Raf

I resorted to commentaries for three reasons. First, to show I had not made it up. Second, to show that there is a sound biblical basis for the conclusion. And third, to show that the same conclusion had been reached by scholars who would presumably be biased AGAINST my opinion, lending weight to the integrity of THEIR conclusions. It's easy to call someone unbiased when he agrees with you. But when he DOESN'T agree with you and STILL admits you're right about something, that demonstrates he has overcome his own bias in favor of the truth. That's valuable. The verses about escaped slaves don't support the contentions TnO claims they support. There are no verses to support such contentions.

Take the Money and Run. Free post.

Still mulling Eddie Murphy travels from Detroit to California to find out who killed his old friend. He enlists the aid of two detectives who can't seem to solve a case without breaking into a song and dance routine.

Because you are more moral than Yahweh.

Selected commentaries on Deuteronomy 23: 15-16 SOURCE: HTTP://WWW.FREEBIBLECOMMENTARY.ORG/OLD_TESTAMENT_STUDIES/VOL03OT/VOL03OT_23.HTML Source: http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/deuteronomy/23.html Source: http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/deuteronomy/deuteronomy-23.html Source: http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=wes&b=5&c=23 Source: http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/guz/view.cgi?book=de&chapter=023 Not one of these commentaries is written by an atheist seeking to discredit the Bible. They are all written by faithful believers who have a vested interest in promoting the notion that Yahweh did not allow Israelites to return ANY slave. That they interpret the verse in a manner less favorable to their bias is evidence that their conclusions have integrity. A biased person upholds his bias: he doesn't hand ammo to the other side. These verses don't refer to Hebrews who "quit" being slaves. The use of the term “within thy gates” in v. 16 is the tipoff that we're talking about foreigners, as stated or implied in all the commentaries. Some Bible translations incorporate this understanding into the very text: So the notion that a Hebrew slave could just walk off the job without consequence is without scriptural support. The Bible gives instruction not to return foreign slaves to their masters. It makes no such allowance for Hebrew slaves to run away without consequence. It doesn't even anticipate the scenario.

I'm sitting in a courtroom right now and I just heard a judge tell someone how much freedom they have in prison. You are clothed, fed and housed. They check up on you, make sure you're healthy, drug free. Lots of time to exercise. No overly burdensome work. Free! Yeah.

Jack Byrnes Captain Shakespeare Neil McCauley

Regarding Exodus 21 supposedly NOT talking about slavery, please do a word study on the relevant verse, look at previous and later usages of the word, and say again with a straight face that it is talking about a regular "bride price" and not the selling of a slave. Note that her going free is not accompanied by a certificate of divorce. She just goes free. Not to defend promiscuity, but do you believe a woman who is not a virgin when she gets married should be stoned to death? Yahweh does. Please tell me you are more moral than Yahweh.

Totally skipped the issue of polygamy. Totally misrepresented the sale of a slave as a bride price. Totally went full False Dilemma with selling a virgin being preferable to sleeping around with an STD infected whore. Totally ignored the (now completely relevant) fact that in the Torah, a woman who is not a virgin when she is married gets bleeping stoned to death . There are so many errors, fallacies and moral outrages in that one post that I think you have singlehandedly validated everything my thread title promises. I shudder at the thought of you having a daughter if you think the verses we're discussing describe a moral way to treat her.

Jack Crawford would have been a good one for a reverse clue. The other two names would have been Scott Glenn and Dennis Farina. Neither of them ever played Judah Iscariot. But Harvey Keitel did.

Nope. White guy. VERY well known.

One more time: when my employer has the right to keep my wife and son from me unless I agree to be an employee for life and have an awl driven through my ear to prove it, MAYBE I'll concede our employers own us rather than merely purchase our work product. This is no longer a serious conversation. Defending the selling of daughters and saying it's not slavery ... just WOW.

I stopped reading when he defended selling your daughter into slavery and claimed women have more rights than men. Maybe he is not more moral than Yahweh. But decent people are. I am honestly shocked. Define owned. Please.

I'd love to see my employer keep me from my wife and kids until I sign a contract vowing to be a lifetime employee. I see nothing honest about equating employment with being owned. Rather, I see a desperate effort to deny that this ghastly practice was approved by Yahweh. I know people who've practiced yoga for a decade who cannot do a better job of bending over backwards.

You are entitled to your opinion, but when you are unable to see the difference between being employed and being owned, you have seriously waved the white flag.

Not Harrison Ford

The star of this movie was originally the intended star of Beverly Hills Cop. But he made a lot of changes to that script that the studio could not afford to implement. So he left Beverly Hills Cop and took his changes to this movie project, which was based on a novel called "Fair Game." A decade later, "Fair Game" was made into a movie in its own right. It starred William Baldwin and Cindy Crawford, and by all accounts it was lousy. This film has a reputation as a flop, despite having the largest opening weekend in Warner Brothers history up until that point. The movie has no sequels, though its star is not exactly what one would call averse to the idea of revisiting the next chapter in the lives of his characters.

It was the "died during sex" that did it.

Hill Street Blues

I'm inclined to agree that a thief who has to sell himself will go free once his debt is paid or when the seven years are up. Not 100 percent sure, seeing as the verse never referes to the thief as an ebed. What is that word? Does the torah ban forced slavery? For all? The thread topic is NOT "was America's south more moral than Yahweh?" Comparing Biblical slavery to America's south is an argument from cultural relativism and is invalid for reasons we've already discussed. We're trying to learn whether Biblical slavery stands on its own, morally. Thus far, in my opinion, you have not made the case for this, though I do give you credit for trying. Nonetheless, you are omitting enough features of ebeddery to call your conclusion (that it's moral) into question. I assume you have more to post on the subject, so I'll exercise more patience and wait for it. Same comment as above. That's not "running away." That's "quitting." They are entirely different terms, with good reason. You don't run away from your job. You quit. Actually, it is not used because it isn't right. My employer does not "own" me. They own the work I produce, because they are paying for it. But they do not "own" me. I'm reserving comment on that last point for the simple reason that I haven't done enough to document it, but the notion that a runaway slave didn't have to go back is widely agreed to be referring to slaves from outside nations coming into Hebrew land, NOT ebeds in Israel running away from their masters. I'm sticking my neck out making this statement. When I have time to find and check the source of this belief, I will post it and, if necessary, retract my comment. In case it's not clear, I am not done either.

I think waysider's pithiness beautifully complements a reference that is on-target, relevant and highly effective.

"O.K., show of hands. How many people want to be robbed by this group?"

The movie is Newsies. Free post.

Batman Kim Basinger L.A. Confidential

We should all be grateful for Tzaia's unbiased, logically sound, insightful and irrefutable analysis of this thread and the history of religion as it relates to morality in society.