For example, the quote about slaves in Exodus was not a teaching. Itās historical context about law at that time. That verse was intended to prevent brutalities towards slaves
Itās not a teaching, it just explicitly tells people what to do and not to do. Makes sense.
(which at the time were either hired labourers or in indebted servitude who literally sold themselves to pay off a debt, they were freed or āreleasedā when the monetary value of their debt was paid off. Itās not the same as the term for slavery we commonly associate with the it today).
Hired laborers and indentured servants whom you could beat and abuse, and had no freedom of their own. Hmm, I wonder if thereās a word for thatā¦
The wording that if a slave survives for a day or two was used to determine intent, as it was considered that if someone survives for a couple days after being punished then something else was also the cause of death, and not a direct result of the punishment enacted.
Ultimately the point here is that this isnāt a āteachingā in any way. Some things in the Bible are just historical facts and context.
Itās not a teaching, it just explicitly tells people what to do and not to do. Makes sense.
Timothy 2:12 (I know you mean 1 Timothy even though you didnāt specify, because thereās a 1 Timothy and a 2 Timothy)
Youāre very clever, congratulations.
also needs context, because that scripture is about spiritual matters. Itās like a chain of command for the purposes of order. This is something that you cannot pull a single scripture out and use only that as an example. There are many other scriptures that expand on this. For example, a man/husband is supposed to treat his wife like his own body and like a āweaker vesselā (implying a delicate and gentle approach), and anyone who does not hates himself and God.
You can give all the context you want, thatās sexism, plain and simple.
Itās like a chain of command for the purposes of order.
A chain of command you cannot change, that is not based on knowledge or experience, but on whatās between your legs.
Corinthians 11:5-6 - (which Corinthians? Thereās two of them)
Or not so clever, I guess.
We have this wonderful new technology called google. Feel free to use it.
Or not, since it was created by the devil of science.
how is this torture? Itās just about head coverings, and one thatās often taken out of context. Verse 11 and 12 say *āBesides, in connection with the Lord, neither is woman separate from man nor is man separate from woman. 12 For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God.ā
The Bible doesnāt teach dominating and torturing people, for one.
Forcing women to shave their heads sure sounds like dominating to meā¦
Basically neither man or women are better than the other, both are from God and thatās all that matters.
Men arenāt forced to shave their hair, and using your analogy, they are always higheron the chain of command than women.
Titus 2:9-10 - You could literally replace āslaveā with employee and āmasterā with boss or CEO, and then no one would say boo. As I mentioned earlier, the term slave is not the dehumanizing one we often use. Its modern counterpart is very close to āemployeeā.
Except CEOs arenāt allowed to beat up employees, and employees are free to leave.
Colossians 3:22-24, Leviticus 25:44-46, Peter 2:18 - same argument, because the term slave in these verses are not what you are attributing to it.
āEmployees, be subject to your CEOs with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.ā
And all of this not even talking about the rampant homophobia, genocide, etc commanded in the bible
āBroadly, the Biblical and Talmudic laws tended to consider slavery a form of contract between persons, theoretically reducible to voluntary slavery, unlike chattel slavery, where the enslaved person is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner.ā
āAncient Israelite society allowed slavery; however, total domination of one human being by another was not permitted.[16][17] Rather, slavery in antiquity among the Israelites was closer to what would later be called indentured servitude.[15] Slaves were seen as an essential part of a Hebrew household.[18] In fact, there were cases in which, from a slaveās point of view, the stability of servitude under a family in which the slave was well-treated would have been preferable to economic freedom.ā
āAlthough not prohibited, Jewish ownership of non-Jewish slaves was constrained by Rabbinic authorities since non-Jewish slaves were to be offered conversion to Judaism during their first 12-months term as slaves. If accepted, the slaves were to become Jews, hence redeemed immediately. If rejected, the slaves were to be sold to non-Jewish owners. Accordingly, the Jewish law produced a constant stream of Jewish converts with previous slave experience. Additionally, Jews were required to redeem Jewish slaves from non-Jewish owners, making them a privileged enslavement item, albeit temporary. The combination has made Jews less likely to participate in enslavement and slave trade.ā
āThe Torah forbids the return of runaway slaves who escape from their foreign land and their bondage and arrive in the Land of Israel. Furthermore, the Torah demands that such former slaves be treated equally to any other resident alien.ā
"Indentured servitude is a form of labor in which a person is contracted to work without salary for a specific number of years. The contract, called an āindentureā, may be entered āvoluntarilyā for purported eventual compensation or debt repayment, or it may be imposed āinvoluntarilyā as a judicial punishment. "
Yes, thereās a lot more in that Wikipedia page, but Jewish history expands well past the Bible and the 1st century. Iām just focusing on the Biblical period.
