From the perspective of the torah, there were only 2 ways that someone actually became an ebed (besides coming from another land with other laws), but in regards to what Yahweh himself allowed, there were only 2. The first is found in Exodus 22:1-3 "if a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox and four sheep for the sheep. If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. "
So rather than rot away in a prison learning with other prisoners a "better"(cough) trade, they were made to work off their debt.
I think you could make the case that this is more moral than imprisonment. I'm curious to know whether he goes free once the debt is paid. In any event, that is not "slavery," that is making restitution after committing a crime. If he does NOT go free once the debt is paid, then we're talking slavery. But the bottom line here is that this is an example of punishment for a crime, not "slavery."
The second way is found in Leviticus 25:35ff "‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you. Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you. You must not lend them money at interest or sell them food at a profit. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God. If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors"
I find the phrasing interesting. "Do not make them work as slaves." This already tells you that we are distinguishing between these people and other "slaves." As such, the issue under observation here is the slaves, not the people who must not be treated as slaves.
So if they were poor, first and foremost, love, and take care of them was the rule, in fact that was the rule for anyone.
We are explicilty not talking about slaves here.
But if the poor themselves realize they can not take care of themselves, their family, and they do sell themselves as a servant,ebed, they were not to be treated as an ebed. Though technically they still were one.
Yes, technically they were. But they were not to be treated as slaves. So how are the slaves treated? Why the distinction? If being a slave was so "ok," then why insure that people who sold themselves into ebeddery were not to be treated as such? Aren't you implying here that being a slave was NOT "ok," if people who sold themselves out of debt were not to be treated as slaves?
While these were the only 2 ways the torah allowed...
As previously noted, these were NOT the only two ways the torah allowed. A child could be born into it, through no fault of his own, and held from his father as the property of his master unless the father agreed to become a slave for life, a verse whose significance you have yet to address.
... there was one other class of servants, ebeds, handled in the torah. And those were ones coming from other nations with their own laws and contracts. Thus, how they became a servant, ebed, was out of the hands of other nations. But God allowed them to be purchased by the Israelites, and enjoy the freedoms other nations did not allow.
That these foreign born slaves were treated better than other nations would have treated them is not really relevant. The issue is that they are slaves, period, and NOT given the same protections as Hebrew slaves. More on that later, since you did ask.
So what are some of these freedoms? First, if the servant, ebed, decided to run away, no one was allowed to stop them. If they thought they could do better on their own, they had the right.
Deuteronomy 23:13ff "You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him."
Fascinating verse. If a slave runs away he is not to be returned to his master. Note, it does not say "if a slave decides to quit, the master must let him go." That would be how a moral person would phrase it. But in this case, the master's perspective is missing. Why is that? And why doesn't the Bible simply instruct, "he shall be free"? It just says don't send him back. What if the master arrives to claim him? Nothing says he can't. In fact, as the master's property, the slave MUST go back. So kudos for not requiring people to return slaves, but it's hardly "freedom."
They are required to have a day off each week, the sabbath as well as enjoy the holy days and festival weeks.
Exodus 20:10 "But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns."
Deut 16:10 "Then celebrate the Festival of Weeks to the Lord your God by giving a freewill offering in proportion to the blessings the Lord your God has given you. And rejoice before the Lord your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name—you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, the Levites in your towns, and the foreigners, the fatherless and the widows living among you."
So the slaves don't work on the sabbath day or the holy days. Neither do the animals. Your point?
Make no mistake, being a servant was work. But there was a reason they were one. They were not allowed to be mistreated, else they could go free. (Ex 21:26ff)
FASCINATING that you cite the verse but don't quote it. I can't blame you. It's ghastly. Here are the verses, with a bit more thrown in for context:
20 “If a man beats his slave to death — whether the slave is male or female — that man shall surely be punished. 21 However, if the slave does not die for a couple of days, then the man shall not be punished — for the slave is his property.
...
26 “If a man hits his slave in the eye, whether man or woman, and the eye is blinded, then the slave shall go free because of his eye.
27 And if a master knocks out his slave’s tooth, he shall let him go free to pay for the tooth.
So let's be clear: beating the slave is FINE if the slave doesn't die or suffer serious injury. The master does not get punished for that. A few lashes on the back? As long as you don't take out his eye or knock out his tooth, you're ok. To say "they were not allowed to be mistreated" is demonstrably false. They WERE allowed to be mistreated. They just weren't allowed to be killed or mutilated. Well. That's nice.
Course, if they were mistreated, they could run away also.
Then they would still be slaves. They would just be slaves who had run away. The notion of being able to simply "quit" is absent from the Bible.
The main reason one has to remember that they were a servant, were either because they were to poor to take care of themselves and couldn't find anyone able to do so, or they were a thief and needed to pay back their debt.
Or they were born into it. Or sold into it by their dads.
You are correct, they could become an ebed either of those ways.. Let's start with the latter mentioned. Selling of a child as an ebed.
I didn't say child. I said daughter.
The only way this would happen was already mentioned, that is the family is too poor to take care of themselves and it falls on the people to take care of them.
That statement is without scriptural support. Sure, that is ONE way it could happen. But "the only way?" Not what the Bible says.
If they still are unable to take care of themselves, then rather than allowing their children to die, they can sell them to another family in which case they were to be taken care of the same as an Iraelite servant where they were not to be given hard work as a normal servant.
This is a false dilemma. I note how you juxtapose "allowing their children to die" with selling a daughter into slavery, as if those were the only two options. Giving the child up for adoption would be a much better option than selling a daughter into slavery. Note also that this verse [Exodus 21:7 ff, which I will quote in full momentarily] says nothing whatsoever about the father's motivation (escaping poverty, debt, etc). And if it IS for those reasons, it is treating the girl as the father's property rather than his progeny. There are many more options available besides "selling my daughter as a sex slave" and "letting her die." ESPECIALLY for an omniscient God who is able to say "here's how you handle this situation." For a moral person, selling the child would not even make the list of options.
Here are the verses.
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not please the man who bought her, then he shall let her be bought back again; but he has no power to sell her to foreigners, since he has wronged her by no longer wanting her after marrying her. 9 And if he arranges an engagement between a Hebrew slave girl and his son, then he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but must treat her as a daughter. 10 If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing, or fail to sleep with her as his wife. 11 If he fails in any of these three things, then she may leave freely without any payment.
It would be very much like a temporary foster family.
Please read the verses again. It is describing NOTHING like a foster family. Egads. She's a sex slave. Concubine. Handmaid. Maidservant. Not an ebed, I acknowledge, but still relevant to the context of this thread. Read it. Unlike the male ebed from a few verses earlier, she does NOT get the "go free in the seventh year" clause. She explicitly does not get that. Male slaves got freedom. Female slaves did not. The master can sell her back (whether this is before or after he's "used" her is not specified, but let's be generous and presume it's before). He can't sell her to foreigners. Well, that's nice. I guess that means he can sell her to another Israelite, which sounds very much like a slave trade and nothing at all like a foster family type of situation.
Now, the master CAN give the girl to his son. At that point, he has to treat her like a daughter-in-law. Well, that's nice. No, really, it is.
Or the master can marry her himself (note that she doesn't seem to get a vote here. Is THAT moral? I know it was the cultural norm, but is it moral? Now, if the master marries the girl himself, AND he takes another wife, he has to... wait, what? That's... isn't that... wait just a cotton picking minute (pun gleefully intended)! Yeah, we haven't even touched on polygamy in this thread. Do you believe monogamy is more moral than polygamy? God doesn't seem to have an opinion. He's like, "Whatevs. If your culture allows it, fine. If it doesn't, well, I'd prefer one man one wife, but if you have more than one wife, I'm good with that too."
o.....k....?
So if the master decides to make his slave girl his wife, she stops being a slave right? Wrong. She's just treated differently. But there's a whole new rule: he has to keep feeding, clothing and banging the slave girl. Otherwise, she can go free without payment.
What the bloody hell? That's what it says. Clearly. He doesn't even seem to have to divorce her. Just, go.
That's not freedom for mistreatment, mind you. That's dismissal. I've used you. I'm done with you. I don't owe you jack. Begone!
Fascinating. Moral? No, not by your standards. If you say it is, I just won't believe you. If you appeal to cultural relativism, you've already lost. God should be setting moral rules and laws, not submitting to cultural norms. A moral God would recognize those verses as monstrous. But they were appropriate for the culture that invented this God in the first place.
Except that is in one case. And that was rather than JUST trying to keep their kids alive, it was seen better that they could give their daughter to marry into a wealthy family that she would be family with privileges rather than a servant, then they did that, but then, they weren't an ebed.
No. They were what we described above.
And no, I wouldn't consider either of those scenarios a moral outrage.
I don't believe you. And as evidence, I put forward that before you said it was not a moral outrage, you did not posit what the Bible actually said on the subject, which is certainly morally outrageous.
Sure, involuntary for the kids, but go ahead, let them die.. That sounds moral!
False dilemma.
They weren't allowed to sell them if they could afford to care for them, and they weren't treated as an ebed. Heck even an ebed isn't treated like what most think of as a slave either.
We've been over that.
As for the other mention. Being born into it. Of course this would only be for the foreign servants with one slight exception and that is one of the verses you had brought up much earlier, but I won't handle just yet.
Gee, I wonder why not.
Instead lets handle the foreign servant, and yes, their offspring. Being part of the ebed's family of course helped their family and went whereever their family lived and helped out. As mentioned earlier, every member of every family worked, and that was because it was needed just to survive in the agrarian culture they lived in. So yes, the sons and daughters worked with their parents. BUt as mentioned before, if they decided to leave the family they worked for, even though being from a foreign land, had the freedom to leave just as any Israel ebed and the Israelites were not permitted to force them to return.
I'm curious as to which "protections" you are referring to, Raf, that the foreign born ebed did not have available?
They did not have the "freedom to leave." That is a deliberate misrepresentation. They could escape, and people would not be allowed to return them. But that is not at all the same as "freedom to leave." Now it should be noted that according to some scholars, the "escape" clauses only refer to slaves from foreign lands who escape into Hebrew land. I'm not sure that is accurate, but if I come across solid citations, I'll be happy to share them.
Which protections am I referring to that applied to Hebrew slaves but not foreign? For one, the freedom after six years.
Leviticus 25: 44 However, you may purchase slaves from the foreign nations living around you, 45 and you may purchase the children of the foreigners living among you, even though they have been born in your land. 46 They will be permanent slaves for you to pass on to your children after you; but your brothers, the people of Israel, shall not be treated so.
I think you could make the case that this is more moral than imprisonment. I'm curious to know whether he goes free once the debt is paid. In any event, that is not "slavery," that is making restitution after committing a crime. If he does NOT go free once the debt is paid, then we're talking slavery. But the bottom line here is that this is an example of punishment for a crime, not "slavery."
I guess I assumed you knew, but yes, any ebed was free to go once their debt was paid or their contract was up. That included foreign ebeds, if they paid for the price paid for them or they fulfilled their contract, they were to be set free.
I find the phrasing interesting. "Do not make them work as slaves." This already tells you that we are distinguishing between these people and other "slaves." As such, the issue under observation here is the slaves, not the people who must not be treated as slaves.
