Slavery

[nPeace]

You know, I think you’re capable of reasoning, but you just don’t want to....

 

[night912]

Similarly though, God allowed men to divorce their wives for reasons other than adultery, also take more than one wife until Jesus made it clear that was not God's original intention. We're all slaves in various ways. Some slave "owners" are more compassionate than others. This all goes back to the beginning of mankind where two persons were created by God. And after He expelled them from the Garden of Eden, their first son killed his brother. God did not stop him from murdering Abel. I'll leave it there for now. He allowed it. Let's take this down to modern times, and legal or non-legal murder. Or slavery. Let's also imagine there could be a life without slavery in some sort or another. Would that be possible?

What are you trying to say here? It seems to me, you're not talking about morality. When it comes down to the laws, it does not appear to me that you do differentiate betwern government law from moral law. Not all government laws incorporate morality into it. An act can still be legal but is immoral.

 

[nPeace]

Yeah, someone already tried that on me.

That's not slavery. I don't own any human beings as property. Nor does my employer who pays me money to work for him, a job which I can freely leave any time I want.

He pays you money to work for him.
So you are working for him, in order to get money for yourself. Correct? He is your boss - your master. Correct? You do what he says, oy else. Correct?
Sure you can leave anytime without money, and work for someone else in order to get money for yourself.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Let's take a closer look.
(Leviticus 25:35-46) 35 “‘If your brother who is nearby becomes poor and cannot support himself, you must sustain him as you would a foreign resident and a settler, so that he may keep alive with you. 36 Do not take interest or make a profit from him. You must be in fear of your God, and your brother will keep alive with you. 37 You must not lend him your money on interest or give out your food for profit. 38 I am Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to give you the land of Caʹnaan, to prove myself your God. 39 “‘If your brother who lives nearby becomes poor and he has to sell himself to you, you must not force him to do slave labor. 40 He should be treated like a hired worker, like a settler. He should serve with you until the Jubilee year. 41 Then he will leave you, he and his children with him, and return to his family. He should return to the property of his forefathers. 42 For they are my slaves whom I brought out of the land of Egypt. They should not sell themselves the way a slave is sold. 43 You must not treat him cruelly, and you must be in fear of your God.

44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you, from them you may buy a male or a female slave. 45 Also from the sons of the foreign settlers who are residing with you, from them and from their families that are born to them in your land you may buy slaves, and they will become your possession. 46 You may pass them on as an inheritance to your sons after you to inherit as a permanent possession. You may use them as workers, but you must not subject your Israelite brothers to cruel treatment.

You may say, you are not owned... Where is my alarm clock? Some people are in some deep sleep, though.
You have to work all your years until you reach the age of 65, unless you are well off - aka wealthy.
It does not matter whom you work for. If you leave one boss, and go to another, they are all the same masters, under one system.

Yes. Some are harder than some. Some people feel they have no choice but to stick it, since the options are quite small.
You work to live. It's called "making a living" for that reason.
Whether you admit it or not, you are slaving. Whether it be the 'almighty dollar', or the masters of it, does not matter.

Slavery... How do we define it?
(A)
One definition is given here... A person is enslaved when a slaver coerces him or her into working for them and is deprived of the opportunity to leave.
Under the subtitle 'Terminology', the same article describes various forms of slavery. One describes...
Dependents
"Slavery" has also been used to refer to a legal state of dependency to somebody else. For example, in Persia, the situations and lives of such slaves could be better than those of common citizens.

Another...
(B)
A slave was considered by law as property, or chattel, and was deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons.
The article says... There is no consensus on what a slave was or on how the institution of slavery should be defined... ...There have been two basic types of slavery throughout recorded history.

The Bible gives the slavery as defined by (A), does it not? Or do you think it defines B, or both, or what?
So I would say, either you don't understand what the Bible says; you have not read it with the right attitude; or you don't really care enough about really grasping what it says. Or, you simply just want to argue against it, for no valid reason.
I think all the above is true, at one point or other.

I have a question for you... Who dictates that you need to work in this system, and according to the system... Is it the "king"?

This is a disgusting apologetic to hand wave away the actual slavery that is condoned in the Bible. Slavery where human beings are owned as PROPERTY.

