awesomeJ:


Go read the story of how Abraham's servant got Isaac his wife.
Check out how it was reported that Laban- an heir was all over him. Obviously whom Laban saw was a very big boy, and not just some folk with chronic inferiority complex as you suppose.

Or check out Joseph, he was CEO.

Try, try really hard to come up with one story from the Bible that shows slaves as treated horribly or as animals.

what you are doing here is mental gymnastics, there is clearly endorsement of human dehumanization in the bible(in form of slavery)but you can still argue it out by telling us if it is relative or absolute when those laws were pass ,instead of elevating it to the modern day treatment of employees. this is broad-day lies. likewise , i am also not interested in debunking Christianity on this thread. argue it with the atheist .

Debate makes no sense, atheists believe morality is an invention of humans bounded by the society one resides in. They believe everything In Bible was morally right as long as the ancient hebrew's society at the time approved of it.

awesomeJ:


Should Messi sign up a contract that sees him renouncing his rights to his wife and children to Barcelona, then legally, he has lost those rights to Barca.

Such contracts are illegal but let's assume they're legal, Messi needs to sign it separately it doesn't get bundled with his football contract

a Non Hebrew slave that's bought and sold however doesn't even have his consent valued in this case. he's the whole package

also if Barcelona as a club gives Messi a wife or girlfriend, a child the girlfriend bears belong to Messi, the girl also has her own independence and Barca can't control her


let's see another twist you'll pulls again

About a slave declaring that he doesn't want to be free, if you could think on it with an open mind, you'd see that it's proof of how comfortable slaves could get with their masters.

Bullsheet!!!!!

4 If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to
God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.

Obviously he can decide to bear all the pain and maltreatments just to stay with his wife and children while declaring to love his master but not really meaning it

They were employees basically, and just as folks don't want to leave a good job nowadays, there were slaves who wouldn't want to leave their masters at the time.

Those who don't leave "good jobs nowadays" is obvious they're not leaving good jobs NOT staying at the job because the employer would claim ownership of their wives and children if they leave

Have an open mind to things bro, those folks were employees.

By "open mind" you mean a "dishonest one" like the one you're using right now eh?

To buttress that, mention a portion of the old testament where any other word was used to describe long-term staff/workers.

they had servants, hired men AND slaves with them being differentiated and different rules on each. Dalaman has already shown this in one of his previous posts here so don't add to the dishonesty

awesomeJ:


Where did you get that slaves were not involved in decisions regarding them?

Where does it say that slaves were involved in decision regarding who is to buy them or who they are to be sold to? Are they also involved in any decision regarding how they are to be paid or how they are to be passed on as inheritance? What decisions do slaves make regarding themselves? Show us the injunction and what it says from the bible.

vaxx:
i perceive intentional lies on this thread, slavery is simply dehumanization and can never be compared to present day employment. how can you compare a human resources manager to a slave master?

Even the name slave is far more derogatory, it's a mental and psychological one. This is case where the master truly believes he's superior and that slaves are his property and outsiders who are alien by origin, while the slaves believes he's no more than a servant, and lives believing he's inferior throughout his slave-hood. slaves do not enjoy the same equality statures with his master.

i think christian should argue on this part, if the biblical instruction on slavery is relative or absolute to society when it was given instead of playing mental gymnastic that is obvious. it will have been more interesting.

vaxx:
what you are doing here is mental gymnastics, there is clearly endorsement of human dehumanization in the bible(in form of slavery)but you can still argue it out by telling us if it is relative or absolute when those laws were pass ,instead of elevating it to the modern day treatment of employees. this is broad-day lies. likewise , i am also not interested in debunking Christianity on this thread. argue it with the atheist .

The dishonesty spooks even Vaxx

awesomeJ:

What do you think that difference is?

It's the difference between a daily labourer (casual staff), and a full-time long term staff.

if all workers were hired workers, then there would be no need to used the adjective hired.

But workers were mainly in two categories then:
Hired(casual);
Slaves( long term)

The casualnes of hired workers is why you don't find much regulations regarding them, other than the fact the they must be paid their wages.

