Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8
Results 141 to 157 of 157
  1. #141
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    If someone holds that charity is wrong, then this argument makes perfect sense.
    Ahh, but where would I know that in the argument made?

    P1) The bible allows for charity.
    P2) The bible fails to express any clear moral opposition to charity.
    C) The bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide.

    There is nothing here about "holding that charity is wrong."

    Wouldn't it be a clearer argument to say;

    P1) The bible allows for charity.
    P2) The bible fails to express any clear moral opposition to charity.
    P3) I hold that charity is morally wrong.
    C) The bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  2. #142
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ahh, but where would I know that in the argument made?
    Again, Squatch, I'm done playing games with you. If you don't hold that owning people as property is wrong, then there really is nothing of value you can add to this discussion.

    If, instead, you want to stop playing games, then by all means continue trying to address the fact that the bible sanctions slavery.
    Indeed, your attempts to argue that the bible doesn't actually sanction owning people as property clearly indicates that you think it's wrong. Otherwise, you wouldn't care that the bible sanctions it.

  3. #143
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, Squatch, I'm done playing games with you.
    You didn't answer the question. Is it your claim that this conclusion is for you, the individual, or is it supposed to apply to everyone?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #144
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You didn't answer the question. Is it your claim that this conclusion is for you, the individual, or is it supposed to apply to everyone?
    Again: If you don't hold that owning people as property is wrong, then there really is nothing of value you can add to this discussion.
    Since your question implies that you don't know/hold that it's wrong, that's your answer.

    So again, if you don't hold that it's wrong, then thanks for playing.

  5. #145
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again: If you don't hold that owning people as property is wrong, then there really is nothing of value you can add to this discussion.
    Since your question implies that you don't know/hold that it's wrong, that's your answer.

    So again, if you don't hold that it's wrong, then thanks for playing.
    You are missing the point of the question. It isn't about whether I think it is wrong. It is about the scope of your conclusion. Does it mean that the Bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide by anyone? Or that the Bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide by future?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  6. #146
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You are missing the point of the question. It isn't about whether I think it is wrong. It is about the scope of your conclusion. Does it mean that the Bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide by anyone? Or that the Bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide by future?
    Sigh...
    I really don't understand what your problem is, Squatch, or why you keep pursuing this ridiculous line of argumentation, which you oddly enough called "profitable".

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Does it mean that the Bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide by anyone? Or that the Bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide by future?
    I find it hard to believe that you are incapable of making such considerations for yourself, but anyway, since you insist.
    Someone who holds something as wrong would obviously think that a book which sanctions it should not be considered as a moral guide by anyone, not just themselves.

    Do you honestly think that someone who holds something is wrong would find it okay for anyone else to take moral guidance from something which sanctions it?

  7. #147
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Someone who holds something as wrong would obviously think that a book which sanctions it should not be considered as a moral guide by anyone, not just themselves.
    Thank you for the answer.

    Now, do you see why your conclusion doesn't follow your premises? Why does future thinking that A is a problem mean that Mican or Mindtrap shouldn't consider it a moral guide?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  8. #148
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Why does future thinking that A is a problem mean that Mican or Mindtrap shouldn't consider it a moral guide?
    You obviously think that this is a real hum-dinger nail in the coffin, don't you?

    Read it again:
    Someone who holds something as wrong would obviously think that a book which sanctions it should not be considered as a moral guide by anyone, not just themselves.

    So, again, simply put, if someone thinks A is a problem, then they logically also think that nobody should take moral guidance from something which sanctions A.
    Since you have implicitly accepted this concept, your question therefore again implies that you don't think A is a problem.

    If you truly don't, then you obviously wouldn't care if your moral guide sanctions A, or if anyone else takes moral guidance from something which sanctions A.
    Thanks for playing.

  9. #149
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    So, again, simply put, if someone thinks A is a problem, then they logically also think that nobody should take moral guidance from something which sanctions A.
    So your OP is:

    P1) The bible allows for slavery.
    P2) The bible fails to express any clear moral opposition to slavery.
    P3) I, future, think slavery is morally problematic.
    C) I don't feel that anyone should seriously consider the Bible as a moral guide.

    Is that a correct understanding?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  10. #150
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Is that a correct understanding?
    LOL, no...

    As already explained: If anyone has an issue with some implicit question about whether owning people as property is immoral, they need only ask themselves if they think it is.

    If someone still has issues understanding the idea or wants to pretend and play games, then, as was offered to Hyde when he wanted to play games, the conclusion could be expanded to:
    The bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide by people who hold that slavery is immoral.

    So, again, if you truly don't have a problem with owning people as property, as your current line of argumentation implies, then by all means, just say so. Thanks for playing.

  11. #151
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    As I already said, I'm done playing games with you, Squatch.
    Repeating an untenable claim does not make it more valid. Language is, by its very definition, the shared inference of meaning. Yet you are arguing that there is a no inference here. That is an incoherent position. I'm not playing games with you, I'm simply trying to approach the subject with a bit more sophistication.

    Words have meanings that change over time, or in certain contexts, or through translations. Recognizing and incorporating that uncontroversial fact isn't an attempt to be disengenous.

    I'll give you a great example. The Catholic Church once ruled that eating of beaver on Fridays was permissible because beavers are fish. That seems patently ridiculous to you right? It did to me when I first encountered the story. But the fact is, until about the mid 1700s (this ruling was in the 700s) the word "fish" meant "anything that lived in water." It only took on the more limited context in the eighteenth century.

    Apple used to mean any fruit with a seed.
    Corn used to mean any grain (and still does in England, and can even mean something as broad as a small, hard object, like a corn on your foot).

    These words have changed meanings over time, so it is perfectly appropriate to ask, what that word meant to those who actually spoke it, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    itself proves that the bible fails as a moral guide.
    Fails as a moral guide to you, future? Or to everyone? I'm curious about the scope of your argument since we still don't seem to have a logically valid argument from the OP.
    Is your argument still:
    P1) The bible allows for slavery.
    P2) The bible fails to express any clear moral opposition to slavery.
    C) The bible cannot be seriously considered as a moral guide.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    A "perfect moral guide" that has to rely on fallible interpretations in order to be followed correctly is no such thing.
    So you concede then that the Bible has instructed us to consult other sources and learn?
    Given that, we can take the claim that only the Bible can be quoted in thread has been dismissed.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    The support of a relationship where people are sold, bought, and inherited as property is the text which explains that people are sold, bought, and inherited as property.
    But you haven't supported a critical aspect of your claim, which is that they were purchased as people. That is key to your argument and without explanation of why your reading implies that the Hebrews (against every historical example we have for them) actually purchased the human beings, that they their personhood was bought and sold.

    Let me illustrate the distinction inherent in your argument as I see it. If I had purchased a contract for a consultant, in common parlance we would say "I've purchased a consultant." That contract could even have ridiculously strict clauses (as some due), including requirements to be at a place when called, requirements to move or live in a new area, preventions from doing any other work, including personal work during the contract, etc.

    But we wouldn't equate the phrase "I've purchased a consultant" to mean "I now own Steve's personhood." "I own him as a person." We distinguish between the person of Steve, and the persona of Steve the consultant.

    Most of what the OT is describing is that kind of labor contract. IE when a Hebrew or a foreigner enters slavery to pay off a debt. That large section is clearly not an ownership of the personhood (though we should note that the word "slave" is still used).

    Rather, what we are concerned with is the much smaller scenario of civilians captured during conflict. Do the Israelites have claim over those individuals' personhood? You claim yes, but have offered no direct evidence (you just assert that is what is meant). I claimed no, and offered up multiple sources, including parallel scripture where Israelites were barred from owning the underlying asset.

    Thus you still have to support that claim. Do you have direct evidence that the verses in question refer to the Israelites owning the personhood of the individual? Challenge to support a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Yes, and that which is acquired is people
    Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract that the verse is referring to the acquisition of the personhood.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Stop this "interpretation" nonsense - it's a pathetic straw-man.
    If two people read the same sentence and derived two different meanings what would you call it? Because the proper word is "interpretation." Interpreting a text for meaning is hardly an "out there" concept as you claim.

    Here we have a relatively vanilla example. Let me try to state it in more formal argumentation. You can tell me which premise, or the structure, is wrong.

    P1) future claims verse X means A.
    P2) Squatch claims verse X means B.
    P3) Jewish Scholars, Biblical Scholars, and Hebrew experts claim it means B.
    P4) Southern farmers claimed it meant A in their defense of slavery.
    C1) future agrees with southern farmers, Squatch agrees with experts referenced in P3.

    Your "counter" is that "there is no interpretation, I'm just right!" But P3 clearly indicates that you are incorrect in that assertion. There is an interpretation issue and we have to decide which side we are on, yours' or scholars'.


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Again, show me a single widely-published actual bible which is available to us regular folks that says what you claim the scholars are saying (clearly and without ambiguity that owning slaves means owning labour, not people), and maybe it would have more weight.
    Alternatively, since it is your claim, you could show a single widely-published actual Bible that says what you are claiming that the individuals' personhood is owned. The burden rests on you as it is your argument.

    P.S. I already offered sources that showed you were wrong. You then shifted the goal post to say you wouldn't consider outside sources. So I offered you Biblical sources, and you then shifted the goal posts again to say that you would only consider this particular verse, it seems your window has gotten smaller and smaller throughout the thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Nope, it's what the text says verbatim, and what the commentaries agree with.
    This isn't an argument, just an assertion. Your response doesn't address my point that you mistranslated the root word and that your inference disagrees with the majority of scholarship.

    It is a relevant clarification though. It is your interpretation of the meaning. It is an interpretation a majority of scholars don't share with you, as I've shown. It is a reading that doesn't comport with the understanding of the primary reference materials on the application of these verses. It is an interpretation that is at odds with the understanding of those who actually read Biblical Hebrew for a living as I've linked.

    So it is, in its very essence, your thinking on the meaning. I understand you might find that demeaning, I don't mean to personally demean you of course, but I need to highlight that you are maintaining an understanding of the verse that is at odd with every mainstream scholar presented in this thread and virtually every commentary that addresses the subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    And yet there isn't a single recognizable/widely-available bible being published which supports what you claim. Funny that.
    I already offered sources that showed you were wrong. You then shifted the goal post to say you wouldn't consider outside sources. So I offered you Biblical sources, and you then shifted the goal posts again to say that you would only consider this particular verse, it seems your window has gotten smaller and smaller throughout the thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Stop this straw-man nonsense.
    It isn't a straw man to point out that your bare assertion that "that is what this text mean" (even though you aren't even reading it in the original language) is an interpretation. That is the fundamental nature of language, shared interpretation. It strikes the reader as somewhat bizarre that you would claim there is no interpretation going on here when I've shown sources that disagree with you. Unless you have some odd definition of the word interpretation, that is clearly what is going on, either by you, by them, or (in reality) by both.

    You are interpreting the words to mean a. Scholars and Jews interpret it to mean b. If two different subjects come to a different understanding of the meaning of a text, what word would you use?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I've already repeatedly provided main-stream scholar commentaries which support the plain-text readings.
    Well no. You quoted a small section of a couple of commentaries and then ignored the parts that disagreed with you (and conveniently ignored when I quoted those parts back to you, you can find that at the end of these posts for reference). And when you say "plain-text" you mean, of course, in a language it wasn’t written in, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    No, the differences in understanding here have come not as a result of the language, but as a result of changes in the moral positions held by society.
    So...language doesn't change over time? Is that seriously your argument now?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Do you know why we don't allow Wikipedia as a valid source on ODN? Because anyone can edit it.


    Don't get all worked up, I changed it back. The point is that wiki is editable and its source citation policy is garbage. Do you have a valid source for these claims? You'll note that actually directly cited the Talmud and the Jewish Scholars in question.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I clearly stated that multiple sources - even the ones you provided - support that a slave is a person who is owned.
    Again, that isn't what I wrote, nor what the sources said. The argument in question is;

    Interesting conclusion. You'll note that none of your references actually say that slaves are owned as people right? You seem to have fully tilted at a strawman here. You've defended that the slave is a person, not that a slave is labor. Sure, no argument there. In fact, no one is arguing that the word "slave" means labor, which is what you are defending here. What has been argued, and supported earlier (and again here) is that the ownership is of the product not the producer, just like it is with the land. Of course people are being obtained as slaves. But this doesn't mean that the ownership is of person unless you are assuming chattel slavery, which is both unsupported, and as shown not a concept in Biblical history.

    Your second reference is actually a perfect illustration of not considering the ideas in context. The servants are to be inherited like "immovable goods, as fields, vineyards" etc. But remember we already pointed out both in the Talmud and the Old Testament that the Jews don't own the fields or the vineyards, just the output of the fields and the vineyards.

    Lev 25:23: “‘The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers."

    You'll also remember that way back in post 32 I noted that the Talmud (specifically Gittin) references this verse as support for the idea that slaves were not directly owned by the master just as the land was not directly owned, but that God had given over the produce of the land and the produce of the people to them, not direct ownership.

    Also in Leviticus 25, when God is explaining the repayment of loans during Jubilee:
    15 You are to buy from your own people on the basis of the number of years since the Jubilee. And they are to sell to you on the basis of the number of years left for harvesting crops. 16 When the years are many, you are to increase the price, and when the years are few, you are to decrease the price, because what is really being sold to you is the number of crops. 17 Do not take advantage of each other, but fear your God. I am the Lord your God.

    The point here is that you don't own the land, what you are buying is the crops.

    Or as a Biblical historian pointed out:


    When slaves (indentured servants) were acquired under the law, it was their labor that was purchased, not their person, and the price took into account the year of freedom (Lev. 25:44-55; Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12-13). https://wallbuilders.com/bible-slave...icas-founders/

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    the practice of slavery is where people are owned as property.
    Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract this assertion, that all forms of slavery historically have included owning the individual's personhood.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    The 6-year term only applies to male Hebrew slaves, and even then there's a loop-hole by which a male Hebrew slave can become permanent property.
    You are confusing two different sections. The remittance price of a Hebrew slave was based on the amount of labor remaining between themselves and Jubilee. The sales price of a non-Hebrew slave's labor (Hebrew slaves couldn't be sold after all), was based on the amount of labor the owner would receive between then and the next Jubilee. This is clearly the context from the verses cited above, and from the Talmudic passages sited nearly a dozen times in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    "that one of the nations that lies with a Canaanitish woman, and begets a son of her, he may be bought for a servant; and so if a Canaanitish man lies with one of the nations, and begets a son of her, he may also be bought for a servant"

    Incidentally, it should be pointed out that commentary on Genesis 17:12 also supports that people were obtained a slaves and were bought and sold as property:
    This is still a begging the question fallacy. Why do these verses mean that owning a slave was to own his personhood? "Because owning a slave is to own their personhood." That is a circular argument. You still need to show that that understanding of the term is being held by the authors.

    Your commentaries don't offer any defense either. Notice that your quotation of Leviticus (without attribution) is translated as Servant, not slave. Are servants now the same thing as slaves in your mind? If not, why the distinction being offered by the translators here?

    I should also note that your unattributed quotation of Poole supports my point, not yours. What happens when a person is circumcised? They become part of the family! This is, after all, Abraham's group. Circumcision is a sign of a covenant between that person and God. Children brought out of other lands are to be included in the Abrahamic family through that sign. Adults are offered a choice, join the family or be set free (notice the part where they have to leave?). That doesn't sound at all like a system where an individual's personhood is owned as chattel.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Nothing is presumed. I clearly indicated the contradiction of saying, literally, "slaves were acquired"
    And for that "contradiction" to be true, we have to assume the translator contradicts himself. That is one heck of an intellectual hurdle to clear. Do you have any support or evidence that the translator was unaware of their own contradiction, or explanation for why no one but you has caught this contradiction in the translation?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    but I think even a child can understand the difference when someone says they hired an employee by using the words "acquire employees",
    One would think, but here you are making the same mistake.
    What, in your opinion, makes it clear that one scenario refers to "hiring" and the other refers to "ownin of personhood?"

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Nope, sorry.
    And you understand then why your argument isn't compelling? Even to the non-believers who've read the thread? If you are, in your plain text language, admitting that you refuse to rise to the 6th grade level (http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RL/6/) of academic accomplishment for textual analysis it is hard to really argue that you understand what you are reading.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    even if the bible truly offers the many ways in which a slave could go free, it still allows for the possibility of and sanctions permanent ownership.
    In the same way that it allows for permanent marriage unless one of the participants does something to initiate a divorce. The fact that a condition can persist indefinitely if neither party seeks to change it isn't a sign of owning of personhood, it is a sign that neither party is looking for a better state of affairs. That might seem crazy to someone living in 21st Century America, but in the past, when starvation and massacres were quite real threats, this was not necessarily the worst option. And given the three dozen or so ways in which a slave could free themselves (which, still, is contradictory to owning of personhood), it was a relatively low bar to hurdle.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Multiple commentaries disprove this.
    Bare assertion fallacy. You offered a single commentary before, and I showed that you had quoted it out of context. You made the ridiculous claim that it only applied if the person had one slave, even though the commentary said no such thing. And you expected the readers to believe that Talmudic interpretations by respected Rabbis were less valid than you out of context quote. Sorry, the application still stands and it is clear that this is how the Israelites understood the law given the Talmudic support.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Multiple commentaries prove that your linking of Ecclus. 33:31 with Deut. 23:15 is doesn't support a universal "escape to get free" clause.
    Again, you only offered one, not multiple, and you took it out of context as demonstrated earlier on this page.
    You are simply rehashing the incorrect argument already rebutted. I'll also remind you that you have been challenged here, offering this claim, as you did here, absent clear support, is a rule violation.
    I think you dramatically overstate your case here. You offered a single pastor from a single church's personal website. A guy who doesn't even have a degree in Old Testament Studies, Hebrew, New Testament Studies, Near East literature, Near East history, semetic studies, or any field generally related to hermeneutics. That makes referencing him an appeal to authority fallacy. Can you support that he has the requisite training to make the claim that he does?

    As for your interpretations of the commentaries, they don't offer anything like the support you seem to read into them.

    1) The first commentary is, of course, talking about foreigners, because Israelites are referred to in a completely different section of the law code. Can you support that this commentary specifically only means people who have escaped from foreign captivity as opposed to foreigners working in Israel? Challenge to support a claim.

    2) What does Barnes' commentary here have to do with your claim? He is saying that the specific example he is referencing earlier in his commentary is about a slave fleeing from an unjust master. Did you read the commentary?

    3) Those are some massive elipses you added in there to cut out all the relevant text. If you had bothered to read the entire text you would have noted that Poole is saying that there are likely limitations involving the unjust treatment by their master. He references foreigners because he notes that the Canaanite control of slaves was, by default, unjust. Likewise, he interprets the "dwell among you" proviso in line with what I've written here, that they are from a foreign people, which is what we've been talking about here.

    Moreover, you cherry picked your sample there. You'll notice that Gill, and the Geneva study bible do not comport with your reading. What's more, neither does Wright's commentary (https://books.google.com/books?id=664XW9PPpAgC), D.J.A. Clines' work, Social Responsibility In The Old Testament, Glenn Miller's commentary offers an indepth rebuttal of your exact claim (http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html). As does renowned biblical scholar David Clines here (https://www.academia.edu/3819039/Rec...ament_Theology)
    Finally, what is important here, is that, as I showed in post 32, the authors of the text didn't consider it to be so limited, nor did the legal jurists for next 3 millenia.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Again, your claim that violation of the rule to not exceed the slave's physical strength necessarily leads to manumission is just an assertion. Ecclus does not contain any explicit requirement for a slave owner to manumit their slave for any reason.
    Again, bare assertion fallacy. Can you support your claim that the respected Rabbi Ben Sira was incorrect in his reading? Or that the Talmudic rabbis were incorrect in their citation?


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Sure thing, dude. Historians agree that Jews had no problem engaging in the same kinds of slavery which were practiced elsewhere.
    That is an odd reading of what was offered. Historians, rather think that:
    According to the traditional Jewish law, a slave is more like an indentured servant, who has rights and should be treated almost like a member of the owner's family. Maimonides wrote that, regardless whether a slave is Jewish or not, "The way of the pious and the wise is to be compassionate and to pursue justice, not to overburden or oppress a slave, and to provide them from every dish and every drink. The early sages would give their slaves from every dish on their table. They would feed their servants before sitting to their own meals... Slaves may not be maltreated of offended - the law destined them for service, not for humiliation. Do not shout at them or be angry with them, but hear them out". In another context, Maimonides wrote that all the laws of slavery are "mercy, compassion and forbearance"
    Encyclopedia Judaica, 2007, vol. 18, p. 670


    Finally, you ignored a large, large swath of the evidence presented to you here:

    1) The owner hasn’t manumitted the slave.
    [Obviously this is the case, he can’t be a slave for life if he has been manumitted.

    2) The owner has not injured the slave.

    • [Exodus 21:26,27, any owner that does permanent damage to their slave must set the slave free because of the damage. You’ll notice there is no requirement for intent here as in other places, this is noted by Talmud scholars as indication that even damage done as part of the work or in an accident counts.
    • From the Talmud, any injury that is permanent is included and requires manumission. (KID. 24a).
    • Similarly, and you won’t find this in other legal codes, including our own, if a man injures another man’s slave, he must pay the owner for the loss of the labor, the slave must be freed, and then the man must support the now freedman with charity. (GIT 12b).
    • Again, any permanent damage frees a slave. KID 24a.


    3) The slave has not become disabled.

    • Obviously, the same verse in Exodus applies here, since a disability is a permanent injury.
    • A slave is free if there is any grievous injury caused by the master, this includes in the process of doing service for the master (work place injury). (Kid. 24b–25a; Yad, Avadim 5:4–14; Sh. Ar., YD 267:27–39).
    • Same as above, any injury that has a permanent nature mandates manumission. (Kid. 24a).
    • Any permanent damage frees the slave. GIT 42b.
    • Any disability that makes the slave unfit for service, and this includes natural disability from disease or age, frees the slave. KID 25b.


    4) The slave has not been redeemed by his/her people (dictated as the same price paid for them).

    • In Leviticus 25, a slave is guaranteed his own property and earnings, and is able to redeem himself, or be redeemed by his family.
    • Payment of the slave’s price in money frees the slave even if the master does not wish to sell. (Kid. 1:3; Yad, Avadim 5:2).
    • A slave can buy pack a portion of his freedom and then work during that portion of his time for his own benefit, to earn the rest of his freedom. IE if he buys back ‘half” of himself, he works every other day for himself. GIT 41b.
    • Limits are placed on captive values for redemption to prevent abuse. GIT 45a.
    • Services beyond labor, such as marriage cannot be compelled. Interest cannot be charged to the debt owed. KID 6b.
    • Redemption through money earned or acquired mandates manumission. KID 8a.
    • Non-Jewish slaves only (those not freed by the Jubilee) are redeemed through deed since they are acquired by deed. If the master dies with no explicit will, the slave is free (if the master has no children the slave inherits the fortune). If the children to not actively go and fetch the slave he is free. If the slave escapes to another place he is free. KID 22b.



    5) The slave’s “wages” (the amount their labor earns under Talmudic law) have not purchased their freedom.

    • Deut 24 requires the payment of wages and allows slaves to collect left over crops (those not collected on the first pass, the “gleanings”) for their own use.
    • II Sam. 9:10; 16:4; 19:18, 30; cf. I Sam. 9:8 Slaves owning property and receiving wages.
    • Payment of the slave’s price frees the slave, regardless of master’s intention to sell. (Kid. 1:3; Yad, Avadim 5:2).
    • Slaves could hold property of their own (Tosef. Ar. 1:2; Shek. 1:5; Pes. 8:2, 88b; Yev. 66a; TJ, Yev. 7:1; Tosef. BK 11:1; BB 51b–52a; Sanh. 91a, 105a; Ket. 28a; Meg. 16a; etc.),
    • Value of slave labor: Deut 15:18 implies, the work of household slave might be valued at twice the value of a hired man; regardless, Lev 25:40 specifies that the work of the household slave cannot be valued at less than that.
    • If the master fails to pay wages or let the slave collect gleanings, or provide him Sabbath, or food from his own table, the slave is freed. Also discusses the slaves earnings as a given. GIT 12a.
    • Limits are placed on captive values for redemption to prevent abuse. GIT 45a.
    • Slaves can earn money through labor and gift. KID 11b.
    • Jubilee for Jews, years and labor for non-Jews. Note 13, master has no ability to refuse this pay. KID 14b.
    • Rates at which slaves must be paid. KID 15a.
    • Slave can acquire wealth and income and free themselves. Explicitly, even against the master’s will. KID 23a.

    Refrences:

    GIT: http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Gittin.pdf

    KID: http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Kiddushin.pdf




    I’ll add to the above that there are a host of other conditions that require manumission, again, distinguishing this institution from chattel slavery.

    ...
    • A verbal promise of release might not be sufficient, but a court will compel the master to issue a written release if a verbal promise was given. (Kid. 1:3; Yad, Avadim 5:3 and Sh. Ar., YD 267:73–74).
    • A slave is to be released if the master bequeaths him property (Pe'ah 3:8; Git. 8b–9a; Yad, Avadim 7:9; YD 267:57).
    • A slave is freed automatically by marriage to a freewoman, or by his de facto recognition, in the presence of his master, as a free man such as reading the Torah in public. Git. 39b–40a; Yad, Avadim 8:17; YD 267:70)
    • Marriage to the master's daughter seems to have been a not infrequent means to emancipation (Pes. 113a).
    • A slave may not be sold to a non-Jew. Doing so automatically frees the slave and the master will have to pay a fine as high as ten times the slave’s sale rice (as well as being forced to redeem him from the buyer). (Git. 4:6; Git. 44a–45a; Yad, Avadim 8:1; YD 267:80).
    • A slave who has been jointly owned by two masters and is released by one becomes half-slave half-freeman; the remaining master may also be compelled by the court to release him (Git. 4:5; Yad, Avadim 7:7; YD 267:62–63).
    • The legal principle for decision was “almost every doubt in favor of freedom” and Masters were forced to manumit slaves ("Yad" 'Abadim, ix. 6).

    From the Talmud, listings of the some of the myriad of ways a slave could earn freedom. It also has some textual analysis that refutes your claim that a slave is owned as a person, rather than their labor is owned.

    http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Gittin.pdf

    • 8a: If a master attempts to sell his slave outside Israel and it’s protection, or event to travel outside Israel, the slave can request manumission.
    • 8b: if a man assigns property (of the non-movable type to his slave, the slave becomes ipso facto free.
    • 9a: if the slave is not specifically given to offspring, he is free. If the offspring has died or does not come to claim the slave the slave is freed.
    • 9a: promises of freedom are not retractable by the master.
    • 9b: if the slave is joint owned by husband and wife and there is a divorce, if either sets him free, he is free.
    • 12a: if the master fails to pay wages or let the slave collect gleanings, or provide him Sabbath, or food from his own table, the slave is freed. Also discusses the slaves earnings as a given.
    • 20b: if a man and woman divorce and the slave runs to the woman (or man), that woman or man can free him, even if he is the ex’s property.
    • 21a: if the slave was the man’s property, but he gives the slave to his wife when they divorce, the slave cannot be transferred or willed, but is free when she dies.
    • 37b: if a slave is carried off by robbers and then ransomed to someone as a freeman, rather than explicitly sold back as a slave, he is free.
    • 38a: a slave who escapes from prison is a free man and the master can be compelled to create a writ of manumission.
    • 38a: if the master has given up hope of recovering the slave, the slave is freed regardless of how they are ransomed or released or escape.
    • 38b: if a slave woman marries a freeman, she is free. (Jews pass lineage through the female, and thus it was seen as unduly burdensome to create a perpetual slave line and prevented their ability to marry, which is seen as sacrosanct from God).
    • 38b: if a tenth man is needed to make a quorum at the synagogue, the slave is freed for the religious obligation. If the master likewise consecrates his slave, he is free. Similarly, if he declares him common property he is a free man.
    • 39b: a man who gives up hope on a slave from sickness or being lost, or being captured, frees the man.
    • 40a: if a slave marries a free woman in the presence of a master he is freed. Or if the master arranged the marriage.
    • 40a: if a master borrows money from a slave, the slave is freed.
    • 44a: if a man uses his slave as collateral to a heathen, and he defaults the man is free, if the slave escapes from the heathen he is free.
    • 44b: if a man sells his slave while abroad, he becomes free (this is one of the reasons the entire concept died out following the diaspora).

    http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Kiddushin.pdf
    • 4a: slave has rights to end service
    • 6b: services beyond labor, such as marriage cannot be compelled. Interest cannot be charged to the debt owed.
    • 6b, Note 7: cannot be sold to non-Jew or into a case of worse service than they had.
    • 8a: slaves rank as real estate. This is important because you cannot own the land as land, that belongs to God. You can only have the usage of that land. 16a, note 9 also states this via textual analysis. “we-hithnahaltem, is really applicable to land, and intimates that heathen slaves are transmitted and acquired like land, viz. , by hazakah.”
    • 14b: jubilee for Jews, years and labor for non-Jews. Note 13: master has no ability to refuse this pay.
    • 16a: slaves belong “bodily” which is associated with work, not as a person.
    • 17a: when freed, the master owes the slave a parting gift. Which is higher for non-Jew slaves.
    • 20a: the master owes a compensation for damages after manumitting the slave in many cases.
    • 20a” a man who buys a slave buys a master for himself, speaking of the large set of obligations a master has for servants.
    • 22b: hethen slaves are redeemed through deed since they are acquired by deed. If the master dies with no explicit will the slave is free (if the master has no children the slave inherits the fortune). If the children to not actively go and fetch the slave he is free. If the slave escapes to another place he is free.
    • 23a: slave can acquire wealth and income and free themselves. Explicitely, even against the master’s will.
    • 40b: general times of freeing the slaves (religious or royal proclamations) apply even to slaves that are travelling. Freeing came during times of victory, atonement, or thanksgiving among others.
    • 63a: if a slave is purchased on condition of a release, the slave has a right to demand release after 4 years.
    • 63a: If the slave escapes the court cannot return him.

    http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Yevamoth.pdf
    • 46a: ritual ablution emancipates a slave as part of the conversion process. Part of enslavement meant inclusion in ritual and Sabbath. If the slave chose to complete the process and become a Jew, they were automatically manumitted.
    • 66a: a daughter of a slave who wishes to marry a freeman must be freed.
    • 93b: slaves that escape their masters should not be returned to their masters, but rather are to be set free.
    • 99a: the children of an emancipated slave is a full citizen of Israel, that is a status above and beyond a freeman and virtually unheard of until the 1880s.


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    That's why the argument came after that comment.
    Well, to be precise, more text came after that. Your additional text doesn't constitute an argument though.
    It is also a good example of what happens when someone without training ignore experts in the field. Do you have a coherent set of reasons as to why this verse does not mean what Hebrew scholars think it means?

    Or why just a little bit later in the chapter God specifically points out that when pricing a land purchase what you are buying is not the land, but the future crops, so you should only pay what those crops are worth since you cannot own the land? The clear statement is that you own the crops. What you gather is yours. What slaves glean is theirs, that's why taking it from them is a sin and a crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    No, it's still the master's fault, but he isn't punished
    Challenge to support a claim. Support or retract that the verse says that he cannot be punished.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    LOL, dude, I already proved - using only your sources, no less - that the definition of slavery according to the OP is perfectly fine.
    Except..that isn't the case here or elsewhere. Again, you're only support for slavery = owning of personhood, is that you, future, define slavery as owning of personhood. That isn't an argument, it is a begging the question fallacy. As already offered in thread there are dozens of texts about the fact that the Hebrew word covers every single kind of labor relationship, from servant (as you quoted leviticus), to follower, to penitent, to employee, etc. Simply lumping those all in is intellectually negligent.

    The problem you are having, and why you are running into so many sources that seem to come to different conclusions than you, is that you are arbitrary limiting the meaning of the word to just what you want it to mean. Just what it meant in the American South. But history is more robust and varied than that. Romans had a vastly different understanding of slavery, as did Native Americans, as did Celts, as did Pre-Han Chinese, as did Japanese during the Meiji Restoration. Those are all institutions referred to as "slavery" but only about half of them refer to owning the personhood of the slave.

    Again, what is required is to step back and consider the historical context and ask if the institution being described is identical to the Antebellum South or if it is more like the Meiji Restoration institution? That will require a bit more discourse and depth, are you up for that?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    If you don't provide support for where the bible says that slave-owners were not allowed to beat their slaves randomly, then I take it you retract your claim.
    I've retracted nothing. I simply cited your own quote as support, in accordance with the rules. To re-emphasize, "They were allowed to beat them for wickedness, not just randomly right?"

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Again, where does it explicitly state that there's a causal relationship between the slave being given too much work and as a result being allowed to leave slavery?
    And again, the anti-return clause does not apply to slaves of Israelites in Israel, as supported by multiple commentaries.
    The latter is a claim you have been challenged to support. The commentary cited does not support that claim, it simply discusses the specific scenario being covered, its conclusions about what was more universally applied as a result of the text are the opposite of yours, as quoted earlier. If you make this claim again absent support, you will be in violation of the rules.

    And regardless, aren't you the one who rejected commentaries for what the verse literally says? Well, that is literally what the verse says, if you give them too much work, they will leave slavery (which is seen as a valid option since the master is prevented from going to return them to slavery). I thought you were all into what it literally says?

    You also seem to completely misunderstand what the book of Ecclus. is. It is a work by Ben Sira on the book of Deuteronomy (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/slavery-in-judaism). He is specifically providing explanation of what the book of Deuteronomy requires and how to apply it. The section he is referencing here is the understanding of Deut. 23:16 which prohibits the return of runaway slaves.

    Not to mention I already offered support that this is what the verse means and importantly, how it was interpreted by those who wrote/implemented, way back in post 32.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Again, nowhere does it provide an explicit clause of manumission,
    Except that is literally what the verse says, if you give them too much work, they will leave slavery (which is seen as a valid option since the master is prevented from going to return them to slavery). I thought you were all into what it literally says?

    You also seem to completely misunderstand what the book of Ecclus. is. It is a work by Ben Sira on the book of Deuteronomy (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/slavery-in-judaism). He is specifically providing explanation of what the book of Deuteronomy requires and how to apply it. The section he is referencing here is the understanding of Deut. 23:16 which prohibits the return of runaway slaves.

    Not to mention I already offered support that this is what the verse means and importantly, how it was interpreted by those who wrote/implemented, way back in post 32.


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I don't know - good question.
    It is, isn't it. And the reason it is a good question is because there is intellectual dissonance in your argument. For the verse to mean what you are claiming (contrary to the "plain text" reading and Sirach's as supported both by his work and commentaries on his work, and the Talmud in half a dozen places), we would need to think the authors are referencing a condition that couldn't possibly exist. Like pigs flying, except not an idiom in this case. We would have to hold that;
    A) the authors were referencing a state of affairs that could not possibly exist in their world-view.
    And
    B) that no-one in 3000 years has caught that until a guy with no training on an internet forum did. That respected rabbis, dozens of biblical scholars, ancient literature scholars, and literary critics all missed that, until future caught it.

    That strains credibility. By the principle of "rejecting least confirmed evidences" your argument fails.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Again, nothing in Sirach states that a slave gets liberty.
    Except that is exactly the word used:
    The Greek word being used here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/sir033.htm) is ἐλευθερία (before you get worked up, this is a root). http://biblehub.com/greek/1657.htm

    This word specifically refers to the state of no longer being a slave. IE being liberated from slavery.

    The text is, quite literally, saying this person is not a slave anymore. So, how do you reconcile that in a world where personhood is owned, and thus you can never, by definition, become a non-slave? And how do you reconcile that with your claim that Sirach wasn't referring to not being a slave?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    No, it doesn't. There have always been slaves everywhere in history who have sought freedom.
    This is an unsupported assertion. It is based on your limited historical understanding of slavery. There were times when liberty was sought by slaves (Meiji Restoration) and there were times when slaves sought to not be under the yoke of their masters (Antebellum South). Those are not the same concepts. Being a fugitive is not the same thing as being innocent, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Your argument amount to nothing more than the ridiculous claim that, in a system where the slaves don't see any avenue for their slave-owners - or the society enslaving them - to officially release them, they just roll over and say "Bummer, I guess I'm just going to continue being a slave and never think about trying to get free".
    No, my argument, which is really just pointing out the incredulity in your argument, is that in a system where an individual's personhood is owned in perpetuity (your definition), why would someone writing about the legal status include the idea that they could end their status as slave?

    Why would a legal scholar write about a status that couldn't possibly exist?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  12. #152
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Duh, that's why nobody's saying that, and neither is the bible - it's saying that slaves are seeking freedom, not that they are trying to persuade their slave-owners to manumit them.
    Except, that is quite literally what they were saying:
    The Greek word being used here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/sir033.htm) is ἐλευθερία (before you get worked up, this is a root). http://biblehub.com/greek/1657.htm

    This word specifically refers to the state of no longer being a slave. IE being liberated from slavery.

    Not to mention we've already detailed a dozen other ways that slaves could seek to be manumitted and even becomes citizens. A concept fundamentally at odds with your view of perpetual ownership of personhood.

    Again, we are left with a choice, adopt the definition of some dude on a debate site and reject all other historical evidence, and accepting multiple examples of cognitive dissonance; or realize that his argument is overly simplistic and perhaps (just as before) he misunderstands the language being used by professional scholars.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Double-Duh! They're not trying to get manumitted. They're seeking freedom.
    Wait, what? Do you know what manumission (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/manumit) means?
    Release from slavery; set free.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I need you to really stop and think carefully about this now, and how ridiculous your line of argumentation is.
    It appears ridiculous to you because you've begged the question. That is the whole point. The question was meant to be ridiculous because your argument has no support, it is just asserted.
    You: Slaves are property because they could be acted upon when wicked.
    Me: When can property have acted with intent?
    You: when it is a slave.

    Clearly you have to see the circularity of your own defense here.
    Is there a single other case of property being judged to have acted wickedly or had intent?

    Because if there isn't, and I think you know there isn't, it reveals that this concept is fundamentally different than the concept of property ownership as you understand it.


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Right, I forgot, you are an amoral robot who denies holding any moral positions whatsoever (even though you just freely expressed one with regards to abortion).
    Or..I'm trying to get you to defend your own argument?

    Perhaps we could do that rather than sidestep the point with adhoms?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    No, it only indicates an irrational contradiction in the text.
    Again, this must strain even your credibility here. The level of cognitive dissonance required to hold that the original authors didn't understand their own writing, and that no one in 3000 years has seen the disconnect until some random, untrained internet debater caught it is ridiculous.

    More importantly, it isn't an argument. Do you have any evidence that this is an irrational contradiction? Challenge to support a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I never stated that they are stripped of humanity - I don't even know what that means. Nice try, though.
    This is a somewhat mindblowing claim, akin to your not understanding what the word manumission means above or a couple of other examples of linguistic confusion in thread.

    It almost seems you are completely historically unaware of what it means for slaves to be owned as chattel. Is that the case? Perhaps you could explain how an individual can be classified as chattel and still be a human being? [Hopefully without some kind of tautology].

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I'm just pointing our the contradiction in your appeal, as a Protestant, to a book which isn't regocnized as authoritative - even to Jews.
    Be careful, you are conflating non-cannonical with non-authoritative. Papal dictates are non-cannonical to Catholics, but are authoritative right?

    Can you support (or retract) the claim that this book holds no authoritative guidance or insight for Jews? Challenge to support a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    LOL. Here we go again.
    So you concede the point I was making, right? You aren't objecting, but agreeing with the statement: 1) IE we are talking about people being owned as chattel right?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Ok, thanks for confirming that there are examples of slaves purchasing their freedom in America.
    Please don't misquote me, that could be considered a form of trolling when done frequently. My statement was:
    2) Your second point is actually not quite correct. There are examples of slaves purchasing their freedom in Northern (read non-slave) colonies. Or in the south pre-1700s when "slavery" was more akin to indentured servitude.

    Once slave laws were passed in the South in the early 1700s, even if a master agreed to "free" a slave in exchange for money, that status wasn't a legal status (this is part of the Partus Sequitur Ventrem "reforms" https://events.umich.edu/event/20449.) Any other person was free to enslave him assuming the master had renounced his claim. That is why most historians call the American South a chattel system and use that term to offer distinction. The status of slave in the south arose out of the legal view that a slave wasn't a human being, but sub-human and thus a form of property a la a cart or a horse (this status was often referenced in the anti-miscegenation laws http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl_...cegenation.htm or often in those laws referencing earlier laws, http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/...44&context=dlj). This specific distinction and prohibition was common in the Slave Codes of the American South (https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml...3/slavery.html). If I "free" my horse into the wild, anyone else is free to make a legal property claim by capturing it. The same is true in the antebellum American South.

    Can you address that point, or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Indentured servants paying their debts, sure, but that is quite different from the permanent pagan slaves kept by Israelites, female Hebrew slaves, and Hebrew slaves who started out as indentured servants but chose to remain with their enslaved families, and then became permanent slaves. These categories had no ability to purchase their freedom.
    Support or retract that none of the conditions I've listed applied to non-Israelites, female Hebrew slaves, and Hebrew slaves who started out as indentured servants but chose to remain with their enslaved families Challenge to support a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Incidentally, a similar situation existed in America, with indentured servants being treated differently than permanent slaves.
    Until...
    Once slave laws were passed in the South in the early 1700s, even if a master agreed to "free" a slave in exchange for money, that status wasn't a legal status (this is part of the Partus Sequitur Ventrem "reforms" https://events.umich.edu/event/20449.) Any other person was free to enslave him assuming the master had renounced his claim. That is why most historians call the American South a chattel system and use that term to offer distinction. The status of slave in the south arose out of the legal view that a slave wasn't a human being, but sub-human and thus a form of property a la a cart or a horse (this status was often referenced in the anti-miscegenation laws http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl_...cegenation.htm or often in those laws referencing earlier laws, http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/...44&context=dlj). This specific distinction and prohibition was common in the Slave Codes of the American South (https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml...3/slavery.html). If I "free" my horse into the wild, anyone else is free to make a legal property claim by capturing it. The same is true in the antebellum American South.


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Again, not available to all. Lev. 25 specifically makes the distinction that if a Hebrew slave is bought by a non-Hebrew, his family must make every attempt to redeem him.
    Challenge to support a claim. Support or retract that the property ownership was "not available to all." Your second sentence doesn't address that point.

    Additionally, you don't address any of my other support:
    • Payment of the slave’s price in money frees the slave even if the master does not wish to sell. (Kid. 1:3; Yad, Avadim 5:2).
    • A slave can buy pack a portion of his freedom and then work during that portion of his time for his own benefit, to earn the rest of his freedom. IE if he buys back ‘half” of himself, he works every other day for himself. GIT 41b.
    • Limits are placed on captive values for redemption to prevent abuse. GIT 45a.
    • Services beyond labor, such as marriage cannot be compelled. Interest cannot be charged to the debt owed. KID 6b.
    • Redemption through money earned or acquired mandates manumission. KID 8a.
    • Non-Jewish slaves only (those not freed by the Jubilee) are redeemed through deed since they are acquired by deed. If the master dies with no explicit will, the slave is free (if the master has no children the slave inherits the fortune). If the children to not actively go and fetch the slave he is free. If the slave escapes to another place he is free. KID 22b.

    Do you concede those points?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Deut. 24:12 refers to hired workers being paid, and not owned or inherited slaves.
    Challenge to support a claim. Support or retract this claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    These are not specific rules explaining how all slaves must be able to own property and receive wages.
    Challenge to support a claim. Support or retract this claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Incidentally, as one Jewish historian points out: "One of the few rules that distinguished between Jewish and non-Jewish slaves regarded found property: items found by Jewish slaves were owned by the slave, but items found by a non-Jewish slave belonged to the slave owner." (Hezser p.46)
    Please provide the citation for this referene for reivew or retract this claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Again, where does it say that the slave is freed by his master?
    The Greek word being used here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/sir033.htm) is ἐλευθερία (before you get worked up, this is a root). http://biblehub.com/greek/1657.htm

    This word specifically refers to the state of no longer being a slave. IE being liberated from slavery.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    All that the anti-return law says (states) is that someone else can't return a slave to their master.
    Except, that the language used indicates the slave is no longer a slave:

    The Greek word being used here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/sir033.htm) is ἐλευθερία (before you get worked up, this is a root). http://biblehub.com/greek/1657.htm

    This word specifically refers to the state of no longer being a slave. IE being liberated from slavery.


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Which is why I also provided scholar commentaries, duh.
    There are two issues with this response:

    1) The commentaries don't agree with the Pastor, as shown in post 130. Thus using them as support for the pastor is incorrect.

    2) Even if they did agree, citing the pastor is still an appeal to authority fallacy. If I cite a lawyer talking about medical practice it is still an appeal to authority fallacy, even if he is correct.

    The point is whether or not your source has the requisite academic training such that his statements are authoritative. Since you didn't attempt to defend them, it is clear that you concede that he does not. Thus using him as a reference is fallacious and can be ignored.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Here's the full sentence,
    Except, you are citing a personal page from a pastor with no relevant academic training. That doesn't constitute support. Do you have support that this verse specifically only means people who have escaped from foreign captivity as opposed to foreigners working in Israel? Challenge to support a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Of course I did. By specifically referring to pagan masters and slaves fleeing to the holy land, Barnes clearly supports the difference.
    Except that isn't what Barnes says. He is saying that the specific example he is referencing earlier in his commentary is about a slave fleeing from an unjust master. He doesn't say that the text refers only to that kind of scenario nor that the Israelites interpreted it only to refer to that one scenario (which would be odd given the text in question wasn't limited to a historical text).

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    They are pretty, aren't they?
    Pretty intellectually dishonest. I mean seriously, if you had pulled that in a college course the professor would fail you. I know, I've failed students who have done that in their works.
    If you had bothered to read the entire text you would have noted that Poole is saying that there are likely limitations involving the unjust treatment by their master. He references foreigners because he notes that the Canaanite control of slaves was, by default, unjust. Likewise, he interprets the "dwell among you" proviso in line with what I've written here, that they are from a foreign people, which is what we've been talking about here.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    "Jewish writers generally understand it of the servants of idolaters" -Again, not slaves of Israelites.
    "Aben Ezra interprets this of a servant not an Israelite, who, in time of war, flees from his master, not an Israelite also, unto the camp of Israel" -Again, non-Israelite slaves of non-Israelites who are not in Israel.
    Who exactly are servants of idolators? Exactly! Everyone who isn't Jewish. If you aren't Jewish you serve an idol, a false god. Thus it applies to all non-Jews. Again, if you read the commentary in context, that is clearly the message Gill is getting across.

    Your second quote reinforces that. "a servant not an Israelite" who are servants that aren't Israelites? Surprise, non-israelite servants. Exactly the category of people we are talking about here.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Unfortunately, I'm seeing a lot of claiming and linking, but no supporting or citing.
    It is because I had already offered the supporting evidence in my response before last. You ignored it, so I again summarized it here.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Sure thing, dude.
    You ignored the substance of the point:
    But that happens when you take a commentary out of context. But then this too, "isn't an argument." You are simplying saying "Nu-uh." Do you have an argument to present against Dr. Rushdoony?


    Thus, the only kind of slavery permitted is voluntary slavery, as Deuteronomy 23:15,16 makes very clear...A runaway slave thus cannot be restored to his master: he is free to go. The exception is the thief or criminal who is working out his restitution. The Code of Hammurabi decreed death for men who harbored a runaway slave; the Biblical law provided for the freedom of the slave...and since not even a foreign slave could be compelled to return to his master (Deut. 23:15, 16), slavery was on a different basis under the law than in non-Biblical cultures. The slave was a member of the household, with rights therein.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Most of these have already been refuted or indicated as irrelevant,
    Challenge to support a claim. Support or Retract this claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Unfortunately, this is completely contradicted by Lev. 25:47, which clearly indicates that there is nothing wrong with non-Israelites buying Israelites.
    Again, we can dismiss your reading out of hand given the principle of authority. We would have to assume that the authors, and 3000 years of Jewish, Christian, and Atheist scholars have interpreted that verse incorrectly, and only future was given true insight. There is no reason to do so, the more logical conclusion is that you obviously misunderstood what is going on. Which we see because;

    You misread the argument! No one is claiming that an Israelite cannot sell themselves, rather that an owner may not sell his slaves to a non-Jew. Hence why is says it manumitted the slave if you sold your slave to a non-Jew:
    A slave may not be sold to a non-Jew. Doing so automatically frees the slave and the master will have to pay a fine as high as ten times the slave’s sale rice (as well as being forced to redeem him from the buyer). (Git. 4:6; Git. 44a–45a; Yad, Avadim 8:1; YD 267:80).
    And
    • 8a: If a master attempts to sell his slave outside Israel and it’s protection, or event to travel outside Israel, the slave can request manumission.
    And
    • 6b, Note 7: cannot be sold to non-Jew or into a case of worse service than they had.

    Additionally, you haven't covered any of the other criteria mentioned:

    • A verbal promise of release might not be sufficient, but a court will compel the master to issue a written release if a verbal promise was given. (Kid. 1:3; Yad, Avadim 5:3 and Sh. Ar., YD 267:73–74).
    • A slave is to be released if the master bequeaths him property (Pe'ah 3:8; Git. 8b–9a; Yad, Avadim 7:9; YD 267:57).
    • A slave is freed automatically by marriage to a freewoman, or by his de facto recognition, in the presence of his master, as a free man such as reading the Torah in public. Git. 39b–40a; Yad, Avadim 8:17; YD 267:70)
    • Marriage to the master's daughter seems to have been a not infrequent means to emancipation (Pes. 113a).
    • A slave who has been jointly owned by two masters and is released by one becomes half-slave half-freeman; the remaining master may also be compelled by the court to release him (Git. 4:5; Yad, Avadim 7:7; YD 267:62–63).
    • The legal principle for decision was “almost every doubt in favor of freedom” and Masters were forced to manumit slaves ("Yad" 'Abadim, ix. 6).

    From the Talmud, listings of the some of the myriad of ways a slave could earn freedom. It also has some textual analysis that refutes your claim that a slave is owned as a person, rather than their labor is owned.

    http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Gittin.pdf

    • 8a: If a master attempts to sell his slave outside Israel and it’s protection, or event to travel outside Israel, the slave can request manumission.
    • 8b: if a man assigns property (of the non-movable type to his slave, the slave becomes ipso facto free.
    • 9a: if the slave is not specifically given to offspring, he is free. If the offspring has died or does not come to claim the slave the slave is freed.
    • 9a: promises of freedom are not retractable by the master.
    • 9b: if the slave is joint owned by husband and wife and there is a divorce, if either sets him free, he is free.
    • 12a: if the master fails to pay wages or let the slave collect gleanings, or provide him Sabbath, or food from his own table, the slave is freed. Also discusses the slaves earnings as a given.
    • 20b: if a man and woman divorce and the slave runs to the woman (or man), that woman or man can free him, even if he is the ex’s property.
    • 21a: if the slave was the man’s property, but he gives the slave to his wife when they divorce, the slave cannot be transferred or willed, but is free when she dies.
    • 37b: if a slave is carried off by robbers and then ransomed to someone as a freeman, rather than explicitly sold back as a slave, he is free.
    • 38a: a slave who escapes from prison is a free man and the master can be compelled to create a writ of manumission.
    • 38a: if the master has given up hope of recovering the slave, the slave is freed regardless of how they are ransomed or released or escape.
    • 38b: if a slave woman marries a freeman, she is free. (Jews pass lineage through the female, and thus it was seen as unduly burdensome to create a perpetual slave line and prevented their ability to marry, which is seen as sacrosanct from God).
    • 38b: if a tenth man is needed to make a quorum at the synagogue, the slave is freed for the religious obligation. If the master likewise consecrates his slave, he is free. Similarly, if he declares him common property he is a free man.
    • 39b: a man who gives up hope on a slave from sickness or being lost, or being captured, frees the man.
    • 40a: if a slave marries a free woman in the presence of a master he is freed. Or if the master arranged the marriage.
    • 40a: if a master borrows money from a slave, the slave is freed.
    • 44a: if a man uses his slave as collateral to a heathen, and he defaults the man is free, if the slave escapes from the heathen he is free.
    • 44b: if a man sells his slave while abroad, he becomes free (this is one of the reasons the entire concept died out following the diaspora).

    http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Kiddushin.pdf
    • 4a: slave has rights to end service
    • 6b: services beyond labor, such as marriage cannot be compelled. Interest cannot be charged to the debt owed.
    • 6b, Note 7: cannot be sold to non-Jew or into a case of worse service than they had.
    • 8a: slaves rank as real estate. This is important because you cannot own the land as land, that belongs to God. You can only have the usage of that land. 16a, note 9 also states this via textual analysis. “we-hithnahaltem, is really applicable to land, and intimates that heathen slaves are transmitted and acquired like land, viz. , by hazakah.”
    • 14b: jubilee for Jews, years and labor for non-Jews. Note 13: master has no ability to refuse this pay.
    • 16a: slaves belong “bodily” which is associated with work, not as a person.
    • 17a: when freed, the master owes the slave a parting gift. Which is higher for non-Jew slaves.
    • 20a: the master owes a compensation for damages after manumitting the slave in many cases.
    • 20a” a man who buys a slave buys a master for himself, speaking of the large set of obligations a master has for servants.
    • 22b: hethen slaves are redeemed through deed since they are acquired by deed. If the master dies with no explicit will the slave is free (if the master has no children the slave inherits the fortune). If the children to not actively go and fetch the slave he is free. If the slave escapes to another place he is free.
    • 23a: slave can acquire wealth and income and free themselves. Explicitly, even against the master’s will.
    • 40b: general times of freeing the slaves (religious or royal proclamations) apply even to slaves that are travelling. Freeing came during times of victory, atonement, or thanksgiving among others.
    • 63a: if a slave is purchased on condition of a release, the slave has a right to demand release after 4 years.
    • 63a: If the slave escapes the court cannot return him.

    http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Yevamoth.pdf
    • 46a: ritual ablution emancipates a slave as part of the conversion process. Part of enslavement meant inclusion in ritual and Sabbath. If the slave chose to complete the process and become a Jew, they were automatically manumitted.
    • 66a: a daughter of a slave who wishes to marry a freeman must be freed.
    • 93b: slaves that escape their masters should not be returned to their masters, but rather are to be set free.
    • 99a: the children of an emancipated slave is a full citizen of Israel, that is a status above and beyond a freeman and virtually unheard of until the 1880s.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    LOL - again with the chattel nonsense.
    Uh huh, what does the UN have to do with Biblical Commentary? I don't see any defense of your claim here except what appears to be a red herring. Do you have a defense?

    Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract that Leviticus 25:46 describes the personhood of the individual being owned.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Wow, do you really think so? Is it not clear enough that when someone says they "hired a person", it means they spoke with the person, interviewed the person, discovered what the person can and can't do and how much the person would like to be paid to do it, decided to enter into a legally-binding contract with the person, and then paid the person after the person had done what the person was hired to do?
    This response would seem to be a concession of the point. You are admitting that linguistic nuance is important because (I hope) you don't actually believe they are purchasing the person through the contract, but rather the services offered by the person.

    Unless, that is, you really believe that when someone says "I bought a consultant" they engaging in slavery. Is that your argument? Or can you admit that sometimes when we reference the person we are using shorthand for the persona that person interacts with us under. That just because a sentence references the person does not mean that it is referencing the personhood of the individual. "I got a lawyer" doesn't mean I bought Steve, it means I bought his services. The same nuance can be applied throughout this thread to have a slightly more sophisticated reading that is more in line with scholarly consensus.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    purchasing a slave is where a relationship is created between two people, in this case, one person being recognized as having bought and therefore owning the other.
    Really? The slave is contracting out their personhood? I don't think even you mean that seriously.

    Regardless, Challenge to support a claim. Support or retract that all forms of slavery (of if you are really adept, all forms of `abodah) involve a slave contracting their personhood over to the master.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Literally every passage which deals with any kind of slavery in the bible uses language which depicts a relationship between people:
    Yeah weird, just like literally every passage that deals with servitude, or conversation, or marriage, or friendship depicts a relationship between people. Are those all slavery now too?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Really? Strong's shows this as defined as "something seized, i.e. a possession",
    Sigh, remember how we talked about root words not necessarily being the same thing as a word in a sentence? IE Capit is the root of Captain, but no one would argue that an Army Captain is literally a head.
    Interesting that you didn't actually link the Strong's reference. Perhaps you could support your claim that Strong's defines it as "Something seized?" Challenge to support a claim.
    Now for bonus points you could actually look at the Hebrew used in the verses referenced rather than just the root...

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    And yet the verse you are referring to is in the context of someone being given a buryingplace as a posession.
    Except, we aren't talking about a plot. The Hebrew word being used is literally referring to the hole you are placed in, not the surrounding land. https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/hebrew/6913.html
    When you are referring to the land around the actual hole, you use a compound of Qeber and maqowm (ground). https://www.blueletterbible.org/nlt/eze/39/11/s_841011

    More importantly if we look at the context of the verse, it isn't referring to being given ownership of a plot of land to be buried in, it is referring to actually being buried. In fact the context of the word in all of its usage is entering or touching the actual hole, not the plot or the yard, or anything of that sort. https://www.blueletterbible.org/sear...=s_primary_0_1

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Wait, you mean land that cannot actually be owned by anyone? Pharoah allowed land which he couldn't actually own to be given by Joseph to somebody else as a possession which can't actually be owned? The mind boggles...
    Wait, what are you talking about here? Why would the Pharoah not be allowed to own land? Are you under the impression that the Pharoah was under Jewish law or a participant to the Jewish covenant? You do know that the Pharoah was Egyptian, not Jewish, right? (I know that is condescending, but I'm not sure how else such a basic mistake could have been made).

    To answer that, no, Pharoah was not under Jewish law. He did own the land. And he let Joseph reside in it, not own it.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. #153
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Clearly, 'achuzzah is easily used to imply ownership - when it suits you, of course.
    Yay, taking people out of context is fun!

    Here is what I actually said:
    Literally this is translated as “take possession through inheritance (yarash) of the possession (‘achuzzah) that is their labor (‘abad). The verse never refers to them as a specific person, that only occurs in the English translation to clarify something that isn’t clear in English, but is obvious in Hebrew. ‘abad, used several times in this chapter refers to the work done by another or their status as doing work, not their existence as people or their essence as a person.

    Thus we have no basis in this verse to say that it is implying their bodies, their souls, or their humanity is being inherited, only their ownership of their labor.

    Clearly I'm not saying the word 'achuzzah means ownership, I'm saying the verse, in context, states ownership of the labor.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    These are both principles of ownership, dude. Let's say you buy a grill. You go to a store, you pay money for a grill, and it's now yours - you own it - it's your property.
    And what happens if you go to the store and lease a car? Is it "your car?" Yep. Do you own it? Nope.
    Or rent an apartment?
    Or if I lend someone a lifejacket and then remind them to "put on your life jacket when we cast off" Do they own that lifejacket or are they borrowing it?

    So even in modern parlance we have examples of using the word "yours" doesn't imply the transference of property rights, but rather a simple transference of the benefits arising from the item.

    What's more, to read the second verse as you would, you would have to ignore the first verse. So unless you are arguing that authors forgot sentence 1 when writing sentence 2 (a pretty unlikley idea), this is a hollow response.


    So where are we on this one response you broke up into multiple pieces? It doesn't seem you moved it at all.

    That is why it is used in reference to a grave. You don't own a hole in the ground, you possess the hole by using it as a grave. [And after review we see that the Hebrew refers to the actual hole rather than the compound used to mean plot]. Or when referencing Joseph giving his family a place to live, clearly it didn’t mean that they owned that land, but that Pharoah let them live on that land. [We reaffirmed that Pharoah was not Jewish, but did let Joseph reside on, but not own land]. Or in Lev 25:10 where people are returned to the land they are from. [You just ignored this section] Obviously, they don't own the land because they are penniless, but they have a place where they are to reside or to use. Or you can read any of the uses in Numbers where it clearly means "the share for you to use out of something." [And this one].

    So we have four separate examples where 'achuzzah is referencing the usage of something rather than the ownership of something.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Right, so again, the land is the property of the Israelites who own it and have the right to lease it to others?
    I have no idea where you get that from. What I said was: "The commentaries here are describing a situation where parts of Israel have been designated as areas for certain families to live in. They can use the fruits of that land for themselves, including renting it or leasing it to others, but they cannot transfer property rights to others because the original property rights are not theirs to transfer."

    Nothing about that says the land is the property of the Israelites. I can sublease a house I am renting without owning it, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    So again, God grants them permanent ownership of the land
    Don't smuggle the word "ownership" in there without supporting it. Nowhere was the argument made either in the commentaries or by me that ownership was implied. Usage was implied, and usage is not synonymous with ownership.

    The Israelites can sub-lease the land, they can enjoy its benefits, etc. Just as you do when you rent a house.

    You are also incorrect that no rent payments are going on. The fact that you didn't know about that also raises a suspicion that you haven't read much of the Old Testament since this is literally, the largest overarching narrative. The rent payment for the land is obedience to God's law. When Jews begin worshiping other gods, God throws them off the land and into exile. That would be an odd response if they owned in perpetuity right?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Further, your statement is simply self-contradictory, since we've already defined slaves as people that are owned as property
    Well no, we haven't. You've said that your usage of the term Slave in the OP refers to people who are owned as property. The vast, vast bulk of our debate (since you don't have a valid set of premises to discuss) is about whether you are using it in the same meaning as the Hebrew authors and commentators.
    That is why you have an outstanding challenge (which I'll repeat here for clarity) to support that all forms of slavery historically have had that same condition and understanding. Challenge to support a claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Oh, here we go again. Crazy old me with my made-up scholar commentaries and Jewish historians.
    Except you haven't posted a single Jewish historian in thread and, as already demonstrated, the commentaries (when not massively cherry picked with large sections removed) don't actually show what you seem to claim. Simply repeating the claim doesn't make it more valid.

    Your interpretation relies on the basic premise that the commentaries were totally ignorant of Hebrew social structures, the entire Exodus story, several specific verses listed above noting that the Israelites don't own factors of production, just the production, and the consensus of dozens of scholars.

    It also would rely on them being near senile since, as I showed earlier in thread, the contradict you in other sections. That, or we could just read them in context as I offered and see that they aren't supporting that the verses imply anything like the ownership of personhood.


    Alternatively, it doesn't make sense in the actual text itself as I pointed out. Just because a verb and noun are in the same sentence does not mean that the noun is the object of the verb. "Steve owns Mike's cat" doesn't mean that Steve owns Mike, we have to consider the sentence construct, the subject, the object, and the conjugation of the verb. You gloss over that despite the provided evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Sigh, let's try again:
    Simply repeating a claim absent additional context isn't a rebuttal. Repeating taking a commentary out of context without additional context does nothing for your argument. Unless you can show that they were ignorant of Hebrew social structures, the entire Exodus story, several specific verses listed above noting that the Israelites don't own factors of production, just the production, the consensus of dozens of scholars, and their own writings in other paragraphs, these commentaries aren't support for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    And the relationship is one of ownership, where people are held as property. That's what "may hold as their property" means, dude.
    To an untrained layman laboring under confirmation bias, perhaps. But not for those of us who do our research, and certainly not for Ellicot, who was a lawyer. Absolute means that the relationship isn't subject to relevant restrictions. IE since we are talking about the difference between Jews and non-Jews, the restrictions related to Jubilee.

    When I have "absolute liability" it doesn't mean I own the liability, it means I have don't have negligence restrictions on my liability. Likewise, the term "absolute property" refers to covenants associated with use. If I rent an apartment, for example. I do not own the apartment, but it is absolute property in relation to my usage of it for common purposes (https://isc.idaho.gov/opinions/42192.pdf)

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    And slaves are people that are owned as property, right?
    That is your definition, not theirs. Remember, it is you that are laboring under the artificial restriction on meaning, not the cited authors. Hence the challenge above.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Well, you've already agreed multiple times that slaves are what is acquired, but for some reason keep demanding that people weren't actually owned, even though that's what slaes are.
    Again, only in future's artificial definition. And I haven't stated that slaves were what is acquired, if you want to maintain that point you need to support it or retract it. Challenge to support a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I don't know how plainer it can get than that: a plain-text verse, and a plain-text explanation that it means people are property.
    And yet..no where do they say that personhood is owned do they? It is only plain text if we submit to your begging the question fallacy by redefining slavery to the limited word you want to use. Unless you can prove the authors meant it with the same definition you do, you've offered nothing "plain text" here.