This is not even an Apologetics argument. some people tend to latch on to words, and misuse, and abuse them.
This is not being made to excuse anything.
The subject of slavery in the Bible has already been dealt with from the Bible's point of view.
People served others or offered their servitude, for a means of livelihood, in return.
God's law restricted the Israelites from having slaves from their own nation. Hence those who would be workers for them, were from the nations, and these were people who surrendered to them and even willingly defected in order to be spared death. Their freedom was history. However, many enjoyed that, because they actually became family, as they now supported Israel.
There is no need to apologize for that. There is nothing disgusting about it either,
If you find anything disgusting about it, it might be that you simply want to, because according to what I read, the treatment to all foreigners was humane, and demonstrated a reasonable, merciful, and just God.

People who hate good persons, will always have negative things to say about them, but those accusations, are always unmerited.
They did the same with the son of God - falsely accused him of what he was innocent of. Why, they even murdered him. I suspect if the Atheists and skeptics here could do the same with God, they would be delighted to. LOL. ...but they can't.

 

[nPeace]

Oh? So weird that he would explicitly explain to humans how to practice slavery then.


So what? The Bible explicitly lays out what a slave is, where to find and purchase them, and how to treat them, which includes an allowance to beat them, as long as they don't die in a few days.

Your king determines how to practice slavery, and how to keep you in it. No different to the great king. However, his way is better than the one you think is moral. So if yours is moral, then God's must be much more moral.

You go ahead and be someone's property if you want, because you think you have to or whatever.
I think it's immoral.

I am, someone's property. Were you not listening, when I said that? So are you. I understand why you deny it though. If I were ashamed I would do the same.

Hmm, funny how we have to get God's supposed view from you, rather than right from the Bible, as I was doing.
Thank goodness you're here to translate on behalf of God!

I think you guys should really stop making that claim. You're making me laugh, 'cause it sounds like a joke.
Evidently, you know very little ... if anything, about the Bible. You seem to read it upside down and 3 feet away.

Except that God did institute them, at least, according to the Bible.

How easy would it have been for God to just include it in the Commandments ... "Thou shalt not own human beings as property."
But this God didn't do that. Instead, this God explained how to do slavery in pretty great detail.

What you seem to have a problem with, is not a problem.

Great, so God is moral sometimes and not moral other times.
Got it.

What?

Morality is not universal and timeless, according to the God who supposedly created them. (Or maybe just according to you).

Got it.

What?

The last part's messed up.
I don't know myself to sidestep questions.
What question do you think I sidestepped?

 

[nPeace]

Oh are the Hebrew scriptures not a part of the Bible? That's weird because they're part of the Bible I have.

So the morality of the God you worship is not timeless and is not universal. Got it. Basically, it's based on whatever that God's opinion is at the time. Got it. And the morality God told us about in the Bible only applies in ancient times. Got it. Morality changes over time. Got it.
Just wondering what we need this God for then.


Thanks for yet again, highlighting the superiority or secular morality over Biblical morality. My secular morality tells me that rape is not the victim's fault and that own other human beings as property is immoral. Always.

So much for reading the Bible.
Apparently, there is more to the Bible than just reading it.

 

[nPeace]

@SkepticThinker I was wondering if the problem you are having with slavery, is that you don't think anyone has the right to own another. Is that the only issue you are arguing regarding slavery, in the Bible?

 

[YoursTrue]

What are you trying to say here? It seems to me, you're not talking about morality. When it comes down to the laws, it does not appear to me that you do differentiate betwern government law from moral law. Not all government laws incorporate morality into it. An act can still be legal but is immoral.

Two things. One is whose morality are you suggesting, since you spoke of moral law. And two is do you think any government today has moral standards or ... "laws," those that are based on what standards.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, the world is in sad state but two hands working do far more than a thousand clasped in prayer. Better to strive for a better world than idly wait for the day god finally extracts his finger.

Hardly anyone except for ascetics would do that. If my neighbor was in trouble, I'd do what I could to help. I'm sure you would too. But none of us can fix this world. Not a defeatist attitude, just realism.

 

[YoursTrue]

You know, I think you’re capable of reasoning, but you just don’t want to....

His morality is fine —- again, rapists were killed —- but the Mosaic Law was for the Israelites as a nation to follow.

But for Christians? No. Acts of the Apostles 15 tells us that. Verses 28,29 reveal there were only a few “necessary things” from the Law that were required for followers of Christ. Everything else in it, was covered and regulated by their love for God, and their love for other humans.

So no...that Law was not timeless, and not universal.
Jeremiah 31:31-34 makes it clear that another was coming.

I hope, one day, you’ll soften your countenance toward Jehovah.

Peace.

Interesting points you bring out because the first Christians were still part of the nation of Israel. They were in fact often killed and persecuted. Rather than kill others.

 

[thomas t]

Thanks for sharing your opinions, though not wanting to accept that you are wrong in what you are claiming.

I permit myself to stay with my opinion holding it is right...

But I'd like to go on dicussing some other points here.
You seem to be saying that "If you don't want to create the appetite, then don't feed the eyes or the desire."... is just a loving advice rather than victim blaming. (see #280)
I think dressing up nicely should never be seen as creating an appetite for rape. Rape is totally different from consensual sex, as I see it. Conventional sex involves communication. Rape implies giving orders at best if it has any conversation at all. This is at least how I see rape.

If it is supposed to get a message across related to sex... a nice clothing style is meant to create an appetite for conventional sex as I see it.
If it does... and if you're in a group and a good looking lady did not explicitely claim she dressed up sexy for you... you can never know if it's for you, I think.

And if she did... you can't really know if it's really meant to have actual sex unless she explicitely asks.
It could be all sorts of signals. It could be saying "I am interested in intersting guys and besides I like to enjoy the sun" or whatever.

A woman wanting to convey she is interested in conventional sex ... might think that a potential rapist's appetite might also get triggered.
Now, if she thinks that she must change her attire because of a potential rapist that could eventually show up... then she would let rapists determine how she dresses up. She would let rapists play a role in her life.
I'm not saying that women always should dress up nicely though. It's their decision.
Just saying if she bases her decision on how rapists might react... they get to determine how she is dressed. That does not sound useful to me.

Neither am I saying that dressing up in a certain manner always implies that she has specific plans in mind.
I am not saying that women should reveal much skin. Just to the contrary: I am not saying how women should look like.
Here I'm focussing on where this "don't create the appetite"-doctrine leads to in my opinion.


One incident from personal experience.
I used to play volleyball in a team when I was a teen.
Every Friday we had training together with the ladies teams of our club.
But since Northern Germany where I grew up is liberal... we showered together. After the shower, one lady used to put some cream on her entire body and she was completely naked.

Is that creating appetite for rape?
Never.

Is that creating appetite for conventional sex? Maybe. So let's assume it came down to willfully creating the appetite for sex... this would never mean she wanted to create the appetite for rape, of course!
Moreover, even if she wanted to draw sexual attention to herself, maybe I wasn't the one who was meant. She liked the trainer a lot, I think.

Maybe it wasn't just any signal for any man.
Most probably her skin needed some care.

There are many maybes in this scenario. But one thing is sure... she never called to rape.

Thomas

EDITED, added blue paragraph.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

He pays you money to work for him.
So you are working for him, in order to get money for yourself. Correct? He is your boss - your master.

A boss / employer is not the same thing as a "slave master", no matter the mental gymnastic you try to engage in.

Correct? You do what he says, oy else. Correct?

FALSE.
This isn't the 1900s anymore. Today, there is such a thing as worker rights.
I'm a software engineer. I'm self-employed now, but back when I was an employee working as a software architect and my boss told me to wash his car, I would have laughed at him and say "no". And there wouldn't have been an "or else...". Because that's not in my job description and he can't force me to do such a thing. Neither can fire me over it.

And even if his request is on-topic and within my job description, even then I wouldn't, and didn't, simply comply blindly to everything he said. When his request was foolish (imo), I'ld tell him and we'ld have a discussion.


Sure you can leave anytime without money, and work for someone else in order to get money for yourself.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?[/quote]

Doesn't sound familiar AT ALL.
As a slave, for starters, there is no money. In fact, as per the words of the bible, you as a slave ARE money (and that "money" is the property of the slave master).

Secondly, you can't leave anytime you want. Because you are essentially a captive. You are property.