Will you keep quiet and stop telling lies. I am tired of your dishonesty. Where does it say that hired workers are causal workers while slaves are long term workers. SHOW ME FROM THE BIBLE.

Slaves had no wages at all. They were not allowed to be paid any wages.
Even the bible God warned the people not to treat their poor Israeli brothers that are poor and sold themselves to them as slaves. Hired workers simply means workers that work and get paid, slaves do not work and get paid and according to the Jewish encyclopedia which I made reference to ob the other thread , slaves were not allowed to own properties. Show us where foreign slaves the ones that Yahweh warned the Jews not to treat each other like that are paid wages from the bible.

CuteMadridista:


The dishonesty spooks even Vaxx

Even vaxx is tired of their dishonesty.

awesomeJ:

Quite a long post on misconceived opinions.

1. quote the verse wherein it was stated that every non Hebrew slave must be owned forever.

Mention where I said every non Hebrew slave is to owned forever. The bible says non hebrew slaves can be passed on as inheritance to kids as properties.

2. For slaves who were sold by their own relatives, they're obviously better off being sold as slaves. For those captured and overpowered-those taken as plunders of war, they're still better off, because the alternative would have been death for them.

How do you know this to be true? So if a person falls out with his relatives and the gang up against him and sell him off into slavery means he's better off? Where is your evidence for the empty assertion? So a person leading his life who was over powered and captured and sold off as a slave us better off because he was captured and sold off? How do you reason pls? Na wah oo.

3. You're bringing legality in here, that's not what we're talking. Slavery could be illegal in Nigeria today, but it certainly wasn't I. the world of that time, because, more than anything else, it was labour sales.

My point is that we shouldn't take seriously stories from.people who saw nothing wrong in slavery as anything serious talk more of using their stories as the words of God to guide our lives. Remember these guys saw nothing wrong in stoning their disobedient children to death.

4.I didn't say foreign slaves gave themselves up for slavery, I said if a man chooses to sell himself or his relative into slavery, he is the one to blame. Should that be the case, the slave masters would obviously yet pay for the slave contract.

Slavery is wrong totally. That their God was the one regulating it says it all.

5. You're mistaken, thinking God could ever do anything bad.
Whatever regulations you find in the Bible regarding slavery were mere the labour laws of the time.

They were the barbaric laws of that time. When men were slave owners and champions of genocide and land grabbing, their God was there with them regulating it. Very telling.

awesomeJ:

Hey, mind your tone there, you wanna be rude, find some place else please.

How would you know slaves couldn't be free? You're just showing your ignorance. Depending on the type of contract a footballer signs, he may or may not be able to leave a football club whenever he wishes, so it was with the slaves of that time. there were those who could be redeemed from the slavery contract. Take note of the fact that the Bible regards the deal as a contract between two parties, wherein labour is traded for money.

Those who didn't earn wages were those who already got their wages upfront in terms of the purchase consideration. Imagine if a firm chooses to sign you up for a job. $20m for 2 years, if the $20m was paid as a lump sum on the day the contract was signed, would they yet have to pay you any more wage?

So if I sell a slave in the slave market, I get to share the money together with the slave? Show us where it says so from the bible. Am tired of your dishonesty and the way you keep making things up.

awesomeJ:

Why do you just make silly assumptions?
was it stated that Joseph's exceptional treatment meant inhumane treatment to other slaves?

For the Israelites, it wasn't just slavery that caused their ill treatment. it was a case of oppression, which could have been meted to anyone slaves or not.

Don't Nigerian leaders oppress the masses? is it cos the masses are slaves to them?

And if you read where God foretold Abraham about the israelites stay in Egypt, God said, "they will be enslaved and oppressed 400 years". if slavery inherently had oppression, there wouldn't have been any need to say " enslaved and oppressed " it's cos the two are separate things that necessitated the use of both words.
You'll find that statement in Gen 15:13

Slavery goes together with with oppression. That is why when a person is out of slavery he is declared free. The Jews as slaves were treated badly so much so that they cried to their God to set them free. Slaves do not get treated well so much so that Yahweh warned the Jews not to treat their fellow Jews that way.

vaxx:
what you are doing here is mental gymnastics, there is clearly endorsement of human dehumanization in the bible(in form of slavery)but you can still argue it out by telling us if it is relative or absolute when those laws were pass ,instead of elevating it to the modern day treatment of employees. this is broad-day lies. likewise , i am also not interested in debunking Christianity on this thread. argue it with the atheist .

