Exodus 21:20 Hurry up midnight!

Author: RoderickSpode

Posts

Total: 29
Topic's author
#1
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
Exodus 21:20-21
King James Version
20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.


The Bible refers to a number of laws meant to resolve issues where someone takes an action that puts them into certain predicaments. These references often started out using the term "if". 

If a man commits A, then he should do B. And the only reason for the suggestion to do B is because he committed A. Had he not committed A, then he wouldn't have need to do B. But sometimes these verses get taken to imply that the act of committing A is justified.

Two parents allow their kid to stay home alone for the first time. They tell him "If you make a mess, clean it up". The having to clean up is conditional.  The parents are not advocating making a mess. I'm sure they prefer he doesn't. But they are providing the solution, or the next step IF he should make a mess.

 Many read this passage as an assumption that the law is trying to make it easy on the Israelites to beat their slaves by suggesting a very weak reference to a death penalty for killing a servant, and a quick out by suggesting the servant only need survive one or two days. And after 3 days if they die, the master would supposedly be free. So all the master need do is count the minutes to the 24th (or 48th) hour, and he is free!!!!

So the one or two days (24 or 48 hours) would be similar to the seven year law where if a criminal remains uncaught for seven years, right at midnight of the seventh year they are free.

But, this is not the case.

One question needed to be addressed, is why weren't they specific about the length of time before their freedom? Remember, if the servant dies, it's a death penalty for the master. Wouldn't you think something as important as one's life they should make it crystal clear how long they have to wait before they are safe from a death penalty? This law was meant to prevent abuse. Somehow it's being read as an encouragement.


They had judges back then. They also had methods for punishment designed to prevent death. Typically the head was to be avoided. So if the servant's head is bashed in, this would be taken into consideration. What they were trying to do was avoid wrongfully sentencing the master if the servant died from another cause. This would mean that there wouldn't be any visible evidence that the servant died from beating wounds. A bashed in head would make it fairly obvious that the servant was abused, and may have died directly from the blows.


So basically, again, the intent was to punish the master if the servant died as a result of the beating, and to avoid a false sentencing if not.









#2
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
This law was meant to prevent abuse. Somehow it's being read as an encouragement.
Maybe it should have just said "don't beat your slave" then? Sure seems like the bible is concerned about protecting one person from false sentencing, if I take your meaning, but not about preventing some poor non-hebrew non-indentured servant (were these people eligible for beating?) from taking a vicious beating because they spilled some wine or something. Let me get your opinion on something:

Is it against the law you state her for a slave owner, sorry, I mean "forced labor employer," to slap a 15 year old female kitchen indentured servant, push her to the ground, and kick her in the ribs a few times? She doesn't black out, she doesn't die, she isn't struck in the head. Does the reading you provide here allow for this to happen within the bounds of the law?
Topic's author
#3
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
Sorry, not sure what you mean.

What does "Is it against the law you state her for a slave holder" mean?

Just the sound of stating someone for a slave holder (even though I have no idea what you're talking about) sounds terrible.


#4
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
Sorry, poorly worded, I'll clarify:

Is it against the law you CITE HERE for a slave owner, sorry, I mean "forced labor employer," to slap a 15 year old female kitchen indentured servant, push her to the ground, and kick her in the ribs a few times? She doesn't black out, she doesn't die, she isn't struck in the head. Does the reading you provide here allow for this to happen within the bounds of the law?
That should help. 
#5
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ludofl3x
Maybe it should have just said "don't beat your slave" then? 
Or even a commandment? Though shall not own people as property perhaps?
#6
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@secularmerlin
I think that was left in draft, right next to "thou shalt not rape." It's not like you can have TWELVE commandments, so I get it, gotta make sure those graven images aren't all over the place, after all. 
#7
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ludofl3x
It does seem odd that so many of what are commonly referred to as the ten commandments are wasted on the Yahweh's apparent vanity. No other gods first, not to take the name in vain etc. 
#8
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,664
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
I think that was left in draft, right next to "thou shalt not rape." It's not like you can have TWELVE commandments, so I get it, gotta make sure those graven images aren't all over the place, after all. 

Indeed, priority is everything.

Topic's author
#9
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
You mean in Israel? I'm sure it is against the law. I would hope that it's against the law anywhere. Including Muslim nations.
#10
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,664
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
 Remember, if the servant dies, it's a death penalty for the master.

