Slavery (on Thursdays)

[Huggy Bear]

you do realize Moses died at 120 years of age

No, he didn't, even if he did exist. And even if you were one hundred percent right, presenting a single outlier doesn't change the average.

Actually I was being conservative..

Genesis 5
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
11 And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
14 And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
17 And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.
20 And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.
23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
31 And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.
32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

yes, if you decided you wanted to be a slave of your own "free will" you'd be free to go in the year of Jubile.

Ah, but who chooses to be a slave? Really chooses, as opposed to being forced to participate in the slave trade system by destitution.

Also, you still haven't explained how this excuses the fact that there was a slave trade in the first place: how does this make owning another human being moral?

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.

are you serious?
you realize we are discussing the Law that Moses gave to the Hebrews right?

Yes, that's why you asked me for a bible quote in your last post.

that was in response to

Hebrew law? I'm talking about the fucking bible.

Look up the definition of "Property" and "Possession" . If you let me borrow a tool for instance it in in my possession but not my property. Get it? If someone sells themselves in to servitude then they come into their masters possession not property. because it is only for a limited time.

You are, literally, the most dishonest person to come along here in a while. Did you miss, perhaps, the end of the fucking bolded sentence? You know, where it says "they shall be your bondsmen forever"? Is forever a limited time, now?

Read again, the thing about law is you need to pay attention to how it is worded.

Leviticus 25:46
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.


I've already educated you on how "possession" does not mean "property"
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.

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.

More importantly, it's hilarious how you're still relying on sophistic tricks even after they've been pointed out and are blindingly obvious to everyone else. You accuse me of taking stuff out of context, and here you are focusing on a single word in the sentence, rather than the surrounding words and what they mean when put together. The last desperate gasp of someone in the wrong.

So if, as you've admitted, that it's possession if undertaken for a limited time, would you not have to admit that these people become property now that you see where the bible says they stay that way forever?

I mean, that is the argument you just used...

How many times do i have to remind you that Jubile mandates all bondsmen be allowed to go free.

no contradiction, you stated that servants were allowed to be beaten. I showed you where they weren't.

And I still have the passage that says they can be beaten, you unbelievable moron.

you do not have a passage that says they "CAN" be beaten, you have a passage that says what happens "IF" they are beaten.

we went over the whole "property vs possession" thing. there is nothing to imply anyone was forced, pure assumption. Why can't you assume that the servants fell in love and asked for permission to marry?

Because the bible verse specifically says "give them a wife"?

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

Oh, and your property vs possession bullcrap is invalid as per the premises of your own argument, not to mention the logic of an honest mind.

Is it your stance that "Property" and "Possession" mean the same thing?

your views are irrelevant.

Not when we're talking about what we feel constitutes justice.

your views ARE irrelevant, executing a murderer is the epitome of justice.

whether or not the justice system is perfect is another matter

Huggy, do you deny slavery exists and is condoned by YWH in the Bible?

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