Slavery in the bible

[dybmh]

The only bad faith has come from you today. And remember, you brought me back into this debate. By the way, I have no "silly rules" .

I understand. Have a nice day.

 

[dybmh]

Then you should not make false claims about my posts. And you are projecting again.

When I made an error I owned up to it. You have not done so.

I disagree.

 

[sooda]

Well, that's the point. We can't go back and examine individual cases.

Am I saying, "what if they deserved it?" I'm saying that in order to judge moral vs. immoral someone needs to know the details. There are too many unknowns to judge accurately.

Its safe to say that it was IMMORAL. Half of them died on shipboard.

 

[dybmh]

Its safe to say that it was IMMORAL. Half of them died on shipboard.

I am not talking about slavery in America. Please reply to confirm that you understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You want to examine individual cases over hundreds and hundreds of years of human history? Really?

You have to OWN someone to beat them with impunity.. Are you saying what if they deserved it? Really?

Now he is making a special pleading fallacy.

Also he is confused about the burden of proof. To prove that an individual beat a slave is much more rigorous than the evidence needed to prove that a society allowed the beating of slaves.

The laws themselves are of course evidence that beating of slaves occurred. Not only that is evidence that those laws were broken. That is why there is a set punishment for breaking the laws.

Laws are not formed in a vacuum They are the results of problems in society. Speed limits are not set just for the fun of it And punishments for speeding are based upon how often those laws are broken and how serious the breaking of those laws are. I do not speed. At least not excessively. But there is one part of my town where I get reminded never to speed at times. There is a school on a busy street where the police are out in force when school first begins. They always have people that are pulled over for going above the lower speed limit that one has to observe when children are present.

The laws about slavery tell us that it existed. The laws about beating tells us that slaves were beaten. The laws about excessive beating and the punishment for that tells us that at times people did this as well. Laws without punishment are toothless. And laws without punishment are eventually ignored.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree.

Then show where you admitted to one of your errors.

 

[dybmh]

The laws themselves are of course evidence that beating of slaves occurred. Not only that is evidence that those laws were broken. That is why there is a set punishment for breaking the laws.

This is faulty logic.

 

[dybmh]

Then show where you admitted to one of your errors.

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.

 

[dybmh]

The laws about slavery tell us that it existed. The laws about beating tells us that slaves were beaten. The laws about excessive beating and the punishment for that tells us that at times people did this as well. Laws without punishment are toothless. And laws without punishment are eventually ignored.

No. The fact that the laws about beatings exist do not tell us that beatings exist.

It's circular logic.

We know that Slaves existed and were owned because people wrote about HOW they lived, and who owned them.

What we don't have "so far" are any accounts of these beatings that you continually refer to.

Here's a quote from wikipedia:

"Scholars are unsure to what extent the laws encouraging humane treatment were followed. In the 19th century, Jewish scholars such as Moses Mielziner and Samuel Krauss studied slave-ownership by ancient Jews, and generally concluded that Jewish slaves were treated as merely temporary bondsman, and that Jewish owners treated slaves with special compassion.[79] However, 20th century scholars such as Solomon Zeitlin and Ephraim Urbach, examined Jewish slave-ownership practices more critically, and their historical accounts generally conclude that Jews did own slaves at least through the Maccabbean period, and that it was probably more ubiquitous and humane than earlier scholars had maintained."

Jewish views on slavery - Wikipedia

This is actual evidence of how slaves were treated. Even the critics listed above claim humane treatment. Your statement is just circular logic and presumption of guilt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is faulty logic.

Nope.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. The fact that the laws about beatings exist do not tell us that beatings exist.

It's circular logic.

We know that Slaves existed and were owned because people wrote about HOW they lived, and who owned them.

What we don't have "so far" are any accounts of these beatings that you continually refer to.

Here's a quote from wikipedia:

"Scholars are unsure to what extent the laws encouraging humane treatment were followed. In the 19th century, Jewish scholars such as Moses Mielziner and Samuel Krauss studied slave-ownership by ancient Jews, and generally concluded that Jewish slaves were treated as merely temporary bondsman, and that Jewish owners treated slaves with special compassion.[79] However, 20th century scholars such as Solomon Zeitlin and Ephraim Urbach, examined Jewish slave-ownership practices more critically, and their historical accounts generally conclude that Jews did own slaves at least through the Maccabbean period, and that it was probably more ubiquitous and humane than earlier scholars had maintained."

Jewish views on slavery - Wikipedia

This is actual evidence of how slaves were treated. Even the critics listed above claim humane treatment. Your statement is just circular logic and presumption of guilt.

No, it is not circular logic because that is not all that it relies on. The Wikipedia article that you cited looks like it has a heavy Christian influence on it since it only deals with Hebrew slaves, not with slaves that were bought from other sources since those were slaves for life. Just like creationists can never concentrate on both natural selection and variation at the same time, apologists have a hard time considering both Hebrew slaves which were very similar to indentured servants and non-Hebrew slaves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow! You can sometimes own up to your errors. I stand corrected.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh the irony of the misused ratings!

 

[dybmh]

No, it is not circular logic because that is not all that it relies on. The Wikipedia article that you cited looks like it has a heavy Christian influence on it since it only deals with Hebrew slaves, not with slaves that were bought from other sources since those were slaves for life. Just like creationists can never concentrate on both natural selection and variation at the same time, apologists have a hard time considering both Hebrew slaves which were very similar to indentured servants and non-Hebrew slaves.

If you read the article, it speaks about both Hebrew-slaves and non-Hebrew slaves. When it does not specify it is speaking about both.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you read the article, it speaks about both Hebrew-slaves and non-Hebrew slaves. When it does not specify it is speaking about both.

I will check it out when I have time. The problem with religious issues is that too often followers of a religion will change an article that makes their religion look bad on Wiki. That is why many of them end up locked.

 

[dybmh]

No, it is not circular logic because that is not all that it relies on. The Wikipedia article that you cited looks like it has a heavy Christian influence on it since it only deals with Hebrew slaves, not with slaves that were bought from other sources since those were slaves for life. Just like creationists can never concentrate on both natural selection and variation at the same time, apologists have a hard time considering both Hebrew slaves which were very similar to indentured servants and non-Hebrew slaves.

I will check it out when I have time. The problem with religious issues is that too often followers of a religion will change an article that makes their religion look bad on Wiki. That is why many of them end up locked.

So far the article appears to accurately report on the findings of Moses Mielziner, one of the sources of the wikipedia entry.

In Moses Mielziner's book, there are chapters for treatment of Hebrew Slaves, and chapters dealing with Non-Hebrew slaves.

In section II titled: "The Condition of Slaves That were not Hebrew" there is a chapter titled "Treatment of Slaves".

In this section ( #20 ) is the following text: (source)

----------------------------------------------------------

Disobedient and indolent slaves were, doubtless, sometimes chastised with a cane or rod, and even, in cases of extraordinary contumacy, put in chains (Sirach xxxiii. 29), but the severe penalties mentioned above, as annexed to the killing or serious maiming of a slave, could not fail to tie the
hands of a hard-hearted master, and to restrain him from allowing chastisement to degenerate into cruelty. Of the inhuman modes of punishment which were employed among the Romans for even slight offenses, not a trace can be discovered among the Hebrews.

To the kindness with which slaves were, in general, treated, we must also ascribe the circumstance that not a single instance of such servile insurrections as were not infrequent among the Romans and Greeks, is known to have occurred among the Hebrews. Instances even of slaves running away from their masters appear to have been very rare; at all events, there is only a solitary case of this kind, that of two of the servants of the violent Shimei (1 Kings ii. 39), recorded in the Bible. If thus the treatment of slaves was, as a general thing, kind and humane, noble-minded masters distinguished themselves pre-eminently in this respect.

----------------------------------------------------------

This shows:

• law regarding treatment of slaves does not end in the Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy.
• the treatment of Slaves by Ancient Hebrews was not at all like the treatment of Slaves in the American Pre-Civil War period
• the wikipedia article did not misrepresent the information of the sources that it cited
• Maimonides' opinion about treatment of Non-Hebrew slaves was not unique

 

[SkepticThinker]

Don't ignore them. Just know that thy don't apply to me.

The Ten Commandments don't apply to you?

ALL people would include slaves.

Or would you like a spreadsheet with individual names on it instead.

No, what I would like is what I asked for. It's pretty clear at this point that it doesn't exist.

Nope its you.

I have never brought it up. That's all you. I've been trying to focus this entire time, on what the Bible says.

If my child (roughly under 18 years old) does something wrong. I as the parent am responsible for that. Punishing a child and beating a child are 2 different things. There is no such thing as punishing your wife, there is only beating your wife. Nuance brother learn it.

We're not talking about punishing a child. Please don't try to change the subject. We're talking about putting your hands on a child and whether a parent who hits their child loves them or not.
Why can't you just answer the question? It's a yes or no.

Yes it has.

Nope, still waiting.

Doubtful.

Try addressing it then. I'll prove you wrong.

 

[Audie]

The Ten Commandments don't apply to you?
.

He sayeth "Thy dont apply to me"

That is a whole different matter, and one we
hope not to hear about.

 

[Enoch07]

The Ten Commandments don't apply to you?

Never said they didn't.

No, what I would like is what I asked for. It's pretty clear at this point that it doesn't exist.

It does. All people means everyone.

That's all you. I've been trying to focus this entire time, on what the Bible says.

Except for what Jesus says in the Bible right?

We're not talking about punishing a child.

You were.

Please don't try to change the subject.

You're the one that brought it up.

We're talking about putting your hands on a child and whether a parent who hits their child loves them or not.

That's why I pointed out the difference between punishing and hitting.

Why can't you just answer the question? It's a yes or no.

Nuance

Nope, still waiting.

Stop waiting go back and read then.

Try addressing it then. I'll prove you wrong.

Prove it!

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

SubductionZone said: "Meanwhile breaking up post excessively, as you do is rude. It is an attempt not to let a point get across. If you don't understand that then you are likely rude in real life too. But I have a feeling that you do."

As I said before, you are the only one who cares about this. It is a distraction. Everyone sees it.

When you initially complained about this "splitting up your quotes", your complaint was that people often take multiple lines to make a point. OK. So now I am being careful to provide your entire text so that people can read your words as you wrote them maintaining the context.

When i did this, now you have shifted your complaint to excessive "expanding". It's a pretty stupid argument.

Not only are you the only one who cares about it, but virtually every other conversation here on RF is conducted this way.

For evidence, take a look at the conversations here in this thread. People break up the quotes so that the text-based format of the forum can simulate a conversation. I had a substantive conversation with @A Vestigial Mote here in this thread. And in order to have that conversation, we needed to quote each other's text in a manner that allowed each of us to to respond to individual portions of the quote.

But you know this. The fact that I need me to spoon feed this to you is quite pathetic. I am not your "Net-Nanny". If you feel I am being "rude". Maybe get yourself a cookie and take a nap.

I would concur that splitting up posts into separate quotations in order to further a conversation faster, or reply to multiple points within a post that each deserve/require their own attention can be extremely helpful. The only time I've ever seen it be a problem is when whole swaths of supporting text are removed and ignored as if they weren't part of the post being replied to. When they are removed, but it is obvious that the replying party is using it only as a header/reference, and still covers the bases of the reply, I think that still works most of the time.