Slavery

[thomas t]

Who's "making excuses"?!?! And there's no "poor rapist"!

so lets review what was written here in the thread concerning rape and who is to be blamed for it.

the rape often becomes payback to the woman for leading them on and then changing their mind.

Later, @nPeace added that he agrees with Deeje "100%", see post #268.
So that's an excuse, as I see it. The rapist was first "lead on" according to her.
In her next sentence, Deeje goes on "The lust becomes replaced by violence and domination." It seems that, in Deeje's head (and for 'nPeace, also, who agrees 100%) the man couldn't just catch up with the shift in her opinion.
In my interpretation, Deeje and nPeace are partially excusing a rape since the rapist was "lead on" and just couldn't deal with the change in the victim's mind.
Victim blaming.

This is all Jehova Witnesses's teachings. This has nothing to do with the Bible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

I already explained this at length.
- an employee is free to quite at any time, a slave isn't.
- an employee has plenty of rights, both as a free citizen as well as a worker. A slave is stripped from his rights and freedom
- an employee gets paid, a slave doesn't
- an employee is not the property of the employer, a slave is private property
- an employee can't be beaten, not even a little bit. a slave can
- ....

Maybe you did not understand what I said.
I'll say it again. You do what he says, or else.

I just explained to you how that isn't accurate.
This is true for slavery. It's not true for employment.

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.

No, it's very relevant within context of the topic.
Because in slavery, there is no discussion. And there IS an "or else". And that "or else" is physical punishment.
Neither are present in employment.

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"...

False. In fact, if he asks me to do something like lie or fake numbers or something, the "or else" will be handed to HIM on a golden plate. He can't fire me because of me having the integrity not to lie to customers. The unions would be all over him. And he won't win the argument. And if it goes so far as to go to court, HE will be the one to suffer the consequences.

It is the same with every boss.

It absolutely isn't. I'm a boss too today. I can honestly tell you that it's not like that AT ALL.
If it is at the place that you work at, I advice you to quit and perhaps report him.

Your scenarios. again, do not fit here.

It absolutely does.

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.

No. If he asks me to do something like that and I take it to the union, he can not fire me. I'ld quit myself off course, because why would I want to stay there? But if I don't quit, he can't fire me over it. You seem to not understand at all. An employer can't fire you for refusing to do something dishonest or illegal.

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?

Once again you are talking about specific cases of hebrew slaves and completely ignore non-hebrew slaves. It's incredibly dishonest of you to do this.

Regarding an Israelite slave. Yes, he is free to go, at the Jubilee. He is entirely free.

Unless you gave him a (slave) wife during his time as a slave. Then, if he doesn't wish to leave his wife (because she doesn't get to go free), then he can have his ear pierced and become a slave for life.

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.

Keep telling yourself that.

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

There's no mention of these people doing this willingly. These slaves were PURCHASED from other slave masters. These slaves didn't get a say in it.

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

See the underlined part.
It explicitly distinguishes the treatment of hebrew slaves from non-hebrew slaves, clearly and explicitly noting that the rules are different.

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

Then they aren't slaves. Slaves are considered property. It's a defining characteristic of slavery.
If there is no ownership, then there is no slavery and it implies that the people are free to leave whenever they want. It's what distinguishes a free person from an enslaved person.

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.

I was implying that you were the one sleeping. But I get by now that reading comprehension isn't one of your strong points.

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

Every single "argument" you have given to call employees "slaves" is equally applicable to customer relationships.

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?

Once again you focus on the parts that you can use for your argument and ignore all the rest.
Slaves that are bought at a market, aren't deciding out of free will who buys them.
A slave who is the property of a master, can't leave out of free will.
Instead, they are forced to stay, by definition of what a "slave" is.

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.

Employees aren't slaves.

So, to be clear, your focus is that a slave is property of their master. Is that correct?

It's what your bible says.

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.

Nobody is hopping around here except you, by cherry picking bible verses that you think work for your argument while ignoring everything else.

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

It matters to the topic of slavery. You seem to be doing your very best to desperatly change the topic.

Okay. So you are focusing only on those whom I already mentioned surrendered under war conditions, and became servants instead of corpses..

I'm focussing on everyone defined as a slave. As per the bible.
During slavery, you are deprived of your freedom to leave.

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?

Stripping people from their human rights, dignity and freedom. Treating them as private property.
You don't seem to have a moral problem with that. That tells me you are morally bankrupt.

It's not a another thing

It absolutely is.

Why do you want to separate the two?

Because they are not the same thing.

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.

Or find another job.

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.

Employees aren't slaves. They aren't stripped from their rights, they can't be beaten, they can't be forced to stay, they aren't stripped from their freedom, they get paid, they aren't considered private property.

The words slave, and slavery, do not always involve property ownership, as some apparently black and white it.

Read your bible.
It literally says that slaves are private property, to the point of even being inherited by off spring of the slave master.

Servitude is a form of slavery.... or rather, it is, if we understand the term, in its earlier use.

Cherry picking again.


I'm getting tired of your apologetics and silly comparisons.
Your blinders are on and there's no point continuing until you take them off.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Bankrupt from whose morals...

Reasoned morals.

I don't use obscene speech either, among other things. Far removed from your abhorrent bank of "morals".

You're the one who's defending slavery and engaging in the practice of victim blaming.
Not me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

I was thinking the same about the people blaming the victim for being raped.

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.

That doesn't make any sense to me. What good is the Bible then, as a source of moral instruction if it's morals are subject to change over time?

The thing is, I know that morals change over time. Because they come from human beings, and we learn as we progress through time and adjust our moral reasoning accordingly. That's one of the reasons we're currently in the midst of the #MeToo movement now. It's why the US doesn't practice slavery anymore. But that doesn't mean that something we find immoral now, was somehow moral in the past just because we didn't know any better. Rape was as immoral a thousand years ago as it is now. Slavery was as at any time in the past as it is now. So it seems to me, that some God that is supposed to give humankind moral guidance for the ages, who supposedly took the time to have human beings record his sage wisdom and moral pronouncements against eating shellfish or worshipping idols or wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, would include some timeless and universal moral wisdom/pronouncements against such actual important matters as rape and slavery, for human beings to live by. But that's not what we get at all.

Biblical morality isn't much more than a collection of the customs, rules and laws that ancient peoples were practicing at the time. As such, aren't very useful to human beings living thousands of years later, who have accumulated much more knowledge than said ancient peoples could even imagine. Most people living today are more moral than the Bible they follow. If a God had written the Bible, I would expect much more than this. Wouldn't you?

Sorry, I can't "soften my countenance" against a being that, should it exist, I would say is immoral.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I was thinking the same about the people blaming the victim for being raped.



That doesn't make any sense to me. What good is the Bible then, as a source of moral instruction if it's morals are subject to change over time?

The thing is, I know that morals change over time. Because they come from human beings, and we learn as we progress through time and adjust our moral reasoning accordingly. That's one of the reasons we're currently in the midst of the #MeToo movement now. It's why the US doesn't practice slavery anymore. But that doesn't mean that something we find immoral now, was somehow moral in the past just because we didn't know any better. Rape was as immoral a thousand years ago as it is now. Slavery was as at any time in the past as it is now. So it seems to me, that some God that is supposed to give humankind moral guidance for the ages, who supposedly took the time to have human beings record his sage wisdom and moral pronouncements against eating shellfish or worshipping idols or wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, would include some timeless and universal moral wisdom/pronouncements against such actual important matters as rape and slavery, for human beings to live by. But that's not what we get at all.

Biblical morality isn't much more than a collection of the customs, rules and laws that ancient peoples were practicing at the time. As such, aren't very useful to human beings living thousands of years later, who have accumulated much more knowledge than said ancient peoples could even imagine. Most people living today are more moral than the Bible they follow. If a God had written the Bible, I would expect much more than this. Wouldn't you?

Sorry, I can't "soften my countenance" against a being that, should it exist, I would say is immoral.

I was spamming the "winner" button, but unfortunately, it only registers 1 click.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is certainly a marvel.

I am truly amazed skeptic. Amazed doesn't even come close to expressing the level of wonder.

Which part of which scripture do you view as a threat?

...and how does it not address or relate to, or is not something in opposition to their stand?

It doesn't take much to amaze you, does it.

