For popular or very good threads
It doesn’t seem the least bit moral to me either. And it seems totally inconsistent with an ethic of building up the community and helping the community. As well as an ethic that people have rights, in fact, it’s all the more important to respect the rights of someone in a lowly position.

There is a verse in this same chapter . . .

Which says that if two men get in a fight, we let the matter drop as long as the injuries aren’t too severe. But this is between equals. It’s losing your cool, instead of deliberative, prolonged meaness.

All the same, out of fairness, I’m going to include that part, too.
Imagine that slave being at the mercy of their master's kids... Knowing how spoiled rich kids can be. I think the New testament is where we first find rules that talk about loving your slave or something along those lines
ya, can you even imagine living back then? yikes
 
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur

God telling Moses —

20 ”If a man beats his male or female slave with a club and the slave dies as a result, the owner must be punished.

21 ”But if the slave recovers within a day or two, then the owner shall not be punished, since the slave is his property.“



- New Living Translation

---------

I'd rather a person who believes that "the Bible is without error" to just say, "I just don't know."

Maybe they also say "maybe the times back then . . ” I just hope they don't go too far down that rabbit hole and get married to the idea.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009
Let's do it? :)

Why do ethics come from? From parents when we are young. From children's stories, with examples both positive and negative.

As we're older, from movies, song lyrics, watching other people, etc, etc. And rarely, even discussions about ethics. :p

From a lot of sources, as long as we're not looking for “truth for all time,“ or something like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AgnosticBoy
I'd rather a person who believes that "the Bible is without error" to just say, "I just don't know."

Maybe they also say "maybe the times back then . . ” I just hope they don't go too far down that rabbit hole and get married to the idea.
Corporal punishment is still used in various parts of the world today. I remember the uproar several years ago when American Michael Fay was caned for vandalism in Singapore. I used corporal punishment on my children when they were young. My son is a police officer and my daughter is a nurse. Neither have been arrested or in any type of trouble. Both are contributing members of society, so corporal punishment helped shape them in a positive manner. Personally, I believe corporal punishment should be used in America. If people knew they would be publicly whipped or caned, it would prevent a lot of the foolishness we see happening today. God set forth limits in the use of corporal punishment.
 

God telling Moses —

20 ”If a man beats his male or female slave with a club and the slave dies as a result, the owner must be punished.

21 ”But if the slave recovers within a day or two, then the owner shall not be punished, since the slave is his property.“



- New Living Translation

---------

I'd rather a person who believes that "the Bible is without error" to just say, "I just don't know."

Maybe they also say "maybe the times back then . . ” I just hope they don't go too far down that rabbit hole and get married to the idea.
Okay. What I said might happened has happened. Being open to other explanations has led me to change my position here to some degree.

Of course, when you first read passages about beating slaves, then that looks indefensible. Hek, just owning slaves looks indefensible. But I've come across explanations that could justify both instances to some degree. On owning a slave, the key thing to distinguish it from how the US practiced slavery is consent. The ancient Jews did not force anyone into slavery.

When it comes to beating slaves, one explanation I came across made me consider that it could be justified based on what the slave did (i.e. theft and other related offenses). In other words, beating could be used as corporal punishment in the same way that parents would use it against their kids.

This explains most of my point:
Why did the Mosaic Law allow for slave owners to beat their slaves? The obvious answer is that, in the social structure of ancient Israel, physical punishment was considered the appropriate response for acts of disobedience and rebellion. The text does not specifically say that the corporal punishment has to be for some form of disobedience; however, based on the larger Old Testament context, it is safe to assume that slave masters were not allowed carte blanche authority to do whatever they wanted to their slaves. In Exodus 21, slave owners are limited in what they can do: if the master goes too far and the slave dies, the master will be punished. If the Old Testament Law is followed consistently, then the punishment for the slave owner might even include the death penalty for murder. Of course, if a master beats his slave and the slave is unable to work for some time, the master has punished himself by losing the work he might have received from the slave. The implication here is that it is in the master’s best interest not to be too severe.
- GotQuestions
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scooter
. If people knew they would be publicly whipped or caned, it would prevent a lot of the foolishness we see happening today. God set forth limits in the use of corporal punishment.
If the slave may or may not die in 2 days, that doesn't sound like corporal punishment to me! :p

and similar is verse 26 that if the slave loses an eye, he or she is set free. And if he or she loses a tooth — verse 27 — also is set free. This sounds like an owner who is a "rage-aholic," not some kind of controlled corporal punishment.

—————-

PS I'll share that I like BDSM fantasy and role-play, as I've read approximately 30% of American adults do, at least to some extent. So, I'm not sure I entirely trust my instincts regarding corporal punishment.

and/or as a strength ... I see real-life bullying as stupid and tedious, because I know how rich and textured role-play can be.

———-

I might be more conservative than you in some law & order matters. For example, I think we should get rid of the so-called “exclusionary rule” in its entirety.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AgnosticBoy
On owning a slave, the key thing to distinguish it from how the US practiced slavery is consent. The ancient Jews did not force anyone into slavery.
I think the ancient Hebrews drew a distinction between Jews and non-Jews. Of course they did, almost all people make this kind of distinction. In fact, one of the hallmark of Big religions and Big philosophies is that they at least try to expand the circle of moral count.

Plus, at the beginning of this Chapter 21, if a master “provided” “gave” a male slave with his wife, then this man will later face the impossible choice between freedom and his family!
 
Last edited:

2 ”If you buy a Hebrew slave, he may serve for no more than six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. 3 If he was single when he became your slave, he shall leave single. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife must be freed with him.

4 “If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave and they had sons or daughters, then only the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. 5 But the slave may declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I don’t want to go free.’ 6 If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door or doorpost and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will serve his master for life.”

—————————

It's really wrong to put someone in this position.

For starters, maybe the ethics could be equally concerned about fairness to the slave. That would make it more of an indentured servitude kind of things.

Then we'd still have to ask what about foreigners, those captured in battle, etc, etc.
 
If the slave may or may not die in 2 days, that doesn't sound like corporal punishment to me! :p

and similar is verse 26 that if the slave loses an eye, he or she is set free. And if he or she loses a tooth — verse 27 — also is set free. This sounds like an owner who is a "rage-aholic," not some kind of controlled corporal punishment.
Agreed. I think it just wasn't regulated enough. Like in private schools way back in the mid 1900s and on, the beatings were controlled. You get called in the principal's office and you get at least 10 lashes in each hand. Some times with a belt, other times with shoelaces. That was controlled!

But you're right, having an eye fall out would probably be a result of a rage fit by the slaveowner. I suppose Moses was counting on slaveowners having an economic incentive to not damage their slaves too much otherwise they lose a worker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur