Does God condone slavery TODAY?

[Zzyzx]

.
Does God condone slavery TODAY?

I have encountered nothing in the Bible indicating that God condemns or even discourages the practice of slavery. Even “don't return escaped slaves� or “don't beat them to death: accept the practice of slavery.

In today's world slavery exists. Most enlightened / educated / informed people seem to oppose the practice. However, God does not seem to have anything to say on the matter.

Has God changed his mind? If so, how has that been made known?

[Bust Nak]

Did it entail capital punishment for the slave catcher?

No.

Were you able to find any example of the death penalty for a slave catcher at any time in history outside of the Hebrew practice?

claim that there is death penalty for a slave catcher in the Hebrew practice is still being disputed. Again I ask you, do you see the difference between "don't return fugitive slaves that has come to live amongst you," and "don't try to get your own fugitive slaves back?"

Does sentencing a slave catcher to death for engaging in his profession sound typical or atypical the institution of slavery?

No.

So you would have to pay a fine for doing those things. Indeed, there’s nothing about automatic manumission, which was Hebrew practice.

We are talking about debt slavery here, having your debt paid means exactly that.

Your source says nothing about manumission after seven years...

Look closer, follow the links, it depends on the amount of money involved it can be as little as one year.

So it is typical for societies to sentence a man to the death penalty for violating the Sabbath and by forcing a slave to work on the Sabbath (or any other day regarded as a holy day)?

No, but it is typical to give a day of rest to slaves.

The Bible sentences a man to death for kidnapping – which is what slave-catching is.

But it doesn't say that at all.

The provision is provided in the midst of an entire section dealing with slavery.

Don't know which verse you are referring to, but both Exodus 21:16 is and Deuteronomy 24:7 is about slave takers and not slave-catching.

I dispute the assertion that I didn’t provide them here, but let’s assume I’m recalling discussions on another thread. Are you seriously going to base an argument upon such an immaterial point??

No, but since you are disputing it, quote your post. I looked and didn't see anything.

Is that the only thing that it can mean?

I suppose not, but again, that interpretation was provided by 2 apologetic sites I found.

Since foreigners have not been mentioned prior to that or even immediately after that, it is unreasonable to assume that the riter meant to interject “foreign land� into the text??

Yes, because escaped slaves from the same place would be recaptured.

Yes, but you said that coming to your town/city only meant coming from a foreign country when clearly there were a multitude of Hebrew towns/cities.

Another town is a foreign land, people back then don't travel a lot.

The slave was considered a wo/man and not just simple property.

But property non the less.

The verse on kidnapping occurs in the midst of other things on slavery.
It is unreasonable to assume that this kidnapping is disconnected from the text around it.

I am not assume such a thing. I am making the distinction between taking a freeman and making him a slave, and catching an escaped slave.

You want to talk about reasonable - again I ask you, is it reasonable to be able to think an economy can function when one can wipe off any debt by selling yourself as a slave, then immediately manumitting without consequences?

I also want to point out that again, you didn't respond to my challenge that female and foreign slaves where treated different to male Hebrew slaves.

The suggestion that a chained slave was supposed to work a field of wheat, feed and water animals and/or drive them to pasture, and/or chop wood and draw water from a well (unless you’re going to suggest that the chains were three hundred feet in length) is absurd on its face.

That it is absurd should have been enough for you to know that is not what I was suggesting. I was talking about locking them up at night.

[JLB32168]

[Your] claim that there is death penalty for a slave catcher in the Hebrew practice is still being disputed.

Slave catchers kidnap their bounty. Kidnapping is a capital crime in the Hebrew confederation. Slave catchers commit a capital crime. It’s actually quite easy.

No.

The question didn’t require a yes/no. It asked if sentencing a slave catcher to death for engaging in his profession sounded typical or atypical.

We are talking about debt slavery here, having your debt paid means exactly that.

Your citation stated that if another man – not a slave – committed some crime against your slave then that man had to pay you money for it. It says nothing about hurting a slave and then manumitting him for it. Your source says debt slavery enslaved a man until he paid of the debt. If the payment was never met then the enslaved condition lasted to the next generation. Hebrew slavery; however, manumitted the man after seven years regardless of whether or not the debt was paid (since the debt was also canceled after seven years.)

No, but it is typical to give a day of rest to slaves.

Hebrew slaves were given one day off per week and more often if a religious holiday occurred. Failure to render such a rest period was a capital crime. The owner would be stoned to death (which of course manumitted the slave.)

Another town is a foreign land people back then don't travel a lot.

If a slave fled to a town then he was granted sanctuary. You implied or outright said that this didn’t mean Hebrew slaves but slaves from foreign lands because “town� meant “foreign� as in “not Hebrew.� You can’t get that from the text. You are supplementing the text with your own spin since it doesn’t say what you want it to say.

But property non the less.

Property cannot flee and remain free under pain of death.

I am making the distinction between taking a freeman and making him a slave, and catching an escaped slave.

You are saying that kidnapping doesn’t address slave-catching – that slaves can’t be kidnapped. They’re just caught and returned. The text says “kidnapping.� It’s makes no distinction between slave and free. You are interjecting your own bias into the verse to avoid saying, “Hebrew slavery was atypical.�

I also want to point out that again, you didn't respond to my challenge that female and foreign slaves where treated different to male Hebrew slaves.

No – I agree that they can be treated differently. They can be sold to foreigners – unlike Hebrew slaves. Hebrews couldn’t sell Hebrews to foreigners. That said, Gentile slaves were still free to feel their masters and if they fled to another Hebrew city the inhabitants of that city could not harass him/her under pain of death and kidnapping him/her also incurred the death penalty.

I was talking about locking them up at night.

So he would have to feel during the day.

[Bust Nak]

Slave catchers kidnap their bounty. Kidnapping is a capital crime in the Hebrew confederation. Slave catchers commit a capital crime. It’s actually quite easy.

So you'd like us to believe, do cops kidnap criminals? Or are there some forms of taking people that does not qualify as kidnapping?

The question didn’t require a yes/no. It asked if sentencing a slave catcher to death for engaging in his profession sounded typical or atypical.

Sorry, misread. It sounds atypical.

Your citation stated that if another man – not a slave – committed some crime against your slave then that man had to pay you money for it.

That's not what it says at all. Come on. It says if an owner committed some crime against his slave then the money he spent of buying the slave is forfeited. "Employing a slave to.... shall cause the forfeiture of the value paid for him or her."

Hebrew slaves were given one day off per week and more often if a religious holiday occurred. Failure to render such a rest period was a capital crime. The owner would be stoned to death (which of course manumitted the slave.)

That's quite barbaric.

If a slave fled to a town then he was granted sanctuary. You implied or outright said that this didn’t mean Hebrew slaves but slaves from foreign lands because “town� meant “foreign� as in “not Hebrew.�

I didn't say or imply that. I was highlighting the fact that a slave (Hebrew or otherwise,) would have to escape all the way to another town. Why? Because there would be serious consequence if the owner catches him. The point was the verse does not forbid slave owner from catching escaped slaves.

If manumission was as simple as you'd like us to think, there wouldn't be any verses dealing with slavery other than to say slaves can choose to become free men at will.

Property cannot flee and remain free under pain of death.

The point about kidnapping and slave-catching is still not resolved.

You are saying that kidnapping doesn’t address slave-catching – that slaves can’t be kidnapped. They’re just caught and returned.

That's right.

The text says “kidnapping.� It’s makes no distinction between slave and free.

So what? You are still equating kidnapping with slave-catching.

You are interjecting your own bias into the verse to avoid saying, “Hebrew slavery was atypical.�

No, you are interjecting your own bias into the verse to conclude that “Hebrew slavery was atypical.�

No – I agree that they can be treated differently. They can be sold to foreigners – unlike Hebrew slaves. Hebrews couldn’t sell Hebrews to foreigners.