Sounds more like loving advice to me. I see it as my sister showing care for those who might be potential victims, and may be able to avoid it.

I think it is how we choose to look at things.

Of course your perspective is not going to be the same as ours, but we can't change that, simply by my accepting your view, and you accepting mine.

I don't think you are ready to be Christian, are you?

Your perspective isn't even the same as other Christians I speak to. Or the perspective I had when I was a Christian.


That doesn’t sound like loving advice to me, but that’s not the quote we’re talking about.


The threat was:

“There are those who crawl on their hands and knees, begging God for mercy, with their face wrenched, and there are those with their face wrenched, but they grit their teeth, and give God the finger.
They both have one thing in common... their face twisted in pain.
Do not be misled: God is not one to be mocked. For whatever a person is sowing, this he will also reap; because the one sowing with a view to his flesh will reap corruption from his flesh, but the one sowing with a view to the spirit will reap everlasting life from the spirit. (Galatians 6:7, 8)”


Like I said, I used to be a Christian, long ago. I'm not anymore. What was that you were saying about reading and understanding peoples' posts? Maybe you should read more carefully before admonishing others.

I think you misunderstand, and I don't believe there is anything more we can say to change that.

If you believe I am saying the rapists is just looking for immodest clothing, then we have a communication problem. So I don't know how to fix that.

Did I say the rapist is obsessed with immodest clothing? Did I?

Sometimes I honestly believe people don't want to understand, and it's an emotional problem - not meaning mental, but just too emotional. ..imo.

Ah, now cue the subtle attempts at insults.

I think I’ve understood just fine. You’re not speaking Swahili or anything. I think you’re just upset because I don’t like it.

What exactly are you trying to say then. Please, provide an explanation as to why you are saying anything at all about immodest dress and rape in the first place.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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"?

My boss doesn't own me as property. Nobody does. Employment is not slavery and your false equivalence is starting to make me sick to my stomach.

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.

So you're just going to continue with this?
Slavery, as described in the Bible is CHATTEL SLAVERY. It is the owning of human beings as property. Over and over you ignore the plight of non-Hebrew slaves so that you can keep up with this false equivalence argument you're trying to pass off. Sorry, I've heard it a thousand times before and I'm not buying it.

Slavery is immoral. The ruler of the universe should know that and pass that onto his people.

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.

Not sure what this has to do with anything. I don't hate "good persons." I'm also not into murder, so I wouldn't be on board with murdering anyone.

Was this your attempt to try to paint me and atheists as bad people? LOL

 

[SkepticThinker]

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 have yet to demonstrate that owning human beings as property is moral.

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.

Except that you're not. You are a free human being living freely on planet Earth.

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.

Why should I stop claiming the obvious?
What you are telling me about the Bible is not what I believed about the Bible when I was a Christian. Nor do all Christians agree with you or each other. All of them will tell us that they other Christians who believe other things about the Bible are reading it wrong. As you're trying to tell me here.
So what's the problem with the claim again?

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

Of course it is. Your response here utterly fails to even begin to address it. Instead, you're just brushing it off.

What?


What?

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

What has confused you?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Again you brush it off.
It's a tough one, I know.

The funny part is my comment was about your views on the Bible, as per our discussion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was spamming the "winner" button, but unfortunately, it only registers 1 click.

Thank you.

I was thinking the same thing about your last post.

 

[thomas t]

Who's "making excuses"?!?! And there's no "poor rapist"!

Stop misapplying what we're saying.

I just ran into another statement concerning rape:

So go ahead, feel free to sow, but why deny the reason you are reaping.
The law is fixed.
It is a fundamental truth - a natural law, if you prefer. "You reap what you sow."
That will never change.

so here we see someone saying the woman reaps what she sows (i.e. the rape, if I followed that discussion correctly).

In other words, if a woman reveals too much she, in the head of Jehova Witnesses, sows the rape.
Claiming a woman is to be blamed for "sowing" a rape by merely dressing up in a certain manner... is making an excuse for rape, I think.

Thomas

 

[nPeace]

so lets review what was written here in the thread concerning rape and who is to be blamed for it.


