Really? A master could beat a slave brutally and not be in trouble if the poor slave, in agony, recovered in a few days.
Beatings only occurred if someone committed a crime (Deuteronomy 25:2), not as recreational fun for a slave owner.
Maiming wasn’t allowed. (Exodus 21:27).
If a slave truly was abused continuously by his master, he had the option to freely escape his master and be able to reside freely. (Deuteronomy 23:15)
Sorry, this isn’t American chattel slavery.
Okay, you are not buying it.
But you keep hiding behind this idea that Israel slave owners were just wonderful to their slaves. Who cares?!?!
It is no picnic to be a slave. Your children can be kept from you. And you are subject to all sorts of inhumanities … no matter how “swell” your slave owner is.
If you can’t accept the plain fact that Old Testament slavery was an unfortunate practice, then you aren’t going to make any progress in Evolution and God’s will in the slightest.
See you, dear sir. You’ll have to chew on someone else’s ear now.
1 Like
I don’t buy things that aren’t true.
Biblical slavery is a voluntary enlistment. The military can keep your children away from you too, and the work is tough, but its also a voluntary action (not to compare the military with biblical slavery, its a comparison of two voluntary institutions).
Slavery has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, Hitler could have accepted evolution, its a scientific fact, not a moral choice.
Actually, it was allowed and regulated by God Himself… so I’m not interfering with His will. Allowing the Israelites to be put through slavery dozens of times was his will.
For the record: I don’t believe biblical slavery was a fortunate practice. But, unfortunately, it was the only practical solution for a bunch of ancient people without a country, living out of tents and under a constant threat of foreign attackers. There was no unemployment office and food stamps. Sucks, I know.
Actually, you’re the one constantly offering objections and I’m the one responding with answers… its not me that is “chewing” on anyone’s ear, I’m just answering objections offered by you or anyone else to the best of my ability.
If you plan on leaving the conversation, I’d like to note how much of an honor its been to engage in conversation with you, even though we may not agree. I’ve learned, and thought, and researched more than I would have without your objections and considerations. I hope you have a pleasant evening, or morning. Tata.
1 Like
We don’t know what kind of slaves this refers to. Perhaps slaves from other countries? Otherwise the other laws don’t make much sense.
This passage isn’t even about slavery! Nice try, though.
No, but it’s ancient Hebrew chattel slavery. Plenty of similarities to American slavery, in that it was based on race/ethnicity and non-Hebrew slaves were bought and sold as property. This gave American Southerners plenty of ammunition to try to justify slavery.
1 Like
No it is not. .
2 Likes
The passage of Deuteronomy 23:15 refers to slaves in Israel, or else it wouldn’t have been a law inside of Israel.
I never said Deuteronomy 25:2 was exclusively about slavery, I said the only reason anyone was beaten was to be punished for a crime. I’d imagine rebellious slaves/servants were likely punished also.
Yes, it absolutely is ancient Hebrew chattel slavery, which had nothing to do with race/ethnicity and people sold themselves voluntarily, unlike American slavery. Lets not forget the loads of American abolitionists who used the Bible to justify their position of eradicating chattel slavery.
Yes it was. Man stealing, or involuntary slavery, was forbidden and punishable by death. The only people forced into labor was criminals or war prisoners.
We have already seen that Hebrew slaves were treated differently. Hebrew slaves owned by Hebrews were to be set free after a fixed number of years. (It’s similar in a way to indentured servanthood.) This was not the case with non-Hebrew slaves owned by Hebrews, who had to stay with their masters unless they were sold or set free. Non-Hebrew slaves were ethnically distinct from Hebrews.
“Kill the masters!”
-Daenerys Targaryen
I’m defending nothing. I’m saying ancient Hebrew slavery and servitude weren’t immoral practices. And they weren’t.
Of course not, read this article for further investigation: Stoning Adulterers - Christian Research Institute
Any slavery and servitude are immoral practices.
1 Like
Or unless they decided to run away. Or were maimed, if they were truly “abused”.
Thousands of years ago, someone who’s family was about to starve to death, they didn’t really care about what you think was immoral or not. It gave them food, water and shelter, and made sure their family was provided for. Ideal? Hell no. Functional in that period, duh.
My point was that slavery in the OT as practiced by the Hebrews was based on race/ethnicity.
How about today, if someone who’s family was starving, do you think it would be okay to make them your slave in exchange for food for their family?
Today we have the unemployment office.
And my point is, it wasn’t. Race is never seen as significant in the Bible.
It certainly was. As was most slavery around the world from ancient times until abolishment in the 19th century.
Slavery is unfortunately alive and well today. In a variety of forms.
1 Like
Including sex trafficking, all of which is abominable.
1 Like