Slavery (on Thursdays)

[Huggy Bear]

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.

Like I said you have an agenda, which is why you took the scripture out of context.

Exodus 21

18 And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:
19 If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.
20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

It Seems I have to spell it out for you. Verse 18 is talking about striking someone who isn't a servant, if he doesn't die then you owe him money for his time lost from work. if he strikes a servant and he "continues" meaning his injuries don't get any worse. then he isn't punished because the time the servant spent in recovery is already coming out of pocket.

what is the punishment if they die?
Exodus 21
12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
there is no difference if servant or not. So I very much doubt beating a servant was common practice. Ever heard the phrase "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? That would be one of the ten commandments.

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.

Ok, let's talk about Elisha
If you knew anything about the Bible you would know if God ever appoints a man as a Prophet he has to always back what the Prophet says. Which is why he told Moses he was a god (lowercase)
Exodus 7
7 And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh:
Moses ended up getting into trouble when God told him to speak to a rock to provide water for the Hebrews, but he lost his temper because of all the complaining and struck the rock(which represents Jesus being pierced and the water flowing from the wound), the water still flowed but Moses was not allowed to enter the promised land because of what he did.

In Elisha's case he lost his temper because of the teasing and abused is power, clearly in the wrong. Nothing to do with God.

Or how about King David getting another mans wife pregnant and then trying to cover it up, eventually having the husband sent to the front lines of a battle hoping he would die. God had David anointed as king and David abused the power and was subsequently punished for it.

All it means is that they are human. Think about it, if you had the power to kill someone with a word how high would your body count be?

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.

All I asked was for him to state his sources, otherwise he should't be commenting out of his posterior. You have a problem with that?