Slavery

[night912]

Hence, rather than end the practice, as was the case with polygamy, Jehovah allowed it, and put laws in place that allowed for just treatment.

Hence, he condone slavery.

This shows that in among the Israelites, slavery was not six years of harsh treatment.
(Exodus 23:12) . . .“Six days you are to do your work; but on the seventh day, you are to cease from your labor, in order that your bull and your donkey may rest and the son of your slave girl and the foreign resident may refresh themselves.

Harsh treatment for six days, then allowed to keep the sabbath, the seventh day, is still harsh. Slavery for six years with only 15% of the time be allowed to rest, that would qualify as harsh treatment.

 

[thomas t]

Common practice by those who hated God's law, yes.

that was the reality in Israel, as I see it in lights of the four scripture verses I just presented.
However, in #3 you seemed to agree to a post saying "everyone was happy [with slavery]".

But now, reality looked different from the one God wanted to have....
So why think that everyone was happy?

Now you cite a passage from Josua:

The treatment they received was actually better than those who were warring against Israel... It was probably a paradise to them.
Some even begged for it. I would too, if I were in their position.
(Joshua 9:3-8) 3 And the inhabitants of Gibʹe·on heard what Joshua had done to Jerʹi·cho and Aʹi. 4 So they, even of their own accord, acted with shrewdness and went and stocked themselves with provisions and took worn-out sacks for their asses, and wine skin-bottles worn out and burst and tied up, 5 and worn-out and patched sandals on their feet, and worn-out garments upon themselves, and all the bread of their provisions proved to be dry and crumby. 6 Then they went to Joshua at the camp at Gilʹgal and said to him and the men of Israel: “It is from a distant land that we have come. And now CONCLUDE a covenant with us.” 7 At this the men of Israel said to the Hiʹvites: “Perhaps it is in our vicinity that you are dwelling. So how could we conclude a covenant with you?” 8 In turn they said to Joshua: “We are your servants.”. . .

(Joshua 9:19-21) 19 At this all the chieftains said to all the assembly: “We, for our part, have sworn to them by Jehovah the God of Israel, and now we are not allowed to hurt them. 20 This is what we shall do to them while letting them live, that no indignation may come upon us over the oath that we have sworn to them.” 21 So the chieftains said to them: “Let them live and let them become gatherers of wood and drawers of water for all the assembly, just as the chieftains have promised them.”
Polygamy lasted for a while - Acts 17:30

However, they begged to be slaves because they would have been dead otherwise. Doesn't mean that being a slave was a paradise in Israel.
Acts 17:30 does not mention polygamy. There is no verse saying that polygamy ended.
This is for the record.

So you say, slavery will end (#1) .... but you do not say that the practice of parents owning children as property will end. You said in #104 that parents are supposed to have children as property, though.
Maybe you think that you are the boss of your children for all eternities. I feel sorry for them now.

I just had a read in the newspaper.
Have look at this: Jehovah's Witnesses accused of silencing victims of child abuse

EDITED for completion

 

[night912]

(Psalm 127:3) . . . Sons are an inheritance . . .
The fruit of the womb is a reward.

What does your Bible say? What's an inheritance?

Well, if you actually did some studying of the bible, you would know the book of Psalm is not commandments/laws given by God, nor is it even spoken by God. They are basically a collection of songs.

Psalm 127:3
3 Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

That verse means that children are gifts of(from) God to the parents. I doesn't mean that they are the property of the parents.

 

[night912]

No you did not substanciate your claim providing sources. In #49, I asked you to provide decent sourcing. Mere assumptions are not proof.
You wrote 5 posts in this thread before the one I'm replying to now, none of them contains any scripture verse or scientific source: I'll go ahead and cite two of them, since two posts were about child porn, another about clean and unclean.

Deuteronomy 22
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

So are you saying that God doesn't know that all rape victims want to marry the one who raped them?

 

[thomas t]

Deuteronomy 22
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

So are you saying that God doesn't know that all rape victims want to marry the one who raped them?

it's a different case.
Here we have "a youg woman pledged to be married", it's a different case here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yup. you got me on that one. I blundered - Played right into your hands, didn't I.

Just goes to show how "much" you think things through before posting them.
You'ld say anything to defend your undefendable beliefs.

 

[curious_mind]

I agree that it's the job of the law. The police told me that someone following me around everywhere isn't a crime and so there's nothing they can do about it. They did start a file on it though, because I insisted that I wanted a record of it.


What was under discussion was an aspect of Biblical law/morality. You should check out the post I was responding to for some context.

I get it and I fully understand how poor the police can be, we have similar issues with the London Met.

