Slavery (on Thursdays)

[Esquilax]

Show me where Bible instructs anyone to beat their servant?

"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)"

So, you can beat them, that's cool with god. And, incidentally, since I know you're going to try and reduce this by talking about "oh, you can't beat them to death!" as if that makes violent assault okay, do you know how hard you have to beat someone to make them die a few days later? It's still pretty fucking hard, and it's still murder.

I can show you where it is recommended that you use the "rod" on your kids. But oddly enough, I don't hear any atheist complaining about the Bible supporting child abuse, why? Because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Or because you haven't been fucking paying attention: there are plenty of posts here in the past of atheists pointing out not only that passage, but also the one where you're supposed to stone unruly children to death, or the one where god sends bears to kill children, and making sure our position on biblical child abuse is clear.

We've had whole threads on the Elisha situation, so you're just factually wrong here.

Propagandists have an agenda.

Yours is to make the bible look good, no matter what you have to do to get there.

They use words/pictures in a way to get the masses to react emotionally. This is why every "Atheist" that has posted a scripture from the Bible uses the "New Living Translation" which was published in 1996. So why this version over the many other translations? Because it fits your agenda.

You know, I went and looked at your standard king james translation, to see if there was any substantial difference. Aside from calling the slaves "bondsmen," there isn't. You still buy them from other tribes, you still pass them onto your children, and you still can beat them so that they die, just not right away.

Aside from using a happier word for the practice, which I already showed is merely a smoke screen to cover an atrocity, the content is exactly the same. So, clearly, there's no agenda here; I am accurately reflecting the practices of the book, I'm just not willing to lie to make them sound okay, like you are.

You see the word "slave" which doesn't appear in the King James Version (published in 1611) has much more negative implications than the word "servant" which automatically make us think of the american slave trade, which would have been illegal according to the Bible, since you could not kidnap and/or force someone into servitude.

A slave by any other name, motherfucker. Like I said, you can call them whatever you like, but in practice, it's still slavery. Beatings, forced work, sexual slavery for the girls, and getting passed along like property. I don't care if you decide to call it "blowjob ninja action squad," it's still the fucking slave trade.

And you might not be able to force someone into servitude, but it says to buy your slaves from other tribes, who don't follow those rules. You aren't going to weasel out of this one.

I am both black, and from the south (Mississippi). But I'll still give you the benefit of the doubt and request that you post your sources. Because I can find plenty of sources that would contradict your ridiculous statement.

Are you also hard of understanding? Because Rahul specifically said leading up to the civil war.