Slavery pre-American colonial settlement is far more nuanced than people realize. Dan Carlinās Hardcore History podcast goes into immense detail in the Humane Resources episode (and thatās āhumans as resourcesā in the title).
You can give all the context you want, thatās sexism, plain and simple.
Is it though? Because 1 Corinthians says "For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God.ā Which is to say neither men or women are above the other, they are equal to God.
A chain of command you cannot change, that is not based on knowledge or experience, but on whatās between your legs.
True, but an employee at a large company cannot become the CEO (yes, I know itās ātechnicallyā possible, but how often does that happen?). I know youāll disagree on this, and thatās fine, we can disagree. But my position is that this āorderā isnāt oppressive in any way. Thereās no privilege or power in the role (there isnāt supposed to be, but we know that it has been abused countless times). Itās only meant to be a role to be assign leadership to a clearly defined person in the family. A āleaderā doesnāt control the people they are leading, they simply the person that gives guidance for the group as a whole. Anyways, weāre going to disagree on this.
Or not so clever, I guess.
We have this wonderful new technology called google. Feel free to use it.
I knew which Corinthians was being referenced. I was pointing out that OP keeps referencing scriptures without giving all the details. Which matters because theyāve been touting their expertise and deep knowledge in the topic.
Forcing women to shave their heads sure sounds like dominating to meā¦
Men arenāt forced to shave their hair, and using your analogy, they are always higheron the chain of command than women.
Men (in ancient Israel) are required to do other things, like cut the tip of their genitals off.
Taking a single example is cherry-picking. There are many things that were required of both men and women, and people in all different stations.
Except CEOs arenāt allowed to beat up employees, and employees are free to leave.
Because in modern days we have extensive and well established legal codes and policing infrastructures. Back in the Bible on a farm being worked by many people, the closest settlement would have been many hours, if not days away. There was no local police station, no 911 or emergency services. Land owners were thus expected to be the ones enforcing the law on their land. We also have extensive and meticulous laws covering all kinds of topics, scenarios, and conditions that are recorded in explicit detail. Back then most people didnāt read, and if they did they definitely didnāt have any access to a copy of the law. As such laws were often simple and not complex so that the average person could grasp and remember them.
That being said, slavery in the Bible isnāt what you think it is (as I mentioned earlier in my comment). A slave would only receive such punishment if they did something extremely heinous, like murder someone.
āBroadly, the Biblicalā¦ equally to any other resident alien.ā*
What you forgot you mention about the wikipedia page, is that these are not facts, but quotes from a religious scholar.
A religious scholar, who would greatly benefit from people thinking of positively of his religion.
If google puts it on their wikipedia page that them avoiding hundreds of millions in taxes is in context a really good thing, would you believe them?
Slavery pre-American colonial settlement is far more nuanced than people realize.
I donāt even need to respond to it, it just speaks for itself.
Is it though?
Yes. Itās literally āAll of you are equal, some are just more equal than othersā.
Which is to say neither men or women are above the other, they are equal to God.
Ah, I see. āSeperate but equalā.
True, but an employee at a large company cannot become the CEO (yes, I know itās ātechnicallyā possible, but how often does that happen?).
It is possible, and it does happen.
In fact, every employee can start their own company and become its CEO.
A more apt analogy would be, a company where white people can become managers and C-suite, but black people cannot.
Would you support this?
That being said, slavery in the Bible isnāt what you think it is (as I mentioned earlier in my comment). A slave would only receive such punishment if they did something extremely heinous, like murder someone.
āThe condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the ownerās control, especially in involuntary servitude.ā
Yep, that fits.
Iāll never understand how people like you can sink to such levels, defending slavery.
A religious scholar, who would greatly benefit from people thinking of positively of his religion.
This assumes all religious scholars have a nefarious agenda. I donāt doubt some or many do, but no more so than the final population average. There are many who genuinely want to help others and believe in teaching and sharing peace.
I donāt even need to respond to it, it just speaks for itself.
Because you think āslaveryā means the same thing across all time. That level of willful ignorance speaks for itself also.
Yes. Itās literally "All of you are equal, some are just more equal than others
No, itās all are equal but not everyone can have the same job and responsibilities. Not everyone can be the owner of a company (unless youāre WestJet).
Ah, I see. āSeperate but equalā.
Just āequalā.
In fact, every employee can start their own company and become its CEO.
I did specify ālarge corporationā in my example. Thanks for ignoring that.
Yep, that fits.
Involuntary servitude under the law (back in the era weāre talking about) had clear definitions. It was often invoked to collect a debt and could only be held until the debt was paid off, not longer. Captured non-Hebrew enemies were also sometimes put under involuntary servitude. But they were required to either convert, at which point they would be freed. Or else sold off to a non-Hebrew.
Iāll never understand how people like you can sink to such levels, defending slavery.
And Iāll never understand how people can have such reductionist ways of thinking. āSlaveryā, as itās used today, is technically āchattel slaveryā, which is different. They have similar letters in English, but are not the same thing. Some translations even use different terms because the modern English word āslaveryā has a different meaning. Indentured and voluntary servitude were commonplace back then. Today it isnāt. Although the relationship between an employee and employer share many of the same definitions. āSlavesā under voluntary servitude were even able to āseek a new masterā. Basically find a new job. Such cruelty.
This assumes all religious scholars have a nefarious agenda. I donāt doubt some or many do, but no more so than the final population average. There are many who genuinely want to help others and believe in teaching and sharing peace.
Well, this one clearly does, as heās trying to whitewash slavery to make his religion look better. Seems pretty nefarious to me.
Because you think āslaveryā means the same thing across all time
They are ot free to leave, and can be abused by their masters at will. Itās close enough.
No, itās all are equal but not everyone can have the same job and responsibilities.
Except the high jobs and high responsiblilities are only available to men.
You know your arguments about this sound familiar to those used by pro-segregationits. I would say something about strange bedfellows, but since youāre agruing for thr same thing, I guess itās not so strange.
Involuntary servitude
Involuntary servitude
Of course, you forget to mention how none of this forgiveness applies to women, who werenāt freed after six years/the debt being paid off, and could instead be forcibly taken as a wife.
And of course slaves taken from neighbouring countries werenāt to be returned or freed, they were slaves for life.
āSlavesā under voluntary servitude were even able to āseek a new masterā. Basically find a new job.
Voluntary servitude? Maybe.
Were they able to get a new job under involuntary servitude? No. So slavery.
But indentured servitude with physical abuse is still slavery, and the bible supports it. No way around it.
Thereās a saying that when democracy doesnāt favour conservatives, they donāt turn from conservatism, theyāll turn on democracy. As it turns out it also applies to christans: when christians find out the bible supports slavery, they donāt turn of the bible, instead theyāll start saying slavery was actually good. And lo and beholdā¦
They are ot free to leave, and can be abused by their masters at will. Itās close enough.
Laws were in place to prevent abuse. That doesnāt mean it didnāt happen. Even today (with our laws and ways to monitor and report things) thereās abuse of literally every kind in every facet of society.
Your premise assumes that slaves in ancient Israel were regularly abused and their masters were harsh and uncaring. Historical accounts say otherwise.
Except the high jobs and high responsiblilities are only available to men.
Itās not like it comes with more pay like a job. Itās basically just more work.
You know your arguments about this sound familiar to those used by pro-segregationits.
Because thatās what youāre choosing to hear. Youāre ignoring all the other things Iāve said.
Were they able to get a new job under involuntary servitude? No.
Obviously not. Just as a prisoner canāt just go find a new prison or a criminal go find a more favourable judge. Involuntary servitude was a form of judicial punishment or a result of war.
But indentured servitude with physical abuse is still slavery
Anything with abuse is abuse and is abhorrent. The Bible says as much.
and the bible supports it.
No, the Bible records it. The Bible also places a huge emphasis on showing love to your neighbour and your enemy. To the point that itās considered a core teaching of Jesus.
1 Thessalonians 5:15Ā - āSee that no one repays injury for injury to anyone, but always pursue what is good toward one another and to all others.ā
Treat everyone well
Exodus 20:10 - ābut the seventh day is a sabbath to Jehovah your God. You must not do any work, neither you nor your son nor your daughter nor your slave man nor your slave girl nor your domestic animal nor your foreign resident who is inside your settlements.ā
Workers/slaves should not be overworked.
