Did you realise that the best Christian theologians in America in the nineteenth century argued that God instituted slavery and approved of it? Yes, the fact is that leading evangelical and Reformed theologians argued that slavery was instituted by God and approved by him.
Rev Professor Scott McKnight is an American New Testament scholar (who follows me on twitter, bless). He links to a fascinating article on his blog by Rev Dr Kevin Giles entitled The Silence of Complementarians on Slavery. He examines the “biblical” case for Apartheid and slavery as expounded by leading evangelical theologians.
Regular Christian readers of Blogging Theology (like Ken) might find the article a salutary challenge. Muslims will gain an insight into a mature Christian debate on a subject that deeply divides evangelicals.
Blogging Theology 
The only slavery in the law of Moses is economic slavery where the “slave-owner” owns the labour of the slave. Not like Islam where the whole life, time and actions of the slave are under the power of his master with no end in sight.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What a load of crap! Christian apologists can be such liars when the unpleasant aspects of their “scripture” are exposed for all to see!
“44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another” (Leviticus 25:44-46).
LikeLike
faiz,
Click to access stark_copan-review.pdf
pages
Slavery (1 of 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Slavery (2 of 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
have a nice read
LikeLike
Very interesting. Thanks for this. It further exposes the apologetic lies and attempts to sugarcoat the unpleasant nature of slavery in the Bible.
LikeLike
Yes, but there are limitations imposed on the situation and freedoms given which are not imposed or given in Islam.
The families may not be split apart and their family life, the right to bear and bring up their children, is sacrosanct. This is not the case in Islam.
Under Sharia once a woman is take as a prisoner of war, an act which is forbidden under the law of Moses, her marriage is automatically annulled and she is effectively cut off from her husband and family. This is a dreadful injustice and infliction of suffering.
The alien cannot be as free as the Israelite in Israel as he is not in a covenant relation to God.
The fact that the alien is the possession of the family or tribe that bought him protects him and his family from the fear of being sold back to a pagan nation.
LikeLike
Madmanna, either you are ignorant or are flat-out lying. We find in Numbers a clear proof of families being split apart, not by simply taking women as prisoners, but by…ahem…murdering their families and taking the virgins alive. See Numbers 31.
Also, see the following:
“When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall by thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14).”
LikeLike
The context of this scripture is Joshua’s conquest and the battles associated with it. This conquest was a judgement upon the Canaanite tribes who lived there because of their sins. God used the Israelites to judge and cleanse the land. These commandments are only valid in the context of this judgement and cleansing and within the confines of the promised land.
LikeLike
More nonsense. What difference does it make what the “context” is? Were people killed in a wholesale genocide or not? I could care less what the “context” is. Apparently, you think that it was not a “dreadful injustice” to kill entire nations and spare only the little virgins! Christian hypocrisy strikes again!
LikeLike
Leviticus 18 v 24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: 25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. 26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: 27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) 28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.
If you want to call it genocide that’s fine by me. It is still the will of God.
LikeLike
So you don’t agree that it was a genocide? What is your definition of it?
I can’t understand why the above it not a “dreadful injustice”. It seems to me that anything in the Bible is not unjust but anything in any other book is.
LikeLike
The above link by Robert states:
“It’s only to Hebrew slaves that all this applies. Hebrewswere indentured servants, to be released on
the seventh year, who could not be kidnapped, and who could not be treated harshly. Conversely, non-Hebrew slaves (foreign slaves) were slaves for life, their children were slaves for life.
They could be kidnapped, they could be captured in war, they could be purchased, against
their will. They could be treated harshly, as “slaves,” which means they could be beaten,
even beaten to death, so long as they didn’t die immediately! This is exactly like slavery in the antebellum South. In the South, you couldn’t enslave a U.S. citizen. But you could purchase a kidnapped African. In the same way, in Israel, you couldn’t permanently enslave an Israelite, but you could kidnap, capture, or purchase a foreigner against their will” (http://thomstark.net/copan/stark_copan-review.pdf). See p. 168.
LikeLike
“They could be kidnapped, they could be captured in war, they could be purchased, against
their will. They could be treated harshly, as “slaves,” which means they could be beaten,
even beaten to death, so long as they didn’t die immediately! ”
Anyone can claim this rubbish. Say so don’t make so.
LikeLike
Just like any Christian apologist can claim the rubbish that the OT laws were more “humane”. Says so don’t make so. Thom Stark discusses the Biblical laws of slavery in great detail. I suggest you read the link above. The OT is clear, for example, that a slave could be beaten to death without any consequences. Is that not a “dreadful injustice”?
LikeLike
That’s not my understanding of the text in question.
LikeLike
Why not?
LikeLike
An Eye for an Eye
(Matthew 5:38-48; Luke 6:27-36)
17And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. 18And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast. 19And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; 20Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. 21And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death. 22Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God. 23And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.
LikeLike
This doesn’t change the fact that the death of a slave was not punishable as long as he/she did not immediately die after being beaten.
LikeLike
It may be a fact for you, it’s not for me.
LikeLike
That’s because you don’t want it to be. You have an inherent bias on the issue, which is why your view is entirely subjective.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In contrast to the Bible, the Quran and Sunnah prohibited harming a slave. Also, freeing a slave was a meritorious act.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Also, freeing a slave was a meritorious act.”
Meritorious and profitable. The best of both worlds.
It was forbidden to make a man a slave under the law of Moses:
Exodus 21 v 16:
King James Bible
“And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.”
Taking a man away from his family and possessions was equivalent to stealing him. Selling him was a crime worthy of death.
Also if a slave was harmed he was to be freed. If he had a bad owner he could run away and could not be compelled to return.
“6And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. 27And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.”
Deut 23 v 15Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: 16He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.
Do these laws apply in Sharia?
LikeLike
“Meritorious and profitable. The best of both worlds.”
LOL, here comes the ignorant missionary side manifesting its ugly face.
How exactly would freeing a slave be a “profitable” act? The owner would be losing out on his services! Nice try, but it’s back to the drawing board with you!
You said:
“It was forbidden to make a man a slave under the law of Moses:
Exodus 21 v 16:
King James Bible
“And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.”