    It is especially odd because at the time of the writing of the majority of the commentaries cited, chattel was a widely used term to describe American Slavery. The records of American slaves are even called "Chattel Records" in government documents. And yet, none of them use that term here, odd.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    First, it comes from the group of people. Second, that which they get is slaves, right? And what were slaves? Oh, yeah: slaves are people who are owned as property.
    I would be surprised if your head wasn't dizzy after spinning in a circle so fast. This is a massive begging the question fallacy that ignores all the context of the verse, Hebrew culture, and Hebrew sentence structure.
    If it was actually the people they got, the verse would say “the sojourners can be added to your possessions” or some version of that. We would see towshab by itself, without modifier. But we don’t.

    We see it modified to say “of the sojourners” or “from the sojourners.” That is a very different construct. So we get something that comes from those people rather than the people themselves.
    If we were to adopt your translation the Hebrew authors would be saying "they get the people out of the people and make those people slaves." What a ridiculously convoluted sentence. Why wouldn't they just say, you can add sojourners to your possession? Why the weird "from the sojourners, you can take sojourners as sojourners" construction? The principle of charity requires that we assume the Hebrew authors weren't insane and thus wouldn't have created such a monstrosity of a sentence, but rather that they understood the usage of subject/object/noun chains in Hebrew better than some guy on the internet.

    Again, unless you can show why the Hebrew authors would have added all that additional wording to their sentences or show that the Hebrew subject/object/noun chain supports your conclusion, you are just making an unsupported assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Again, it all comes down to powers of ownership, which are clearly expressed in the verses where people are bought, sold, and inherited.
    I can, perhaps, understand that perspective from someone perhaps not experienced in the complexities of actual property ownership. I honestly don't know your background, that may be the case.

    None of those concepts imply property ownership. I can buy or sell or gift or deed or inherit the rights to use land, but not own it. Look at Guiness, they have a 999 year lease on their property that has been inherited, sold, bought, and gifted. None of that means they own the land, just the usage of the land.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Nor does it need to. Commentaries support that people are obtained as property.
    Bare assertion fallacy. Again, they only support that if we assume they use the term slave in the same exact meaning you do. You haven't supported that claim. We would also need to assume they "forgot" what they wrote in other sections, which seems unlikely.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I'm seeing a lot of claiming and linking, but no supporting or citing.
    Really? I'm literally quoting myself from earlier in thread. Because you ignored it doesn't mean it wasn't provided. The full argument is in post 130. For edification here are the sentence structures for comparison:

    Nehemiah 10:31 וְעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ הַֽמְבִיאִים אֶת־הַמַּקָּחֹות וְכָל־שֶׁבֶר בְּיֹום הַשַּׁבָּת לִמְכֹּור לֹא־נִקַּח מֵהֶם בַּשַּׁבָּת וּבְיֹום קֹדֶשׁ וְנִטֹּשׁ אֶת־הַשָּׁנָה הַשְּׁבִיעִית וּמַשָּׁא כָל־יָֽד׃

    Leviticus 25:14 וְכִֽי־תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר לַעֲמִיתֶךָ אֹו קָנֹה מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ אַל־תֹּונוּ אִישׁ אֶת־אָחִֽיו׃

    Compared to your original verse (written by the same authors as the latter one, so we can dismiss any linguistic changes):

    Leviticus 25:45 וְגַם מִבְּנֵי הַתֹּושָׁבִים הַגָּרִים עִמָּכֶם מֵהֶם תִּקְנוּ וּמִמִּשְׁפַּחְתָּם אֲשֶׁר עִמָּכֶם אֲשֶׁר הֹולִידוּ בְּאַרְצְכֶם וְהָיוּ לָכֶם לַֽאֲחֻזָּֽה׃

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Already done. Here it is again, though:
    And, as shown in several posts now, that relies solely on your begging the question fallacy and odd assumption that the authors don't know their own works.
    Not to mention it doesn't actually do what you claim at all. Where does it literally say, unambiguously, that the personhood of these individuals is owned? If this was such an obvious concept, you would think that you could find a single commentary somewhere by a respected academic that says it unambiguously. I've offered several that reject your hypothesis after all. Can't you offer one, single unambiguous support?

    Why, after 8 pages haven't you been able to produce a single commentary or source that says what you claim, "the Bible says it is ok to own people as chattel." Not "they can use slaves and I future define that as chattel for them" but where they say, "yes the personhood of the slave is owned in Israelite culture" or "slaves are owned as chattel" a term widely used contemporary to the commentaries? Why are we forced to adopt a begging the question fallacy to support your point?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I see you've used direct quotation marks in reporting what I've claimed. Could you please indicate the specific post where I claimed this verbatim as you have quoted?


    Do you not understand what the word chattel means? I'm pretty sure I've linked the definition at least twice. But in case I missed it:

    (in general use) a personal possession.

    An item of property other than freehold land, including tangible goods (chattels personal) and leasehold interests (chattels real).
    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/chattel

    Or, are you not claiming that the personhood of slaves was owned as a personal possession now? You've moved the goal posts so many times here its hard to really know what your argument is (it would also help if you could post a valid argument in formal form).

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Cool story, dude. Say, did those folks get bought, sold, and inherited much?
    You mean like a lease? How does that require ownership again?

    What's more you completely misunderstood, or likely didn't read the response. The Hebrew word is far broader than the English word for slave. The Hebrew word would cover hiring a workman, or having a job contract in exchange for tuition payments, or military enlistment, or even informally pledging to serve someone for a period of time.

    That is a huge range of relationships that don't all carry the same meaning, context, or impact as slavery that involves humans as chattel. Ellicott is intentionally making that distinction here, it seems imprudent to reject it.

    You are the one rejecting the scholar's (Ellicott) work here, not me, so it is incumbant on you to prove why he was wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Oh, so when Ellicott uses the words "these", "they", and "them" in the statement "These are not subject to the laws of jubile. They remain in perpetual serfdom unless they or their friends redeem them", he is then also referring to "the claims on their labour", and that those claims are in perpetual serfdom unless the claims are redeemed, not the slaves?
    It is interesting how you will jump around in Ellicott's quotes to avoid the conclusion. Here these are referring to the people, but then this wasn't the section you were quoting where you claim Ellicot supported your point. If you want to maintain that that is what he is referring to, why aren't you quoting the same section?
    And why doesn't he say "the human being is transmissible as inheritance property?" Why do we have to rely on future's begging the question fallacy to get the idea of chattel ownership out of his writing? It is an equally valid reading to say "the claim on their labor is transmissible as inheritance property" a concept we use today via share.

    And because you glossed over it: "It is a far more coherent reading because it fits in with Ellicott's note that the master's authority is limited to the labor, and does not extend to the human being."

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Or when he makes the statement "These are to be purchased to do the necessary work", he's saying that claims on labour are purchased and are doing the necessary work, not slaves?
    Again, great example of taking him out of context. Here is the actual set of paragraphs:
    (44) Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen.—Rather, As for thy bondmen and bondmaids which thou must have of the heathen, &c. As the Law forbids the Israelites to have their brethren as bondmen, or employ them in menial work which belongs to the slaves, the Lawgiver anticipates a difficulty which the Hebrews might raise against these enactments. If they are not to be engaged in this work, who then is to do it? Hence the reply in the verse before us.
    Of the heathen that are round about you.—These are to be purchased to do the necessary work. The Israelites, however, were restricted to the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Edomites, and the Syrians, who were their neighbours, but were not permitted to buy any slaves from the seven nations who were in the midst of them, and whom they were ordered to destroy (Deuteronomy 20:16-18).
    https://www.studylight.org/commentar...iticus-25.html

    So there is necessary work to be done. Where should we get the laborers? "Of the heathen that are round about you." Not "the heathen shall be purchased," but "of the heathen" shall you get what you need. This is literally the equivilant to the following conversation:
    "Oh man, where are we going to get the expertise to build this?"
    "Purchase someone"
    "From where?"
    "From Deloitte."

    No one would take that as meaning the human being from Deloitte is being purchased, but rather that it is "of Deloitte that the consultants should be purchased to do the necessary work."

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I agree. That's because he didn't first write that the authority is restricted to their labour and then forget about the when clarifying that the person is inherited. You've got it completely backwards.
    Hmm, if you had actually read the commentary verbatim, rather than I segments (I'm guessing of some other board or atheist website) there is no way you could have become this confused.

    It is also indicative that you haven't reviewed the actual text because you say he mentions it "the side note" without citations. Ellicot never uses citations, he is writing long before that was even a thing. He will occasionally reference verses, but even that is about three times per chapter.

    The fact that you confuse the work of bondmen from the non-Jewish Israelites with slaves is also indicative that you didn't read the passages, or at least not with any comprehension. Literally the entire point of the commentary quoted above is that you can't have bondmen and servants doing certain work, so you have to rely on heathen laborers to do it. Confusing those different roles indicates a fundamental misunderstanding with the issues involved.

    What is also interesting is that you are citing a commentary that is implicitly criticizing the translation because he doesn't think that the plain text reading is adequate. When Ellicott says "better, …" he is specifically highlighting a more accurate representation of the meaning of the text. Which runs counter to your assertions earlier in thread.

    Finally, your "rebuttal" is based on the ludicrous assertion that the order matters to the merit of the argument. Watch:
    For Ellicott to forget to write that the inheritance relates to the personhood but then mention that the authority is related to the labor, is something a 6th Grade writer would do, not a noted academic and famous author. In order for your reading to hold we would need to attribute a fundamental grammatical error to an author of great repute, which seems unlikely. To hold to my interpretation, we just have to read his sentence. Weren't you the one who said we just just take things at face value?

    Reversing the order doesn't make your interpretation any more plausible. Ellicott is a famous writer and not a sloppy grammarian. To confuse subject/object within a paragraph using demonstrative references that apply to different nouns without clarification is, again, something you would get a red mark in highschool for, not something a respected author does.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Again, the portion of your Ellicott quote in which the term bondman appears is not him using the term - it's a verbatim cite of the verse.
    Why don't we actually look at the full argument (you love to ignore large sections of evidence, don't you).

    They remain in perpetual serfdom unless they or their friends redeem them, or their master has maimed any one of them. In case of injury the master is obliged to manumit him (Exodus 21:26-27). The authorities during the second Temple enacted that the master’s right, even with regard to this kind of bondmen, is restricted to their labour, but that he has no right to barter with them, to misuse them, or to put them to shame.
    Notice the term serfdom, which is a form of "slavery" but as Ellicott understood, not chattel slavery. Notice that the authority of the master is restricted to their labor, not to the individual as a human being.

    Notice also in the sentence before:

    They shall be your bondmen for ever.—These are not subject to the laws of jubile. They remain in perpetual serfdom unless they or their friends redeem them, or their master has maimed any one of them. In case of injury the master is obliged to manumit him
    Ibid
    That he uses the term bondman, not chattel slave (a term he clearly understands). The Earl of Pembroke is Bondman to the Queen of England, we'd hardly call that chattel slavery. Also note that he highlights some of the conditions that lead to manumission. This both contradicts your earlier assertions that no such conditions exist and differentiates it from ownership of the person as chattel, in which manumission is not possible.

    We see two major points, only one of which you try to address.
    The first is that he uses the term serfdom, a distinctly different relationship than chattel slavery, a term in common usage at the time. Unless we are seriously maintaining that he just "forgot" the term and the meaning of serfdom, we are forced to recognize that he is citing a different analogy than the one you are. He is analogizing that relationships to serfs, not chattel slaves.


    The second is that the term bondman is used. I fully recognize that he is quoting there, everything before each of the – marks is the section of the verse covered. What you missed in the point (and perhaps I should have spelled it out more clearly given your level of familiarity with the subject) is that he doesn't offer up a "better" translation. He does that in about 50-60% of the verses in this chapter alone, so the absence of that clarification is an endorsement of the term bondman. Given that endorsement rather than substitution of a term like chattel slave (a term he clearly knows), he is referencing, again a different analogy than you are. Not chattel slavery, but bondmen. The Earl of Pembroke is Bondman to the Queen of England, we'd hardly call that chattel slavery. Also note that he highlights some of the conditions that lead to manumission. This both contradicts your earlier assertions that no such conditions exist and differentiates it from ownership of the person as chattel, in which manumission is not possible

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    So sure, he did indeed use the term "chattel". However, it's that first part which is a bit troublesome, about your claim he knew how to use it - at least in the sense you're asserting: that Ellicott understood and made a clear distinction between "bondman" and "chattel".

    So with that in mind, let's look at Ellicott's one and only use of the word "chattel" in all of Leviticus (drum-roll, please!):
    They shall not be sold as bondmen — That is, as personal property or chattels.

    Strange, it looks like Ellicott understood bondmen to mean personal property.
    That is a, frankly, bizarre reading of the context there. Perhaps less bizarre if you are approaching it less for understanding and more from the position of supporting what you want to be true, but still.
    Let's read it in context:
    (42) For they are my servants.—This is a clue to the whole system of Hebrew servitude. These poverty-stricken men, who are driven to sell themselves to their fellow-Israelites, God claims as His servants. God is their Lord as well as their master’s Lord. He delivered them both alike from bondage to serve Him. There is, therefore, no difference between bond and free.
    They shall not be sold as bondmen—That is, as personal property or chattels. The authorities during the second Temple, however, interpreted this clause to mean that an Israelite is not to be sold by proclamation or in public places, but privately, and in an honourable manner, with all possible consideration for his feelings.
    https://www.studylight.org/commentar...iticus-25.html

    He is drawing a distinction here in the manner in which their labor is sold, not their status as property. The entire section talks about how transactions must occur and not occur and he cites temple authorities on that limitation. The preceding verse is about the labor relationship is terminated and the following about what rights they have in that contract.
    Take a modern english analogy. If I were to say "These shares cannot be sold as stocks-That is, as securities." Literally all I've done is change the nouns here and suddenly we see that the structure of the sentence is clearly talking about method, not status. Share are still stocks, they just can't be sold on a securities market.

    What's more, it is inconsistent with the rest of the commentary, for example in verse 46:

    Over your brethren . . . ye shall not rule . . . with rigour.—In contrast to these heathen bondmen the Jewish bondmen are here designated “brethren.” They are co-religionists, who have been reduced to temporary servitude, but who are, nevertheless, fellow-heirs with them in the land of their possession. Hence the greatest consideration was to be shown to them in these adverse circumstances. The authorities during the second Temple have therefore enacted that there must be no difference between the daily food, raiment, and dwelling of the master and his Hebrew slave, and that the master and the servant are alike in these respects.

    Now he is calling the Israelites bondmen as well, but we were just told they weren't to be bondmen under your interpretation. So again, we would have to assume that Ellicott forgot the meaning of the word in the span of 10 verses, which is odd. Especially since he is English, and where bondman is not quite as so out of use as it is in America. Here he defines bondmen as servitude, not ownership, not slavery. So again, unless he is dramatically, remarkably inconsistent, which is unlikely given his status, your reading above doesn't make coherent sense in the text.

    It would also be an odd reading because we know that Ellicott didn't actually believe they were chattel. He followed the Christian tradition developing out of the Jewish tradition that the soul of all men belongs to God and God alone. Hence why he says:
    (5) Your masters according to the flesh.—This phrase (used also in Colossians 3:12) at once implies the necessary limitation of all human slavery. It can subjugate and even kill the body, but it cannot touch the spirit; and it belongs only to the visible life of this world, not to the world to come. The slave is a man in spiritual and immortal being, not a “living tool” or “chattel,” as even philosophy called him.
    https://www.studylight.org/commentar...sians-6.html#5

    (16) Not now as a servant, but . . . a brother beloved . . . in the Lord.—In these words we have at last the principle which is absolutely destructive of the condition of slavery—a condition which is the exaggeration of natural inferiority to the effacement of the deeper natural equality. (1) The slave—the “living chattel” of inhuman laws and philosophies—is first “a brother,” united to his master by natural ties of ultimate equality, having, therefore, both duties and rights. (2) But he is also a “brother beloved.” These natural ties are not only strengthened by duty, but made living ties by the love which delights indeed to respect the rights of others, but is not content without willingness to sacrifice even our own rights to them. (3) Above all, this is “in the Lord.” The slave is bought by Christ’s blood, made a son of God, and therefore a brother to all who are members of the family of God. To reject and to outrage him is a rejection and outrage towards Christ. Compare St. Peter’s striking comparison of the sufferings of the slave to the passion of the Divine Sufferer (1 Peter 2:18-24). They suffer with Him, and He suffers in them. It has been proved historically that only by the aid of this last and highest conception has the brotherhood of love too slowly, indeed, but yet surely—assumed reality. (See Introduction.)
    Specially to me, but how much more unto thee?—St. Paul first emphasises his own love for Onesimus, which, indeed, breathes in every line of the Epistle; but then goes on to infer in Philemon a yet greater affection—a natural love towards the nursling of his house, a spiritual love towards the brother “in the Lord,” lost and found again.
    https://www.studylight.org/commentar...emon-1.html#16

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    The escaped slave is still considered the property of their owner by the owner, and the jurisdiction which provided for the owner's ownership of the slave, so technically the slave wasn't released from slavery (which is what manumit means), but merely granted asylum.
    Challenge to support a claim. Support or retract that an escaped slave was considered still property in Ancient Israel. Note, your commentaries don't actually support this, even if we accepted them (and they've already been rebutted), they only cover whether that verse provides the clause. Your job, since you made the claim, is to support that they still had the legal status of slave in Ancient Israel with direct evidence.

    Challenge to support a claim. Support or Retract that ancient Israelites would have considered an escaped slave still a slave with direct evidence.

    Challenge to support a claim. Support or Retract that ancient Israelites, and Ancient Israeli legal authorities would have only considered this "asylum."

    When I cited the original verse I provided a good deal of supporting interpretation and evidence. You, as a "rebuttal" offered future's personal view of how something would work with no evidence. That isn't convincing, and certainly doesn't count as support.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Again, there are no words in Ecclus. 33 which refer to an actual requirement to manumit.
    Ecclus. 33 was referring to the requirement to mandate if labor exceeded normal wage laborer amounts (a position supported by Hebrew scholars cited).

    Hebrew Scholars = Reputable

    Random internet guy = Less Reputable.

    Unless you can provide a serious source for your claim, you have no leg to stand on.


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I know - even he doesn't consider Ecclus. to be authoritative.
    This is a ridiculously obtuse inferrence. Ellicot, being an Anglican considered the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral authoritative, but he didn't write a commentary on it. http://anglicanhistory.org/essays/wright/bishoy1990.pdf

    Can you support that not writing a commentary on a subject means an author doesn't think it is authoritative as you claim? Challenge to support a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    That would make sense if I ever actually claimed that there were no conditions for manumission.
    That is a consequence of not really understanding the terminology and subject matter of your own argument. Your description of slavery as it relates to the OP de facto includes that criteria. It would be like saying "I'm talking about their sex" and then saying "Its not relevant if they can change." If they can change, it isn't sex, its gender. Sex is an immutable part of DNA just as "slave" is an immutable part of personhood ownership.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Squatch, you already confirmed that American slaves were able to purchase their freedom, leading to manumission by their owners.
    Under Chattel Slavery? I'm pretty sure I didn't. In fact, Challenge to support a claim. Support or retract this assertion.

    What I actually said was: In the situation where slaves are chattel, the release of an ownership claim by one owner does not mean they lose their status as chattel or property. Note the citations of US and State law on the issue as well as the example of releasing a horse.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    So, wait, ridicule = good, or bad? It's ridiculous that you complain about being ridiculed, and then go on to perform your own ridicule. So, I guess we're even?
    I'm not complaining about being ridiculed, I'm citing a technical fallacy (IE an indication that you thinking on the issue is flawed logically).
    The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:
    X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
    Therefore claim C is false.
    This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"
    It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of legitimate methods (such as a non fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to reject the claim. One form of this line of reasoning is known as a "reductio ad absurdum" ("reducing to absurdity"). In this sort of argument, the idea is to show that a contradiction (a statement that must be false) or an absurd result follows from a claim. For example: "Bill claims that a member of a minority group cannot be a racist. However, this is absurd. Think about this: white males are a minority in the world. Given Bill's claim, it would follow that no white males could be racists. Hence, the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations."
    Since the claim that the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations is clearly absurd, it can be concluded that the claim that a member of a minority cannot be a racist is false.
    Examples of Appeal to Ridicule
    "Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable."
    "Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!"
    "Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to peace!"
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-ridicule.html


    You misunderstand my response. I wasn't ridiculing you, I was noting that the standards you have adopted here, and espoused as preferable over all do not meet 6th grade reading standards as established in the US. That isn't ridicule, it is objective fact, and a reasonable basis for rejecting your "plain text" interpretations.

    Cite textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.

    Determine a theme or central idea of a text and how it is conveyed through particular details; provide a summary of the text distinct from personal opinions or judgments.

    Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including figurative and connotative meanings; analyze the impact of a specific word choice on meaning and tone
    Analyze how a particular sentence, chapter, scene, or stanza fits into the overall structure of a text and contributes to the development of the theme, setting, or plot.
    http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RL/6/

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Again, by your own admission, slaves are what is obtained, not nations.
    You've already been challenged to support that assertion.
    Instead, you could actually address the evidence against you? To whit;
    Corporations are made up of people too, but my ownership of a corporation does not mean I own its people, right? Entities can have personhood aside from the individuals constituting them.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    This would be a valid rebuttal if we didn't have any other examples of rights/powers of ownership being enjoyed by slave-owners
    Excellent, and now that we've shown that those other rights are not inherent in just property ownership, we can accept the rebuttal as valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    And yet Xians had no problem supporting slavery for centuries.
    It is undeniable that some Christians did support slavery, as have Muslims, and Atheists. This is a great example of a hasty generalization fallacy.
    Description of Hasty Generalization
    This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the following form:
    Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P.
    Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.
    The person committing the fallacy is misusing the following type of reasoning, which is known variously as Inductive Generalization, Generalization, and Statistical Generalization:
    X% of all observed A's are B''s.
    Therefore X% of all A's are Bs.
    The fallacy is committed when not enough A's are observed to warrant the conclusion. If enough A's are observed then the reasoning is not fallacious.
    Small samples will tend to be unrepresentative. As a blatant case, asking one person what she thinks about gun control would clearly not provide an adequate sized sample for determing what Canadians in general think about the issue. The general idea is that small samples are less likely to contain numbers proportional to the whole population. For example, if a bucket contains blue, red, green and orange marbles, then a sample of three marbles cannot possible be representative of the whole population of marbles. As the sample size of marbles increases the more likely it becomes that marbles of each color will be selected in proprtion to their numbers in the whole population. The same holds true for things others than marbles, such as people and their political views.
    Since Hasty Generalization is committed when the sample (the observed instances) is too small, it is important to have samples that are large enough when making a generalization. The most reliable way to do this is to take as large a sample as is practical. There are no fixed numbers as to what counts as being large enough. If the population in question is not very diverse (a population of cloned mice, for example) then a very small sample would suffice. If the population is very diverse (people, for example) then a fairly large sample would be needed. The size of the sample also depends on the size of the population. Obviously, a very small population will not support a huge sample. Finally, the required size will depend on the purpose of the sample. If Bill wants to know what Joe and Jane think about gun control, then a sample consisting of Bill and Jane would (obviously) be large enough. If Bill wants to know what most Australians think about gun control, then a sample consisting of Bill and Jane would be far too small.
    People often commit Hasty Generalizations because of bias or prejudice. For example, someone who is a sexist might conclude that all women are unfit to fly jet fighters because one woman crashed one. People also commonly commit Hasty Generalizations because of laziness or sloppiness. It is very easy to simply leap to a conclusion and much harder to gather an adequate sample and draw a justified conclusion. Thus, avoiding this fallacy requires minimizing the influence of bias and taking care to select a sample that is large enough.
    One final point: a Hasty Generalization, like any fallacy, might have a true conclusion. However, as long as the reasoning is fallacious there is no reason to accept the conclusion based on that reasoning.
    Examples of Hasty Generalization
    Smith, who is from England, decides to attend graduate school at Ohio State University. He has never been to the US before. The day after he arrives, he is walking back from an orientation session and sees two white (albino) squirrels chasing each other around a tree. In his next letter home, he tells his family that American squirrels are white.
    Sam is riding her bike in her home town in Maine, minding her own business. A station wagon comes up behind her and the driver starts beeping his horn and then tries to force her off the road. As he goes by, the driver yells "get on the sidewalk where you belong!" Sam sees that the car has Ohio plates and concludes that all Ohio drivers are jerks.
    Bill: "You know, those feminists all hate men."
    Joe: "Really?"
    Bill: "Yeah. I was in my philosophy class the other day and that Rachel chick gave a presentation."
    Joe: "Which Rachel?"
    Bill: "You know her. She's the one that runs that feminist group over at the Women's Center. She said that men are all sexist pigs. I asked her why she believed this and she said that her last few boyfriends were real sexist pigs. "
    Joe: "That doesn't sound like a good reason to believe that all of us are pigs."
    Bill: "That was what I said."
    Joe: "What did she say?"
    Bill: "She said that she had seen enough of men to know we are all pigs. She obviously hates all men."
    Joe: "So you think all feminists are like her?"
    Bill: "Sure. They all hate men."
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...alization.html

    The fact that some examples of Christians did an action X is not sufficient evidence that Christianity supports X. Rather, you have to show that X evolves from the inherent principles of Christianity. The problem here is that in order to do so, you have to side with the ignorant farmers of the Antebellum South and reject the people that actually ended slavery the Christian Abolitionist movement.

    Given the relative disparity in education and understanding of the texts, you are starting off from an untenable position.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  14. Likes JAGG liked this post
  15. #154
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    is simply historical sophistry.
    Also, I'm not sure you know what this word means. That you've adopted the interpretation of Southern farmers isn't factually incorrect, rather the opposite. That we should reject your interpretation given the relative lack of expertise when compared to the counter isn't "false argumentation" but rather valid logical deduction.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    The scolar commentaries and historical data provided support that the interpretation is not incorrect.
    So you are saying that you and Plantation owners are right, Harvard scholars, Jewish scholars, and the entire Abolitionist movement was wrong?

    That strains credibility. And it misses the point. Because a flat earther claims shadows mean the world is flat is not "proof." Nor would we reject review of the actual world as a serious guide to physics. Rather, we would look at the underlying data and philosophy. The parallel here is Hebrew grammar, historical application, historical scholarship, and thematic consistency. Every single one of these has been shown to support that your understanding is flawed and limited.

    We've literally had four or five instances in this page alone where, in order to adopt your position, we would need to assume an author is senile, or doesn't understand their own words, or where we would need to assume they are inconsistent or changed their mind mid-sentence. No reasonable person would adopt an interpretation that requires so many caveats as you express in a single page.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    So, based on these clear principles, a person who is bought, sold, and inherited, is a person who is subject to slavery, and a person who is treated as property.
    Which...is still a formal fallacy.
    And as such:
    If slavery, then "being bought, sold, passed down as inheritance, and beaten" [Note: this is an unproven claim. If you wish to maintain this claim you would need to support it, Challenge to support a claim.

    B -> a
    "being bought, sold, passed down as inheritance, and beaten, " therefore slavery.

    Except you and I correctly note that the second statement isn't true:

    I can whip a tree and not own a tree. I can own my dog and not be allowed to whip it (which is illegal).

    I cannot buy an automatic firearm (I lack a class three license), but there is no doubt that that firearm is, indeed, property. Nor am I allowed to sell land to a foreign agent, but there is no doubt that that land is my property.


    More importantly, what is the result of this clarification? That your attempt to rebuttal the work of the abolitionists falls short. You cited this "core principles" concept as a rebuttal of their distinction between Biblical concepts and southern Chattel Slavery. Since this core concept defense ended up being fallacious, their distinction still holds:


    3. "INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION." "Ye shall take them as an INHERITANCE for your children after you to inherit them for a possession." This refers to the nations, and not to the individual servants, procured from these nations. We have already shown, that servants could not be held as a property-possession, and inheritance; that they became servants of their own accord, and were paid wages; that they were released by law from their regular labor nearly half the days in each year, and thoroughly instructed; that the servants were protected in all their personal, social, and religious rights, equally with their masters, &c. All remaining, after these ample reservations, would be small temptation, either to the lust of power or of lucre; a profitable "possession" and "inheritance," truly! What if our American slaves were all placed in just such a condition! Alas, for that soft, melodious circumlocution, "Our PECULIAR species of property!" Verily, emphasis would be cadence, and euphony and irony meet together! What eager snatches at mere words, and bald technics, irrespective of connection, principles of construction, Bible usages, or limitations of meaning by other passages—and all to eke out such a sense as sanctifies existing usages, thus making God pander for lust. The words nahal and nahala, inherit and inheritance, by no means necessarily signify articles of property. "The people answered the king and said, we have none inheritance in the son of Jesse." 2 Chron. x. 16. Did they mean gravely to disclaim the holding of their king as an article of property? "Children are an heritage (inheritance) of the Lord." Ps. cxxvii. 3. "Pardon our iniquity, and take us for thine inheritance." Ex. xxxiv. 9. When God pardons his enemies, and adopts them as children, does he make them articles of property? Are forgiveness, and chattel-making, synonymes? "Thy testimonies have I taken as a heritage" (inheritance.) Ps. cxix. 111. "I am their inheritance." Ezek. xliv. 28. "I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance." Ps. ii. 8. "For the Lord will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance." Ps. xciv. 14. See also Deut. iv. 20; Josh. xiii. 33; Ps. lxxxii. 8; lxxviii. 62, 71; Prov. xiv. 8. The question whether the servants were a PROPERTY-"possession," has been already discussed—pp. 37—46—we need add in this place but a word, āhuzzā rendered "possession." "And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt." Gen. xlii. 11. In what sense was Goshen the possession of the Israelites? Answer, in the sense of having it to live in. In what sense were the Israelites to possess these nations, and take them as an inheritance for their children? Answer, they possessed them as a permanent source of supply for domestic or household servants. And this relation to these nations was to go down to posterity as a standing regulation, having the certainty and regularity of a descent by inheritance. The sense of the whole regulation may be given thus: "Thy permanent domestics, which thou shalt have, shall be of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye get male and female domestics." "Moreover of the children of the foreigners that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye get, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your permanent resource." "And ye shall take them as a perpetualprovision for your children after you, to hold as a constant source of supply. ALWAYS of them shall ye serve yourselves." The design of the passage is manifest from its structure. It was to point out the class of persons from which they were to get their supply of servants, and the way in which they were to get them.
    Link provided originally.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    If slavery, then people being bought, sold, inherited, or beaten
    People being bought, sold, inherited, and beaten, therefore, slavery.
    Have you heard of an affirming the consequent fallacy? Because that is what you did here.
    A fallacy of the form "if A, then B; B, therefore A". Example: "If Smith testifies against Jones in court, Jones will be found guilty. Jones was found guilty. Therefore, Smith must have testified against him."
    http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/...irm-consequent

    IE your argument is fallacious at its very core, so its hard to take any of the more subtle points seriously.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    This is a bare assertion
    While I appreciate that imitation is a sincere form of flattery, I wouldn't recommend it if you don't understand the terms being used.

    This can't be a "bare assertion" I'm quoting from the support. A bare assertion is one where I've offered a claim without reason or evidence. You are literally quoting my evidence.
    Perhaps you think this Harvard, Yale, and Oxford trained academics didn't understand what they were saying and you are accusing my source of committing the fallacy? Well even that is wrong because their support is both elsewhere in the document and in, literally, the following sentences
    This refers to the nations, and not to the individual servants, procured from these nations. We have already shown, that servants could not be held as a property-possession, and inheritance; that they became servants of their own accord, and were paid wages; that they were released by law from their regular labor nearly half the days in each year, and thoroughly instructed; that the servants were protected in all their personal, social, and religious rights, equally with their masters, &c. All remaining, after these ample reservations, would be small temptation, either to the lust of power or of lucre; a profitable "possession" and "inheritance," truly! What if our American slaves were all placed in just such a condition! Alas, for that soft, melodious circumlocution, "Our PECULIAR species of property!" Verily, emphasis would be cadence, and euphony and irony meet together! What eager snatches at mere words, and bald technics, irrespective of connection, principles of construction, Bible usages, or limitations of meaning by other passages—and all to eke out such a sense as sanctifies existing usages, thus making God pander for lust. The words nahal and nahala, inherit and inheritance, by no means necessarily signify articles of property. "The people answered the king and said, we have none inheritance in the son of Jesse." 2 Chron. x. 16. Did they mean gravely to disclaim the holding of their king as an article of property? "Children are an heritage (inheritance) of the Lord." Ps. cxxvii. 3. "Pardon our iniquity, and take us for thine inheritance." Ex. xxxiv. 9. When God pardons his enemies, and adopts them as children, does he make them articles of property? Are forgiveness, and chattel-making, synonymes? "Thy testimonies have I taken as a heritage" (inheritance.) Ps. cxix. 111. "I am their inheritance." Ezek. xliv. 28. "I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance." Ps. ii. 8. "For the Lord will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance." Ps. xciv. 14. See also Deut. iv. 20; Josh. xiii. 33; Ps. lxxxii. 8; lxxviii. 62, 71; Prov. xiv. 8. The question whether the servants were a PROPERTY-"possession," has been already discussed—pp. 37—46—we need add in this place but a word, āhuzzā rendered "possession." "And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt." Gen. xlii. 11. In what sense was Goshen the possession of the Israelites? Answer, in the sense of having it to live in. In what sense were the Israelites to possess these nations, and take them as an inheritance for their children? Answer, they possessed them as a permanent source of supply for domestic or household servants. And this relation to these nations was to go down to posterity as a standing regulation, having the certainty and regularity of a descent by inheritance. The sense of the whole regulation may be given thus: "Thy permanent domestics, which thou shalt have, shall be of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye get male and female domestics." "Moreover of the children of the foreigners that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye get, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your permanent resource." "And ye shall take them as a perpetualprovision for your children after you, to hold as a constant source of supply. ALWAYS of them shall ye serve yourselves." The design of the passage is manifest from its structure. It was to point out the class of persons from which they were to get their supply of servants, and the way in which they were to get them.
    Cited earlier.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  16. #155
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    This is simply false
    Again, random internet guy < Harvard, Yale, Oxford academics with significant citations.
    But of course, you never reviewed the source, did you?

    Notice that they said "We have already shown?"


    III.—Did persons become servants voluntarily, or were they made servants against their wills?

    We argue that they became servants of their own accord.
    I. Because to become a servant in the family of an Israelite, was to abjure idolatry, to enter into covenant with God,[6] be circumcised in token of it, bound to keep the Sabbath, the Passover, the Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, and to receive instruction in the moral and ceremonial law. Were the servants forced through all these processes? Was the renunication of idolatry compulsory? Were they dragged into covenant with God? Were they seized and circumcised by main strength? Were they compelled mechanically to chew, and swallow the flesh of the Paschal lamb, while they abhorred the institution, spurned the laws that enjoined it, detested its author and its executors, and instead of rejoicing in the deliverance which it commemorated, bewailed it as a calamity, and cursed the day of its consummation? Were they driven from all parts of the land three times in the year to the annual festivals? Were they drugged with instruction which they nauseated? Goaded through a round of ceremonies, to them senseless and disgusting mummeries; and drilled into the tactics of a creed rank with loathed abominations? We repeat it, to become a servant, was to become a proselyte. And did God authorize his people to make proselytes, at the point of the sword? by the terror of pains and penalties? by converting men into merchandise? Were proselyte and chattel synonymes, in the Divine vocabulary? Must a man be sunk to a thing before taken into covenant with God? Was this the stipulated condition of adoption, and the sole passport to the communion of the saints?
    II. We argue the voluntariness of servants from Deut. xxiii. 15, 16, "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh him best; thou shalt not oppress him."
    As though God had said, "To deliver him up would be to recognize the right of the master to hold him; his fleeing shows his choice—proclaims his wrongs and his title to protection; you shall not force him back and thus recognize the right of the master to hold him in such a condition as induces him to flee to others for protection." It may be said that this command referred only to the servants of heathenmasters in the surrounding nations. We answer, the terms of the command are unlimited. But the objection, if valid, would merely shift the pressure of the difficulty to another point. Did God require them to protect the free choice of a single servant from the heathen, and yet authorize the same persons, to crush the free choice of thousands of servants from the heathen? Suppose a case. A foreign servant flees to the Israelites; God says, "He shall dwell with thee, in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh him best." Now, suppose this same servant, instead of coming into Israel of his own accord, had been dragged in by some kidnapper who bought him of his master, and forced him into a condition against his will; would He who forbade such treatment of the stranger, who voluntarilycame into the land, sanction the same treatment of the same person, provided in addition to this last outrage, the previous one had been committed of forcing him into the nation against his will? To commit violence on the free choice of a foreign servant is forsooth a horrible enormity, provided you begin the violence after he has come among you. But if you commit the first act on the other side of the line; if you begin the outrage by buying him from a third person against his will, and then tear him from home, drag him across the line into the land of Israel, and hold him as a slave—ah! that alters the case, and you may perpetrate the violence now with impunity! Would greater favor have been shown to this new comer than to the old residents—those who had been servants in Jewish families perhaps for a generation? Were the Israelites commanded to exercise toward him, uncircumcised and out of the covenant, a justice and kindness denied to the multitudes who were circumcised, and within the covenant? But, the objector finds small gain to his argument on the supposition that the covenant respected merely the fugitives from the surrounding nations, while it left the servants of the Israelites in a condition against their wills. In that case, the surrounding nations would adopt retaliatory measures, and become so many asylums for Jewish fugitives. As these nations were not only on every side of them, but in their midst, such a proclamation would have been an effectual lure to men whose condition was a constant counteraction of will. Besides the same command which protected the servant from the power of his foreign master, protected him equally from the power of an Israelite. It was not, "Thou shalt not deliver him unto his master" but "he shall dwell with thee, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates where it liketh him best." Every Israelite was forbidden to put him in any condition against his will. What was this but a proclamation, that all who chose to live in the land and obey the laws, were left to their own free will, to dispose of their services at such a rate, to such persons, and in such places as they pleased? Besides, grant that this command prohibited the sending back of foreign servants merely, there was no law requiring the return of servants who had escaped from the Israelites. Property lost, and cattle escaped, they were required to return, but not escaped servants. These verses contain 1st, a command, "Thou shalt not deliver," &c., 2d, a declaration of the fugitive's right of free choice, and of God's will that he should exercise it at his own discretion; and 3d, a command guarding this right, namely, "Thou shalt not oppress him," as though God had said, "If you restrain him from exercising his own choice, as to the place and condition of his residence, it is oppression."
    III. We argue the voluntariness of servants from their peculiar opportunities and facilities for escape. Three times every year, all the males over twelve years, were required to attend the national feasts. They were thus absent from their homes not less than three weeks at each time, making nine weeks annually. As these caravans moved over the country, were there military scouts lining the way, to intercept deserters?—a corporal's guard at each pass of the mountains, sentinels pacing the hill-tops, and light horse scouring the defiles? The Israelites must have had some safe contrivance for taking their "slaves" three times in a year to Jerusalem and back. When a body of slaves is moved any distance in our republic, they are hand-cuffed and chained together, to keep them from running away, or beating their drivers' brains out. Was this the Mosaic plan, or an improvement introduced by Samuel, or was it left for the wisdom of Solomon? The usage, doubtless, claims a paternity not less venerable and biblical! Perhaps they were lashed upon camels, and transported in bundles, or caged up, and trundled on wheels to and fro, and while at the Holy City, "lodged in jail for safe keeping," the Sanhedrim appointing special religious services for their benefit, and their "drivers" officiating at "oral instruction." Mean while, what became of the sturdy handmaids left at home? What hindered them from marching off in a body? Perhaps the Israelilish matrons stood sentry in rotation round the kitchens, while the young ladies scoured the country, as mounted rangers, picking up stragglers by day, and patrolled the streets, keeping a sharp look-out at night.
    ...
    IV.—Were the servants forced to work without pay?