In terms of certain Biblical aspects of slavery, it really isn't slavery in the modern post-European sense of the word but in many ways servitude. Anyway, I'm not a Christian and don't have to defend it, my point is that it is an understandable aspect of a particular period in time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Reading these apologetics arguments on slavery make me sick to my stomach.
I think it's because I have to watch otherwise morally good people defending immoral practices that they know are wrong, but end up having to twist themselves up into a pretzel defending it because it's in their holy books.

I get it and I fully understand how poor the police can be, we have similar issues with the London Met.

In terms of certain Biblical aspects of slavery, it really isn't slavery in the modern post-European sense of the word but in many ways servitude. Anyway, I'm not a Christian and don't have to defend it, my point is that it is an understandable aspect of a particular period in time.

I've heard that apologetic many times before.
The problem is, the way it is described in the Bible, it is straight up slavery, as in, humans owning other humans as property.

 

[night912]

it's a different case.
Here we have "a youg woman pledged to be married", it's a different case here.

Did she get rape? Did she want to marry the person who raped her? Same thing.

 

[nPeace]

you're a good debater, but in this case my Bible says:
an inheritance of the Lord.
Psalm 127:3 uses נַחֲלַ֥ת יְהוָֽה.
יְהוָֽה means Yahweh.
נַחֲלַ֥ת means inheritance.

KJV translates: Lo, children [are] an heritage of the LORD: (Psalms 127:3)

Thank you.
Mine says "from Jehovah". I left that out, because I didn't think the source mattered.
So yes. What's a heritage?

 

[nPeace]

This is just more pretzel twisting that's already been discussed.


When I was raped, I couldn't scream because I had the rapists' hand over my mouth and nose and choking my throat. I guess that means I consented, according to this nonsense.

I could well imagine that you might not think someone is being reasonable, if they asked you to explain your side of the story. In other words, "Tell us what happened. Why 'such and such'?" Then after you gave your response, they went... "You expect me to believe that nonsense?"
In a similar way, you asked a question... "Why this? Why that?" You got an answer, and your response...?

I think the answer to your question is worthy of reasonable consideration, in view of the fact that the Bible is what you are questioning, and the Bible gave the answer, and you have no verifiable evidence to the contrary.

The Bible explains how God dealt with sex crimes, and shows that he is clearly against them.
It shows too that he personally dealt with injustices, where justice was not being carried out.

It shows why he does not prevent, or intervene in cases of injustice in the world today, and how he will end injustice.

If these are things you do not believe, then why did you ask?
If you do not believe the Bible's answers, why ask for answers?
If you asked, not necessarily to get an answer, but merely to question the validity of the answer, then okay... You got the answer. Of course, you don't have to accept it.
We don't expect everyone will, especially people that have already made up their mind, to not accept.
For example...
(Deuteronomy 26:7, 8) 7 So we began to cry out to Jehovah, the God of our forefathers, and Jehovah heard our voice and looked upon our affliction and our trouble and our oppression. 8 Finally Jehovah brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm and with terrifying deeds and with signs and miracles.

Notice that Jehovah did not act right away, and the people sufferred for a time.
Another example...
(Exodus 22:22-24) 22 “You must not afflict any widow or fatherless child. 23 If you afflict him at all, so that he cries out to me, I will unfailingly hear his outcry; 24 and my anger will blaze, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives will become widows, and your children will be fatherless.

He does not promise to act before an event takes place, or at the moment it does, but he does promise to act. Do we trust that he will, or do we give up on him, at the "drop of a hat"?
Could that be a revelation of what's in us?

There are people today that do not fear Jehovah; don't care about him; Don't even have faith in him. Yet they expect him to act in their behalf. Why should he?
Some even think he should act at their beck and call - instantly, and they don't care to wait. If he does not act right away, then "he is bad", they think. Some think he is incapable. Why should Jehovah be concerned about their bitterness?
Perhaps they are reaping what they sow.

It would be, I think, reasonable, if you could reason on why the answer is nonsense, rather than just claim it is... because you think it is. Maybe you think it's nonsense, because you have little regard for God and his word.
God said, “Come, now, and let us set matters straight between us”. Or, in other words, "Come let us reason together."
Lets.

