Slavery (on Thursdays)

[rexbeccarox]

No... I'm pretty sure I'm right. "Coxie"? That's a new one... :p

[Esquilax]

what context makes it okay? Let put this in a modern context so we can form a better picture.

Let's say that there is a homeless guy standing on the side of a road holding a sign.. "Will work for food". And in this scenario, lets say a farmer who needs a farmhand approaches the Guy and inquires about why he's down on his luck. The homeless guy replies that he lost his home in the housing bubble crash, and between that and credit cards he is about $140,000 in debt. So the farmer offers him a deal\contract to pay off his debt + free room and board, to come work at his farm for the next 7 years. you somehow find that immoral? sounds win win to me.

You are entirely too dishonest to continue this with: as I've already pointed out to you, that seven year minimum was for Jewish slaves only. Anyone else can be enslaved forever, passed down as property, and so on. I'm so tired of this sloppy little bait and switch bullshit, where you only ever talk about one while avoiding the other entirely.

Besides, we should probably amend your example anyway, because the farmer conspicuously seems to have forgotten to mention how the homeless guy would be his property for those seven years, how he's allowed to beat him, and how he can trick him into staying by giving him a wife that the farmer also owns.

Jesus, there is so much wrong with how you choose to defend these passages that there's no way you aren't just lying your ass off.

Matthew 19:
(KJV)
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

The same as every hypocritical rule ever made: "Don't do X thing. Oh, except Y and Z variants, because those don't count."

Actually that is exactly what you implied.

I can't be sure that if I had that particular power that I wouldn't abuse it, and I'm the one that believes that I'd have to eventually answer for my actions. You on the other hand have no such belief, and yet you could say with absolute certainty...

"Zero, because I'm not a sociopath, unlike your god"

Makes you either "perfect" or the one that's being dishonest.

Or, and try to follow me on this, I know it's hard to consider, but I could just have this thing called a "conscience," and a little bit of "empathy," that makes me not want to inflict suffering on anyone else. More importantly, I guess we live totally different lives, because I can't think of anyone around me that I'd actually want to kill.

Don't project your own moral failings onto me and then call me a liar when I refuse to sink to your level.

[Huggy Bear]

I can see the confusion here. It's a misunderstanding. I think what Wolfie is trying to say is that "slave" and "servant" mean different things, but just because the bible uses the word "servant" (which I'm not convinced of, but I don't have time to do the research right now, so I'll use it for the sake of argument), doesn't make the people in those positions any less slaves. There are many verses in the Bible which, at the very least, condone slavery- not servitude. Bad Wolf was trying to point out to you, Huggy, that, in the case of the bible, the word "servant" is a misnomer, and the word game started when you started trying to fit the definition of "slave" into the word "servant".

I don't see how you can even begin to defend Bad Wolf's position my, signature says it all.

In The KJV of the bible the word "slave" is used only once, Meaning there is a distinction between the word "servant" and "slave". In my sig I was specifically referencing a "hired servant".

Bad Wolf replies with.."Don't play semantics with me. They were slaves."

How can a paid servant be a slave? I also mention that the word "slave" isn't used in the KJV Bible. He replies with...

"Is that all you are reduced to? Pathetic word games?"

His position is that "servant" and "slave" mean the same thing. But yet to my quote "they were paid a pittance." he replies with..

"Its irrelevant how much they were paid. They were servants, not slaves."

So, slaves and servants mean the same thing.. except in cases when they don't? Fine, maybe it was a mistake, correct it and move on. But no no, he can't admit he was wrong, but instead comes back and doubles down.

What I did, wasn't playing semantics at all. You were literally calling servants, slaves.....
You were completely denying slavery in the bible because your bible uses the word 'servant' instead of the word 'slave'. Despite all the verses that demonstrate that they were in fact slaves. That is playing semantics. Calling you out on your bullshit, isn't playing semantics. Servant and Slave have different meanings. Learn them.

Servant and Slave have different meanings except in the Bible, is the point I guess he's trying to make, except that the word "slave" appears once in the KJV Bible meaning they aren't the same.

You are entirely too dishonest to continue this with: as I've already pointed out to you, that seven year minimum was for Jewish slaves only. Anyone else can be enslaved forever, passed down as property, and so on.

Did you not read where I posted that everyone that was in bondage could go free no matter what nationality, in the year of Jubile, which which was every 50 years. Which means you could be a servant for as little as 1 year.

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

I'm so tired of this sloppy little bait and switch bullshit, where you only ever talk about one while avoiding the other entirely.

Besides, we should probably amend your example anyway, because the farmer conspicuously seems to have forgotten to mention how the homeless guy would be his property for those seven years,

I already showed you a quote from a Jewish website, which has more knowledge of Hebrew law than I do, which states:

"In Hebrew law, the slave was not a thing, but a human being; he was not the chattel of a master who had unlimited power over him."

Show me in the King James Version of the Bible where it states that a servant/slave is property.

how he's allowed to beat him,

another quote from the website..

"Brutal treatment of any slave, whether Hebrew or heathen, secures his immediate liberty."

also some scripture...
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.

please explain how this condones beating your servant?

and how he can trick him into staying by giving him a wife that the farmer also owns.

You do realize they had to pay a dowry in those days to get married right? for instance, Jacob had to work 7 years apiece for the father of his two wives in order to marry them. So he could leave, just not if wife (if the wife was provided my the master). She would be free to go on Jubile.

Jesus, there is so much wrong with how you choose to defend these passages that there's no way you aren't just lying your ass off.

Matthew 19:
(KJV)
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

The same as every hypocritical rule ever made: "Don't do X thing. Oh, except Y and Z variants, because those don't count."

killing someone in cold blood is murder, executing the murderer is called justice. understand the difference?

Or, and try to follow me on this, I know it's hard to consider, but I could just have this thing called a "conscience," and a little bit of "empathy," that makes me not want to inflict suffering on anyone else. More importantly, I guess we live totally different lives, because I can't think of anyone around me that I'd actually want to kill.

Don't project your own moral failings onto me and then call me a liar when I refuse to sink to your level.

I'll give you an example. when 9-11 happened I can't think of anyone who wouldn't want to kill Osama Bin Laden. My whole point was that in a moment of anger or losing your temper, if you had the power to kill with a word, how big would your body count be? the "honest" answer is at the very least "I don't know", not "zero"

That is why, you sir, are the pinnacle of righteousness.

[rexbeccarox]

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

[Esquilax]

Did you not read where I posted that everyone that was in bondage could go free no matter what nationality, in the year of Jubile, which which was every 50 years. Which means you could be a servant for as little as 1 year.

I see, and that's your excuse? For starters, the life expectancy back then was less than fifty years, so as just an odds game, most foreign slaves would die without ever even seeing this happen. Secondly, the idea that they might be freed after one year doesn't mean they all, most, or even some of them were. You're attempting to excuse slavery because they could go free once every fifty years? Really?

I already showed you a quote from a Jewish website, which has more knowledge of Hebrew law than I do, which states:

"In Hebrew law, the slave was not a thing, but a human being; he was not the chattel of a master who had unlimited power over him."

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

Show me in the King James Version of the Bible where it states that a servant/slave is property.

Okay, but I think it's interesting that you don't already know this:

"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.
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.
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."

You kinda fucked up, there. That's the whole verse though, so no whining about context, and if you try to play if off by referring to the last sentence, I'll have to tell you again that that's restricted to the Jews only.

another quote from the website..

"Brutal treatment of any slave, whether Hebrew or heathen, secures his immediate liberty."

also some scripture...
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.

please explain how this condones beating your servant?

Oh cool, you found a contradiction in the bible! That certainly doesn't mean the other passages I've shown you no longer exist, though.

aYou do realize they had to pay a dowry in those days to get married right? for instance, Jacob had to work 7 years apiece for the father of his two wives in order to marry them. So he could leave, just not if wife (if the wife was provided my the master). She would be free to go on Jubile.

Oh okay, so it's fine to own women and give them away as forced brides, because it costs a lot of money.

killing someone in cold blood is murder, executing the murderer is called justice. understand the difference?

Too bad you're talking to someone who's against the death penalty.

I'll give you an example. when 9-11 happened I can't think of anyone who wouldn't want to kill Osama Bin Laden. My whole point was that in a moment of anger or losing your temper, if you had the power to kill with a word, how big would your body count be? the "honest" answer is at the very least "I don't know", not "zero"

That is why, you sir, are the pinnacle of righteousness.

Oh, fuck off, strawman, How the fuck would you even know that I get angry enough to want to harm someone? I've got fucking impulse control, genius; if I really got angry enough that I wanted to hurt someone I could do that now, without magical powers. Somehow, I manage not to.

It's only hard for you, because you seem determined to see everyone else as just as immoral and reprobate as you yourself.

[Huggy Bear]

Did you not read where I posted that everyone that was in bondage could go free no matter what nationality, in the year of Jubile, which which was every 50 years. Which means you could be a servant for as little as 1 year.

I see, and that's your excuse? For starters, the life expectancy back then was less than fifty years, so as just an odds game, most foreign slaves would die without ever even seeing this happen.

you do realize Moses died at 120 years of age

Secondly, the idea that they might be freed after one year doesn't mean they all, most, or even some of them were. You're attempting to excuse slavery because they could go free once every fifty years? Really?

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.

