23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @sonshipWhen you use the 'parents own their children' analogy for slavery, do you really think that children can be bought and sold like animals or chattel? As with the 'sports teams own their players' analogy you trot out, I think you are just using a trite kind of sophistry. Or is there more to these analogies?
Come on Ghost. You know it depends.
Do you have kids?
23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @sonshipAre you ignoring my posts sonship?
Come on Ghost. You know it depends.
Do you have kids?
Now if you're not impressed I am. Year 2000 BC and a God fearing master is nervous over the unequal treatment of his male and female servants.
Put up something MORE human from the ancient world or admit you have no examples.
Then maybe we'll go on.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
23 Mar 18
6 edits
Originally posted by @fmfI was a team leader once on a software development project. I didn't ask for it. Wasn't looking for it. It just came to me. I was the team leader of three other employees.
When you use the 'parents own their children' analogy for slavery, do you really think that children can be bought and sold like animals or chattel? As with the 'sports teams own their players' analogy you trot out, I think you are just using a trite kind of sophistry. Or is there more to these analogies?
They belonged to me in some sense.
And I belonged to those to whom I was responsible, in some sense. And so and so forth up the line.
I had to fire one guy.
In some sense he was my "property" to keep or let go.
I said in SOME sense.
Now, how much a possession is a possession may be an argument.
And again "property" of Exodus 20:21 some translations have "money" - meaning his monetary benefit is his servant. Not all English translations say the slave is his property.
Exodus 20:21
English Standard Version
But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
King James Bible
Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
JPS Tanakh 1917
Notwithstanding if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his money.
American King James Version
Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
American Standard Version
Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Douay-Rheims Bible
But if the party remain alive a day or two, he shall not be subject to the punishment, because it is his money.
Darby Bible Translation
Only, if he continue [to live] a day or two days, he shall not be avenged; for he is his money.
English Revised Version
Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Webster's Bible Translation
Notwithstanding, if he shall continue a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his money.
I have no problem saying "Yes, in the Bible you do have some slaves mentioned and even some rules about slave/master issues."
Salivating that I really have something to do a guilt by association thing, is not an objective consideration of the matter.
And I have a hard time respecting people who will not read the word of God through, and pick up little pieces of stuff to choke on. The slave in the Bible was not stripped of dignity and identity.
Your ancestors were not slaves, probably. Mine were. So the subject touches me more than you.
This subject has just about run its course.
A couple of you guys are not interested in any kind of fair and balanced ascertaining of the subject.
Must leave now.
And rather than going on to new considerations, we're stuck in repetition.
23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @sonshipDo you think slavery as in owning other people as possessions, is morally justifiable?
Come on Ghost. You know it depends.
Do you have kids?
Now if you're not impressed I am. Year 2000 BC and a God fearing master is nervous over the unequal treatment of his male and female servants.
Put up something MORE human from the ancient world or admit you have no examples.
Then maybe we'll go on.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @sonship"I had to fire one guy.
I was a team leader once on a software development project. I didn't ask for it. Wasn't looking for it. It just came to me. I was the team leader of three other employees.
They belonged to me in some sense.
And I belonged to those to whom I was responsible, in some sense. And so and so forth up the line.
I had to fire one guy.
In some sense he was ...[text shortened]...
Must leave now.
And rather than going on to new considerations, we're stuck in repetition.
In some sense he was my "property" to keep or let go.
I said in SOME sense."
By 'some sense' do you mean, 'no sense?'
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
23 Mar 18
4 edits
The laws concerning servant / master relationships in Israel, whether for Israelite or foreign servants, were concerned with controlling or regulating not idealizing.
That is regulating or controlling a social situation, which if Israel truly obeyed God, would be avoided. The stop measure in case israel was not completely obedient to the law called for prescriptive regulation of the subnormal state of the country.
Here we see God describing the normal state of their obedience which would nullify poverty, and the need selling of one's self to servitude.
The most relevant words in bold:
" At the end of every seven yours you shall issue a release. And this is the manner of the release: Every creditor shall release from his hand that which he has lent to his neighbor; he shall not exact it from his neighbor or his brother, for Jehovah's release has been proclaimed.
From the foreigner you may exact the debt; but whatever of yours your brother has, your hand shall release.