    As the servants became and continued such of their own accord, it would be no small marvel if they chose to work without pay. Their becoming servants, pre-supposes compensation as a motive. That they were paid for their labor, we argue,
    I. Because God rebuked in thunder, the sin of using the labor of others without wages. "Wo unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbor's service without wages, and giveth him not for his work." Jer. xxii. 13. God here testifies that to use the service of others without wages is "unrighteousness," and pronounces his "wo" against the doer of the "wrong." The Hebrew word Reā, translated neighbor, does not mean one man, or class of men, in distinction from others, but any one with whom we have to do—all descriptions of persons, even those who prosecute us in lawsuits, and enemies while in the act of fighting us—"As when a man riseth against his neighbor and slayeth him." Deut. xxii. 26. "Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what to do in the end thereof, when thy neighbor hath put thee to shame." Prov. xxv. 8. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Ex. xx. 16. If any man come presumptuously upon his neighborto slay him with guile." Ex. xxi. 14, &c.
    II. God testifies that in our duty to our fellow men, all the law and the prophets hang upon this command, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Our Savior, in giving this command, quoted verbatimone of the laws of the Mosaic system. Lev. xix. 18. In the 34th verse of the same chapter, Moses applies this law to the treatment of Strangers, "The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself." If it be loving others as ourselves, to make them work for us without pay; to rob them of food and clothing also, would be a stronger illustration still of the law of love! Super-disinterested benevolence! And if it be doing unto others as we would have them do to us, to make them work for our own good alone, Paul should be called to order for his hard sayings against human nature, especially for that libellous matter in Eph. v. 29, "No man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth it and cherisheth it."
    III. As persons became servants from poverty, we argue that they were compensated, since they frequently owned property, and sometimes a large amount. Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, gave David a princely present, "An hundred loaves of bread, and an hundred bunches of raisins, and an hundred of summer fruits, and a bottle of wine." 2 Sam. xvi. 1. The extent of his possessions can be inferred from the fact, that though the father of fifteen sons, he had twenty servants. In Lev. xxv .57—59, where a servant, reduced to poverty, sold himself, it is declared that he may be redeemed, either by his kindred, or by himself. Having been forced to sell himself from poverty, he must have acquired considerable property after he became a servant. If it had not been common for servants to acquire property over which they had the control, the servant of Elisha would hardly have ventured to take a large sum of money, (nearly $3000[10]) from Naaman, 2 Kings v. 22, 23. As it was procured by deceit, he wished to conceal the means used in getting it; but if servants, could "own nothing, nor acquire any thing," to embark in such an enteprise would have been consummate stupidity. The fact of having in his possession two talents of silver, would of itself convict him of theft.[11] But since it was common for servants to own property he might have it, and invest or use it, without attracting special attention, and that consideration alone would have been a strong motive to the act. His master, while rebuking him for using such means to get the money, not only does not take it from him, but seems to expect that he would invest it in real estate, and cattle, and would procure servants with it. 2 Kings v. 26. We find the servant of Saul having money, and relieving his master in an emergency. 1 Sam. ix. 8. Arza, the servant of Elah, was the owner of a house. That it was somewhat magnificent, would be a natural inference from it's being a resort of the king. 1 Kings xvi. 9. The case of the Gibeonites, who after becoming servants, still occupied their cities, and remained in many respects, a distinct people for centuries; and that of the 150,000 Canaanites, the servants of Solomon, who worked out their "tribute of bond-service" in levies, periodically relieving each other, are additional illustrations of independence in the acquisition and ownership of property.
    IV. Heirship.—Servants frequently inherited their master's property; especially if he had no sons, or if they had dishonored the family. Eliezer, the servant of Abraham; Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, Jarha the servant of Sheshan, and the husbandmen who said of their master's son, "this is the heir, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours," are illustrations; also Prov. xvii. 2—"A wise servant shall have rule over a son that causeth shame, and shall have part of the inheritance among the brethren." This passage gives servants precedence as heirs, even over the wives and daughters of their masters. Did masters hold by force, and plunder of earnings, a class of persons, from which, in frequent contingences, they selected both heirs for their property, and husbands for their daughters?
    V. All were required to present offerings and sacrifices. Deut. xvi. 15, 17. 2 Chron. xv. 9—11. Numb. ix. 13. Servants must have had permanently, the means of acquiring property to meet these expenditures.
    VI. Those Hebrew servants who went out at the seventh year, were provided by law with a large stock of provisions and cattle. Deut. xv. 11—14. "Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy wine press, of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee, thou shalt give him."[12] If it be said that the servants from the Strangers did not receive a like bountiful supply, we answer, neither did the most honorable class of Israelitish servants, the free-holders; and for the same reason, they did not go out in the seventh year, but continued until the jubilee. If the fact that the Gentile servants did not receive such a gratuity proves that they were robbed of their earnings, it proves that the most valued class of Hebrew servants were robbed of theirs also; a conclusion too stubborn for even pro-slavery masticators, however unscrupulous.
    VII. The servants were bought. In other words, they received compensation in advance. Having shown, under a previous head, that servants sold themselves, and of course received the compensation for themselves, except in cases where parents hired out the time of their children till they became of age,[13] a mere reference to the fact is all that is required for the purposes of this argument.
    VIII. We find masters at one time having a large number of servants, and afterwards none, without any intimation that they were sold. The wages of servants would enable them to set up in business for themselves. Jacob, after being Laban's servant for twenty-one years, became thus an independent herdsman, and was the master of many servants. Gen. xxx. 43, xxxii. 15. But all these servants had left him before he went down into Egypt, having doubtless acquired enough to commence business for themselves. Gen. xlv. 10, 11; xlvi. 1—7, 32.
    IX. God's testimony to the character of Abraham. Gen. xviii. 19. "For I know him that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep, the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment." God here testifies that Abraham taught his servants "the way of the Lord." What was the "way of the Lord" respecting the payment of wages where service was rendered? "Wo unto him that useth his neighbor's service without wages!" Jer. xxii. 13. "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal." Col. iv. 1. "Render unto all their dues." Rom. xiii. 7. "The laborer is worthy of his hire." Luke x. 7. How did Abraham teach his servants to "do justice" to others? By doing injustice to them? Did he exhort them to "render to all their dues "by keeping back their own? Did he teach them that "the laborer was worthy of his hire" by robbing them of theirs? Did he beget in them a reverence for honesty by pilfering all their time and labor? Did he teach them "not to defraud" others "in any matter" by denying them "what was just and equal?" If each of Abraham's pupils under such a catechism did not become a very Aristides in justice, then illustrious examples, patriarchal dignity, and practicallessons, can make but slow headway against human perverseness!
    X. Specific precepts of the Mosaic law enforcing general principles. Out of many, we select the following: (1.) "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn," or literally, while he thresheth. Deut. xxv. 4. Here is a general principle applied to a familiar case. The ox representing all domestic animals. Isa. xxx. 24. A particular kind of service, all kinds; and a law requiring an abundant provision for the wants of an animal ministering to man in a certain way,—a general principle of treatment covering all times, modes, and instrumentalities of service. The object of the law was; not merely to enjoin tenderness towards brutes, but to inculcate the duty of rewarding those who serve us; and if such care be enjoined, by God, both for the ample sustenance and present enjoyment of a brute, what would be a meet return for the services of man?—man with his varied wants, exalted nature and immortal destiny! Paul says expressly, that this principle lies at the bottom of the statute. 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10, "For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? that he that ploweth should plow in hope, and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope." (2.) "If thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee, then thou shalt relieve him, yea, though he be a stranger or a sojourner that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or increase, but fear thy God. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase." Lev. xxv. 35—37. Now, we ask, by what process of pro-slavery legerdemain, this regulation can be made to harmonize with the doctrine of work without pay? Did God declare the poor stranger entitled to relief, and in the same breath, authorize them to "use his services without wages;" force him to work and rob him of his earnings?


    V.—Were masters the proprietors of servants as legal property?

    The discussion of this topic has already been somewhat anticipated, but a variety of additional considerations remain to be noticed.
    I. Servants were not subjected to the uses nor liable to the contingencies of property. (1.) They were never taken in payment for their masters' debts, though children were sometimes taken (without legal authority) for the debts of a father. 2 Kings iv. 1; Job xxiv. 9; Isa. 1., 1; Matt, xviii. 25. Creditors took from debtors property of all kinds, to satisfy their demands. Job xxiv. 3, cattle are taken; Prov. xxii. 27, household furniture; Lev. xxv. 25—28, the productions of the soil; Lev. xxv. 27—30, houses; Ex. xxii. 26—29, Deut. xxiv. 10—13, Matt. v. 40, clothing; but servants were taken in no instance. (2.) Servants were never given as pledges. Property of all sorts was given in pledge. We find household furniture, clothing, cattle, money, signets, and personal ornaments, with divers other articles of property, used as pledges for value received; but no servants. (3.) All lost property was to be restored. Oxen, asses, sheep, raiment, and "whatsoever lost things," are specified—servants not. Deut. xxii. 13. Besides, the Israelites were forbidden to return the runaway servant. Deut. xxiii. 15. (4.) The Israelites never gave away their servants as presents. They made costly presents, of great variety. Lands, houses, all kinds of animals, merchandise, family utensils, precious metals, grain, armor, &c. are among their recorded gifts. Giving presents to superiors and persons of rank, was a standing usage. 1 Sam. x. 27; 1 Sam. xvi. 20; 2 Chron. xvii. 5. Abraham to Abimelech, Gen. xxi. 27; Jacob to the viceroy of Egypt, Gen. xliii. 11; Joseph to his brethren and father, Gen. xlv. 22, 23; Benhadad to Elisha, 2 Kings viii. 8, 9; Ahaz to Tiglath Pilezer, 2 Kings vi. 8; Solomon to the Queen of Sheba, 1 Kings x. 13; Jeroboam to Ahijah, 1 Kings xiv. 3; Asa to Benhadad, 1 Kings xv. 18, 19. But no servants were given as presents—though it was a prevailing fashion in the surrounding nations. Gen. xii. 16; Gen xx. 14. It may be objected that Laban gave handmaids to his daughters, Jacob's wives. Without enlarging on the nature of the polygamy then prevalent suffice it to say that the handmaids of wives were regarded as wives, though of inferior dignity and authority. That Jacob so regarded his handmaids, is proved by his curse upon Reuben, Gen. xlix. 4, and Chron. v. 1; also by the equality of their, children with those of Rachel and Leah. But had it been otherwise—had Laban given them as articles of property, then, indeed, the example of this "good old patriarch and slaveholder," Saint Laban, would have been a forecloser to all argument. Ah! we remember his jealousy for religion—his holy indignation when he found that his "gods" were stolen! How he mustered his clan, and plunged over the desert in hot pursuit, seven days, by forced marches; how he ransacked a whole caravan, sifting the contents of every tent, little heeding such small matters as domestic privacy, or female seclusion, for lo! the zeal of his "images" had eaten him up! No wonder that slavery, in its Bible-navigation, drifting dismantled before the free gusts, should scud under the lee of such a pious worthy to haul up and refit; invoking his protection, and the benediction of his "gods!" Again, it may be objected that, servants were enumerated in inventories of property. If that proves servantsproperty, it proves wives property. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." Ex. xx. 17. In inventories of mere property if servants are included, it is in such away, as to show that they are not regarded as property. See Eccl. ii. 7, 8. But when the design is to show, not merely the wealth, but the greatness of any personage, servants are spoken of, as well as property. In a word, if riches alone are spoken of, no mention is made of servants; if greatness, servants and property. Gen. xiii. 2. "And Abraham was very rich in cattle, in silver and in gold." So in the fifth verse, "And Lot also had flocks, and herds, and tents." In the seventh verse servants are mentioned, "And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abraham's cattle and the herdmen of Lot's cattle." See also Josh. xxii. 8; Gen. xxxiv. 23; Job xlii. 12; 2 Chron. xxi. 3; xxxii. 27—29; Job i. 3—5; Deut. viii. 12—17; Gen. xxiv. 35, xxvi. 13, xxx. 43. Jacob's wives say to him, "All the riches which thou hast taken from our father that is ours and our children's." Then follows an inventory of property. "All his cattle," "all his goods," "the cattle of his getting." He had a large number of servants at the time but they are not included with his property. Comp. Gen. xx. 43, with Gen. xxxi. 16—18. When he sent messengers to Esau, wishing to impress him with an idea of his state and sway, he bade them tell him not only of his riches, but of his greatness; that Jacob had "oxen, and asses and flocks, and men-servants, and maid-servants." Gen. xxxii. 4, 5. Yet in the present which he sent, there were no servants; though he seems to have sought as much variety as possible. Gen. xxxii. 14, 15; see also Gen. xxxvi. 6, 7; Gen. xxxiv. 23. As flocks and herds were the staples of wealth, a large number of servants presupposed large possessions of cattle, which would require many herdsmen. When servants are spoken of in connection with mere property, the terms used to express the latter do not include the former. The Hebrew word Mikne, is an illustration. It is derived from Kana, to procure, to buy, and its meaning is, a possession, wealth, riches. It occurs more than forty times in the Old Testament, and is applied always to mere property, generally to domestic animals, but never to servants. In some instances, servants are mentioned in distinction from the Mikne. "And Abraham took Sarah his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered; and the souls that they had gotten in Haran, and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan."—Gen. xii. 5. Many will have it, that these souls were a part of Abraham's substance (notwithstanding the pains here taken to separate them from it)—that they were slaves taken with him in his migration as a part of his family effects. Who but slaveholders, either actually or in heart, would torture into the principle and practice of slavery, such a harmless phrase as "the souls that they had gotten?" Until the slave trade breathed its haze upon the vision of the church, and smote her with palsy and decay, commentators saw no slavery in, "The souls that they had gotten." In the Targum of Onkelos[14] it is rendered, "The souls whom they had brought to obey the law in Haran." In the Targum of Jonathan, "The souls whom they had made proselytes in Haran." In the Targum of Jerusalem, "The souls proselyted in Haran." Jarchi, the prince of Jewish commentators, "The souls whom they had brought under the Divine wings." Jerome, one of the most learned of the Christian fathers, "The persons whom they had proselyted." The Persian version, the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Arabic, and the Samaritan all render it, "All the wealth which they had gathered, and the souls which they had made in Haran." Menochius, a commentator who wrote before our present translation of the Bible, renders it, "Quas de idolatraria converterant." "Those whom they had converted from idolatry"—Paulus Fagius.[15] "Quas instituerant in religione." "Those whom they had established in religion." Luke Francke, a German commentator who lived two centuries ago. "Quas legi subjicerant."—"Those whom they had brought to obey the law."
    II. The condition and treatment of servants make the doctrine that they were mere commodities, an absurdity. St. Paul's testimony in Gal. iv. 1, shows the condition of servants: "Now I say unto you, that the heir, so long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all." That Abraham's servants were voluntary, that their interests were identified with those of their master's family, and that the utmost confidence was reposed in them, is shown in their being armed.—Gen. xiv. 14, 15. When Abraham's servant went to Padanaram, the young Princess Rebecca did not disdain to say to him, "Drink, my Lord," as "she hasted and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink." Laban, the brother of Rebecca, "ungirded his camels, and brought him water to wash his feet, and the men's feet that were with him!" In 1 Sam. ix. is an account of a festival in the city of Zuph, at which Samuel presided. None but those bidden, sat down at the feast, and only "about thirty persons" were invited. Quite a select party!—the elite of the city. Saul and his servant had just arrived at Zuph, and both of them, at Samuel's solicitation, accompany him as invited guests. "And Samuel took Saul and his servant, and brought them into the parlor(!) and made them sit in the chiefest seats among those that were bidden." A servant invited by the chief judge, ruler, and prophet in Israel, to dine publicly with a select party, in company with his master, who was at the same time anointed King of Israel! and this servant introduced by Samuel into the parlor, and assigned, with his master, to the chiefest seat at the table! This was "one of the servants" of Kish, Saul's father; not the steward or the chief of them—not at all a picked man, but "one of the servants;" any one that could be most easily spared, as no endowments specially rare would be likely to find scope in looking after asses. Again: we find Elah,the King of Israel, at a festive entertainment, in the house of Arza, his steward, or head servant, with whom he seems to have been on terms of familiarity.—1 Kings xvi. 8, 9. See also the intercourse between Gideon and his servant.—Judg. vii. 10, 11. Jonathan and his servant.—1 Sam. xiv. 1—14. Elisha and his servant.—2 Kings iv. v. vi.
    III. The case of the Gibeonites. The condition of the inhabitants of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjathjearim, under the Hebrew commonwealth, is quoted in triumph by the advocates of slavery; and truly they are right welcome to all the crumbs that can be gleaned from it. Milton's devils made desperate snatches at fruit that turned to ashes on their lips. The spirit of slavery raves under tormenting gnawings, and casts about in blind phrenzy for something to ease, or even to mock them. But for this, it would never have clutched at the Gibeonites, for even the incantations of the demon cauldron, could not extract from their case enough to tantalize starvation's self. But to the question. What was the condition of the Gibeonites under the Israelites? (1.) It was voluntary. Their own proposition to Joshua was to become servants. Josh. ix. 8, 11. It was accepted, but the kind of service which they should perform, was not specified until their gross imposition came to light; they were then assigned to menial offices in the Tabernacle. (2.) They were not domestic servants in the families of the Israelites. They still resided in their own cities, cultivated their own fields, tended their flocks and herds, and exercised the functions of a distinct, though not independent community. They were subject to the Jewish nation as tributaries. So far from being distributed among the Israelites, and their internal organization as a distinct people abolished, they remained a separate, and, in some respects, an independent community for many centuries. When attacked by the Amorites, they applied to the Israelites as confederates for aid—it was rendered, their enemies routed, and themselves left unmolested in their cities. Josh. x. 6—18. Long afterwards, Saul slew some of them, and God sent upon Israel a three years' famine for it. David inquired of the Gibeonites, "What shall I do for you, and wherewith shall I make the atonement?" At their demand, he delivered up to them, seven of Saul's descendants. 2 Sam. xxi. 1—9. The whole transaction was a formal recognition of the Gibeonites as a distinct people. There is no intimation that they served families, or individuals of the Israelites, but only the "house of God," or the Tabernacle. This was established first at Gilgal, a day's journey from their cities; and then at Shiloh, nearly two day's journey from them; where it continued about 350 years. During this period, the Gibeonites inhabited their ancient cities and territory. Only a few, comparatively, could have been absent at any one time in attendance on the Tabernacle. Wherever allusion is made to them in the history, the main body are spoken of as at home. It is preposterous to suppose that all the inhabitants of these four cities could find employment at the Tabernacle. One of them "was a great city, as one of the royal cities;" so large, that a confederacy of five kings, apparently the most powerful in the land, was deemed necessary for its destruction. It is probable that the men were divided into classes, ministering in rotation—each class a few days or weeks at a time. This service was their national tribute to the Israelites, for the privilege of residence and protection under their government. No service seems to have been required of the females. As these Gibeonites were Canaanites, and as they had greatly exasperated the Israelites by impudent imposition, and lying, we might assuredly expect that they would reduce them to the condition of chattels if there was any case in which God permitted them to do so.
    IV. Throughout the Mosaic system, God warns the Israelites against holding their servants in such a condition as they were held in by the Egyptians. How often are they pointed back to the grindings of their prison-house! What motives to the exercise of justice and kindness towards their servants, are held out to their fears in threatened judgments; to their hopes in promised good; and to all within them that could feel, by those oft repeated words of tenderness and terror! "For ye were bondmen in the land of Egypt"—waking anew the memory of tears and anguish, and of the wrath that avenged them.
    God's denunciations against the bondage of Egypt make it incumbent on us to ascertain, of what rights the Israelites were plundered, and what they retained.
    Egyptian bondage analyzed. (1.) The Israelites were not dispersed among the families of Egypt,[16] but formed a separate community. Gen. xlvi. 35. Ex. viii. 22, 24; ix. 26; x. 23; xi. 7; ii. 9; xvi. 22; xvii. 5. (2.) They had the exclusive possession of the land of Goshen.[17] Gen. xlv. 18; xlvii. 6, 11, 27. Ex. xii. 4, 19, 22, 23, 27. (3.) They lived in permanent dwellings. These were houses, not tents. In Ex. xii. 6, 22, the two side posts, and the upper door posts, and the lintel of the houses are mentioned. Each family seems to have occupied a house by itself,—Acts vii. 20. Ex. xii. 4—and judging from the regulation about the eating of the Passover, they could hardly have been small ones, Ex. xii. 4, probably contained separate apartments, and places for concealment. Ex. ii. 2, 3; Acts vii. 20. They appear to have been well apparelled. Ex. xii. 11. To have had their own burial grounds. Ex. xiii. 19, and xiv. 11. (4.) They owned "a mixed multitude of flocks and herds," and "very much cattle." Ex. xii. 32, 37, 38. (5.) They had their own form of government, and preserved their tribe and family divisions, and their internal organization throughout, though still a province of Egypt, and tributary to it. Ex. ii. 1; xii. 19, 21; vi. 14, 25; v. 19; iii. 16, 18. (6.) They seem to have had in a considerable measure, the disposal of their own time,—Ex. xxiii. 4; iii. 16, 18, xii. 6; ii. 9; and iv. 27, 29—31. And to have practiced the fine arts. Ex. xxxii. 4; xxxv. 22—35. (7.) They were all armed. Ex. xxxii. 27. (8.) They held their possessions independently, and the Egyptians seem to have regarded them as inviolable. No intimation is given that the Egyptians dispossessed them of their habitations, or took away their flocks, or herds, or crops, or implements of agriculture, or any article of property. (9.) All the females seem to have known something of domestic refinements; they were familiar with instruments of music, and skilled in the working of fine fabrics. Ex. xv. 20; xxxv. 25, 26. (10.) Service seems to have been exacted from none but adult males. Nothing is said from which the bond service of females could be inferred; the hiding of Moses three months by his mother, and the payment of wages to her by Pharaoh's daughter, go against such a supposition. Ex. ii. 29. (11.) So far from being fed upon a given allowance, their food was abundant, and of great variety. "They sat by the flesh-pots," and "did eat bread to the full." Ex. xvi. 3; xxiv. 1; xvii. 5; iv. 29; vi. 14; "they did eat fish freely, and cucumbers, and melons, and leeks, and onions, and garlic." Num. xi. 4, 5; x. 18 ; xx. 5. (12.) The great body of the people were not in the service of the Egyptians. (a.) The extent and variety of their own possessions, together with such a cultivation of their crops as would provide them with bread, and such care of their immense flocks and herds, as would secure their profitable increase, must have furnished constant employment for the main body of the nation, (b.) During the plague of darkness, God informs us that "all the children of Israel had light in their dwellings." We infer that they were there to enjoy it. (c.) It seems improbable that the making of brick, the only service named during the latter part of their sojourn in Egypt, could have furnished permanent employment for the bulk of the nation. See also Ex. iv. 29—31. Besides, when Eastern nations employed tributaries, it was as now, in the use of the levy, requiring them to furnish a given quota, drafted off periodically, so that comparatively but a small portion of the nation would be absent at any one time. Probably one-fifth part of the proceeds of their labor was required of the Israelites in common with the Egyptians. Gen. xlvii. 24, 26. Instead of taking it from their crops, (Goshen being better for pasturage) they exacted it of them in brick making; and it is quite probable that labor was exacted only from the poorer Israelites, the wealthy being able to pay their tribute in money. Ex. iv. 27—31. Contrast this bondage of Egypt with American slavery. Have our slaves "very much cattle," and "a mixed multitude of flocks and herds?" Do they live in commodious houses of their own, "sit by the flesh-pots," "eat fish freely," and "eat bread to the full?" Do they live in a separate community, in their distinct tribes, under their own rulers, in the exclusive occupation of an extensive tract of country for the culture of their crops, and for rearing immense herds of their own cattle—and all these held inviolable by their masters? Are our female slaves free from exactions of labor and liabilities of outrage? or when employed, are they paid wages, as was the Israelitish woman by the king's daughter? Have they the disposal of their own time, and the means for cultivating social refinements, for practising the fine arts, and for personal improvement? The Israelites under the bondage of Egypt, enjoyed all these rights and privileges. True, "all the service wherein they made them serve was with rigor." But what was this when compared with the incessant toil of American slaves, the robbery of all their time and earnings, and even the power to own any thing, or acquire any thing?" a "quart of corn a-day," the legal allowance of food![18] their only clothing for one half the year, "one shirt and one pair of pantaloons!"[19] two hours and a half only, for rest and refreshment in the twenty-four![20]—their dwellings, hovels, unfit for human residence, with but one apartment, where both sexes and all ages herd promiscuously at night, like the beasts of the field. Add to this, the ignorance, and degradation; the daily sunderings of kindred, the revelries of lust, the lacerations and baptisms of blood, sanctioned by law, and patronized by public sentiment. What was the bondage of Egypt when compared with this? And yet for her oppression of the poor, God smote her with plagues, and trampled her as the mire, till she passed away in his wrath, and the place that knew her in her pride, knew her no more. Ah! "I have seen the afflictions of my people, and I have heard their groanings, and am come down to deliver them." He did come, and Egypt sank a ruinous heap, and her blood closed over her. If such was God's retribution for the oppression of heathen Egypt, of how much sorer punishment shall a Christian people be thought worthy, who cloak with religion a system, in comparison with which the bondage of Egypt dwindles to nothing? Let those believe who can that God commissioned his people to rob others of all their rights, while he denounced against them wrath to the uttermost, if they practised the far lighter oppression of Egypt—which robbed its victims of only the least and cheapest of their rights, and left the females unplundered even of these. What! Is God divided against himself? When He had just turned Egypt into a funeral pile; while his curse yet blazed upon her unburied dead, and his bolts still hissed amidst her slaughter, and the smoke of her torment went upwards because she had "robbed the poor," did He license the victims of robbery to rob the poor of all? As Lawgiver, did he create a system tenfold more grinding than that for which he had just hurled Pharaoh headlong, and overwhelmed his princes, and his hosts, till "hell was moved to meet them at their coming?"
    We now proceed to examine various objections which will doubtless be set in array against all the foregoing conclusions.
    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_B...gainst_Slavery


