(March 23, 2018 at 5:03 pm)alpha male Wrote: I have to disagree that a wife is chattel. Why do you keep repeating the slavery angle after it's been debunked?

Not what you want to believe sure, BUT in REALITY BACK THEN females were viewed on par with goats and sheep and cows.

If you can find the number "18" anywhere in that book regarding females and sex, I will concede.

I agree a wife IS NOT CHATTEL but we are not talking about our modern view, but how men in antiquity viewed their roles and how men viewed females BACK THEN.

Slavery is forced servitude. Forced marriage is a form of slavery. DUET as you quoted earlier in this thread used the word "CAPTIVE". 

When you can prove that "captive" equates to consent we will concede.

And don't think the word "shall" is a loophole either. The "shall" in that verse is PATRIARCHAL, it has nothing to do with the consent, or concern or welfare of the female. The "shall" in that verse is giving power to the man, with absolutely NO consideration to the female.

God is giving power to MEN only. 

Now again, we don't buy one word of that old mythology as being relevant to today's modern understanding of biology or human psychology. WE ARE merely telling you the writers and consumers OF THAT BOOK FOR THAT TIME did that.

(March 23, 2018 at 5:03 pm)alpha male Wrote: I have to disagree that a wife is chattel. Why do you keep repeating the slavery angle after it's been debunked?

Have I ever seemed like the kind of person to humor the afflicted?  The idiocy of this entire line of argumentation from you..beyond the fact that it's just pointless, as if god almighty's signing off on something wasn't good enough for you when it so very clearly is...is that there's just so much shittiness going on I don't need any particular part of it to be true, anyway.

They engaged in genocide on pretext.  They killed the wives and children, males explicitly..but, presumably any ugly girl or girl that no one wanted, as well.  They took the pretty young girls.  There is nothing okay about -any- of that.  It's a fucking bronze age My Lai massacre...and the longer you defend it the more effectively you'll convince me that you utterly lack a moral compass. That is the only thing you could possibly convince me of with any of this...Alpha.

On top of all of that...-all- of that....wouldn;t it just be so easy to say "Yeah, no, god never signed off on that shit at all, that's just something they wrote in for him".........I mean fucking honestly man.............?

(March 23, 2018 at 6:18 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(March 23, 2018 at 5:03 pm)alpha male Wrote: I have to disagree that a wife is chattel. Why do you keep repeating the slavery angle after it's been debunked?

Have I ever seemed like the kind of person to humor the afflicted?  The idiocy of this entire line of argumentation from you..beyond the fact that it's just pointless, as if god almighty's signing off on something wasn't good enough for you when it so very clearly is...is that there's just so much shittiness going on I don't need any particular part of it to be true, anyway.

They engaged in genocide on pretext.  They killed the children, males explicitly..but, presumably any ugly girl or girl that no one wanted, as well.  They took the pretty young girls.  There is nothing okay about -any- of that.  It's a fucking bronze age My Lai massacre.

I agree, but again, to be fair, all of antiquity worldwide was like that for the most part.

Men in ALL of antiquity confused brawn as the only important aspect of life. That is why when you look at the history of EVERY religion, most of the god/s/spirit/deity heros are MALE. Add to that the mortality rate back then was far higher so it was far more important to tow the tribal line and the quicker females had babies the more members you that local tribe had.

I really am NOT singling out Christianity or Islam or Jews. EVEN today EVEN in Asia and India you have pockets of sects and or conservative societies or individual families that STILL value gender roles, not just here in America with Christians.

HUMANS didn't know shit back then and MEN didn't understand BACK THEN that females contributed half the genes. That is also why, even today WORLDWIDE, no matter the religion most of the time the female takes family name of the Male, not the female.

When you study enough of EVERY religion you see a pattern of the top hero being male, now while, especially in polytheism you do see female deities but they are never the TOP deity. 

Even with the term Queen worldwide no matter where, and China and India and Japan, not just Europe or Northern Africa, but EVERYWHERE, while it is possible in history for a female to take power as a head of state because of the death of the King, no matter what, the first in line is always the first born male. 