Let's take a closer look.
(Leviticus 25:35-46) 35 “‘If your brother who is nearby becomes poor and cannot support himself, you must sustain him as you would a foreign resident and a settler, so that he may keep alive with you. 36 Do not take interest or make a profit from him. You must be in fear of your God, and your brother will keep alive with you. 37 You must not lend him your money on interest or give out your food for profit. 38 I am Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to give you the land of Caʹnaan, to prove myself your God. 39 “‘If your brother who lives nearby becomes poor and he has to sell himself to you, you must not force him to do slave labor. 40 He should be treated like a hired worker, like a settler. He should serve with you until the Jubilee year. 41 Then he will leave you, he and his children with him, and return to his family. He should return to the property of his forefathers. 42 For they are my slaves whom I brought out of the land of Egypt. They should not sell themselves the way a slave is sold. 43 You must not treat him cruelly, and you must be in fear of your God.

So you don't even see how when it doesn't concern "their own people", those rules don't apply?

They should not sell themselves the way a slave is sold

44

 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you, from them you may buy a male or a female slave. 45 Also from the sons of the foreign settlers who are residing with you, from them and from their families that are born to them in your land you may buy slaves, and they will become your possession. 46 You may pass them on as an inheritance to your sons after you to inherit as a permanent possession. You may use them as workers, but you must not subject your Israelite brothers to cruel treatment.

Again this is making a special case for "their own people": the israelis.
Why do you ignore non-israelis.

You may say, you are not owned...

As employees, you are factually not owned by the employer.
I'm an employer. I can tell you, assure you, that I don't "own" any of my employees. Not even a little bit.
In fact, as a small yet fast growing business, I live in constant fear of them leaving. And there is nothing I can do about it, if they decide to go work elsewhere.

Where is my alarm clock? Some people are in some deep sleep, though.

Tell me about it....

You have to work all your years until you reach the age of 65, unless you are well off - aka wealthy.
It does not matter whom you work for. If you leave one boss, and go to another, they are all the same masters, under one system.

And the boss works for a customer. Is he a slave too?

You're being extremely ridiculous here.
Providing services for money, out of free will, is not enslavement. Not even a little bit.

Yes. Some are harder than some. Some people feel they have no choice but to stick it, since the options are quite small.

Just because they don't see options, doesn't mean there aren't any.

You work to live. It's called "making a living" for that reason.

And it's not called "enslavement".

Whether you admit it or not, you are slaving

Whether you admit it or not, it's not.
A slave, by definition, is the property of the slave master.
Employees aren't property.

Whether it be the 'almighty dollar', or the masters of it, does not matter.

It matters a lot.

Slavery... How do we define it?
(A)
One definition is given here... A person is enslaved when a slaver coerces him or her into working for them and is deprived of the opportunity to leave.

DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEAVE
Exactly.

A worker can quite his job at any time. Wether he can financially afford it, is another thing.
The point is that the employer has no way stop an employee to quit.
So, not a slave. A slave is deprived to leave. A worker isn't.

Another...
(B)
A slave was considered by law as property, or chattel, and was deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons.

Right. Employees aren't property or chattel and aren't deprived of rights. In fact, they are protected by rights. Worker rights.

The Bible gives the slavery as defined by (A), does it not?

It does not.

Or do you think it defines B, or both, or what?

It defines slaves as property of the master.
It even describes how a master can beat his slaves because, as it says, "they are his money".

So I would say, either you don't understand what the Bible says

It seems more of a case of you being in complete denial of what the bible says.


44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another

Leviticus.

The bible clearly defines these humans as being personal private property, with no way out. Even after the master dies, his children will inherit them as if they were real-estate. Private property.

; you have not read it with the right attitude;

"the right attitude"... lol.
You mean in a state of denial?

or you don't really care enough about really grasping what it says.

Look who's talking. It's right there in Leviticus. Non-Israeli Slaves = private permanent property. Slaves for life. Purchased at the market.

I have a question for you... Who dictates that you need to work in this system, and according to the system... Is it the "king"?

Economics.

This is not even an Apologetics argument. some people tend to latch on to words, and misuse, and abuse them.

Says the person who shamelessly denies and ignores what the bible says, and tries VERY hard to pretend that the words "employee" and "slave" mean the same thing.

Who's misusing and abusing words here, really?

The subject of slavery in the Bible has already been dealt with from the Bible's point of view.
People served others or offered their servitude, for a means of livelihood, in return.

Except when they were non-israeli's who were purchased at the market from pagan neighbours and subsequently became the private and permanent property of the slave owner, who even remained slaves after the master died and they were inherited by the master's off spring. Like the bible says.

God's law restricted the Israelites from having slaves from their own nation

And not at all restricting the trade and permanent ownership from non-israeli slaves, who were slaves for life and to be inherited by off spring. God's law literally condones, legalizes and regulates this practice. But hey, keep denying it.

Hence those who would be workers for them, were from the nations, and these were people who surrendered to them and even willingly defected in order to be spared death. Their freedom was history. However, many enjoyed that, because they actually became family, as they now supported Israel.
There is no need to apologize for that. There is nothing disgusting about it either,

That is disgusting.

If you find anything disgusting about it, it might be that you simply want to, because according to what I read, the treatment to all foreigners was humane, and demonstrated a reasonable, merciful, and just God.

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

So humane. You can't beat them till they die. So humane.
You can beat them to the brink of death though. So humane.

People who hate good persons, will always have negative things to say about them, but those accusations, are always unmerited.
They did the same with the son of God - falsely accused him of what he was innocent of. Why, they even murdered him. I suspect if the Atheists and skeptics here could do the same with God, they would be delighted to. LOL. ...but they can't.

Indeed we can't. It's kind of hard to kill an imaginary father figure.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@SkepticThinker I was wondering if the problem you are having with slavery, is that you don't think anyone has the right to own another. Is that the only issue you are arguing regarding slavery, in the Bible?

The fact that you need to ask, is by itself already extremely disturbing and just goes to show just how morally bankrupt you are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hardly anyone except for ascetics would do that. If my neighbor was in trouble, I'd do what I could to help. I'm sure you would too.

I wouldn't. My neighbour is an a-hole and doesn't deserve help.
In fact, I'ld hope that the trouble was so big that he had to move far far far away.

But none of us can fix this world. Not a defeatist attitude, just realism.

Fixing the world, in the broad sense, is going to have to be a group effort.

 

[Father Heathen]

I wonder if those here defending rape and slavery would still spew their filth if they were kidnapped, beat, raped, trafficked, and pimped out by a brutal cartel.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I wonder if those here defending rape and slavery would still spew their filth if they were kidnapped, beat, raped, trafficked, and pimped out by a brutal cartel.

They'll just blame themselves for showing some ankle or whatever.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I wouldn't. My neighbour is an a-hole and doesn't deserve help.
In fact, I'ld hope that the trouble was so big that he had to move far far far away.

Same. Do we have the same neighbor? Lol.

 

[nPeace]

A boss / employer is not the same thing as a "slave master", no matter the mental gymnastic you try to engage in.

Why are they not the same. please explain the difference. Thanks.

FALSE.
This isn't the 1900s anymore. Today, there is such a thing as worker rights.
I'm a software engineer. I'm self-employed now, but back when I was an employee working as a software architect and my boss told me to wash his car, I would have laughed at him and say "no". And there wouldn't have been an "or else...". Because that's not in my job description and he can't force me to do such a thing. Neither can fire me over it.

And even if his request is on-topic and within my job description, even then I wouldn't, and didn't, simply comply blindly to everything he said. When his request was foolish (imo), I'ld tell him and we'ld have a discussion.

Maybe you did not understand what I said.
I'll say it again. You do what he says, or else.
You may decide what "do what he says" involves, and what "or else" means, but whatever you have in mind, I am sure, as usual, is apparently adding something of irrelevance.
You do what he says ... in line with his work requirements, and even if they go out of line (for example, asking you to do something dishonest, lie), you have the choice of "or else"... whatever you choose.
It is the same with every boss.
Your scenarios. again, do not fit here.
You don't want to do A, then take it to the Union, if you want. You won't work there anymore, because you agreed to do A. Bye.

[Sure you can leave anytime without money, and work for someone else in order to get money for yourself.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Doesn't sound familiar AT ALL.
As a slave, for starters, there is no money. In fact, as per the words of the bible, you as a slave ARE money (and that "money" is the property of the slave master).

