Psalm 137:9

[Redbeard The Pink]

Sorry for the late reply had the biggest hurricane ever just roll over my house.. took some time to get the inter webs back

When I say slavery, I'm generally talking about owning other people as property while detaining/working them against their will. Let's deal with one issue at a time.

You mean like when a young mother of 4 has to works but hates her 3 jobs to support herself and her kids that she will never get to see?

Or do you mean like the woman who in ot times sold herself and family into slavery under a rich man who works 10 hours a day 6 days a week and exchange for her service she and her family needs are met with day to day needs and a small stipen for her extra good work?

I meant "owning other people as property while detaining/working them against their will." We're not discussing modern "wage slavery", and we're not discussing indentured servitude. We're talking about owning other humans. I don't see how I could make this any more clear.

"Society being built on" something doesn't make the thing good or acceptable, and being anti-slavery as a member of a late-stage-capitalist society where ethical consumerism is impossible doesn't make me a hypocrite.

Your half way there sport.. not only is it built it is currently maintained on the backs of modern day slaves. Meaning if you were to pul the slaves out of the system a great number of people could not afford to feed themselves. the 'system' would collapse back into calling a slave a slave. so to speak.

Owning other human beings as property is illegal according to international law. Do we still exploit workers in various ways around the world? Sure. Are illegal slave trades of various kinds still going on today, even in America? Of course.

What we don't have, by and large, is the large-scale, government-sanctioned owning and trafficking of other human beings as pieces of property to be bought, sold, and handed down to one's children. If you're saying that our extant problems with exploitation of people and labor are virtually the same as the problems we used to have with legal, systemic, chattel slavery, then I disagree, and I think you're being disingenuous.

Even if it did, you're still basically dodging the question. Is slavery immoral, or isn't it?

The word and work of slaver in neither a good or bad thing.

Wow. Tell that to some slaves. I fucking dare you.

It all depends on who is using slavery, for what purpose and how they treat the people enslaved to them.

According to the Bible, you can beat your slaves as long as they don't die for at least a day or two. What kind of treatment would you consider that to be if it were happening to you?

We all are slaves to one degree or another if we go by your definition.

Excuse me. No. We're all slaves if we go by YOUR definition, and I wish you would stop falsely equivocating it with mine. I'm talking about the kind of slavery where humans can own other human beings as property, meaning the people owned have no right to consent or bodily autonomy. You are talking about virtually any situation where someone has to do work they don't like, and that is not the same thing. Willingly doing work you hate is not the same thing as going to sleep with a purple face and a bleeding back because you are considered a farm animal.

so then all all forms bad?

YES!!! Is this really the conversation we're having?

what happens when you endenture yourself to a bank for 30 years for a home? 5 more for the newest car? 10 more for an "education?" Or do you simply think one does want to give the prime of one's life and the lion's share of it's effort over to a bank?

Oh my fucking god, dude...mortgages, car loans, and student loans are not slavery. I'm not normally one to say things like "Check your privelege," but seriously, dude. Come on. You cannot be equating having to pay bills to chattel slavery. That is fucking absurd.

Is that evil?

No more so than cutting out the middle man (Cash being the middle man) and calling a slave a slave. Cash is the illusion that makes you a slave feel free, when in fact most slaves to money work far harder than those who were called slaves in the OT

No, I'm pretty sure what makes me feel free is that I can live where I want, choose my job, and pursue my own interests without being beaten or killed for being an escapee. That's some serious crack-smoke you're blowing.

It doesn't really matter that this passage is from Psalms. The bible has no shortage of language like this in other books.

No it kinda does. It takes your argument that God is a blood thirsty monster who dashes babies against rocks, and re frames it to a slave "spiritual" singing about freedom and the opportunity to get back at their oppressors.

Hosea 13:14-15:

      [/b]Though he flourishes among the reeds,
            An east wind will come,
            The wind of the LORD coming up from the wilderness;
            And his fountain will become dry
            And his spring will be dried up;
            It will plunder his treasury of every precious article.

      [/b]Samaria will be held guilty,
            For she has rebelled against her God.
            They will fall by the sword,
            Their little ones will be dashed in pieces,
            And their pregnant women will be ripped open.


Numbers 31:16-18

[b]16[/b]“Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the LORD.[b]17[/b]“Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. [/b]“But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.


Deuteronomy 13:12-18

[b]12[/b]If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in [b]13[/b]that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), [b]14[/b]then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you,[b]15[/b]you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely,a both its people and its livestock. [b]16[/b]You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, [b]17[/b]and none of the condemned thingsb are to be found in your hands. Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger, will show you mercy, and will have compassion on you. He will increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your ancestors—[/b]because you obey the Lord your God by keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes.


Hosea 9: 11-16

[/b]Ephraim’s glory will fly away like a bird—
no birth, no pregnancy, no conception.
[/b]Even if they rear children,
I will bereave them of every one.
Woe to them
when I turn away from them!
[/b]I have seen Ephraim, like Tyre,
planted in a pleasant place.
But Ephraim will bring out
their children to the slayer.”

[/b]Give them, Lord—
what will you give them?
Give them wombs that miscarry
and breasts that are dry.

[/b]“Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal,
I hated them there.
Because of their sinful deeds,
I will drive them out of my house.
I will no longer love them;
all their leaders are rebellious.
[/b]Ephraim is blighted,
their root is withered,
they yield no fruit.
Even if they bear children,
I will slay their cherished offspring.”

Like I said. There is no shortage of language like this in your book. Your god is a blood-thirsty savage who loves animal and human sacrifice, and if you're really trying to say otherwise, you either haven't read your book, or you're once again being disingenuous. Furthermore...I'd like some citation of your context, please. How do you know that this psalm was about slaves wishing death on their oppressors?

What it shows to the intellectually honest is the level of dishonesty in those who tend to just skim the bible for negative words and attribute them to God. In other words people like you don't care what the bible really has to say. you form an opinion like:

It doesn't really matter that this passage is from Psalms. The bible has no shortage of language like this in other books.

and then you seek anything that half way supports what you already think..

Confirm you bias much?

If you can honestly read a book about a being who floods the world, smites cities, and commands wholesale genocide, and you still think that being is the source of all things good, then I'm not the one with a bias.

[Minimalist]

We're talking about owning other humans. I don't see how I could make this any more clear.

Dripshit is pretty dense.  YOu might need to use a jackhammer to get through to him.

[Huggy Bear]

I meant "owning other people as property while detaining/working them against their will." We're not discussing modern "wage slavery", and we're not discussing indentured servitude. We're talking about owning other humans. I don't see how I could make this any more clear.

*emphasis mine*

It was forbidden to force someone in to servitude against their will.

"Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession. - Exodus 21:16

According to the Bible, you can beat your slaves as long as they don't die for at least a day or two. What kind of treatment would you consider that to be if it were happening to you?

Do you guys just parrot the same scripture without any knowledge of the customs? So much for critical thought...

Murder was punishable by death, however manslaughter is not, if the servant died from the beating the same day, that was MURDER, if he died a few days later that shows the intent was not to kill him, therefore it was MANSLAUGHTER.

This does not mean you were off the hook for his death, it just meant that you weren't punished in an official capacity, however the victims family had the right to take justice for themselves (eye for an eye remember) unless you made it to a city of refuge first.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/blood-avenger

A person who is authorized by law, or who is duty-bound, to kill a murderer is called go'el ha-dam – usually translated as an avenger of blood, but more accurately to be rendered as a redeemer of blood (cf. Lev. 25:25; Ruth 3:12; I Kings 16:11). By putting the murderer to death (Num. 35:19, 21), the avenger expiates the blood shed on the polluted land (Num. 35:33). Originally private revenge was legitimate in Israel, as in other ancient civilizations, not only for homicide but also for mayhem (cf. Gen. 4:23–24) and rape (Gen. 34:25–26); and the restrictions on the avenger's rights and their legal regulation marked the beginnings of a system of criminal law (see B. Cohen in bibl.). It was stipulated that only murder with malice aforethought (Num. 35:20–21; Deut. 19:11–13) or committed with a murderous instrument (Num. 35:16–18; for further examples, see Maim., Yad, Roze'ah u-Shemirat Nefesh 6:6–9) gave rise to the avenger's right (see Mak. 12a, Sanh. 45b); the unintentional manslayer was entitled to refuge from the avenger (Num. 35:12, 15; Deut. 19:4–6) and was liable to be killed by him only when he prematurely left the city of refuge (Num. 35:26–28). It may be considered a concession to human nature that avenging was not wholly prohibited, but only restricted and regulated: the natural "hot anger" (Deut. 19:6) of the victim's next of kin is left at least some legal outlet.

*emphasis mine*

So please stop propagating the false narrative that one can beat his servant and as long as he doesn't die for a few days it's fine.

That's a bald faced lie.

“Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. - Matthew 24:45-49

In the above case i'd say the servant deserved his whuppin...

[Harry Nevis]

I meant "owning other people as property while detaining/working them against their will." We're not discussing modern "wage slavery", and we're not discussing indentured servitude. We're talking about owning other humans. I don't see how I could make this any more clear.

*emphasis mine*

It was forbidden to force someone in to servitude against their will.

"Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession. - Exodus 21:16

When do you get to the part about forcing servitude? Kidnapping is not the same.