Property rights for females BACK THEN never existed outside the ruling class. BACK THEN AND WORLDWIDE property was passed down to the first born male.

UNLESS you were part of a ruling class BACK THEN females had very little say but mostly none at all.

Female rights are new to our species and really only a century old for the west.

If someone thinks that an order from god morally justifies slaughtering a whole town, then I assume such a person would have some sympathy for ISIS. At worst, they are just taking orders from the “wrong god”.

I would have thought that any real god would either make sure to clear up all this misunderstanding and tell everyone in the world that they would never order slaughter; or else they just enjoy seeing people kill each other.

(March 23, 2018 at 5:10 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

Quote:There were two words used for female slaves, which were “amah” and “shifhah”.[38] Based upon the uses in different texts, the words appear to have the same connotations and are used synonymously, namely that of being a sexual object, though the words themselves appear to be from different ethnic origins. Men assigned their female slaves the same level of dependence as they would a wife. Close levels of relationships could occur given the amount of dependence placed upon these women.[38] These slaves had two specific roles: a sexual use and companionship.[38] Their reproductive capacities were valued within their roles within the family. Marriage with these slaves was not unheard of or prohibited. In fact, it was a man’s concubine that was seen as the “other” and shunned from the family structure. These female slaves were treated more like women than slaves which may have resulted, according to some scholars, due to their sexual role, which was particularly to “breed” more slaves.[38] A father could sell his daughter into this life and she could be released within six years if she was not claimed by or assigned to another man.

Sexual slavery, or being sold to be a wife, was common in the ancient world. Throughout the Old Testament, the taking of multiple wives is recorded many times.[39][40] An Israelite father could sell his unmarried daughters into servitude, with the expectation or understanding that the master or his son could eventually marry her (as in Exodus 21:7-11.) It is understood by Jewish and Christian commentators that this referred to the sale of a daughter, who "is not arrived to the age of twelve years and a day, and this through poverty."[41]

And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.

— Exodus 21:7-11

(my emphasis)


What about these verses?

The passage shows that they weren't into sex with children. The scenario is of a poor family which needs money. If the daughter were of marriageable age (puberty), they would give her to a husband for the bride price. That they don't do such indicates that the girl was not yet old enough for marriage, and that the law drew this distinction. As your commentary says, An Israelite father could sell his unmarried daughters into servitude, with the expectation or understanding that the master or his son could eventually marry her (as in Exodus 21:7-11.) It is understood by Jewish and Christian commentators that this referred to the sale of a daughter, who "is not arrived to the age of twelve years and a day, and this through poverty."

Until of age, the girl was a slave, but not a sex slave as just explained. 

Once of age, either the man or one of his sons could marry her. At such time she became a wife with full rights, and was no longer a slave. Note that her rights were protected: "If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights." Interestingly, her marriage rights - i.e. her rights to sex from the husband - were protected. That's not a provision you would expect for a sex slave. "And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free." Again, that's not the right of a slave, this was the normal right of a wife.

The only way you can call this sex slavery is if you think of arranged marriages as sex slavery. Over 50% of marriages worldwide today are arranged.

---

(March 23, 2018 at 6:18 pm)Khemikal Wrote: They engaged in genocide on pretext.  

What's your evidence of that?

Because, you know, if it wasn't petext, and they engaged in genocide for good and godly reasons.........and killed all the mommies and daddys and brothers and big sisters and took the young pretty girls.....

So, you don't have any evidence, yet you refer to people who burned their own babies alive as good old wholesome mommies and daddies.

(March 24, 2018 at 9:29 am)alpha male Wrote: So, you don't have any evidence, yet you refer to people who burned their own babies alive as good old wholesome mommies and daddies.

What about their young male children? Are they to be penalized for something their parents did? Something over which they had no control?

(March 24, 2018 at 9:31 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: What about their young male children? Are they to be penalized for something their parents did? Something over which they had no control?

They were indentured servants. They got room and board for six years, then were freed and given goods to start out on their own.