@Dafunkdoc_Unlimited, why do you condone slavery in the bible?

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

By defending the text , you condone it.

That's a truly retarded opinion and you're welcome to have it.​

Of the most plausible cases above, two (A, D) are from the Patriarchal period, one reflects Egyptian practice (F), and another the practice of Persian Jews of the Exilic or post-Exilic period (J). From the pre-Exilic period there is a possible case alleged by the Chronicler to have taken place in the time of David (M), one or two other remotely possible cases (G) and (K), the latter from the late pre-Exilic or Exilic period) and the "posthumous adoption" involved in levirate marriage (N). The evidence for adoption in the pre-Exilic period is thus meager. The possibility that adoption was practiced in this period cannot be excluded, especially since contemporary legal documents are lacking. Nevertheless, it seems that if adoption played any role at all in Israelite family institutions, it was an insignificant one. It may be that the tribal consciousness of the Israelites did not favor the creation of artificial family ties and that the practice of polygamy obviated some of the need for adoption. For the post-Exilic per-iod in Palestine there is no reliable evidence for adoption at all.

You didn't read far enough........as usual. Your first error was not reading the title:

Alleged Cases of Adoption in the Bible

Since you're pushing an agenda, you might have missed this little tidbit.....

That's because it wouldn't be in that text. It would be in judicial documents.

Also, from your link.........​

Adoption is not known as a legal institution in Jewish law. According to halakhah the personal status of parent and child is based on the natural family relationship only and there is no recognized way of creating this status artificially by a legal act or fiction. However, Jewish law does provide for consequences essentially similar to those caused by adoption to be created by legal means. These consequences are the right and obligation of a person to assume responsibility for (a) a child's physical and mental welfare and (b) his financial position, including matters of inheritance and maintenance. The legal means of achieving this result are (1) by the appointment of the adopter as a "guardian" (see *Apotropos) of the child, with exclusive authority to care for the latter's personal welfare, including his upbringing, education, and determination of his place of abode; and (2) by entrusting the administration of the child's property to the adopter. The latter undertaking to be accountable to the child and, at his own expense and without any right of recourse, would assume all such financial obligations as are imposed by law on natural parents vis-à-vis their children. Thus, the child is for all practical purposes placed in the same position toward his adoptors as he would otherwise be toward his natural parents, since all matters of education, maintenance, upbringing, and financial administration are taken care of (Ket. 101b; Maim., Yad, Ishut, 23:17–18; and Sh. Ar., EH 114 and Tur ibid., Sh. Ar., ḤM 60:2–5; 207:20–21;PDR, 3 (n.d.), 109–125). On the death of the adopter, his heirs would be obliged to continue to maintain the "adopted" child out of the former's estate, the said undertaking having created a legal debt to be satisfied as any other debt (Sh. Ar., ḤM 60:4).

​

I'm so very sorry to bring this up again, but it has been repeatedly brought to your attention some 10 or more dozen quotes from your doctrine

Sorry to inform you, but your link just debunked your attempt at a rebuttal........

You can keep those quotes since your attempt at evangelizing me have failed.




​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

@Dafunkdoc_Unlimited is confused... Just say you believe breh. nikkas will respect you more

Why would I want the respect of 'n1kkas'.......or any group of anonymous trolls on the Internet that don't know their own history yet persist in making it abundantly obvious they are ignorant?

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

You are ok with slaves in the bible.

Just say so already.

You are okay with the Constitution legalizing slavery throughout the entire Nation right now.

Just say so already.

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

We're talking about the bible.

You truly lack the ability to argue effectively on subjects you don't understand since I clearly stated back at post #90........

I don't read the text as 'G-d's own word'. I read it just like any other literature according to its type.

Literature like newspapers, history books, etc. Your objection is invalid and..............

.......your thread sucks, your argument sucks, your personality sucks, your posts suck, and you're a liar.

Do the world a favor and hang yourself. No one will miss you or care.
​

 

[Big Daddy]

Are people really in here defending slavery as long as the servants weren't whipped and got paid

...man i'm not even gonna get riled up, yall go head n cook..I mean, c00n

 

[No Sleep]

That religious dude is all over the place as usual.

