Questioning God's Chosen Communication

[POI]

(1) Why would an omniscient God reveal to ancient societies the questions that modern scientific communities would be interested in? (2) Why would God care more about making scientific knowledge available in these texts versus addressing how He wanted humans to live?

For debate: Does the provided video below answer the above two questions sufficiently? If not, why not? If so, then I guess God is inept?

[The Tanager]

Assuming the foreign slaves in Israel was the same thing as colonial slavery is not common sense.

I'm not saying they are the same.

You are saying that both whipped their slaves on the back to insure subordination and obedience, made them work “long and hard”, only viewed them as cheap labor and saying that without any actual evidence that this was so.

Well, that's too bad. Chattel slaves were chattel slaves. They were not free humans. They were instead the master's money/property, ala the Bible - (Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25).

Servants from other nations were not free and were viewed as property, yes, but that doesn’t carry all the baggage you are thrusting upon it, simply because you assume it was like colonial slavery in those ways.

Again, differing rules, differing groups.

Yes, there are different rules on how to care for people in different situations. What’s the problem with that?

Then you would be wrong. This is exactly what the Bible is telling slaves, to work harder to please God. See the verses above.

We’ve already talked about Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25. Pleasing God is all about treating others as beings in God’s image, whatever socio-economic situations the world has created and people found themselves in.

Which starting position is more logical?

-- God wants to turn folks away from slavery.
-- God is giving folks instructions for the best way to enforce slavery.

Hint, the correct answer looks to be in red, directly above.

Another false dilemma for there is a third option: knowing society isn’t ready for this kind of slavery to be abolished (in part for what it would mean for the poorest of the poor), God is giving folks instructions on the best way to have slavery with the most dignity it can.

What exactly do you think a slave master did with his property, or chattel slave, if the slave did not produce to his standard(s)?

Even if they did do it (which is an assumption of a different culture onto this one for no good reason since you have offered no sources for it), the Bible often spoke against the culture, so it would still be foolish to assume the Bible is allowing that. There is no verse for that. What is told is things like give them freedom if you knock a tooth out, don’t kidnap people to be slaves, take care of the foreigner, love your neighbor, etc.

Your position fails because the Bible believing colonials, much later, were not moving away from slavery, but instead more-so embracing even 'harsher' slavery. It wasn't until we abolished it, on our own, that slavery was no more.

These colonials were reading the text hyper-literally, out of context, reading their own desires and culture into it, to justify their way of life. More critically thinking Christians, who felt God speaking to them, came along and saw that this text wasn’t teaching what their culture tried to say and because of their work, they convinced enough of those in power after many years to abolish it.

[TRANSPONDER]

This is a string of disgusting evasions and excuses.

Assuming the foreign slaves in Israel was the same thing as colonial slavery is not common sense.

I'm not saying they are the same.

[quote)You are saying that both whipped their slaves on the back to insure subordination and obedience, made them work “long and hard”, only viewed them as cheap labor and saying that without any actual evidence that this was so.

You pretty much admitted it yourself. In arguing that slaves were treated according to fair rules and ignoring this didn't apply to foreign slaves, you tacitly admit that slaves not covered by those rules were not fairly treated. In fact you can guess how they were treated and why - harmed to make them do what they were told.

Well, that's too bad. Chattel slaves were chattel slaves. They were not free humans. They were instead the master's money/property, ala the Bible - (Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25).

Servants from other nations were not free and were viewed as property, yes, but that doesn’t carry all the baggage you are thrusting upon it, simply because you assume it was like colonial slavery in those ways.

Here again. Given the points I made, you are using the evasion that because the Bible doesn't say "Whup'em seldom, but whup 'em good" they never did it, even though rules about it are given and there would be no need to make easy conditions for Hebrew slaves if it wasn't done. Your excuses are thin as rice paper.

Again, differing rules, differing groups.

Y

es, there are different rules on how to care for people in different situations. What’s the problem with that?

That you use them as evasions to escape the plain text of the Bible - you can own foreigners as lifetime property which is slaves even if you did treat them as well as Hebrew slaves - shows how evasions and excuses work,to excuse a vile and immoral old book.

Then you would be wrong. This is exactly what the Bible is telling slaves, to work harder to please God. See the verses above.