Not according to your own biblical example. Your biblical example simply states Exodus 21:20-21
King James Version
20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

OR 
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Death or the punishment of death is not even mentioned in your example . So where did you get that from?

And with that aside, lets for the sake of argument agree it does mean the punishment will be death, who is it that commands this punishment?



#11
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
No. I mean in the context of the verse you cited, in the eyes of god (this is his word, right? it's the bible?), not today in Israel, not in a muslim nation as Islam didn't exist, but in the eyes of whoever wrote the verse you're saying was intended to specify the punishment for the master. Under that verse, at that time, was it LEGAL for a slave owner / indentured servitude employer to do as I said. According to the verse you're saying is there to protect the servant, is it legal for that person, the owner, to slap a fifteen year old kitchen servant, knock her to the ground, and kick her in the ribs? Under that verse, is the master subject to ANY remonstration either from Jesus or from the legal system in place according to that law?


Topic's author
#12
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
Oh definitely! 

I'm guessing that because the text doesn't specifically say it would be illegal to slap around a 15 year old kitchen servant, that it must not of been?

Or........they would have to fall in the sexist category since that was the norm back then in that region?


Or......?



#13
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 857
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@RoderickSpode
A quick note --
the verse is not saying "a day OR two" according to Jewish understanding. If a day would suffice, then saying "two" would be unnecessary. If 2 are required then listing one is wrong. The verse is clarifying what it means by "day" as in other cases, "day" means until the end of a given day. This text, therefore, means "a day that goes beyond the day, into a second" -- meaning a 24 hour period even if it straddles 2 calendar days. One commentator explains that the term for the second day is listed so as to eliminate any consideration of a third day even though elsewhere, textually, the reference is made to the third day being most painful so one would assume that the death on the third day would be directly because of the injury caused.
#14
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
Oh definitely! 


Then how, exactly, would this slave be protected if the bible DEFINITELY says it's legal to beat the slave so long as they don't die? I mean I'm glad we agree, but WTF, why are you holding this up as ome sort of moral victory for Jesus? The verse, we agree, says if you beat your slave to death, you'll get punished. It definitely doesn't say "don't beat your slave at all," which means it's legal to do so, regardless. It's biblically legal to beat the slave, what exactly is the slave protected FROM? I have to say man, in a sea of weird and senseless arguments you've made, this is among the weirdest. If you want to protect a slave from being beaten, say don't beat your slave. Not "don't beat them so badly they don't die within 24 - 48 hours. 
#15
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,274
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
This passage strikes me as protecting intent to punish but not intent to kill. That is, if your slave survives for a day or two and then dies, you probably didn't mean to kill him; you probably just went too far punishing him. So you shouldn't be penalized in that case - you have merely accidentally destroyed a piece of your property.

Any moral document that is not allowed to learn and grow as we learn and grow is only going to become increasingly offensive with time, and this passage is a fine example.
Topic's author
#16
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@rosends
A quick note --
the verse is not saying "a day OR two" according to Jewish understanding. If a day would suffice, then saying "two" would be unnecessary. If 2 are required then listing one is wrong. The verse is clarifying what it means by "day" as in other cases, "day" means until the end of a given day. This text, therefore, means "a day that goes beyond the day, into a second" -- meaning a 24 hour period even if it straddles 2 calendar days. One commentator explains that the term for the second day is listed so as to eliminate any consideration of a third day even though elsewhere, textually, the reference is made to the third day being most painful so one would assume that the death on the third day would be directly because of the injury caused.
Thanks for clarification on that. I've never seen that particular commentary.

As far as I can tell, This doesn't conflict with my view. My references to specific 24 hour periods was aimed at skeptics who may seem to view the text as the one or two days being a legalized time period, similar to the law that states a criminal is technically freed after 7 years if they can avoid capture until then.

And this part here is exactly what I would stress to any skeptic who held that view.

"If a day would suffice, then saying "two" would be unnecessary. If 2 are required then listing one is wrong."
Topic's author
#17
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
Then how, exactly, would this slave be protected if the bible DEFINITELY says it's legal to beat the slave so long as they don't die?

The bible doesn't definitely say it's legal to beat the slave so long as they don't die.


Have you ever seen those road signs that say "If in a minor crash, pull over to the side of the road"? The sign is not meant to legalize fender benders.

