Psalm 137:9

[Redbeard The Pink]

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

Ummm...that's an admonition against kidnapping, not forcing people into servitude. Hence:

Leviticus 25:44-46

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

As long as slaves were bought and paid for via "legitimate" means, they were basically oxen. They had practically no rights unless they were Jewish, and even Jewish slaves could be kept forever if they didn't want to leave their families behind. The bible is pro-slavery. Your gymnastics are unimpressive.

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.

Oh really? What's this then?

Exodus 21:18-20

18 “When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but takes to his bed, 19 then if the man rises again and walks outdoors with his staff, he who struck him shall be clear; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed.

20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

So, to be clear, voluntary manslaughter of one's slaves is not to be avenged because those slaves are literal property. What was that about knowledge of customs?

“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...

The fact that you're defending this is so ironic that I'm pretty sure I can't actually point it out because doing so would make me racist.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

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

So if  guy did the crime in a city of refuge could he stay in the same city without getting busted or would he have to escape to another city of refuge?

[Minimalist]

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

No.  That is just another silly story written centuries later, dumbass.

[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

Ummm...that's an admonition against kidnapping, not forcing people into servitude. Hence:

Leviticus 25:44-46

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Look dummy, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt because you're clearly ignorant of scripture, now you're just crossed all the way in to stupid territory.

Taking someone against their will IS kidnapping, what you do with the person afterwards DOESN'T NEGATE THAT FACT.

The Bible is clear, the penalty for kidnapping is death.

That being said, what did I tell you guys about bible translations? Stick to the KJV because there is a lot of nuance to how it uses words as compared to later translations.

Leviticus 25:44-46King James Version (KJV)

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
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.

"Heathen" and "nation" do not mean the same thing, but more importantly, "possession" and "property" are not the same (as your version conflates the two), Just because something is in ones possession doesn't mean it's their property. If I let you borrow a tool, that tool comes into your possession but is NOT your property... got it?

What the bible is describing IS NOT CHATTEL SLAVERY, it is indentured servitude which was entered into on a completely voluntary basis, it was quite common for one to sell themselves into servitude.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery

Voluntary slavery (or self-sale) is the condition of slavery entered into at a point of voluntary consent. In ancient times, this was a common way for impoverished people to provide subsistence for themselves or their family and provision was made for this in law. For example, the code of Hammurabi stated that "besides being able to borrow on personal security, an individual might sell himself or a family member into slavery". In medieval Russia, self-sale was the main source of slaves.

In ancient times, one of the most direct ways to become a Roman or Greek citizen was by means of a self-sale contract. The laws surrounding Roman and Greek manumission made it quite possible for such erstwhile slaves to then become citizens or near-citizens themselves.

As long as slaves were bought and paid for via "legitimate" means, they were basically oxen. They had practically no rights unless they were Jewish, and even Jewish slaves could be kept forever if they didn't want to leave their families behind. The bible is pro-slavery. Your gymnastics are unimpressive.

Again, another bald faced lie...

How do you explain this then?

Leviticus 25
10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.

sounds like a "right" to me...

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

*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.

Oh really? What's this then?

Exodus 21:18-20

18 “When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but takes to his bed, 19 then if the man rises again and walks outdoors with his staff, he who struck him shall be clear; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed.

20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

So, to be clear, voluntary manslaughter of one's slaves is not to be avenged because those slaves are literal property. What was that about knowledge of customs?

I already addressed this, are you seriously going to double down? If he survives a day you two and DOESN'T DIE he is not to be avenged... if he dies, it is the right of the family to take revenge, no if's, ands, or butts.

In the first example if you injured someone who wasn't a servant, you were responsible for his care and paid for his loss of time.

If you permanently injured your servant, he was allowed to go free, you didn't give him money BECAUSE YOU ALREADY PAID HIM FOR HIS TIME WHEN HE SOLD HIMSELF TO YOU.

Exodus 21
26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.
27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.

Either way, you lost money.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hey, revolutionary idea...maybe the lord of the cosmos should have just told them to knock out all the slaving..and maybe told them to do some slaving a little less himself? Then you wouldn't have to twist your scrotum into knots making excuses for it today..and those slaves wouldn't have had to play the crippled servant lottery to get out from under their owners.

For a god that can see the future, the lack of foresight is astounding.

[Chad32]

He is never more than slightly enlightened than contemporary beliefs. Probably because even the most forward thinking writers of the time didn't consider complete equal rights plausible.

[Huggy Bear]

Hey, revolutionary idea...maybe the lord of the cosmos should have just told them to knock out all the slaving..and maybe told them to do some slaving a little less himself? Then you wouldn't have to twist your scrotum into knots making excuses for it today..and those slaves wouldn't have had to play the crippled servant lottery to get out from under their owners.

For a god that can see the future, the lack of foresight is astounding.

So it's your opinion that one shouldn't have the right to do what they want with their own person?

[Minimalist]

You want to be a slave?

Jesusism is for you!

[The Grand Nudger]

Hey, revolutionary idea...maybe the lord of the cosmos should have just told them to knock out all the slaving..and maybe told them to do some slaving a little less himself? Then you wouldn't have to twist your scrotum into knots making excuses for it today..and those slaves wouldn't have had to play the crippled servant lottery to get out from under their owners.

For a god that can see the future, the lack of foresight is astounding.

So it's your opinion that one shouldn't have the right to do what they want with their own person?

I think it's cute that you're hoping to use some comment about one's personal freedom to argue for slavery.  Your slaver sympathies are noted, but irrelevant, since it's -clearly- gods position that people don't have the right to do whatever they want with their own person anyway.

Next.

[Huggy Bear]

It was a yes or no question, answer it... or are you going to be your usual coward self and resort to deflection?