Taking a man away from his family and possessions was equivalent to stealing him. Selling him was a crime worthy of death.”
LOL, unless of course, you were at war with the man’s nation. Then it was allowed to enslave them, kill them and their families and steal their land. Yes, that’s very “humane”. LOL.
Also, the context of Exodus 21 is regarding HEBREWS, not non-Hebrews.
As far as Deuteronomy 23:15 is concerned, the Jewish commentator Rashi stated:
“As the Targum [Onkelos] renders it [עֲבַד עַמְמִין, a Jewish servant who had been sold to a gentile] (Gittin 45a). Another explanation: even a Canaanite servant of an Israelite who fled from outside the land to the Land of Israel” (http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9987#showrashi=true).
So, most likely, this was referring once again to Jewish slaves, or less likely, to non-Jewish slaves who had escaped from outside Israel. As for what to do with escaped slaves from within Israel? Well, since slavery was acceptable, obviously the slave would have to be returned.
As for the Islamic view, here are the rules regarding slaves:
“Worship Allah; join nothing with Him. Be good to your parents, to relatives, to orphans, to the needy, to neighbours near and far, to travellers in need and those whom your right hands possess. Allah does not like arrogant, boastful people.” [Surah An-Nisa, 4:36]
“If any of your slaves wish to pay for their freedom, make a contract with them accordingly, if you know they have good in them, and give them some of the wealth Allah has given you.” [Surah An-Nur, 24:33].
The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “Fear Allah in regards of those whom your right hands possess. They are your brothers whom Allah placed under your hands (authority). Feed them with what you eat, clothe them with what you wear and do not impose duties upon them which will overcome them. If you so impose duties, then assist them.” [Muslim]
The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “Whoever kills his slave, we will kill him.” (narrated by Ahmad and Abu Dawud on the authority of Sumra bin Jundub).
He (SAW) said: “Whichever man frees a Muslim man, Allah ta’ala will liberate for each of his organ an organ from the Fire” (narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim).
He (saw) said: “Whoever slaps his slave or strikes him, his atonement (kaffara) is to free him.” (Narrated by Muslim on the authority of Ibn Umar). Although, we should add that it was permitted to discipline a slave, as long as it was not painful or violent.
See? The Quran and Sunnah are much more humane than the Bible.
LikeLike
“LOL, unless of course, you were at war with the man’s nation. Then it was allowed to enslave them, kill them and their families and steal their land. Yes, that’s very “humane”. LOL.”
The context of Joshua’s conquest is judgement on a restricted basis, in contrast to Islam’s perpetual and unbounded judgement against the unbeliever initiated by the summons to believe and submit, in obedience to the audible commands of God. The non-Israelite could not be free in the holy land which was given to the Israelites under the covenant with Abraham and Moses whether anyone likes it or not. There is no such covenant with Muslims.
“Also, the context of Exodus 21 is regarding HEBREWS, not non-Hebrews. ”
The moral law is universal because all men have the same human nature and bear God’s image.
Paul confirms this in the NT:
Romans 2 v 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
“They could be kidnapped, they could be captured in war, they could be purchased, against
their will.”
Not by the Israelites, and by extension, all men. Except in the context of a limited judgement on a particular people at a particular time and place as in the conquest of Joshua. Not a perpetual unbounded injunction to fight all non-believers in Jihad until all religion is for Allah and Sharia is the universal law under which all men live.
Offensive wars purely for the purpose of making booty and slaves is condemned in the bible, for example by the ten commandments. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not covet. So Jihad is condemned by Moses whom Muslims claim to be their prophet.
I know that they were allowed to be purchased but that does not mean that the creation of a slave was condoned or encouraged. If the law was followed there would be no slaves to be purchased.
“Well, since slavery was acceptable, obviously the slave would have to be returned. ”
But he would have a place of refuge until the court ruled on his grievances and returned him to his master who would be reprimanded or punished as the case may be.
““Worship Allah; join nothing with Him. Be good to your parents, to relatives, to orphans, to the needy, to neighbours near and far, to travellers in need and those whom your right hands possess. Allah does not like arrogant, boastful people.” [Surah An-Nisa, 4:36] ”
Being good to the slave doesn’t correct the wrong of making him your slave in the first place.
““If any of your slaves wish to pay for their freedom, make a contract with them accordingly, if you know they have good in them, and give them some of the wealth Allah has given you.” [Surah An-Nur, 24:33].”
Very generous I must say considering that the slave has no means.
My understanding as an outsider is that the problem with the hadiths is that they are not on the same level of authority as the Koran so they are not mandatory. The Muslim always has this excuse that he does not know for certain that Mohammed said this or that, only that it was reported that he said this or that. So they are not obligatory as are the commands of the Koran and wherever the hadiths agree with the Koran.
As a fundamental evangelical my belief is that scholars have no authority and 99 percent of the time irrelevant. All scripture must be taken at face value.The plain meaning of a text of scripture can only be qualified by another scripture.
LikeLike
“The context of Joshua’s conquest is judgement on a restricted basis, in contrast to Islam’s perpetual and unbounded judgement against the unbeliever initiated by the summons to believe and submit, in obedience to the audible commands of God. The non-Israelite could not be free in the holy land which was given to the Israelites under the covenant with Abraham and Moses whether anyone likes it or not. There is no such covenant with Muslims.”
This is typical apologetic nonsense. First of all, even if Joshua’s conquest “is judgement on a restricted basis”, how does that excuse genocide? What difference does it make that tens of thousands of people were killed “on a restricted basis”? Christian logic strikes again!
Secondly, Islam only permits war against hostile non-Muslims. This fact is known by all learned individuals, whether you like it or not.
Thirdly, you have no problem with Biblical discrimination against Gentiles, just like a typical Christian hypocrite and yet harp about Islam’s alleged “injustices”. Thank you for showing what a hypocrite you are!
“The moral law is universal because all men have the same human nature and bear God’s image.”
That is complete BS, and you know it. You just said above that:
“The non-Israelite could not be free in the holy land which was given to the Israelites under the covenant with Abraham and Moses whether anyone likes it or not.”
WOW! Christian inconsistency strikes again! So which is it? Is the “moral law” universal or was a “non-Israelite” unable to be “free in the holy land”?
“Not by the Israelites, and by extension, all men. Except in the context of a limited judgement on a particular people at a particular time and place as in the conquest of Joshua. Not a perpetual unbounded injunction to fight all non-believers in Jihad until all religion is for Allah and Sharia is the universal law under which all men live.”
Um yes. I already showed that. Regardless of the “limited judgement”, the fact remains that the Israelites were allowed to enslave non-Israelites. If you think think because it was “limited” to that time, it somehow makes it better, then you are just a very sick person. Thank you for showing the sick, twisted mentality of the Bible.
“Offensive wars purely for the purpose of making booty and slaves is condemned in the bible, for example by the ten commandments. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not covet. So Jihad is condemned by Moses whom Muslims claim to be their prophet.”
LOL! Jihad is a defensive war against those who try to harm Muslims. Also, Muslims are FORBIDDEN to kill non-combatants, especially women and children. In contrast, your Bible claims that God ordered the murder of tens of thousands of people, including BABIES! Yet, like a self-righteous hypocrite, you think you have any moral ground on which to judge Islam! Hilarious!!!
“I know that they were allowed to be purchased but that does not mean that the creation of a slave was condoned or encouraged. If the law was followed there would be no slaves to be purchased.”
Sorry, but your attempts to make Biblical slavery laws sound better than they were is not going to work. You should try that line on someone who is not as educated on what the Bible teaches.
“But he would have a place of refuge until the court ruled on his grievances and returned him to his master who would be reprimanded or punished as the case may be.”
LOL! Where does the Bible say that? Care to clarify?
“Being good to the slave doesn’t correct the wrong of making him your slave in the first place.”
LOL, and yet it’s okay if the Bible allowed it? Christian hypocrisy strikes yet again!
“Very generous I must say considering that the slave has no means.”
Try using your head for once. The verse says to make a contract with the slave. In other words, the work the slave does counts as payment. It is between the two parties to work out the details. Also, the verse clearly says:
“…and give them some of the wealth Allah has given you.”
In other words, upon freeing the slave, it is strongly encouraged to give him/her some charity out of one’s own wealth. I challenge you to show me anything comparable in the Bible.
“My understanding as an outsider is that the problem with the hadiths is that they are not on the same level of authority as the Koran so they are not mandatory. The Muslim always has this excuse that he does not know for certain that Mohammed said this or that, only that it was reported that he said this or that. So they are not obligatory as are the commands of the Koran and wherever the hadiths agree with the Koran.”
LOL, another typical argument. When you got cornered, you change gears and now attack the authority of the Ahadith. Regardless of your “understanding”, the Ahadith ARE authoritative. Muslims regard both the Quran AND Ahadith as authoritative. The Ahadith explain the meaning of the Quran, as Muhammad (pbuh) was sent to teach people. He brought the Quran and then explained its meaning.
So, regardless of your ignorance, Muslims are obligated to follow both the Quran and Ahadith. You are cornered!
“As a fundamental evangelical my belief is that scholars have no authority and 99 percent of the time irrelevant. All scripture must be taken at face value.The plain meaning of a text of scripture can only be qualified by another scripture.”
Sounds very convenient. I, on the other hand, do not close my mind to reason. God gave me a brain. I will use it to discern good from evil, sense from nonsense and true scripture from fraudulent “scripture”.
LikeLike
Faiz,
“how does that excuse genocide? What difference does it make that tens of thousands of people were killed “on a restricted basis”? Christian logic strikes again!”
>>>>>>> Why do you keep harping on about genocide? If 150,000 humans die every day isn’t that a form of genocide? Or does Allah only kill male unbelievers who have attacked Muslims? I’m sure we could find a number of examples of deaths that don’t fit the paradigm of the squeaky clean koranic deity who only kills adult males who refuse to give up shirking around and various other forms of mischief in the land and attack peaceful muslims for some unknown reason.
“WOW! Christian inconsistency strikes again! So which is it? Is the “moral law” universal or was a “non-Israelite” unable to be “free in the holy land”? ”
>>>>>>>> The moral law which forbade the kidnapping or stealing of a man to make him a slave was universal as were all the moral laws given by Moses. The fact that an alien slave could be purchased does not annul the law itself which forbids the initial act of creating the slave by kidnapping or “stealing him”.
The alien is not ransomed, redeemed or chosen to be in covenant relationship to God therefore he cannot fully enjoy the benefits accruing therefrom. I suppose you could say it is one of the side effects of election.
On the whole it is still a plus for the alien to be a slave or bond servant in Israel as there appear to be no other restrictions placed upon him except the choice of whom he should work for. He can run away and he is under the protection of the royal law applied by the courts of the land. Under the law he is equally a “neighbour” to all others as all others are a “neighbour” to him. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
LikeLike
” Why do you keep harping on about genocide? If 150,000 humans die every day isn’t that a form of genocide? Or does Allah only kill male unbelievers who have attacked Muslims? I’m sure we could find a number of examples of deaths that don’t fit the paradigm of the squeaky clean koranic deity who only kills adult males who refuse to give up shirking around and various other forms of mischief in the land and attack peaceful muslims for some unknown reason.”
Your hypocrisy and sickness have come to the surface. Do you believe that the Holocaust was a genocide? What about the Rwandan and Bosnian massacres? Were these acts of genocide or not?
Death by natural disasters, disease etc. is not what we are talking about. If you think that is the same as actually ordering MASS MURDER and INFANTICIDE, then you are more sick than I imagined.
Muslims are not allowed to kill non-combatants. Your Bible wants us to believe that God COMMANDED the Israelites to mercilessly kill BABIES! What kind of a person tries to defend such behavior? I guarantee that if a similar story was found in the Quran (which it is not), you would be harping about it and condemning it as “injustice”. Christian hypocrites never learn.
“The moral law which forbade the kidnapping or stealing of a man to make him a slave was universal as were all the moral laws given by Moses. The fact that an alien slave could be purchased does not annul the law itself which forbids the initial act of creating the slave by kidnapping or “stealing him”.”
No, it wasn’t, as I have already shown. The Israelites made slaves out of the conquered peoples; well, at least those that WEREN’T slaughtered.
“On the whole it is still a plus for the alien to be a slave or bond servant in Israel as there appear to be no other restrictions placed upon him except the choice of whom he should work for. He can run away and he is under the protection of the royal law applied by the courts of the land. Under the law he is equally a “neighbour” to all others as all others are a “neighbour” to him. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
This is pure nonsense, and you know it. You are just lying at this point. Slaves could not run away and expect to be “protected”. They could also be beaten, so long as the injuries didn’t kill him right away.
You didn’t answer my challenge:
The verse says to make a contract with the slave. In other words, the work the slave does counts as payment. It is between the two parties to work out the details. Also, the verse clearly says:
“…and give them some of the wealth Allah has given you.”
In other words, upon freeing the slave, it is strongly encouraged to give him/her some charity out of one’s own wealth. I challenge you to show me anything comparable in the Bible.
LikeLike
“The verse says to make a contract with the slave. In other words, the work the slave does counts as payment. It is between the two parties to work out the details. Also, the verse clearly says:”
Where does it specifically say that the work of a slave is renumerated? The slave has to find a sponsor. You are just adding the context of your choice because this is what you want to believe. This is a simple contract for a ransom payment. That word you don’t like using because it makes the slave a chattel.
16:75
Sahih International
Allah presents an example: a slave [who is] owned and unable to do a thing and he to whom We have provided from Us good provision, so he spends from it secretly and publicly. Can they be equal? Praise to Allah ! But most of them do not know.
Islamic slaves are not even allowed to reproduce without leave of their masters.
Biblical slaves on the other hand are assumed to thrive and multiply in the land and have normal family lives:
Leviticus 25
45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
An example of prophetic love for slaves which contradicts your claims:
Abu Dawud Book 004, Hadith Number 1814.
Chapter : Not known.
Narated By Asma’ bint AbuBakr : We came out for performing hajj along with the Apostle of Allah (pbuh). When we reached al-Araj, the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) alighted and we also alighted. ‘Aisha sat beside the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) and I sat beside my father (AbuBakr). The equipment and personal effects of AbuBakr and of the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) were placed with AbuBakr’s slave on a camel. AbuBakr was sitting and waiting for his arrival. He arrived but he had no camel with him. He asked:
Where is your camel? He replied: I lost it last night. AbuBakr said: There was only one camel, even that you have lost. He then began to beat him while the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) was smiling and saying: Look at this man who is in the sacred state (putting on ihram), what is he doing?
Ibn AbuRizmah said: The Apostle of Allah (pbuh) spoke nothing except the words: Look at this man who is in the sacred state (wearing ihram), what is he doing? He was smiling (when he uttered these words).
“In other words, upon freeing the slave, it is strongly encouraged to give him/her some charity out of one’s own wealth. I challenge you to show me anything comparable in the Bible.”
Release of Hebrew Servants
(Exodus 21:1-11)
12And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. 13And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: 14Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. 15And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.
LikeLike
“Where does it specifically say that the work of a slave is renumerated? The slave has to find a sponsor. You are just adding the context of your choice because this is what you want to believe. This is a simple contract for a ransom payment. That word you don’t like using because it makes the slave a chattel.”
Maybe if you did some actual research instead of just copying pseudo-scholarly sources from the Internet, you would be able answer your own question. Your personal and ignorant opinions do not add anything to the discussion.
We know that the verse is talking about the slave providing payment via his skills. As Ibn Kathir explained:
“This is a command from Allah to slave-owners: if their servants ask them for a contract of emancipation, they should write it for them, provided that the servant has some skill and means of earning so that he can pay his master the money that is stipulated in the contract. Al-Bukhari said: “Rawh narrated from Ibn Jurayj: `I said to `Ata’, “If I know that my servant has money, is it obligatory for me to write him a contract of emancipation” He said, “I do not think it can be anything but obligatory.'” (www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2426&Itemid=79)
“16:75
Sahih International
Allah presents an example: a slave [who is] owned and unable to do a thing and he to whom We have provided from Us good provision, so he spends from it secretly and publicly. Can they be equal? Praise to Allah ! But most of them do not know.
Islamic slaves are not even allowed to reproduce without leave of their masters.”
Oh , good Lord. Now you are resorting to quoting verses out of context? Is that how desperate you are? This verse is a parable demonstrating the difference between a believer and unbeliever. It has nothing to with slavery! Ibn Kathir writes:
“Al-`Awfi reported that Ibn `Abbas said: “This is the example which Allah gives of the disbeliever and the believer.” This was also the view of Qatadah and Ibn Jarir. The servant who has no power over anything is like the disbeliever, and the one who is given good provisions and spends of them secretly and openly is like the believer. Ibn Abi Najih reported that Mujahid said: “This is an example given of the idol and the True God – can they be the same”” (http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2958&Itemid=71).
“Biblical slaves on the other hand are assumed to thrive and multiply in the land and have normal family lives:
Leviticus 25
45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. ”
LOL, now you’re just getting silly. This verse essentially condemns entire generations to slavery. How is that just? They are reduced to mere “possession”.
“An example of prophetic love for slaves which contradicts your claims:
Abu Dawud Book 004, Hadith Number 1814.
Chapter : Not known.
Narated By Asma’ bint AbuBakr : We came out for performing hajj along with the Apostle of Allah (pbuh). When we reached al-Araj, the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) alighted and we also alighted. ‘Aisha sat beside the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) and I sat beside my father (AbuBakr). The equipment and personal effects of AbuBakr and of the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) were placed with AbuBakr’s slave on a camel. AbuBakr was sitting and waiting for his arrival. He arrived but he had no camel with him. He asked:
Where is your camel? He replied: I lost it last night. AbuBakr said: There was only one camel, even that you have lost. He then began to beat him while the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) was smiling and saying: Look at this man who is in the sacred state (putting on ihram), what is he doing?
Ibn AbuRizmah said: The Apostle of Allah (pbuh) spoke nothing except the words: Look at this man who is in the sacred state (wearing ihram), what is he doing? He was smiling (when he uttered these words).”
LOL, no this is an example of Christian hypocrisy. We have already seen that the Bible allows for the beating of slaves to the point of leaving them critically injured and possibly dying.
What his hadith shows is that it was allowed to discipline a slave, but not to the point of actually injuring him and leaving him on his deathbed! Also, other ahadith state that the expiation for slapping or beating a slave for something he did not do is to set him free:
“Ibn ‘Umar said, “I heard the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, ‘The expiation for someone who slaps his slave or beats him more than he deserves is to set him free.'””
I once again challenge you to show me anything comparable from the Bible.
““In other words, upon freeing the slave, it is strongly encouraged to give him/her some charity out of one’s own wealth. I challenge you to show me anything comparable in the Bible.”
Release of Hebrew Servants
(Exodus 21:1-11)
12And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. 13And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: 14Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. 15And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.”
LOL, this is about HEBREW slaves. What are you not getting? This is exactly what we have been talking about all this time! The Bible allows for such provisions ONLY for Hebrew slaves, NOT for non-Hebrews, the GENTILES. Not only that, but even this verse does not give the slave the opportunity to be freed earlier! He has to serve at least 6 years, without choice! In contrast, Islamic law does not make such stipulations. A slave can request his freedom at any time, provided he is able to compensate his mater. You have failed to meet my challenge thus far. So again, I challenge you to show me anything comparable in the Bible.
LikeLike
Come out, come out wherever you are madmanna…
LikeLike
Still running madman?
LikeLike
STILL no response from madman? Oh well…
LikeLike
“We know that the verse is talking about the slave providing payment via his skills. As Ibn Kathir explained:
“This is a command from Allah to slave-owners: if their servants ask them for a contract of emancipation, they should write it for them, provided that the servant has some skill and means of earning so that he can pay his master the money that is stipulated in the contract. Al-Bukhari said: “Rawh narrated from Ibn Jurayj: `I said to `Ata’, “If I know that my servant has money, is it obligatory for me to write him a contract of emancipation” He said, “I do not think it can be anything but obligatory.’” (www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2426&Itemid=79)
“16:75”
There is no indication from any Islamic text that the master is obliged to give any recompense in return for the skills of his slaves. Ibn Kathir has to put a rosy gloss on this to make it look good.
If the money comes form somewhere else in the form of a ransom payment that is something else.
““Ibn ‘Umar said, “I heard the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, ‘The expiation for someone who slaps his slave or beats him more than he deserves is to set him free.’””
There is no legal definition given in the islamic texts of what is “more than he deserves”. The slave owner decides. He may decide that the slave should be beaten to death for offending or insulting his honour. No one can stop him. In the OT there are definitions given of what is excessive violence. 2 day rule or if he loses a tooth or his eyesight.
The OT slave has the right to run away if he is badly treated and he cannot be returned by force. It is to be assumed that only the courts can order him to return after they have investigated.
In the OT is wrong to keep a man captive against his will for the reason of trading him for ransom or selling/keeping him as a slave. The opposite is true in Islam.
LikeLike
Ask Mozer his understanding. He is a teacher of the Torah. I would be interested in what he says.
LikeLike
And the humiliation of madman continues…
“There is no indication from any Islamic text that the master is obliged to give any recompense in return for the skills of his slaves. Ibn Kathir has to put a rosy gloss on this to make it look good.”
LOL!! So sheik madman thinks he knows better than Islamic scholars!
Ibn Kathir mentioned the text from Sahih Bukhari, which clearly stipulates this. Sorry sheik madman, but no one cares what you think! We go by the Islamic sources, and they clearly stipulate that if a slave has some money or skill, he can use that to buy his freedom.
“If the money comes form somewhere else in the form of a ransom payment that is something else.”
Wrong again! As Ibn Kathir narrated:
“If I know that my servant has money, is it obligatory for me to write him a contract of emancipation” He said, “I do not think it can be anything but obligatory.””
Nothing in there about a ransom payment.
“There is no legal definition given in the islamic texts of what is “more than he deserves”. The slave owner decides. He may decide that the slave should be beaten to death for offending or insulting his honour. No one can stop him.”
Wrong again! It states in Sahih Muslim:
Zadhan reported that Ibn Umar called his slave and he found the marks (of beating) upon his back. He said to him: I have caused you pain. He said: No. But he (Ibn Umar) said: You are free. He then took hold of something from the earth and said: There is no reward for me even to the weight equal to it. I heard Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: He who beats a slave without cognizable offence of his or slaps him (without any serious fault), then expiation for it is that he should set him free.
So, beating to death is not allowed at all. Madman’s lying spirit is lying again. In fact, beating a slave to death is strictly forbidden:
“Narrated Samurah that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “Whoever kills his slave, then we will kill him, and whoever maims his slave, then we will maim him.””
“In the OT there are definitions given of what is excessive violence. 2 day rule or if he loses a tooth or his eyesight.”
LOL!!! Yes, “excessive violence” is defined as beating a slave to death, but severely beating a slave almost to the point of death was perfectly fine. And yet madman has a problem with Islam! Lying spirit fail yet again!
“The OT slave has the right to run away if he is badly treated and he cannot be returned by force. It is to be assumed that only the courts can order him to return after they have investigated.”
Wrong again! This is only referring to HEBREW slaves. As the Jewish commentator Rashi stated:
“As the Targum [Onkelos] renders it [עֲבַד עַמְמִין, a Jewish servant who had been sold to a gentile] (Gittin 45a). Another explanation: even a Canaanite servant of an Israelite who fled from outside the land to the Land of Israel.”
So, the Targum clarified that it referred to a Jewish slave. The other explanation, that it could be a Canaanite slave, has no textual support.
Also, there is nothing in the text that allows a slave to run away for no reason. It could only be due to injustice. A slave could not just wake up one day and decide to run away because he wanted to be free. Here are some Christian commentaries that explain this:
“The case in question is that of a slave who fled from a pagan master to the holy land. It is of course assumed that the refugee was not flying from justice, but only from the tyranny of his lord.” (Barnes’ Notes)
“The case in question is that of a slave who fled from a pagan master to the holy land. It is of course assumed that the refugee was not flying from justice, but only from the tyranny of his lord.” (Pulpit Commentary)
“It may be understood, likewise, of such foreign servants as, upon inquiry, appeared to be unjustly oppressed by their masters.” (Benson Commentary)
“Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which has escaped from his master unto thee—evidently a servant of the Canaanites or some of the neighboring people, who was driven by tyrannical oppression, or induced, with a view of embracing the true religion, to take refuge in Israel.” (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary)
It just keeps getting worse and worse for madman!
“In the OT is wrong to keep a man captive against his will for the reason of trading him for ransom or selling/keeping him as a slave. The opposite is true in Islam.”
Wrong again! Here is what Rashi stated regarding Leviticus 25:44:
“If you say, “If so [that I may give my Jewish servant only skilled labor to do,] by whom shall I be served? Over my [Jewish] servants I do not have real power [as I must treat them like hired employees (see verse 40 above)]. Of the seven nations I am not allowed to possess [a slave], for You have warned me, ‘you shall not allow any soul to live’ (Deut. 20:16), So who will serve me [as a slave]?” [To this, God answers:]”
In other words, the Hebrews were allowed to take slaves from the other nations, with the exception of the seven nations in Canaan. But this little kindness to the seven nations was only due to one reason…they were not to live at all!
Madman’s lying spirit has failed him again…Ouch!!
LikeLike
“Ask Mozer his understanding. He is a teacher of the Torah. I would be interested in what he says.”
LOL, so now you’re interested in the Jewish understanding? Are you as equally “interested” in Mozer’s understanding regarding Isaiah 53? Christian hypocrisy and double standards yields its ugly head again!
LikeLike
“Islamic slaves are not even allowed to reproduce without leave of their masters.”
No reply to this yet. Actually the Islamic slave master automatically has exclusive rights to the sexual use of his slave’s body.
For the slave women it’s a case of me or no-one else tonight love, or perhaps someone else that I sell you to for the night.
What a terrible state of affairs and some people think this is a great religion!
LikeLike
And the humiliation of madman continues still…
“No reply to this yet. Actually the Islamic slave master automatically has exclusive rights to the sexual use of his slave’s body.
For the slave women it’s a case of me or no-one else tonight love, or perhaps someone else that I sell you to for the night.
What a terrible state of affairs and some people think this is a great religion!”
Wrong again! It was forbidden to force a slave to prostitute herself. As Ibn Kathir stated:
“Among the people of the Jahiliyyah, there were some who, if he had a slave-girl, he would send her out to commit Zina and would charge money for that, which he would take from her every time. When Islam came, Allah forbade the believers to do that. The reason why this Ayah was revealed, according to the reports of a number of earlier and later scholars of Tafsir, had to do with `Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul. He had slave-girls whom he used to force into prostitution so that he could take their earnings and because he wanted them to have children which would enhance his status, or so he claimed.”
Let’s look at some more verses from madman’s wholesome Bible, shall we? I wonder what madman thinks about the touching story of the Benjamites?
“So they instructed the Benjamites, saying, “Go and hide in the vineyards 21 and watch. When the young women of Shiloh come out to join in the dancing, rush from the vineyards and each of you seize one of them to be your wife. Then return to the land of Benjamin. 22 When their fathers or brothers complain to us, we will say to them, ‘Do us the favor of helping them, because we did not get wives for them during the war. You will not be guilty of breaking your oath because you did not give your daughters to them.’”
23 So that is what the Benjamites did. While the young women were dancing, each man caught one and carried her off to be his wife. Then they returned to their inheritance and rebuilt the towns and settled in them.” (Judges 21)
Now let’s see what Christian commentators said about this behavior:
“That is, each man took his wife. By which we may see, they had no very favourable opinion of polygamy, because they did not allow it in this case, when it might seem most necessary for the reparation of a lost tribe.” (Benson Commentary)
LOL, so there you have it! The Christian commentators were more concerned with refuting polygamy. The fact that the women were forcibly seized did not seem to bother them! And idiots like madman have a problem with Islam!
LikeLike
quote :
“Then there were slaves bought with money. They were treated like property. They could be treated harshly, like slaves, because they were not fellow Hebrews.”
Talk about somebody not knowing what they’re talking about. This right here is why you’re wrong. They were no slaves bought with money as if Israelites were told to go buy slaves at some slave store or a slave market. The simple fact is that in every case that purchasing “slaves” is spoken of in the OT, it is an agreement entered into either by the person selling him or herself, that is, selling his or her SERVICE or else a family to family arrangement. This made it a very private or personal affair with economic, business and social considerations. Treated like property? Which kind? Furniture, livestock or other household goods? The fact is they are none of these kinds of property my Bible misinterpreting friend. They are only “property” in the sense that they are bonded servants who are still very human, a point that is still lost on you. This is as a result of the craziness, pomposity and rank irrationality that characterizes your worldview.
I have shown you this before but you cannot read well enough to comprehend.
Exodus 12:43-45 (NRSV)
43 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron: This is the ordinance for the passover: no foreigner shall eat of it, 44 but any slave who has been purchased may eat of it after he has been circumcised; 45 no bound or hired servant may eat of it.
Leviticus 22:10-11 (NRSV)
10 No lay person shall eat of the sacred donations. No bound or hired servant of the priest shall eat of the sacred donations; 11 but if a priest acquires anyone by purchase, the person may eat of them; and those that are born in his house may eat of his food.
These passages show that purchased slaves were not indentured servants. See the difference yet? There are indentured (bound) servants who are Hebrews who serve six years. Those bought with money are slaves and property of the owner.
The Israelites were never sanctioned to force anyone into slavery. They were simply given leeway to enter into this sort of arrangement with WILLING PARTIES with the understanding that a bond servant was still very human no matter their place of origin.
Deuteronomy 20:10-14 (NRSV)
10 When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. 11 If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor. 12 If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; 13 and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. 14 You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you.
Here those parties are given a choice: slavery or death. That is the greatest force there is. You know these verses. Stop lying.
But they have insidious methods of tricking fellow Israelites into permanent slavery using “family values”.
Deuteronomy 15:12-17 (NRSV)
12 If a member of your community, whether a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you and works for you six years, in the seventh year you shall set that person free. 13 And when you send a male slave out from you a free person, you shall not send him out empty-handed. 14 Provide liberally out of your flock, your threshing floor, and your wine press, thus giving to him some of the bounty with which the Lord your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; for this reason I lay this command upon you today. 16 But if he says to you, “I will not go out from you,” because he loves you and your household, since he is well off with you, 17 then you shall take an awl and thrust it through his earlobe into the door, and he shall be your slave forever.
You shall do the same with regard to your female slave.
Exodus 21:2-6 (NRSV)
2 When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave declares, “I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out a free person,” 6 then his master shall bring him before God. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.
The Exodus passage gives an explicit strategy for making indentured servants into permanent slaves.
I’m comparing what you’re saying on the matter, and it’s as stupid as they come. A Christian reveres the Bible. You, a non-Christian do not.
I don’t revere the Bible but I read it. You are the one who is lying about what it says. You make claims that you wish were the case. I keep showing you the verses that refute your claims while supporting mine. If you were honest, I would only have to show the verses once.
LikeLike
scums like you get exposed even by non-theists
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/crossexamined/responding_to_the_minimal_facts_argument_for_the_resurrection/#comment-3057922191
LikeLike
jesus would not have a problem with sexual abuse of slaves :
The parable uses the beating of slaves as a positive point. That is condoning the beating. Is that your favorite turd? You like to polish it.
Jesus still thought beating slaves was the proper thing to do, just like under the Old Covenant. Why split hairs over irrelevancies?
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/crossexamined/responding_to_the_minimal_facts_argument_for_the_resurrection/#comment-3067019554
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/crossexamined/responding_to_the_minimal_facts_argument_for_the_resurrection/#comment-3068101108
LikeLike
“LOL, this is about HEBREW slaves. What are you not getting? This is exactly what we have been talking about all this time! The Bible allows for such provisions ONLY for Hebrew slaves, NOT for non-Hebrews, the GENTILES. Not only that, but even this verse does not give the slave the opportunity to be freed earlier! He has to serve at least 6 years, without choice! In contrast, Islamic law does not make such stipulations. A slave can request his freedom at any time, provided he is able to compensate his mater. You have failed to meet my challenge thus far. So again, I challenge you to show me anything comparable in the Bible.”
No reply to this yet from the madman…
For the slave it’s a case of work for 6 years, and if you get out of line, I’ll beat you to the point of death.
LikeLike
Some more Biblical laws on slavery:
“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.” (Exodus 21)
The wife that was given to a slave belonged to the slave’s master, along with her children. And if the slave wanted to stay with his wife and children, he could ONLY do so if he remained a slave for the REST OF HIS LIFE.
And madman has a problem with Islam! LOL, it is SO easy to refute this knuckleheads!
LikeLike
the love of yhwh .
Leviticus 25:44-46 (NRSV)
44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.
Notice that the fellow Israelites, that is, the indentured servants, are not to be treated with harshness but the non-Israelite foreign slaves are exempted from not being treated harshly, they are to be treated like slaves.
If you read Christian apologetics about Bible slavery, you will be badly misinformed. They flat out lie. The following passages show that there is a clear distinction between indentured (or bound) servants and slaves bought with money:
Exodus 12:43-45 (NRSV)
43 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron: This is the ordinance for the passover: no foreigner shall eat of it, 44 but any slave who has been purchased may eat of it after he has been circumcised; 45 no bound or hired servant may eat of it.
Leviticus 22:10-11 (NRSV)
10 No lay person shall eat of the sacred donations. No bound or hired servant of the priest shall eat of the sacred donations; 11 but if a priest acquires anyone by purchase, the person may eat of them; and those that are born in his house may eat of his food.
LikeLike
No response again from madman? Ran away again? Oh well…
LikeLike
The first act involved in islamic slavery is to destroy the family unit of the slave and transform it’s members in to isolated individuals. This is the most wicked and retrograde form of slavery possible. Only after this is accomplished does Islam slip in to the role of the lovey-dovey slave benefactor. What a hypocritical transformation!
Biblical forms of slavery never descend to this level of wickedness. In the bible through all forms of slavery the family unit of the slave is preserved as God-given and sacrosanct. In the bible the slave, of whatever kind, is given the right and the means to preserve his family intact and inviolable.
And the humiliation of Faiz continues still.
LikeLike
You have some kind of midlife crisis?
LikeLike
LOL, madman keeps coming back for more humiliation! Some people never learn and are too arrogant to admit when they have been refuted.
Here are the facts:
1. The Bible states that the only way for a slave to stay with his wife and children is to remain a slave for his entire life. Otherwise, he can kiss them goodbye. Yeah, that’s very generous! Lol!! The Bible’s motto should be:
The family that is enslaved together, stays together.
2. Even if the family was allowed to stay together, how does that change the fact that it has been ENSLAVED? Christian logic strikes again.
Madman, do you know the definition of insanity? It’s doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. You keep opening your mouth and embarrassing yourself and your religion. Maybe you should get a new hobby. ; )
LikeLiked by 2 people
Brother burhanuddin,
Madman is suffering from a variety of problems, all of which are caused by the lying spirit that is haunting him. The guy is living in a fantasy world. What a mess. Hahahaha.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Faiz said: “You keep opening your mouth and embarrassing yourself and your religion. Maybe you should get a new hobby. ; )”
I reply:
No, its my way of keeping in contact with “the best of all peoples”. Its such an enriching experience 🙂
Faiz said: “1. The Bible states that the only way for a slave to stay with his wife and children is to remain a slave for his entire life. Otherwise, he can kiss them goodbye. Yeah, that’s very generous! Lol!! The Bible’s motto should be:
The family that is enslaved together, stays together.”
I reply:
Nonsense. Marriage is not temporary in the bible. Children belong to their parents. Compare scripture with scripture.
Exodus 21 v
4
If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.
5
And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
6
Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
It doesn’t mean he has to physically separate himself from his wife and children but he is free from any obligation to his former master to serve him.
His wife and children remain obliged to serve their father. The reason is not given in the text. It must have to do with the fact that she was given to the servant by his master. The gift of the woman to someone who was already indebted to him can apparently only be adequately honored by a lifetime of service.
You see what a woman is worth in the OT compared to the woman in Islam. No comparison!
LikeLike
Madman said:
“No, its my way of keeping in contact with “the best of all peoples”. Its such an enriching experience 🙂”
Lol, right…Keeping in contact to demonize and spread lies. You must really be full of the lying…I mean, holy spirit!
“Nonsense. Marriage is not temporary in the bible. Children belong to their parents. Compare scripture with scripture.”
Lol, there goes the pseudoscholar expressing his own meaningless opinions!
This law is very clear. Normal rules of marriage don’t apply here. The wife and children belong to the master. He gets precedence. Thus, the freed slave has two choices: be free and lose his wife and children or be enslaved and stay with his wife and children. The family that is enslaved together remains together…
We should also remember that this only applies to Jewish slaves, not Gentiles. Gentile slaves were enslaved for life no matter what.
“It doesn’t mean he has to physically separate himself from his wife and children but he is free from any obligation to his former master to serve him.”
Lol, oh what desperation! Why do you misquote your scripture? It clearly says that if the freed slave says that he does not want to go out by himself, he has the option of remaining a slave. Separation is implied by the text. You can lie all you want. It doesn’t change anything and only embarrasses you and your lying spirit further.
“His wife and children remain obliged to serve their father. The reason is not given in the text. It must have to do with the fact that she was given to the servant by his master. The gift of the woman to someone who was already indebted to him can apparently only be adequately honored by a lifetime of service.”
Hahaha, more desperation! Have you no shame?
The reason the wife and children were not released as well was because the financial loss to the master would be too great. Finance trumps marriage in this case. So much for your defense of Biblical marriage standards!
“You see what a woman is worth in the OT compared to the woman in Islam. No comparison!”
Lol, oh man I’m dying from laughter! How deluded are you?
Let’s see how much a woman is worth:
“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.”
Yeah, women are certainly worth a lot! 😉
LikeLike
“Nonsense. Marriage is not temporary in the bible”
it can be if you followed jesus.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Therefore, it seems unlikely that they have the resources to be financially helping anyone besides themselves on any regular basis—-at least not without miracles, which most academic biblical scholars do not accept for any historical Jesus. See the following texts (Revised Standard Version):
Mark 2:23ff
One sabbath he was going through the grainfields;
and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain.
Mark 10:28ff
Peter began to say to him, “Lo, we have left everything and followed you.”
Matthew 8:20
And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and
birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his
head.”
Matthew 21:18-19
In the morning, as he was returning to the city, he was hungry.
And seeing a fig tree by the wayside he went to it,
and found nothing on it but leaves only. And he said to it, “May no fruit
ever come from you again!” And the fig tree withered at once.
In Mark 6:31-37 you certainly can understand the
disciples’ question as being a sarcastic or puzzled one. It is clear that the disciples really had no appreciable income in the other passages I cited. Mark 6:36 implies the
crowd’s ability to “buy themselves bread.”
More importantly, the crowd is not the families of the disciples.
When the family of Jesus came asking for him, he turns them away or does not acknowledge them as his family. He redefines family as those who follow his religion. Note Mark 3:31-35 (RSV):
[31] And his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him.
[32] And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you.”
[33] And he replied, “Who are my mother and my brothers?”
[34] And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers!
[35] Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.”
So, if his biological family came asking for help or money, he does not even want to hear it. At the very least, Jesus does not sound like someone who is concerned about their welfare or like someone who is going to bother sending fianancial help he does not have.
Your defense also does not seem to be concerned
about the emotional anguish and stress that abandoned families suffer apart from any financial loss.
As for Judas being a treasurer, you need to understand that whatever money the disciples had, cannot have been very much for it is said that Judas was in charge of a money bag or purse (John 13:29).
Typically, one money bag would not have held enough to support 12 families + that of Jesus, especially if they were also using it for their own needs.
Moreover, this seems to contradict Jesus’ statement to not build treasures on earth (Matthew 6:19), and so the Gospels are not always consistent on the issue of saving up money.
The other reference to Judas being a treasurer (in
John 12:6) is part of a story where Jesus does not seem that concerned about the poor, and I have a fuller discussion of the Marcan version of that story (Mark 14:3-9) in The Bad Jesus.
Although, I would love to explain these issues more fully, it is probably best that you actually read the book because
otherwise I will just end up rewriting it here, and I don’t have that sort of time.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
LikeLike
Madman keeps running away from his humiliation and exposure as the shameless liar that he is, but he continues to promote his lies on his blog. Apparently, he thinks he will be safe there. How wrong he is!
https://badmanna.wordpress.com/2017/07/01/contradictory-hadiths-on-the-question-of-beating-slaves-is-this-the-best-that-can-come-forth-from-the-lawgiver-of-the-golden-age-civilization/#comment-15602
LikeLike
Thanks for the publicity Faiz 🙂
LikeLike
Don’t mention it buddy! Why would I pass up the opportunity to expose you further? 😉
LikeLike
Here is what Madman’s Bible says about raping of female captives. Remember, he has very strong feelings for the KJV Bible. It’s his best friend.
“And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her” (Deuteronomy 21:14).
The phrase “humbled her” refers to rape. We know this because the same phrase is used in Deuteronomy 22:29, which specifically talks about the law regarding rape. The rapist must marry the woman he “humbled”:
“Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.”
LikeLike
“The phrase “humbled her” refers to rape. We know this because the same phrase is used in Deuteronomy 22:29, which specifically talks about the law regarding rape. The rapist must marry the woman he “humbled”:”
Wrong again.
LikeLike
Madman’s lying spirit is lying again.
This is straight from the horse’s mouth, madman. Straight from your precious KJV Bible. Don’t try to hide it now.
LikeLike
More evidence to expose madman’s lying spirit:
The word used in Deuteronomy 21 is etymologically similar to Deuteronomy 22. Both are derived from the word “anah”, which means to “abase” or “defile”. In the context of both verses, it refers to rape.
http://biblehub.com/strongs/hebrew/6031.htm
LikeLike