Exodus 21:12 - āAnyone who strikes a man so that he dies must be put to death.ā
Exodus 21:16 - āIf anyone kidnaps a man and sells him or is caught holding him, he must be put to death.ā
Exodus 21:26,27 - āIf a man strikes the eye of his slave man or the eye of his slave girl and he destroys it, he is to let the slave go free in compensation for his eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of his slave man or of his slave girl, he is to let the slave go free in compensation for his tooth.ā
Physical abuse resulted in the slave being released.
instead theyāll start saying slavery was actually good.
No one here ever said slavery of any kind was good. Not in the slightest. You might be confusing your preconceptions for something I said.
You really should listen to Dan Carlinās podcasts. (Even if itās not for the sake of this discussion, his content is unmatched)
I really donāt care about your religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash slavery.
Itās not like it comes with more pay like a job. Itās basically just more work.
It does come with pay, as well and power and influence.
Because thatās what youāre choosing to hear. Youāre ignoring all the other things Iāve said.
Iām hearing reality and ignoring the delusional falsehoods youāre saying, yes.
Youāre also ignoring the part where women slaves could be forced to marry their masters, where men could not.
But they were completely equal, right?
Anything with abuse is abuse and is abhorrent. The Bible says as much.
I didnāt say that for the part where it says how you can beat your slave.
It didnāt say that for the part about dashing babies into rocks.
It didnāt say that for child murder.
No, the Bible records it. The Bible also places a huge emphasis on showing love to your neighbour and your enemy.
Oh, I see. When something supports agenda then itās the bibleās core message, but when something doesnāt look to good for it, then itās just recorded in it, and also out of context.
How convenient.
If you havenāt noticed, the bible frequently contradicts itself.
No one here ever said slavery of any kind was good. Not in the slightest. You might be confusing your preconceptions for something I said.
I really donāt care about your religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash slavery.
LMAO! Dan Carlin is far from religious, and the last thing he does is whitewash anything. In fact, the stuff he talks about is blood curdling and may even make you vomit everywhere.
Edit: Iām still reeling with laughter at the absurdity at calling Dan Carlinās podcast āreligiousā and his content āwhitewashingā.
It does come with pay, as well and power and influence.
If youāre referring to those mega churches and people like the Duggars, then ya. I agree with you there and agree thatās wrong.
I didnāt say that for the part where it says how you can beat your slave.
You know well that this is about judicial punishment. If a slave murders someone, for example
It didnāt say that for the part about dashing babies into rocks.
Psalms 137:9 is talking about Babylon the Great, which represents false religion. And her āchildrenā are the terrible things she does.
Oh, I see. When something supports agenda then itās the bibleās core message, but when something doesnāt look to good for it, then itās just recorded in it, and also out of context.
No. Itās a reality and a fact that not every single word in the Bible is a commandment. There has to be context and even just basic information about events, people, cultures, etc.
Huh, so this wasnāt a quote used by you?
Is it a good thing that people go on welfare, or is it preferable to starving? Again, this is where we get into the definition of the word. Think about it, how would it be preferable to be mistreated, beaten, and abused?
LMAO! Dan Carlin is far from religious, and the last thing he does is whitewash anything. In fact, the stuff he talks about is blood curdling and may even make you vomit everywhere.
Sure bud, Iāll rephrase. I really donāt care about your totally non-religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash indentured servitude.
If youāre referring to those mega churches and people like the Duggars, then ya. I agree with you there and agree thatās wrong.
Them too. But you only need to look at how the christian churches protect pedophiles and abusers, help them escape the law and reoffend again to see how much power and influence they get.
Plus, the catholic church alone is worth billions, with land holdings, historical artifacts, etc.
Becoming a high-ranking member grants you influence over your underlings and delusional people, food and shelter for the rest of your life, etc.
You know well that this is about judicial punishment. If a slave murders someone, for example
Feel free to quote the verse where it says you can only beat slaves as judicial punishment.
No. Itās a reality and a fact that not every single word in the Bible is a commandment. There has to be context and even just basic information about events, people, cultures, etc.
And that context just happens to be in form of direct commandments. Oops.
Is it a good thing that people go on welfare, or is it preferable to starving? Again, this is where we get into the definition of the word. Think about it, how would it be preferable to be mistreated, beaten, and abused?
