What makes me maddest about theists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-05-2015, 09:40 AM
RE: What makes me maddest about theists
(13-05-2015 10:10 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  
(13-05-2015 09:26 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  But indentured servitude is not owning a person. It is a mutual agreement for mutual benefit.

Oh. Oh, are you really going to make me do this? Are you seriously going to stick to this line, knowing it takes maybe a minute to prove wrong? Okay...

Leviticus 25: 44-46 Wrote:However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.

Honestly Q, I can't believe you thought that claim would stand. Are you really that stupid?

I think you might actually be, because you lie again in an earlier post in an even more breathtaking way, by actually misquoting your own bible:

Quote:Also do understand the definition. When you tell your children, "You can't go to the movies until you've cleaned your room," you are setting up conditions of employment and then releasing them from indentured labor. In the Bible, so much different than slavery in the Americas, it says specifically things like "if a servant gets married, when he is freed from the term of his labor, the wife goes with him and his children and etc." A lot of people, Christians included, are "down" on the Bible laws, but if you think of them more like a bill of rights, the differences between biblical servitude agreements and American slavery are made more clear.

The bolded part is particularly funny, since actually the bible "specifically says" literally the exact opposite of what you claimed it says.

Exodus 21: 2-6 Wrote:But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.

If a slave gets married, his wife and children do not go with him, they "belong" to his master, which is an odd choice of wording, given your earlier claim that slaves totally did not belong to their masters. So your quote is one hundred percent wrong, but more importantly, this verse is part of a larger passage detailing how to trick one of these "indentured servants" (the real kind, the slaves of Israel, rather than the for realsies actual slaves that one could procure of other tribes) into being a slave forever by giving him emotional attachments that must stay with his master once his time in servitude was up, ending in "after that, the slave will belong to his master forever."

Seriously, your entire apologetic is lazy, dishonest deflection that literally has to misrepresent the unambiguous, black and white words of the text. It's lies. Nothing but lies.

*Freedom could be bought by relatives (Lev 25:49)

*The servant could buy his own freedom, whether the master WANTED to let him go or not (Lev 25:49)

*Every 7th year (the Sabbath year), all servants were to automatically go free--without ANY payment of money to the master: (Ex 21.2; Deut 15.12)

*Minor injuries due to abusive treatment automatically resulted in immediate freedom (this is actually labeled as 'to compensate', implying rights/duties/debt):

*When freedom was granted at the Sabbath year or Year of Jubilee, the master was obligated to send them out with liberal gifts--to allow them to occupy the land in sufficiency again (Deut 15.13)

As for allowed to 'buy' (not take!) slaves from foreign nations around them [Note: these would NOT include the Canaanites, but would be from remote nations. This would make the incidence level of this extremely small, except in the case of royalty or the ruling class. In those days, rulers would often have slaves with special skills, such as writing, teaching, translation, but the lives of these 'slaves' would not be representative of the common "western" slavery under discussion.]

The temporary resident situation would look more like the Hebrew institution (since the alien would be 'selling himself' as in that case). The main difference would be the absence of the "timed-release" freedom clauses, but the slave-for-life-for-love situation may have been what is behind the 'you CAN make them slaves for life' (implying that it was not automatic.).

The temporary resident already performed more mundane tasks for the people, for example wood and water services (cf. Deut 29.11: the aliens living in your camps who chop your wood and carry your water. ), in exchange for escape from Egypt or from troubles abroad. But these aliens were not confined to some 'lower class' in the Israelite assembly, since it is obvious that they could rise to affluence and actually BUY Hebrew servants as well:

"If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan, 48 he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself. (Deut 25.47)

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: