CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I only used slavery because that is the commonly known rendered translation. In the Old Testament, slavery was actually indentured servitude, and indentured servants had way more rights than the 21st century concept of slaves.
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment." (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
If that isn't inhumane and terrible I'm not sure what is.
That verse safeguarded the rights of Israelite girls sold into a household. In the Ancient Near East, whenever people became extremely poor or destitute, they sold themselves and families into servitude to pay off that debt. For example in the same chapter, a Hebrew who sold himself into servitude could go free after 6 years.
This specific verse speaks of the condition wear a man sold his daughter into another household.
Let's look at the conditions:
1)He can't sell her to foreigners because foreigners would not observe the natural rights as an Israelite she were to have.
2)He must either marry her himself or give her to his son for marriage.
3)If he fails to satisfy any of these conditions, then she is allowed to leave for free without making payment.
So the woman was being given rights here because the man who bought her had obligations towards her. He had to make her a wife and if he never wanted her anymore he had to return her. The entire scenario is in reference to the last resort a family would turn to if they could not provide for themselves or children, the daughter would have been given to a different household where she could be cared for and treated for.
This specific verse speaks of the condition wear a man sold his daughter into another household.
If she can be sold that means she is owned, that is inhumane and terrible.
I would add that the circumstances do not matter, owning a human is terrible and the Jewish/Christian god had the ability to outlaw it out write, or declare it a sin, but not once is the owning of another human denounced in the Bible.
If she can be sold that means she is owned, that is inhumane and terrible.
That is not inhumane or terrible, only if she was treated negatively. And how many people you know when sold get rights? If you are sold then your life belongs to the person who you were sold to; they gave you your rights. For some reason though, she has rights that the "owner" must be obligated to, therefore she is not really sold.Worse off, he forfeits her when he can't fulfill these rights.
I would add that the circumstances do not matter, owning a human is terrible and the Jewish/Christian god had the ability to outlaw it out write, or declare it a sin
He had the ability but the Israelites had problems with the simplest laws and commandments, how much more difficult would it be for them to follow laws that destroyed basic order or the economy of their civilization?
but not once is the owning of another human denounced in the Bible.
It is denounced among Christians, because slave owners could not treat their slaves as slaves.
Well, you can dismiss my opinion on ownership and call yours the ultimate authority if you want, because yours is right and mine is a lesser view. Is it inhumane for the government to lay ownership to the life of a soldier, or lay ownership to your life because suicide is outlawed?
No one wants to this situation to be, it is a last resort. So the woman does not want to be sold (just for argument sake but females at that time had a disposition to want to be married), the parents don't want to sell her but it is something to be done for the greater good.
I intend to, if we cannot agree that owning another person is inhumane, we can't continue, because by definition you are wrong. You can make any statements about owning a person, but you cannot use the word humane, because the word humane has a meaning, one person being owned against their will isn't humane by definition. If you would like, you can make up a word, and then define it, but I can't address you opinion because you are using the wrong word.
No one wants to this situation to be, it is a last resort
Sure, for these girls this was likely the best option, that doesn't say anything to it's being humane. This isn't the best option for the people who were taken against their will from other countries.
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
These foreigners are already property, they were taken away from their countries and forced into slavery.
They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves. (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
Here we have an example of people acting under the orders of God to put women in a situation where being owned is the best option, while also being taken from their country.
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
Here is an example of women and children being kept from the preferable situation of living (as free people) with the father/husband.
Taken from Dictionary.com. It does not say you that ownership is inhumane. You never answered my questions either.
Sure, for these girls this was likely the best option, that doesn't say anything to it's being humane.
Yes it is, considering that these girls were given food, shelter, clothing and the owner was to fulfill the duties as a father.
These foreigners are already property, they were taken away from their countries and forced into slavery.
They can still run away and the slave is allowed to live in any land, neither can he be returned.
Here we have an example of people acting under the orders of God to put women in a situation where being owned is the best option, while also being taken from their country.
Midianite people were not entirely innocent. They provoked the Israelites into treason, the response was according to the magnitude. I am sure America has done many things along the sort, not all considered inhumane but very justified. The only difference is that the females left were taken into Israelite families and raised up as part of the people.
Here is an example of women and children being kept from the preferable situation of living (as free people) with the father/husband.
The female servant worked for the master, she also needed to pay off her debt. Where would the children go though? To the man who just left his debt? That makes no sense whatsoever. It was better for the children to stay with the master and mother, until they were also in a position of financial stability. This is also unfair to the master, who made an investment.
It is difficult to convince someone slavery was inhumane when they endorse slavery, I don't have that kind of time. If in the future you decide that one person owning another person against their will is inhumane, I would be happy to continue this discussion.
A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
The slaves of the OT were not forced to obey there masters. This is why I don't think it is slavery. Again, people are seen as legal property all the time. When one attempts suicide and fails, then they are put in prison because they have commited a crime: that being taking away something of value to the state, there lives.
That is an interesting question. If a slave ever believed he was mistreated, he could take action and leave (runaway). I say leave because OT law does not give the master right to force him to stay.
"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."
You can define the particulars of old testament slavery as you wish, but this verse is absolutely inhumane and terrible.
The first part of the verse actually makes it in such a way that it is not inhumane or terrible. Slave owners would not punish their slaves severely because of the punishment that would result from the death of the slave. The second part of the verse is not inhumane either: if someone is misbehaving, then this someone needs to be punished. Therefore, this verse is punishing huge beatings and allowing lesser beatings. There is nothing inhumane or terrible here.
Spanking a child is not bad..... And beating a slave a bit more than one would spank a child because of the age of the slave and of the severity of the crime needing of punishment is not torture.
Causing physical harm to a child is something that should always be avoided and abandoned for the sake of more efficient and productive means of punishment.
beating a slave a bit more than one would spank a child because of the age of the slave and of the severity of the crime needing of punishment is not torture.
Wow. Ignoring the fact that you just equated the beating of the slave with spanking of a child in terms of brutal force(if that was even close to being accurate, than the Bible passage would serve no purpose), using force to carry out punishment or send a message is torture.
Any beating of human beings being regarded as property is inhuman and terrible, let alone excessive.
Soldiers are seen as property but they still have rights. Do you not consider this as the same? Soldiers can even get the death penalty during war for desertion.
You alone care about your cat, the law does not intervene and say "Because it is your cat, you must take care of it and its life." Instead, it forces you to take care of it on the premis of it otherwise being inhumane.
You alone care about your cat, the law does not intervene and say "Because it is your cat, you must take care of it and its life."
Who said the Bible holds a Libertarian view as property? It obviously does not, and it should be no surprise that the Christian God seeks to control how you manage your property.
Instead, it forces you to take care of it on the premise of it otherwise being inhumane.
I can't believe that people try to justify this. It reads(with so little room for interpretation) that you can beat a person as brutally as you wish, and the consequences will only occur if he doesn't die. Torture is inhumane.
It obviously does not, and it should be no surprise that the Christian God seeks to control how you manage your property.
God gave guidelines on hypothetical situations, attempting to give what was seen as property rights.
It reads(with so little room for interpretation) that you can beat a person as brutally as you wish, and the consequences will only occur if he doesn't die. Torture is inhumane.
The whole of Exodus 20 does not say that, in fact, it says that if one hits a slave and damages him, the slave is to go free.
Old Testament slavery ( there was new testament slavery. Read Paul's epistles. ) was definitely inhumane and terrible!
Thank goodness modern civilization has seen the error of biblical wisdom on this subject. The only way a believer can reconcile today's popular perspective on slavery and what the Bible has to say is if he accepts that God wants us to evolve beyond the words of the Bible. Unless a believer still secretly harbors admiration for the biblical position on slavery ( St. Paul still supported it in his epistles ) he will have to accept that the Bible's words are no longer definitive on the subject. God expects us to see the Bible as yesterday's way of thinking. A better, more humane way exist now.
All humans must absolutely treat each other as equals!
The slave owners were held accountable for bodily harm put on their slaves so as the slave owner, they were expected to treat these people as human beings. Slaves could even run away and if they did,they were not to be taken back to their masters.
