The bible and slavery - please post direct passages from the bible that you believe support slavery.

[dybmh]

It can happen. But that does not mean that it always happened. In fact that would probably be the exception. In other words, just because it may be a choice for a very few, does not mean that it is a choice for everyone.

This is recognized today. It is why there are rules against doctors falling in love with patients. The patients often do not have a full choice. And that is in a much kinder environment.

Excellent. What's described in these verses is not automatically rape. And we know this because of the extreme rare examples I brought.

Much more common is the practice of rape on the battle field. These verses explicitly forbid it. Can we agree to this?

 

[Soapy]

OK. We agree on two important points. First a Hebrew slave, male or female, cradle to grave, is freed after 7 years maximum (Deuteronomy 15:12). Second we agree that none of the verses brought clearly say the woman or the children are doomed for life (Exodus 21:2-6)

Correct?

The text does not say serve for seven years. It says serve six years and must be released in the seventh year. So this would mean anything up to a considered month or so into the seventh year but certainly not the whole of the seventh year.

The point was to align the years of servitude with the number of “days” with a Sabbath equivalent. It would be absolutely reasonable and legal for one in servitude to demand release as soon as the sixth year was ended.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The text does not say serve for seven years. It says serve six years and must be released in the seventh year. So this would mean anything up to a considered month or so into the seventh year but certainly not the whole of the seventh year.

The point was to align the years of servitude with the number of “days” with a Sabbath equivalent. It would be absolutely reasonable and legal for one in servitude to demand release as soon as the sixth year was ended.

It could be 364 days into the seventh year and would still obey that law. So for all practical purposes it is a seven year hitch.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Excellent. What's described in these verses is not automatically rape. And we know this because of the extreme rare examples I brought.

Much more common is the practice of rape on the battle field. These verses explicitly forbid it. Can we agree to this?

Still straining at gnats. Like it or not the verses permit rape. They endorse rape. If it makes you happy that they do not order rape I suppose that you could call that a "win".

 

[Soapy]

It could be 364 days into the seventh year and would still obey that law. So for all practical purposes it is a seven year hitch.

That would be deceitful.

 

[Soapy]

Still straining at gnats. Like it or not the verses permit rape. They endorse rape. If it makes you happy that they do not order rape I suppose that you could call that a "win".

Which verse suggests that rape is ok?
Just the verse, thanks.

 

[dybmh]

Still straining at gnats. Like it or not the verses permit rape. They endorse rape. If it makes you happy that they do not order rape I suppose that you could call that a "win".

Is rape on the battlefield permitted or not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is rape on the battlefield permitted or not?

That is not the topioc that we are discussing. You are trying to rationalize away an evil.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That would be deceitful.

Would it be? I do not see anything in the language that implies that it would have to be early in the seventh year. And if everyone going in knew that it meant almost seven years there would not be any deceit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which verse suggests that rape is ok?
Just the verse, thanks.

Sorry, but you do not get to analyze the Bible that way. In fact "verses" is a more modern concept. The original did not have verses. In fact a lot of modern punctuation did not work. You should be asking for the passage so that you could get some context. If one is quote mining the Bible that means one can refute the Bible by quoting it:

"There is no God". The Bible. You won't be able to refute that since you won't be able to find it, even though it is "in the Bible".

 

[dybmh]

That is not the topioc that we are discussing. You are trying to rationalize away an evil.

Good. Your statement confirms that rape on the battlefield is prohibitted. Next question, in a time of war what is the most common sort of romance that occurs between a foreign soldier and a local civilian? The civilian perceives the foreign soldier as a liberator, shares their ideology, and sees the foreign country as an opportunity for a fresh start. Correct?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good. Your statement confirms that rape on the battlefield is prohibitted. Next question, in a time of war what is the most common sort of romance that occurs between a foreign soldier and a local civilian? The civilian perceives the foreign soldier as a liberator, shares their ideology, and sees the foreign country as an opportunity for a fresh start. Correct?

