Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Does God approve of mistreating slaves?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Does God approve of mistreating slaves?

    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

    I'm delighted to bear your scorn. Certainly reforms are needed, but I am an unabashed proponent of the principle of reciprocal justice demonstrated in the laws God gave in Scripture.
    Our laws are not dependent on your God's immoral laws (which also included allowing slavery and allowing slave owners to brutally beat their slaves as long as the slaves didn't die right away and survived a day or two).

  • #2
    Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
    Our laws are not dependent on your God's immoral laws (which also included allowing slavery and allowing slave owners to brutally beat their slaves as long as the slaves didn't die right away and survived a day or two).
    Oh, for crying out loud. There are times I think you're too smart to be an atheist, and then you say something staggeringly ignorant like the above and I'm forced to reconsider.

    First of all, slavery as practiced by ancient Israel wasn't chattel slavery but indentured servitude. A person could work for a patron for a limited time for the purposes of paying off debt or raising his stock in society, and after his obligation was fulfilled, he would be freed.

    And, no, the Bible does not say that a slave could be brutally beaten. On the contrary, the Law said if a slave was even so much as injured then he would be immediately freed. Here's the relevant passage:

    Scripture Verse: Exodus 21:20-21

    When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

    © Copyright Original Source


    So, if a man kills a slave under his charge then his own life is forfeit, just the same as if he killed a non-slave. But a lot of idiot atheists say, "Ah ha! But if the slave doesn't die until the third day, then the owner can get away with murder!" Well, no. The word translated as "survives" is the Hebrew word "amad" which generally means having the strength to stand firmly.

    Basically, if the slave is fully recovered after "a day or two" then no punishment is administered to the owner because the loss of productivity while the slave was laid up is considered sufficient (this is what is meant by "the slave is his money").

    Let's keep reading:

    Scripture Verse: Exodus 21:26-27

    When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.

    © Copyright Original Source


    So here we see if the slave sustains even a minor injury, he is immediately freed. Idiot atheists usually respond to this by saying, "Duh, so the owner just has to make sure he doesn't hurt the slave's eye or knock out a tooth, and then he's free to beat him within an inch of his life!" Well, no. This is what's known as case law. What it's saying, essentially, is that if a slave is beaten and sustains any kind of injury in the process -- which would include deep bruises, lacerations, dislocations, broken bones, etc., basically, any injury from which the slave would not fully recover after a day or two -- then the owner's claim to the slave is forfeit, and the slave is set free.

    Beatings in the Old Testament were typically a rod across the back which would not cause any lasting injury. Anything more severe than that was strictly prohibited under the Law.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Oh, for crying out loud. There are times I think you're too smart to be an atheist, and then you say something staggeringly ignorant like the above and I'm forced to reconsider.

      First of all, slavery as practiced by ancient Israel wasn't chattel slavery but indentured servitude. A person could work for a patron for a limited time for the purposes of paying off debt or raising his stock in society, and after his obligation was fulfilled, he would be freed.

      And, no, the Bible does not say that a slave could be brutally beaten. On the contrary, the Law said if a slave was even so much as injured then he would be immediately freed. Here's the relevant passage:

      Scripture Verse: Exodus 21:20-21

      When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

      © Copyright Original Source


      So, if a man kills a slave under his charge then his own life is forfeit, just the same as if he killed a non-slave. But a lot of idiot atheists say, "Ah ha! But if the slave doesn't die until the third day, then the owner can get away with murder!" Well, no. The word translated as "survives" is the Hebrew word "amad" which generally means having the strength to stand firmly.

      Basically, if the slave is fully recovered after "a day or two" then no punishment is administered to the owner because the loss of productivity while the slave was laid up is considered sufficient (this is what is meant by "the slave is his money").

      Let's keep reading:

      Scripture Verse: Exodus 21:26-27

      When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.

      © Copyright Original Source


      So here we see if the slave sustains even a minor injury, he is immediately freed. Idiot atheists usually respond to this by saying, "Duh, so the owner just has to make sure he doesn't hurt the slave's eye or knock out a tooth, and then he's free to beat him within an inch of his life!" Well, no. This is what's known as case law. What it's saying, essentially, is that if a slave is beaten and sustains any kind of injury in the process -- which would include deep bruises, lacerations, dislocations, broken bones, etc., basically, any injury from which the slave would not fully recover after a day or two -- then the owner's claim to the slave is forfeit, and the slave is set free.