The texts, the representation of the message given to the Israelites, was made clear to them. They didn't need it explained to them to pacify some forum poster/debator reading this in the 21st century.

You know it's wrong to assault someone. Do you need further instruction stating that if you go to the mall, don't assault anyone there? Of course not. The law against assaulting someone in a shopping mall is covered in the general law prohibiting the act of assault.


I mean I'm glad we agree, but WTF, why are you holding this up as ome sort of moral victory for Jesus? The verse, we agree, says if you beat your slave to death, you'll get
punished. It definitely doesn't say "don't beat your slave at all," which means it's legal to do so, regardless. It's biblically legal to beat the slave, what exactly is the slave protected FROM? I have to say man, in a sea of weird and senseless arguments you've made, this is among the weirdest. If you want to protect a slave from being beaten, say don't beat your slave. Not "don't beat them so badly they don't die within 24 - 48 hours. 

As far as weird and senseless, I'm not sure if anything covers those grounds as much as the insistence that the bible should have been worded a certain way to appease someone 2,000 plus years later. Truthfully, I don't think how the texts are stated would make any difference with you. It could have been written in a New Joisey accent, and you'd still complain.


Topic's author
#18
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Castin

This passage strikes me

I'm assuming no pun intended.

as protecting intent to punish but not intent to kill. That is, if your slave survives for a day or two and then dies, you probably didn't mean to kill him; you probably just went too far punishing him. So you shouldn't be penalized in that case - you have merely accidentally destroyed a piece of your property.

There isn't any passage that states the act of administering non-governed punishment is okay. I can understand why you might think that due to the oppressive nature from
that time period. But the Israelites were instructed to pretty much defy the norm. The passages that make clear that random punishing is not okay might be hard to swallow, and as a result usually get ignored.




Any moral document that is not allowed to learn and grow as we learn and grow is only going to become increasingly offensive with time, and this passage is a fine example.


I'm not clear on the meaning of this statement. Could you clarify for me please?


#19
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,664
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Castin
This passage strikes me as protecting intent to punish but not intent to kill. That is, if your slave survives for a day or two and then dies, you probably didn't mean to kill him; you probably just went too far punishing him. So you shouldn't be penalized in that case - you have merely accidentally destroyed a piece of your property.

Yes it appears that you can beat your slave to the point of  near death and if he dies as a result of the injuries of his/her punishment 48 hours after the near death beating that were inflicted by you, it is not your fault and you can simply replace him/her at the local slave auction held twice a week at Yahweh's Auction House. 




#20
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode
Two parents allow their kid to stay home alone for the first time. They tell him "If you make a mess, clean it up". The having to clean up is conditional.  The parents are not advocating making a mess. I'm sure they prefer he doesn't. But they are providing the solution, or the next step IF he should make a mess.
I don't think this is a good analogy because the Bible holds that the slave is property and living bodies tend to heal themselves (the mess cleans itself if the injuries aren't too severe).  Perhaps a better analogy would be a plow horse. 'if you beat your plow horse, then...'.  Given that slaves were living property, this analogy is a much closer representation, imo.

It should also be noted that there are conflicting punishments.  Per the Bible, if I kill my slave I die as punishment, but if you kill my slave, you owe me 30 pieces of silver. I think this has to do with one 'slave' being a Hebrew servant and the other being a foreign slave (and not dependent on who killed them), but I would need to do some research to verify. Either way, the problematic part is that the slave IS property.
#21
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Castin
Any moral document that is not allowed to learn and grow as we learn and grow is only going to become increasingly offensive with time, and this passage is a fine example.
Well stated.

#22
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
The bible doesn't definitely say it's legal to beat the slave so long as they don't die.
Whew! Okay, so where's the passage that prohibits it and calls out a punishment for it, like the one you cited about how you can beat them as long as they don't die. It must be superseded, right? Because here's the conversatoin, again:

Me from # 11

Under that verse, at that time, was it LEGAL for a slave owner / indentured servitude employer to do as I said. According to the verse you're saying is there to protect the servant, is it legal for that person, the owner, to slap a fifteen year old kitchen servant, knock her to the ground, and kick her in the ribs? Under that verse, is the master subject to ANY remonstration either from Jesus or from the legal system in place according to that law?
You in 12:

Oh definitely! 
So maybe there's a miscommunication. You're saying either (a) it's definitely legal to do as I described per the verse you cited, since the slave doesn't die within 48 hours, or (b) it s definitely NOT legal, but then you don't cite the verse prohibiting it. According to the text, there is not room in the bible for "Don't beat slaves at all" but there IS room for "don't wear mixed fabrics" and "don't covet your neighbor's ass." Is there a verse in there that says "Don't beat a slave" full stop? Or is this one of your places where you're allowed to add your own opinion? 

The law against assaulting someone in a shopping mall is covered in the general law prohibiting the act of assault.
Right! First, I know it without Jesus. Second, the law prohibits it clearly: no assault, full stop. Does the bible contain a similarly clear and comprehensive prohibition? If so please provide the citation. If not, then just say no, that's just what Rod thinks, and therefore it's a perfect interpretation of ancient texts in dead languages, from a time when it was people thought thunder was an angry god. 

Truthfully, I don't think how the texts are stated would make any difference with you.
Well, I'm not an Israelite, can you blame me? 

My argument is NOT that the bible should say anything at all. It's that the bible is not applicable to today's superior moral understanding of the world. It's not okay to beat the shit out of any employee, even if you're in the army, or my other favorite of yours, if you're an NFL quarterback and somehow you're 'owned' by the team like property. The bible isn't inerrant, it isn't timeless, and if you followed its rules to the letter, you'd be rightfully arrested. It's out of date as you admit right here: 


The texts, the representation of the message given to the Israelites, was made clear to them. They didn't need it explained to them to pacify some forum poster/debator reading this in the 21st century.

Why do so many people, you included, need it explained to them with these contortions of meaning and logic (don't beat your slaves until they're dead within 48 hours = PROTECTING SALVES somehow, also glossing over the slave part), if it's supposed to apply across time and it's still a good book to use as a moral compass in the 21st century? I can read what's there and make up my mind about what it says, and what it says is pretty clear: beat your slaves so long as they don't die. Beat your kids all you want. Own foreigners. Hebrews are better than other races. I can read all that in very plain language and conclude that book is a provincial mythology anthology, written by people looking to justify their own view of the world, that holds no real practical value in 2020. 


Topic's author
#23
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
If you can't see where the bible prohibits abuse of anyone including those in servitude, then you're not going to. It's an unending pattern. Fortunately, there are a few atheists here that are fairly objective, and not subject to prejudice. Not too many unfortunately.

And it's no surprise. We're discussing an historical account 2,000 plus years ago. We face the same issue 
a mere 200 plus years ago concerning American history. The history of the American founding fathers was long enough ago to where people can interpret religious influence as they wish. I had a discussion with an atheist at DDO once that convinced me that people will interpret religious influence in history as they want. That person chose to believe, like apparently many, that George Washington was not a Christian because he never quoted using the name Jesus. I showed him a quotation where he did use the name of Jesus in an evangelical fashion. He decided to tell me that since the quotation came from a third party (which is usually how it is), that he believed the quotation was fabricated by a cohort who wanted to falsely accuse Washington of being a Christian.

The point?

People are going to believe what they want. Nothing can be done about it (and I wouldn't want to try).

Here's the wonderful thing Ludo. You have the right to believe what you want. People choose to fantasize about dividing the founding father good guys (Washington, Jefferson, etc.) into some imaginary deist camp, and all the bad guys like Benedict Arnold into a Christian camp. It's a comic book mentality, but it appeases the minds of those who are set in their way of thinking. I'm going to step out on a limb by suggesting no Christians are knocking on your door trying to get you to convert, or even go to their church. Maybe that's the problem. Not enough Christian aggression.
What would be beyond the realm of absolute absurdity would be if you expect us to buy whatever it is you're trying to sell. 



#24
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
If you can't see where the bible prohibits abuse of anyone including those in servitude, then you're not going to. It's an unending pattern. Fortunately, there are a few atheists here that are fairly objective, and not subject to prejudice. Not too many unfortunately.
You could always just show me the verse. 

Would it be safe to say that if someone wants to see who doesn't want to see something in the bible that is actually there, as you accuse people who don't share your interpretation of the verses, that it's possible a Christian could suffer just as an atheist could from the same issue?
#25
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@RoderickSpode



.
RoderickSpode,

Barring the FACT that you embarrassingly run away from my Jesus inspired posts to you in other threads, WHY DO YOU KEEP BRINGING FORTH OLD TESTAMENT NARRATIVES?!