However there shall not be any needy among you (for Jehovah will surely bless you in the land which Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess),
But only if you carefully listen to the voice of Jehovah your God and are certain to do all this commandment which I am commanding you today.
For Jehovah your God will bless you as He has promised you. And you will lend to many nations, but you will not borrow; and you will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you." (Deut. 15:1-6)
23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @sonshipDo you think slavery as in owning other people as possessions, is morally justifiable?
The laws concerning servant / master relationships in Israel, whether for Israelite or foreign servants, were concerned with controlling or regulating not idealizing.
That is regulating or controlling a social situation, which if Israel truly obeyed God, would be avoided. The stop measure in case israel was not completely obedient ...[text shortened]... you will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you." (Deut. 15:1-6) [/quote][/b]
Simple question, what’s so difffcult about it I wonder...
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
23 Mar 18
5 edits
Here we see God describing the normal state of their obedience which would nullify poverty, and the need selling of one's self to servitude.
Continuing chapter 15 we see God wanting liberality of the people.
"If among you there is a needy one amidst your brothers within any of your gates in your land, which Jehovah your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart and you shall not close up your hand from your needy brother." (v.7)
That was closer to God's ideal.
"But you must open your hand to him, and you must lend enough for his need to whatever he lacks. " (v.8)
That requires faith and closeness to God.
Then God wisely warns them not to attempt to take advantage of the Release year (Jubilee).
"Be careful that there is not within your heart a base thought like this:
The seventh year, the year of release, is near; and your eye be evil against your needy brother and you do not give him anything, but he cry against you to Jehovah, and it become sin to you." (v.9)
God loves a cheerful giver.
God tells them to check their attitude for true liberality.
" You must give to him, and your heart shall not be displeased when you give to him, for on account of this matter Jehovah your God will bless you in all your work and in all your undertakings. (v.10)
But realism predicts that there will always be some poor in the land for one reason or another.
"For the needy will not cease being in the land, therefore I am commanding you, saying,
You must open your hand to your brother, to the poor one with you and to the needy one with you in your land." (v.11)
Thus the laws reveal both further away (servitude) and nearer (liberality) to what God ordained as normal - what OUGHT to be.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
23 Mar 18
We must also remember that though the LAW was a seven year mandatory release, there was nothing forbidding the generous debtor from releasing the debt at any time.
If he had the goodness and faith in God to release the debt sooner, that would be all the more to his blessing.
23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @sonshipBut is it morally justifiable?
We must also remember that though the LAW was a seven year mandatory release, there was nothing forbidding the generous debtor from releasing the debt at any time.
If he had the goodness and faith in God to release the debt sooner, that would be all the more to his blessing.
Originally posted by @sonshipC'mon jaywill. Deuteronomy 15:1-6 has nothing to do with the chattel slavery that God condoned in Leviticus 25:44-46.
The laws concerning servant / master relationships in Israel, whether for Israelite or foreign servants, were concerned with controlling or regulating not idealizing.
That is regulating or controlling a social situation, which if Israel truly obeyed God, would be avoided. The stop measure in case israel was not completely obedient ...[text shortened]... you will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you." (Deut. 15:1-6) [/quote][/b]
Chattel slavery and indentured servitude are two completely distinct and different systems.
You keep demonstrating that you have absolutely no idea of what's being said.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
23 Mar 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @thinkofoneDeuteronomy means "Re - speaking" or "speaking again".
C'mon jaywill. Deuteronomy 15:1-6 has nothing to do with the chattel slavery that God condoned in Leviticus 25:44-46.
Chattel slavery and indentured servitude are completely different systems.
You keep demonstrating that you have absolutely no idea of what's being said.
What was before spoken by God to Moses and the people was being spoken again.
Originally posted by @sonshipAnd Deuteronomy 15:1-6 has nothing to do with the chattel slavery that God condoned in Leviticus 25:44-46. Chattel slavery and indentured servitude are two completely distinct and different systems.
[b] Deuteronomy means "Re - speaking" or "speaking again".
What was before spoken by God to Moses and the people was being spoken again. [/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
23 Mar 18
45You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life,..
In the above passage God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery:
My future comments will be focused on the foreigner (non-Israelite) in Israel, who became a slave.
But once again God regulating something is different from His approving of something as ideal.