Who knows what sort of "romance" occurs on the battlefield. Yes, it makes for a good movie, but you are still at the most dealing at best with a tiny tiny percentage. When you kill a girls family and kidnap her she really has no choice. It is still rape.

Do you realize that the same sort of "reasoning" that you are using is also used by pedophiles? At times they can convince children that they want to have sex with the pedophiles. They are made to think that what happened is their fault.

Please note the scare quotes:

"Oh the kid really wanted to have sex with me, so naturally I obliged".

You should see if anyone else accepts your reasoning here..

 

[dybmh]

Who knows what sort of "romance" occurs on the battlefield. Yes, it makes for a good movie, but you are still at the most dealing at best with a tiny tiny percentage. When you kill a girls family and kidnap her she really has no choice. It is still rape.

Do you realize that the same sort of "reasoning" that you are using is also used by pedophiles? At times they can convince children that they want to have sex with the pedophiles. They are made to think that what happened is their fault.

Please note the scare quotes:

"Oh the kid really wanted to have sex with me, so naturally I obliged".

You should see if anyone else accepts your reasoning here..

#1 yes, we know what sort of romance happens on the battlefield. War bride - Wikipedia

#2 This not a child. This is a woman. That is written in the law.

#3 If a woman has no hope for supporting herself, she can absolutley consent to trading sex for money, housing, or food. That's called prostitution. When a man is caught with a protitute, he is not prosecuted for rape. Even if she is a poor homeless helpless being, and the man has the money and is able to help her. She consents to sex to support herself, has no other option, it's a different crime altogether.

#4 If it's about popular opinion, then your idea about "tricking a Hebrew slave" is a fail. I have found nothing online anywhere that shares that view. As I said, it's creative. But doesn't quite fit.

#5 Any opinion I bring which supports my view will likely be immediately hand-waved away claiming it's apologist. But, here you go anyway:

The Captive Woman at the Intersection of War and Family Laws - TheTorah.com

Deuteronomy’s law of the beautiful captive woman protects the non-Israelite woman taken in war from rape and from being re-enslaved after marriage.

To put it another way, the “take her as a wife” rule comes to forbid Israelite soldiers to rape captive women.

According to this approach, Deuteronomy wishes to protect the woman from rape, and to make sure she is well-treated if he marries her

The Torah is concerned with the soldier’s integrity both at war and back home; at war he must not rape the captive women, and at home, once he marries the woman, he must treat her like an Israelite.

While the Torah is far from egalitarian, it does not see the woman here as chattel; it worries about her treatment both as a captive and as a wife
​

https://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/3416826/jewish/The-Beautiful-Captive.htm

she would have to shave her head (remove all foreign philosophies and ideas), cut her nails (eliminate excess cultural "baggage" and emotions absorbed from a foreign culture), and get rid of her seductive dress (the "garment" made of evil thoughts and transgressions). Then, she would have to mourn for her father (G‑d), and her mother (Knesset Yisrael, the source of all Jewish souls) and cry over her sins for a full month.

Then, and only then, would the Jewish warrior be capable of deciding what was the right course of action to take – whether to marry her or to send her on her way in a respectful manner
​

#6 There is an example from Torah that confirms marraige is consentual. Genesis 24:58.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Sounds like some apologist garbage to me. Slavery is never ok. Those things you did back then you thought were right but weren't? They weren't right just because you thought differently and are wrong now and were wrong then. Fortunately over the centuries many realized it was wrong--even back then--and progress has been made to where today slavery is nearly universally condemned and prohibited.

No it isn't. Not by a long shot.

Slavery is very alive and well in the US penal system , and explains why we are the most incarcerated nation in the world with a figure surpassing multiple millions of people being forced into involuntary labor benefitting government and private businesses and institutions alike.

Our politicians are still very very pro slavery.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No it isn't. Not by a long shot.

Slavery is very alive and well in the US penal system , and explains why we are the most incarcerated nation in the world with a figure surpassing multiple millions of people being forced into involuntary labor benefitting government and private businesses and institutions alike.

Our politicians are still very very pro slavery.

Ok, apparently you don't know what "nearly" means. Let me help you out.
near·ly
/ˈnirlē/

adverb

1. 1.
   very close to; almost.
   "David was nearly asleep"
   
   Similar:
   almost; just about; all but; next to; close to; not far from; approaching; bordering on; verging on; nearing

1. 2.
   closely.
   "in the absence of anyone more nearly related, I had been designated next of kin"

 

[Twilight Hue]

Ok, apparently you don't know what "nearly" means. Let me help you out.
near·ly
/ˈnirlē/

adverb

1. 1.
   very close to; almost.
   "David was nearly asleep"
   
   Similar:
   almost; just about; all but; next to; close to; not far from; approaching; bordering on; verging on; nearing

1. 2.
   closely.
   "in the absence of anyone more nearly related, I had been designated next of kin"

I wouldn't describe the situation as being nearly.

It's more like latterly, with the plantations simply having notably more walls and bars now.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I wouldn't describe the situation as being nearly.

It's more like latterly, with the plantations simply having notably more walls and bars now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

#1 yes, we know what sort of romance happens on the battlefield. War bride - Wikipedia

#2 This not a child. This is a woman. That is written in the law.

#3 If a woman has no hope for supporting herself, she can absolutley consent to trading sex for money, housing, or food. That's called prostitution. When a man is caught with a protitute, he is not prosecuted for rape. Even if she is a poor homeless helpless being, and the man has the money and is able to help her. She consents to sex to support herself, has no other option, it's a different crime altogether.

#4 If it's about popular opinion, then your idea about "tricking a Hebrew slave" is a fail. I have found nothing online anywhere that shares that view. As I said, it's creative. But doesn't quite fit.

#5 Any opinion I bring which supports my view will likely be immediately hand-waved away claiming it's apologist. But, here you go anyway:

The Captive Woman at the Intersection of War and Family Laws - TheTorah.com

Deuteronomy’s law of the beautiful captive woman protects the non-Israelite woman taken in war from rape and from being re-enslaved after marriage.

To put it another way, the “take her as a wife” rule comes to forbid Israelite soldiers to rape captive women.

According to this approach, Deuteronomy wishes to protect the woman from rape, and to make sure she is well-treated if he marries her

The Torah is concerned with the soldier’s integrity both at war and back home; at war he must not rape the captive women, and at home, once he marries the woman, he must treat her like an Israelite.

While the Torah is far from egalitarian, it does not see the woman here as chattel; it worries about her treatment both as a captive and as a wife
​

https://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/3416826/jewish/The-Beautiful-Captive.htm

she would have to shave her head (remove all foreign philosophies and ideas), cut her nails (eliminate excess cultural "baggage" and emotions absorbed from a foreign culture), and get rid of her seductive dress (the "garment" made of evil thoughts and transgressions). Then, she would have to mourn for her father (G‑d), and her mother (Knesset Yisrael, the source of all Jewish souls) and cry over her sins for a full month.

Then, and only then, would the Jewish warrior be capable of deciding what was the right course of action to take – whether to marry her or to send her on her way in a respectful manner
​

#6 There is an example from Torah that confirms marraige is consentual. Genesis 24:58.

Oh lordy. so much nonsense and self contradiction:


I am so glad that you will allow them to pursue a life of prostitution. That is so generous.


#1 War Brides? Are you kidding me? At least find a similar analogy. Were there families totally wiped out by the invading countries? Were they seen as heroes or enemies? That is not even close to what happened with the Bible invaders. According to the Bible they were to murder all males and all women that had been with a man. Did any of the invading countries in your War Brides example do that? In fact were they viewed as enemies or heroes? In France they were heroes. In England they were not invading and they were heroes, even in Italy they were seen as liberators.

I do not know enough about the Phillipines but I have a feeling that it was similar.

#2 Really? YOu think so? Over 18 or maybe even over 21? In those days a "woman" was not the same as today.

#3 So kind of you to allow them the out of becoming prostitutes. I hate to say this, but trying to defend the OT is making you look rather evil. And then it still may be some sort of "crime".

#4 I never said or implied that it was about popular opinion.

#5 That is because you do not know how to choose proper examples. Don't blame me when you try to compare apples and oranges.

And I have never "hand waved" anything away. If you did not understand an explanation you should have asked for one.

And I do not take apologist sources seriously. It is pretty hard to find any that do not lie for their God.

 

[dybmh]

Oh lordy. so much nonsense and self contradiction:


I am so glad that you will allow them to pursue a life of prostitution. That is so generous.


#1 War Brides? Are you kidding me? At least find a similar analogy. Were there families totally wiped out by the invading countries? Were they seen as heroes or enemies? That is not even close to what happened with the Bible invaders. According to the Bible they were to murder all males and all women that had been with a man. Did any of the invading countries in your War Brides example do that? In fact were they viewed as enemies or heroes? In France they were heroes. In England they were not invading and they were heroes, even in Italy they were seen as liberators.

I do not know enough about the Phillipines but I have a feeling that it was similar.

#2 Really? YOu think so? Over 18 or maybe even over 21? In those days a "woman" was not the same as today.

#3 So kind of you to allow them the out of becoming prostitutes. I hate to say this, but trying to defend the OT is making you look rather evil. And then it still may be some sort of "crime".

#4 I never said or implied that it was about popular opinion.

#5 That is because you do not know how to choose proper examples. Don't blame me when you try to compare apples and oranges.

And I have never "hand waved" anything away. If you did not understand an explanation you should have asked for one.

And I do not take apologist sources seriously. It is pretty hard to find any that do not lie for their God.

Yes, war brides. We in fact do know what sort of romance happens on the battlefield. According to the story, these other nations were despicable. Murderers, rapists, thieves, engaging in incest and child sacrifice. If the women were universally abused, gang raped, impregnated, and their children murdered, they might see the Israelite army as liberators.

So, we know that rape on the battlefield is outlawed. We know that rape off the battlefield is outlawed ( approx 20 verses later Deuteronomy 22:25 ). We know that marriage requires consent ( Genesis 24:58 ). We know that these other nations were despicable. We know that in order to marry a captive-bride it requires 3 individual acts showing consent and a waiting period where she is free to leave. This is the opposite of rape. The captive bride is the opposite of a sex-slave. And I am not the only person to read and understand these verses this way.

If we are going strictly by the text, there is no way to read this any other way. The only way to see this as rape is to:

1. Ignore the story of Rebecca consenting to marriage
2. Ignore the story about the practices of these other nations
3. Ignore that rape is punishable with death
4. Ignore the 3 forms of consent
5. Ignore the waiting period
6. Ignore that she is free to leave

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, war brides. We in fact do know what sort of romance happens on the battlefield. According to the story, these other nations were despicable. Murderers, rapists, thieves, engaging in incest and child sacrifice. If the women were universally abused, gang raped, impregnated, and their children murdered, they might see the Israelite army as liberators.

So, we know that rape on the battlefield is outlawed. We know that rape off the battlefield is outlawed ( approx 20 verses later Deuteronomy 22:25 ). We know that marriage requires consent ( Genesis 24:58 ). We know that these other nations were despicable. We know that in order to marry a captive-bride it requires 3 individual acts showing consent and a waiting period where she is free to leave. This is the opposite of rape. The captive bride is the opposite of a sex-slave. And I am not the only person to read and understand these verses this way.

If we are going strictly by the text, there is no way to read this any other way. The only way to see this as rape is to:

1. Ignore the story of Rebecca consenting to marriage
2. Ignore the story about the practices of these other nations
3. Ignore that rape is punishable with death
4. Ignore the 3 forms of consent
5. Ignore the waiting period
6. Ignore that she is free to leave

Sorry, but you are just clutching at straw now.

Yes, there are exceptions.

So what? You are still advocating for rape if you support those passages. By your own poor rules it is rape.