(March 4, 2014 at 6:59 am)Huggy74 Wrote: I don't see how you can even begin to defend Bad Wolf's position my, signature says it all.

In The KJV of the bible the word "slave" is used only once, Meaning there is a distinction between the word "servant" and "slave". In my sig I was specifically referencing a "hired servant".

Bad Wolf replies with.."Don't play semantics with me. They were slaves."

Is this what that was all about? It was literally a servant you were talking about? That wasn't very clear. I just assumed that your bible had replaced the word 'slave' with the word 'servant' and were using that as an argument to say that slavery didn't exist in the bible (something you still haven't denied)
So what was the relevance of you bringing up servants? We were talking exclusively about slaves, nothing else. Why did you bring up servants?

---

Huggy wrote:

Quote:how is it immoral if you decide to sell yourself in to servitude? Please explain. Not giving someone the freedom of choice to do what the want with their life would be "immoral".

I wrote:
Because the slave owner is taking advantage of the slaves poor fortune. Why could he not pay them, you know, how everyone does today? A job? Where you aren't treated as property. Making people slaves was not the only fucking option.

Huggy wrote:

Quote:Leviticus 25
39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:
40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile.

So why did you literally start talking about servants? To confirm what I had said? That slavery was not the only option a poor person had? Why bring up servants at all?

(March 4, 2014 at 11:57 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 4, 2014 at 10:39 am)Huggy74 Wrote: who chooses to be a servant? I already gave an example:

Genesis 29
18 And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.
19 And Laban said, It is better that I give her to thee, than that I should give her to another man: abide with me.
20 And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her.

No slave trade.
As you can see Jacob willingly offered to become the servant of Rachel's father for seven years.

Ah, so because you can come up with a single example of equitable slavery, that means the rest were too.

exactly, unless you have some evidence that says otherwise.

(March 4, 2014 at 11:57 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 4, 2014 at 10:39 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Read again, the thing about law is you need to pay attention to how it is worded.

Yes, I know you can rip words out of context, I've already called you on that.

show me where I've taken anything out of context.

(March 4, 2014 at 11:57 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 4, 2014 at 10:39 am)Huggy74 Wrote: I've already educated you on how "possession" does not mean "property"

And you were wrong when you did. Because in context it's clear what it means, and besides, it says "A possession." Not "take possession," or "be in possession," but "a possession," as in, "a thing that is owned," as in, "property." You are just fucking wrong here.

from Wikipedia
"In law, possession is the control a person intentionally exercises toward a thing. In all cases, to possess something, a person must have an intention to possess it. A person may be in possession of some property (although possession does not always imply ownership)."


"Possession is a factual state of exercising control over an object, whether owning the object or not."

(March 4, 2014 at 11:57 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 4, 2014 at 10:39 am)Huggy74 Wrote: so if you look closely you see that it doesn't say "forever" it says "for ever". The word "for" is being used as a preposition.

Yes, and it's in a sentence that describes the process by which a slave owner may pass his slaves down to his children, a process without limitations, so that it can be done over and over again. What is that, other than forever?

Honestly, the fact that you have to twist this much to maintain a losing position is just sickening.

For seven years or until Jubile is hardly forever.

(March 4, 2014 at 11:57 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 4, 2014 at 10:39 am)Huggy74 Wrote: ev·er adverb \ˈe-vər\
: at any time
: at all times
: to a greater degree

In other words "at any and all times" until the year of Jubile when all bondsmen can go free.

And as we've established, this is not a moral system in any way, for many reasons.

so it's immoral because you say so?
What two consenting adults agree to is up to them, right?

(March 4, 2014 at 11:57 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 4, 2014 at 10:39 am)Huggy74 Wrote: How many times do i have to remind you that Jubile mandates all bondsmen be allowed to go free.

And how many times do I have to tell you that slavery for any length of time is immoral?

Again what two consenting adults agree to is between them.

Quote: Or that people didn't live fifty years back then?

Except I showed you that they lived a lot longer.

Quote:Or that there's no assurance that a person who owns slaves will even follow an old apocryphal law?

then he would be executed because he is forcing someone to be a servant against their will.

Quote:Or that there's a trick involved to keep them there forever?

There is no trick.

(March 4, 2014 at 11:57 am)Esquilax Wrote: Why do you keep dishonestly focusing on the single dim glimmer of light in this darkness, while ignoring every other point I make? Is it because you can't defend yourself against them, and are just hoping they'll go away?

So I'll ask it again: are you saying that a maximum of fifty years spent as the property of a person who can pass you down like an inheritance to his kids and doesn't pay you at all, moral?

First of all, possession not property. Second, you got paid because you had to sell yourself into servitude. Thirdly, if it was your choice to become a servant of your own free will, it sounds moral enough to me.

(March 4, 2014 at 11:57 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 4, 2014 at 10:39 am)Huggy74 Wrote: you do not have a passage that says they "CAN" be beaten, you have a passage that says what happens "IF" they are beaten.

I have a passage saying that there is no punishment for beating them, meaning there is no law against it.

Now who's being dishonest
this was your exact quote..

(March 4, 2014 at 11:57 am)Esquilax Wrote: And I still have the passage that says they can be beaten, you unbelievable moron.

you specifically said you can show where they can be beaten.
I'm still waiting on that passage btw.

(March 4, 2014 at 11:57 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 4, 2014 at 10:39 am)Huggy74 Wrote: actually it does
Exodus 21:4
If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself

Do you often find yourself in favor of passing out women like christmas gifts and not people, or is it just when defending your favorite book of nightmares?

really? The guardian of the woman has always been the one to "Give" her away. That tradition still goes on today, where the father gives his daughter away at the wedding.

(March 4, 2014 at 11:57 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 4, 2014 at 10:39 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Is it your stance that "Property" and "Possession" mean the same thing?

My stance is that "Possession" implies ownership, something that is supported entirely by the word's usage in the text. You seem to want it to be used in another sense, going against what the text describes, for no reason other than that reading the sentence like a normal, reasonable person would, would make you look bad for defending it.

And so, you lie about it.

It was a simple yes or no question like I posted from Wikipedia
"Possession is a factual state of exercising control over an object, whether owning the object or not."
it does not imply ownership

(March 4, 2014 at 11:57 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 4, 2014 at 10:39 am)Huggy74 Wrote: your views ARE irrelevant, executing a murderer is the epitome of justice.

whether or not the justice system is perfect is another matter

So my views are irrelevant, but your views aren't?

yes, how you "feel" is irrelevant compared to facts.

jus·tice noun \ˈjəs-təs\
: the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals

If a person murders someone, then it is fair for that person to lose their life also. would you agree?

Wow, complete denial:

Try these on for size:

Quote:However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

It clearly states, you own the slaves as property, passing them on as a permanent inheritance. Permanent in this case, means as long as the slave lives.

Quote:If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

What would you call this if not a trick. It clearly states that at the end of the 6th year, your fellow jew can go. But if you give him a wife, she stays with the slave owner. But if the slave wants to stay with his wife he must say I would rather not go free . Sounds really like a servant doesn't it? And then the master pierces the slaves ear and will belong to him forever

Quote:When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

And look how they treat women. You can sell your daughter as a sex slave. How respectful.

Quote:When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

And oh look. Here is the verse that informs you about beatings. Notice how it doesn't prohibit beating your slaves but in fact, encourages it as long as they don't die.

Quote:The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

And look at this gem from the new testament. Jesus obviously thinks beating slaves is ok. Beating them severely for knowingly not doing their 'duty' but only punishing them lightly when they aren't aware they are doing wrong! How considerate of Jesus!

(March 4, 2014 at 1:11 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote:

(March 4, 2014 at 6:59 am)Huggy74 Wrote: I don't see how you can even begin to defend Bad Wolf's position my, signature says it all.

In The KJV of the bible the word "slave" is used only once, Meaning there is a distinction between the word "servant" and "slave". In my sig I was specifically referencing a "hired servant".

Bad Wolf replies with.."Don't play semantics with me. They were slaves."

Is this what that was all about? It was literally a servant you were talking about? That wasn't very clear. I just assumed that your bible had replaced the word 'slave' with the word 'servant' and were using that as an argument to say that slavery didn't exist in the bible (something you still haven't denied)
So what was the relevance of you bringing up servants? We were talking exclusively about slaves, nothing else. Why did you bring up servants?

---

Huggy wrote:

Quote:how is it immoral if you decide to sell yourself in to servitude? Please explain. Not giving someone the freedom of choice to do what the want with their life would be "immoral".

I wrote:
Because the slave owner is taking advantage of the slaves poor fortune. Why could he not pay them, you know, how everyone does today? A job? Where you aren't treated as property. Making people slaves was not the only fucking option.

Huggy wrote:

Quote:Leviticus 25
39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:
40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile.

So why did you literally start talking about servants? To confirm what I had said? That slavery was not the only option a poor person had? Why bring up servants at all?

It's very clear...
paraphrasing.

I ask: how is it immoral if you decide, of your own free will, to yourself in to servitude?

you reply: "Because the slave owner is taking advantage of the slaves poor fortune. Why could he not pay them, you know, how everyone does today? A job? Where you aren't treated as property. Making people slaves was not the only fucking option."

I reply:
Leviticus 25
39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:
40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile.

then your response was: "Don't play semantics with me. They were slaves."

I don't know why I'm taking the time to try and explain something YOU wrote.

Oh and for everyone watching, I'm going to explain Huggy's underhanded attempt at discrediting me:

Quote:Huggy74: "But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee"

Bad Wolf: "Don't play semantics with me. They were slaves."

Huggy74 "except that the KJV doesn't use the word "slave""


Bad Wolf:"Is that all you are reduced to? Pathetic word games?"

Here, I thought he was literally talking about slaves, but his bible used the word 'servant'. Apparently it turns out he was really talking about servants, which was completely irrelevant at the time

Quote:Huggy74"they were paid a pittance."

What huggy has said here, was not about the 'servants' in the bible. Here he was talking about servants in the 17th century or Downton abbey, one of those.

Quote:Bad Wolf:"Its irrelevant how much they were paid. They were servants, not slaves."