I think plenty of people would prefer to be poor and free then to be fed and a slave.
But if you think otherwise, would you be in favor of putting all homeless and poor people in involuntary servitude? Since itās preferable to welfare and starving, according to you.
And then of course thereās all the homophobia in the bible, but that seems to be a positive to people such as you who support sex based discrimination.
Itās not a teaching, it just explicitly tells people what to do and not to do. Makes sense.
Hired laborers and indentured servants whom you could beat and abuse, and had no freedom of their own. Hmm, I wonder if thereās a word for thatā¦
The wording that if a slave survives for a day or two was used to determine intent, as it was considered that if someone survives for a couple days after being punished then something else was also the cause of death, and not a direct result of the punishment enacted.
Itās not a teaching, it just explicitly tells people what to do and not to do. Makes sense.
Youāre very clever, congratulations.
You can give all the context you want, thatās sexism, plain and simple.
A chain of command you cannot change, that is not based on knowledge or experience, but on whatās between your legs.
Or not so clever, I guess.
We have this wonderful new technology called google. Feel free to use it.
Or not, since it was created by the devil of science.
Forcing women to shave their heads sure sounds like dominating to meā¦
Men arenāt forced to shave their hair, and using your analogy, they are always higheron the chain of command than women.
Except CEOs arenāt allowed to beat up employees, and employees are free to leave.
āEmployees, be subject to your CEOs with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.ā
And all of this not even talking about the rampant homophobia, genocide, etc commanded in the bible
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery
āBroadly, the Biblical and Talmudic laws tended to consider slavery a form of contract between persons, theoretically reducible to voluntary slavery, unlike chattel slavery, where the enslaved person is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner.ā
āAncient Israelite society allowed slavery; however, total domination of one human being by another was not permitted.[16][17] Rather, slavery in antiquity among the Israelites was closer to what would later be called indentured servitude.[15] Slaves were seen as an essential part of a Hebrew household.[18] In fact, there were cases in which, from a slaveās point of view, the stability of servitude under a family in which the slave was well-treated would have been preferable to economic freedom.ā
āAlthough not prohibited, Jewish ownership of non-Jewish slaves was constrained by Rabbinic authorities since non-Jewish slaves were to be offered conversion to Judaism during their first 12-months term as slaves. If accepted, the slaves were to become Jews, hence redeemed immediately. If rejected, the slaves were to be sold to non-Jewish owners. Accordingly, the Jewish law produced a constant stream of Jewish converts with previous slave experience. Additionally, Jews were required to redeem Jewish slaves from non-Jewish owners, making them a privileged enslavement item, albeit temporary. The combination has made Jews less likely to participate in enslavement and slave trade.ā
āThe Torah forbids the return of runaway slaves who escape from their foreign land and their bondage and arrive in the Land of Israel. Furthermore, the Torah demands that such former slaves be treated equally to any other resident alien.ā
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude
"Indentured servitude is a form of labor in which a person is contracted to work without salary for a specific number of years. The contract, called an āindentureā, may be entered āvoluntarilyā for purported eventual compensation or debt repayment, or it may be imposed āinvoluntarilyā as a judicial punishment. "
Yes, thereās a lot more in that Wikipedia page, but Jewish history expands well past the Bible and the 1st century. Iām just focusing on the Biblical period.
Slavery pre-American colonial settlement is far more nuanced than people realize. Dan Carlinās Hardcore History podcast goes into immense detail in the Humane Resources episode (and thatās āhumans as resourcesā in the title).
Is it though? Because 1 Corinthians says "For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God.ā Which is to say neither men or women are above the other, they are equal to God.
True, but an employee at a large company cannot become the CEO (yes, I know itās ātechnicallyā possible, but how often does that happen?). I know youāll disagree on this, and thatās fine, we can disagree. But my position is that this āorderā isnāt oppressive in any way. Thereās no privilege or power in the role (there isnāt supposed to be, but we know that it has been abused countless times). Itās only meant to be a role to be assign leadership to a clearly defined person in the family. A āleaderā doesnāt control the people they are leading, they simply the person that gives guidance for the group as a whole. Anyways, weāre going to disagree on this.
I knew which Corinthians was being referenced. I was pointing out that OP keeps referencing scriptures without giving all the details. Which matters because theyāve been touting their expertise and deep knowledge in the topic.
Men (in ancient Israel) are required to do other things, like cut the tip of their genitals off.
