Slavery

[imhereforyou]

I saw someone say they're 'a slave to christ'.
The term slave/slavery has a negative connotation to most of us so it seemed odd to use the term in such a manner.
I get the meaning as it was used but I wonder how beneficial/positive it is to use such a word (or any other word) that has such a negative history in a way that is meant to be positive.

We all know words and their usage changes over time and even between cultures in current times, but as a teacher once told me "words have meanings - mean what you say and say what you mean."

Does society do this (use a word/term/phase that's know to be negative in a opposite manner) with any other belief system or is it unique within Christianity? Can you think of examples?
Is it healthy to do such a thing? Does, in this instance, using such a negative word/phrase/term in such a manner dilute, or take away the historical impact, word/phrase/term? Or does it make a positive meaning less positive?
Or should we be more loose with words and their meanings?

[Danmark]

If the arguments presented defending slavery as outlined in the Bible are valid as a practiced ordained by, or at least permitted by God, why shouldn't we return to it? The apologist's arguments for slavery suggest there is nothing immoral about it. Some of these arguments even extol its virtues, when properly regulated by God's ordinances.

If these are valid arguments, then why not advocate for the return of slavery? Of course, Jews could not be slaves and there is that pesky 'equal protection clause' in the U. S. Constitution, but as an ideal form, why not advocate for its return. Certainly God does not approve anything short of perfection.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 120 by Danmark]

Slavery was assumed, and prevalent everywhere. The authors of the bible simply provide a better set of regulations than their neighbors. Regulations which I wholeheartedly advocate, and honestly believe need to be reintroduced into this country as soon as possible. The slavery we have here today is barbaric and immoral, and needs to be replaced with biblical slavery which as I mentioned earlier makes no distinction between who can or can't be made a slave. It simply allows for those who are already of a superior moral character to engage in slavery voluntarily to pay off debts they wouldn't be able to otherwise. Someone else has already gone into the finer points so I won't bother repeating it.

What you have done is to redefine slavery to make it bear no resemblance to the slavery practiced for millennia.

The essence of slavery is ownership of humans which includes stealing the volition of other humans and substituting the owner's will

What you have done is to redefine slavery to make it bear no resemblance to the slavery practiced for millennia. There is no stealing whatsoever. They are working within the legal parameters of the civilizations they're engaging in commerce with.

You're also practicing the logical fallacy of 'equivocation' as you confuse 'servitude' with 'involuntary servitude.'

No, I'm not practicing that logical fallacy. I see quite clearly the distninction between the two and endorse both wholeheartedly as significantly more humane and moral than anything that is practiced in first world tyrannies today.

I understand the political position that 'everyone is enslaved by the rich who may exercise disproportionate control over the means of production. But calling varying degrees of economic/social stratification 'slavery' because some are richer than others is to change terminology to the point where communication is nullified.

Straw man fallacy. Slavery as you have already pointed out is essentially working or being forced to associate with others against one's will. Most would see no problem with a Jewish holocaust survivor refusing to serve a Nazi who personally gassed this Jewish person's family. A PETA volunteer might have a problem serving someone who is actively experimenting on dogs and cats. This doesn't negate the fact that being forced to work for those one would rather not is the law the land. Forcing one to work against their will is slavery and completely reprehensible. However, in the case of one who is destined to be a slave for their entire life, the opportunity to become free by the regulations governing Hebrew slaves is a significant step in the right direction. Another step would be to simply buy a slaves freedom.

The biblical narratives explicitly point out that usury is an instrument of war to enslave and destroy their enemies. This is one of the most effective ways to destroy a country. Case in point; The US. The European Union. Greece, etc. 100% of all tax dollars go towards paying off a debt that can never be repaid without going into more debt or eliminating all the money from circulation and then defaulting. It is literally theft by force. The banking system then steals the rest through inflation which is theft by fraud. The banks have set up a shell game, and loaned out money they never had to begin with. This is effectively the same game the good ol' god of the bible instituted to destroy their enemies. It worked then, and it still works splendidly now. People love this form of slavery and can't wait to dig themselves deeper and deeper into debt slavery. They pray that their loan applications will go through on automobiles that will be worthless long before they ever get through paying them off. When the banking cartels do this it's looked upon as a service. When God does it it's looked upon as either an instrument of war by his chosen people or as immoral by those who are already willingly enslaved.