If by the next century, Clubs no longer buy football players but rather employ them.

If someone from that time reads articles s about how players were bought and sold, and concludes that the govt of today which allowed such a practice must have been cruel, would he be right on that conclusion?

Now, if someone else chooses to observe the relationship more keenly, and finds that the players weren't actually subjected to any dehumanizing act, but rather a lifestyle of luxury, would you be right to say all he's doing is mental gymnastics.

Don't argue in ignorance bro. That you don't know something doesn't make it false.

I have given you scenarios portraying how slaves were treated at the time. So if you think otherwise, dig up any scenario that confirms your stance.

CuteMadridista:

Such contracts are illegal but let's assume they're legal, Messi needs to sign it separately it doesn't get bundled with his football contract

a Non Hebrew slave that's bought and sold however doesn't even have his consent valued in this case. he's the whole package

also if Barcelona as a club gives Messi a wife or girlfriend, a child the girlfriend bears belong to Messi, the girl also has her own independence and Barca can't control her


let's see another twist you'll pulls again


Bullsheet!!!!!

4 If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to
God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.

Obviously he can decide to bear all the pain and maltreatments just to stay with his wife and children while declaring to love his master but not really meaning it

Those who don't leave "good jobs nowadays" is obvious they're not leaving good jobs NOT staying at the job because the employer would claim ownership of their wives and children if they leave

By "open mind" you mean a "dishonest one" like the one you're using right now eh?

they had servants, hired men AND slaves with them being differentiated and different rules on each. Dalaman has already shown this in one of his previous posts here so don't add to the dishonesty

You're basically making unfounded assumptions.
1. Where did you get that a non Hebrew slave did not have his consent valued?
2. How would you know that a slave's claim of love for his master isn't sincere?
3. Give an instance of such pain and maltreatment you mentioned.
4. Servants were slaves too. You thinking they're different explains why you're confused about the whole biblical concept on slavery.

5.Don't keep making any funny reference to someone else's post, I've asked you to make the post, please do, even if you have to copy and paste. Where is it stated that non Hebrew slaves must be slaves perpetually?

I'm getting tired of this dishonesty

awesomeJ:


You're basically making unfounded assumptions.
1. Where did you get that a non Hebrew slave did not have his consent valued?

Because it wasn't stated?

2. How would you know that a slave's claim of love for his master isn't sincere?

No matter how sincere it is, its more due to wanting to be with his wife and children than love of his master

3. Give an instance of such pain and maltreatment you mentioned.

You can beat them to death so long they survive for more than 2 days after the beating

4. Servants were slaves too. You thinking they're different explains why you're confused about the whole biblical concept on slavery.

OGA, bible made the difference clear between hired servants and slaves. its you that needs to read your Bible

Exodus 12:43-45 (NRSV)
43 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron: This is the ordinance for the passover: no foreigner shall eat of it, 44 but any slave who has been purchased may eat of it after he has been circumcised;
45 no bound or hired servant may eat of it.

Leviticus 22:10-11 (NRSV)
10 No lay person shall eat of the sacred donations. No bound or hired servant of the priest shall eat of the sacred donations; 11 but if a priest acquires anyone by purchase, the person may eat of them; and those that are born in his house may eat of his food.

These passages show that there is a difference between someone who is hired, someone who is a bonded servant, and someone who is bought, paid for, and owned.

5.Don't keep making any funny reference to someone else's post, I've asked you to make the post, please do, even if you have to copy and paste. Where is it stated that non Hebrew slaves must be slaves perpetually?

Non Hebrews slaves can be passe to children and children's children as inheritance. common sense tells us they would've died or close to death by the time they're passed to the children's children so yeah they're there for life except the Hebrews who are there for a time


any more gymnastics?

dalaman:


Where does it say that slaves were involved in decision regarding who is to buy them or who they are to be sold to? Are they also involved in any decision regarding how they are to be paid or how they are to be passed on as inheritance? What decisions do slaves make regarding themselves? Show us the injunction and what it says from the bible.

What's up with you now?
Quote where I said slaves were involved in such decisions, and I'll give you Biblical reference.

You on the other hand, are making claims on things you don't not know for sure, saying slaves weren't involved in the decisions, hence my reason for asking you to quote where it was stated that no slaves was or could ever be involved in the decisions that pertain to their slavery deal.

I'll help you,

Joseph for instance when sold by his brothers to the midianite most likely wasn't consulted, because the act was one of wickedness on the brothers' part. Their initial plot was to even kill him. So obviously that was an act of wickedness.

When the Midianites sold him to Potiphar, you don't know whether or not he was involved in talks with Potiphar regarding the terms of his service. Concluding that he wasn't is purely a baseless assumption.

Or look at Lev 26:47
If a foreigner or temporary resident living among you prospers, but your brother (Hebrew) living near him becomes destitute and sells himself to the foreigner living among you, or to a member of the foreigner's clan,


Wouldn't it be illogical to think that the slave in this context who chose to sell himself wasn't involved in the decision?

dalaman:


Will you keep quiet and stop telling lies. I am tired of your dishonesty. Where does it say that hired workers are causal workers while slaves are long term workers. SHOW ME FROM THE BIBLE.

Slaves had no wages at all. They were not allowed to be paid any wages.
Even the bible God warned the people not to treat their poor Israeli brothers that are poor and sold themselves to them as slaves. Hired workers simply means workers that work and get paid, slaves do not work and get paid and according to the Jewish encyclopedia which I made reference to ob the other thread , slaves were not allowed to own properties. Show us where foreign slaves the ones that Yahweh warned the Jews not to treat each other like that are paid wages from the bible.

You're sounding more and more like an idiot, and I should really think that you are.

If you didn't already lose half your reasoning faculty, would it be so difficult to realize that someone whose hired to work for you for a day is a casual worker, whereas the one who serves you for years is a long termer.

Make sure, this is the very last time you'll open your gutters to use silly words in quoting me, if you still want me to regard you as a human worth some reckoning.

awesomeJ:


You're sounding more and more like an idiot, and I should really think that you are.

If you didn't already lose half your reasoning faculty, would it be so difficult to realize that someone whose hired to work for you for a day is a casual worker, whereas the work who serves you for years is a long termer.

Make sure, this is the very last time you'll open your gutters to use silly words in quoting me, if you still want me to regard you as a human worth some reckoning.

Obgbeni, show us where slaves are paid according to the bible. Remember that Yahweh warned them not to treat those that are poor among them who sell themselves to them as slaves but as hired workers, that clearly tells you that there is a big difference btw slaves and hired workers. The Jewish encyclopedia that I referenced to on the other thread clearly states that slaves were NOT allowed to own properties and were not paid wages.

Show us where slaves were paid wages or keep quiet.

All this your yeye spin will not help you.

awesomeJ:

What's up with you now?
Quote where I said slaves were involved in such decisions, and I'll give you Biblical reference.

You on the other hand, are making claims on things you don't not know for sure, saying slaves weren't involved in the decisions, hence my reason for asking you to quote where it was stated that no slaves was or could ever be involved in the decisions that pertain to their slavery deal.

I'll help you,

Joseph for instance when sold by his brothers to the midianite most likely wasn't consulted, because the act was one of wickedness on the brothers' part. Their initial plot was to even kill him. So obviously that was an act of wickedness.

When the Midianites sold him to Potiphar, you don't know whether or not he was involved in talks with Potiphar regarding the terms of his service. Concluding that he wasn't is purely a baseless assumption.

Or look at Lev 26:47
If a foreigner or temporary resident living among you prospers, but your brother (Hebrew) living near him becomes destitute and sells himself to the foreigner living among you, or to a member of the foreigner's clan,


Wouldn't it be illogical to think that the slave in this context who chose to sell himself wasn't involved in the decision?

Obgbeni, I've told you to show us from the bible were all your assertions are declared.

CuteMadridista:
I'm getting tired of this dishonesty
Because it wasn't stated?

No matter how sincere it is, its more due to wanting to be with his wife and children than love of his master

You can beat them to death so long they survive for more than 2 days after the beating
OGA, bible made the difference clear between hired servants and slaves. its you that needs to read your Bible

Exodus 12:43-45 (NRSV)
43 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron: This is the ordinance for the passover: no foreigner shall eat of it, 44 but any slave who has been purchased may eat of it after he has been circumcised;
45 no bound or hired servant may eat of it.

Leviticus 22:10-11 (NRSV)
10 No lay person shall eat of the sacred donations. No bound or hired servant of the priest shall eat of the sacred donations; 11 but if a priest acquires anyone by purchase, the person may eat of them; and those that are born in his house may eat of his food.

These passages show that there is a difference between someone who is hired, someone who is a bonded servant, and someone who is bought, paid for, and owned.
Non Hebrews slaves can be passe to children and children's children as inheritance. common sense tells us they would've died or close to death by the time they're passed to the children's children so yeah they're there for life except the Hebrews who are there for a time


any more gymnastics?

There you go again, making all funny assumptions.

1. if it wasn't stated, then you're obviously just making it up.

2. you're only expressing your opinion on what you think the slaves motives would be. Doesn't mean it's even close to being true.

3. You can beat them to death so long as they survive? What's that? does someone already beaten to death still survive?


But I'll help you, I have mentioned to you that the scripture is only spelling out when a person can be charged with murder.

exodus 21:18-20

18.When men quarrel, and one strikes the other with a stone or fist, and the injured man does not die but is confined to bed,
19. if he can later get up and walk outside....

That's where the slave beating regulation came from.

It's a good thing that you should see that there was also thesame regulation for two individuals who aren't slaves.

So the scripture there is not saying slaves should be beaten, just as it isn't saying men should quarrel and one should hit the other with a stone.

Comprehend the context bro, it's merely giving what liabilities people are subjected to for the actions they commit.

4. Define a bound servant.

5. if I say, "You can pass your Maths textbook down to your kids"
Does it mean that your maths textbook MUST be passed down to your kids? Sure it doesn't.

The phrase there is "You may"/ " You can"

The interpretation you're bringing is "You MUST"

That's why your argument is faulty.

Note that I now have a bias for responding to your post versus the other guy's, because he talks funny sometimes. Maybe Spartan would be able to cope with him.

@ Cutie,

It's the version you're reading that makes you think there are SLAVES, HIRED SERVANTS and BOUND SERVANTS.

But you're wrong, and I'll help you.

The only adjective used for the word "servant" there is "hired". The word bound isn't an adjective for servant as you're confusing it to be. It's a word on its own, and it refers to temporary residents.

You may read another English version to confirm that.

So, obviously, there were only two categories of workers at those times: the casual hired workers, and the long term slaves. You can't find any other.

awesomeJ:


There you go again, making all funny assumptions.

1. if it wasn't stated, then you're obviously just making it up.

The onus is on you to show where it's stated! inability to do that proves they were not!! also you're ignoring the fact that the Israelites got majority of their slaves from conquering villages by giving them 2 options before proceeding

a. Fight us and probably die

b. Surrender and survive but you'd become our slaves

Deuteronomy 20:10-15

You're yet to support your own stance with the Bible

2. you're only expressing your opinion on what you think the slaves motives would be. Doesn't mean it's even close to being true.

Do you have any other rule? mind you this only applies to Israelite slaves NOT non Hebrews so you're just concentrating on something beside the point

3. You can beat them to death so long as they survive? What's that does someone already beating to death still survive?

Read very well, you can beat them to death as long as they survive for a day or two after the beating!!!!!

But i'll help you, I have mentions to you that the scripture is only spelling out when a person can be charged with murder.

exodus 21:18-20

18.When men quarrel, and one strikes the other with a stone or fist, and the injured man does not die but is confined to bed,
19. if he can later get up and walk outside....

That's where the slave beating regulation came from.

That ONLY APPLIES BETWEEN ISRAELITES TO ISRAELITES! NOT SLAVES TO MASTER!! maybe you should take your own advice and read the context rather than googling

4. Define a bound servant.

you do

5. if a say, "You can pass your Maths textbook down to your kids"
Does it mean that your maths textbook MUST be passed down to your kids? Sure it doesn't.

The phrase their is "You may"/ " You can"

The interpretation you're bringing is "You MUST"

That's why your argument is faulty.

Either way its YOUR PROPERTY and reducing Humans to the level of Maths Textbook makes my point for me haha

Note that I now a bias for responding to your post versus the other guy's, because he talks funny sometimes. Maybe Spartan would be able to cope with him.

This is no business of mine, bring on more gymnastics

CuteMadridista:

The onus is on you to show where it's stated! inability to do that proves they were not!! also you're ignoring the fact that the Israelites got majority of their slaves from conquering villages by giving them 2 options before proceeding

a. Fight us and probably die

b. Surrender and survive but you'd become our slaves

Deuteronomy 20:10-15

You're yet to support your own stance with the Bible

Do you have any other rule? mind you this only applies to Israelite slaves NOT non Hebrews so you're just concentrating on something beside the point

Read very well, you can beat them to death as long as they survive for a day or two after the beating!!!!!


That ONLY APPLIES BETWEEN ISRAELITES TO ISRAELITES! NOT SLAVES TO MASTER!! maybe you should take your own advice and read the context rather than googling
you do

Either way its YOUR PROPERTY and reducing Humans to the level of Maths Textbook makes my point for me haha

This is no business of mine, bring on more gymnastics

This post sounds like you just quoted for the sake of it. Come on now.

I don't have to define a bound servant, because first off, you came up with the concept on your own, so shouldn't you be the one defining what you mean by it.

Then secondly I have said that the concept doesn't exist at all based on biblical record. check my last post.

Look at your own argument,
A statement says, " You can pass on slaves to your children "
You wrongly interpreted it to mean "You MUST pass slaves to your children"

Then I gave you a similar statement to show you that "You may" doesn't mean "You must"

You're saying that I reduced human to maths textbook.

This is obviously the shallowest argument you have put up.

awesomeJ:


This post sounds like you just quoted for the sake of it. Come on now.

I don't have to define a bound servant, because first off, you came up with the concept on your own, so shouldn't you be the defining what you mean by it.

Then secondly I have said that the concept doesn't exist at all based on biblical record. check my last post.

Your last post simply asked who a bondservant is and the question is not relevant as the bible verses I gave are simply showing the difference between slaves - master and employee-employer while you're trying to make them the same things. Bible is very clear in the difference

Now, don't say again that you can beat someone to death, and they survive after two days.

Common sense makes it clear that dying and surviving are mutually exclusive. So why keep saying somebody dies and he survives?

awesomeJ:
Look at your own argument,
A statement says, " You can pass on slaves to your children "
You wrongly interpreted it to mean "You MUST pass slaves to your children"

Then I gave you a similar statement to show you that "You may" doesn't mean "You must"

You're saying that I reduced human to maths textbook.

This is obviously the shallowest argument you have put up.

actually you're the one bringing shallow arguments upon shallow arguments, where did I say they "MUST".isn't that a strawman you constructed up for yourself? could you quote where I said they MUST?

and yeah, if you want to make a point of difference by referring to an analogy about maths textbook then you're making my point for me or can you please look for something that's equal to humans to use as example?

CuteMadridista:


Your last post simply asked who a bondservant is and the question is not relevant as the bible verses I gave are simply showing the difference between slaves - master and employee-employer while you're trying to make them the same things. Bible is very clear in the difference

There is nothing like bond servant in the verses you quoted. A slave and a hired worker that's all. You didn't comprehend the passage well, and I have explained it to you.

There's only bound in that passage, not bound servant.

The bound there means foreign or temporary resident.

awesomeJ:
Now, don't say again that you can beat someone to death, and they survive after two days.

Common sense makes it clear that dying and surviving are mutually exclusive. So why keep saying somebody dies and he survives?

