Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[Frumple]

Where does it say he was a rapist? Back then it was not uncommon for men to have multiple wives.
[16:3] So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her slave-girl, and gave her to her husband Abram as a wife.

Let me shift that emphasis for you. Rape's a pretty straightforward thing involving lack of consent. There was no consent involved here. Cause, y'know, slavery.

Where dies it say Sarah tried to kill Hagar?

Pregnant woman, thrown out, found in desert. I guess sarai "only" threw hagar out to die of exposure? I'd still be pretty willing to call that attempted murder, m'self.

Slaves were not anything like what happened in America before the civil war. They were more comparable to servants. They were not bought or sold, rather, they often gave themselves or their children into servitude so they could eat. The masters were not (usually) cruel or inhumane.

Let's... not try to whitewash slavery with the exact same rhetoric slave owners used, yes? Because those were the exact same lines stateside slave owners used to try to whitewash slavery.

Also, yeah, sex slavery, being gifted to your husband to be knocked up, and then being thrown out into the desert (most likely to die) is pretty inhumane by most reasonable standards, I'd say. Maybe the mythical good slaveowner was more common back then, who the zog knows. Abraham and family most definitely wasn't an example of them.

---
... just.. look. If you want to say these monsters were messengers of god, or somehow favored by the divine, or... whatever. Okay. I won't agree, and I'll definitely question your willingness to put human filth on a pedestal or consider them anything even remotely resembling role models, but largely m'pretty willing to say "have at it." But call a horse a horse. These were not good people. It takes a god to have their actions be anything resembling excusable.

[origamiscienceguy]

You seem to have a preconceived mindset about this. But please research slavery in Abraham's times before you generalize it with the type of slavery you are most familiar with.

I am sure that you feel the same about me, so it is probably best not to continue this argument.

[Frumple]

... I actually am somewhat familiar with slavery in the general timespan, which was still nasty as hell. I'd be curious as to what sources you're using that are claiming the practice wasn't plenty rife with the abuses seen in more recent times. You wouldn't happen to have them on hand, would you?

[origamiscienceguy]

I am using the laws of the Israelites.

If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished." (Exodus 21:20)
"If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. "And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth." (Exodus 21:26-27)
"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:12)
"Six days you are to do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease from labor so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female slave, as well as your stranger, may refresh themselves. (Exodus 23:12)
Do not slander a slave to his master, Or he will curse you and you will be found guilty. (Proverbs 30:10)
'Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free. (Leviticus 19:20)
"You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. (Deuteronomy 23:15)
'If a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave's service. 'He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee. 'He shall then go out from you, he and his sons with him, and shall go back to his family, that he may return to the property of his forefathers. 'For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. 'You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God. (Leviticus 25:39-43)
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment." (Exodus 21:2)

[Frumple]

Y... you do realize those laws still allow for a tremendous amount of abuse, up to and including systematic physical harm and the rape of your slaves, right? Especially for non-hebrew slaves. And there's a few others in the OT that don't paint even nearly so moderating a picture (which is damning those ones with faint praise, as they still paint a pretty horrible one).

... would you happen to have any historical or archaeological support for the position, offhand? Or is it just your interpretation of the biblical texts?

[origamiscienceguy]

Y... you do realize those laws still allow for a tremendous amount of abuse, up to and including systematic physical harm and the rape of your slaves, right? Especially for non-hebrew slaves. And there's a few others in the OT that don't paint even nearly so moderating a picture (which is damning those ones with faint praise, as they still paint a pretty horrible one).

... would you happen to have any historical or archaeological support for the position, offhand? Or is it just your interpretation of the biblical texts?

Oh, don't worry. There were plenty of other laws against rape and abuse. But they were generalized to everybody, not just masters and slaves. I really don't want to dig those up.

As for the archaeological evidence, I don't think it would be possible to give any evidence of how Abraham treated Hagar in either direction. The Bible is the best source. These were the laws for the Israelites, the Egyptians in early exodus for example did not follow those standards. That is the only "bad" example of slavery in the early OT that I can think of. I'll give a run-down of what a life of a slave might have been.

-Harvest of one year is bad, you can't feed yourself so you sell your land and yourself to a master.
-your master (or mistress) gives you food and shelter so long as you work for them.
-After 7 years of work, your master gives you back your land and you work it again.

[Bohandas]

IIRC it was 49 years

[origamiscienceguy]

IIRC it was 49 years

Exodus 21:2 If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free.

The 50 year year of Jubilee was something else related to land. I don't know exactly what.