It nust be noted that "slave" ebed is not the word for "forced" slavery. There is a hebrew word for this. So the word ebed itself means something different to what was done in America's south. Ebed is used of those who work for another and has quite a range of meaning. So yes, there are distinctions even among the ebed. From the basic person who was an ebed of the land to those in the temple or a soldier who was an ebed of the kingdom. The word itself described most workers. And in this section basically is saying that those who are poor and must sell themselves to survive should not be taken advantage of and given hard work just because they are desperate.
As previously noted, these were NOT the only two ways the torah allowed. A child could be born into it, through no fault of his own, and held from his father as the property of his master unless the father agreed to become a slave for life, a verse whose significance you have yet to address.
This has not been addressed yet, no. But it will.
Fascinating verse. If a slave runs away he is not to be returned to his master. Note, it does not say "if a slave decides to quit, the master must let him go." That would be how a moral person would phrase it. But in this case, the master's perspective is missing. Why is that? And why doesn't the Bible simply instruct, "he shall be free"? It just says don't send him back. What if the master arrives to claim him? Nothing says he can't. In fact, as the master's property, the slave MUST go back. So kudos for not requiring people to return slaves, but it's hardly "freedom."
Let's remember first that being an ebed was not "forced". It is a matter of a contract and responsibility that one was an ebed, so yes, it is running away from the contract that was agreed upon. Just as anyone leaving their employer today runs away from their commitment by not showing up or just leaving. As for a master "claiming" an ebed, there is nothing that gives him that right anymore than your emplyer could complain you ran from your committment. I realize you are caught up with the word "own" as if it means something uniquely different as if it can be treated as any normal piece of property, but it doesn't. Animals were to be returned right away if they left. Other property was to be returned. It is the view of the culture as everyone was "owned" by someone. Everyone had a master(lord). And even technically today the word "own" could be used in the case of an employer, it just isn't because it doesn't sound right. The english word means to have some rights over something, not necessarily exclusive. Your employer owns you for the time you are working for him in the sense that he hold rights to what you do during that time. But irregardless of today's vernacular, in the culture we are speaking of, which is what really matters, everyone was owned by someone. Your parents owned you since birth and until adopted or wed, never gave up that right. You were the property of your employer. You also were the property of the city you dwelled in. That doesn't mean they could do anything with you. It just meant they have some rights. And really is little different than today. We just don't like to use the word. Yet, if there was a draft, you are the property of this nation. There are laws, and as the property of the land you live in, they have rights that can be enforced. And when speaking of the ebed, the torah specifically gave them the right to leave, run away, and no, they did not have to go back.
FASCINATING that you cite the verse but don't quote it. I can't blame you. It's ghastly. Here are the verses, with a bit more thrown in for context:
20 “If a man beats his slave to death — whether the slave is male or female — that man shall surely be punished. 21 However, if the slave does not die for a couple of days, then the man shall not be punished — for the slave is his property.
26 “If a man hits his slave in the eye, whether man or woman, and the eye is blinded, then the slave shall go free because of his eye.
27 And if a master knocks out his slave’s tooth, he shall let him go free to pay for the tooth.
So let's be clear: beating the slave is FINE if the slave doesn't die or suffer serious injury. The master does not get punished for that. A few lashes on the back? As long as you don't take out his eye or knock out his tooth, you're ok. To say "they were not allowed to be mistreated" is demonstrably false. They WERE allowed to be mistreated. They just weren't allowed to be killed or mutilated. Well. That's nice.
I'll go ahead and handle these verses so you understand what is being said. First, what is NOT being said is you have the right to beat your ebed. No, it doesn't say that. Just as the torah never says you may divorce your spouse. Only "if" you divorce this is how to handle the situation. 'IF" is what it says. Not, go and do it. Not,you have the right. Lest we all forget, the torah says specifcally to what? Love. And if you are not loving your ebed, then you are aleady ignoring what it says. This is written for the judges, when a dispute is brought before them, how to handle it. If you find someone whom we can all agree is not loving. Who already is going against the torah, but it can and does happen, people do break laws everyday. Heres how to handle it.
The next thing is most people like to emphasize just as you did, "his property".. But ask yourself, were they put to death for killing their animals? Were their normal property required to be returned to them if found? Did they have to give up their house if they harmed it? So you have to admit, they aren't to be treated just like any other piece of property. No, I'm not trying to be relativistic here, just pointing out a fact. It must be understood with the Eastern mindset of owning here, of which they had some rights, but not exclusive as if it were normal property.
The next prooblem we have here is the translation of the word if he "does not die" for a couple days. As if, as long as the person survives for a few days, no punishment. But the word itself means to stand strong, not just survive.
But even if he was just to survive, why the leniency. Again, this is a torah to help guide the judges. Not a statement about it being ok to harm people. Basically would be like someone who got in a brawl and the cops were called. If the guy died, that was murder. But if all you can show is marks and bruises, then since they had a contract with you worth money, you just paid it off as retribution. The ebed goes free. But the master is not punshied any further than the payment. While we are on the subject, again, remember that this is the torah which means guidance and teaching. It isn't black and white. The judges had freedom. And many of the ebeds were convicts and so it could get rough, and this is a general teaching on how to handle it.
Relating to what TrustandObey has written with clarity and good sense. Today we have landLORDS over their renters. And with our economy having a higher and higher difference between the rich and the poor, we also at times have homeless people, which may not be actual slavery, but then might be worse when your master or employer treated you well. In contrast, in the Old Testament I have read some scriptures that indicate all the families of Israel should be able to own their own property to live on. At least that was the way the nation of Israel began after the 40 years in the wilderness after leaving Egypt. Perhaps I will have time to look up scriptures showing this later, but lately I have been the equivalent of a worker bee in providing goods and services to customers.
A landlord can't keep your kid until you catch up on the rent.
Just saying.
Slavery v. Homelessness is another false dilemma. There are other options. Shelters, for example.