The majority of the Bible inept pseudo-christian crowd like you always purport that the Old Testament is done away with, and that you do not have to read from it anymore, remember?  "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." (Hebrews 8:13)

If you're going to keep giving the membership Old Testament narratives that are obviously worthy to you, then why don't you bring forth some of these passages as well that show our Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, who He truly is:

Jesus as Yahweh God incarnate stated: “I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.” ( Jeremiah 19:9)     Jesus made His Jewish creation eat their children? WTF?!

Jesus as Yahweh God incarnate inspired words stated:  “And the man that committeth adultery with another mans wife even he that committeth adultery with his neighbors wife the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death”  (Leviticus 20:10).     Jesus said adulterers should be murdered? Really?


I know, you will have to RUN AWAY from this post to you as well in front of the membership, but, what does that say about your faith when you RUN, where you are too embarrassed about it to respond to my biblical posts?   Pseudo-christians like you are such easy targets to biblical axioms, but unfortunately at your embarrassing expense!


++++++ Oh, forgot, when do you graduate from "Tradesecrets School of Running Away from Disturbing Biblical Axioms," and trying to remain intelligent looking in the aftermath? Will you invite members of this forum to your graduation party? +++++++



.


Topic's author
#26
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x

You could always just show me the verse. 

“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.



“Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke?


“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him

as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am theLord your God.

Deuteronomy 23:15

“You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you.



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



“You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.

Leviticus 24:17

“Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death.


Deuteronomy 24:14-15 ESV / 11 helpful votes

“You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brothers or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns. You shall give him his wages on the same day, before the sun sets (for he is poor and counts on it), lest he cry against you to theLord, and you be guilty of sin.


Would it be safe to say that if someone wants to see who doesn't want to see something in the bible that is actually there, as you accuse people who don't share your interpretation of the verses, that it's possible a Christian could suffer just as an atheist could from the same issue?

Before I go any further, what in the world does the underlined portion mean?


#27
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
People are going to believe what they want. Nothing can be done about it (and I wouldn't want to try).

My question is in response to this. Can this also be said about Christians as it pertains to their interpretations of the bible?

None of your passages either prohibit slavery, or beating your slaves, according to the words you've quoted.  It says pay the people you hire, that's as close as it comes. I know that's not how you see it, but the words are the words. Even the "don't take a human life" must have a ton of exceptions, right? Unless the Amelkites were not humans, or the Phillistines, or the Egyptians...
Topic's author
#28
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
It sounds like you're not following your own advice. I gave you scriptures that are very clearly against oppression of any kind. You keep running back to "it doesn't say this or that". I'm going to do something similar. Those scriptures that are clearly against oppression do not say "except for foreigners", or "foreign slaves".

Do you have an interpretation of  "oppressed" in these verses that differ from the normal Websterian definition?

Can a Christian misinterpret scripture (including myself)? Absolutely!!!

So what exactly is the controversy?

I mentioned to you that you have the freedom to interpret as you wish. If you want to interpret the ascensions of Enoch and Elijah as alien abductions......feel free!

What more could you ask for?
#29
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.
Can you steal a person, or can you steal property? It's not illegal to BUY a man. You know slavery existed back then, right? I mean you must acknowledge that, no?

“Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke?

I'm not clear on the context, so I'll go check this one eventually, but "slaves obey your masters" is in the book too, right?

“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him

as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am theLord your God.
Literally nothing to do with slavery or oppression or beating your slaves. 

“You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you.

Does not prohibit slavery. Prohibits returning an escaped slave to his master for some reason.

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

Okay, so hands only. Also, doesn't say "Slavery is against my will, so free that person and if they want to stay, pay them a living wage and don't hit them, with anything." 

“You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.
Covered this one. Only prohibits returning a slave, doesn't endorse wholesale freedom or equality. 

“Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death.
Tons of exceptions, and doesn't prohibit slavery or beating your slaves. 

“You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brothers or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns. You shall give him his wages on the same day, before the sun sets (for he is poor and counts on it), lest he cry against you to theLord, and you be guilty of sin.
"hired servants" =/= slaves man, come on. Slaves aren't hired. They're purchased according to the laws in the bible, not hired. Next you'll tell me all those plantation workers were just contract laborers.