RE: Theistic morality
July 15, 2010 at 9:43 am
(This post was last modified: July 15, 2010 at 9:49 am by rjh4 is back.)
(July 14, 2010 at 4:49 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:(July 14, 2010 at 11:34 am)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: Exodus 21:20-21: 'If a slave owner takes a stick and beats his slave, whether male or female (well, at least there's sexual equality... how enlightened!), and the slave dies on the spot, the slave owner is to be punished (alright so far). But if the slave does not die for a day or two, the master is not to be punished. The loss of his property (note the masculine possessive pronoun) is punishment enough.' So it doesn't say they should be beaten, but its tone isn't exactly condemnatory of slave-beating, let alone slave-owning. This is taken from the Good News Bible, by the way. Other versions are slightly different, but the gist of the passage is the same.
It is instructions for the severity of beatings that can be dished out to slaves...
Oh, brother! Why not follow through on your thinking and conclude that the Bible says it is ok/better to beat a slave with a rock because even if he/she dies on the spot you won't be punished because the Bible says that you will only be punished if you beat the slave with a stick and he/she dies on the spot? That must mean that it is ok/better to use a rock instead of a stick, right?
Still, even if one looks at it from that point of view, I don't know how you conclude that the Bible says that a slave "should" be beaten and that was the issue I raised with respect to Chasm's comment.
(July 14, 2010 at 4:49 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: ... this means that a certain level of slave beating is acceptable.
Well at least we agree on something. I agree that the quote supports the idea that a certain level of slave beating was acceptable in the Mosaic law. What I find ironic is that we also live in a society that accepts a certain amount of unacceptable behavior. Some men beat their wives and get away with it without being punished. Do you then conclude that the laws of our society condones wife beating? Is reasonable for one to conclude that it is ok to beat your wife as long as you don't leave evidence that it was you? Do you conclude that our laws against certain things coupled with the requirement in the law for evidence should be taken as instructions on how to do something and get away with it? (The questions are not rhetorical. I really would like to know how you would answer them DBP.)
(July 14, 2010 at 5:07 pm)Paul the Human Wrote: DBP kind of messed the quote up, but his response is correct. The passage I quoted says that a "servant" (by which it means 'slave') will be severely punished. How do you think slaves were "severely punished"? Do you think they got grounded from their video games? Of course not... they were beaten.
"Will be" is not the same as "Should be". You are right about that. It is worse. Not only should slaves be beaten, but you are commanded to beat them... i.e. they will be beaten.
I take it you did not go back and read the passage in context as I suggested. That passage, in context, is not directing all slave owners to severely punish their slaves. Furthermore, the punishment talked about in this passage certainly appears to be for doing something worthy of punishment. The KJV of Luke 12:48 says "But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes". So it sounds to me like the punishment being talked about here is deserved, not punishment at the whim of the lord.