Mark, what you call clarity and good sense, I call skillful evasion of key issues. I don't know why you feel the need to grade the papers of everyone who agrees with you, but it's a level of bolstering that seeks to validate an opinion by praising it. TnO writes with clarity and good sense. The NBD is unbiased. Your posts start so frequently with unwarranted praises for what others have written that the trend is becoming a parody of itself.
Here's an example of evasion:
TnO tells us the ebed is not a forced slave. There's another word for that. Missing: does the Torah permit forced slavery? It does. So why are we discussing the ebed?
TnO tells us the ebed goes free after the debt is paid. I trust that, but where is the citation? And where is the evidence that this applies to thieves?
I'm amused at the lengths you guys will go to in order to defend slavery. Rename it. Redefine it. Insist it's not that bad. IT BEATS DYING! You would never do this in defense of Allah.
Oh, and lest I be accused of engaging in a personal attack, let me be clear: I am objecting to an invalid form of argument that bolsters a concurring argument through praise. That is the thrust of my point. And it is not the first time Mark has done it. It is only the first time I'm calling it out (because it has become predictable)
Mark, what you call clarity and good sense, I call skillful evasion of key issues. I don't know why you feel the need to grade the papers of everyone who agrees with you, but it's a level of bolstering that seeks to validate an opinion praising it. TnO writes with clarity and good sense. The NBD is unbiased. Your posts start so frequently with unwarranted praises for what others have written that it is becoming a parody of itself.
There goes Raf again trying to divide and then conquer, which Jesus warned us about and spoke against. This right after I give another poster a compliment before I make a statement of my own. That tactic will not work for me and it should not work against anyone here.
Often when TrustandObey makes a post here he does a good job of research before he makes his post.
I quoted that in full lest I be accused of removing it from its context, but to be clear: Calling something "unbiased" or an example of "clarity and good sense" doesn't make it so. In fact, the only reason you seem to have for such assertions is to bolster the credibility of what TnO posted without doing the slightest bit to confirm it, verify it, or contribute to the discussion. You're certainly welcome to the opinion and welcome to express it, as I am welcome to challenge TnO's post and call out the fallacious effect of your decision to bolster it.
In other words, the tactic of bolstering does not work against me and it should not work for anyone else who may be reading.
Who am I trying to divide? Please inform us all, or STOP MAKING FALSE ACCUSATIONS.
By the way, thank you for quoting my post so I could go back and fix the grammatical errors.
Well then let me give another poster a compliment on their posts, without you feeling the need to mention this. Would it be O.K. if I gave you a compliment on one of your posts? Likely yes, but for a person that you don't agree with on a subject such as this, perhaps not.
And here is my original not long post with one line of a compliment for another poster followed by a few lines of actual information. So what does Raf do? Does he focus on the actual information? Clearly not. Instead he only opposes the compliment that I give to another poster here.
Relating to what TrustandObey has written with clarity and good sense. Today we have landLORDS over their renters. And with our economy having a higher and higher difference between the rich and the poor, we also at times have homeless people, which may not be actual slavery, but then might be worse when your master or employer treated you well. In contrast, in the Old Testament I have read some scriptures that indicate all the families of Israel should be able to own their own property to live on. At least that was the way the nation of Israel began after the 40 years in the wilderness after leaving Egypt. Perhaps I will have time to look up scriptures showing this later, but lately I have been the equivalent of a worker bee in providing goods and services to customers.
I already addressed the information you asserted. Then I addressed your bolstering. Finally, I addressed your bearing falsewitness against me. Thanks for understanding.
I already addressed the information you asserted. Then I addressed your bolstering. Finally, I addressed your bearing falsewitness against me. Thanks for understanding.
Raf, at least try to be truthful. In my recent post I did not address you at all. Below is the post again. And from this you call giving another poster a compliment, "bolstering" and with the stating of my views "bearing falsewitness against you". Again, at least try to be truthful. Now you are not.
Relating to what TrustandObey has written with clarity and good sense. Today we have landLORDS over their renters. And with our economy having a higher and higher difference between the rich and the poor, we also at times have homeless people, which may not be actual slavery, but then might be worse when your master or employer treated you well. In contrast, in the Old Testament I have read some scriptures that indicate all the families of Israel should be able to own their own property to live on. At least that was the way the nation of Israel began after the 40 years in the wilderness after leaving Egypt. Perhaps I will have time to look up scriptures showing this later, but lately I have been the equivalent of a worker bee in providing goods and services to customers.
You have consistently referred to me as having a divide and conquer strategy. That assertion is untruthful. I've asked you to prove your assertion or stop making it because it is false. Reposting the same post that doesn't address that issue is irrelevant. I am asking you to stop. Appreciate it. Good night.
If you are going to call me untruthful, you'd better back it up by citing an untruth. Otherwise it is name calling and will not be tolerated. I put up with you once and let you get away with trolling the carp out of the thread, and I assure you I will not let that happen again.
You have consistently referred to me as having a divide and conquer strategy. That assertion is untruthful. I've asked you to prove your assertion or stop making it because it is false. Reposting the same post that doesn't address that issue is irrelevant. I am asking you to stop. Appreciate it. Good night.
Raf, where you are being untruthful is your statement that I am bearing false witness against you. I never even mentioned you in the post from last night. And from this you have become offended. In contrast you are the one that originally addressed me. Am I suppose to just ignore that?
Raf, I am going to post information on land and the ownership of land from the Old Testament. Perhaps tomorrow. This comment will NOT address you at all. I am merely posting what I promised to post on this very important subject of all Old Testament families owning their own property so that they did not have to pay rent and for other financially helpful matters.
Once again, you are being untruthful when you accuse me of employing a divide and conquer strategy. You are being untruthful when you feign ignorance about the basis of my statement that you are bearing falsewitness against me.
