(March 7, 2016 at 5:36 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:(March 7, 2016 at 5:30 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Ugh, I can't believe someone as smart as you is being this dense.
System #1: Slavery/Bondservant - Non-Israelite is owned, against his will, by an Israelite master, and may be willed (along with children) to the children of the master.
System #2: Indentured Servitude - An Israelite bonds himself to the service of another person, perhaps in exchange for repayment of debts.
The fact that there was a system by which a person could voluntarily (or under pressure of debt) sell himself into servitude does not mean that it's the only system, that the other system didn't exist, or that they're both basically the same thing. If you talk about the Indentured Servitude system (#2) one more time as a way of deflecting from the existence of System #1, slavery, I'm going to have to conclude you're being willfully ignorant, and are beyond help and reason.
And are you seriously proposing the people of ancient Israel had no currency?
Eleazar was from Damascus, he was not a Hebrew, yet he was Abraham's heir
Um, he was also Abraham's (illegitimate) son by one of his servants. So. Yeah.
(March 7, 2016 at 5:36 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Also Where did the Hebrews get currency from? they were nomads when they left Egypt with pretty much the clothes on their back.
Just humor me and offer a solution to the scenario I provided.
Well, to start with, they could have continued using some of the coins that they are supposed to have taken from Egypt when they left (Exodus 12:35-36), but that's neither here nor there since Exodus, in chapter 30, also mentions the sheckel as their currency.
So, I'm going to assume this was a test of my knowledge of the Pentateuch. In any case, the Torah also breaks down a specific set of rules regarding poverty levels and what may be offered for sacrifices, such as burning a few measures of gran instead of a small bird, if you can't afford the bird, or the bird if you can't afford the goat/sheep/etc. It's pretty clear they had a full economy.
(March 7, 2016 at 5:36 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: *edit*
I should also mention:
(March 7, 2016 at 5:30 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: System #1: Slavery/Bondservant - Non-Israelite is owned, against his will, by an Israelite master, and may be willed (along with children) to the children of the master.
just because YOU say so doesn't make it true.
"And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."
There are no exceptions to that law, therefore one could not take another person against their will.
No, you're right, it's not just because I say so. It's what the verses plainly say. You're bending over backward to ignore the numerous verses that talk about captives taken by the Israelites in war, and the plain wording of the passage.
As I just pointed out to you, the "stealeth a man" list is part of a series of commands that had to do with how to treat fellow Israelites. It does not make it a blanket prohibition, or else the captives taken by Israel and put to servitude (the numerous "take the women who have not yet known a man!" verses we point out to you endlessly, to be endlessly ignored, or worse, "justified"), only a law against kidnapping.
Most of the verses in Leviticus 25 mainly with indentured servitude, the type you're desperately trying to pretend is the only type, but 44-46 deal specifically with a different system, slavery/bondsmen, and it specifically spells out the difference, as in: You may do _(bad things, including heritable ownership, "with rigor")_ to these foreign people, but not to your fellow Israelites.
Seriously, take a fresh pair of eyes and explain to me what they could POSSIBLY have meant by the "but", at the end clause of verse 46. Here's the whole thing, in context:
System #1:
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: 41 And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. 42 For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen. 43 Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God.
System #2:
44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
Get it now?
[Emphasis in bold, as always, my own.]
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.