Taking a single example is cherry-picking. There are many things that were required of both men and women, and people in all different stations.
Because in modern days we have extensive and well established legal codes and policing infrastructures. Back in the Bible on a farm being worked by many people, the closest settlement would have been many hours, if not days away. There was no local police station, no 911 or emergency services. Land owners were thus expected to be the ones enforcing the law on their land. We also have extensive and meticulous laws covering all kinds of topics, scenarios, and conditions that are recorded in explicit detail. Back then most people didnāt read, and if they did they definitely didnāt have any access to a copy of the law. As such laws were often simple and not complex so that the average person could grasp and remember them.
That being said, slavery in the Bible isnāt what you think it is (as I mentioned earlier in my comment). A slave would only receive such punishment if they did something extremely heinous, like murder someone.
Edit: formatting, clarification
What you forgot you mention about the wikipedia page, is that these are not facts, but quotes from a religious scholar.
A religious scholar, who would greatly benefit from people thinking of positively of his religion.
If google puts it on their wikipedia page that them avoiding hundreds of millions in taxes is in context a really good thing, would you believe them?
I donāt even need to respond to it, it just speaks for itself.
Yes. Itās literally āAll of you are equal, some are just more equal than othersā.
Ah, I see. āSeperate but equalā.
It is possible, and it does happen.
In fact, every employee can start their own company and become its CEO.
A more apt analogy would be, a company where white people can become managers and C-suite, but black people cannot.
Would you support this?
āThe condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the ownerās control, especially in involuntary servitude.ā
Yep, that fits.
Iāll never understand how people like you can sink to such levels, defending slavery.
And again, the rampant homophobia.
This assumes all religious scholars have a nefarious agenda. I donāt doubt some or many do, but no more so than the final population average. There are many who genuinely want to help others and believe in teaching and sharing peace.
Because you think āslaveryā means the same thing across all time. That level of willful ignorance speaks for itself also.
No, itās all are equal but not everyone can have the same job and responsibilities. Not everyone can be the owner of a company (unless youāre WestJet).
Just āequalā.
I did specify ālarge corporationā in my example. Thanks for ignoring that.
Involuntary servitude under the law (back in the era weāre talking about) had clear definitions. It was often invoked to collect a debt and could only be held until the debt was paid off, not longer. Captured non-Hebrew enemies were also sometimes put under involuntary servitude. But they were required to either convert, at which point they would be freed. Or else sold off to a non-Hebrew.
And Iāll never understand how people can have such reductionist ways of thinking. āSlaveryā, as itās used today, is technically āchattel slaveryā, which is different. They have similar letters in English, but are not the same thing. Some translations even use different terms because the modern English word āslaveryā has a different meaning. Indentured and voluntary servitude were commonplace back then. Today it isnāt. Although the relationship between an employee and employer share many of the same definitions. āSlavesā under voluntary servitude were even able to āseek a new masterā. Basically find a new job. Such cruelty.
Well, this one clearly does, as heās trying to whitewash slavery to make his religion look better. Seems pretty nefarious to me.
They are ot free to leave, and can be abused by their masters at will. Itās close enough.
Except the high jobs and high responsiblilities are only available to men.
You know your arguments about this sound familiar to those used by pro-segregationits. I would say something about strange bedfellows, but since youāre agruing for thr same thing, I guess itās not so strange.
Of course, you forget to mention how none of this forgiveness applies to women, who werenāt freed after six years/the debt being paid off, and could instead be forcibly taken as a wife.
And of course slaves taken from neighbouring countries werenāt to be returned or freed, they were slaves for life.
Voluntary servitude? Maybe.
Were they able to get a new job under involuntary servitude? No. So slavery.
But indentured servitude with physical abuse is still slavery, and the bible supports it. No way around it.
Thereās a saying that when democracy doesnāt favour conservatives, they donāt turn from conservatism, theyāll turn on democracy. As it turns out it also applies to christans: when christians find out the bible supports slavery, they donāt turn of the bible, instead theyāll start saying slavery was actually good. And lo and beholdā¦
And of course the rampant homophobia.
You really should listen to Dan Carlinās podcasts. (Even if itās not for the sake of this discussion, his content is unmatched)
https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-68-blitz-human-resources/
Laws were in place to prevent abuse. That doesnāt mean it didnāt happen. Even today (with our laws and ways to monitor and report things) thereās abuse of literally every kind in every facet of society.