39 “‘If your brother who lives nearby becomes poor and he has to sell himself to you, you must not force him to do slave labor. 40 He should be treated like a hired worker, like a settler. He should serve with you until the Jubilee year. 41 Then he will leave you, he and his children with him, and return to his family. He should return to the property of his forefathers.

Why is the poor guy working, again?

Secondly, you can't leave anytime you want. Because you are essentially a captive. You are property.

Regarding an Israelite slave. Yes, he is free to go, at the Jubilee. He is entirely free.
Regarding a non Israelite... from their land, he does not have any say regarding freedom. He served until the conditions of the Israelite nation changed.
He likely stayed on though, because he enjoyed the treatment he received, and became part of the family, and he wanted to.

I do not know when the culture changed regarding slaves from the nations around, and how things adjusted, bu it was common for persons to offer willing services in Israel. 1 Samuel 25:39-42

So you don't even see how when it doesn't concern "their own people", those rules don't apply?

They should not sell themselves the way a slave is sold

Be specific please. What rules do you mean exactly. That way, I can more accurately answer your question.

Again this is making a special case for "their own people": the israelis.
Why do you ignore non-israelis.

I mentioned the non Israelites. Did you not read it?
Do you have something specific you want to say regarding them... that has not already been addressed?

As employees, you are factually not owned by the employer.
I'm an employer. I can tell you, assure you, that I don't "own" any of my employees. Not even a little bit.
In fact, as a small yet fast growing business, I live in constant fear of them leaving. And there is nothing I can do about it, if they decide to go work elsewhere.

Did I say you are owned by the employer? I did not.

Tell me about it....

Okay. Some people are sleeping so deeply they fail to see the world as it is - for what it is.
Though the Bible reveals that they are in a deep sleep, they fail to heed the Bible's message, and wake up.
They do not realize that they are actually dreaming, and that everything they are dreaming will disappear, just like a puff of smoke
Oh, but I don't think you are really interested in this.
Sweet dreams.

And the boss works for a customer. Is he a slave too?

You're not even close. Now you are going the opposite direction.

You're being extremely ridiculous here.
Providing services for money, out of free will, is not enslavement. Not even a little bit.

Aha. "Providing services out of free will".
So the Bible is not talking about slavery then... except they be bought? Is that your argument?
You claim to know the Bible, so you must know of the Gibeonites, It's here - Joshua 9:9-27
You are saying that was not enslavement?
What about the Israelite that offered himself.... (Deuteronomy 15:7-18) For clarity... Are you are saying these are not cases of enslavement?

Just because they don't see options, doesn't mean there aren't any.

And it's not called "enslavement".

What are we talking about again? I see you using this word, as though you are focused on something specific. So may I ask, so as to diffuse any potential - or already existing confusion.. Could you tell me what exactly is your point? Thanks.

Whether you admit it or not, it's not.
A slave, by definition, is the property of the slave master.
Employees aren't property.

I gave definitions. there is no consensus on that.
So, to be clear, your focus is that a slave is property of their master. Is that correct?
Then if someone is your master, you are his property? Is that what you are saying?
Please clarify, because you seem to be all over the place, at the moment, and I don't know what you are trying to say. In other words, your hopping around is confusing me.

It matters a lot.

Let's hear. In what way(s) does it matter?

DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEAVE
Exactly.

Okay. So you are focusing only on those whom I already mentioned surrendered under war conditions, and became servants instead of corpses..
Yet I questioned you twice as to what problem you have with this, and you have not given me an answer.
What is your point?

A worker can quite his job at any time. Wether he can financially afford it, is another thing.

It's not a another thing. Why do you want to separate the two?
The worker, and I specifically said... Sure you can leave anytime without money, and work for someone else in order to get money for yourself.
You have to work all your years until you reach the age of 65, unless you are well off - aka wealthy.

The reason a poor, or not so well off person works, is to feed himself, and family. he cannot afford to quit his job, unless someone is going to supply him, which is besides the point.
You cannot separate the purpose, from the means. He works because he needs the funds.
That is the reason he is a slave, and slaving.
The words slave, and slavery, do not always involve property ownership, as some apparently black and white it.
Servitude is a form of slavery.... or rather, it is, if we understand the term, in its earlier use.