If you're a slave, I can beat you to a morbidly injured position and get away with it if you survive for more than 2 days

It seems you're splitting hairs here, if I shoot you with a bullet and you're bedridden for a week before finally dying from your wounds, who killed you? am I the one or the bed killed you? you seem to be focusing on irrelevant grammar while leaving the main things untouched

CuteMadridista:


actually you're the one bringing shallow arguments upon shallow arguments, where did I say they "MUST".isn't that a strawman you constructed up for yourself? could you quote where I said they MUST?

and yeah, if you want to make a point of difference by referring to an analogy about maths textbook then you're making my point for me or can you please look for something that's equal to humans to use as example?

1. You can pass your textbook to your kids.
2. You MUST pass your textbook to your kids.

Which of the above statements mean that the textbook will perpetually remain in service with your family?
The second one obviously.

So when you quote a verse that says " You can pass down your slave" to mean that the slave will perpetually be in your family, it means you interpreted the statement as "you must pass down your slave"

Just to indulge you,

Someone says to the King.

1. "You can pass down your cupbearer to the Prince"

2. "You must pass down your cupbearer to the prince"

Only the 2nd statement means that the cupbearer will always be their staff.

awesomeJ:




1. You can pass your textbook to your kids.
2. You MUST pass your textbook to your kids.

Which of the above statements mean that the textbook will perpetually remain in service with your family?
The second one obviously.

So when you quote a verse that says " You can pass down your slave" to mean that the slave will perpetually be in your family, it means you interpreted the statement as "you must pass down your slave"

Just to indulge you,

Someone says to the King.

1. "You can pass down your cupbearer to the Prince"

2. "You must pass down your cupbearer to the prince"

Only the 2nd statement means that the cupbearer will always be their staff.

King, The cupbearer is your property and you can pass them unto me (your son) as "inheritance" but you must not do your personal chef this way

Now tell me what that also means? it seems you're not even reading through verses before tackling them, you're focusing on inanities while leaving the main points. you're reducing the big picture to the little one that makes sense to you. What else makes a man a inheritance that can be passed to children and children's children?

AwesomeJ, let me ask you a question
The type of slavery that the white people did to us, was it good?

CuteMadridista:


If you're a slave, I can beat you to a morbidly injured position and get away with it if you survive for more than 2 days

It seems you're splitting hairs here, if I shoot you with a bullet and you're bedridden for a week before finally dying from your wounds, who killed you? am I the one or the bed killed you? you seem to be focusing on irrelevant grammar while leaving the main things untouched

If you shoot someone and he survives, no matter how long it takes, nobody charges you for murder, which is what the verses say.

The beating isn't exclusive to slaves. You're making it sound as if the slave gets beaten just cos he's a slave. That's wrong, because the very instruction before that of the slave talked about a free man beaten and seriously injured by his fellow man.

In both cases, so long as the victims don't die, the Bible is saying you shouldn't kill their beaters.

In the case of a free man, a beater compensates him for his lost work hours, nothing more. In the case of a slave, the master already paid for his work hours, and owns them, hence the reason why he doesn't have to compensate the slave as he would a free man.

Clear enough picture if you choose to discard your prejudice.

awesomeJ:

If you shoot someone and he survives, no matter how long it takes, nobody charges you for murder, which is what the verses say.

The beating isn't exclusive to slaves. You're making it sound as if the slave gets beaten just cos he's a slave. That's wrong, because the very instruction before that of the slave talked about a free man beating and seriously injured by his fellow man.

In both cases, so long as the victims don't die, the Bible is saying you shouldn't kill their beaters.

In the case of a free man, a beater compensates him for his lost work hours, nothing more. In the case of a slave, the master already paid for his work hours, and owns them, hence the reason why he doesn't have to compensate the slave as he would a free man.

Clear enough picture if you choose to discard your prejudice.

Hehehehe I'm loving this swaying here and there hehehehe

In case of a free man, the beater compensates for lost work hours AND arranges for full recovery. which means he'll have to foot his medical bills too. you left that part out for a reason

A slave however has no compensation, nothing in it says his injuries are to be taken care of by his master and if he dies from his injuries days later its all good riddance he'll simply take another slave to beat to an inch of death again and its all good

Also if you blind their eyes, your punishment is that you simply set them free