Later, @nPeace added that he agrees with Deeje "100%", see post #268.
So that's an excuse, as I see it. The rapist was first "lead on" according to her.
In her next sentence, Deeje goes on "The lust becomes replaced by violence and domination." It seems that, in Deeje's head (and for 'nPeace, also, who agrees 100%) the man couldn't just catch up with the shift in her opinion.
In my interpretation, Deeje and nPeace are partially excusing a rape since the rapist was "lead on" and just couldn't deal with the change in the victim's mind.
Victim blaming.

This is all Jehova Witnesses's teachings. This has nothing to do with the Bible.

That's mighty dishonest of you Thomas.
I would hate to think that you are that much of a bold faced liar, in person.
You also have a way of bending the truth, and twisting it to fit a deceitful scheme - another way of describing slander.

Let me give you the break down.
First of all, in post #268, I am responding to your post - post #266, where you said this...
QUOTE >
as I said in #254, Deeje wrote
Deeje said: ↑
@nPeace has already explained that if the attack took place in a city, someone would have heard her scream,

So she said, IF rape (in town) THEN scream.
< UNQUOTE
So I agreed 100%, with what she said in the post you quoted. My words exactly were, "Yep. 100%. ....and she never said what your logic led you to infer."

So your pulling out any random post, and claiming that my words applied to it, is both dishonest, and deceitful.

Secondly, what Deeje was saying in the post you are trying to manipulate, by taking a few words out of context, did not apply to every rape case, or even the ones related to immodest dress, but she was talking about women who were fornicators, saying yes one minute, and then calling it rape.
Read all her words before, and one would see that.

That's being very disingenuous, and since this appears to be some sort of vendetta - as you said, you hate what we teach, it seems to be an attempted smear campaign.
No wonder Deeje put you on ignore.

The course you are taking, though, actually makes you look good, on the other side.
You fit right in there.

Now that I have presented the truth - the real facts, what do you have to say for yourself Thomas?

 

[night912]

The term slave is actually man made, so it did not originate with God

Of course it was. Man created the term in order to differentiate between those who are recognized as people that got paid for their labor and those who are recognized as owned properties that are used for doing labor as beasts of burden.

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.

No. The bible mentioned work laborers, the workers who have rights and are paid(either immediately and/or towards their debt)their labor. Then it mentions slaves, those who were not paid for their labor and have no rights at all.

Throughout history, many people have understood this, some just choose to be in denial.

You seem focused on one thing, and yet I don't seem to know what your point is.

Not knowing one's point is not the same as denying the point.

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.

You just denied that you never denied it.

I covered every area, including the ones you have not acknowledged.

Except the area where you dodged.

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

Apparently not. If after several times, others have raised a point and you just continue to repeat what said over and over, that would be considered as dodging.

Denial of what?

Exactly. One cannot see what they have denied if they are in constant denial.

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.

Here's one simple thing that was denied.....that God condone slavery.

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.

If you refused to see the verses when reading the bible, then when others post them, what makes you think that you are going to see it immediately?

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

There was no need to repeat the OP the first, second or any other times after that. If the OP never addressed it, what makes you think that repeating it will address the points raised? I'm still waiting for that miracle to happen.

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.

How sure? 100%? 99%? 50%? Talking out of your ***, sure? From observation, I would go with the last option.

I thought that would be the response.

As for you, I was correct in thinking that you will continue to deny. I would've made a lot of money for doing the labor of thinking about how times you are going to keep denying. Well, at least not getting paid for my labor and still have rights as a human being, is better than being owned by someone else as their property.

 

[night912]

Only someone ignorant of the bible, in denial, or is being dishonest, would not recognize and understand what the bible meant whenever it mentions a foreigner, settler/sojourner, Israelite/Hebrew.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Why do you people feel so threatened by everything in opposition to your stance? It's as though your own position causes you to jump out of your own skin, so that one just has to say something whether from the Bible, or not, and you feel threatened.
That should tell you something.
It's like a man that's so miserable on the inside the slightest sound gets on his nerves. Or a man who jumps at his own shadow. LOL.
No one is threatening you mate. Relax. Breathe. Breathe. LOL.

You did threaten me with damnation because I'm not a virgin (which is just funny and stupid to me). It's a common passive aggressive form of lashing out from religious fundies, their way of saying "f**k you". One gets used to it. One gets used to the denial and lying, too.