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

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

Okay, but I think it's interesting that you don't already know this:

"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.
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.
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."

You kinda fucked up, there. That's the whole verse though, so no whining about context, and if you try to play if off by referring to the last sentence, I'll have to tell you again that that's restricted to the Jews only.

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.

Oh cool, you found a contradiction in the bible! That certainly doesn't mean the other passages I've shown you no longer exist, though.

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

Oh okay, so it's fine to own women and give them away as forced brides, because it costs a lot of money.

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?

Too bad you're talking to someone who's against the death penalty.

your views are irrelevant.

Oh, fuck off, strawman, How the fuck would you even know that I get angry enough to want to harm someone? I've got fucking impulse control, genius;

Seeing how you can't have a simple debate without resorting to expletives, leads me to believe you have no impulse control.

if I really got angry enough that I wanted to hurt someone I could do that now, without magical powers. Somehow, I manage not to.

The reason you manage not to, is that you realize that realize there are consequences for doing so, unlike insulting someone over the internet, which provides you with the anonymity to say what you normally wouldn't say to someone face to face.

So if you had "magical powers" you would abuse them since the consequences no longer apply to you like they do everyone else, hence "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" . But YOU claim that you would never abuse that power and therefore you'd be the one exception. therefore making you the "pinnacle of righteousness"

It's only hard for you, because you seem determined to see everyone else as just as immoral and reprobate as you yourself.

No, I can be honest.

[Esquilax]

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.

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?

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.

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?

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...

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.

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"?

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.

your views are irrelevant.

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

Seeing how you can't have a simple debate without resorting to expletives, leads me to believe you have no impulse control.

Buddy, I'm motherfucking Australian. We swear every other goddamn sentence, they're just words, after all. Nothing to be afraid of.

The reason you manage not to, is that you realize that realize there are consequences for doing so, unlike insulting someone over the internet, which provides you with the anonymity to say what you normally wouldn't say to someone face to face.

Oh, I'd say all this to your face, wanker.

So if you had "magical powers" you would abuse them since the consequences no longer apply to you like they do everyone else, hence "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" . But YOU claim that you would never abuse that power and therefore you'd be the one exception. therefore making you the "pinnacle of righteousness"

Or alternately, you're a silly bitch clinging to an old idiom rather than looking at actual humans. What reason do I have to take any well worn phrase you use seriously, considering you live in a bizarre world where words can be picked out of sentences and made to mean something other than the sentences they reside in imply? You do horrible things to language in this thread, and then expect anyone to bother with your idioms?

No, I can be honest.

So can I, and merely presupposing that I'm lying because it's convenient to you doesn't make it so. You can't demonstrate shit, so you're left with just making it up.

[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.

[Esquilax]

Actually I was being conservative..

Yes, and that is why I'm entirely skeptical of the bible when it comes to claims of people's ages. People have never lived that long.

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.

Ah, so because you can come up with a single example of equitable slavery, that means the rest were too.

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

Yes, I know you can rip words out of context, I've already called you on that.

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

And you were wrong when you did. Because in context it's clear what it means, and besides, it says "A possession." Not "take possession," or "be in possession," but "a possession," as in, "a thing that is owned," as in, "property." You are just fucking wrong here.

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.

Yes, and it's in a sentence that describes the process by which a slave owner may pass his slaves down to his children, a process without limitations, so that it can be done over and over again. What is that, other than forever?

Honestly, the fact that you have to twist this much to maintain a losing position is just sickening.

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.

And as we've established, this is not a moral system in any way, for many reasons.

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

And how many times do I have to tell you that slavery for any length of time is immoral? Or that people didn't live fifty years back then? Or that there's no assurance that a person who owns slaves will even follow an old apocryphal law? Or that there's a trick involved to keep them there forever?

Why do you keep dishonestly focusing on the single dim glimmer of light in this darkness, while ignoring every other point I make? Is it because you can't defend yourself against them, and are just hoping they'll go away?

So I'll ask it again: are you saying that a maximum of fifty years spent as the property of a person who can pass you down like an inheritance to his kids and doesn't pay you at all, moral?

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

I have a passage saying that there is no punishment for beating them, meaning there is no law against it.

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

Do you often find yourself in favor of passing out women like christmas gifts and not people, or is it just when defending your favorite book of nightmares?

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

My stance is that "Possession" implies ownership, something that is supported entirely by the word's usage in the text. You seem to want it to be used in another sense, going against what the text describes, for no reason other than that reading the sentence like a normal, reasonable person would, would make you look bad for defending it.

And so, you lie about it.

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

whether or not the justice system is perfect is another matter

So my views are irrelevant, but your views aren't?

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

Is that what you call this dishonest, word-murdering dance?

[SteelCurtain]