We’ve already talked about Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25. Pleasing God is all about treating others as beings in God’s image, whatever socio-economic situations the world has created and people found themselves in.

Another excuse. Even is that was applied to slaves (and the need for rules showed this wasn't the case) Lifetime ownership of another person is wrong and banned today even if the owners treated them well, and any Book that purports to be reflecting the views of a god (unless he didn't know what would happen and was working blind) should have been way ahead and banned it just as the God banned other things.

Which starting position is more logical?

-- God wants to turn folks away from slavery.
-- God is giving folks instructions for the best way to enforce slavery.

More excuses.There is no good reason why God should not have said 'No slaves'. In any case the materialist default hypothesis is better - humans repealed slavery and you want to pretend God did it. Well you bay tell yourself that, but there is no logical reason to credit that hypothesis, especially as the Bible in no way implies that God though slavery was wrong but special consideration for Hebrews, because they wrote the book.

Bottom line - there is no validity to your explanations.

Hint, the correct answer looks to be in red, directly above.

Another false dilemma for there is a third option: knowing society isn’t ready for this kind of slavery to be abolished (in part for what it would mean for the poorest of the poor), God is giving folks instructions on the best way to have slavery with the most dignity it can.

What exactly do you think a slave master did with his property, or chattel slave, if the slave did not produce to his standard(s)?

Even if they did do it (which is an assumption of a different culture onto this one for no good reason since you have offered no sources for it), the Bible often spoke against the culture, so it would still be foolish to assume the Bible is allowing that. There is no verse for that. What is told is things like give them freedom if you knock a tooth out, don’t kidnap people to be slaves, take care of the foreigner, love your neighbor, etc.

More evasion. The Bible makes it clear they did it and how much they could do it, and the point is about owning other humans as much as how you treated them. It would not be foolish to assume that because they Bible doesn't say 'Thou shalt not whup they slaves' they didn't do it. The smart money is on they would when they felt it necessary. The Bible even gives rules on how much you can do it (probably just to Hebrew slaves). How to treat foreigners (if you don't have a beef with them or own them) is with respect. That has nothing to do with ownership of foreigners as slaves for life even if the owner did treat them well. It is wrong and God should know that "No. Slaves". There.easy. And you wouldn't need to come up with these disgraceful excuses.

Your position fails because the Bible believing colonials, much later, were not moving away from slavery, but instead more-so embracing even 'harsher' slavery. It wasn't until we abolished it, on our own, that slavery was no more.

These colonials were reading the text hyper-literally, out of context, reading their own desires and culture into it, to justify their way of life. More critically thinking Christians, who felt God speaking to them, came along and saw that this text wasn’t teaching what their culture tried to say and because of their work, they convinced enough of those in power after many years to abolish it.

Even more disgusting evasions. The people who used the Bible to endorse slavery (which it does) were reading it wrong. From what we see above, you are the one reading it wrong.

We can guess why. You are a decent person, or you would simply say slavery was ok. You know it's wrong because human moral consensus has decided that and you have learned it. That is how secular morality works.

But you cannot admit the Bible was wrong and cannot be the directives of God. So you have to rewrite the book to make it say what logic, reason and indeed mundane ethics have agreed it out to say if it was valid.

P.s. of course the sad this is, this isn't the only thing the Bible gets wrong, far from it. There are mistakes, errors,failed prophecies, contradictions and nonsense all the way through (the point the video makes). It is blinkered to look at this one point and find some wangled excuses and think that validated the whole book.
[/quote]

[TRANSPONDER]

This is a string of disgusting evasions and excuses.

Assuming the foreign slaves in Israel was the same thing as colonial slavery is not common sense.

I'm not saying they are the same.

[quote)You are saying that both whipped their slaves on the back to insure subordination and obedience, made them work “long and hard”, only viewed them as cheap labor and saying that without any actual evidence that this was so.

You pretty much admitted it yourself. In arguing that slaves were treated according to fair rules and ignoring this didn't apply to foreign slaves, you tacitly admit that slaves not covered by those rules were not fairly treated. In fact you can guess how they were treated and why - harmed to make them do what they were told.

Well, that's too bad. Chattel slaves were chattel slaves. They were not free humans. They were instead the master's money/property, ala the Bible - (Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25).

Servants from other nations were not free and were viewed as property, yes, but that doesn’t carry all the baggage you are thrusting upon it, simply because you assume it was like colonial slavery in those ways.

Here again. Given the points I made, you are using the evasion that because the Bible doesn't say "Whup'em seldom, but whup 'em good" they never did it, even though rules about it are given and there would be no need to make easy conditions for Hebrew slaves if it wasn't done. Your excuses are thin as rice paper.

Again, differing rules, differing groups.

Y

es, there are different rules on how to care for people in different situations. What’s the problem with that?

That you use them as evasions to escape the plain text of the Bible - you can own foreigners as lifetime property which is slaver even if you did treat them as well as Hebrew slaves.

Then you would be wrong. This is exactly what the Bible is telling slaves, to work harder to please God. See the verses above.

We’ve already talked about Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25. Pleasing God is all about treating others as beings in God’s image, whatever socio-economic situations the world has created and people found themselves in.

Another excuse. Even is that was applied to slaves (and the need for rules showed this wasn't the case) Lifetime ownership of another person is wrong and banned today even if we treat them well, and any Book that purports to be reflecting the views of a god (unless he didn;'t know what would happen and was working blind) should have been way ahead and banned it just as he banned other things.

Which starting position is more logical?

-- God wants to turn folks away from slavery.
-- God is giving folks instructions for the best way to enforce slavery.

More excuses.There is no good reason why God should not have said 'No slaves' In any case the materialist default hypothesis is better - humans repealed slavery and you want to pretend God did it. Well you bay tell yourself that, but there is no logical reason to credit that hypothesis, especially as the Bible in no way implies that God though slavery was wrong but special consideration for Hebrews, because they wrote the book.

Bottom line - there is no validity to your explanations.

Hint, the correct answer looks to be in red, directly above.

Another false dilemma for there is a third option: knowing society isn’t ready for this kind of slavery to be abolished (in part for what it would mean for the poorest of the poor), God is giving folks instructions on the best way to have slavery with the most dignity it can.

What exactly do you think a slave master did with his property, or chattel slave, if the slave did not produce to his standard(s)?

Even if they did do it (which is an assumption of a different culture onto this one for no good reason since you have offered no sources for it), the Bible often spoke against the culture, so it would still be foolish to assume the Bible is allowing that. There is no verse for that. What is told is things like give them freedom if you knock a tooth out, don’t kidnap people to be slaves, take care of the foreigner, love your neighbor, etc.

More evasion. The Bible makes it clerar they did it and how huch they could do it, and the point is about owning other humans as much as how you treated them. It would not be foolish to assume that because they Bible doesn'tsay 'Thou shalt not whup they slaves' they didn't do it. The smart money is on they would when they felt it necessary. The Bible even gives rules on how much you can do it (probably just to Hebrew slaves). How to treat foreigners (if you don't have a beef with them or own them) is with respect. That has nothing to do with ownership of foreigners as slaves for life even if the owner did treat them well. It is wrong and God should know that "No. Slaves". There.easy. And you wouldn't need to come up with these disgraceful excuses.

Your position fails because the Bible believing colonials, much later, were not moving away from slavery, but instead more-so embracing even 'harsher' slavery. It wasn't until we abolished it, on our own, that slavery was no more.

These colonials were reading the text hyper-literally, out of context, reading their own desires and culture into it, to justify their way of life. More critically thinking Christians, who felt God speaking to them, came along and saw that this text wasn’t teaching what their culture tried to say and because of their work, they convinced enough of those in power after many years to abolish it.

Even more disgusting evasions. The people who used the Bible to endorse slavery (which it does) were reading it wrong. From what we see above, you are the one reading it wrong.

We can guess why. You are a decent person, or you would simply say slavery was ok. You know it's wrong because human moral consensus has decided that and you have learned it. That is how secular morality works.

But you cannot admit the Bible was wrong and cannot be the directives of God. So you have to rewrite the book to make it say what logic, reason and indeed mundane ethics have agreed it out to say if it was valid.
[/quote]

[POI]

You are saying that both whipped their slaves on the back to insure subordination and obedience, made them work “long and hard”, only viewed them as cheap labor and saying that without any actual evidence that this was so.