      Beatings in the Old Testament were typically a rod across the back which would not cause any lasting injury. Anything more severe than that was strictly prohibited under the Law.
      Slavery is slavery, my dude (and BTW the 'oh it's not the bad slavery' you're referring to is for Hebrew slaves/indentured servants, not the slaves they took from Canaan, and elsewhere who were not Hebrew etc., which was quite a different and even worse system indistinguishable from recent slavery, wherin the non-hebrew slave could be kept as a slave for life and even passed down to children as property - Leviticus 25:45-46 - so spare me the 'oh it wasn't the same' BS).

      And honestly, its embarrassing watching you stumble over yourself and your bible trying to justify it literally allowing brutal abuse of slaves, and trying to downplay it as not as bad. Sometimes I think you're too smart to be a Christian and then I see something so staggeringly embarassing a display of brainwashing tribalism like this and I have to reconsider.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

        Slavery is slavery, my dude (and BTW the 'oh it's not the bad slavery' you're referring to is for Hebrew slaves/indentured servants, not the slaves they took from Canaan, and elsewhere who were not Hebrew etc., which was quite a different and even worse system indistinguishable from recent slavery, wherin the non-hebrew slave could be kept as a slave for life and even passed down to children as property - Leviticus 25:45-46 - so spare me the 'oh it wasn't the same' BS).

        And honestly, its embarrassing watching you stumble over yourself and your bible trying to justify it literally allowing brutal abuse of slaves, and trying to downplay it as not as bad. Sometimes I think you're too smart to be a Christian and then I see something so staggeringly embarassing a display of brainwashing tribalism like this and I have to reconsider.
        Look, "my dude", before rushing ahead to debate other points, at least have the intellectual integrity to concede that you blew it with your "slave owners [could] brutally beat their slaves as long as the slaves didn't die right away" nonsense. And given how badly you botched your interpretation of Exodus 21, I would suggest you have good reason to reevaluate your understanding of other passages like Leviticus 25.
        Last edited by Mountain Man; 05-09-2021, 02:44 PM.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

          Look, "my dude", before rushing ahead to debate other points,
          I'll debate whatever I like.

          at least have the intellectual integrity to concede that you blew it with your "slave owners [could] brutally beat their slaves as long as the slaves didn't die right away" nonsense.
          There was nothing in my statement that was false. That you interpret the verse in another way is on you. Amad means 'endures'/'abides', and nothing about it indicates the person need live beyond those few days.

          But hey, if "oh it just means he can beat the **** out of his slave as long as he doesn't die, it doesn't mean it's okay if the slave dies a few days later, so it's cool" is the hill you want to die on, that's fine by me.

          And given how badly you botched your interpretation of Exodus 21, I would suggest you have good reason to reevaluate your understanding of other passages like Leviticus 25.
          Yes, let's look at Leviticus and have you tell us the alternative interpretation that you've come up with to justify to yourself the outrageously immoral laws of your deity, and tell us the alternative interpretation in which something saying 'for life' and 'property' is magically different than chattel slavery. Enlighten us.

          Redemption of Bondmen

          39If a countryman among you becomes destitute and sells himself to you, then you must not force him into slave labor. 40Let him stay with you as a hired worker or temporary resident; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41Then he and his children are to be released, and he may return to his clan and to the property of his fathers.

          42Because the Israelites are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt, they are not to be sold as slaves. 43You are not to rule over them harshly, but you shall fear your God.

          44Your menservants and maidservants shall come from the nations around you, from whom you may purchase them. 45You may also purchase them from the foreigners residing among you or their clans living among you who are born in your land. These may become your property. 46You may leave them to your sons after you to inherit as property; you can make them slaves for life. But as for your brothers, the Israelites, no man may rule harshly over his brother.
          Last edited by Gondwanaland; 05-09-2021, 04:11 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
            There was nothing in my statement that was false.
            On the contrary, your interpretation of Exodus 21 is demonstrably false. There's really no saving it. There is no reasonable way to reconcile your interpretation of verses 20 and 21 with verses 26 and 27. It's absurd to think that one servant could be beaten so severely that he died within a week, and the master of the house would face no repercussions, while another servant who simply had a tooth dislodged would be immediately set free.

            Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
            Yes, let's look at Leviticus and have you tell us the alternative interpretation that you've come up with to justify to yourself the outrageously immoral laws of your deity, and tell us the alternative interpretation in which something saying 'for life' and 'property' is magically different than chattel slavery. Enlighten us.
            Consider that there is nothing in Leviticus 25 that would suggest involuntary servitude. That's simply you reading into the text. In fact, kidnapping was punishable by death under Israelite law.

