Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeFrom gotquestions.org
Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20:
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
“Slavery has been a fact of human existence for almost as long as the human race has been in existence. Physical punishment to enforce compliance has been part of slavery for just as long. Corporal punishment has also been used in situations other than slavery. For example, physical chastisements were commonly employed as punishment for crimes committed and for the enforcing of discipline in the military. We are not so far removed from the time when brutal physical punishment was administered and accepted by almost everyone as legitimate. In the British Navy, flogging for disobedience or insubordination was common until the mid-19th century, and caning was used until the mid-20th century. In some places, such as Singapore, caning is still an official form of punishment for certain crimes.
The Bible does not forbid slavery, nor does it demand that every slave owner who wants to please God must immediately emancipate his slaves. Instead, the Bible at every turn calls for a treatment of slaves that would have been more humane than any found in the culture at large. The very idea that a master could be punished in any way for killing a slave would have been scandalous at the time Moses gave the Law. The culture at large made no attempt to grant slaves any rights. Slaves in Egypt or Moab, for example, were afforded no such protection.
Earlier in the same chapter, kidnapping for the purpose of slavery is condemned and the death penalty enjoined: “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession” (Exodus 21:16). (Ironically, the death penalty is another area where modern people assume their moral sensitivity is superior to God’s!) Furthermore, we must not make the mistake of equating slavery in ancient Israel with antebellum slavery in the United States. If the biblical dictates regarding slavery, including the regulations found in Exodus 21:16, 20–21, had been enforced in Western nations in the 1800s, then slavery in the United States would have been very different.
The regulations regarding slaves in Exodus 21, far from being inhumane, would have been far more humane and protective of the slave in Israel than in any of the surrounding nations.”
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeLet’s see how your non-stop trolling of God works out for you when you kick the bucket.
Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20:
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Originally posted by @romans1009Sorry, but how is providing a relevant biblical passage trolling? And instead of a trademark copy and paste, why not address the passage yourself?
Let’s see how your non-stop trolling of God works out for you when you kick the bucket.
Consider, "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."
Trying to be objective for a moment, if those words were taken out of their biblical context (and were not the word of God) and you encountered them in some other publication, would you not find them abhorrent? - That it's not okay to kill your slave, but if, after a beating, he gets up after a day or two, well that's perfectly fine. (You own him after all).
Originally posted by @romans1009What is the basis - in terms of historical evidence - for this assertion?
The regulations regarding slaves in Exodus 21, far from being inhumane, would have been far more humane and protective of the slave in Israel than in any of the surrounding nations.”
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeYour intent is trolling, and I hardly ever copy-and-paste unless it’s a relevant Biblical verse or passage.
Sorry, but how is providing a relevant biblical passage trolling? And instead of a trademark copy and paste, why not address the passage yourself?
Consider, "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the ...[text shortened]... r a beating, he gets up after a day or two, well that's perfectly fine. (You own him after all).
And I have addressed this. Slaves in Biblical times were, to my understanding, more accurately indentured servants - people who owed debts they were unable to pay and so became unpaid servants to the people to whom they owed money. That is far different than slavery as most people think of it (such as existed in America in the 1700s and first half of the 1800s.)
That said, I think God was working within the existing social structure. God gave man free will and autonomy. The fact man chose to have slaves and indentured servants can hardly be blamed on God.
Originally posted by @romans1009Sorry, but that still doesn't address the following:
Your intent is trolling, and I hardly ever copy-and-paste unless it’s a relevant Biblical verse or passage.
And I have addressed this. Slaves in Biblical times were, to my understanding, more accurately indentured servants - people who owed debts they were unable to pay and so became unpaid servants to the people to whom they owed money. That is far d ...[text shortened]... autonomy. The fact man chose to have slaves and indentured servants can hardly be blamed on God.
'If those words were taken out of their biblical context (and were not the word of God) and you encountered them in some other publication, would you not find them abhorrent? - That it's not okay to kill your slave, but if, after a beating, he gets up after a day or two, well that's perfectly fine. (You own him after all).'
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeAre you talking about a publication from Biblical times or a present-day publication?
Sorry, but that still doesn't address the following:
'If those words were taken out of their biblical context (and were not the word of God) and you encountered them in some other publication, would you not find them abhorrent? - That it's not okay to kill your slave, but if, after a beating, he gets up after a day or two, well that's perfectly fine. (You own him after all).'
Originally posted by @romans1009You said that, 'The fact man chose to have slaves and indentured servants can hardly be blamed on God.'
Are you talking about a publication from Biblical times or a present-day publication?
That much is true. However, we are still left with a biblical verse (attributed to God) that tells us, "...he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.'
Irrespective of whether God is speaking to ancient or modern man, are those really the words you want attributed to your righteous deity?
Originally posted by @romans1009What guidance did the Bible give to the kind of slaves there were in 1700s and 1800s America in terms of the duty to rebel and the morally correct nature of that rebellion?
Slaves in Biblical times were, to my understanding, more accurately indentured servants - people who owed debts they were unable to pay and so became unpaid servants to the people to whom they owed money. That is far different than slavery as most people think of it (such as existed in America in the 1700s and first half of the 1800s.)