 

[Kenny West]

Thread is proof that these fanatical atheists are smart dumb fukkboys looking to lash out at god to justify their hedonism

 

[thirdeye]

Why do y'all continue to debate with Napoleon when he starts name-calling? lol

 

[Standing on business]

Thread is proof that these fanatical atheists are smart dumb fukkboys looking to lash out at god to justify their hedonism

im not an atheist, but the topic at hand was the bible allowing slavery, in which it cleary does regardless of how you guys want to justify it.

unlike the rest in here I do believe there is a god,, creator, higher power. I just dont think its the one in that particular book you guys defend.

 

[Ghost_In_A_Shell]

Are you African-American?

yes I am.....Now address the point of slavery on the bible

 

[Ghost_In_A_Shell]

That's a truly retarded opinion and you're welcome to have it.​

You didn't read far enough........as usual. Your first error was not reading the title:



Since you're pushing an agenda, you might have missed this little tidbit.....



Also, from your link.........​

​

Sorry to inform you, but your link just debunked your attempt at a rebuttal........

You can keep those quotes since your attempt at evangelizing me have failed.




​

That's because it wouldn't be in that text. It would be in judicial documents. They actually had courts back then.

Adoption is not known as a legal institution in Jewish law. According to halakhah the personal status of parent and child is based on the natural family relationship only and there is no recognized way of creating this status artificially by a legal act or fiction. However, Jewish law does provide for consequences essentially similar to those caused by adoption to be created by legal means. These consequences are the right and obligation of a person to assume responsibility for (a) a child's physical and mental welfare and (b) his financial position, including matters of inheritance and maintenance. The legal means of achieving this result are (1) by the appointment of the adopter as a "guardian" (see *Apotropos) of the child, with exclusive authority to care for the latter's personal welfare, including his upbringing, education, and determination of his place of abode; and (2) by entrusting the administration of the child's property to the adopter. The latter undertaking to be accountable to the child and, at his own expense and without any right of recourse, would assume all such financial obligations as are imposed by law on natural parents vis-à-vis their children. Thus, the child is for all practical purposes placed in the same position toward his adoptors as he would otherwise be toward his natural parents, since all matters of education, maintenance, upbringing, and financial administration are taken care of (Ket. 101b; Maim., Yad, Ishut, 23:17–18; and Sh. Ar., EH 114 and Tur ibid., Sh. Ar., ḤM 60:2–5; 207:20–21;PDR, 3 (n.d.), 109–125). On the death of the adopter, his heirs would be obliged to continue to maintain the "adopted" child out of the former's estate, the said undertaking having created a legal debt to be satisfied as any other debt (Sh. Ar., ḤM 60:4).


Um sorry to burst you're bubble but it literally says "Adoption is not known as a legal institution in Jewish law". This disproves you're claim of "That's because it wouldn't be in that text. It would be in judicial documents. They actually had courts back then" .

 

[Kenny West]

im not an atheist, but the topic at hand was the bible allowing slavery, in which it cleary does regardless of wo you guys want to justify it.

Sure you aren't buddy, you just been cheerleading since the first page.

You guys have a simplistic ass way of viewing things where anything that isn't outright condemmend is "condoned' or "supported" depending on how obtuse you need to be to make your point. Slavery is just the buzzword to perk up ears of insecure black folk and turn your eyes in one direction. Slavery in many cultures wasn't like the Trans-Atlantic one, it was a lower social class to most closer to a state of indentured serfdom, instead the slavery shyt you're familiar with. This was the point Dafunk was making and once he did you can see the thread totally spin off to bs. nikkas just wanna continue to hardlink slavery the bible and call christians c00ns yet salute a flag and live in a country where SLAVERY SLAVERY was not only a central aspect but the backbone of this country's development.

 

[Ghost_In_A_Shell]

Thread is proof that these fanatical atheists are smart dumb fukkboys looking to lash out at god to justify their hedonism

why are you ignoring that the bible condoned slavery? How do you play cognitive dissonance with the fact that it was used as an excuse for our bondage in the states?

 

[TheBeigeBomber]

capitalism is modern day slavery tho

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You are okay with the Constitution legalizing slavery throughout the entire Nation right now.

Just say so already.

​

Being held as a prisoner for crimes is not slavery, nor is their treatment slavery, dumbass.

But lets talk about the bible.