Regardless of what type of slave we're talking about in the Mosaic law, they didn't have to pay for their own room and board. They ate and lived at the same standard of living as those they were enslaved to or in service to. Today people are living in shot gun shacks that fetch astounding prices in excess of 100's of thousands of dollars, and when they lose their jobs, they lose everything.

Certainly the OT lays out SOME guidelines about slavery, but that hardly excuses the practice of allowing people to be OWNED by others, particularly when the children of slaves are doomed to be slaves with ZERO chance for legal improvement.

Not only back then, but to this very day no one gives a hoot for silly terminology when their standard of living enjoys a significant improvement. When one goes from living on the street or in some horrid conditions and then sees a significant improvement, most couldn't care less how you want to label it.

How many in third world countries would change places in a heartbeat to be out of the business of searching through garbage and living on the street to be in a nice warm clean bed after taking a shower and getting into their clean jammies for a restful night's sleep followed by a fulfilling and productive day working for their new master who allows them to eat what he eats, and live at the same standard of living he enjoys? Oh, and the only catch is that they're now considered a slave? The answer is "ALL". Every single one down to the last infant would give their right arm to be a slave and live at a comfortable standard of living. None would choose to remain living on the street and eating from the dump just to retain their pointless status as "free". It would be laughable if it wasn't so tragically sad.

You appear to have missed a MAJOR point, that if we presume an infinitely good and powerful god, then why would this god make bad or immoral laws simply because mere human societies have 'always done it that way.'

You appear to have missed a MAJOR point, that if we presume that these laws are immoral just because you aren't looking at the relative benefits in relation to inconsequential labels; better to be a live dog than a dead lion. Better to be a slave living in comfort with a full belly, than a free man living in filthy rags and a stomach folded in half.

A true god should be able to set standards that are above the norm.

The True Scottsman fallacy. You appear to have missed a MAJOR point in that a foreign born slave was destined to be a slave for life, but had the opportunity to become free after serving his term, OR he could remain a slave if he so chose. The thing you don't want to look at is the fact that this is legislated at all. The fact that slaves wanted to remain slaves is a testament to how much more preferable it was to be a slave and live well than to be free to die in squalor.

The Bible makes it very clear that there are limits to what one can do with a slave, but the key distinction is whether one is an Israelite:

Yep,

“one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself� (Leviticus 25:47)

Slavery or servitude was a consequence of poverty, but the law wouldn't force one to become a slave except as a last resort. There were plenty of laws in place to help them out without recourse to servitude or slavery. The poor could glean the edges of fields or pick lingering fruit on trees after their fellow Israelites’ harvest (Leviticus 19:9,10; 23:22; Deuteronomy 24:20,21; Exodus 23:10). Also, God commanded fellow-Israelites to lend freely to the poor (Deuteronomy 15:7,8), and to not charge them interest (Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:36,37). Also, people were to automatically cancel debts every 7 years. And when a master released his debt-servants,he was to generously provide for them — without a “grudging heart� (Deuteronomy 15:10). The bottom line: God did not want there to be any poverty (or servanthood) in Israel (Deuteronomy 15:4). So, servant laws existed to help the poor, not harm them or keep them down.

God’s legislation required treating servants (“slaves�) as persons, not property. Genesis 1:26,27 affirms that all humans are God’s image-bearers. Job states that master and slave alike come from the mother’s womb and are ultimately equals (Job 31:13–15). First and foremost, they are human beings and should be treated with the respect all human beings deserve. The texts point out that they too were once slaves or servants and to remember how they were treated and to rise above the norms around them. So as it turns out they didn't look at their slaves as anything less than fellow human beings. Those who can't rise above looking at people as property are the ones who have the moral dilemma; not those who see their fellow human beings as bearing the transcendent value of the image of God

And the distinction between servants and slaves does not help your argument.