 

[night912]

Why do you people feel so threatened by everything in opposition to your stance? It's as though your own position causes you to jump out of your own skin, so that one just has to say something whether from the Bible, or not, and you feel threatened.
That should tell you something.
It's like a man that's so miserable on the inside the slightest sound gets on his nerves. Or a man who jumps at his own shadow. LOL.
No one is threatening you mate. Relax. Breathe. Breathe. LOL.

But from my experience, there's a similar type of people like those you've mentioned. There difference is how they lash out their anger and/or misery. The ones that I am referring to will try to present themselves on the outside as if they are happy or not angered. They usually use passive aggressive tactics, talking indirectly and of course, accuse and blame other, thinking to themselves that nobody is going to notice what they just did.

Many times, they will have the nervous laughter.

 

[nPeace]

I already explained this at length.
- an employee is free to quite at any time, a slave isn't.

Not true. An employee can quit anytime with consequences. Same as a slave.

- an employee has plenty of rights, both as a free citizen as well as a worker. A slave is stripped from his rights and freedom

Not true. A slave also has rights, and they were repeatedly highlighted in this thread.
The only thing the slave - if we are speaking about the captives from the enemy nations - did not have was his freedom.

- an employee gets paid, a slave doesn't

The slave is a worker. He is paid - if we are talking about what's in the Bible.

- an employee is not the property of the employer, a slave is private property

The employee is owned by the ones who created the system - the king, government, etc.
The rich one rules the poor, And the borrower is a slave to the lender. (Proverbs 22:7)

- an employee can't be beaten, not even a little bit. a slave can
- ....

An employee can be beaten, with consequences to the beater, Same with the slave.
Where in the Bible did God say to beat slaves?

I just explained to you how that isn't accurate.
This is true for slavery. It's not true for employment.

Your explanation doesn't "hold any water".

No, it's very relevant within context of the topic.
Because in slavery, there is no discussion. And there IS an "or else". And that "or else" is physical punishment.
Neither are present in employment.

The last I checked, you did not set the rules, so where did you read that physical punishment was to be administered to slaves?

False. In fact, if he asks me to do something like lie or fake numbers or something, the "or else" will be handed to HIM on a golden plate. He can't fire me because of me having the integrity not to lie to customers. The unions would be all over him. And he won't win the argument. And if it goes so far as to go to court, HE will be the one to suffer the consequences.

Uh. Obviously you read something I did not say. Or you misunderstood.
Either way, you didn't respond to anything I said.

It absolutely isn't. I'm a boss too today. I can honestly tell you that it's not like that AT ALL.
If it is at the place that you work at, I advice you to quit and perhaps report him.

Uh. what are you talking about?

It absolutely does.

Absolutely not.

No. If he asks me to do something like that and I take it to the union, he can not fire me. I'ld quit myself off course, because why would I want to stay there? But if I don't quit, he can't fire me over it. You seem to not understand at all. An employer can't fire you for refusing to do something dishonest or illegal.

nPeace. Do not swear. Some people do not understand things they read. It's sometimes because they are not trying to understand what you are saying, They are just rattling off stuff. Don't pull out your hair either, nPeace. Just breath,

Once again you are talking about specific cases of hebrew slaves and completely ignore non-hebrew slaves. It's incredibly dishonest of you to do this.

Case in point, nPeace.
I quoted a scripture, commented in regard to it, someone jumps in, with whatever /one track' they are on, and tells me I am talking about what I started talking about, rather than what they had in mind. LOL.
Hmm. It actually works - Talking to yourself calms you.

Unless you gave him a (slave) wife during his time as a slave. Then, if he doesn't wish to leave his wife (because she doesn't get to go free), then he can have his ear pierced and become a slave for life.

Yes. willing service - servitude.
Did you not say in a previous post... Quote Providing services for money, out of free will, is not enslavement. Not even a little bit. Unquote.
What do you think the slave gets?

Keep telling yourself that.

I don't need to. The Bible says it.
You can keep ignoring it, or denying it. Doesn't matter to me.

There's no mention of these people doing this willingly. These slaves were PURCHASED from other slave masters. These slaves didn't get a say in it.