Your premise assumes that slaves in ancient Israel were regularly abused and their masters were harsh and uncaring. Historical accounts say otherwise.
Itās not like it comes with more pay like a job. Itās basically just more work.
Because thatās what youāre choosing to hear. Youāre ignoring all the other things Iāve said.
Obviously not. Just as a prisoner canāt just go find a new prison or a criminal go find a more favourable judge. Involuntary servitude was a form of judicial punishment or a result of war.
Anything with abuse is abuse and is abhorrent. The Bible says as much.
No, the Bible records it. The Bible also places a huge emphasis on showing love to your neighbour and your enemy. To the point that itās considered a core teaching of Jesus.
1 Thessalonians 5:15Ā - āSee that no one repays injury for injury to anyone, but always pursue what is good toward one another and to all others.ā
Treat everyone well
Exodus 20:10 - ābut the seventh day is a sabbath to Jehovah your God. You must not do any work, neither you nor your son nor your daughter nor your slave man nor your slave girl nor your domestic animal nor your foreign resident who is inside your settlements.ā
Workers/slaves should not be overworked.
Exodus 21:12 - āAnyone who strikes a man so that he dies must be put to death.ā
Exodus 21:16 - āIf anyone kidnaps a man and sells him or is caught holding him, he must be put to death.ā
Exodus 21:26,27 - āIf a man strikes the eye of his slave man or the eye of his slave girl and he destroys it, he is to let the slave go free in compensation for his eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of his slave man or of his slave girl, he is to let the slave go free in compensation for his tooth.ā
Physical abuse resulted in the slave being released.
No one here ever said slavery of any kind was good. Not in the slightest. You might be confusing your preconceptions for something I said.
I really donāt care about your religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash slavery.
It does come with pay, as well and power and influence.
Iām hearing reality and ignoring the delusional falsehoods youāre saying, yes.
Youāre also ignoring the part where women slaves could be forced to marry their masters, where men could not.
But they were completely equal, right?
I didnāt say that for the part where it says how you can beat your slave.
It didnāt say that for the part about dashing babies into rocks.
It didnāt say that for child murder.
Oh, I see. When something supports agenda then itās the bibleās core message, but when something doesnāt look to good for it, then itās just recorded in it, and also out of context.
How convenient.
If you havenāt noticed, the bible frequently contradicts itself.
Huh, so this wasnāt a quote used by you?
āIn fact, there were cases in which, from a slaveās point of view, the stability of servitude under a family in which the slave was well-treated would have been preferable to economic freedom.ā
LMAO! Dan Carlin is far from religious, and the last thing he does is whitewash anything. In fact, the stuff he talks about is blood curdling and may even make you vomit everywhere.
Edit: Iām still reeling with laughter at the absurdity at calling Dan Carlinās podcast āreligiousā and his content āwhitewashingā.
If youāre referring to those mega churches and people like the Duggars, then ya. I agree with you there and agree thatās wrong.
You know well that this is about judicial punishment. If a slave murders someone, for example
Psalms 137:9 is talking about Babylon the Great, which represents false religion. And her āchildrenā are the terrible things she does.
No. Itās a reality and a fact that not every single word in the Bible is a commandment. There has to be context and even just basic information about events, people, cultures, etc.
Is it a good thing that people go on welfare, or is it preferable to starving? Again, this is where we get into the definition of the word. Think about it, how would it be preferable to be mistreated, beaten, and abused?
Sure bud, Iāll rephrase. I really donāt care about your totally non-religious podcast, especially one that tries to whitewash indentured servitude.
Them too. But you only need to look at how the christian churches protect pedophiles and abusers, help them escape the law and reoffend again to see how much power and influence they get.
Plus, the catholic church alone is worth billions, with land holdings, historical artifacts, etc.
Becoming a high-ranking member grants you influence over your underlings and delusional people, food and shelter for the rest of your life, etc.
Feel free to quote the verse where it says you can only beat slaves as judicial punishment.
And that context just happens to be in form of direct commandments. Oops.
I think plenty of people would prefer to be poor and free then to be fed and a slave.
But if you think otherwise, would you be in favor of putting all homeless and poor people in involuntary servitude? Since itās preferable to welfare and starving, according to you.
And then of course thereās all the homophobia in the bible, but that seems to be a positive to people such as you who support sex based discrimination.