You can post whatever you want as long as it is on topic. Make another false accusation against me and it will be reported immediately. Are we clear?
My comments about bolstering were strictly about effective debating.
I didn't say you were off topic. I didn't say you couldn't continue doing it. All I said is it was becoming habitual, and I called it out for what it is: an attempt to sway readers by declaring someone else's statement to be more truthful, accurate, well-researched, unbiased than it actually is. You can pay every compliment you want. And I can employ every critique I want, as long as we are both fair and on-topic.
Except for your "divide and conquer" FALSE ACCUSATION, we are both being fair and on-topic.
Just so we get it straight - A landlord and tenant enter into a mutual agreement. Failure to pay rent results in eviction and a trip to small claims court to cover the owed money, not indentured servitude. There is no current similar context EDIT - to ancient and not-so-ancient slavery, unless you count what is going on in Syria and Iraq right now.
But the point I believe Raf has been trying to make is that "God", in all his wisdom, had the ability to not make slavery and murder for what we see as minor offenses all a part of his "law", and he chose not to. IF he is a god for all time, doesn't it make sense that his laws would be laws for all time?
At some point in time, people realized that these laws were ghastly. But mind you, according to scripture it should be happening right now. It could be said that the Jews have turned away from "G-d" by not implementing the fullness of the law. However, no Jew in his/her right mind would advocate such penalties.
Furthermore, ISIS is FAITHFULLY carrying out "god's" will, and the ONLY correct CHRISTIAN response to that is to LET them. Muslims receive glory in dying while killing the infidel. Christians receive glory in dying at the hands of persecutors. It is this kind of insanity that has made me fully question whether any of it is worth it. Monotheistic religions have the end result of people being pitted against one another, because the whole point is that the worshiper is worshiping the only god worthy of worship and everyone needs to get with the program outlined in their "holy" books that are to be studied and implemented under harsh penalty for failure to do so.
The Jewish god put laws in place, which when followed offer salvation, and a superior nation. The Christian god sent a son to die for sin, which if you follow Jesus, one will be superior. Allah got all ....ed off and said to convert or kill them all, and that's what makes Muslims superior. These are all supposedly the same god bringing peace to mankind, but NOTHING remotely like that has happened. ONLY when man became "humanistic" did we begin to realize there had to be a better way than what "god" has provided through his "word".
Ironically, man has kicked back against this since the beginning of time, and all we are told is that "evil" was being done when they were, with nothing said about what that evil looked like. Sincerely, I can't imagine anything more evil than implementation of Jewish or Sharia law. And the world couldn't have been that "evil" because some of the best of the world was given to us by pagans. So maybe the "evil" was the lack of monotheistic worship to a jealous god.
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.
I guess I assumed you knew, but yes, any ebed was free to go once their debt was paid or their contract was up. That included foreign ebeds, if they paid for the price paid for them or they fulfilled their contract, they were to be set free.
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.
It nust be noted that "slave" ebed is not the word for "forced" slavery. There is a hebrew word for this.
What is that word? Does the torah ban forced slavery? For all?
So the word ebed itself means something different to what was done in America's south.
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.
Ebed is used of those who work for another and has quite a range of meaning. So yes, there are distinctions even among the ebed. From the basic person who was an ebed of the land to those in the temple or a soldier who was an ebed of the kingdom. The word itself described most workers. And in this section basically is saying that those who are poor and must sell themselves to survive should not be taken advantage of and given hard work just because they are desperate.
Same comment as above.
Let's remember first that being an ebed was not "forced". It is a matter of a contract and responsibility that one was an ebed, so yes, it is running away from the contract that was agreed upon. Just as anyone leaving their employer today runs away from their commitment by not showing up or just leaving.
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.
As for a master "claiming" an ebed, there is nothing that gives him that right anymore than your emplyer could complain you ran from your committment. I realize you are caught up with the word "own" as if it means something uniquely different as if it can be treated as any normal piece of property, but it doesn't. Animals were to be returned right away if they left. Other property was to be returned. It is the view of the culture as everyone was "owned" by someone. Everyone had a master(lord). And even technically today the word "own" could be used in the case of an employer, it just isn't because it doesn't sound right.
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.
The english word means to have some rights over something, not necessarily exclusive. Your employer owns you [No, he doesn't]for the time you are working for him in the sense that he hold rights to what you do during that time. [Those are two different things. My employer is purchasing work product from me. He owns the work product, not me] But irregardless of today's vernacular, in the culture we are speaking of, which is what really matters, everyone was owned by someone. Your parents owned you since birth and until adopted or wed, never gave up that right. [This is false. Your parents do not "own" you. They are responsible for you, but unlike under Yahweh's law, your parents do not have the right to "sell" you into slavery or as a concubine to a rich master.] You were the property of your employer. You also were the property of the city you dwelled in. That doesn't mean they could do anything with you. It just meant they have some rights. And really is little different than today. [it is dramatically different than today.] We just don't like to use the word. [because owning people is immoral, while employing them is not Yet, if there was a draft, you are the property of this nation. [And that's why the draft is a last resort, something we no longer see as moral.] There are laws, and as the property of the land you live in, they have rights that can be enforced. [Which is not at all the same thing as being owned by someone. A society that creates laws so we can live among each other peaceably is not at all the same as one that allows people to own each other] And when speaking of the ebed, the torah specifically gave them the right to leave, run away, and no, they did not have to go back.
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.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
266
38
32
188
Popular Days
Aug 7
50
Aug 8
46
Aug 2
42
Aug 1
33
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 266 posts
waysider 38 posts
TrustAndObey 32 posts
Bolshevik 188 posts
Popular Days
Aug 7 2017
50 posts
Aug 8 2017
46 posts
Aug 2 2017
42 posts
Aug 1 2017
33 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
Raf.......YES! And so are you! TY!
TrustAndObey
I can understand where you are coming from Raf. However, if you honestly are inviting a discussion on these topics, could you be clear on what you consider is dodging. Because, to myself, you make it
TLC
It's not just people that say it. Scripture itself says that God is good. But simply equating morality to that which is "good" and attributing the cause (or source) of it to the law (and then equati
Posted Images
Raf
I think you could make the case that this is more moral than imprisonment. I'm curious to know whether he goes free once the debt is paid. In any event, that is not "slavery," that is making restitution after committing a crime. If he does NOT go free once the debt is paid, then we're talking slavery. But the bottom line here is that this is an example of punishment for a crime, not "slavery."
I find the phrasing interesting. "Do not make them work as slaves." This already tells you that we are distinguishing between these people and other "slaves." As such, the issue under observation here is the slaves, not the people who must not be treated as slaves.
We are explicilty not talking about slaves here.
Yes, technically they were. But they were not to be treated as slaves. So how are the slaves treated? Why the distinction? If being a slave was so "ok," then why insure that people who sold themselves into ebeddery were not to be treated as such? Aren't you implying here that being a slave was NOT "ok," if people who sold themselves out of debt were not to be treated as slaves?
As previously noted, these were NOT the only two ways the torah allowed. A child could be born into it, through no fault of his own, and held from his father as the property of his master unless the father agreed to become a slave for life, a verse whose significance you have yet to address.
That these foreign born slaves were treated better than other nations would have treated them is not really relevant. The issue is that they are slaves, period, and NOT given the same protections as Hebrew slaves. More on that later, since you did ask.
Fascinating verse. If a slave runs away he is not to be returned to his master. Note, it does not say "if a slave decides to quit, the master must let him go." That would be how a moral person would phrase it. But in this case, the master's perspective is missing. Why is that? And why doesn't the Bible simply instruct, "he shall be free"? It just says don't send him back. What if the master arrives to claim him? Nothing says he can't. In fact, as the master's property, the slave MUST go back. So kudos for not requiring people to return slaves, but it's hardly "freedom."
So the slaves don't work on the sabbath day or the holy days. Neither do the animals. Your point?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
FASCINATING that you cite the verse but don't quote it. I can't blame you. It's ghastly. Here are the verses, with a bit more thrown in for context:
20 “If a man beats his slave to death — whether the slave is male or female — that man shall surely be punished. 21 However, if the slave does not die for a couple of days, then the man shall not be punished — for the slave is his property.
...
26 “If a man hits his slave in the eye, whether man or woman, and the eye is blinded, then the slave shall go free because of his eye.
27 And if a master knocks out his slave’s tooth, he shall let him go free to pay for the tooth.
So let's be clear: beating the slave is FINE if the slave doesn't die or suffer serious injury. The master does not get punished for that. A few lashes on the back? As long as you don't take out his eye or knock out his tooth, you're ok. To say "they were not allowed to be mistreated" is demonstrably false. They WERE allowed to be mistreated. They just weren't allowed to be killed or mutilated. Well. That's nice.
Then they would still be slaves. They would just be slaves who had run away. The notion of being able to simply "quit" is absent from the Bible.
Or they were born into it. Or sold into it by their dads.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I didn't say child. I said daughter.
That statement is without scriptural support. Sure, that is ONE way it could happen. But "the only way?" Not what the Bible says.
This is a false dilemma. I note how you juxtapose "allowing their children to die" with selling a daughter into slavery, as if those were the only two options. Giving the child up for adoption would be a much better option than selling a daughter into slavery. Note also that this verse [Exodus 21:7 ff, which I will quote in full momentarily] says nothing whatsoever about the father's motivation (escaping poverty, debt, etc). And if it IS for those reasons, it is treating the girl as the father's property rather than his progeny. There are many more options available besides "selling my daughter as a sex slave" and "letting her die." ESPECIALLY for an omniscient God who is able to say "here's how you handle this situation." For a moral person, selling the child would not even make the list of options.
Here are the verses.
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not please the man who bought her, then he shall let her be bought back again; but he has no power to sell her to foreigners, since he has wronged her by no longer wanting her after marrying her. 9 And if he arranges an engagement between a Hebrew slave girl and his son, then he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but must treat her as a daughter. 10 If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing, or fail to sleep with her as his wife. 11 If he fails in any of these three things, then she may leave freely without any payment.
Please read the verses again. It is describing NOTHING like a foster family. Egads. She's a sex slave. Concubine. Handmaid. Maidservant. Not an ebed, I acknowledge, but still relevant to the context of this thread. Read it. Unlike the male ebed from a few verses earlier, she does NOT get the "go free in the seventh year" clause. She explicitly does not get that. Male slaves got freedom. Female slaves did not. The master can sell her back (whether this is before or after he's "used" her is not specified, but let's be generous and presume it's before). He can't sell her to foreigners. Well, that's nice. I guess that means he can sell her to another Israelite, which sounds very much like a slave trade and nothing at all like a foster family type of situation.
Now, the master CAN give the girl to his son. At that point, he has to treat her like a daughter-in-law. Well, that's nice. No, really, it is.
Or the master can marry her himself (note that she doesn't seem to get a vote here. Is THAT moral? I know it was the cultural norm, but is it moral? Now, if the master marries the girl himself, AND he takes another wife, he has to... wait, what? That's... isn't that... wait just a cotton picking minute (pun gleefully intended)! Yeah, we haven't even touched on polygamy in this thread. Do you believe monogamy is more moral than polygamy? God doesn't seem to have an opinion. He's like, "Whatevs. If your culture allows it, fine. If it doesn't, well, I'd prefer one man one wife, but if you have more than one wife, I'm good with that too."
o.....k....?
So if the master decides to make his slave girl his wife, she stops being a slave right? Wrong. She's just treated differently. But there's a whole new rule: he has to keep feeding, clothing and banging the slave girl. Otherwise, she can go free without payment.
What the bloody hell? That's what it says. Clearly. He doesn't even seem to have to divorce her. Just, go.
That's not freedom for mistreatment, mind you. That's dismissal. I've used you. I'm done with you. I don't owe you jack. Begone!
Fascinating. Moral? No, not by your standards. If you say it is, I just won't believe you. If you appeal to cultural relativism, you've already lost. God should be setting moral rules and laws, not submitting to cultural norms. A moral God would recognize those verses as monstrous. But they were appropriate for the culture that invented this God in the first place.
No. They were what we described above.
I don't believe you. And as evidence, I put forward that before you said it was not a moral outrage, you did not posit what the Bible actually said on the subject, which is certainly morally outrageous.
False dilemma.
We've been over that.
Gee, I wonder why not.
They did not have the "freedom to leave." That is a deliberate misrepresentation. They could escape, and people would not be allowed to return them. But that is not at all the same as "freedom to leave." Now it should be noted that according to some scholars, the "escape" clauses only refer to slaves from foreign lands who escape into Hebrew land. I'm not sure that is accurate, but if I come across solid citations, I'll be happy to share them.
Which protections am I referring to that applied to Hebrew slaves but not foreign? For one, the freedom after six years.
Leviticus 25: 44 However, you may purchase slaves from the foreign nations living around you, 45 and you may purchase the children of the foreigners living among you, even though they have been born in your land. 46 They will be permanent slaves for you to pass on to your children after you; but your brothers, the people of Israel, shall not be treated so.
No Jubilee for you!
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
I guess I assumed you knew, but yes, any ebed was free to go once their debt was paid or their contract was up. That included foreign ebeds, if they paid for the price paid for them or they fulfilled their contract, they were to be set free.
It nust be noted that "slave" ebed is not the word for "forced" slavery. There is a hebrew word for this. So the word ebed itself means something different to what was done in America's south. Ebed is used of those who work for another and has quite a range of meaning. So yes, there are distinctions even among the ebed. From the basic person who was an ebed of the land to those in the temple or a soldier who was an ebed of the kingdom. The word itself described most workers. And in this section basically is saying that those who are poor and must sell themselves to survive should not be taken advantage of and given hard work just because they are desperate.
This has not been addressed yet, no. But it will.
Let's remember first that being an ebed was not "forced". It is a matter of a contract and responsibility that one was an ebed, so yes, it is running away from the contract that was agreed upon. Just as anyone leaving their employer today runs away from their commitment by not showing up or just leaving. As for a master "claiming" an ebed, there is nothing that gives him that right anymore than your emplyer could complain you ran from your committment. I realize you are caught up with the word "own" as if it means something uniquely different as if it can be treated as any normal piece of property, but it doesn't. Animals were to be returned right away if they left. Other property was to be returned. It is the view of the culture as everyone was "owned" by someone. Everyone had a master(lord). And even technically today the word "own" could be used in the case of an employer, it just isn't because it doesn't sound right. The english word means to have some rights over something, not necessarily exclusive. Your employer owns you for the time you are working for him in the sense that he hold rights to what you do during that time. But irregardless of today's vernacular, in the culture we are speaking of, which is what really matters, everyone was owned by someone. Your parents owned you since birth and until adopted or wed, never gave up that right. You were the property of your employer. You also were the property of the city you dwelled in. That doesn't mean they could do anything with you. It just meant they have some rights. And really is little different than today. We just don't like to use the word. Yet, if there was a draft, you are the property of this nation. There are laws, and as the property of the land you live in, they have rights that can be enforced. And when speaking of the ebed, the torah specifically gave them the right to leave, run away, and no, they did not have to go back.
Edited by TrustAndObeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Relating to what TrustandObey has written with clarity and good sense. Today we have landLORDS over their renters. And with our economy having a higher and higher difference between the rich and the poor, we also at times have homeless people, which may not be actual slavery, but then might be worse when your master or employer treated you well. In contrast, in the Old Testament I have read some scriptures that indicate all the families of Israel should be able to own their own property to live on. At least that was the way the nation of Israel began after the 40 years in the wilderness after leaving Egypt. Perhaps I will have time to look up scriptures showing this later, but lately I have been the equivalent of a worker bee in providing goods and services to customers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
A landlord can't keep your kid until you catch up on the rent.
Just saying.
Slavery v. Homelessness is another false dilemma. There are other options. Shelters, for example.
Mark, what you call clarity and good sense, I call skillful evasion of key issues. I don't know why you feel the need to grade the papers of everyone who agrees with you, but it's a level of bolstering that seeks to validate an opinion by praising it. TnO writes with clarity and good sense. The NBD is unbiased. Your posts start so frequently with unwarranted praises for what others have written that the trend is becoming a parody of itself.
Here's an example of evasion:
TnO tells us the ebed is not a forced slave. There's another word for that. Missing: does the Torah permit forced slavery? It does. So why are we discussing the ebed?
TnO tells us the ebed goes free after the debt is paid. I trust that, but where is the citation? And where is the evidence that this applies to thieves?
I'm amused at the lengths you guys will go to in order to defend slavery. Rename it. Redefine it. Insist it's not that bad. IT BEATS DYING! You would never do this in defense of Allah.
More later.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oh, and lest I be accused of engaging in a personal attack, let me be clear: I am objecting to an invalid form of argument that bolsters a concurring argument through praise. That is the thrust of my point. And it is not the first time Mark has done it. It is only the first time I'm calling it out (because it has become predictable)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
There goes Raf again trying to divide and then conquer, which Jesus warned us about and spoke against. This right after I give another poster a compliment before I make a statement of my own. That tactic will not work for me and it should not work against anyone here.
Often when TrustandObey makes a post here he does a good job of research before he makes his post.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Who am I trying to divide? Please inform us all, or STOP MAKING FALSE ACCUSATIONS.
By the way, thank you for quoting my post so I could go back and fix the grammatical errors.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
http://www.bakers-legal-pages.com/cca/notes/04/R-69A17000.htm
While I concede that we are not in a court of law, the basis of my comment regarding bolstering can be found in the legal field.
I quoted that in full lest I be accused of removing it from its context, but to be clear: Calling something "unbiased" or an example of "clarity and good sense" doesn't make it so. In fact, the only reason you seem to have for such assertions is to bolster the credibility of what TnO posted without doing the slightest bit to confirm it, verify it, or contribute to the discussion. You're certainly welcome to the opinion and welcome to express it, as I am welcome to challenge TnO's post and call out the fallacious effect of your decision to bolster it.
In other words, the tactic of bolstering does not work against me and it should not work for anyone else who may be reading.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Well then let me give another poster a compliment on their posts, without you feeling the need to mention this. Would it be O.K. if I gave you a compliment on one of your posts? Likely yes, but for a person that you don't agree with on a subject such as this, perhaps not.
And here is my original not long post with one line of a compliment for another poster followed by a few lines of actual information. So what does Raf do? Does he focus on the actual information? Clearly not. Instead he only opposes the compliment that I give to another poster here.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I already addressed the information you asserted. Then I addressed your bolstering. Finally, I addressed your bearing falsewitness against me. Thanks for understanding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Raf, at least try to be truthful. In my recent post I did not address you at all. Below is the post again. And from this you call giving another poster a compliment, "bolstering" and with the stating of my views "bearing falsewitness against you". Again, at least try to be truthful. Now you are not.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Why are you reposting the exact same thing?
You have consistently referred to me as having a divide and conquer strategy. That assertion is untruthful. I've asked you to prove your assertion or stop making it because it is false. Reposting the same post that doesn't address that issue is irrelevant. I am asking you to stop. Appreciate it. Good night.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
If you are going to call me untruthful, you'd better back it up by citing an untruth. Otherwise it is name calling and will not be tolerated. I put up with you once and let you get away with trolling the carp out of the thread, and I assure you I will not let that happen again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Raf, where you are being untruthful is your statement that I am bearing false witness against you. I never even mentioned you in the post from last night. And from this you have become offended. In contrast you are the one that originally addressed me. Am I suppose to just ignore that?
Raf, I am going to post information on land and the ownership of land from the Old Testament. Perhaps tomorrow. This comment will NOT address you at all. I am merely posting what I promised to post on this very important subject of all Old Testament families owning their own property so that they did not have to pay rent and for other financially helpful matters.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Once again, you are being untruthful when you accuse me of employing a divide and conquer strategy. You are being untruthful when you feign ignorance about the basis of my statement that you are bearing falsewitness against me.
You can post whatever you want as long as it is on topic. Make another false accusation against me and it will be reported immediately. Are we clear?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
My comments about bolstering were strictly about effective debating.
I didn't say you were off topic. I didn't say you couldn't continue doing it. All I said is it was becoming habitual, and I called it out for what it is: an attempt to sway readers by declaring someone else's statement to be more truthful, accurate, well-researched, unbiased than it actually is. You can pay every compliment you want. And I can employ every critique I want, as long as we are both fair and on-topic.
Except for your "divide and conquer" FALSE ACCUSATION, we are both being fair and on-topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Just so we get it straight - A landlord and tenant enter into a mutual agreement. Failure to pay rent results in eviction and a trip to small claims court to cover the owed money, not indentured servitude. There is no current similar context EDIT - to ancient and not-so-ancient slavery, unless you count what is going on in Syria and Iraq right now.
But the point I believe Raf has been trying to make is that "God", in all his wisdom, had the ability to not make slavery and murder for what we see as minor offenses all a part of his "law", and he chose not to. IF he is a god for all time, doesn't it make sense that his laws would be laws for all time?
At some point in time, people realized that these laws were ghastly. But mind you, according to scripture it should be happening right now. It could be said that the Jews have turned away from "G-d" by not implementing the fullness of the law. However, no Jew in his/her right mind would advocate such penalties.
Furthermore, ISIS is FAITHFULLY carrying out "god's" will, and the ONLY correct CHRISTIAN response to that is to LET them. Muslims receive glory in dying while killing the infidel. Christians receive glory in dying at the hands of persecutors. It is this kind of insanity that has made me fully question whether any of it is worth it. Monotheistic religions have the end result of people being pitted against one another, because the whole point is that the worshiper is worshiping the only god worthy of worship and everyone needs to get with the program outlined in their "holy" books that are to be studied and implemented under harsh penalty for failure to do so.
The Jewish god put laws in place, which when followed offer salvation, and a superior nation. The Christian god sent a son to die for sin, which if you follow Jesus, one will be superior. Allah got all ....ed off and said to convert or kill them all, and that's what makes Muslims superior. These are all supposedly the same god bringing peace to mankind, but NOTHING remotely like that has happened. ONLY when man became "humanistic" did we begin to realize there had to be a better way than what "god" has provided through his "word".
Ironically, man has kicked back against this since the beginning of time, and all we are told is that "evil" was being done when they were, with nothing said about what that evil looked like. Sincerely, I can't imagine anything more evil than implementation of Jewish or Sharia law. And the world couldn't have been that "evil" because some of the best of the world was given to us by pagans. So maybe the "evil" was the lack of monotheistic worship to a jealous god.
Edited by TzaiaLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"But mind you, according to scripture it should be happening right now."
...and that scripture would be Malachi 3:6
(I am the Lord, I change not.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think waysider's pithiness beautifully complements a reference that is on-target, relevant and highly effective.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.