God Condoned Chattel Slavery

Originally posted by @romans1009
In some areas, that’s true - definitely not in all areas. And in some areas, the movement has been toward moral darkness.

Indeed, one can argue that I am sure. But slavery was and is a moral darkness in my view. That is why it is now rightfully addressed as being morally atrocious and illegal all over the world.

Originally posted by @suzianne
If you think that I'm not following the conversation, then you may be falling back on a "word-string" that hasn't exactly served you very well in the past. I'm merely pointing out the fallacy of a lot of your stock 'word salad' which attempts to confuse cause and effect. I keep telling you that you need some 'new tricks', but you never listen. Whether y ...[text shortened]... at the old tricks are serving you well, or that you've just gotten lazy, is for others to judge.

Joining the conversation means you need to actually engage what those involved are saying. Typing "cart before the horse" isn't that.

Originally posted by @fmf
Indeed, one can argue that I am sure. But slavery was and is a moral darkness in my view. That is why it is now rightfully addressed as being morally atrocious and illegal all over the world.

Yes, but I was responding to your claim about the human condition, which (obviously) went well beyond the topic of slavery.

Originally posted by @romans1009
Yes, but I was responding to your claim about the human condition, which (obviously) went well beyond the topic of slavery.

And I was talking about the human condition in terms of its acceptance and practice of slavery and moving away from that moral darkness. I see chattel slavery of humans as being the human condition in one of its darkest modes.

Originally posted by @fmf
The story of the human condition has been one of moving away [not always smoothly or consistently] from moral darkness.

Originally posted by @Romans1009
In some areas, that’s true - definitely not in all areas. And in some areas, the movement has been toward moral darkness.

There is improved health, education, equality before the law and access to justice, civil society, democratic rights, personal autonomy, freedom of speech, thought, religion, association, social mobility, more protection of the economically weak from economically powerful, and so on and so on.

There has been what I see as progress on many fronts. Slavery was (and is) a nadir and the kind of deep moral darkness away from which humanity has made great strides.

I am positive about the human condition and the progress it has made.

Originally posted by @fmf
There is improved health, education, equality before the law and access to justice, civil society, democratic rights, personal autonomy, freedom of speech, thought, religion, association, social mobility, more protection of the economically weak from economically powerful, and so on and so on.

There has been what I see as progress on many fronts. Slavery wa ...[text shortened]... as made great strides.

I am positive about the human condition and the progress it has made.

Great strides have been made, but your blanket statement that “the story of the human condition has been one of moving away [not always smoothly or consistently] from moral darkness” was careless, reckless, sloppy, unsupportable and an unforgivable and embarrassing blunder.

Originally posted by @fmf
And I was talking about the human condition in terms of its acceptance and practice of slavery and moving away from that moral darkness. I see chattel slavery of humans as being the human condition in one of its darkest modes.

If that’s true, you expressed yourself rather sloppily, carelessly, recklessly, cavalierly and in gross disregard for commonly-accepted rules pertaining to civilized discourse.

Originally posted by @romans1009
Great strides have been made, but your blanket statement that “the story of the human condition has been one of moving away [not always smoothly or consistently] from moral darkness” was careless, reckless, sloppy, unsupportable and an unforgivable and embarrassing blunder.

The story of the human condition has, in my view, quite obviously been one of moving away from moral darkness but it has - just as obviously - not always been smooth or consistent. There are - again, obviously - still many serious problems in the world and there may even have been some backward strides.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke

That's all well and good sonship, but how about tackling the more troubling references to slavery?

'Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.' (Exodus 21:20)

As often the case, this will be repetitive.
And new or the same posters dust off these old complaints after awhile and re-use them regardless.

1.) First, the provision concerns "IF" a certain thing should happen. It is not a directive TO go and do so.

Ie. "This may occur. When it does, proceed in this manner."

It is no "Thus says the Lord, Go and beat your slave to death."

2.) Some translations have "be avenged" for the Hebrew rather than "surely be punished". Ie

English Standard Version
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged.

The Hebrew word there naqam , some scholars maintain always involves the death penalty in the Old Testament.

Understandably some versions bring this out in translation even more: Ie.

Contemporary English Version
Death is the punishment for beating to death any of your slaves.

Whether avenged or punished beating a slave to death was according to Yahweh's law a capital offense.

Darby Bible Translation
And if a man strike his bondman or his handmaid with a staff, and he die under his hand, he shall certainly be avenged.

Young's Literal Translation
'And when a man smiteth his man-servant or his handmaid, with a rod, and he hath died under his hand -- he is certainly avenged;

3.) Death and avenging was the law for this because the full personhood of the human, albeit, a slave was maintained in the Old Testament - (Gen. 1:26-27; Job 31:13-15; Deut. 15:1-18)

This passage of Exodus 21:20 was therefore no exception. Judicial vengeance was ordained for capital murder. The closely following words - "life for life" in Exodus 21:23-24 confirms this.

4.) When the servant did not die immediately after the assault, but dies after a day or two, the benefit of the doubt is given to the master that it was not intended murder. If the slave died immediately that was all the proof that was needed that he was murdered.