The point is that the employer has no way stop an employee to quit.
So, not a slave. A slave is deprived to leave. A worker isn't.

This is not true. It entirely depends on what slave you are referring to.
If you mean persons who gave their services in exchange for their lives, they relinquished their freedom - the vast majority, by choice.
Some may have been captives, but they all had the same treatment as the others. all were treated the same. they are captives though. They don''t own themselves. so freedom is history.
Also, I don't think your point offers much in relation to the point I am making.

Right. Employees aren't property or chattel and aren't deprived of rights. In fact, they are protected by rights. Worker rights.

Now you are really cherry picking. You chose the correct color - red.

 

[nPeace]

It does not.

Then please explain how it does not. I
i already explained how it does.

It defines slaves as property of the master.
It even describes how a master can beat his slaves because, as it says, "they are his money".

When you say 'it', are you referring to the Bible?
No. The Bible does no such thing Slavery is mentioned in the Bible, in relation to willing service - servitude; benefits to the slave where they are treated as a resident and settler, and share in the things of their master, etc. It also mentions slavery of captives from enemy nations.
You seem focused on one thing, and yet I don't seem to know what your point is.
Perhaps let's do that. Please make your point in one clear post, separate from your responses to this one, so that I can understand what it is, and address it.

It seems more of a case of you being in complete denial of what the bible says.

If that's how it seems to you, then you should have no problem saying in one paragraph, what it is I am denying, because I have not denied what the Bible says, on slavery. I covered every area, including the ones you have not acknowledged.

44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another

Leviticus.

The bible clearly defines these humans as being personal private property, with no way out. Even after the master dies, his children will inherit them as if they were real-estate. Private property.

Is this your point?
Thank you.
Did I not address that?

"the right attitude"... lol.
You mean in a state of denial?

Denial of what?

Look who's talking. It's right there in Leviticus. Non-Israeli Slaves = private permanent property. Slaves for life. Purchased at the market.

Correction.
Non Israelite slaves, from the nations of the land the Israelites vanquished. Captives of war, surrendered, or sold.

Economics.

Economics dictates that you must work according to this system?
Please elaborate.

Says the person who shamelessly denies and ignores what the bible says, and tries VERY hard to pretend that the words "employee" and "slave" mean the same thing.

Who's misusing and abusing words here, really?

Seems to me, you are. For one thing, no one denied anything, but you keep singing a song a\bout denial - abusing the word, actually.

Except when they were non-israeli's who were purchased at the market from pagan neighbours and subsequently became the private and permanent property of the slave owner, who even remained slaves after the master died and they were inherited by the master's off spring. Like the bible says.

Which scripture are you reading. I have not come across that one. Which market was that, and what was its location? Scripture and verse please. Thanks.

And not at all restricting the trade and permanent ownership from non-israeli slaves, who were slaves for life and to be inherited by off spring. God's law literally condones, legalizes and regulates this practice. But hey, keep denying it.

I think the OP was clear on that. No need to repeat it.

That is disgusting.

Why do you feel that way?

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

So humane. You can't beat them till they die. So humane.
You can beat them to the brink of death though. So humane.

Thankfully we are not in the situation where we have to keep prisoners of war, because if they refused to work, or so, it might be hard to decide what to do with them. What are your suggestions?
We could deal with those who surrender, and valued their lives in service, like those Gibeonites, but some masters may take a course that could cost them twice - the loss of a laborer, and even perhaps their own life.
I don't believe in feeding prisoners who just sit around though, while other people labor to feed them, so that's a hard one.
Many slave masters, I am sure, were glad when things settled down, and they no longer had the threat of warring nations, and unwilling slaves.

Indeed we can't. It's kind of hard to kill an imaginary father figure.

I thought that would be the response.

 

[nPeace]

The fact that you need to ask, is by itself already extremely disturbing and just goes to show just how morally bankrupt you are.

Bankrupt from whose morals... Your? Sure. Definitely. Absolutely.
I don't use obscene speech either, among other things. Far removed from your abhorrent bank of "morals".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Same. Do we have the same neighbor? Lol.

For your sakes, I sure hope not.