Come now, is that the only difference?

That said, Gentile slaves were still free to feel their masters and if they fled to another Hebrew city the inhabitants of that city could not harass him/her under pain of death and kidnapping him/her also incurred the death penalty.

But it does not forbid a owner from catching him.

So he would have to feel during the day.

That's where armed guards would be handy.

[JLB32168]

So you'd like us to believe, do cops kidnap criminals? Or are there some forms of taking people that does not qualify as kidnapping?

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.

It says if an owner committed some crime against his slave then the money he spent of buying the slave is forfeited. "Employing a slave to.... shall cause the forfeiture of the value paid for him or her."

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.

That's quite barbaric.

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 was highlighting the fact that a slave (Hebrew or otherwise,) would have to escape all the way to another town. Why? Because there would be serious consequence if the owner catches him. The point was the verse does not forbid slave owner from catching escaped 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.

That's right. [i.e. that slaves can’t be kidnapped. They’re just caught and returned.]

That IS NOT what the text says.

No, you are interjecting your own bias into the verse to conclude that “Hebrew slavery was atypical.�

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

Come now, is that the only difference?

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.

But it does not forbid a owner from catching him.

Riiiight – because capturing a man and forcibly taking him somewhere isn’t kidnapping (except that’s not what the text says.)

That's where armed guards would be handy.

So most Hebrew nomads had armed guards??

[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]

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.

We have to look at the more likely option of the two, BK. If a slave is beaten, s/he can fake severe injuries for forty-eight hours and s/he’s automatically manumitted; the owner can protest until s/he’s blue in the face and those protests will fall on deaf ears. If s/he loses a tooth or an eye because of an owner’s maliciousness then s/he is manumitted. The slave has a much wider berth than the owner. If the text says “You may not return him or harass him� then it is simply unreasonable to assume that it also implies “unless you’re the owner; if you are then all bets are off and you can do as you will – beat the stuffing out of him for fleeing so he learns not to do it again.�

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.

Then I have sustained my assertion that the Hebrew institution was atypical.

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.

We’re arguing what the text says, Dude. It says that debts are forgiven and slaves are released.

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 . . .

How do you say it’s typical??? Slave owners die if they work their slave every day of the week. If a religious festival falls during the week then the slave gets two or more off days and the slave owner dies if s/he violates that directive.

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.

Different sets of criteria are still different, BK. You’ve not considered the fact that a slave was given the option of remaining with a family – presumably because s/he treated the slave well. There was a specific rite involved that made the condition permanent.

[Bust Nak]

We have to look at the more likely option of the two, BK. If a slave is beaten, s/he can fake severe injuries for forty-eight hours and s/he’s automatically manumitted. the owner can protest until s/he’s blue in the face and those protests will fall on deaf ears. If s/he loses a tooth or an eye because of an owner’s maliciousness then s/he is manumitted.

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.

If the text says “You may not return him or harass him� then it is simply unreasonable to assume that it also implies “unless you’re the owner; if you are then all bets are off and you can do as you will – beat the stuffing out of him for fleeing so he learns not to do it again.�

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.

Then I have sustained my assertion that the Hebrew institution was atypical.

Atypical in some aspects but typical in other aspects.

We’re arguing what the text says, Dude. It says that debts are forgiven and slaves are released.

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

We have to look at the more likely option of the two, a form of slavery that have checks and balances that makes monetary sense, or a form of slavery that has no serious consequence for one party ignoring the contract?

How do you say it’s typical??? Slave owners die if they work their slave every day of the week. If a religious festival falls during the week then the slave gets two or more off days and the slave owner dies if s/he violates that directive.

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

Different sets of criteria are still different, BK. You’ve not considered the fact that a slave was given the option of remaining with a family – presumably because s/he treated the slave well. There was a specific rite involved that made the condition permanent.

Or perhaps the prospect of leaving his wife and children behind as slaves while he goes free, was just too much to bear?

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.

[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.