodging and clothing, or shall unreasonably burden them beyond their strength with labour, or debar them of their necessary rest and sleep, or excessively beat and abuse them, or shall give them above ten lashes for any one offence, the same being sufficiently proved before the justices of the county courts, the said justices have hereby full power and authority for the first and second offence to levy such fines upon such offender as to them shall seem meet, not exceeding one thousand pounds of tobacco, to the use of his majesty, his heirs and successors, for the support of government, and for the third offence, to set such servant so wronged at liberty, and free from servitude

If you want to claim that biblical slavery was nothing like American slavery, you'll need to find a genuine difference between them.

Roy

[Omniskeptical]

This is also true of slavery in the American south.

For example, from the 1860 slave code of the District of Colombia:

That if any master or mistress of any servant whatsoever, or overseer by order or consent of any such master or mistress, shall deny, and not provide sufficient meat, drink, lodging and clothing, or shall unreasonably burden them beyond their strength with labour, or debar them of their necessary rest and sleep, or excessively beat and abuse them, or shall give them above ten lashes for any one offence, the same being sufficiently proved before the justices of the county courts, the said justices have hereby full power and authority for the first and second offence to levy such fines upon such offender as to them shall seem meet, not exceeding one thousand pounds of tobacco, to the use of his majesty, his heirs and successors, for the support of government, and for the third offence, to set such servant so wronged at liberty, and free from servitude

If you want to claim that biblical slavery was nothing like American slavery, you'll need to find a genuine difference between them.

Roy

Slavery is defined as lack of land ownership, and servitude to someone because of the lack. Slaves in the bible were fed and educated, and served the poorest Israelites. Nothing is said about voting rights, and but lacking land meant lacking influence.

The original US Constitution is much worse. Slaves can't truly vote, or have property. Often called democracy in its most shameful form. While the skin color is the same; having Negroes in SouthEast, and having them farm in daylight is simply abuse. The black man is not a good farmer.

[Roy]

Slavery is defined as lack of land ownership,...

Where?

and servitude to someone because of the lack. Slaves in the bible were fed and educated, and served the poorest Israelites.

Since according to the bible the poorest Israelites were slaves, this is contradictory.

Nothing is said about voting rights, and but lacking land meant lacking influence.

The original US Constitution is much worse. Slaves can't truly vote, or have property.

Unless you can show that biblical slaves could vote or own property - and I'm not aware of anything that suggests they could - what we have here is two more failed attempts to distinguish US and Israelite slavery.

And this:

The black man is not a good farmer.

is racist.

Roy

[rogue06]

This is also true of slavery in the American south.

For example, from the 1860 slave code of the District of Colombia:

That if any master or mistress of any servant whatsoever, or overseer by order or consent of any such master or mistress, shall deny, and not provide sufficient meat, drink, lodging and clothing, or shall unreasonably burden them beyond their strength with labour, or debar them of their necessary rest and sleep, or excessively beat and abuse them, or shall give them above ten lashes for any one offence, the same being sufficiently proved before the justices of the county courts, the said justices have hereby full power and authority for the first and second offence to levy such fines upon such offender as to them shall seem meet, not exceeding one thousand pounds of tobacco, to the use of his majesty, his heirs and successors, for the support of government, and for the third offence, to set such servant so wronged at liberty, and free from servitude

If you want to claim that biblical slavery was nothing like American slavery, you'll need to find a genuine difference between them.

Roy

I think those provisions were passed in a last ditch attempt to make slavery more palpable to the public and thus keep in going.

[Omniskeptical]

Where?Since according to the bible the poorest Israelites were slaves, this is contradictory.Unless you can show that biblical slaves could vote or own property - and I'm not aware of anything that suggests they could - what we have here is two more failed attempts to distinguish US and Israelite slavery.

No, we don't. Look at this

For unto me the children of Israel are servants (i.e. slaves) They are my servants whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

But as anyone can see, they were rarely so. It is likely the word douloi is expunged from this context.

Negroes don't make good farmers, because of skin color. It has nothing to do with rap music. Now is that racist against the South then? Perhaps, but it isn't any less ironic.

[jordanriver]

some of you posters say "slavery" like its a bad thing.

....well

....ok, yeah, its bad if we're talking 'The Atlantic Slave Trade' (yeah, that one, the one that benefitted America, IOW, the slavery that is NOT BIBLICALLY JUSTIFIED


'The Atlantic Slave Trade' was based on KIDNAPPING, a Biblical NO NO.

In both the Old Testament and the New Testament:

Exocus 21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

and

1 Timothy 1:9-10
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

....Blame the slavers,

...don't blame The Bible that the slavers distorted and ignored verses that ruled against them.

[Roy]

I think those provisions were passed in a last ditch attempt to make slavery more palpable to the public and thus keep in going.

Two trifling problems with that idea. First, who's to say that the biblical laws on slave treatment weren't also attempts to make slavery palatable? Second, there are similar clauses in slave codes written more than a century earlier.

