Exodus 21

[Bahana]

I wonder how many slave owners have referred to verse 21 to remind them to properly beat their slaves. As long as they can get back on their feet after a day's rest then the beating was fine.

All of them did as again verse 21 among others greatly restricted the volume any tye of punishment an owner could dole out. so rather than be beaten or stoned themselves all owners made sure they were indeed right with the law first..

Again without God, nothing your ancestors did regulated the treatment of slaves in this era. God and his followers were insane minority radicals for their beliefs and insanely good treatment of slaves, or so YOUR PEOPLE THOUGHT in this very same apples to apples comparative era.

So you've studied the laws concerning slaves in other Mesopotamian cultures in the 1st millenium BC? Great. I'm interested in that subject as well. Feel free to provide references to the laws that they had. Your absolute claims like "all of them did" and "nothing my ancestors did" make me suspicious though.

[Ravenshire]

Drippy reminds my of the abused spouse. Afraid to do anything about the abuse for fear of an even worse beating and defending the abuse with bullshit "it's all my fault" excuses.

[Drich]

[Losty]

I wonder how many slave owners have referred to verse 21 to remind them to properly beat their slaves. As long as they can get back on their feet after a day's rest then the beating was fine.

All of them did as again verse 21 among others greatly restricted the volume any tye of punishment an owner could dole out. so rather than be beaten or stoned themselves all owners made sure they were indeed right with the law first..

Again without God, nothing your ancestors did regulated the treatment of slaves in this era. God and his followers were insane minority radicals for their beliefs and insanely good treatment of slaves, or so YOUR PEOPLE THOUGHT in this very same apples to apples comparative era.

Really? All? So no slave was ever beaten to death? Ever? Get a grip

[Jehanne]

[Drich]

All of them did as again verse 21 among others greatly restricted the volume any tye of punishment an owner could dole out. so rather than be beaten or stoned themselves all owners made sure they were indeed right with the law first..

Again without God, nothing your ancestors did regulated the treatment of slaves in this era. God and his followers were insane minority radicals for their beliefs and insanely good treatment of slaves, or so YOUR PEOPLE THOUGHT in this very same apples to apples comparative era.

Really? All? So no slave was ever beaten to death? Ever? Get a grip

I think you missed the point completely.

before this passage in lev. slaves had no regulations protecting them or establishing any rights.

The OP mocks God for being 'loving' because he placed rules on slavery rather than abolished it.

The problem? we do not have a working model of a society not based on a slave class. Meaning society for the jews or anyone else would fail without slavery. (if you do not think this is the case then name one society that has been established without a slave's as it foundation.) Slavery is critical to every society.

Then the op mockes presumably the idea of an all loving God. which one the bible never claims, and two the op wrongfully assumes being a slave is to be unloved. enter the law that is being mocked. the first of it's kind to give slaves any real rights or protection. Yes slaves were killed before, because they had no rights there was no repercussions aside from what the law said you owed the owner of said slave. if you were the owner then you were just out the money paid for the slave.

Now with the law penalties beatings and prison time were on the table for violating slave rights. did slaves die yes.. but not without inquiry and or repercussions..

[Angrboda]

The problem? we do not have a working model of a society not based on a slave class. Meaning society for the jews or anyone else would fail without slavery. (if you do not think this is the case then name one society that has been established without a slave's as it foundation.) Slavery is critical to every society.

Even if true, idoesn't follow that because we have no working model of a slaveless society that such a society would be a failure. That's just a non-sequitur. At minimum, you need to give some reason why such a society would fail, not simply show that one has not existed. That would be like saying because we haven't had an example of a true communist state that a successful one cannot exist. Or that because we haven't seen heaven, that heaven can't exist. It's essentially an argument from ignorance and thus fails. You need to explain not just how slavery is important or useful to a society, but how it is necessary. I don't think you've done so.

Additionally, you need to define what slavery is for any argument to have legs. I recently participated in a discussion as to whether slavery was over or not and the meaning of the term varied dramatically. There is the example of chattel slavery on one end, and the ideas of being slaves to materialism or slaves to sin or some other thing on the other. The closer you hew toward the latter, the more it becomes difficult to disentangle society from it, but then it also renders your argument something of an equivocation and rather moot. The more you hew toward the former, the more your argument misrepresents reality and is therefore simply wrong. Without an actual definition of slavery, you can talk until the cows come home, likely equivocating left and right, without accomplishing a damn thing.

As an afterthought, I don't see that you've discussed why it would not still be wrong even if we grant you everything you argue. A necessary evil is still an evil, and "everybody does it" isn't a rational justification for anything.

[Drich]

[Angrboda]

It doesn't follow that because we have no working model of a slaveless society that such a society would be a failure.  That's just a non-sequitur.  At minimum, you need to give some reason why such a society would fail, not simply show that one has not existed.  That would be like saying because we haven't had an example of a true communist state that a successful one cannot exist.  Or that because we haven't seen heaven, that heaven can't exist.  It's essentially an argument from ignorance and thus fails.  You need to explain not just how slavery is important or useful to a society, but how it is necessary.  I don't think you've done so.

nice identification of a logical fallacy,  now simply provide the world with a working model of a society not built on slavery and the argument is yours.

Oh that's right you can't because all models demand basic needs: food water clothing to be provided at or below the average income. which means someone is working below a livable wage to provide the basics for everyone else. eg.. slaves by this name or the modern terms..

Maybe when robotics are perfected, but then again what happens to those who currently depend on slave wages to survive? if the robots take all of the slave work what will the modern slave do for a job? how can they make money or survive? robots don't make food free. the may make it cheaper but more than likly it will simply become more profitable for the growers.

Even if a society based on slavery does not meet all the requirements of a logical premise it does not mean we have the tools or capability to create such a society free from slavery. intellectually you are right but in practice the lack of a working slave less society despite some of our greatest minds best efforts proves that I am practically correct.

So, basically you don't have an argument. Just more "neener neener, I'm right, you're wrong, la la la, I can't hear you" bullshit.

Your defense of God and the bible fails as it is based on an invalid argument. There is nothing 'practical' about an invalid argument.

Additionally, you missed the following:

Additionally, you need to define what slavery is for any argument to have legs. I recently participated in a discussion as to whether slavery was over or not and the meaning of the term varied dramatically. There is the example of chattel slavery on one end, and the ideas of being slaves to materialism or slaves to sin or some other thing on the other. The closer you hew toward the latter, the more it becomes difficult to disentangle society from it, but then it also renders your argument something of an equivocation and rather moot. The more you hew toward the former, the more your argument misrepresents reality and is therefore simply wrong. Without an actual definition of slavery, you can talk until the cows come home, likely equivocating left and right, without accomplishing a damn thing.

As an afterthought, I don't see that you've discussed why it would not still be wrong even if we grant you everything you argue. A necessary evil is still an evil, and "everybody does it" isn't a rational justification for anything.

[purplepurpose]

I don't care about those slave rules, they are northing in comparison how afterlife is presented.