Sure like being killed with a sword ordered by god, or being killed by fire from the sky, or being killed by a bear.
Just because it is not the worst death does not mean it is not immoral. He could have just poofed them out of existence.
Precisely, so that is the reason why this cannot be used to justify the American slave trade!
I'm going to take your severe lack in response of post #479 as a concession to all provided counterpoints. As you stated in post #472, you may want to catch up to the rest of us, whom speak about the topic of 'Slavery, a Guide". When you feel you have caught up, please engage, if you should still disagree with what others are saying here.
And now to address your one response below.
Virtually any slave trade can be justified, using the Bible. The Bible speaks about two distinct sects of slaves. The Israelites, and then all the rest.
You can start by simply reading Lev. 25:44-46:
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."
Pay close attention to the part(s) in red. The provided guide tells it's readers that the Jewish slaves are treated differently from all the other sanctioned slaves, which were kept for life.
Of course not, because they did. Even now we have certain protections that apply to women that don't apply to men - maternity leave, for example.And no one evens asks if the woman needs or wants protection.
Actually not. if you read the whole chapter instead of just skipping to the bits that treat slaves, you would see a typical Hebrew writing style: parallelism.Yet, it never says to not beat a slave. It also does say how to commit violence against a slave without losing your life. That is the point of the passage. It instructs how to beat your slave properly so the master has no consequences.
Not necessarily. Look at Deuteronomy 15:12+. A repetition of the same laws, but here specifically it includes women. So Hebrew slaves could get their freedom, regardless of sex. The keeping of the mother might well be all about her completing her term as a servant.Ok, now I understand. If they are a Hebrew male they can voluntarily commit to being a slave to pay a debt. I agree to that. But if you are a hebrew female for example your father could sell you into slavery for a price, against your will Ex21:1.
Looking through the thread to see what others have said, I've come across this.This is a big issue for me and one I had when I was a christian. God does not want me in heaven, he wants the perfect me, the sinless me. Which is not me at all. It is like telling my kid that I will only love you if you never screw up. God does not love believers he loves the perfect believers.
Yes, but the woman does not have to take the leave if she does not want to. No one is forcing a woman to take maternity leave.Of course not, because they did. Even now we have certain protections that apply to women that don't apply to men - maternity leave, for example.
If all women wanted protection as you say then why not make it their choice? Why is giving women a choice a bad thing? Surely some women would not want the "protection".Had you lived in those times, I think you would have found that pretty much every woman wanted some form of protection, whether a young mother or an older woman who could be cast off in favour of a younger model, or a widow need to be fed and looked after.
Yet the man in this situation has the choice.One might equally say no one even asks if the man should or wants to provide protection. Sometimes what ought to be, doesn't actually need that much articulating.
Actually not. if you read the whole chapter instead of just skipping to the bits that treat slaves, you would see a typical Hebrew writing style: parallelism.
So Ex 21:18: If men fight, and one strikes his neighbour with a stone or with his fist and he does not die, but must remain in in bed, and then if he gets up and walks about outside on his staff, then the one who struck him is innocent, except he must pay for the injured person's loss of time and see to it that hi is fully healed.
Followed immediately by "If a man strikes his male servant...."
So Fred who has a temper gets into a fight with his neighbour and his servant. He beats both and makes both bedridden for a short time:
- His neighbour he has to pay for this loss of livelihood for those few days - the neighbour cannot be out of pocket.
- His servant has no loss of livelihood as Fred is already paying for him during those few days, but now gets no service for his money.
Assuming that the neighbour and the servant both are worth X during the disability period, then Normally Fred would be paying X for X service (from the servant), but now he is paying 2X for zero service.
Fred really needs to sort out his temper!
So saying you can have no consequence for beating your slave is actually a law against beating them but saying "do not beat your slaves" is meaningless? I think this is just an example of explaining away what the text says. God could have been really clear about what He is saying here. These verses have been used to support slavery. Why would God allow this to be misused is such a terrible way?Additional: I hope you can see that this law IS a law against beating your servant in the same way as the previous law is a law against attacking your neighbour. Saying "do not attack your neighbour/servant" is somewhat meaningless, since a) there is no inherent consequence for this; and b) it won't stop people doing it (as we know from laws in every land and time).
This is for Hebrew men and women only. Verse 12. Not all slaves.Not necessarily. Look at Deuteronomy 15:12+. A repetition of the same laws, but here specifically it includes women. So Hebrew slaves could get their freedom, regardless of sex. The keeping of the mother might well be all about her completing her term as a servant.
And yet she has no choice in the matter.The verse you reference is awkward, but 'selling' a daughter into servitude is all about setting her up for life - No husband and costing money, she would be better off with someone else who CAN afford to look after her and make proper use of her(!)
Why is it wrong to ask the woman what they want in the situation?I said elsewhere that much of the treatment of women was about making sure that they were protected and looked after and this doesn't seem that much different, unless you look at it through 21st century lenses.
Yes, but the woman does not have to take the leave if she does not want to. No one is forcing a woman to take maternity leave.
If all women wanted protection as you say then why not make it their choice? Why is giving women a choice a bad thing? Surely some women would not want the "protection".
Yet the man in this situation has the choice.
When my kids screw up I still want to be around them and be with them. God won't be with us if we sin. He sends us to hell because we are not perfect. I would never do that to my child no matter what they do, because I really do love them.Looking through the thread to see what others have said, I've come across this.
I feel sorry that this is the impression you got from your experiences of church. The reality is that God loves us despite our imperfections.
For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.... but God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:6,8
A parent can love their child even when the screw up, but that does not mean that they are happy with such a screw up!
Then let us apply the same reasoning to the preceding verses.So saying you can have no consequence for beating your slave is actually a law against beating them but saying "do not beat your slaves" is meaningless? I think this is just an example of explaining away what the text says. God could have been really clear about what He is saying here. These verses have been used to support slavery. Why would God allow this to be misused is such a terrible way?
Yes it is for Hebrews only, but then that is what the early passages of Exodus are dealing with. These passages can justify 'slavery' in Hebrew terms for Hebrew people, but not for anyone else. At best they can be a guide for treating anyone who serves you with honesty and integrity.This is for Hebrew men and women only. Verse 12. Not all slaves.
And yet she has no choice in the matter.
Why is it wrong to ask the woman what they want in the situation?
Actually that is not true of the Christian message. If your kids screw up and they don't want to be around you, you still do what you can to bring them back to a relationship with you. There may come a time, however when you know that nothing you can do or say will make the slightest bit of difference - they are intent on their own goals, no matter how self-destructive they are.When my kids screw up I still want to be around them and be with them. God won't be with us if we sin. He sends us to hell because we are not perfect. I would never do that to my child no matter what they do, because I really do love them.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with why I don't believe. I don't believe because of the lack of good evidence.
It's true, but I was dealing with Hebrew slaves in my commentary, not any other type. Though there are still differences - principally any slave could gain his (or her freedom) by buying it, but converting to Judaism and waiting out the 6 years and slaves weren't treated as property in the sense that American slaves were. The latter had no way out except to escape and to hope for someone sympathetic to help them.
This passage was exclusive to the Jews. Why does God provide special instructions for one sect of people, based upon attributes humans cannot even control? Seems God favors some over others.
Again, this law was written exclusively for the Jews alone. All others were not to ever go free.
I noticed you skipped passage 7?
“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do."
Why is that?
Women, whom were still living with their fathers, because they were not yet married, had virtually no rights of their own. Heck, they virtually had no rights either way, (married or single). They might as well have been "slaves" regardless. Consent was issued by a male, whether it be the father, the husband, or other.
The above passage states that you may beat your slave(s), as long as they do not die. The passages also reassure the reader that the slave is the master's property.
As stated above, Verse 16 is not speaking about slavesVerses 12-19 are speaking about other situations. It's not until you get to Verse 20 that the Bible singles out the "slaves".
I guess this is why masters would beat their slaves from the back side. This way, you cannot knock out their eyes or teeth. Furthermore, a blind slave is likely a worthless slave.
If you are born into slavery, you are a slave for life (ala Scripture). If you are not an Israelite, you are a slave for life (again in Scripture). If you are a female, you are also slave for life. According to Chapter and Verse, a master is able to purchase slaves from a foreign land, provided they were born into slavery.
I'd imagine it was good business practices to bread your slaves. This way, these offspring are yours for life. You also do not have to buy them. And to boot, this method is Bible approved.
I thought I'd said somewhere at the beginning that initially I was dealing exclusively with Hebrew slaves, so apologies for the misconception.
What attributes are there that humans cannot control?
Of course God favours some - he made a covenant with the descendants of Abraham for goodness sake. They were a chosen people.
I've covered it elsewhere - See Deuteronomy 15:12 where the freedom of female slaves is also guaranteed. However culturally the woman needed to be supported and should not be allowed freedom if that entailed no protection.
I agree - but this was the cultural norm, whether in the Hebrew tribes, or the Canaanites or the other Near Eastern nations. Rights or not, they certainly had better protection (at least in theory) than in other nations.
I prefer the NET, "... for he has suffered the loss", but the principle is the same either way and it is the same principle as that already stated for 'neighbour', i.e. compensation for inability to work. The neighbour gets compensated financially because he is unable to work. The master of the 'slave' gets compensated also because his servant is unable to work, but as he is the one compensating, he is also the one suffering the loss - net effect is no direct financial loss, but there is the loss of a worker unable to work for a few days. See post 487 for an example of how this works
It is the same principle at work both times. If you injure someone, you pay for their livelihood, whether it is a neighbour (pay them directly) or a slave (pay with loss income from that slave). And I think you are mistaken about beating on the back side. These laws were administered by Judges who I think had a lot more common sense than the average skeptic!
Not entirely true. I'll concede the non-Hebrew slave situation for the moment as I haven't got as far as looking into that, but for Hebrews, male and female, nothing is binding and there were ways out (see the reference to Deuteronomy above). There is also provision for slaves to escape cruel masters, though at the moment I'm not sure where I read that - I'm still working my way through Exodus with side trips elsewhere.
In this instance you are right, but possibly not in the way you think. Having multiple children has always been a survival tactic, less so now because we have dealt with many of the causes of infant and child mortality. In my lifetime we were still measuring infant mortality in the West, though I think that has now more or less ceased.
You are right about not having to buy them, but you do have to look after them, ensure they are fed and protected and when they reached adulthood they had all the rights of all other Hebrew slaves - namely they could just leave at the end of their term without incurring any debt (or leave beforehand by incurring some kind of debt).
Odds are if you were a male and had a good master you would stick around, however (even if not forever). If you were female and couldn't find a suitable husband then having some master to look after you was just as good a prospect.
And theoretically, whoever was your master, they had to look after you for life - even when you could no longer bear children. Not necessarily a good investment, then (which is probably why there are rules for looking after widows and orphans).
it seems to me that this is all a matter of perspective. The mere fact that Hebrews had multiple ways of getting out of their service makes this a totally different prospect to American slavery, where the only option was escape.
Or maybe I start beating them once they become too old to work any longer, until they 'escape'.
My point here is that if you are born into slavery, you have no choice. You ARE a slave for life. Appealing to Stockholm syndrome makes it okay?
The slave's offspring could then be sold for profit, ala Leviticus 25:44-46. Or, they could stay with them for more free labor. If they do not produce, beat them until they leave. Or, maybe knock out one of their teeth so they MUST go free.
You see how the loopholes are written?
And again, you could pretty much only possibly opt out if you initially opted inOtherwise, you are a slave for life.
I don't think you understand what I, or Torah, is teaching on this subject.
Any law where there is consequences for your actions is not some kind of tacit agreement that it is ok to do it - on the contrary it is pointing out that you are skating on thin ice.
Maybe you are just a cynic
knocking out a tooth just so that they can get rid of a slave: glass half empty, eh? There are much less violent and cheaper ways of doing this - just let them go free.
I don't doubt there would have been some who tried to make use of such a loophole, but bear in mind this was not a set of laws with no judgement for failing to live up to them. At the end there is a God judging both slave and master equally.
It is clear that Israelites took this seriously much of the time and when they didn't outside nations invaded and took them captive.
Hebrew slaves could choose to leave any time (provided they pay for the remainder of their service) and the master could let them leave any time also (suffering the loss of service and also providing for them, according to Deuteronomy).
Those born into slavery were slaves only until they became adults and responsible for themselves. They could then opt out as per all Hebrew slaves (Deuteronomy again). So they served as children... but really that means they were looked after, fed and taught as all Hebrew children were
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?