Here are some from South Carolina in 1740:

That if any Negro or other slave, who shall be employed in the lawful business or service of his master, owner, overseer, or other person having charge of such slave, shall be beaten, bruised, maimed or disabled by any person or persons not having sufficient cause or lawful authority for so doing, (of which cause the justices of the peace, respectively, may judge,) every person and persons so offending, shall, for every such offence, forfeit and pay the sum of forty shillings, current money, over and besides the damages hereinafter mentioned...

That if any person in this Province shall, on the Lord’s day, commonly called Sunday, employ any slave in any work or labour, (works of absolute necessity and the necessary occasions of the family one excepted,) every person in such case offending, shall forfeit the sum of five pounds, current money, for every slave they shall so work or labour...

And whereas, cruelty is not only highly unbecoming those who profess themselves Christians, but is odious in the eyes of all men who have any sense of virtue of humanity; therefore, to restrain and prevent barbarity being exercised towards slaves, Be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any person of persons whosoever, shall willfully murder his own slave, or the slave of any other person, every such person, shall, upon conviction thereof, forfeit and pay the sum of seven hundred pounds...

And in case any person or persons shall willfully cut out the tongue, put out the eye, castrate, or cruelly scald, burn, or deprive any slave of any limb or member, or shall inflict any other cruel punishment, other than by whipping or beating with a horse-whip, cow-skin, switch or small stick, or by putting irons on, or confining or imprisoning such slave, every such person shall, for every such offence, forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds...

That in case any person in this Province, who shall be owner, or shall have the care, government or charge of any slave or slaves, shall deny, neglect or refuse to allow such slave or slaves, under his or her charge, sufficient cloathing, covering or food, it shall and may be lawful for any person or persons, on behalf of such slave or slaves, to make complaint to the next neighboring justice, in the parish where such slave or slaves live or are usually employed...

That's a very long ditch.

Roy

[Roy]

'The Atlantic Slave Trade' was based on KIDNAPPING, a Biblical NO NO.

Not so. The slaves shipped across the Atlantic were purchased from African rulers.

This is all 100% consistent with biblical principles, which say nothing whatsoever about the ultimate source of slaves, only that "you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you". No provisions there about how they came to be for sale.

Also, you have neglected the main source of US slaves - the children of existing slaves. This is also 100% consistent with biblical law.

These attempts to defend slavery and other OT practices are by far the most disgusting aspect of apologetics. If you think biblical slavery is not a bad thing, sell your daughter to some-one who will beat her senseless.

Roy

[Darth Executor]

American south

...

District of Colombia

lawl

You're mixing up chattel slavery with indentured servitude (which was quite popular in the North and whose servants were often treated worse than actual slaves), when people refer to American slavery they usually mean the former.

[jordanriver]

Not so. The slaves shipped across the Atlantic were purchased from African rulers.

This is all 100% consistent with biblical principles, which say nothing whatsoever about the ultimate source of slaves, only that "you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you". No provisions there about how they came to be for sale.

Also, you have neglected the main source of US slaves - the children of existing slaves. This is also 100% consistent with biblical law.

These attempts to defend slavery and other OT practices are by far the most disgusting aspect of apologetics. If you think biblical slavery is not a bad thing, sell your daughter to some-one who will beat her senseless.

Roy

the daughters must have been willing, otherwise, holding them against their will would be "menstealing'

I will let Thomas Paine who's English is better than mine describe this (or whoever wrote this 1774-1775 essay for Pennsylvania Journal and the Weekly Advertiser.

(some sources claim Paine was not the author of the essay, but it likely was him, based on his staunch anti-slavery minority position among the Founding Fathers of America)

This source says he wrote it:

Source: American History From Revolution to Reconstruction

A Biography of Thomas Paine
Paine landed at Philadelphia on November 30, 1774. Starting over as a publicist, he first published his African Slavery in America, in the spring of 1775, criticizing slavery in America as being unjust and inhumane.
SOURCE

© Copyright Original Source

SO, here is the essay:

Source: Pennsylvania Journal and the Weekly Advertiser reprinted by Constitution Society

(The essay was written in 1774 and published March 8, 1775)
African Slavery In America
Thomas Paine

"..."They are set forth to us as slaves, and we buy them without farther inquiry, let the sellers see to it." Such man may as well join with a known band of robbers, buy their ill-got goods, and help on the trade; ignorance is no more pleadable in one case than the other; the sellers plainly own how they obtain them. But none can lawfully buy without evidence that they are not concurring with Men-Stealers; and as the true owner has a right to reclaim his goods that were stolen, and sold; so the slave, who is proper owner of his freedom, has a right to reclaim it, however often sold.

Most shocking of all is alledging the sacred scriptures to favour this wicked practice. One would have thought none but infidel cavillers would endeavour to make them appear contrary to the plain dictates of natural light, and the conscience, in a matter of common Justice and Humanity; which they cannot be. Such worthy men, as referred to before, judged otherways; Mr. Baxter declared, the Slave-Traders should be called Devils, rather than Christians; and that it is a heinous crime to buy them. But some say, "the practice was permitted to the Jews." To which may be replied,

1. The example of the Jews, in many things, may not be imitated by us; they had not only orders to cut off several nations altogether, but if they were obliged to war with others, and conquered them, to cut off every male; they were suffered to use polygamy and divorces, and other things utterly unlawful to us under clearer light.

