Slavery

[thomas t]

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

from Jehova?
Now that's not what my Bible says - it says of Yahweh. (Hi @night912 again, here I'm also referring to what you said...).
So now let's dive into the Hebrew:
Psalm 127:3 uses נַחֲלַ֥ת יְהוָֽה.
יְהוָֽה means Yahweh.
נַחֲלַ֥ת means inheritance.
נַחֲלַ֥ת יְהוָֽה.

There are other passages in which the combination of נַחֲלַ֥ת יְהוָֽה appears also. It's 2 Samuel 20:19 and 2 Samuel 21:3. These are the two passages with the same exact combination of words.
So let's have a look at them to figure out if it's of Yahweh or from Yahweh.

In 2 Samuel 20:19 it refers to a city. It makes more sense to interpret "of Yahweh" here... since in this case, the argument of the woman gets stronger. And she wanted a strong argument. Anyway, God is the owner of the people (see Deuteronomy 32:9), so it makes sense that, in this case, the city is also owned by the Lord.
In 2 Samuel 21:3 נַחֲלַ֥ת יְהוָֽה means Israel as a whole, as I see it. So it is of Yahweh, since He is the owner of the people (see above).

So, as a conclusion, children are not the property of the parents, they are heritage of the Lord in Psalms 127:3.

 

[thomas t]

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 agree with you. And I don't with your conversation partner.
Must have hurt you a lot to read such a reply.

If I may offer my interpretation to this:
Since the Lord is almighty... he could have secured himself that there simply was always a minute left to scream.
Back then.
If he sets up such a rule then he can also make sure it makes sense in practice.

But today, since people are able to talk about sex nowadays... people can go into much more detail about what consenting is and what it is not.


Please note also, the Bible never said that not screaming is consenting. Scripture never said that. Your conversation partner did, if I understood him right, but that's not the same.

EDITED (changed some lines)

 

[night912]

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.

It is the same. Her rapist has no bearing on whether she wants to marry her rapist or not. The woman who you mentioned wanted to marry her brother even though he didn't and kicked her out. So the verse I used is evidence that not every rape victim wanted to marry their rapist. It doesn't matter on the reason for a victim not wanting to marry. You assumed that just because one rape victim wanted to marry her rapist that it means that every victim was the same. It's like in court: you want to convict, in this case, that all rape victims want to marry their rapist, you present the evidence.
If you can't, then I take your post as presumption. I however proved that not all rape victims want to marry their rapist. Like you said, rape is rape. And rape victims are rape victims. Case closed.

 

[thomas t]

Her rapist has no bearing on whether she wants to marry her rapist or not.

that wasn't the point.

So the verse I used is evidence that not every rape victim wanted to marry their rapist.

but your example is about an engaged woman. The rule about rapist and victim having to marry back then... does not apply to engaged women.

It's like in court: you want to convict,

no. I don't want to convict anyone.

You assumed that just because one rape victim wanted to marry her rapist that it means that every victim was the same.

no. I brought an example and asked you to show an example to support your point. Then all of a sudden you came up with the engaged woman but engaged women make up a different group in the Bible: Engaged women already had someone they could marry. So marrying another man was out of question there.

So there is nothing to support the claim that (non-engaged) rape victims did not want to marry the rapist.
But if you want to convict God as the giver of the laws, then the onus is on you to show evidence for your case.

The rule seems horrible, I agree.
But remember that rape victims didn't have an opportunity to marry someone apart from the rapist and being unmarried was such a huge problem back then. See Deuteronomy 22:14. Having had sex and not being a wife.... was seen as a huge scandal back then (see same verse).
At the point that the alternative to the rule - which propbably is staying unmarried as I see it - seemed to have been even worse for the women of back then.

See also Genesis 30:23 that shows how a woman thinks about not having children back then. This seemed to have been the worst of the worst destinies for women of that time, as I see it. The women of back then seemd to have thought that marriage with a rapist was still better than not being a wife and not having children. That's why the rule used to be in place, I suppose.
Horrible enough... but the alternative available at the then society... was seen as even worse, I suppose.

So if you say I'm wrong and God was wrong to have come up with such a law... go ahead and prove your point providing evidence for women not willing to marry a rapist - but to stay single (most probably) considering all the stigma and shame that was attributed to single women of back then.

If you can't, then I take your post as presumption.

that's not how it works.
The claim was made that God made a horrible mistake forcing rape victims into wedlock with their rapist... so the onus is on the claimant to bring something to the table that actually show that a member of the then society actually thought that this rule was worsening the fate of the victims indeed.
So if they didn't seem to have a problem with that rule... why now claim it actually was wrong.

 

[night912]

And what about Islam? Whenever Islam is criticised, we have people leap to its defense, assuring us that things like terrorism are just part of its culture, and we mustn't hold our Western morality against the different culture of Islam. Did you know that they have slavery today?

Shifting the blame just because you cannot defend your argument does not help your case. I'm talking about slavery, and I object whoever defends it, arguing that it's morally justified, regardless of whatever group they assigned themself to. Were you using Islam to defend slavery? No. Did I defend Islam? No. Are you now unable to defend your argument regarding slavery and has resorted to shifting blame to another religious group in order to shine away the spotlight from your religious group? Yes. Did all that help support your argument? No.

Either we forgive both, or we condemn both.

Agreed, that's why I also condemned yours and not just only Islam.

You cannot hold up one class of people as blameless when they still practice slavery, yet crucify another class who largely abolished slavery and insist they pay reparations

That's why I didn't hold Islam as being the only group to blamed. I also blamed your religious group as well. With that being said, perhaps you should try taking in your own words, don't just blame Islam, blame yours as well.

So, did you forgive Islam like you did with your religion? Or are you condemning your own religion like how you are condemning Islam right now?

A lot of time out of desperation, without thinking it through, people say things in order to paint a bad picture about their opponents and/or their arguments. And most, if not all of the time, it ends up backfiring on them, like how your comment has backfired on you right now. You should be thanking yourself for reminding yourself about not being like that.

 

[night912]

no. I brought an example and asked you to show an example to support your point.

I have accomplished that.

Then all of a sudden you came up with the engaged woman but engaged women make up a different group in the Bible: Engaged women already had someone they could marry. So marrying another man was out of question there.

No, they're in the same group, rape victims are rape victims. Rape is rape, you said yourself.

So there is nothing to support the claim that (non-engaged) rape victims did not want to marry the rapist.
But if you want to convict God as the giver of the laws, then the onus is on you to show evidence for your case.

Please, can we(atm, YOU) avoid the dishonesty. In order for a meaningful discussion to take place, participants should be honest in their response.

I objected and disagreed with your comment, this one in particular.....

In my opinion, if the rape survivors of back then didn't see a problem marrying a rapist... then there is no reason for God to not order it.

And I also took your other comment into consideration.

I said: prove that the women of back then would have preferred to not marry the rapist who raped her.
I provided a case in which a woman had a problem with not being able to marry the rapist she fell victim to.

I acknowledged that you did provide an example, one case, where a rape victim wanted to marry her rapist. But the point here is that, you have one case of one rape victim, then you assumed that it's the same for all rape victims of that time. In order to show that it's nothing more than just being your assumption, all I had to do is provide one example, as you requested, of rape victims back then having a problem marrying their rapist, in other words, preferred to not marry their rapist.

I have fulfilled that request, hence, proving that you were wrong about your assumption. And apparently, you being unsatisfied and/or unwilling to accept being wrong, you decided to move the goalpost, changing and/or adding new things to your initial comment that was lacking. I'll quote you again....

"In my opinion, if the rape survivors of back then didn't see a problem marrying a rapist... then there is no reason for God to not order it."

I've presented my case along with a creditable source that you would accept, that being the same source as the one that you used. So if you believe that my source is not credible and/or that my example did not show a case where a rape victim(s)/survivor(s) preferred not to marry their rapist, please provide the evidence as to why. If you cannot provide any evidence, then I would have to take it as you just being dishonest due to your ego, not wanting and/or proven to be wrong. I await your evidence.

 

[thomas t]

Please, can we(atm, YOU) avoid the dishonesty. In order for a meaningful discussion to take place, participants should be honest in their response.

Actually, there was nothing dishonest in my post.
The rule about rape victims being supposed to marry their perpetrators... does not apply to engaged women. You even quoted Deuteronomy 25:23 yourself, but this passage says:
“If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her,
So your argument is mute.
The whole discussion started off as a debate about the rule that rapist and raped woman should marry. But this rule does not apply to engaged women, see Exodus 22:15.

Rape is rape, you said yourself.

yes. The Bible always sees rape as rape.
Still, when it comes to the rule we're talking about... engaged women are explicitely exempted.
The rule does not cover all rape victims, see Exodus 22:15.

you just being dishonest due to your ego, not wanting and/or proven to be wrong.

"dishonest to your ego..." this is aggressive speech from your side, I think. I'm not being dishonest.
Engaged women are explicitely exempted from that rule. But that rule was what the discussion was about right from the start. I referred to that very discussion.
In the context of that discussion it does not make sense to cite a case that is explicitely not included in the rule the discussion was about.
I stay with my opinion that engaged women are another group in the Bible.

Your argument is mute, you brought nothing to the table to support your assumtion that that rule was flawed in the social context of back then.
If you want to support your argument that the rule was flawed, please provide a case to which the rule would actually apply.
I didn't decide to move the goalpost. I just referred to the rule we were talking about.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Also, I think you will find that it was a seduction, not a rape. If the woman failed to fight off her attacker or to scream, she was assumed to be a willing party. The moral of the story is if you don't want to marry this woman keep your hand off her.

Wow, so just make sure you gag, tie up or render unconscious your victim and it's all of a sudden transformed into a "seduction".

 

[nPeace]

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.

Nothing I said matches what you thought up, so no, it's not what I said. Why you though it up was easy because it's easy to just say it.

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

I never argued that, so I'm not sure why you imagined 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 never claimed these either, so I'm not sure why you are thinking them up.
Perhaps you have a vivid imagination, and like to exercise it.

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.

Maybe most people think they are being rational. Most think they are not biased toward an opinion too.
So right now you may be thinking to yourself, "I certainly am reasoning the best way."
That's not reasoning. That's having a biased opinion.

I do agree that reasoning involves looking at the context as a whole.
Rather than thinking it is wrong to apply terms to certain situations, merely because we see them only in one way.
For example, why not state the reason you don't see children as property, and listen to your reason.
Of course, I'll like to hear it too.
Who owns your children? Them; You; Or someone else? I'm not talking about your grown adult children, who are their own man and woman.
Do you have ownership rights, or not?

 

[nPeace]

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

Sure. I'm sure the magnitude is always small from your subjective opinion. How could it ever be anything else?
After all. It's TagliatelliMonster.
I'd be most surprised if you did take it to heart.

Spoiler

Don't let it grow your head any bigger.

 

[nPeace]

from Jehova?
Now that's not what my Bible says - it says of Yahweh. (Hi @night912 again, here I'm also referring to what you said...).
So now let's dive into the Hebrew:
Psalm 127:3 uses נַחֲלַ֥ת יְהוָֽה.
יְהוָֽה means Yahweh.
נַחֲלַ֥ת means inheritance.
נַחֲלַ֥ת יְהוָֽה.

There are other passages in which the combination of נַחֲלַ֥ת יְהוָֽה appears also. It's 2 Samuel 20:19 and 2 Samuel 21:3. These are the two passages with the same exact combination of words.
So let's have a look at them to figure out if it's of Yahweh or from Yahweh.

In 2 Samuel 20:19 it refers to a city. It makes more sense to interpret "of Yahweh" here... since in this case, the argument of the woman gets stronger. And she wanted a strong argument. Anyway, God is the owner of the people (see Deuteronomy 32:9), so it makes sense that, in this case, the city is also owned by the Lord.
In 2 Samuel 21:3 נַחֲלַ֥ת יְהוָֽה means Israel as a whole, as I see it. So it is of Yahweh, since He is the owner of the people (see above).

Yes. Jehovah certainly owns his children. I wonder why... ? Hmm.

So, as a conclusion, children are not the property of the parents, they are heritage of the Lord in Psalms 127:3.

Isn't that like arguing, children are not pushed out. They are born?
Yes. I think this is a nice note to conclude on.

 

[nPeace]

I agree with you. And I don't with your conversation partner.
Must have hurt you a lot to read such a reply.

If I may offer my interpretation to this:
Since the Lord is almighty... he could have secured himself that there simply was always a minute left to scream.
Back then.
If he sets up such a rule then he can also make sure it makes sense in practice.

But today, since people are able to talk about sex nowadays... people can go into much more detail about what consenting is and what it is not.


Please note also, the Bible never said that not screaming is consenting. Scripture never said that. Your conversation partner did, if I understood him right, but that's not the same.

EDITED (changed some lines)

Would you mind explaining Deuteronomy 22:23, 24 for us Thomas.

 

[nPeace]

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

Please...
It would be so nice if that were true, but it's not. There were not six years of harsh treatment, according to the Bible. However, I do hear this from Atheists, and Bible opposers. Not careful readers of the Bible.

Perhaps you are a bit confused with the slavery in Egypt, and the slavery in Israel.
(Exodus 1:13, 14) 13 Consequently, the Egyptians forced the Israelites into harsh slavery. 14 They made their life bitter with hard labor, as they worked with clay mortar and bricks and in every form of slavery in the field. Yes, they made them toil in harsh conditions in every form of slavery.

(Deuteronomy 26:6) And the Egyptians mistreated and oppressed us and imposed harsh slavery on us.

(Leviticus 25:39) “‘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.

(Leviticus 25:43-46) 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, ... You may use them as workers, but you must not subject your Israelite brothers to cruel treatment.

Any harsh treatment came from those who disregarded God's laws, and there were always individuals of that sort... but they were dealt with... as always.

Spoiler: Slaves were treated as family

(Deuteronomy 5:13-15) 13 You are to labor and do all your work in six days, 14 but the seventh day is a sabbath to Jehovah your God. You must not do any work, neither you nor your son nor your daughter nor your slave man nor your slave girl nor your bull nor your donkey nor any of your domestic animals nor your foreign resident who is inside your cities, in order that your slave man and your slave girl may rest the same as you. 15 Remember that you became a slave in the land of Egypt and that Jehovah your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. That is why Jehovah your God commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.

(Deuteronomy 12:12) . . . You will rejoice before Jehovah your God, you and your sons, your daughters, your male and female slaves, and the Levite inside your cities, for he has no share or inheritance with you.

(Deuteronomy 16:11-15) 11 And you are to rejoice before Jehovah your God, you and your son, your daughter, your male slave, your female slave, the Levite who is inside your cities, the foreign resident, the fatherless child, and the widow, who are in your midst, in the place that Jehovah your God chooses to have his name reside. 12 Remember that you became a slave in Egypt, and observe and carry out these regulations. 13 “You should celebrate the Festival of Booths for seven days when you make an ingathering from your threshing floor and from your press for oil and wine. 14 Rejoice during your festival, you and your son, your daughter, your male slave, your female slave, the Levite, the foreign resident, the fatherless child, and the widow, who are inside your cities. 15 Seven days you will celebrate the festival to Jehovah your God in the place that Jehovah chooses, for Jehovah your God will bless all your produce and all that you do, and you will become nothing but joyful.

The Israelites were to remember that they were slaves, and treat their fellow man, as they themselves wanted to be treated.

Thatt the Bible's narrative. That's not what you are sticking to.

 

[Deeje]

Wow, so just make sure you gag, tie up or render unconscious your victim and it's all of a sudden transformed into a "seduction".

Not at all. Please don't put words in my mouth or try to place today's values on yesterdays practices.

It was a different world in a different culture.....I never said any of it was optimal, but that was the situation in those days, in that culture, and there were laws to protect the innocent only to the extent that was available to them back then. This is why Israel had judges. They judged any situation according to God's law. "He said, she said" has never been a good way to judge any matter if there were no witnesses.

@nPeace has already explained that if the attack took place in a city, someone would have heard her scream, but if it was in a remote area, her testimony was enough. And if she suffered injury then she would have proof of the assault.

Today is a whole different story......but the morality still applies. God's laws on sexual behavior have never changed. The world's attitudes have though, but God will not bring his standards down to suit us.....we have to elevate our standards to suit him.

 

[nPeace]

Not at all. Please don't put words in my mouth or try to place today's values on yesterdays practices.

It was a different world in a different culture.....I never said any of it was optimal, but that was the situation in those days, in that culture, and there were laws to protect the innocent only to the extent that was available to them back then. This is why Israel had judges. They judged any situation according to God's law. "He said, she said" has never been a good way to judge any matter if there were no witnesses.