So now my response makes sense.
Now you can appreciate the dishonesty of this particular theist. There is a strange trend between dishonest discussion tactics and theism, have you noticed?

Okay, I'm pretty much done here. Honestly, I've had it up to my fucking eyelids with this sophist asshattery that you seem intent on pulling, Huggy. I'm tired of arguments that boil down to nothing more than "the bible doesn't say the word slavery, therefore it wasn't!" Especially when reading the fucking passages would tell you some details that I'm sure were uncomfortable to you, which is probably why you ignore them.

Oh, and that's another thing; I'm tired of my overarching argument being ignored in favor of picking apart language or the minutia of some piffling apocryphal law, as if any of that excuses the fact that they were selling people like fucking pogs.

You wanna know why I think the majority of slaves weren't willing and happy to do it? Simple logic, for one: you're asking me to believe that a person with any other employment options would put themselves into a job they can't leave for no pay, that simply doesn't jive with human beings.

And also? Jesus kinda described an escaping slave in a parable he told once; seems the messiah can figure out that slaves might not want to be there, even if you can't... oh, won't, most probably, because you can find a single example of the opposite.

Funny how slavery was genuinely an awful thing when it was Pharaoh doing it to the Jews- you never see these asshole apologists arguing that that was okay- but the moment god's chosen people were free, you fucking termites just crawl out of the woodwork to defend the indefensible because gawd.

(March 4, 2014 at 1:39 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: It's very clear...
paraphrasing.

I ask: how is it immoral if you decide, of your own free will, to yourself in to servitude?

you reply: "Because the slave owner is taking advantage of the slaves poor fortune. Why could he not pay them, you know, how everyone does today? A job? Where you aren't treated as property. Making people slaves was not the only fucking option."

I reply:
Leviticus 25
39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:
40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile.

then your response was: "Don't play semantics with me. They were slaves."

I don't know why I'm taking the time to try and explain something YOU wrote.

You quite literally, didn't answer any of my questions

(March 4, 2014 at 10:39 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 4, 2014 at 7:12 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: Huggy, do you deny slavery exists and is condoned by YWH in the Bible?

I've explained my position many times in this thread.

That's funny...

So yes or no? Do you deny slavery exists and is condoned by YWH in the Bible? Really; it's a pretty simple question.

(March 4, 2014 at 1:40 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Okay, I'm pretty much done here. Honestly, I've had it up to my fucking eyelids with this sophist asshattery that you seem intent on pulling, Huggy. I'm tired of arguments that boil down to nothing more than "the bible doesn't say the word slavery, therefore it wasn't!" Especially when reading the fucking passages would tell you some details that I'm sure were uncomfortable to you, which is probably why you ignore them.

Oh, and that's another thing; I'm tired of my overarching argument being ignored in favor of picking apart language or the minutia of some piffling apocryphal law, as if any of that excuses the fact that they were selling people like fucking pogs.

You wanna know why I think the majority of slaves weren't willing and happy to do it? Simple logic, for one: you're asking me to believe that a person with any other employment options would put themselves into a job they can't leave for no pay, that simply doesn't jive with human beings.

And also? Jesus kinda described an escaping slave in a parable he told once; seems the messiah can figure out that slaves might not want to be there, even if you can't... oh, won't, most probably, because you can find a single example of the opposite.

Funny how slavery was genuinely an awful thing when it was Pharaoh doing it to the Jews- you never see these asshole apologists arguing that that was okay- but the moment god's chosen people were free, you fucking termites just crawl out of the woodwork to defend the indefensible because gawd.

Either provide a rebuttal to my post or don't.

Also you bring up a good point the very fact that the Hebrews had literally just come out of 400 years of slavery means they would be the ones most sympathetic to it, were talking basically serfdom here, either you were a rich land owner, tradesman, or a serf that worked the rich peoples land. That's how the world worked. There was no currency based system people dealt mostly in trades, in which labor is a tradable commodity. so how can you say what is moral when you have no idea what it took to survive back then.

(March 4, 2014 at 1:41 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: You quite literally, didn't answer any of my questions

already covered all that stuff, not about to rehash it just for your benefit, go back and read. By the way the last one is Jesus giving a "parable" not a real situation.

---

(March 4, 2014 at 2:36 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(March 4, 2014 at 10:39 am)Huggy74 Wrote: I've explained my position many times in this thread.

That's funny...

So yes or no? Do you deny slavery exists and is condoned by YWH in the Bible? Really; it's a pretty simple question.

Do I deny slavery exists and is condoned by YWH in the Bible?
Yes

(March 4, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: already covered all that stuff, not about to rehash it just for your benefit, go back and read.

No you have not. You haven't covered any of that stuff at all. All you have done is assert over and over and over again that because your version of the bible doesn't use the word 'slave', therefore they aren't slaves. You have refuted nothing at all. Just assertion after assertion after assertion.

(March 4, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: By the way the last one is Jesus giving a "parable" not a real situation.

It's irrelevant whether it happened or not, its what jesus thought about slaves.

(March 4, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Do I deny slavery exists and is condoned by YWH in the Bible?
Yes

Then we have nothing more to talk about. You have refuted absolutely nothing.