It mentioned "a staff" as a non-lethal instrument.
A staff or a rod is not like a much more lethal weapon of a sword.

The law seems to be an attempt to discriminate between pre-meditated murder and a disciplinary beating. Many servants were younger people whom the parents had been forced to sell into indentured servitude.

I would not insist that no adults were beaten. But uncooperative "kids" were more likely to receive a whack.

The provision is about such discipline going too far. So far as being killing of a human being.

5.) The treatment of the injured slave in Israel was more human then in other ancient Near East cultures. If any permanent injury was involved, like a lost eye or lost tooth, the slave was to be released dept free.

Compared to other ancient cultures' laws this was striking. They typically took care of the loss to master. The code of Hammurabi insured that the cost of an injured slave incurred a dept to the master, not the slave.

The Hebrew's law coveys that a master MAY NOT treat their slaves in any manner that they choose.

6.) Some translators say that it should not say in verse 21 that the slave is the master's property but the master's money.

English Standard Version
But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

The paraphrase Good News Translation goes so far to convey that the money the master loses for injuring his own slave is punishment enough if the slave does not die.

Good News Translation
But if the slave does not die for a day or two, the master is not to be punished. The loss of his property is punishment enough.

I don't normally recommend paraphrase versions. But even they can sometimes be useful.

Another version brings out that the injured slave is enough punishment to the stupid master.

NET Bible
However, if the injured servant survives one or two days, the owner will not be punished, for he has suffered the loss.

If the master was more than stupid but a murderer, he was to be executed.

Originally posted by @fmf
The story of the human condition has, in my view, quite obviously been one of moving away from moral darkness but it has - just as obviously - not always been smooth or consistent. There are - again, obviously - still many serious problems in the world and there may even have been some backward strides.

Your effort at cleaning up that sloppy disaster you initially posted is noted and appreciated.

Originally posted by @fmf
Your economic justifications for slavery are not moral justifications.

It was Niccolo Machiavelli that said

Decisions are rarely about right or wrong, and are most often about a choice between the lesser of two evils.

This is also true of morality in the human affair.

Ideally, every single human being would have the option to live with their extended family in a safe community next to a beautiful body of water with near limitless recreational time and be positively socialized at a beautiful school with a magical garden where everyone is in classes of 8 or less...

They learn from people who were in beautiful Universities for over a decade and are subject matter experts. There is total oversight over everything.

And everyone, no matter what, gets to pursue the exact career field that they want, and it is all ultimately unnecessary, though, and is done only out of pleasure, because everything is completely free & nobody has to do anything that they do not want to do...

But. Literally. Our entire reality is set up less than this ideal, or other similar ideals.

We routinely send kids to live with foster parents in lower middle class homes.

We let a kid stay with an absuive father because there simply isn't clearcut evidence and we do no thave the resources to gather it.

We have homeless on our streets & brothels in every major city.

These are just the realities that we face.

None of these are "moral choices."

Nobody chose that poverty and want and despair exist.

It's just that we make choices in light of the reality around us.

You are a man living in a developing country.

Why are you so dull when it comes to these topics?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Do you do anything other than spew nonsense?

Yes I also enjoy calling you out for being a fake follower of Jesus.

Originally posted by @philokalia
Why are you so dull when it comes to these topics?

I don't think I am.

Originally posted by @philokalia

This is also true of morality in the human affair.

Ideally,every single human being would have the option to live with their extended family in a safe community next to a beautiful body of water with near limitless recreational time and be positively socialized at a beautiful school with a magical garden where everyone is in classes of 8 or less...

They learn from people who were in beautiful Universities for over a decade and are subject matter experts. There is total oversight over everything.

And everyone, no matter what, gets to pursue the exact career field that they want, and it is all ultimately unnecessary, though, and is done only out of pleasure, because everything is completely free & nobody has to do anything that they do not want to do...

But. Literally. Our entire reality is set up less than this ideal, or other similar ideals.

We routinely send kids to live with foster parents in lower middle class homes.

We let a kid stay with an absuive father because there simply isn't clearcut evidence and we do no thave the resources to gather it.

We have homeless on our streets & brothels in every major city.

These are just the realities that we face.

None of these are "moral choices."

Nobody chose that poverty and want and despair exist.

It's just that we make choices in light of the reality around us.

You are a man living in a developing country.

None of this strikes me a moral justification for slavery which is what we are discussing. I am not interested in your supposed economic justifications. I see slavery as a moral atrocity ~ one of the most depraved depths to which humanity can stoop ~ while you seek to justify it, excuse it, explain it. That's your prerogative of course.

Originally posted by @philokalia
It's just that we make choices in light of the reality around us.

You are a man living in a developing country.

In the developing country in which I live, some people - in light of the reality around them - choose to traffic in sex slaves. I don't care what economic difficulties these slave traders face or what mitigating benefits they gain - or whatever Machiavellian excuses you might seek to make on their behalf - or whatever "lesser of two evils" cliches that might be colouring your 'new far right' dearth of moral principle, slavery is moral depravity. It always has been.