            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

            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              Oh, for crying out loud. There are times I think you're too smart to be an atheist, and then you say something staggeringly ignorant like the above and I'm forced to reconsider.

              First of all, slavery as practiced by ancient Israel wasn't chattel slavery but indentured servitude. A person could work for a patron for a limited time for the purposes of paying off debt or raising his stock in society, and after his obligation was fulfilled, he would be freed.
              Leviticus 25:44
              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.

              That's chattel slavery, not indentured servitude.
              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

              mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

              Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
              Mountain Man on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

              Sparko: Even the deists like Jefferson believed in the Christian God, ...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                On the contrary, your interpretation of Exodus 21 is demonstrably false. There's really no saving it. There is no reasonable way to reconcile your interpretation of verses 20 and 21 with verses 26 and 27. It's absurd to think that one servant could be beaten so severely that he died within a week, and the master of the house would face no repercussions, while another servant who simply had a tooth dislodged would be immediately set free.
                Yes, I understand, you have a different interpretation and will not accept any others. That's fine. Go ahead and keep defending your deity being fine with brutally beating someone, whether your interpretation is the correct one or mine is. That reflects on you, not me. (ps I ejoy watching you literally use euphemisms like 'servant' to avoid admitting they were SLAVES. The brainwashing really took.)

                Consider that there is nothing in Leviticus 25 that would suggest involuntary servitude.
                It literally says you can purchase your forever slaves from foreigners who own them. What is voluntary about that?

                That's simply you reading into the text. In fact, kidnapping was punishable by death under Israelite law.
                and they got around that by instead purchasing the person who already is a slave. No need to kidnap what you can buy. No different than the Americans who bought black slaves from Muslim slave merchants, who got them by either kidnapping them themselves, or paying other Africans to kidnap their own people (or their enemies, etc.). Literally zero difference.

                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

                Chattel slavery is chattel slavery. If you want to defend your deity for his approval of chattel slavery, go ahead. But don't try to pretend that purchasing slaves from foreigners, and them becoming 'property' (that can be passed down to your children!) and 'for life' magically somehow means indentured servitude (as if indentured servitude is even a good thing - hint, it's not).

                "In chattel slavery, the enslaved person is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner. In economics, the term de facto slavery describes the conditions of unfree labour and forced labour that most slaves endure."
                Last edited by Gondwanaland; 05-10-2021, 10:51 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Roy View Post
                  Leviticus 25:44
                  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.

                  That's chattel slavery, not indentured servitude.
                  I think he may be beyond reason on this one, sadly. They literally match the exact definition of chattel slavery and he's still denying it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    Oh, for crying out loud. There are times I think you're too smart to be an atheist, and then you say something staggeringly ignorant like the above and I'm forced to reconsider.

                    First of all, slavery as practiced by ancient Israel wasn't chattel slavery but indentured servitude. A person could work for a patron for a limited time for the purposes of paying off debt or raising his stock in society, and after his obligation was fulfilled, he would be freed.

                    And, no, the Bible does not say that a slave could be brutally beaten. On the contrary, the Law said if a slave was even so much as injured then he would be immediately freed. Here's the relevant passage:

                    Scripture Verse: Exodus 21:20-21

                    When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

                    © Copyright Original Source


                    So, if a man kills a slave under his charge then his own life is forfeit, just the same as if he killed a non-slave. But a lot of idiot atheists say, "Ah ha! But if the slave doesn't die until the third day, then the owner can get away with murder!" Well, no. The word translated as "survives" is the Hebrew word "amad" which generally means having the strength to stand firmly.

                    Basically, if the slave is fully recovered after "a day or two" then no punishment is administered to the owner because the loss of productivity while the slave was laid up is considered sufficient (this is what is meant by "the slave is his money").

                    Let's keep reading:

                    Scripture Verse: Exodus 21:26-27

                    When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.

                    © Copyright Original Source


                    So here we see if the slave sustains even a minor injury, he is immediately freed. Idiot atheists usually respond to this by saying, "Duh, so the owner just has to make sure he doesn't hurt the slave's eye or knock out a tooth, and then he's free to beat him within an inch of his life!" Well, no. This is what's known as case law. What it's saying, essentially, is that if a slave is beaten and sustains any kind of injury in the process -- which would include deep bruises, lacerations, dislocations, broken bones, etc., basically, any injury from which the slave would not fully recover after a day or two -- then the owner's claim to the slave is forfeit, and the slave is set free.