Say a girl was dumb (speechless)... Of course there was no way she could scream. Did that stop justice from being carried out?
As shown above, the Bible says, No. Jehovah personally dealt with such matters. Where knowing the truth was impossible for man alone, Jehovah personally got involved... where his people were involved

Spoiler: Scripture

(Deuteronomy 17:8-13) 8 “If a case arises in one of your cities that is too difficult for you to judge, whether it is a case involving bloodshed or a legal claim that has been raised or a violent deed that has been committed or other matters of dispute, you should rise up and go to the place that Jehovah your God chooses. 9 Go to the Levitical priests and to the judge serving in those days, and make your inquiry, and they will hand down the decision to you. 10 Then you must act according to the decision that they hand down to you from the place that Jehovah chooses. Be careful to do according to all that they instruct you. 11 You must act according to the law that they show you and according to the decision that they declare to you. Do not deviate from the decision that they will hand down to you, either to the right or to the left. 12 The man who acts presumptuously by not listening to the priest who is ministering to Jehovah your God or to the judge must die. You must remove what is bad from Israel. 13 All the people will then hear and become afraid, and they will not act presumptuously anymore.

The answer was given as to why Jehovah does not make bad things in this world to cease... right away.

 

[nPeace]

I get it and I fully understand how poor the police can be, we have similar issues with the London Met.

In terms of certain Biblical aspects of slavery, it really isn't slavery in the modern post-European sense of the word but in many ways servitude. Anyway, I'm not a Christian and don't have to defend it, my point is that it is an understandable aspect of a particular period in time.

Thank you for showing - since this is comming from a non-Christian - that this has nothing to do with Apologetics, but simply a matter of understanding, and reason.

 

[nPeace]

Just goes to show how "much" you think things through before posting them.
You'ld say anything to defend your undefendable beliefs.

Yes Mr. Perfect. Of course you never made a mistake, not even on these forums.

 

[nPeace]

Well, if you actually did some studying of the bible, you would know the book of Psalm is not commandments/laws given by God, nor is it even spoken by God. They are basically a collection of songs.

Well excuse me for not knowing that. How did you ever figure that out? Was it my avatar?

Psalm 127:3
3 Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

That verse means that children are gifts of(from) God to the parents. I doesn't mean that they are the property of the parents.

It does mean they are the parent's property.
Are we going to go back and forth on this?

I think it better to reason on it.
Because something is a gift does not make it not property. Isn't that so?

 

[nPeace]

Hence, he condone slavery.

Yes, thanks.
Some people understand condone to mean approve. I was using that, since that's what I came up understanding the word to mean.
I wonder if the meaning changed.

I did say allow from the beginning, so to argue condone seemed to be going in another direction.

Harsh treatment for six days, then allowed to keep the sabbath, the seventh day, is still harsh. Slavery for six years with only 15% of the time be allowed to rest, that would qualify as harsh treatment.

Yes. Harsh treatment. There was none.
There were other periods of rest, and refreshment, and good food, and everything else... similar to us coming home sweaty, after working in the fields, quarry, mines, etc. 8-10 hours, or more.

 

[night912]

Well excuse me for not knowing that. How did you ever figure that out? Was it my avatar?

No, it wasn't your avatar. It's what you said, but for what it's worth, it wasn't that hard to figure out.

It does mean they are the parent's property.
Are we going to go back and forth on this?

If you want to argue that songs determines your laws, then ok, go for it.

It depends. If you want to claim that the gift of freewill, love, friendship, salvation, foreknowledge, is property, then there's no need to go back and forth since they're not property.

I think it better to reason on it.
Because something is a gift does not make it not property. Isn't that so?

Not every gifts you receive are property. So the best way to reason when it comes to situations like this, is to be rational and look at the context of the whole instead of cherry picking.

 

[night912]

Yes, thanks.
Some people understand condone to mean approve. I was using that, since that's what I came up understanding the word to mean.
I wonder if the meaning changed.

I did say allow from the beginning, so to argue condone seemed to be going in another direction.


Yes. Harsh treatment. There was none.
There were other periods of rest, and refreshment, and good food, and everything else... similar to us coming home sweaty, after working in the fields, quarry, mines, etc. 8-10 hours, or more.

You don't need to convince me. The person that you have to convince is nPeace.

God neither condoned the slavery practiced by the nation of Israel. Nor did he sanction it.

I suggest you not only read the Bible, but read the OP as well... Or at least try to understand what you read.

nPeace gave a good advice here,perhaps you should take that advice.

 

[night912]

Yes. Harsh treatment. There was none.
There were other periods of rest, and refreshment, and good food, and everything else... similar to us coming home sweaty, after working in the fields, quarry, mines, etc. 8-10 hours, or more.

Nah, I'll stick with what the bible says about its slavery.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes Mr. Perfect. Of course you never made a mistake, not even on these forums.

I can honestly say that I do not make mistakes of that magnitude when trying to defend a position.

 

[thomas t]

Did she get rape? Did she want to marry the person who raped her? Same thing.

No it's not the same thing, and in this case she did not want to marry the rapist since he was put to death anyway in Deuteronomy 22:25.
The Bible passage about marrying rapists does not apply to the case you're citing, obviously.