[Bohandas]

IIRC it was 49 years

Exodus 21:2 If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free.

Granted.

That brings up another issue though, IIRC there were far fewer protections for enslaved foreigners.

Because the ancient Hebrews were racist fucks.

[origamiscienceguy]

Because the ancient Hebrews were racist fucks.

Yes. That actually sums it up pretty well.

[Rolan7]

I am using the laws of the Israelites.

If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished." (Exodus 21:20)

Next line, to be fair: "but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." (Exodus 21:21)
Pretty normal for slavery, but... not nice.  We can interpret that and Exodus 21:12 to mean that a master who kills a slave was put to death:

"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:12)

But I don't think that's true.  Literally, that would mean soldiers would be put to death... and also the people putting others to death, would be put to death.  Dwarf Fortress loyalty cascade
So it's not literal.  It's probably like the first commandment, which only applies to fellow Israelites.  I think it's interesting that the laws say things like "don't kill", and all these exceptions are just understood.  Shows that they didn't think much of criminals or outsiders (all the massacres and slave-taking were also clues).

"If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. "And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth." (Exodus 21:26-27)

This is cool

"Six days you are to do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease from labor so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female slave, as well as your stranger, may refresh themselves. (Exodus 23:12)

It's lumping slaves in with livestock.  The Israelites couldn't work on the sabbath, and neither could their property.  That'd be cheating.
Also, note that children of female slaves are also slaves.
Aaand... actually, the female slaves aren't actually given the day off.  The reason is as obvious as it is disgusting.  (And I don't just mean the housework)

Do not slander a slave to his master, Or he will curse you and you will be found guilty. (Proverbs 30:10)

They're lying to the other Israelite.  The master could harm his own slave over the lie, so lying like that is a serious offense against the master.

'Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free. (Leviticus 19:20)

Have sex with a free woman:  Death
Have sex with someone else's slave:  "Punishment", probably a fine for ruining the slave's value.

And what happens to the slave?  Stoning women for getting raped happens *today*, and the armies of Israel tended to kill non-virgin women on their conquests.  My bet is that the rapist would be encouraged to buy the slave.  "You break her, you buy her".

"You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. (Deuteronomy 23:15)

Huh, I guess this is cool too.  Seems very out of place though...  Ah, it doesn't say they become free.  They just get to choose a new master.  Even so, sounds bizarre.
Some people suggest that it was intended for severely mistreated slaves...  Particularly those from other tribes.  That I can see.  Letting slaves freely choose their masters just doesn't sound historical.

'If a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave's service. 'He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee. 'He shall then go out from you, he and his sons with him, and shall go back to his family, that he may return to the property of his forefathers. 'For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. 'You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God. (Leviticus 25:39-43)
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment." (Exodus 21:2)

Why stop there?

4 If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone.
5 But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,'
6 then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently
7 If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.

And yes, fellow Hebrews got special treatment.  Foreign slaves were just slaves, as were their children.

Because the ancient Hebrews were racist fucks.

Yes. That actually sums it up pretty well.

Yeah

Oh, don't worry. There were plenty of other laws against rape and abuse. But they were generalized to everybody, not just masters and slaves. I really don't want to dig those up.

They would go into towns and kill everyone except for the young virgin girls, who they'd take as slaves.  They probably didn't call it rape, but... it was.  I'd call it a "very aggressive arranged marriage", but it wasn't marriage.  It was involuntary concubinage.

[TD1]

Also, I did make a mistake. Abraham had more sons than Issac and Ishmael I just didn't find it in my first responses.
"Now Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah. 2And she bore to him Zimran and Jokshan and Medan and Midian and Ishbak and Shuah," (Genesis 25:1-2)
This still does not change the fact that Issac was the son promised by God.

Just because Abraham was told Isaac was going to be born, doesn't mean that he's going to be the one all Abram's ancestors will come from. I mean, it's fairly obvious that with that amount of children (who knows how many other slaves he impregnated?) he is going to have many descendants. With or without Isaac.

Plus, Sarah's slave was specifically told that her descendants would be numberless. That definitely fulfils God's obligations on the "you'll have loads of descendants" front.

[TD1]

https://www.facebook.com/BeaconsOfLight1/videos/746341772162179/

Someone shared this on facebook.
I found it humorous that they say "these people are bad because they judge" and then goes on to judge them. Heh.

[Flying Dice]

It's almost like you're expecting people posting about controversial subjects on facebook to not be irrational hypocrites.

[Rolan7]

The unrepentant strawmanning made me cringe, despite not liking either side.