@nPeace has already explained that if the attack took place in a city, someone would have heard her scream, but if it was in a remote area, her testimony was enough. And if she suffered injury then she would have proof of the assault.

Today is a whole different story......but the morality still applies. God's laws on sexual behavior have never changed. The world's attitudes have though, but God will not bring his standards down to suit us.....we have to elevate our standards to suit him.

Yes Deeje, I did explained... just like polygamy, which God allowed, but never approved, and which he no longer put up with many many years after.
The common culture of war, which he allowed his people to engage in, until many years after... etc. etc., but we both know cracking a coconut isn't so easy. What about a block of concrete?
What's life without a joke uh.

 

[night912]

Nothing I said matches what you thought up, so no, it's not what I said.

Hence, the reason as to why I said that.

Why you though it up was easy because it's easy to just say it.

But denial is a lot easier, that's why you resorted to doing it right now.

I never argued that, so I'm not sure why you imagined it.

See, denial.

I never claimed these either, so I'm not sure why you are thinking them up.
Perhaps you have a vivid imagination, and like to exercise it.

Ah...Avoiding the issue fallacy, I was wondering when you will plan on using that again. I thought it was going to be this soon.

ll
Maybe most people think they are being rational. Most think they are not biased toward an opinion too.
So right now you may be thinking to yourself, "I certainly am reasoning the best way."
That's not reasoning. That's having a biased opinion.

So you didn't anyone to point that out to you. Congratulations, you're half way there. Now you just have to complete it. How? Acceptance, and denial. I'm rooting for you.

I do agree that reasoning involves looking at the context as a whole.
Rather than thinking it is wrong to apply terms to certain situations, merely because we see them only in one way.
For example, why not state the reason you don't see children as property, and listen to your reason.
Of course, I'll like to hear it too.
Who owns your children? Them; You; Or someone else? I'm not talking about your grown adult children, who are their own man and woman.

You mean, not anymore, not after you realize your blunder.

And I thought you denied using songs/hymns as justification. Another blunder.

 

[night912]

Please...
It would be so nice if that were true, but it's not. There were not six years of harsh treatment, according to the Bible. However, I do hear this from Atheists, and Bible opposers. Not careful readers of the Bible.

Perhaps you are a bit confused with the slavery in Egypt, and the slavery in Israel.
(Exodus 1:13, 14) 13 Consequently, the Egyptians forced the Israelites into harsh slavery. 14 They made their life bitter with hard labor, as they worked with clay mortar and bricks and in every form of slavery in the field. Yes, they made them toil in harsh conditions in every form of slavery.

Please read what I said before. Don't want to be constantly repeating myself.

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

 

[thomas t]

Would you mind explaining Deuteronomy 22:23, 24 for us Thomas.

this passage is about having sex with an engaged woman in town - engaged with someone else.
It says that if the woman does not scream, she must be killed.
If I understand your posts #131 and #155 right, you seem to infer that rape implies screaming or, to put it differently, no screaming no rape.

However, Bible proves you wrong. See 2 Samuel 13:12-14. It was clearly rape (verse 14), however she did not scream. Yet she had had plenty of time to do so in verse 12.
I hope this helps.

EDITED, left out something..

 

[night912]

Thatt the Bible's narrative. That's not what you are sticking to.

No, besides a few things, for the most part, that is what I'm sticking to, afterall, it is the bible's narrative of how an Israelite supposed to treat another fellow Israelite.

Now that that has been settled, let's go back to the topic of slavery in Israel. Please provide the bible's narrative of slavery.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Not at all. Please don't put words in my mouth or try to place today's values on yesterdays practices.

It was a different world in a different culture.....I never said any of it was optimal, but that was the situation in those days, in that culture, and there were laws to protect the innocent only to the extent that was available to them back then. This is why Israel had judges. They judged any situation according to God's law. "He said, she said" has never been a good way to judge any matter if there were no witnesses.

@nPeace has already explained that if the attack took place in a city, someone would have heard her scream, but if it was in a remote area, her testimony was enough. And if she suffered injury then she would have proof of the assault.

Today is a whole different story......but the morality still applies. God's laws on sexual behavior have never changed. The world's attitudes have though, but God will not bring his standards down to suit us.....we have to elevate our standards to suit him.

I'm just saying that basing whether a person was raped on whether they screamed or fought back is pretty stupid and backwards.