There is mention of it. I quoted the texts.
To claim that these slave were purchased from other slave masters, one would need to support such a claim.
Slaves could be brought, and of course this was nothing new to Israel. They owned slaves, so they could sell them.

See the underlined part.
It explicitly distinguishes the treatment of hebrew slaves from non-hebrew slaves, clearly and explicitly noting that the rules are different.

?

Then they aren't slaves. Slaves are considered property. It's a defining characteristic of slavery.
If there is no ownership, then there is no slavery and it implies that the people are free to leave whenever they want. It's what distinguishes a free person from an enslaved person.

Okay, So you are not saying a slave cannot be set free - just that they are owned. Is that correct?
You have a problem with a person belonging to someone - even if it's a willing service? Why is that?

I was implying that you were the one sleeping. But I get by now that reading comprehension isn't one of your strong points.

Look whose talking about reading comprehension. Some pots can be so burnt as to be unrecognizable. Lol.

Every single "argument" you have given to call employees "slaves" is equally applicable to customer relationships.

I understand you say that because of your own thoughts. Not because you understand what I said.

Once again you focus on the parts that you can use for your argument and ignore all the rest.
Slaves that are bought at a market, aren't deciding out of free will who buys them.
A slave who is the property of a master, can't leave out of free will.
Instead, they are forced to stay, by definition of what a "slave" is.

Okay. I don't see how any of that implies that I am focused on the parts that I can use for my argument and ignore all the rest.
From your response to clear Bible text that you would rather not consider, it's clear who is focused on the parts that you can use for your argument and ignore all the rest.
The Gibeonites were willing slaves for life.

Which parts did I ignore, again?

 

[nPeace]

Employees aren't slaves.

Oh yes, they are.

It's what your bible says.

It also says a lot more than that. So you admit you are cherry picking, and only... what did you accuse me of again... focused on the parts that you can use for your argument and ignore all the rest.
Well done.

Nobody is hopping around here except you, by cherry picking bible verses that you think work for your argument while ignoring everything else.

See above. See who's denying. You are hopping so fast, you can't even keep up with what you say. Wow.

It matters to the topic of slavery. You seem to be doing your very best to desperatly change the topic.

Everything is me. Mirror Mirror on the wall. Whose the greater denier of them?
I suggest you are babbling, because we are on the subject of slavery, and you got involved in the talk about slavery.
So why are you... I call it babbling?
Are we not still talking about slavery?
You don't want to talk about it? You are not my slave. Feel free to leave, any time.

I'm focussing on everyone defined as a slave. As per the bible.
During slavery, you are deprived of your freedom to leave.

Really? Really!!!
I think at this point, I will officially go talk to myself.
You're kidding me. I am too floored right now to even go through your posts, and quote you, but you know what.
Let that slide nPeace.

Stripping people from their human rights, dignity and freedom. Treating them as private property.
You don't seem to have a moral problem with that. That tells me you are morally bankrupt.

There goes all the morals of the American soldiers.
Maybe you are not American. Whatever country you belong to, you think your soldiers are immoral, because they stripped the freedom from those they slaughtered. ...and what human rights did they have? None apparently.
As for your government, you think it's governed by a group of immoral people, who strip people of their human rights, dignity, and freedom, by throwing them into prison, some given hard labor, and compulsory service. ...and don't talk about the young teen aged soldiers they draft into the army to go on the battle field, and get slaughtered. I guess they are free now. Free of life.
Then they are the magistrates, the lawyers, and the people who call for jail-time, or even the electric chair.
Wait. I guess that leaves you to be the only moral one Tag, along with those with your morals

It absolutely is.

Because they are not the same thing.

No one is saying one statement is the same as the other. My . nPeace.
I asked why you want to separate the two.
You really ought to be be the last person to try to feign intelligence.

Or find another job.

You are trying too hard.

Employees aren't slaves. They aren't stripped from their rights, they can't be beaten, they can't be forced to stay, they aren't stripped from their freedom, they get paid, they aren't considered private property.

We covered this already.
I think I am going to shorten this conversation. It's unnecessarily long.

Read your bible.
It literally says that slaves are private property, to the point of even being inherited by off spring of the slave master.

I don't see what your point is.

Cherry picking again.

I'm getting tired of your apologetics and silly comparisons.
Your blinders are on and there's no point continuing until you take them off.

Do you think talking to you is thrilling?
Come now. You think too much of yourself.
I think you are "bored" because you can't get your way, since you are dealing with someone patient enough to put up with your insults and cynics... none of which fazes me.
However, I'd be thrilled not to talk to you Tag, so if you are offering that - that would be a pleasant gift, actually.
I don't have to consider

 

[nPeace]

It doesn't take much to amaze you, does it.

Some people don't see much in anything.

Your perspective isn't even the same as other Christians I speak to. Or the perspective I had when I was a Christian.

I totally understand that.

That doesn’t sound like loving advice to me, but that’s not the quote we’re talking about.

I understand that too.
Wrong quote? You didn't have in mind what you quoted?
That's odd.

The threat was:

“There are those who crawl on their hands and knees, begging God for mercy, with their face wrenched, and there are those with their face wrenched, but they grit their teeth, and give God the finger.
They both have one thing in common... their face twisted in pain.
Do not be misled: God is not one to be mocked. For whatever a person is sowing, this he will also reap; because the one sowing with a view to his flesh will reap corruption from his flesh, but the one sowing with a view to the spirit will reap everlasting life from the spirit. (Galatians 6:7, 8)”

That's a threat?
Like I said, everything is a threat to you, when one quotes the Bible. That's not my fault.
If it's a threat, perhaps you should call the cops and make a complaint.
I think you guys are Biblephobic. Biting my tongue with a made up word.

Like I said, I used to be a Christian, long ago. I'm not anymore. What was that you were saying about reading and understanding peoples' posts? Maybe you should read more carefully before admonishing others.

Ah, now cue the subtle attempts at insults.

Says the one whose first words were, "It doesn't take much to amaze you, does it."
You guys don't fool anyone with your pretense complaints.
What I said is no where near insulting. It is simply saying that you are emotional about this.
If every time someone says something they think is the case, it has to be an insult, then you are guilty of insulting, when you say anyone is a fanatic, fundamental, irrational, etc.
So I suggest you stop pretending to be so saintly. It doesn't fool anyone. It only entertains skeptics like yourself, who try to fool yourself, "we are so better than Christians." Please.

I think I’ve understood just fine. You’re not speaking Swahili or anything. I think you’re just upset because I don’t like it.

Me. Upset?
There you go with that pretense again. LOL. This is hilarious.
How much more desperate can one get.

What exactly are you trying to say then. Please, provide an explanation as to why you are saying anything at all about immodest dress and rape in the first place.

You are the smart one. Figure it out. I am not interested, in repeating what is fairly simple.
We go way back Skeptic. This is not the first nor the last time repeating things in various ways, does noting to improve your understanding.
You seem to like people to keep repeating though. Perhaps it's because you think too highly of yourself, in relation to intelligence..

 

[nPeace]

My boss doesn't own me as property. Nobody does. Employment is not slavery and your false equivalence is starting to make me sick to my stomach.

I heard you say you were sick to your stomach before, so you must be sicker (intentional). By now you should have collapsed.

So you're just going to continue with this?
Slavery, as described in the Bible is CHATTEL SLAVERY. It is the owning of human beings as property. Over and over you ignore the plight of non-Hebrew slaves so that you can keep up with this false equivalence argument you're trying to pass off. Sorry, I've heard it a thousand times before and I'm not buying it.

My OP covered all aspects of slavery in the Bible. I don't think it was hard to grasp that.
Further in this thread, more detail was given regarding both Hebrew, and non-Hebrew slaves.
I have not ignored anything.
That is a false claim, on the part of Skeptics, and Atheists on this thread.

Slavery is immoral. The ruler of the universe should know that and pass that onto his people.

That's your opinion.
You also think God is immoral for slaughtering men, women, and children... and animals. So what?

Not sure what this has to do with anything. I don't hate "good persons." I'm also not into murder, so I wouldn't be on board with murdering anyone.

Your accusations suggest you do, but that can be left alone.
I have no problem with people having their opinions.

Was this your attempt to try to paint me and atheists as bad people? LOL

Whom the cap fits... Let them wear it. - Bob Marley.