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

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Concerning Exodus 21-20:

"The text does not condone the beating of the slave at all. Rather, the text is describing what the punishment is *for* beating one’s slave to death. That is, the text actually *condemns* beating a slave to death. In the one case, the slave owner is punished by being put to death. In the other case, which is an unintentional death by beating, the slave owner is punished in terms of his own financial loss from having beaten his slave to death. The implication is that he did not intend to kill his slave, but was still wrong in beating the slave. Otherwise there would be no mention of punishment in either case. But as it is, there is a punishment in both cases here for beating a slave to death. In the first case of intentionally beating a slave to death, the slave owner is likewise to be put to death. In the second case of unintentionally beating a slave to death, the slave owner’s own foolish financial loss serves as his punishment."
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html



Also keep in mind these verses: Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Colossians 4:1; and Ephesians 6:9.....

There is/was a way to treat a slave and it is not like an animal...

The problem is having slaves dumbass

 

[Sonic Boom of the South]

The Bible also tells you how to treat slaves... and how we were treated was not biblical...

 

[DMGAINGREEN]

nikkas forget Christianity was created in Ethiopia , so any reference they made to slavery doesn't equate to the barbaric nature of the Atlantic Slave Trade , with Slavery in Africa, they were treated as family and had rights basically like an ancient butler . I know ya nikkas are atheist and all lat , I'm not an extra religious man either but ya need to stop trying to slander other peoples beliefs especially if you're not educated overall about it's origins , ya look wild juvenile when it boils down to it .

 

[the cac mamba]

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

http://www.thecoli.com/posts/12959947/

I just LOVE when 'critics' take a verse out of context.......and by 'context' I mean socio-cultural context.

You see, when the text was written, 'freedom' was an ambiguous concept........

[URL='https://ia601606.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/27/items/AHistoryOfAncientNearEasternLaw/AHistoryOfAncientNearEasternLaw_jp2.zip&file=AHistoryOfAncientNearEasternLaw_jp2/AHistoryOfAncientNearEasternLaw_0000.jp2&scale=2&rotate=0'] [/URL]
​

4.5 Slavery

4.5.1 Definition

Freedom in the ancient Near East was a relative, not an absolute state, as the ambiguity of the term for "slave" in all the region's languages illustrates. "Slave" could be used to refer to a subordinate in the social ladder. Thus the subjects of a king were called his "slaves," even though they were free citizens. The king himself, if a vassal, was the "slave" of his emperor; kings, emperors, and commoners alike were "slaves" of the gods. Even a social inferior, when addressing a social superior, referred to himself out of politeness as "your slave." There were, moreover, a plethora of servile conditions that were not regarded as slavery, such as son, daughter, wife, serf, or human pledge.

A better criterion for a legal definition of slavery is its property aspect, since persons were recognized as a category of properly that might be owned by private individuals. A slave was therefore a person to whom the law of property applied rather than family or contract law. Even this definition is not wholly exclusive, since family and contract law occasionally intruded upon the rules of ownership. Furthermore, the relationship between master and slave was subject to legal restrictions based on the humanity of the slave and concerns of social justice.

To add insult to injury, let's contrast what 'slavery' meant back then to what it meant in Colonial America......

[url]http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/moynchapter3.htm[/URL]
​

"[In the United States,] the slave was totally removed from the protection of organized society (compare the elaborate provisions for the protection of slaves in the Bible), his existence as a human being was given no recognition by any religious or secular agency, he was totally ignorant of and completely cut off from his past, and he was offered absolutely no hope for the future. His children could be sold, his marriage was not recognized, his wife could be violated or sold (there was something comic about calling the woman with whom the master permitted him to live a 'wife'), and he could also be subject, without redress, to frightful barbarities — there were presumably as many sadists among slaveowners, men and women, as there are in other groups. The slave could not, by law, be taught to read or write; he could not practice any religion without the permission of his master, and could never meet with his fellows, for religious or any other purposes, except in the presence of a white; and finally, if a master wished to free him, every legal obstacle was used to thwart such action. This was not what slavery meant in the ancient world, in medieval and early modern Europe, or in Brazil and the West Indies.

​

 

[resurrection]

nikkas forget Christianity was created in Ethiopia , so any reference they made to slavery doesn't equate to the barbaric nature of the Atlantic Slave Trade , with Slavery in Africa, they were treated as family and had rights basically like an ancient butler . I know ya nikkas are atheist and all lat , I'm not an extra religious man either but ya need to stop trying to slander other peoples beliefs especially if you're not educated overall about it's origins , ya look wild juvenile when it boils down to it .

OH well now that you put it THAT way, I guess it's okay

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

nikkas forget Christianity was created in Ethiopia , so any reference they made to slavery doesn't equate to the barbaric nature of the Atlantic Slave Trade , with Slavery in Africa, they were treated as family and had rights basically like an ancient butler . I know ya nikkas are atheist and all lat , I'm not an extra religious man either but ya need to stop trying to slander other peoples beliefs especially if you're not educated overall about it's origins , ya look wild juvenile when it boils down to it .

Slaves

We're talking about slaves.

SLAVES.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

http://www.thecoli.com/posts/12959947/

I just LOVE when 'critics' take a verse out of context.......and by 'context' I mean socio-cultural context.

You see, when the text was written, 'freedom' was an ambiguous concept........


​

To add insult to injury, let's contrast what 'slavery' meant back then to what it meant in Colonial America......

http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/moynchapter3.htm
​

​

You're defending the concept of human property?

Is that what you're doing?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

​

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

​

Still dancing I see.

 

[Neil Tyson]

Slaves

We're talking about slaves.

SLAVES.

I don't know if you're projecting your current cultural biases to an ancient one but that's a big mistake.

 

[thirdeye]

Do you wake up with Jesus on your mind, breh?

 

[resurrection]

You're defending the concept of human property?

Is that what you're doing?

Anything to tap dance through the justification of that old useless book and all the hatred, violence, and bigotry that has resulted

 

[AFRAM GLORY]

Exodus 21:20

You carry the spirit of the edomites who used that verse to justify their intentional barbaric behavior towards the ancestors of the real black folk(JEWS) who frequent this site.

It's really sad to see that you can't look beyond your flesh. Flesh that will betray you and put you back into the dust. Eyes and tunnel vision mind that are leveled with those of a child and can only understand what's in the world.

You are of your father and the living embodiment of Matthew 4:1-11

 

[Michael9100]

The problem is having slaves dumbass

You're a slave.... did you know that?