I don't recall making a significant distinction. You're the one who accused me of equivocation, now you're saying I make a distinction; evidently you think I'm doing both. Pointing out the distinctions between the two as well as why these distinctions are beneficial to each situation hasn't been refuted. Until then, it helps my argument.

Secular society has moved far beyond this primitive idea that social/economic status should be inherited.

Where do the texts indicate that status should be inherited? Describing an inherited status doesn't necessarily carry with it an imperative command. Secular society assumes inherited status. The incidence of poor inheriting anything other than poverty is quite high. Some get rich and some of the rich lose everything, but for the most part those who play it smart keep what they have while those who have little lose what little they have. Sure, some guy working at McDonald's could hit the lottery, but for everyone who does, there are millions who will never know anything but poverty.

Using existing societal norms to form eternal laws...

There's nothing to indicate that these were intended to be eternal laws. They're intended to deal with poverty and should poverty come to an end, then there would be no necessity for indentured servitude. When slavery is abandoned by their neighbors, they needn't purchase slaves from their neighbors, offering these people the only chance at freedome they would ever know.

demonstrates human based authorship, not divine.

It demonstrates human based authorship that approaches something unimaginably divine. Incomprehensible to most who haven't had the opportunity to experience different cultures and modes of thinking other than their own. Those who can't get beyond these simple tautologies that slavery is bad because owning people is bad because slavery is bad doesn't allow one to rise above simple tautologies and inconsequential labels.

[shnarkle]

If the arguments presented defending slavery as outlined in the Bible are valid as a practiced ordained by, or at least permitted by God, why shouldn't we return to it? The apologist's arguments for slavery suggest there is nothing immoral about it. Some of these arguments even extol its virtues, when properly regulated by God's ordinances.

If these are valid arguments, then why not advocate for the return of slavery? Of course, Jews could not be slaves and there is that pesky 'equal protection clause' in the U. S. Constitution, but as an ideal form, why not advocate for its return. Certainly God does not approve anything short of perfection.

I couldn't agree more! We need to get out there and advocate especially for the return of slavery and servitude as outlined in the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law allows for Jews to sell themselves to pay off their debts, and there is nothing contradictory that would necessarily violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Only in a truly free country can anyone have the option of selling themselves into slavery. Until we have that choice we can only look forward to a future set in chains.

[bluethread]

there is that pesky 'equal protection clause' in the U. S. Constitution

What about that pesky 'penal exception' clause in the 13th Amendment?

[Danmark]

If the arguments presented defending slavery as outlined in the Bible are valid as a practiced ordained by, or at least permitted by God, why shouldn't we return to it? The apologist's arguments for slavery suggest there is nothing immoral about it. Some of these arguments even extol its virtues, when properly regulated by God's ordinances.

If these are valid arguments, then why not advocate for the return of slavery? Of course, Jews could not be slaves and there is that pesky 'equal protection clause' in the U. S. Constitution, but as an ideal form, why not advocate for its return. Certainly God does not approve anything short of perfection.

I couldn't agree more! We need to get out there and advocate especially for the return of slavery and servitude as outlined in the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law allows for Jews to sell themselves to pay off their debts, and there is nothing contradictory that would necessarily violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Only in a truly free country can anyone have the option of selling themselves into slavery. Until we have that choice we can only look forward to a future set in chains.

Thank you for exposing your true beliefs. They condemn your argument. But you didn't go far enough. You only addressed slavery as applied to Jews. For non Jews selling themselves into slavery would enslave their children, grandchildren, great grand children, ad infinitum. Gotta love that mosaic law... if you have no universal moral compass. We can also go back to women not having the right to vote and being mere property of their husbands.

Not to mention:

'1. Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11) [Normal penalty.]

2. Failing to include salt in offerings to God (2:13) [Normal penalty.]

3. Eating fat (3:17) [That one’s “a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live.� All fat is to be saved for offerings to God. Normal penalty.]

4. Eating blood (3:17) [Normal penalty]

5. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve witnessed (5:1) [“They will be held responsible.�]

6. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve been told about (5:1) [Which sounds like hearsay. At any rate, “they shall be held responsible.�]

7. Touching an unclean animal (5:2) [NIV translates this as touching “the carcass� of an unclean animal. So if Rover dies, or you’re a worker in a pork plant, you’re in trouble here. Normal penalty.]

8. Carelessly making an oath (5:4) [Even if you don’t realize you have. Normal penalty.]

9. Deceiving a neighbour about something trusted to them (6:2) [Return the item and a 20% penalty, plus normal penalty.]

10. Finding lost property and lying about it (6:3) [Return the item and a 20% penalty, plus normal penalty.]

11. Bringing unauthorised fire before God (10:1) [God will smite you.]

12. Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6) [“You will die� and God will be angry at everyone. May only apply to the priesthood.]

13. Tearing your clothes (10:6) [“You will die� and God will be angry at everyone. May only apply to the priesthood.]

14. Drinking alcohol in holy places (bit of a problem for Catholics, this ‘un) (10:9) [“You will die.� May only apply to the priesthood.]

15. Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (cf: camel, rabbit, pig) (11:4-7) [“You will be unclean.]

16. Touching the carcass of any of the above (problems here for rugby) (11:8) [“You will be unclean.�]

17. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12) [“You will be unclean.�]

18. Eating – or touching the carcass of – eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (11:13-19) [“You will be unclean.�]

19. Eating – or touching the carcass of – flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22) [“You will be unclean.�]

20. Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (good news for cats) (11:27) [“You will be unclean.� Also applies to touching their carcasses.]

21. Eating – or touching the carcass of – the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard,the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon (11:29) [“You will be unclean.�]

22. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any creature which crawls on many legs, or its belly (11:41-42) [“You will be unclean.�]

23. Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4) [Actually, she’s unclean a week, and then another 33 days. Then she has to offer up a sacrifice.]

24. Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5) [Actually, she’s unclean a week, and then another 66 days. Then she has to offer up a sacrifice.]

25. Having sex with your mother (18:7) [The penalty for all the sexual sins in ch. 18 is that the participants are to be “cut off� from their people. Some have additional penalties mentioned below.]

26. Having sex with your father’s wife (18:8) [In 20:11, both are to be put to death.]

27. Having sex with your sister (18:9) [In 20:17, if you marry her, both are to be “publicly removed from their people�]

28. Having sex with your granddaughter (18:10)

29. Having sex with your half-sister (18:11)

30. Having sex with your biological aunt (18:12-13) [In 20:19, he will be held responsible for the dishonor.]

31. Having sex with your uncle’s wife (18:14) [In 20:20, they are held responsible for the dishonor, “they will die childless�]

32. Having sex with your daughter-in-law (18:15) [In 20:12, both are to be put to death.]

33. Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16) [In 20:21, if you marry her, “they will be childless.�]

34. Having sex with a woman and also having sex with her daughter or granddaughter (bad news for Alan Clark) (18:17) [No specific penalty given, but per 20:14 if you marry both of them, all three of you are to be “burned in fire.�]

35. Marrying your wife’s sister while your wife still lives (18:18)

36. Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19) [15:24 simply says the man will be considered unclean for 7 days. In 20:18, “Both of them are to be cut off from their people�]

37. Having sex with your neighbour’s wife (18:20) [In 20:10, both are to be put to death.]

38. Giving your children to be sacrificed to Molek (18:21) [In 20:2, the person is to be stoned to death.]

39. Having sex with a man “as one does with a woman� (18:22) [In 20:13, both are to be put to death.]

40. Having sex with an animal (18:23) [In 20:15, both are to be killed.]

41. Making idols or “metal gods� (19:4) [No penalty given.]

42. Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9) [To be left for the poor. No penalty given.]

43. Picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10) [To be left for the poor. No penalty given.]

44. Stealing (19:11) [No penalty given.]

45. Lying (19:11) [No penalty given.]

46. Swearing falsely on God’s name (19:12) [No penalty given.]

47. Defrauding your neighbour (19:13) [No penalty given.]

48. Holding back the wages of an employee overnight (not well observed these days) (19:13) [No penalty given.]

49. Cursing the deaf or abusing the blind (19:14) [No penalty given.]

50. Perverting justice, showing partiality to either the poor or the rich (19:15) [No penalty given.]

51. Spreading slander (19:16) [No penalty given.]

52. Doing anything to endanger a neighbour’s life (19:16) [No penalty given.]

53. Seeking revenge or bearing a grudge (19:18) [No penalty given.]

54. Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19) [No penalty given.]

55. Cross-breeding animals (19:19) [No penalty given.]

56. Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19) [No penalty given.]

57. Sleeping with another man’s slave (19:20) [“Due punishment,� but not death, just a ram for sacrifice.]

58. Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23) [No penalty given. May only apply to fruit trees planted in Israel.]

59. Practising divination or seeking omens (tut, tut astrology) (19:26) [No penalty, but in 20:6 they will be “cut off from their people� by God. In 20:27, they are to be stoned to death.]

60. Trimming your beard (19:27) [No penalty given.]

61. Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27) [No penalty given.]

62. Getting tattoos (19:28) [No penalty given.]

63. Making your daughter prostitute herself (19:29) [“The land will turn to prostitution.� No other penalty given.]

64. Turning to mediums or spiritualists (19:31) [No penalty given.]

65. Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32) [No penalty given.]

66. Mistreating foreigners – “the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born� (19:33-34) [No penalty given.]

67. Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36) [No penalty given.]

68. Cursing your father or mother (punishable by death) (20:9) [Death, as noted.]

69. Marrying a prostitute, divorcee or widow if you are a priest (21:7,13) [No penalty given.]

70. Entering a place where there’s a dead body as a priest (21:11) [I.e., if you’re a priest. No penalty given.]

71. Slaughtering a cow/sheep and its young on the same day (22:28) [May apply only to sacrificial animals. No penalty given.]

72. Working on the Sabbath (23:3) [No penalty given.]

73. Blasphemy (punishable by stoning to death) (24:14) [Death.]

74. Inflicting an injury; killing someone else’s animal; killing a person must be punished in kind (24:17-22) [Killing someone means death. Injuring someone mean punishment in kind. Killing or injuring another’s animal means punishment in kind.]'
http://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2012/06/13 ... lties.html

[Danmark]

there is that pesky 'equal protection clause' in the U. S. Constitution

What about that pesky 'penal exception' clause in the 13th Amendment?

Before you mention the Constitution or anything else for that matter, you should read the text. In pertinent part the 13th Amendment reads:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime....
Under Mosaic law, no crime is necessary. It is enough that your father was a slave.

This continued effort to defend, and even praise Mosaic slavery exposes its advocates' lack of internal morality. There is nothing new here. The story of Abraham and Isaac is classic. To those who advocate blind obedience to the dictates of "God," even killing your innocent child is not only permitted, but required, If God tells you so.

[shnarkle]

If the arguments presented defending slavery as outlined in the Bible are valid as a practiced ordained by, or at least permitted by God, why shouldn't we return to it? The apologist's arguments for slavery suggest there is nothing immoral about it. Some of these arguments even extol its virtues, when properly regulated by God's ordinances.

If these are valid arguments, then why not advocate for the return of slavery? Of course, Jews could not be slaves and there is that pesky 'equal protection clause' in the U. S. Constitution, but as an ideal form, why not advocate for its return. Certainly God does not approve anything short of perfection.

I couldn't agree more! We need to get out there and advocate especially for the return of slavery and servitude as outlined in the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law allows for Jews to sell themselves to pay off their debts, and there is nothing contradictory that would necessarily violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Only in a truly free country can anyone have the option of selling themselves into slavery. Until we have that choice we can only look forward to a future set in chains.

Thank you for exposing your true beliefs.

Your welcome.

They condemn your argument.

No, they support it.

But you didn't go far enough.

I went plenty far enough.

You only addressed slavery as applied to Jews. For non Jews selling themselves into slavery would enslave their children, grandchildren, great grand children, ad infinitum. Gotta love that mosaic law...