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    They were not free to leave, or to choose to not produce labour.
    See, this is a bare assertion fallacy. I provided evidence that scholars think they were above. Do you have direct evidence, preferably from someone with academic training as I have provided?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Lev. 25:46 doesn't use these words, but yarash, which means to inherit and possess.
    That is the verb. Notice they are talking about nouns. Which are included in Lev 25:46:
    And ye shall take them as an inheritance h5157 נָחַל nachal
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/.../t_conc_115046
    Thus, they are correct when they say:
    The words nahal and nahala, inherit and inheritance, by no means necessarily signify articles of property. "The people answered the king and said, we have none inheritance in the son of Jesse." 2 Chron. x. 16. Did they mean gravely to disclaim the holding of their king as an article of property? "Children are an heritage (inheritance) of the Lord." Ps. cxxvii. 3. "Pardon our iniquity, and take us for thine inheritance." Ex. xxxiv. 9. When God pardons his enemies, and adopts them as children, does he make them articles of property? Are forgiveness, and chattel-making, synonymes? "Thy testimonies have I taken as a heritage" (inheritance.) Ps. cxix. 111. "I am their inheritance." Ezek. xliv. 28. "I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance." Ps. ii. 8. "For the Lord will not cast off his people, neither will he forsake his inheritance." Ps. xciv. 14. See also Deut. iv. 20; Josh. xiii. 33; Ps. lxxxii. 8; lxxviii. 62, 71; Prov. xiv. 8. The question whether the servants were a PROPERTY-"possession," has been already discussed—pp. 37—46—we need add in this place but a word, āhuzzā rendered "possession." "And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt." Gen. xlii. 11. In what sense was Goshen the possession of the Israelites? Answer, in the sense of having it to live in. In what sense were the Israelites to possess these nations, and take them as an inheritance for their children? Answer, they possessed them as a permanent source of supply for domestic or household servants. And this relation to these nations was to go down to posterity as a standing regulation, having the certainty and regularity of a descent by inheritance. The sense of the whole regulation may be given thus: "Thy permanent domestics, which thou shalt have, shall be of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye get male and female domestics." "Moreover of the children of the foreigners that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye get, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your permanent resource." "And ye shall take them as a perpetualprovision for your children after you, to hold as a constant source of supply. ALWAYS of them shall ye serve yourselves." The design of the passage is manifest from its structure. It was to point out the class of persons from which they were to get their supply of servants, and the way in which they were to get them.
    Link above.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #156
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    It wasn't the crux, but nice straw-man. That you fail to respond to the rest of the arguments and instead focus on this straw-man as justification for dismissing the entire site speaks volumes.
    Because there weren't any. If there were, feel free to offer them here, but this comes off as simple bravado. Even more so since your "source" is a Wordpress personal page (and thus doesn't count as support) written by a guy who admits on the About Me page that he has no formal training or degree in any related field.

    The fact that it gets the word wrong means the site isn't relevant to your support.

    The word (which is ba'al not baal, baal is a Phonecian and Canaanite god) is defined as:

    בַּעַל baʻal, bah'-al; from H1166; a master; hence, a husband, or (figuratively) owner (often used with another noun in modifications of this latter sense):— archer, babbler, bird, captain, chief man, confederate, have to do, dreamer, those to whom it is due, furious, those that are given to it, great, hairy, he that hath it, have, horseman, husband, lord, man, married, master, person, sworn, they of.
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...gs=H1167&t=NIV

    IE that in Hebrew, when it is used with another noun (in this case wife), it isn't taken literally. This is seen in Genesis 14:13 where the word is translated as "Allies" https://www.blueletterbible.org/niv/gen/14/13/s_14013

    So unless you are claiming that Abram "owned" his allies, this is a ridiculous contention.
    Further, no serious Jewish source claims that women were property under Jewish law. Rather, marriage was seen as a contract between equals, a husband and a wife, where the husband was required to give the dowry to the wife, not the parents so that she would be supported in case of his death or of their divorce. The fact that she could divorce her husband is defining evidence that she wasn't seen as property. http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/...5&context=iclr


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    The source, as always, is the bible.
    Given that you've offered no such evidence, we can take this claim as retracted. If you wish to maintain it again, I am formally issuing a Challenge to support a claim. to support or retract that claim with evidence and logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    You've got this completely backwards. The argument I'm making with Eccl. 2:7 is not that since they are numbered like other property they are also property. I'm responding to the claim that because they are listed separately from other property means they are not property. This claim fails because of the clear reason for the separation.
    And I think you missed the concept of the rebuttal. The "reason" you give for why they are separate is a red herring. IE it is unrelated to the underlying argument. Nothing about their being "numbered" is relevant to their placement on a list. Nor does it have anything to do with the distinction being offered. Which is that when in lists, their status as people is clearly defined, that isn't the clarification of an author who saw them as property like everything else on the list. The author is specifically referring to their status as people and thus, for Israelites "created in God's image."

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    So what? Nobody's denying that they were people.
    Actually you are, that is fundamental to your argument. That you don't recognize that it is fundamental highlights concerns that you don't really understand the concepts you are debating here, but are simply applying a shallow 21st Century understanding of the concepts.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    You mean the Xs and +x which are clearly absent from the non-human uses of: bough, branch, breed, colt, foal, whelp?
    You need to read these things a bit more carefully.
    in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., (like father or brother), etc.):
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...gs=H1121&t=NIV

    Notice that colon? It means that what follows is a list related to that clause.

    IE that it is used in the following usages figuratively within the text rather than literally. For example, bough and colt are used in Genesis 49:11. Not as a literal colt or bough, but figuratively in relation to the nation of Judah.
    The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet,until he to whom it belongs shall come and the obedience of the nations shall be his.
    He will tether his donkey to a vine, his colt to the choicest branch; he will wash his garments in wine, his robes in the blood of grapes.
    https://www.blueletterbible.org/niv/gen/49/11/s_49011

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Gen. 18:7, Gen. 49:11, Deut. 32:14, Eze. 15:2, Zec. 9:9
    Linkwarz:
    Quoting External Sources
    You are encouraged to provide support for any claims you make through the use of external sources. However, it is inappropriate to simply provide one or more links or sources (including embedded videos) and proclaim that all one needs to do is review them. Readers should not have to access your sources before they understand your argument. Where possible, you should provide a short summary of the link/video you have posted. Members who fail to observe this rule will be guilty of what is colloquially known as "linkwarz."
    http://www.onlinedebate.net/index.php?page=odnrules

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Again, you're playing with words in quite a dishonest way. The command doesn't state "don't kill them". The command is simply to take them as plunder.
    I'm the one twisting words? The verse commands them to take the people with them and have them work for the Israelites. How exactly does that occur when they are killed? How do you take a slave and kill the captive? [This btw is the classical definition of sophistry, you are attempting to rely on a minute point to avoid the obvious conclusion].

    If you want to maintain that they are able to work for the Israelites after being killed, we'll need some explanation.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Again, this is a dishonest twisting of the verse, and also the motivation behind the command, which is not to save people for the sake of saving them, but in order to take them as plunder.
    Dishonest in what way? It literally means this. I thought you were all for taking it at face value (not to mention I already provided scholarly commentary on this interpretation). Am I supposed to believe that you, random internet guy understands the author's meaning better than Harvard, Jewish, Yale, Oxford academics?

    And beyond that, that we are to believe the verse somehow meant that you could kill them because (in your mind) they can still work for you after they are dead?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    The goal is not to altruistically save people from death, but to have people to take as plunder.
    Man, you murdered that strawman, good work! No one has claimed that it was meant to save everyone, it is a war. It is a ridiculous interpretation to think that the verse is demanding the sparing of military aged males during a war at a period in history of conscript peasant armies. That you would even think this is a possibility reflects a polyannish, naive understanding of the verse and its context.

    Nor did you cite your sources, a requirement on ODN. But let's presume you quoted them accurately:

    Chuck Smith's commentary: "leave all the women and children alive"

    Thank you for proving my point for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I just provided you with scholar commentaries which support the "cartoon parody".
    Except, oh no, the scholars agreed with me. You can tilt at windmills and slay strawmen, but when it comes to the actual argument being portrayed, they agreed with me, the verse commands the Israelites to let them live.

    You are, again, approaching the subject from a "I need to find what will support me" rather than "this is the truth." That is why when confronted with contradictory evidence you feel that tension, it’s a physiological reaction to cognitive dissonance. Its why you tend to the personal and emotive rather than the objective and descriptive. "what you are doing is disgusting" not "the sentence structure or word meaning has this contemprory context..." The adrenaline released under cognitive dissonance stress is why you cannot approach the subject calmly and is indicative that you are falling victim to a host of cognitive biases like framing bias, the Semmelweis reflex, the Dunning-Kruger effect, or choice-supportive bias.


    Quote Originally Posted by future
    LOL, you obviously don't fully understand the term pollyannaish, since what you're doing with Deut. 20:14 is actually pollyannaish.
    I'm sure my strawman is doing that. Of couse, I'm not the one saying "why not just have war" as you are implying.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    The fact that you point out such a ridiculous claim of a violation, especially when you follow it up with the full cite yourself speaks volumes.
    Right, because its everyone else's job to do your research for you.

    Regardless, we both know the reason you didn't provide a citation is because the link directly contradicted your claim:

    A justifiable property is acquired in that which is won in lawful war. God himself owns the title: The Lord thy God gives it thee; and therefore he must be owned in it,
    https://www.biblestudytools.com/comm...ronomy/20.html

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    All that you are arguing for comes down to nothing more than some nebulous concept where it's claimed that some other party actually owns the property in question, and the people are merely granted the rights of ownership as stewards, or something.
    Some nebulous concept like the fundamental central tenant of your thread? I mean if no one cares who owns something why did you spend 8 pages arguing that being owned by someone else is bad? Who cares right?

    I'm sure your landlord would find your assessment of the difference here reassuring. I mean no one would care if you burned your apartment down, that is just some nebulous concept of ownership and responsibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    And buying, selling, and inheriting people is, of course, not consuming them - it's owning them.
    I already highlighted how you don't believe this earlier, so we can dispense with that and get to the central point which is that you are conceding a major argument here. You concede here that the verse isn't talking about consuming them, but rather the products they produce which means we can dismiss your claim back on page 2 that Duet 20:14 represents support for premise 1.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Stop this straw-man nonsense.
    I'm not sure you understand what a strawman is since you use it here incorrectly. A strawman would indicate that you have never claimed that plain text reading is preferred. But you have, right?

    My point, in rebuttal, is that it isn't an actual concept in textual literary analysis, it is a concept only used by those who don't have the academic background or training to understand the language at play. Unless you were to make the bizarre and untenable claim that everyone reads text with the exact same meaning (in which case why are there lawyers or english teachers) then when you say "plain text reading" what you mean is "how future reads that passage." There is no object thing as a "plain text reading." No coherent meaning to a piece of text that transcends human opinion and experience. The closest we can come is the consensus reading of people as they read it. And in order to keep it from being an appeal to popularity fallacy, we should limit that reading to the consensus of experts. As I've shown on several different pages now, the consensus of Jewish scholars, scholars at Oxford, Harvard, Yale, modern scholars, Aquinas, even the Southern Baptist Church, and several Popes has been to accept the "plain text" reading I put forward, and reject your position.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Further, the only valid refutation would be to prove that the commentaries don't exist.
    Or that they don't agree with you because you didn't understand, or selectively understood their content. And that is, in fact, what I did. I showed that you are literally the only one (aside from Plantation owners) to hold the position you do. So you are, de facto, agreeing with their reading of the verse and rejecting the consensus of the scholarly community. And as we've seen on the last three pages or so, when the commentary is quoted fully, rather than just half sentences, as you are want to do, the meaning suddenly becomes a lot more clear, and agrees with you a whole lot let.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Your strawman was to claim that I'm using "one verse, taken out of context by a sub set of uneducated farmers", which I'm not doing.
    1) Nothing about this response disputes that the two sections of your argument are inconsistent.
    2) My rebuttal can't be a strawman if you literally make the same argument a sentence later. You literally say "The fact that the bible could be and was used in order to justify slavery for so long only serves to demonstrate the OPs conclusion."
    Who used it to justify slavery? Southern Farmers! How is it a strawman to claim that you are supporting the interpretation of Southern Farmers, when you literally say that in the same paragraph?

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Yes. Ever heard of the Dum Diversas?
    I have, that you think it authorized slavery is a bit odd though. Dum Diversas authorized the King of Portugal to bring all non-Christian territories and principalities under his perpetual servitude. Given that the letter is beign addressed directly to the King, who are they serving? That's right, the King of Portugal, just like every other portuguese. Nowhere in that document is slavery authorized or personal slaves to be taken. Follow on bulls further reaffirmed this and when the Portuguese actually started taking slaves, the Pope issued a bull demanding their release.

    Bishop Nicholas
    Servant of the Servants of God. For the perpetual memory of this act:


    To the dearest son in Christ Alfonse, illustrious King of Portugal and the Algarbians,Greetings and Apostolic Blessing


    While we turn over in our mind the diverse concerns of the office of Apostolic service entrusted to us (although we do not deserve it) by celestial Providence, concerns by which we are every day urgently pressed, we are also moved by a persistent encouragement: we chiefly carry in our heart that the well-known anxiety, that the rage of the enemies of the name of Christ, always aggressive in contempt of the orthodox faith, could be restrained by the faithful of Christ and be subjugated to the Christian religion. To this purpose also, when the occasion of the matter demands it, we laboriously expend our free [desire/eagerness/devotion], and indeed remember to follow with fatherly affection all the faithful of Christ, especially dearest sons in Christ, illustrious Kings, professing Christ’s faith, who, for the glory of the Eternal King, eagerly defend the faith itself and with powerful arm fight its enemies. We also look attentively to labor at the defense and growing of the said Religion and all things pertaining to this healing work, should proceed from our undeserved provision, we invite, with spiritual duties and grace, the faithful of Christ and also individuals to rouse their [positions/duties?] in help/support of the faith.


    1. As we indeed understand from your pious and Christian desire, you intend to subjugate the enemies of Christ, namely the Saracens, and bring [them] back, with powerful arm, to the faith of Christ, if the authority of Apostolic See supported you in this. Therefore we consider, that those rising against the Catholic faith and struggling to extinguish Christian Religion must be resisted by the faithful of Christ with courage and firmness, so that the faithful themselves, inflamed by the ardor of faith and armed with courage to be able to hate their intention, not only to go against the intention, if they prevent unjust attempts of force, but with the help of God whose soldiers they are, they stop the endeavors of the faithless, we, fortified with divine love, summoned by the charity of Christians and bound by the duty of our pastoral office, which concerns the integrity and spread of faith for which Christ our God shed his blood, wishing to encourage the vigor of the faithful and Your Royal Majesty in the most sacred intention of this kind, we grant to you full and free power, through the Apostolic authority by this edict, to invade, conquer, fight, subjugate the Saracens and pagans, and other infidels and other enemies of Christ, and wherever established their Kingdoms, Duchies, Royal Palaces, Principalities and other dominions, lands, places, estates, camps and any other possessions, mobile and immobile goods found in all these places and held in whatever name, and held and possessed by the same Saracens, Pagans, infidels, and the enemies of Christ, also realms, duchies, royal palaces, principalities and other dominions, lands, places, estates, camps, possessions of the king or prince or of the kings or princes, and to lead their persons in perpetual servitude, and to apply and appropriate realms, duchies, royal palaces, principalities and other dominions, possessions and goods of this kind to you and your use and your successors the Kings of Portugal.


    We carefully ask, require, and encourage your same Royal Majesty, girded by the sword of virtue and fortified with strong courage, for the increase of the divine name and for the exaltation of faith and for the salvation of your soul, having God before your eyes, may you increase in this undertaking the power of your virtue so that the Catholic faith may, through your Royal Majesty, against the enemies of Christ, bring back triumph and that you earn more fully the crown of eternal glory, for which you must fight in lands, and which God promised to those who love Him, and our benediction of the See and grace.


    2. For we, by the dignity of your sacrifice, grant that you undertake this work with more courage and fervent zeal, together with chosen sons, noblemen, dukes, princes, barons, soldiers, and other faithful of Christ, accompanying your Royal Serenity in this fight of faith, or contributing with their means, and that they undertake or contribute from their possession, or send, as said before, from which you and they hope to be able to pursue the salvation of their souls, and they hope, by the mercy of omnipotent God, and his apostles the blessed Peter and Paul, entrusted with authority, to you and indeed all individual faithful of Christ of either sex accompanying your Majesty in this work of faith. Indeed to those who did not want to accompany you personally, but will send help according to their means or exigency of allegiance, or they will reasonably contribute from those possessions assigned by God, we grant, by the power of your sacrifice, a plenary forgiveness of all and individual sins, crimes, trespasses, and digressions which you and they have confessed with contrite heart and by mouth, to you and to those who accompany you, as often as you and they happen to go into any war against the mentioned infidels, and indeed to those who do not accompany you but are sending and contributing, as mentioned before, to those who persist in sincerity of faith, in the unity of the Holy Roman Church, by our obedience and devotion and of our successors Roman Pontiffs entering canonically, to the remaining a suitable confessor whom you and anyone of them selected can forgive merely once at the moment of death. Thus, however, the confessor sees to matters in which there is an obligation to a third party and that you, those who accompany you, who send and contribute fulfill it if you and they survive or your heirs and their heirs if you and they perish, as mentioned before.


    3. And nevertheless, if it should happen that you or others of those accompanying you against the Saracens and other infidels of this kind, on the way there, staying there, or on the way back, departed from this world, we restore you and those accompanying you, remaining in sincerity and unity, through the present letter, to pure innocence in which you and they existed after baptism..


    4. But we demand that all and each thing which the faithful of Christ, who do not accompany you, contributed for your support to carry out this undertaking, be taken by the noblemen of individual places in which these contributions were given and as time permits at once be repaid and given to you through secure messengers, or letters of the bank, without any reduction, expenses, and salaries, merely reasonably reserved for those working in this undertaking, and that they are transmitted under authentic sum-total, and that if the noblemen themselves, or anybody else deducted, or transferred or seized for his own use from the sum sent for support of this undertaking anything except expenses and salaries, or if they allowed or conspired for money to be either fraudulently or deceitfully subtracted, transferred or seized, that they incur eo ipso the sentence of excommunication, from which they cannot be absolved except by the office of the Roman Pontificate if they are in articulo mortis (at the moment of death).


    5. For the rest, since it would be difficult to carry this present letter to individual places where perhaps it would be doubted about its credibility, we want and decree with authority that to its transfer signed by the hand of Notary public and provided with seal of a bishop or High Court, same credibility is shown, as if the original letter were presented or shown.


    6. Consequently, it is not allowed to any person to infringe this sheet of our granting, pardon, will, indulgence, and decree, or dare to oppose it rashly. If, however, anyone tried to tamper with it, he would incur the indignation of the Omnipotent God, and of blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.


    Given in Rome at St. Peter, in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1452 on June 18th, in the sixth year of our Pontificate.
    http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspo...anslation.html

    In fact, as a following Papal Bull clarified:
    [I]n Romanus Pontifex Nicholas V repeats Eugene IV and Martin V’s decrees on the subject, and Eugene IV said, “some Christians (we speak of this with sorrow), with fictitious reasoning and seizing and opportunity, have approached said islands by ship, and with armed forces taken captive and even carried off to lands overseas very many persons of both sexes, taking advantage of their simplicity… They have deprived the natives of the property, or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery, sold them to other persons, and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them,” (Sicut Dudum.)
    Ibid

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathol...omas_Aquinas):
    "Aquinas considered slavery as a result of sin and was justifiable for that reason"
    Too bad Wiki isn't a source, nor does it say that, nor is that what he meant. Rather, what your link talks about (and actual sources) is that Aquinas held that penal slavery, ie work as punishment for a crime was committed, but not suggested by natural law (IE the law of God). When he refers to it as punishment for sin he isn't talking about literal slavery, he is talking about it in the same manner Paul is, we are slaves to sin.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    While I admire your conviction, your claim that only a tiny tiny group of racist southerners were in support of the vast amount of slavery taking place in America is simply ridiculous.
    Interesting how I've offered about a half dozen sources to support that and you've offered...none. Again, you ignored the more important point, why does a tiny, tiny minority represent the group in your mind (IE hasty generalization fallacy)? Should we, in your opinion think the Reptilians are in charge, after all 8% of Americans think so, right? That is a much, much higher percentage than the one you are relying on.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I explained why it's irrelevant to the OP, referring to specific wording in the OP.
    No, I don't think you have. In fact, Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract where you explained that it is irrelevant to the OP with language from the OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Considered, and found wanting. See the wikipedia page on Jewish view of slavery, extensively cited at the beginning of this post.
    IE, the untrained internet guy didn't agree with the numerous scholars who tore his OP to shreds? How convenient. Sorry, no such info on the Jewish view of slavery page on wiki (not a source).