                    Beatings in the Old Testament were typically a rod across the back which would not cause any lasting injury. Anything more severe than that was strictly prohibited under the Law.
                    Such a good and concise explanation of the relevant scriptures thank you for putting me straight. Sincerely Gondwanaland.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Esther View Post

                      Such a good and concise explanation of the relevant scriptures thank you for putting me straight. Sincerely Gondwanaland.
                      You're a riot.

                      Except he claimed that they didn't practice chattel slavery. Yet the scriptures say otherwise:

                      Leviticus 25:44

                      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.


                      That's LITERALLY THE DEFINITION of chattel slavery.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
                        It literally says you can purchase your forever slaves from foreigners who own them.
                        Again, where does it say that they are being forced into servitude against their will, especially since that would incur the death penalty against the perpetrator? Furthermore, Old Testament law guaranteed safe harbor to any servant who sought refuge from a cruel master.

                        Scripture Verse: Deuteronomy 23

                        You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.

                        © Copyright Original Source


                        So let's review: according to the Old Testament, you could not force someone or purchase someone who had been forced into servitude against their will, and doing so was punishable by death; you could not viciously beat a servant, and inflicting any injury from which they could not quickly recover would result in their immediate freedom; and finally, if an escaped servant sought refuge for any reason, he was to be granted it.

                        No, you're right, that totally sounds like chattel slavery.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                          Again, where does it say that they are being forced into servitude against their will, especially since that would incur the death penalty against the perpetrator? Furthermore, Old Testament law guaranteed safe harbor to any servant who sought refuge from a cruel master.

                          Scripture Verse: Deuteronomy 23

                          You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.

                          © Copyright Original Source


                          So let's review: according to the Old Testament, you could not force someone or purchase someone who had been forced into servitude against their will, and doing so was punishable by death; you could not viciously beat a servant, and inflicting any injury from which they could not quickly recover would result in their immediate freedom; and finally, if an escaped servant sought refuge for any reason, he was to be granted it.

                          No, you're right, that totally sounds like chattel slavery.
                          Okay, if you're going to just selectively quotemine out after I spent the time to respond to you, I think we're done here. You're welcome to continue to defend your deity's support for chattel slavery in which people are bought from other people, held as slaves for life, and treated and considered as property, and continue to try to pretend that it magically isn't chattel slavery even though it's literally the definition of chattel slavery. You can also continue to defend your deity's allowing brutal beatings of said slaves. If you aren't willing to debate honestly, without quotemining, then I say goodbye to you, just as I do H_A when she starts doing that.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
                            Yes, I understand, you have a different interpretation and will not accept any others. That's fine. Go ahead and keep defending your deity being fine with brutally beating someone, whether your interpretation is the correct one or mine is. That reflects on you, not me. (ps I ejoy watching you literally use euphemisms like 'servant' to avoid admitting they were SLAVES. The brainwashing really took.)
                            It literally says you can purchase your forever slaves from foreigners who own them. What is voluntary about that?

                            and they got around that by instead purchasing the person who already is a slave. No need to kidnap what you can buy. No different than the Americans who bought black slaves from Muslim slave merchants, who got them by either kidnapping them themselves, or paying other Africans to kidnap their own people (or their enemies, etc.). Literally zero difference.


                            Chattel slavery is chattel slavery. If you want to defend your deity for his approval of chattel slavery, go ahead. But don't try to pretend that purchasing slaves from foreigners, and them becoming 'property' (that can be passed down to your children!) and 'for life' magically somehow means indentured servitude (as if indentured servitude is even a good thing - hint, it's not).

                            "In chattel slavery, the enslaved person is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner. In economics, the term de facto slavery describes the conditions of unfree labour and forced labour that most slaves endure."
                            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.

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              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.
                              Not really. If he was tolerating he would not be laying out how to go about getting your slaves to keep for life and treat as property. He literally approved of it and laid down guidelines of how to go about it and that you are allowed to brutally beat them as long as they survive (a few days, in some interpretations that MM doesn't like)

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by lee_merrill, 06-03-2021, 11:57 AM
                              1 response
                              38 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Christian3  
                              Started by Machinist, 05-26-2021, 10:52 AM
                              97 responses
                              522 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Stoic
                              by Stoic
                               
                              Started by seer, 05-12-2021, 05:35 AM
                              553 responses
                              3,461 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Tassman
                              by Tassman
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-09-2021, 09:43 AM
                              21 responses
                              189 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-09-2021, 09:34 AM
                              144 responses
                              1,079 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X