[Huggy Bear]

*emphasis mine*

It was forbidden to force someone in to servitude against their will.

"Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession. - Exodus 21:16

When do you get to the part about forcing servitude? Kidnapping is not the same.

Yes it is...

Come on atheists, is this the best you got?

[Minimalist]

Yes it is...

No it isn't, dumbass.

Suppose you just kidnap a woman and rape the shit out of her.  According to your silly book you have to pay off her father.

[Huggy Bear]

Yes it is...

No it isn't, dumbass.

Suppose you just kidnap a woman and rape the shit out of her.  According to your silly book you have to pay off her father.

LoL

Kidnapping someone was punishable by death, whether or not you made them preform free labor is irrelevant...

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/blood-avenger

 

   A person who is authorized by law, or who is duty-bound, to kill a murderer is called go'el ha-dam – usually translated as an avenger of blood, but more accurately to be rendered as a redeemer of blood (cf. Lev. 25:25; Ruth 3:12; I Kings 16:11). By putting the murderer to death (Num. 35:19, 21), the avenger expiates the blood shed on the polluted land (Num. 35:33). Originally private revenge was legitimate in Israel, as in other ancient civilizations, not only for homicide but also for mayhem (cf. Gen. 4:23–24) and rape (Gen. 34:25–26); and the restrictions on the avenger's rights and their legal regulation marked the beginnings of a system of criminal law (see B. Cohen in bibl.). It was stipulated that only murder with malice aforethought (Num. 35:20–21; Deut. 19:11–13) or committed with a murderous instrument (Num. 35:16–18; for further examples, see Maim., Yad, Roze'ah u-Shemirat Nefesh 6:6–9) gave rise to the avenger's right (see Mak. 12a, Sanh. 45b); the unintentional manslayer was entitled to refuge from the avenger (Num. 35:12, 15; Deut. 19:4–6) and was liable to be killed by him only when he prematurely left the city of refuge (Num. 35:26–28). It may be considered a concession to human nature that avenging was not wholly prohibited, but only restricted and regulated: the natural "hot anger" (Deut. 19:6) of the victim's next of kin is left at least some legal outlet.

Did not one of king Davids sons kill his brother because he raped his sister?

Arguing the bible is definitely not one of your strong points... you shouldn't do it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Unless god told you to do it, obviously. The big man upstairs grants waivers for that sort of thing to his chosen people.

[Whateverist]

I interrupt this zombie thread for this gratuitous jab at the one who woke it.

Anyone else notice Godispoop's signature?  It reads:

There's certainly more evidence of historical Jesus than evolution.

100% true!!

Just got to say, only a xtian apologist would expect evidence for evolution to be found in our historical records.  Moron.

[Harry Nevis]

When do you get to the part about forcing servitude? Kidnapping is not the same.

Yes it is...

Come on atheists, is this the best you got?

And here I thought you were a dictionary fan.

I guess you're just a dick.

---

No it isn't, dumbass.

Suppose you just kidnap a woman and rape the shit out of her.  According to your silly book you have to pay off her father.

LoL

Kidnapping someone was punishable by death, whether or not you made them preform free labor is irrelevant...

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/blood-avenger

 

   A person who is authorized by law, or who is duty-bound, to kill a murderer is called go'el ha-dam – usually translated as an avenger of blood, but more accurately to be rendered as a redeemer of blood (cf. Lev. 25:25; Ruth 3:12; I Kings 16:11). By putting the murderer to death (Num. 35:19, 21), the avenger expiates the blood shed on the polluted land (Num. 35:33). Originally private revenge was legitimate in Israel, as in other ancient civilizations, not only for homicide but also for mayhem (cf. Gen. 4:23–24) and rape (Gen. 34:25–26); and the restrictions on the avenger's rights and their legal regulation marked the beginnings of a system of criminal law (see B. Cohen in bibl.). It was stipulated that only murder with malice aforethought (Num. 35:20–21; Deut. 19:11–13) or committed with a murderous instrument (Num. 35:16–18; for further examples, see Maim., Yad, Roze'ah u-Shemirat Nefesh 6:6–9) gave rise to the avenger's right (see Mak. 12a, Sanh. 45b); the unintentional manslayer was entitled to refuge from the avenger (Num. 35:12, 15; Deut. 19:4–6) and was liable to be killed by him only when he prematurely left the city of refuge (Num. 35:26–28). It may be considered a concession to human nature that avenging was not wholly prohibited, but only restricted and regulated: the natural "hot anger" (Deut. 19:6) of the victim's next of kin is left at least some legal outlet.

Did not one of king Davids sons kill his brother because he raped his sister?

Arguing the bible is definitely not one of your strong points... you shouldn't do it.

Nothing about servitude.  The Dick strikes again.