2. The plea is, in a great measure, false; they had no permission to catch and enslave people who never injured them.

3. Such arguments ill become us, since the time of reformation came, under Gospel light. All distinctions of nations and privileges of one above others, are ceased; Christians are taught to account all men their neighbours; and love their neighbours as themselves; and do to all men as they would be done by; to do good to all men; and Man-stealing is ranked with enormous crimes. Is the barbarous enslaving our inoffensive neighbours, and treating them like wild beasts subdued by force, reconcilable with the Divine precepts! Is this doing to them as we would desire they should do to us? If they could carry off and enslave some thousands of us, would we think it just? — One would almost wish they could for once; it might convince more than reason, or the Bible.
SOURCE

© Copyright Original Source

...and THAT is my position also.

[Roy]

lawl

You're mixing up chattel slavery with indentured servitude (which was quite popular in the North and whose servants were often treated worse than actual slaves), when people refer to American slavery they usually mean the former.

[checks] No, I'm not.

Also, either you think South Carolina was not a Southern state, or you deliberately ignored my second example in order to raise a spurious objection.

Roy

[Roy]

...and THAT is my position also.

So your position is that slavery is not a bad thing, but also unjust and barberous; that the criticisms of Paine which are generic to all slavery don't apply to biblical slavery; and that biblical and American slavery are very different even though you can't actually cite any difference, and are uninformed about both.

Roy

[jordanriver]

So your position is that slavery is not a bad thing,

Roy

not too bad, as long as its not the slavery of America (the Atlantic Slave Trade)

I'm a slave, granted, conditions are better than during Biblical times, (probably because of modern conveniences to help with tasks) , and I don't have to wait 50 years to be freed from my masters (Visa, MasterCard, Sears, the Hospital), since I can file bankruptcy, but its still servitude. We can haggle over the details , but its still voluntary slavery, (I voluntarily agreed to be owned by Sears when I used their card to buy a washer and dryer which I would not otherwise have been able to acquire, Visa paid for my TV and now they own me , and MasterCard paid for this computer (or was it visa for the computer and mastercard for the TV, hmmm, not sure, since I have been sold from one credit card company to another time and again)

Some people voluntarily commit crimes and when they are captured, become slaves of the state. But that's on them. They did injury to their victims.

It wasn't a bad thing for Jacob, who got 2 wives out of the deal, granted, Laban tricked him for the first 7 years of VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE and he only got the sister of the one he really wanted, but he volunteered his freedom away to be Laban's servant (servitude, the Hebrew '`abodah '

even the Hebrews complained that they were better off as slaves of the Egyptians than starving in the wilderness

Exodus 14:12 12 Is not this the word that we did tell thee in Egypt, saying, Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians? For it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness.

Exodus 16:3 3 And the children of Israel said unto them, Would to God we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots, and when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger.

Numbers 11:4-5
4 And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?

5 We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick:

but also unjust and barberous; that the criticisms of Paine which are generic to all slavery don't apply to biblical slavery; and that biblical and American slavery are very different even though you can't actually cite any difference, and are uninformed about both.

generic?

did you not read Paine's essay, part 2 "
"2. The plea is, in a great measure, false; they had no permission to catch and enslave people who never injured them."

When did the Africans ever injure the American slaveowners? Did some African army invade the Colonies?

Did Bible-God order the American Christians to enslave the Africans? I don't remember reading that anywhere.

[fm93]

Which is another topic that you'll run into right away. Like putting blood in the water and not expecting sharks.

I'm a member of a racial minority in this country, so naturally race is a topic that interests me. And some people whom I particularly admire happen to be gay, so naturally gay rights is a topic that interests me as well. You act like this is deviant behavior, or as if Christians here don't post in most threads pertaining to Christianity.

[Bill the Cat]

This is also true of slavery in the American south.

For example, from the 1860 slave code of the District of Colombia:

That if any master or mistress of any servant whatsoever, or overseer by order or consent of any such master or mistress, shall deny, and not provide sufficient meat, drink, lodging and clothing, or shall unreasonably burden them beyond their strength with labour, or debar them of their necessary rest and sleep, or excessively beat and abuse them, or shall give them above ten lashes for any one offence, the same being sufficiently proved before the justices of the county courts, the said justices have hereby full power and authority for the first and second offence to levy such fines upon such offender as to them shall seem meet, not exceeding one thousand pounds of tobacco, to the use of his majesty, his heirs and successors, for the support of government, and for the third offence, to set such servant so wronged at liberty, and free from servitude

If you want to claim that biblical slavery was nothing like American slavery, you'll need to find a genuine difference between them.

Roy

The manuscript slave code for the District of Columbia is arranged by topic, listing relevant sections of Maryland and District of Columbia laws as well as the applicable court decisions. It is almost certainly a "practice book," produced within a law firm for the use of its attorneys and clerks, who could refer to it when drafting contracts and legal briefs.