The old Testament reports a "father" who treats his old Testament children different than the New people. In the OT he had husbands cutting off their wives' hands and being ordered not to feel compassion. Just saying — Gregory

I don't know...I don't know. Something doesn't add up here, oui? Why would an all-loving God command heinous acts like that? Didn't those who were commanded to commit the alleged atrocities realize that God's commands were not making any sense at all? Someone should've gone "hey, look, something's not right here!"

Does this have anything to do with the notorious Milgram experiment? This was genocide akin to the Nazi mass killings of Jews 1939 - 1945. Didn't even one prison guard in the numerous concentration camps around Europe go :chin:

The Old Testament is an Iron Age Milgram experiment and God was Stanley Milgram, but for some reason, the experiment wasn't terminated when things started going sideways, people were!

It says you can but don't enslave your Israeli brethren and then the verse after it says you can sell yourself into slavery if you're poor but other Israelis should help you. On top of that, Leviticus was held to Exodus' rules on not harming your abed. It seems abedness was a widespread practice then and the goal was to establish a way to not get into slavery again.

Another verse that gets used is Exodus 21:7 which says, "7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do." If one reads from verse 7 to 11 it's actually trying to make life mire stable for the female and not have a huge female slavery market.

An interesting few verses from Leviticus 21:10-14, "10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her."

The world didn't seem perfect but it wasn't as bad as the chattel slavery of later and you weren't allowed to be abusive. It was a full market you could sell yourself into apparently for life. There were war captives but that was apparently not a big amount of slaves and you still couldn't mistreat them.

Slavery was the same then as now. Slavery in the South had its apologists too.. Christians say a higher law is now in place but it should have always been in place. And why didn't OT wives have equal rights of as the husband's? You sound like a Muslim apologist

I agree. Deut. 25:12 was the verse I mentioned

Who cares if I am an Islam apologist?

It was not common at all, it may have never happened, the phenomenon of selling yourself into slavery if you're poor in the American south. Chattel slavery seems to make it impossible.

It was also not a trait of slavery in America to free slaves if you hurt them.

I asked a Muslim how talion was applied to them and he said that there's a general funny joke or idea that explains it, "If you unjustly slap your slave then he has a right to slap you back." So they apply talion more literally.

Edit: Now what did happen in America was selling yourself into indentured servitude to either get a ride on a boat there and to get land after x amount of years worked. That's not what we're talking about with chattel slavery and indentured servitude is more in line with abed.

Defend satanic religions all you want, it's a fact that the Bible calls slavery "property". Lev 21 and 25 speak of perpetual slavery and Num. says to enslave the children of enemies you killed

I feel like you've completely ignored what I wrote because I already mentioned Leviticus 21 and you haven't seemed to respond to anything I said just line up more accusations.

The following quotes from The Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant may be of interest:

P77 (the year was 1860): The whig party had ceased to exist before I had an opportunity of exercising the privilege of casting a ballot; the Know-Nothing party had taken its place, but was on the wane; and the Republican party was in a chaotic state and had not yet received a name. It had no existence in the slave states except at points on the borders next to free states.

Up to the Mexican war there were few out and out abolitionists.......But the great majority of people at the North, where slavery did not exist were opposed to the institution.

P79: For there were people who believed in the 'divinity' of human slavery, as there are now people who believe Mormonism and Polygamy to be ordained by the Most High. We forgive them for entertaining such notions, but forbid their practice.

It's a very good book to read in light of the OP.

Yeah it does look interesting. I would say a history of quakers in general and in America would show a lot more abolitionism. The abolitionist position lost ground once the 18th century started and the markets had the economics for slavery be promoted. I would say the strongest justification for anything is in such a foundation like God. In any case, the primary agitant seems to be secularism, particularly liberal capitalism. The christian perspective came a century and a half later after it was a huge institution and many denominations in the south decided it was bad but so was losing souls. The christian development and intensification was politically drawn afaik.

You admit slavery was part of the law but say it was benign. Why should I trust you when the Bible supports cutting wives hands off and setting people on fire?

To be honest I engaged pretty fruitfully and you haven't really given any concern to anything besides throwing rebuttals everywhere without addressing my points. That and you called me a Muslim apologist for no reason and your accusations aren't biblical except in a cursory reading of verses with a modern bias. Clearly nobody will be up to the task of explaining the bible or history so I'm not sure why you replied here. I mean it's extremely off-topic anyways.

The Bible supports slavery and supports slavery as property ownership

I'm not interested in conversing with you.

I'm not interested in conversing with you — Shwah

At this rate Shwah, you'll have no one to converse with in (say) 2/3 moons! :smile:

The Bible supports slavery and supports slavery as property ownership — Gregory

We can pin that on Jesus being semiconscious, ethically speaking. I think there's some truth to the resurrection story: X was zombieish compared to fully enlightened beings like the Buddha (Buddhism) and Mahavira (Jainism); his knowledge of ethics was, unfortunately, incomplete or partial. Between something is better than nothing and a little knowledge is dangerous, I'm :confused:

I'll have nobody uninteresting to converse with in 2/3 months hopefully.

You lied about the Muslim thing and are dishonest in general

The OT has brutal punishments and says slaves are property. So it's right to call it chattel slavery. The South had their arguments about why slavery was ok and it was largely based on the Bible

I did not lie about anything as there was nothing to lie about. I'm not an apologist for Islam but it doesn't matter if I am. If you could stop your bigotry and harassment and stop replying to me I would appreciate it.

I didn't say you were a Muslim apologist

Whatever you said, context and tone matters and you've been nothing but abrasive and throwing in that accusation is not charitable and looks bigotous.

Have a good one.