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    The bible explicitly sanctions slavery (#1), and fails to clearly express opposition to slavery (#2).
    From which it still doesn't follow that it isn't a moral guide without some kind of additional premise. Even if we accept those premises (and this response has a lot of outside support that we shouldn't), the conclusion doesn't follow.

    It would be like saying:
    P1) The sky is blue.
    P2) The sky isn't green.
    C) Therefore the sky is above us

    The conclusion doesn't make sense from the premises, we need additional premises to make it logical. Nothing about you premises 1 and 2 tell me why anyone shouldn't accept it as a moral guide any more than if we replaced the word slavery with charity.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  18. Thanks JAGG thanked for this post
  19. #157
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Slavery and the bible as a moral guide

    Falling further behind:

    Please note that there are challenges in here. Continued maintenance of any of these claims without support is a rule violation.




    Do you have evidence that the secular moral system is “greatly more” subscribed to now?



    You need to offer support that whatever the moral code/system is, it is based on objective observations.



    It is a "fact" that owning people as property goes against the goals set by the moral system.



    The use of 'achuzzah in Lev 25:45 is specifically for people



    1) The original claim was made by you in the OP: “To address slavery in the bible from a moral perspective, it is defined here as: "owning a person as property".”

    Thus it was the initial claim, there are literally no other posts before it. So… Please support or retract that the verse actually refers to the person, rather than you read it as referring to the person.



    Please support or retract that the following verses say, "he won't be punished if the slave who dies under his hand only dies after a couple days."



    It was your claim that this was an example of Biblical immorality. Can you support that claim or will you retract it?



    Can you support that this commentary specifically only means people who have escaped from foreign captivity as opposed to foreigners working in Israel?



    Support or retract that these verses are describing a scenario where a person is owned as chattel.



    If slavery, then "being bought, sold, passed down as inheritance, and beaten" [Note: this is an unproven claim. If you wish to maintain this claim you would need to support it,


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    Quote Originally Posted by future

    I really don't get where you've pulled out this mass of scholars, but simply looking at the readily-available commentaries, it's clear that most people think that when the bible refers to people by using words meaning people, the bible is referring to people.
    So...you don't have outside support? Simply linking to a commentary without an argument isn't defense of your position. Notice the more than 25 independent sources I offered in the that response and the accompanying explanations of how those sources supported my position.

    Again, absent an outside reference and explanation of how it supports your point, this is just a bare assertion fallacy.






    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    Your second reference is actually a perfect illustration of not considering the ideas in context. The servants are to be inherited like "immovable goods, as fields, vineyards" etc. But remember we already pointed out both in the Talmud and the Old Testament that the Jews don't own the fields or the vineyards, just the output of the fields and the vineyards.

    Lev 25:23: “‘The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers."

    You'll also remember that way back in post 32 I noted that the Talmud (specifically Gittin) references this verse as support for the idea that slaves were not directly owned by the master just as the land was not directly owned, but that God had given over the produce of the land and the produce of the people to them, not direct ownership.

    Also in Leviticus 25, when God is explaining the repayment of loans during Jubilee:
    15 You are to buy from your own people on the basis of the number of years since the Jubilee. And they are to sell to you on the basis of the number of years left for harvesting crops. 16 When the years are many, you are to increase the price, and when the years are few, you are to decrease the price, because what is really being sold to you is the number of crops. 17 Do not take advantage of each other, but fear your God. I am the Lord your God.

    The point here is that you don't own the land, what you are buying is the crops.

    Or as a Biblical historian pointed out:



    When slaves (indentured servants) were acquired under the law, it was their labor that was purchased, not their person, and the price took into account the year of freedom (Lev. 25:44-55; Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12-13).

    https://wallbuilders.com/bible-slave...icas-founders/




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    1) It is relevant to your premise around secular moral codes. The last variant you offered argued that a secular moral code in modern America disagreed about slavery. The problem is that the modern secular moral code in America is about chattel slavery. If the Bible isn't referring to chattel slavery as I've supported, than this premise is rejected. Take an example:

    C1: Everyone likes apples.
    Counter 1: Steve doesn't like Apples.

    We seem to have a conflict. Until:

    P3: When Steve says Apple he is referring to the laptop, the argument is referring to the fruit.

    That is what is happening here, two separate terms are being conflated because the OP isn't bothering to distinguish what is meant in the relevant contexts.

    2) Slavery in the chattel system is inherent to the person, to the race. It is part of their identity, inescapable. That is very different in a moral context from it being the tasks you do. Saying, "no that isn't human it is a slave" is a very different moral statement than "that human being works for another human being."




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    That is a concept completely alien to the type of slavery you are suggesting is at play here. We literally had dozens of court cases and constitutional crises about this very concept in the US. In fact, it was the move from an indentured servitude type of slavery to chattel slavery in Virginia in the 1600s that provoked northern colonies to rule out that kind of system within their own charters.

    When Virginia changed its definition from a form of limited in time, work relationship to a "this race of people aren't human beings and are only property" we saw the rise of the abolitionist movement in the Colonies and in Britain based on the principle that this was unbiblical as pretty conclusively shown earlier.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    Additionally, since you added the imprudent "any way" modifier to your claim, you need to explain why; a) the Bible contains discussion of a repatriation price (a concept fundamentally at odds with chattel slavery/owning a human being rather than their services) and b) why that price is tied to the amount of labor they can do, not their status as a human being.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    None of that addresses the vocabulary or literary structure being discussed however. You are insisting on an English point that no one is claiming as a rebuttal for a discussion on Hebrew sentence and word construction.

    Again, return to the point I just issued where I already addressed those exact commentaries (as above or in my last post). Do you have a commentary that says that people, themselves are owned? If this was such an obvious concept, you would think that you could find a single commentary somewhere by a respected academic that says it unambiguously. I've offered several that reject your hypothesis after all. Can't you offer one, single unambiguous support?






    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    So any number of people coming together and dealing with morality outside of a religious system constitutes our shared moral system? So when NAMBLA came together and discussed and concluded that sexual activity between adults and children was a moral goal, that would be part of our secular moral system under your definition, right?



    If not, why not?







    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    It is relevant because it goes to our access to knowing what is part of that moral system. If we are going to evaluate this moral system both from what it supposedly contains and its alleged moral superiority, we need to know where to find its values.



    Your premise would seem to be that any effort or action outside of a religious context constitutes the workings of a secular moral system, is that correct?



    Your last clause is also interesting. How do we “objectively identify” the goals of this moral system? How were they objectively identified? This seems contradictory to your first response where you indicate that it is the actions of people coming together, clearly different groups of these people could have contradictory goals, and more importantly, a group of people coming together to set a goal is, by definition, subjective, not objective.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    Well giving your definition above, there are many goals that secular groups have come together to discuss and advocate for that aren’t contained in the law. If one of the definitions you offered was them coming together to change the law (amongst other things), then we have to acknowledge that the law can be out of step with our current secular moral code, right?






    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    Yes, sadly there are a lot of anti-Semitic groups that have a desire to shut down Nizkor (a site that defends that the Holocaust was, in fact, historical).



    Your analogy isn’t quite correct either. If someone were arguing that the goal of hockey is to get the puck in the net as evidenced by the fact that a lot of hockey players try to do that, then that would be an appeal to popularity fallacy. If, rather, they said the goal of hockey is to get the puck in the net as evidenced by the fact that hockey players try to get the puck in the net, that would be an appeal to their expertise, which isn’t a fallacy (since they do have an expertise in the game).



    I think if we look at the actual definition for an appeal to popularity, you’ll see why your original point that we know action x is wrong because “contemporary people in many places have worked to establish organizations and laws against it” is an appeal to popularity fallacy:







    The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

    1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).

    2. Therefore X is true.

    The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

    It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.

    This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persuasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.

    This fallacy is vaguely similar to such fallacies as Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Common Practice. However, in the case of an Ad Populum the appeal is to the fact that most people approve of a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Belief, the appeal is to the fact that most people believe a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Common Practice, the appeal is to the fact that many people take the action in question.


    Link from last post



    I’d add also the text for the appeal to common practice fallacy too since you seem to be almost exactly referencing that flavor of fallacy in your argument:





    Description of Appeal to Common Practice

    The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:

    1. X is a common action.

    2. Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.

    The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.



    There might be some cases in which the fact that most people accept X as moral entails that X is moral. For example, one view of morality is that morality is relative to the practices of a culture, time, person, etc. If what is moral is determined by what is commonly practiced, then this argument:

    1. Most people do X.

    2. Therefore X is morally correct.

    would not be a fallacy. This would however entail some odd results. For example, imagine that there are only 100 people on earth. 60 of them do not steal or cheat and 40 do. At this time, stealing and cheating would be wrong. The next day, a natural disaster kills 30 of the 60 people who do not cheat or steal. Now it is morally correct to cheat and steal. Thus, it would be possible to change the moral order of the world to one's view simply by eliminating those who disagree.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    Ok, if true, how do we know the proposition, “Action X violates the goals of our secular moral system” to be true?



    How can I know that, say adults having sex with children, violates our secular moral system if there are groups advocating against it and groups advocating for it?






    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    This is a bare assertion fallacy. Do you have evidence of these claims? The only surveys I’m aware of are the ones that indicate people are less denominational. Atheistic belief seems to be steady or declining the last time I checked. Regardless, their belief structure is a different claim than the one you are arguing.

    Do you have evidence that the secular moral system is “greatly more” subscribed to now? If not, you would need to retract that claim. Challenge to support a claim.








    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    This doesn’t support the claim. You need to offer support that whatever the moral code/system is, it is based on objective observations. Please support or retract that claim. Challenge to support a claim.





    I’m not trying to be a jerk here, but the status of the code as objective or subjective is critical to your argument. If the code is, in fact, subjective, your argument for its superiority is fallacious and the structure of your OP falls apart.






    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    I get that you are making that claim, but I asked you to support how you know that fact. Can you offer support that that claim is, indeed, a fact? Challenge to support a claim.







    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    You are still confusing whether people accept an objective, factual claim as true with whether it is an objective, factual claim or not.



    Is this statement a factual claim? “The sun revolves around the earth.”



    Yes, of course it is. It can be wrong, but it is still an objective, factual claim.



    Further you are committing a bit of an argument from ignorance fallacy here. Because an objective moral code hasn’t been proven to be true (a claim you haven’t supported) doesn’t mean that one doesn’t exist, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    Well that is a bit different. Individual elements within the system being objective aren’t really relevant. What is relevant, and necessary, to your argument is that the output of that system is objective. IE when your system says “murder is wrong” is it making that statement as a “it is wrong for everyone, for all time, regardless of individual opinions” or as a “we have determined that it is goes against our values?”



    Which statement is closer to how the system you imagine works?






    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    My last statement was that you just stated that the laws do not comport to the moral code. They both do not contain the entirety of the moral obligations nor only contain elements from the moral system.



    I determined those as the criteria for “real insight” because I am using the basic rules for comparing two groups.



    For example. Would I say “I understand Literature because I’ve read the collected works of Shakespeare?” Of course not, Shakespeare isn’t anything like the whole body of literature. Shakespeare also contains elements of poetry rather than literature.



    In order to understand what my reading of Shakespeare contributes to my understanding of literature, I need to understand a lot more about what the body of literature is, and which parts of Shakespeare contribute to it.



    Likewise here, if we are going to say that the laws are some kind of evidence of the existence of a moral pronouncement, we need to understand what part of your moral system is reflected in the laws and what part isn’t. Likewise, what part of the law come from places other than your moral system, etc.



    You need to offer a lot more detail if you are going to support, as you claim, that it violates “our” secular moral code.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    I get that you claim that it does, but given the broad array of possible goals being set by that system, do you have any support that this is an uncontested goal? IE are there no groups coming together outside of a religious context that disagree with that goal?



    And interestingly, are you saying that your moral code only applies to those who choose to adopt it? If so, you would agree that it is a definitionally subjective system then, right?




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    How can it be used to make objective assessments? Can you give an example of an objective assessment?

    For example, a group of people coming together, outside a religious context, to declare that X is wrong, isn’t an objective assessment. You could argue that X goes against their moral decision is objective, sure, but that isn’t an objective assessment about morality, it is an objective assessment about their subjective position on morality.

    Jan doesn’t like strawberry ice cream is an objective statement too, but it doesn’t mean Jan’s distaste for strawberry ice cream is objective.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    Then you are stating that your system is subjective by definition. If the moral assessments generated by the system are defined as dependent on who the people in that system are, it is definitionally subjective, right?




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    Actually eugenics was a moral system. Its fundamental tenant was that people who don’t produce enough don’t deserve to live. That is a moral pronouncement. The belief that a society should exterminate unproductive people to make itself better is absolutely a moral system. Eugenics held, at its core, the assertion that it was wrong to let “undesirables” procreate. That is indisputably a moral claim.



    I’m saying that we can’t take the superiority of any given moral system for granted. Your argument makes that assertion with no support. What reason or argument or support do you have to say that this moral system is better than any other?



    Eugenics made some objective moral claims as well. “People who make less than a living wage are parasites and don’t deserve to live.” I would imagine that you would argue your system is morally superior to that system. Fair enough, but why? What defense do you have to make that comparison. It can’t be simply that there are (possibly) some objective facts used in there somewhere, Eugenics had that as well. So what is it? What reason do you have to claim this secular system is superior?




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    You don’t seem to offer any evidence or reasoning to support this argument.



    Your statement was:







    This would make sense if you could provide a single reference where 'abad was used in Hebrew to mean "labour" as a noun.




    I offered 15.



    Given that I offered 15 times the required evidence level you requested, we can agree that my initial argument now “makes sense” according to your standard right?



    You asked for the use of the word as a noun, and I offered it. Is that sufficient or are we going to shift the goal posts a bit?




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    I’m assuming you were replying to sections as you read them and wrote this before consulting the end of my response.







    I think the point missed initially that gave you the trouble was that you saw the link for the “Root Form” of the word without explanation of what that meant. Root words in Hebrew (as in English) can become verbs, adjectives, nouns, etc. depending on what other prefixes and suffixes we add to them.





    In the text we were looking at, Strong’s was pointing out the root of the word was ‘abad, not that the word, in its entirety was ‘abad.



    In the verse under discussion, specific word used was,



    תַּעֲבֹדוּ



    This word has the possessive, plural form of: abodeh. Abodeh is the root abad with a definitive article in front of it. Definitive articles in front of verbs both in English and Hebrew make them nouns. The business, the hunt, the service, etc.

    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...gs=H5656&t=KJV



    You can see that with a variety of prefixes and suffixes that ‘abad fills in as verb, noun, and adjective.

    http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strong...n&isindex=5647






    IE the same noun you point out here is in the verse you reference. It becomes increasingly difficult to hold the distinction point you are offering given your statements that it “would make sense if had been used as a verb” and “that noun is abodeh,” etc.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    I think you might need to reread my response. I didn’t indicate that you claimed the most logical translation was that they owned a verb. Rather, you attempted to dismiss the evidence offered by saying “you can’t possess a verb” in post 31.



    That objection seems to fall by the wayside given both the evidence on Hebrew sentence structure offered and the clarification on the root vs word offered in the last post.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    Again, this is simply rehashing an earlier claim without additional evidence does little to move the debate forward.



    You made this claim in post 31 absent any evidence to support it. (So at the very least please support or retract that claim, Challenge to support a claim.)



    Further, you argument was rebutted in post 32. Specifically, rebutted with evidence.







    Returning to the text at hand, the verb's proper definition fits my explanation more closely than yours. In fact, your take would seem to indicate that the Bible is incorrectly asserting ownership of a verb (which you believe to be incorrect). Rather, it is noting that the service (labor) done for others is a possession through inheritance. If the verse was, as you state, referring back to the object of the last verse (something btw not done in biblical Hebrew, nor English until the 1200s) then the word 'achuzzah would not be present. That is a clarifying word in this context nothing that the following word, 'abad is a possession. It makes no sense, and rather should have been the pronoun 'el-leh. The lack of th at pronoun clearly indicates that no such "call back" was being offered. Rather, the possession in question is the word in position three, 'abad, which fits the more appropriate Hebrew grammar structure.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    That is a bit of a stretch of that reading. Especially given the other translations of the text as:







    31 If thou have a servant, entreat him as a brother: for thou hast need of him, as of thine own soul: if thou entreat him evil, and he run from thee, which way wilt thou go to seek him?


    [Septuagint Bible w/Aprocrypha]







    31If you have a servant, treat him as yourself; For as your own soul will you have need of him: If you treat him ill, and he depart and run away, Which way will you go to seek him?


    [World English Bible]



    The more accurate translation, given the Greek and Latin http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/sir033.htm, is that it is saying if you have even a single slave. There is nothing in either the Greek or Latin that limits the principle to a single slave. Rather, it uses the singular version of the noun for servant or slave, which in Greek also meant the indeterminate case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_nouns). IE, if they were to ask how many rats (we use the plural case) are in a closed box, they would literally say, “how many rat are in the box?”



    We can also see this in that none of the commentaries on Sirach reference any kind of limitation in the sense you seem to read it. https://www.studylight.org/commentar...sirach-33.html

    By your reasoning the entire Old Testament is applying to just the case where you have a single slave because the Hebrew is using the singular case of the noun as well.



    Do you have any structural evidence or scholarly commentary that supports your argument?
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch

    There are three relevant points here.

    1) The original claim was made by you in the OP: “To address slavery in the bible from a moral perspective, it is defined here as: "owning a person as property".”

    Thus it was the initial claim, there are literally no other posts before it. So… Please support or retract that the verse actually refers to the person, rather than you read it as referring to the person. Challenge to support a claim.





    2) In post 23 I use the term “rather than labor” as an example of another criteria of something that could be owned, not as a separate claim.



    3) That Hebrews were only allowed to own the fruits of the land and of property was already supported in post 32 (specifically in the discussion in Kiddushin) and post 39 (discussion about non-movables).




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    More importantly, given that we are making reference to others' understanding of moral law, the question you didn't answer seems relevant. If those Christians had access too, and referenced outside sources, why wouldn’t we in understanding their position?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Virtually all of them? How do you not know this?

    19 States allow schools to engage in corporal punishment: http://www.businessinsider.com/19-st...ishment-2014-3

    Most states still allow for judicial corporal punishment, even if it is essentially never practiced: https://www.academia.edu/10171334/Pr...ment_of_Adults

    Federal law allows for a variety of corporal punishments under statutes that generally aren't invoked very often (piracy, wife beating, etc.) http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/...2&context=iclr


    Can you address the merit of the point which is that corporal punishment does not equate to chattel ownership?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Speaking as a 14 year Army Officer that has taught courses on UCMJ at Officer Candidate School, I would say this is incorrect.

    You are incorrect about this reading. Article 93 bars cruelty or maltreatment (http://www.ucmj.us/sub-chapter-10-pu...d-maltreatment), that includes toxic leadership or random punishment (corporal or not). It doesn't include any punishments handed down through official processs such as Article 15s or Courts Martial.

    What you might be thinking of is Article 855, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. That article, however, only applies to a select set of corporal punishments, flogging, branding, marking, or tattooing. It doesn't apply to other corporal punishments used as "corrective training" or "inducement to comply." (http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/c...&context=yrlsa)

    Additionally, aside from the ultimate corporal punishment (capital punishment) most of the punitive articles within the UCMJ allow the Courts Martial board to direct punishment as it would prefer. This can include all kinds of corporal punishments as long as they don't fall under the "cruel and unusual" strictures specifically noted above. http://www.ucmj.us/category/sub-chap...itive-articles


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    And...?
    Of course if I destroy a tree that someone else owns it would be an issue, but that issue is indicative of their ownership, not the whipping.

    If the tree is owned by no one (as the original hypothetical actually put forward), I can whip it, right?

    My ability to whip it doesn't mean that I own the tree, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Red herring. I described whipping the pet, not generic discipline. We both agree that it is illegal to whip your pet right?

    But that you still own your pet right?

    Thus, it is possible to own something and not be allowed to whip it.

    Much of this is already moot given your above clarification that resulted in a formal fallacy, but it is important to clarify why your argument was a formal fallacy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    And? Why does coveting something mean that it is viewed as a property contract?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Which, as I pointed out, is a false dichotomy fallacy (and a begging the question fallacy since you presume your reading to be the correct one in order to reject evidence that it isn't the correct reading).

    Unless you have an argument that shows that educated writers for the last two thousand years have all gotten their reading wrong, and that future's reading is the correct one, this argument holds no water.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


 

 
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8

Similar Threads

  1. Men/women's guide
    By Just Me in forum Jokes and Humor
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 20th, 2008, 11:38 PM
  2. Slavery in the Bible
    By KneeLess in forum Religion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: November 21st, 2004, 08:13 PM
  3. The Bible condones slavery
    By 3rdPersonPlural in forum Religion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 27th, 2004, 11:06 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •