Does God condone slavery TODAY?

[Zzyzx]

[Bust Nak]

[JLB32168]

[Bust Nak]

[JLB32168]

[Bust Nak]

You may not harass a slave and must allow him to lodge w/in your walls or you’ll be stoned to death unless you’re the slave’s owner in which case the rules don’t apply to you. That’s what you wish the text said; however, it doesn’t say that so your argument is w/o merit.

You may not recapture your own escaped slave and must allow him to lodge w/in your walls or you’ll be stoned to death That’s what you wish the text said; however, it doesn’t say that so your argument is w/o merit.

Okay – so you forfeited the value you paid. That speaks to money – not manumission of the slave. The Hebrew conscriptions explicitly demand manumission for severe beatings.

Again this is debt slavery, forfeiting the money mean exactly that.

That’s a separate question. The question before us now is if the Hebrew practice of slavery was typical or atypical. Capital punishment for forcing a slave to work on a day of rest or on a feast day is atypical for a time when a slave owner in other cultures had absolute power over a slaves life and could kill him/her w/impunity.

I will concede that much. I've looked and can find no other examples of capital punishment for not giving a day of rest for slaves.

Except you’ve not demonstrated that slave catching didn’t qualify as kidnapping. Seizure of a person with the intent of taking him somewhere else is kidnapping. That the relationship of slave/master is exempt is nowhere in the text.

All I need to do is point out that an economy cannot operate for long if a debt can be written off by the debtor at will without consent from the creditor.

That IS NOT what the text says.

The text doesn't say slave-catching is punishable by death either. Moreover, the text explicitly mentioned selling the kidnapped for money. It's clearly talking about making new slaves as opposed to slave-catching.

You’ve already admitted in your latest post that it was atypical for the Bronze Age.

No, I am saying it is typical in general, point out specific difference that is atypical doesn't help your case, when I can point out that slaves can be beaten, bought and sold as properties, some are owned as slaves for life, and children can be born into slavery.

No – there are a whole lot of other differences between most Bronze age forms of slavery and it’s Hebrew counterpart, which is why I said that Hebrew slavery was atypical for the time and which you’ve accidentally admitted is true.

I was referring to difference between the Hebrew treatment of male Hebrew slaves and the Hebrew treatment of female Hebrew slaves, as well as non-Hebrew slave of either gender; as opposed to difference between Hebrew treatment of slaves vs non-Hebrew treatment of slaves.

Riiiight – because capturing a man and forcibly taking him somewhere isn’t kidnapping.

You know full well it isn't always the case when you didn't give me a straight answer for my question with cops kidnapping criminals.

So most Hebrew nomads had armed guards??

Those who can afford slaves? Sure.

[JLB32168]

[Bust Nak]

[bluethread]

You have also seemed to have missed my point - I was trying to point out that the Hebrew treatment of foreign slaves is much more typical of slavery, even if one were to take what you've argued for here on face value.

That is because prisoners of war are presumed to be belligerents. There is a pathway to citizenship. Basically, pledging to not be a belligerent and accept the rule of law. This would effectively change this status.

[JLB32168]

You assume the judges or elders are easily fooled and would not listen to the plead of the owner. Just beat him according to the guidelines given: Must be able to walk afterwards, no eyes or teeth injuries.

I think you overestimate the ability of people in the Bronze Age to judge if another person’s injuries are real.

I am not assuming that, it clearly is addressing a third party. It says thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee.

How do you infer from this that delivering a slave to his master is wrong, but the master may retrieve him? People who kill may flee to a city and the murder victim’s family cannot pursue him, capture, and get revenge or they’ll be stoned for it. Anyone who bothers a runaway slave will be stoned for it. People fleeing are clearly given the upper hand. To say that things would suddenly switch for the slave owner seems incongruity.

Atypical in some aspects but typical in other aspects.

I was only interested in explaining how I could say that it atypical because you implied that Hebrew slavery wasn’t appreciably different from any other society’s practice of it.

We ARE arguing what the text say, Dude. It does not say running/escaping was effective manumission.

If you can’t return him and you cannot bother him then how is that anything other than effective freedom??

It is typical because other slaves gets days off for rest just like Hebrew treatment of slaves.

First of all, you don’t know if other slaves get days off. You certainly don’t know if they get off one day a week and more if there is a religious holiday. You certainly don’t know if any other society said that slave owner incurs the death penalty if he fails to give his slaves a day off.

[Bust Nak]

I think you overestimate the ability of people in the Bronze Age to judge if another person’s injuries are real.

No more than you are overestimate their willingness to trust a slave on his words. Again, if Hebrew slavery manumission was as trivial as you want us to believe, there wouldn't be provision for dealing with it, other than to say slaves can choose to be free at will.

Why do you need a clause about eye or tooth injury when at the slightest inconvenience to the slave, he can just say "for the record, I am escaping" and just like that he has freed himself.

How do you infer from this that delivering a slave to his master is wrong, but the master may retrieve him?

I don't need to infer that. It literally does not say the master may not retrieve him. Your thesis makes zero sense economically, plus you have to make more inference than I do textually.

As an aside we are not talking about right and wrong, but legal and illegal.

People who kill may flee to a city and the murder victim’s family cannot pursue him, capture, and get revenge or they’ll be stoned for it. Anyone who bothers a runaway slave will be stoned for it. People fleeing are clearly given the upper hand. To say that things would suddenly switch for the slave owner seems incongruity.

What's this about suddenly switching? People fleeing might have the upper hand once they've arrived at the sanctuary, nothing is mentioned for them having the upper hand before they have escaped to said sanctuary.

I was only interested in explaining how I could say that it atypical because you implied that Hebrew slavery wasn’t appreciably different from any other society’s practice of it.

And it isn't. Provision for beating, provision for retaining children as slaves, provision for trading and inheriting slaves as properties.

If you can’t return him and you cannot bother him then how is that anything other than effective freedom??

But you can catch him before he got too far or better yet prevent him from escaping in the first place.

First of all, you don’t know if other slaves get days off. You certainly don’t know if they get off one day a week and more if there is a religious holiday. You certainly don’t know if any other society said that slave owner incurs the death penalty if he fails to give his slaves a day off.

And you don't know if any of that applies to Hebrew, you and I are only going by what we read.