Good point. Thanks for reminding me of the addendum provided by the New Testament which points out that we are to treat the foreigner as if they were our homeborn fellow kinsman.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbori and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,..etc.

if you have no universal moral compass.

You're projecting.

We can also go back to women not having the right to vote and being mere property of their husbands.

Again, my arguments would still apply here as well. Better to be a wife in a nice home than one living on the street...etc.

Not to mention:

'1. Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11) [Normal penalty.]

Yep, there's really no need to mention any of that as once again, the New Testament settles that score with the penalty being paid by Christ. That's the wonderful thing about Christ. He takes care of each and every penalty within the Mosaic law leaving only the blessings associated with observing the law. It's a win/win.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 126 by Danmark]

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime....
Under Mosaic law, no crime is necessary. It is enough that your father was a slave.

This is provided as if slavery is a bad thing; it isn't. It doesn't need to be confined to some system of punishment. It doesn't need to be limited to some negative outdated connotation.

We could just as easily provide similar statements such as "Neither marriage nor cohabitation except as punishment for a crime..."
"Neither employment nor apprenticeship except as punishment for a crime..."
"Neither debt consolidation nor refinancing except as punishment for a crime..."

Having options is always a good thing. Being given the opportunity to have debts erased with dignity should be not only allowed but condoned by any moral society.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 116 by shnarkle]

You mean God had a better set of degrading regulations for humanity than did Jerusalem's neighbors.
And you worship this creature?
Wouldn't it be better to take Satan's role in this struggle and defy this monster? Even though you would know you would lose?

[alexxcJRO]

First, How does my assurance regarding a deities concern for me make it not possible for that deity to be apathetic or even hostile toward some?
Second, it is possible that a deity could be omnibenevolent, I just don't see that happening, so I am not going to defend that viewpoint. Third, what we had established is that the type of deity we are discussing is neither omnibenevolent nor omnimalevolent. I presume that you honor your parents, even though they are neither omnibenevolent nor omnimalevolent.

Firstly,

I did not said omnibenevolent or omnimalevolent.
I said benevolent or malevolent.
Q: Are you unable to read dear sir?:)))

Secondly,
Dear sir my parents are not omnipotent, omniscient, mortally perfect, super wise, just, merciful; they are deeply flawed humans.

Q: Why are you comparing supposedly perfect beings with deeply flawed beings?
That’s illogical.


Also I am not worshiping my parents.

Also my parents
-do not order some humans to inflict countless suffering and pain to countless non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals); to not show mercy and compassion to non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals);
-do not promises to inflict countless suffering and pain to countless non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals);
-do not inflicts countless suffering and pain to countless non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals). He burns alive, drowns countless of them. Do not kill countless of them by plagues, sword either directly or by proxy.

But your God does.

Q: Why are you defending, worshiping a capricious, malevolent, genocidal, infanticidal bully? Why are you defending a being that inflicts countless suffering, pain and death to innocents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals)

That passage is speaking of general goodness and compassion, not omni-benevolence. We know that to be the case, because later in that same psalm it says, (Ps. 145:18) "The LORD is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth. He fulfills the desires of those who fear him; he hears their cry and saves them. The LORD watches over all who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy." Adonai is not equally benevolent to all. That is the point that we were discussing.

Firstly,

The bible is clearly saying is benevolent, loving towards all, towards all he has created.

"8 The Lord is gracious and compassionate,
slow to anger and rich in love.
9 The Lord is good to all;
he has compassion on all he has made."

Q: Do you not understand what good to all, towards all he has created means? 😊)

Secondly,

The point is not wicked vs non-wicked dear sir is Israelites vs Gentiles, people from a specific geographical region vs the rest in regards to slavery.
The Israelites are no more superior then the rest of the world population.


Thirdly,

Non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals) are not wicked dear sir but innocent.
It is logically impossible for a non-moral agent to be wicked.

Q: So why is your God(who is suppose to be omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, super wise, just, merciful) showing malevolence towards them, huh?