@SkepticThinker ,
@Subduction Zone ,
I apologize, I was multi-tasking this morning and I did indeed get confused on the verses in Exodus. The situation of a slave going free based on loss of an eye or limb is part of the Jewish Law, not included in the verses. And I should have reviewed the law prior to posting... that was careless. I'm sorry.
My objection and claim of hyperbolic rhetoric is based on saying that beating a slave is "cool". As in, catching a sweet wave at the beach is "cool". Or getting a date to the prom is "cool".
Does that make sense. I didn't intend to claim that the Bible does not allow beating. I meant that the Bible doesn't make it out to be a positive thing.
Question: is it the claim of "reaching" that I am guilty of? Yes. I am reaching. Is there something else that is hypocritical in my arguments?
It's not that you are
missing something, but your approach does not allow for other verses which put limits on this behavior.
There are 2 ways to look at the issue of beating a slave, IMHO.
1) From a Jewish perspective, it would involve looking at the verses as a legal matter. The law does a poor job of legislating ethical and/or moral behavior. I gave my opinion on this in post#312 (
link )
2) From a Christian perspective, it involves looking at what Jesus said and meant.
Both approaches involve looking at the entire scripture, not just the verses that describe beating a Slave.
My objection on your approach, respectfully, is because no Christian, Catholic, or Jewish person ( that I am aware of ) only asserts that the verses about Slavery are Holy. It is misrepresenting the religion.
Maybe this helps to support my claim?
Take a look at what is said below:
This goes both ways, doesn't it?
Bible Critics need to "just own the facts" that the Bible says "whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me." and "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." Ignoring that these verses exist and claiming they are irrelevant is, a form of mental gymnastics. Isn't it?
Also, please look at this:
I think it's important to point out that people who do not believe in God or in the Holy quality of the Bible need to put themselves in the mindset of an Theist if the Bible Critic wants to genuinely understand how the religion is practiced by its members. Saying, "It's clear that the people who wrote ( parts of the Bible )... did not" is approaching the subject matter from the perspective of a Bible Critic. What is wrong with that? It makes sense that someone who does not believe that God is real, or that the entire Bible is Holy would read the verses in Exodus and conclude that it's fine to beat a slave. It makes sense. It doesn't make sense for someone who believes in God and who believes that the entire Bible is Holy to believe that it's fine to beat a slave.
The only way for a person to believe that it is fine to beat a slave while at the same time believing in God and the entire Bible is Holy is if they assign more value to the verses that say it's OK to the verses that say it's not OK.
Denying that the verses I provided and
@Enoch07 provided would prohibit beating a slave is fine for a Bible Critic, but it is not part of the Christian religion.
It makes sense for a Bible Critic to point to the Bible and say it should have said Slavery is prohibited, carte blanche, but as I said earlier, there are specific cases where freeing slaves en mass would be a problem. And without a Jail system, Slavery operates as crowd-sourced incarceration. Also, the manner in which slaves were treated matters. If they were treated well, it can be seen as a halfway-house between foreign slavery and a more moral humane life style.