The Ancient Romans whipped their slaves (http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empir ... d%20fairly.):

"Slaves were often whipped, branded or cruelly mistreated. Their owners could also kill them for any reason, and would face no punishment. Although Romans accepted slavery as the norm, some people – like the poet and philosopher, Seneca – argued that slaves should at least be treated fairly."

The Romans set the standard. "Whippings" and "brandings" were already commonplace. Which is why the Bible also speaks about "branding" their servants/slaves in Ex. 21:6.

The Bible God instructs immunity for beatings. Beating = whipping. But yea, don't kill them anymore, and I also stated why. Killing your paid laborers is stupid. Maiming you paid laborers is stupid. Just tell your laborers they will be rewarded by God if they work really hard. These chattel slaves had no hope of release, as they were deemed lifetime property. The chattel slave has nothing really to lose, by committing defiance. Hence, trick them to believe that God is watching and appreciates hard slave work (i.e.):

"22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving."

Yes, there are different rules on how to care for people in different situations. What’s the problem with that?

God's objective conclusion is that the foreigner is the master's lifetime property, which can be passed down to their children as inherited property, and beating them is also deemed unpunishable. Since the ancients whipped their slaves, this was the gold standard.

We’ve already talked about Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25. Pleasing God is all about treating others as beings in God’s image, whatever socio-economic situations the world has created and people found themselves in.

You failed to catch my point. The quoted Bible verses is telling the slave to work really hard, so they will please God.

Another false dilemma for there is a third option: knowing society isn’t ready for this kind of slavery to be abolished (in part for what it would mean for the poorest of the poor), God is giving folks instructions on the best way to have slavery with the most dignity it can.

Redefining the first option does not make it a third option. Is God okay with slavery or not? You state he is not. You stated slavery practices were ingrained within them and they would not stop. You stated some progress is better than no progress (what are they progressing towards, less or more slavery?). You also stated slavery was eventually abolished. You would argue this is what God wanted, for slavery to go away.

Even if they did do it

I reckon they did whip their insubordinate slaves.

(which is an assumption of a different culture onto this one for no good reason since you have offered no sources for it), the Bible often spoke against the culture, so it would still be foolish to assume the Bible is allowing that. There is no verse for that. What is told is things like give them freedom if you knock a tooth out, don’t kidnap people to be slaves, take care of the foreigner, love your neighbor, etc.

Quiz question (yes or no):

If a slave master whipped his chattel slave, on the back, was he instructed by the Bible God to receive any punishment? If not, why not?

These colonials were reading the text hyper-literally, out of context, reading their own desires and culture into it, to justify their way of life. More critically thinking Christians, who felt God speaking to them, came along and saw that this text wasn’t teaching what their culture tried to say and because of their work, they convinced enough of those in power after many years to abolish it.

Of course it has to be hyper-literal News flash, it is obviously God's desire to make slavery a-okay. Nothing you have offered refuted this conclusion in the least.

[The Tanager]

You pretty much admitted it yourself. In arguing that slaves were treated according to fair rules and ignoring this didn't apply to foreign slaves, you tacitly admit that slaves not covered by those rules were not fairly treated. In fact you can guess how they were treated and why - harmed to make them do what they were told.

They weren’t treated equally, but that doesn’t mean they were treated poorly.

Here again. Given the points I made, you are using the evasion that because the Bible doesn't say "Whup'em seldom, but whup 'em good" they never did it, even though rules about it are given and there would be no need to make easy conditions for Hebrew slaves if it wasn't done.

No, I’m saying that since the Bible doesn’t say it, then we can’t say the God of the Bible is okay with it.

[The Tanager]

The Ancient Romans whipped their slaves

We are talking about the Israelites and, even more so, what God said to them, are we not?

You failed to catch my point. The quoted Bible verses is telling the slave to work really hard, so they will please God.

No, I caught that. I’m saying the way God is pleased is in us treating others as beings made in God’s image, which will look differently in different socio-economic situations the world creates for each other.

Redefining the first option does not make it a third option. Is God okay with slavery or not? You state he is not. You stated slavery practices were ingrained within them and they would not stop. You stated some progress is better than no progress (what are they progressing towards, less or more slavery?). You also stated slavery was eventually abolished. You would argue this is what God wanted, for slavery to go away.

Okay, if that is what you meant by the first option, then we disagree on what position is more logical for the reasons we’ve already given and continue to give.

Quiz question (yes or no):

If a slave master whipped his chattel slave, on the back, was he instructed by the Bible God to receive any punishment? If not, why not?

It probably would be included in setting them free if you knock their tooth out. The Egyptians were criticized for using violence to compel the Israelites to slave labor (e.g., Exodus 1:13). The Sabbath was to extend to everyone in Jewish society, including slaves (Deut 5:15). Much of the treatment is prefaced with “but you are to remember that you were a slave…” (e.g. Deut 15:15). Moses didn’t like masters beating their slaves (Exod 2:11-12). Foreigners were still to be taken care of. The poor were to be taken care of. This is counter cultural (not just going along with the times or what's good for business), but it also isn't God imposing ideal views on slavery that work in our time but not the times of the ancient Israelites.

Of course it has to be hyper-literal

No, it doesn’t. The Judeo-Christian heritage is that the Bible is meant to be deeply studied, bringing people to reflect and find deeper truths than surface, hyper-literal readings. Those who read the text hyper-literally are making a mistake and should use (or gain) critical thinking skills.

[Mae von H]

Assuming the foreign slaves in Israel was the same thing as colonial slavery is not common sense.

I'm not saying they are the same. The Bible God was an innovator. Those pesky colonials killed a lot of their slaves. They were dumb because they had to buy new ones. It is dumb to destroy your money/property. Just feed them the Bible, by telling them which God is the real God, and then reading them this:

"22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving."

Both the Romans, prior, as well as the colonials, afterwards, lost their way. They should have stuck to the Bible's way, the correct way. Keep slaves, tell them God loves them for working harder, and beat the strays, who still get out of line. Such beatings are immune from punishment, as instructed in Exodus 21. The objective is to please your God. Earn brownie points for the almighty.

I assume it was probably cheaper labor, yes. I don’t agree that the sole purpose of foreign slaves in Israel was to work.

Well, that's too bad. Chattel slaves were chattel slaves. They were not free humans. They were instead the master's money/property, ala the Bible - (Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25).

The Bible is all about treating people as being made in the image of God and caring for the least around you.

Again, differing rules, differing groups.

I don’t agree God telling slaves to work well is a way to ensure the slave works harder, but a way to help them treat others as being made in God’s image.

Then you would be wrong. This is exactly what the Bible is telling slaves, to work harder to please God. See the verses above.

More focus on minority psychologizing as though it’s the only possibility or clear motivation.

Which starting position is more logical?

-- God wants to turn folks away from slavery.
-- God is giving folks instructions for the best way to enforce slavery.

Hint, the correct answer looks to be in red, directly above.

Where in the Bible does it teach to do this?

What exactly do you think a slave master did with his property, or chattel slave, if the slave did not produce to his standard(s)?



***************************

Your position fails because the Bible believing colonials, much later, were not moving away from slavery, but instead more-so embracing even 'harsher' slavery. It wasn't until we abolished it, on our own, that slavery was no more.

Where do you get the idea that colonial slaves were bought and killed? From what I’ve read, slaves were expensive and even received medical care. It’s like saying successful tyrants kill off their generals.

[Mae von H]

You are saying that both whipped their slaves on the back to insure subordination and obedience, made them work “long and hard”, only viewed them as cheap labor and saying that without any actual evidence that this was so.

The Ancient Romans whipped their slaves (http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empir ... d%20fairly.):

"Slaves were often whipped, branded or cruelly mistreated. Their owners could also kill them for any reason, and would face no punishment. Although Romans accepted slavery as the norm, some people – like the poet and philosopher, Seneca – argued that slaves should at least be treated fairly."

The Romans set the standard. "Whippings" and "brandings" were already commonplace. Which is why the Bible also speaks about "branding" their servants/slaves in Ex. 21:6.

The Bible God instructs immunity for beatings. Beating = whipping. But yea, don't kill them anymore, and I also stated why. Killing your paid laborers is stupid. Maiming you paid laborers is stupid. Just tell your laborers they will be rewarded by God if they work really hard. These chattel slaves had no hope of release, as they were deemed lifetime property. The chattel slave has nothing really to lose, by committing defiance. Hence, trick them to believe that God is watching and appreciates hard slave work (i.e.):

"22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving."

Yes, there are different rules on how to care for people in different situations. What’s the problem with that?

God's objective conclusion is that the foreigner is the master's lifetime property, which can be passed down to their children as inherited property, and beating them is also deemed unpunishable. Since the ancients whipped their slaves, this was the gold standard.

We’ve already talked about Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25. Pleasing God is all about treating others as beings in God’s image, whatever socio-economic situations the world has created and people found themselves in.

You failed to catch my point. The quoted Bible verses is telling the slave to work really hard, so they will please God.

Another false dilemma for there is a third option: knowing society isn’t ready for this kind of slavery to be abolished (in part for what it would mean for the poorest of the poor), God is giving folks instructions on the best way to have slavery with the most dignity it can.

Redefining the first option does not make it a third option. Is God okay with slavery or not? You state he is not. You stated slavery practices were ingrained within them and they would not stop. You stated some progress is better than no progress (what are they progressing towards, less or more slavery?). You also stated slavery was eventually abolished. You would argue this is what God wanted, for slavery to go away.

Even if they did do it

I reckon they did whip their insubordinate slaves.

(which is an assumption of a different culture onto this one for no good reason since you have offered no sources for it), the Bible often spoke against the culture, so it would still be foolish to assume the Bible is allowing that. There is no verse for that. What is told is things like give them freedom if you knock a tooth out, don’t kidnap people to be slaves, take care of the foreigner, love your neighbor, etc.

Quiz question (yes or no):

If a slave master whipped his chattel slave, on the back, was he instructed by the Bible God to receive any punishment? If not, why not?

These colonials were reading the text hyper-literally, out of context, reading their own desires and culture into it, to justify their way of life. More critically thinking Christians, who felt God speaking to them, came along and saw that this text wasn’t teaching what their culture tried to say and because of their work, they convinced enough of those in power after many years to abolish it.

Of course it has to be hyper-literal News flash, it is obviously God's desire to make slavery a-okay. Nothing you have offered refuted this conclusion in the least.

The ancient Hebrews had rights for slaves. And what you forget, is that the Bible tells masters that they will answer to God as to how they treated other people, something missing in Roman and might as well as Middle eastern slavery. Roman way of life was anything but the “gold standard” as the New Testament deploys how Roman behaved.

[TRANSPONDER]

You pretty much admitted it yourself. In arguing that slaves were treated according to fair rules and ignoring this didn't apply to foreign slaves, you tacitly admit that slaves not covered by those rules were not fairly treated. In fact you can guess how they were treated and why - harmed to make them do what they were told.

They weren’t treated equally, but that doesn’t mean they were treated poorly.

Here again. Given the points I made, you are using the evasion that because the Bible doesn't say "Whup'em seldom, but whup 'em good" they never did it, even though rules about it are given and there would be no need to make easy conditions for Hebrew slaves if it wasn't done.

No, I’m saying that since the Bible doesn’t say it, then we can’t say the God of the Bible is okay with it.

Sheer denial. You keep on. It just makes you and your case and all Bible apologetics look bad. Not only is all the evidence from Greece (1) up to the Confederacy that slaves were beaten where necessary but I already argued that if that was not the case, why would the OT put in laws to say the amount one could do without penalty (and I still suspect that applies only to Hebrew slaves). You can't fool us, and you are getting close to needing to apologise for trying to.
(1) Aristophanes in the Acharnians I think has a couple of slave characters wailing about being beaten,

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #267]

Mae writ:

"Where do you get the idea that colonial slaves were bought and killed? From what I’ve read, slaves were expensive and even received medical care. It’s like saying successful tyrants kill off their generals."

Killed?Who says they were killed? Unless they were caught in Union uniform of course.
POI made the point that property is not abused because it is an investment, but the point is that they could be and were beaten if it was deemed necessary, and even if they were never beaten lifetime ownership is still wrong and was abolished (or that began) a couple of centuries ago and the Bible, OT or new never did.

Incidentally successful tyrants do not eliminate their generals so long as they are useful. Killing is not the issue and I think never was.

I think it's time your BS was called . Just where did anyone claim that slaves were killed? You need to find it (I can't see it) or you have changed the argument to strawman it and we shall be looking for a witdrawal and apology. Off you go.