winner01:

What exactly is the meaning of lies? Anything that is against atheism?
Cos you people never cease to amaze me.

When I opened a thread on the Bigotry of atheism. Seun said i was lying.



Similarly, when I opened a thread on The murderous tendencies of atheists, and gave facts to support it.

Atheists such as Ranchhoddas had to condemn me to hell.


This little kid also admitted that he almost cried on seeing the thread and that i was lying.


This one too said I was lying.


This one even reduced me to an animal.


The funny thing is: none of them could point out the lie.


So dalaman, I ask you. What is the lie in this fine thread?

winner01:

This one even reduced me to an animal.


The funny thing is: none of them could point out the lie.

Joshuabase:
I laugh at this sad attempt to dehumanize atheists, Seriously though - when did you ever tune to CNN and saw an atheist suicide bomber?

The two most popular religions in the world today have killed so many people and still compel people to discriminate, dehumanize and kill anyone who is not A party to your beliefs, and this religitard is saying that they are nothing compared to atheists.

Stalin, Mao etc killed not because of their atheism or in the name of Atheism. They killed because of their political views.

If you had at least half a brain, you would know that. People kill in the name of religion, no one has been killed in the name of atheism.

And let's not even forget that the God they worship has even killed so much more and anyone can imagine! Yet you have the audacity to imply atheists are potential murderers? You don't deserve to be called a human being, you're on the same intelligence level as neanderthals.

Joshuabase:



Don't ever quote me out of context.

And another thing, you trying to make yourself look like the victim in your "One man crusade against nairaland atheists" is really getting old if you have to resort to lies and slander.

KingEbukaNaija:


I went through his discussions with kingebukasblog , and I found that he knew very little about objective morality . I was transfixed .

And I was like ...

winner01:
Even before I asked you to read the article, you already concluded it was a lie and so i'm not surprised at this horribly lame attempt to discharge yourself.
People may not know Hebrew but they have the internet which has several language dictionaries.





The op opines that: Simply because as we will see, they were treated higher than slaves. He also gives the name of a credible Historian to support his claim. dalaman on the other hand feels he is a better historian that any christian historian.


Let me quickly point out dalaman 's mischief:

dalaman 's twist and turn:
The truth: The most popular English Bible versions rightfully translates the word "ebed" as slaves: NLV, ESV, NASB, KJV, ISV, HCSB, NET Bible, GWT, NAS, KJV 2000, AKJV et al.
What the Jewish Encyclopaedia really said: The Hebrew word "'ebed" really means "slave"; but the English Bible renders it "servant" (a) where the word is used figuratively, pious men being "servants of the Lord" (Isa. xx. 3), and courtiers "servants of the king" (Jer. xxxvii. 2); and (b) in passages which refer to Hebrew bondmen, whose condition is far above that of slavery (Ex. xxi. 2-7). Where real slaves are referred to, the English versions generally use "bondman" for "'ebed," and "bondwoman" or "bondmaid" for the corresponding feminines

The dictionary meaning of the word figuratively: The adverb figuratively describes something symbolic, not actual. For example, If a friend invites you to tonight's concert but you already have plans with your family, you might say — figuratively — that your hands are tied.

The Jewish encyclopaedia recognizes that the english versions that use the word servant, make use of it figuratively.

Conclusion: dalaman intentionally abridged the statement from the Jewish Encyclopaedia to make it look as if it is in contrast with the Bible




Also, The op rightfully says:
And backs it up with solid biblical claims:If a servant who owed a debt came in with his wife, then after 6 years they both were allowed to leave together, not just one (v. 3). Exodus 21:26-27 says if a boss injured a servant, the servant was to be set free. Such abuse was not tolerated. Deuteronomy 15:16 shows servants often truly loved the leaders of the household and thought of them as family. Leviticus 25:53 says such servants were to be treated as men “hired from year to year” not “rule[d ] over ruthlessly.” They were even to be given a regular day off during the week (Exodus 23:12). Also, Israelite servants could not be sold by their bosses (Leviticus 25:42) and are even differentiated from slaves in this text since it says “they shall not be sold as slaves.” Lastly, Deuteronomy 15:13-14 affirms once a servant’s service was over after 6 years, he was not to leave empty handed. The boss was commanded to furnish him out of his flock, and with corn and wine.
What other explanation proves a contractual agreement? Even though the history regarded them as property, we can see that slavery was clearly based on a lawful mutual agreement.

dalamans simulation:


The Jewish encyclopaedia also disagrees with dalaman: [b]The duty of treating the Hebrew servant and handmaid otherwise than as slaves, and above all their retention in service for a limited time only, was deemed by the lawgiver of such importance that the subject was put next to the Decalogue at the very head of civil legislation (Ex. xxi. 2-11). It is treated in its legal bearings also (Lev. xxv. 39-54; Deut. xv. 12-18). The prophet Jeremiah (Jer. xxxiv. 8-24) denounces the permanent enslavement of Hebrew men and women by their masters as the gravest of national sins, for which the kingdom of Judah forfeits all claim to God's mercy, and justly sinks into ruin and exile.

Also In Rabbinical Literature:The Hebrew servant referred to in the Torah is of two classes: (1) he whom the court has sold without his consent; and (2) he who has willingly sold himself. The court may sell a man for theft only, as noted above. A man may sell himself (Lev. xxv. 39) because of extreme poverty, after all his means are exhausted; he should not sell himself as long as any means are left to him. He should not sell himself to a woman, nor to a convert, nor to a Gentile. Should he do so, however, even if he sells himself to a heathen temple, the sale is valid; but it then becomes the duty not only of his kinsmen, but of all Israelites, to redeem him, lest he become "swallowed up" in heathendom. The sale of a Hebrew into bondage should be made privately, not from an auction-block, nor even from the sidewalk, where other slaves are sold.
[/b]




The op also said

In Dalaman 's haste and determination to disprove the Bible, he did not realize that the verse he quoted fully supports the op :




The Jewish encyclopaedia also supports the op: [b]According to tradition, a Hebrew female may not be sold by the court for theft, nor may she sell herself; she may be sold for a bondmaid ("amah" only in the one way shown in Ex. xxi. 7: "When a man sells his daughter for a bondmaid" (A. V. "maid servant". The father has this power over his daughter only while she is a minor, that is, less than twelve years of age, or at least while she does not bear the signs of puberty; and he should use his right only in the extreme of poverty, and then as the last resort before selling himself. The sale becomes complete by the delivery of money or money's worth, or through a deed ("sheṭar" written in the father's name. The girl remains in service at most six years, like a man servant. If the jubilee arrives before the expiration of this term she is discharged by virture of that fact; or if the master dies, though he leaves a son, she goes free. She may also obtain her freedom by redemption at a reduced price, as explained above, or by a deed of emancipation given to her by her master. All this is implied in the words of the text (Deut. xv., Hebr.), "Thou shalt do likewise to thy bondmaid." But over and above all these paths to liberty she has another: as soon as her signs of puberty appear the master must marry her or must betroth her to his son, or must send her free. In case of marriage she stands as a wife on the same footing as any freewoman in Israel. By the very words of the text in Exodus the master is forbidden to sell her to an outsider (lit. "to a foreign people", either as a worker or as a wife.

In conclusion, it may be said of Hebrew man servants and bondmaids that, unlike Canaanite servants, they do not become free by reason of an assault on the part of the master which results in the loss of an eye or a tooth; but, as shown under Assault and Battery, in such a case the master is liable to them in an action for damages.[/b]



dalaman 's reply is disgraceful and does not portray an educated person. It is more disgraceful that his fellow atheists did not bother to scrutinize his claims but hurriedly and ignorantly opted to like his comment. dalaman was more concerned with disproving the bible rather than finding out the truth. He deceitfully abridged quotes from the Jewish encyclopaedia to suit his selfish claims and mislead the public.

This further proves that the op is consistent with the claims of the Bible and that of the Jewish encyclopaedia. It also proves that dalaman could hardly find a lie in the numerous claims made by the op. The few claims dalaman thought were lies have been supported by the very reference he posted. The Jewish Encyclopaedia. He did not look before leaping, just like cloudgoddess have similarly done.

It finally proves that when a piece of solid evidence shatters the notions of an atheist, they have nothing meaningful to say but to call it a lie.

winner01:
Even before I asked you to read the article, you already concluded it was a lie and so i'm not surprised at this horribly lame attempt to discharge yourself.
People may not know Hebrew but they have the internet which has several language dictionaries.





The op opines that: Simply because as we will see, they were treated higher than slaves. He also gives the name of a credible Historian to support his claim. dalaman on the other hand feels he is a better historian that any christian historian.


Let me quickly point out dalaman 's mischief:

dalaman 's twist and turn:
The truth: The most popular English Bible versions rightfully translates the word "ebed" as slaves: NLV, ESV, NASB, KJV, ISV, HCSB, NET Bible, GWT, NAS, KJV 2000, AKJV et al.
What the Jewish Encyclopaedia really said: The Hebrew word "'ebed" really means "slave"; but the English Bible renders it "servant" (a) where the word is used figuratively, pious men being "servants of the Lord" (Isa. xx. 3), and courtiers "servants of the king" (Jer. xxxvii. 2); and (b) in passages which refer to Hebrew bondmen, whose condition is far above that of slavery (Ex. xxi. 2-7). Where real slaves are referred to, the English versions generally use "bondman" for "'ebed," and "bondwoman" or "bondmaid" for the corresponding feminines

The dictionary meaning of the word figuratively: The adverb figuratively describes something symbolic, not actual. For example, If a friend invites you to tonight's concert but you already have plans with your family, you might say — figuratively — that your hands are tied.

The Jewish encyclopaedia recognizes that the english versions that use the word servant, make use of it figuratively.

Conclusion: dalaman intentionally abridged the statement from the Jewish Encyclopaedia to make it look as if it is in contrast with the Bible




Also, The op rightfully says:
And backs it up with solid biblical claims:If a servant who owed a debt came in with his wife, then after 6 years they both were allowed to leave together, not just one (v. 3). Exodus 21:26-27 says if a boss injured a servant, the servant was to be set free. Such abuse was not tolerated. Deuteronomy 15:16 shows servants often truly loved the leaders of the household and thought of them as family. Leviticus 25:53 says such servants were to be treated as men “hired from year to year” not “rule[d ] over ruthlessly.” They were even to be given a regular day off during the week (Exodus 23:12). Also, Israelite servants could not be sold by their bosses (Leviticus 25:42) and are even differentiated from slaves in this text since it says “they shall not be sold as slaves.” Lastly, Deuteronomy 15:13-14 affirms once a servant’s service was over after 6 years, he was not to leave empty handed. The boss was commanded to furnish him out of his flock, and with corn and wine.
What other explanation proves a contractual agreement? Even though the history regarded them as property, we can see that slavery was clearly based on a lawful mutual agreement.

dalamans simulation:


The Jewish encyclopaedia also disagrees with dalaman: [b]The duty of treating the Hebrew servant and handmaid otherwise than as slaves, and above all their retention in service for a limited time only, was deemed by the lawgiver of such importance that the subject was put next to the Decalogue at the very head of civil legislation (Ex. xxi. 2-11). It is treated in its legal bearings also (Lev. xxv. 39-54; Deut. xv. 12-18). The prophet Jeremiah (Jer. xxxiv. 8-24) denounces the permanent enslavement of Hebrew men and women by their masters as the gravest of national sins, for which the kingdom of Judah forfeits all claim to God's mercy, and justly sinks into ruin and exile.

Also In Rabbinical Literature:The Hebrew servant referred to in the Torah is of two classes: (1) he whom the court has sold without his consent; and (2) he who has willingly sold himself. The court may sell a man for theft only, as noted above. A man may sell himself (Lev. xxv. 39) because of extreme poverty, after all his means are exhausted; he should not sell himself as long as any means are left to him. He should not sell himself to a woman, nor to a convert, nor to a Gentile. Should he do so, however, even if he sells himself to a heathen temple, the sale is valid; but it then becomes the duty not only of his kinsmen, but of all Israelites, to redeem him, lest he become "swallowed up" in heathendom. The sale of a Hebrew into bondage should be made privately, not from an auction-block, nor even from the sidewalk, where other slaves are sold.
[/b]




The op also said

In Dalaman 's haste and determination to disprove the Bible, he did not realize that the verse he quoted fully supports the op :




The Jewish encyclopaedia also supports the op: [b]According to tradition, a Hebrew female may not be sold by the court for theft, nor may she sell herself; she may be sold for a bondmaid ("amah" only in the one way shown in Ex. xxi. 7: "When a man sells his daughter for a bondmaid" (A. V. "maid servant". The father has this power over his daughter only while she is a minor, that is, less than twelve years of age, or at least while she does not bear the signs of puberty; and he should use his right only in the extreme of poverty, and then as the last resort before selling himself. The sale becomes complete by the delivery of money or money's worth, or through a deed ("sheṭar" written in the father's name. The girl remains in service at most six years, like a man servant. If the jubilee arrives before the expiration of this term she is discharged by virture of that fact; or if the master dies, though he leaves a son, she goes free. She may also obtain her freedom by redemption at a reduced price, as explained above, or by a deed of emancipation given to her by her master. All this is implied in the words of the text (Deut. xv., Hebr.), "Thou shalt do likewise to thy bondmaid." But over and above all these paths to liberty she has another: as soon as her signs of puberty appear the master must marry her or must betroth her to his son, or must send her free. In case of marriage she stands as a wife on the same footing as any freewoman in Israel. By the very words of the text in Exodus the master is forbidden to sell her to an outsider (lit. "to a foreign people", either as a worker or as a wife.

In conclusion, it may be said of Hebrew man servants and bondmaids that, unlike Canaanite servants, they do not become free by reason of an assault on the part of the master which results in the loss of an eye or a tooth; but, as shown under Assault and Battery, in such a case the master is liable to them in an action for damages.[/b]



dalaman 's reply is disgraceful and does not portray an educated person. It is more disgraceful that his fellow atheists did not bother to scrutinize his claims but hurriedly and ignorantly opted to like his comment. dalaman was more concerned with disproving the bible rather than finding out the truth. He deceitfully abridged quotes from the Jewish encyclopaedia to suit his selfish claims and mislead the public.

This further proves that the op is consistent with the claims of the Bible and that of the Jewish encyclopaedia. It also proves that dalaman could hardly find a lie in the numerous claims made by the op. The few claims dalaman thought were lies have been supported by the very reference he posted. The Jewish Encyclopaedia. He did not look before leaping, just like cloudgoddess have similarly done.

It finally proves that when a piece of solid evidence shatters the notions of an atheist, they have nothing meaningful to say but to call it a lie.

JackBizzle:


When a christian makes an argument with 10 paragraphs or more, the christian is lying.

Ebed means slave. All your long epistles of lies and half-truths wont change that.


Slavery is in the bible which clearly states that slaves are the properties of the masters.

dalaman:


There are two types of slaves as stated by the Jewish encyclopedia. They are the Jewish slaves and the gentile slaves . The treatment of the two are not the same as acknowledged by the Jewish encyclopedia. You and the apologist just dwell on the Jewish slaves without the gentile slaves.

winner01:
People can go and check in the Jewish encyclopaedia how christians are to treat gentile slaves. You are a terrible liar. I can quote the Jewish encyclopaedia her so people can see. What is wrong with you.

You shot yourself in the leg when you referred people to the jewish encyclopaedia. Admit your disastrous attempt to discredit the Holy Bible.

winner01:
But when an atheist makes 10 paragraphs, he's telling the truth?.

Ebed means slave, and the bible and jewish encyclopaedia agrees that they were more than just slaves.

U dont need to be in a haste to sound reasonable, just read and learn.

JackBizzle:



A slave is a slave. Even if you feed your slaves jollof rice and chicken everyday, they are still slaves.

The bible clearly states that slaves are the property of their masters
The bible clearly states that you can beat your slaves as long as they dont die from the beating.


My guy, go and sleep. You lies are turning more christians away from christianity. Religion can not stand on logical grounds

dalaman:


Where does it mention how christians are to treat gentile slaves? You are confused. The bible already discredit itself when it allows people to buy and sell each other like commodities. It agrees that Hebrews can be sold into bondage as well, just that the sale should be done privately. From the Jewish encyclopedia it says:


The sale of a Hebrew into bondage should be made privately, not from an auction-block, nor even from the sidewalk, where other slaves are sold.

The OP wasted time telling us that the word used for salve actually means employee or servant which is false. He then went in a long rant on why the slaves were not to be treated as property when the bible says slave can be treated as property.

Here is how gentile slaves are to be treated from the bible.

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)

Foreign-Born Bondmen.
The Israelite is permitted by Lev. xxv. 44-46 to buy bondmen and bondwomen (in the true sense of the word) from among the surrounding nations, or from the strangers dwelling in his land, and from the descendants of these born in the land; the "indwelling" stranger being distinguished from the stranger who lives under the same law as the Israelite. Such bondmen or bondwomen become a possession, and are inherited by children like other property. But the law limits the absolute power of the master. If he strikes his bondman or bondwoman so as to cause the loss of an eye or a tooth, he or she goes free. If he smites him or her so as to cause death on the same day, the deed is avenged as a murder; but not when death ensues on a subsequent day (Ex. xxi. 20, 21, 26, 27). Another alleviation of bondage is the law (Deut. xxiii. 16, 17) forbidding the return of a fugitive slave to his master by those among whom he seeks shelter. The religious status of bondmen owned by Israelites is well defined by the Scriptures, which make them an integral part of the community. The males, though of foreign blood, whether bought for money, or "born in the house," are to be circumcised (Gen. xvii. 27; Ex. xii. 44), and when circumcised are to be admitted to eat of the Passover meal (ib.). Likewise the bondmen or bondwomen of a priest may eat of his holy meats (Lev. xxii. 11). Neither bondmen nor bondwomen are to be required to work on the Sabbath (Ex. xx. 10); indeed, the opportunity for the "son of thy handmaid" to have a "breathing-space" (A. V. "may be refreshed" is mentioned as one of the great motives for the institution of the Sabbath (Ex. xxiii. 12).

JackBizzle:



A slave is a slave. Even if you feed your slaves jollof rice and chicken everyday, they are still slaves.

winner01:
Your name should be changed to liar.

Lets hear what the Jewish encyclopaedia has to say about Gentile slaves:

[b]Foreign-Born Bondmen.
The Israelite is permitted by Lev. xxv. 44-46 to buy bondmen and bondwomen (in the true sense of the word) from among the surrounding nations, or from the strangers dwelling in his land, and from the descendants of these born in the land; the "indwelling" stranger being distinguished from the stranger who lives under the same law as the Israelite. Such bondmen or bondwomen become a possession, and are inherited by children like other property. But the law limits the absolute power of the master. If he strikes his bondman or bondwoman so as to cause the loss of an eye or a tooth, he or she goes free. If he smites him or her so as to cause death on the same day, the deed is avenged as a murder; but not when death ensues on a subsequent day (Ex. xxi. 20, 21, 26, 27). Another alleviation of bondage is the law (Deut. xxiii. 16, 17) forbidding the return of a fugitive slave to his master by those among whom he seeks shelter. The religious status of bondmen owned by Israelites is well defined by the Scriptures, which make them an integral part of the community. The males, though of foreign blood, whether bought for money, or "born in the house," are to be circumcised (Gen. xvii. 27; Ex. xii. 44), and when circumcised are to be admitted to eat of the Passover meal (ib.). Likewise the bondmen or bondwomen of a priest may eat of his holy meats (Lev. xxii. 11). Neither bondmen nor bondwomen are to be required to work on the Sabbath (Ex. xx. 10); indeed, the opportunity for the "son of thy handmaid" to have a "breathing-space" (A. V. "may be refreshed" is mentioned as one of the great motives for the institution of the Sabbath (Ex. xxiii. 12).[/b]



Will you or your wife agree to such liberating contract with your house maid?

You are filled with so much hate. Go hug your parents or something.

winner01:
So have you kicked off your campaign against the use of househelps in Nigeria?

JackBizzle:



A slave is a slave. Even if you feed your slaves jollof rice and chicken everyday, they are still slaves.

The bible clearly states that slaves are the property of their masters
The bible clearly states that you can beat your slaves as long as they dont die from the beating.


My guy, go and sleep. You lies are turning more christians away from christianity. Religion can not stand on logical grounds

dalaman:


It clearly states that foreign slaves can be bought and owned as properties, they can be passed on as inheritance. The Jews were not to be treated that way. So what are you screaming blue murder about?

winner01:

You do know that lionel messi is a property of barcelona fc, under stipulated contract agreements?

You forgot to include the following contracts from the Jewish encyclopaedia:


But the law limits the absolute power of the master. If he strikes his bondman or bondwoman so as to cause the loss of an eye or a tooth, he or she goes free. If he smites him or her so as to cause death on the same day, the deed is avenged as a murder.

Another alleviation of bondage is the law (Deut. xxiii. 16, 17) forbidding the return of a fugitive slave to his master by those among whom he seeks shelter. The religious status of bondmen owned by Israelites is well defined by the Scriptures, which make them an integral part of the community.

Neither bondmen nor bondwomen are to be required to work on the Sabbath (Ex. xx. 10); indeed, the opportunity for the "son of thy handmaid" to have a "breathing-space" (A. V. "may be refreshed" is mentioned as one of the great motives for the institution of the Sabbath (Ex. xxiii. 12).



Yawns!!! So what day is the free day your wife gives to your house maid?.

dalaman:


It actually gets worse for him. Selling people into bondage was allowed. The Jewish Encyclopaedia clearly states it. As for the beating of slaves, it is permitted as long as you do not injure or kill them. If you beat them and they die same day then it will be seen as murder and avanged as such but if they die the next day then it will not be seen as murder.

If he smites him or her so as to cause death on the same day, the deed is avenged as a murder; but not when death ensues on a subsequent day (Ex. xxi. 20, 21, 26, 27).

This is what this deluded winner01 is comparing to house help in our modern world. This guys are just pathetic.

winner01:
Were the slaves under government contract or not?

And does your house help have the elevated contracts i mentioned earlier?

dalaman:


You still remain a pathetic human being for supporting slavery. Comparing Messi to a slave that can be beating and whose death is only seen as murder if he dies on the same day but not seen as murder when he dies on another days only shows that you are foolish.

dalaman:
Look at the efforts you are putting in just to justify the life of ancient people that see nothing wrong in buying selling and passing each other as inheritance to each other.

dalaman:

So what? It states clearly that selling people into bondage was allowed. so I fail to see what you are crying about?

dalaman:


What we're you crying about since? That selling people into bondage was not allowed or what? I fail to see what exactly you are defending. People can sell each other into bondage, they can beat up their slaves, they can pass them as inheritance the way they pass their property. So what exactly are you crying about?

dalaman:


Which government contract? Is that the new excuse you want to use to run away from what you've been defending since? I notice that once your stupidity has been exposed you look for the easiest and silliest of ways to run away. The slavery laws were dictated by Yahweh himself. So which government contract are you foolishly talking about again? Which government did they have apart from the one of Yahweh and the prophets he speaks through? Keep deluding your self.

dalaman:


Will you stop comparing apples to oranges. Go and buy a house help and pass the house help as an inheritance to your kids and see how you will end up in jail. You guys are shameless. Trying to justify slavery because some ancient people thought it was the right thing to do. It cleary states in the Jewish encyclopedia that selling people into bondage was allowed only that the process was different. So what exactly are you screaming blue murder for?

winner01:
Criminal! Take your househelp to court as the hebrews did and tell them that you want them to them to draft out an agreement so that you can use her.

winner01:
Don't worry, I can feel your pain. The Hebrew society was a totalitarian state. It did not seperate God and state.

The Jewish encyclopaedia you hurriedly quoted without using your brains agrees on these governmental laws:

[b] The duty of treating the Hebrew servant and handmaid otherwise than as slaves, and above all their retention in service for a limited time only, was deemed by the lawgiver of such importance that the subject was put next to the Decalogue at the very head of civil legislation (Ex. xxi. 2-11). It is treated in its legal bearings also (Lev. xxv. 39-54; Deut. xv. 12-18). The prophet Jeremiah (Jer. xxxiv. 8-24) denounces the permanent enslavement of Hebrew men and women by their masters as the gravest of national sins, for which the kingdom of Judah forfeits all claim to God's mercy, and justly sinks into ruin and exile.

Also In Rabbinical Literature:The Hebrew servant referred to in the Torah is of two classes: (1) he whom the court has sold without his consent; and (2) he who has willingly sold himself. The court may sell a man for theft only, as noted above. A man may sell himself (Lev. xxv. 39) because of extreme poverty, after all his means are exhausted; he should not sell himself as long as any means are left to him. He should not sell himself to a woman, nor to a convert, nor to a Gentile. Should he do so, however, even if he sells himself to a heathen temple, the sale is valid; but it then becomes the duty not only of his kinsmen, but of all Israelites, to redeem him, lest he become "swallowed up" in heathendom. The sale of a Hebrew into bondage should be made privately, not from an auction-block, nor even from the sidewalk, where other slaves are sold.
[/b]


Also, According to the maimonides 'Yad ha-Hazakah, also drawn from the Jewish encyclopaedia, It agrees that: The court consented to the selling of slaves thereby providing them certain legal rights and responsibilities.

Now does your wife take your househelp to court to sign an agreement before using her?

Thats why the op agreed, these ones cannot be compared to the african slaves of old.

winner01:
I only used the messi analogy so you can grab what contractual agreement between two parties actually mean. I know you are intellectually weak, i had to use something you could relate with.

Were the slaves under government sanctioned contract or not?
Were there terms and agreements laid out by the government in owning slaves or not?

When they were sold as slaves. Was there a properly laid out mutual agreement between the two parties or not.

Slaves had incredible rights and protection by the government, and thats my point. The Jewish encyclopaedia you stupidly quoted has exposed your ignorance.

dalaman:


What is this fool on about? My housemaid is not my slave. I can not have sex with her the way the ancient Hebrews did with their slaves. You should be ashamed of yourself. You are a pathetic human being. See you trying to justify madness all in the name of religion.

dalaman:


With contractual agreement are you talking about? Slavery is wrong period. That you are supporting or trying to justify it only shows what a sorry of a human being you are.

What has government contract got to do with the fact that it was sanctioned and decreed by their God himself according to the story? Is this your pitiful escape tactics?

Which rights? The rights to be inherited as properties? Or the right to be beating as long as they aren't servely to the extent of losing their eyes or other body parts? They aren't allowed to own properties. So which rights are you talking about ? Where they allowed to live freely? What the hell are you talking about you sick human being? Stupid justifier of slavery.

winner01:

Stop cursing me, it wont solve your personal problems. You and your wife having a house help is a criminal offense except contractual agreements are reached. Its similar to what happened in the Hebrew society. The hebrew government knew there were animals just like you in human clothing, and so it gave directions as to the penalties for maltreating and mistreating bondmen and maids.

No, the rights to the following: (as supported by the jewish encyclopaedia)

[b]- The duty of treating the Hebrew servant and handmaid otherwise than as slaves.
- denouncement of the permanent enslavement of Hebrew men and women by their masters as the gravest of national sins.
- The court's verdict that a man may sell himself (Lev. xxv. 39) because of extreme poverty, after all his means are exhausted; he should not sell himself as long as any means are left to him.
- The Law limiting the absolute power of the master.
- The Law's defense, discharge and vengeance of a bond man or maid who unfortunately happens to be maltreated under under a master
- The Law which make them an integral part of the community.
- The Law which treats them no less than a citizen; Bond men are to be circumcised (Gen. xvii. 27; Ex. xii. 44), and when circumcised are to be admitted to eat of the Passover meal (ib.). Likewise the bondmen or bondwomen of a priest may eat of his holy meats (Lev. xxii. 11).
- The Law which requires bondmen nor bondwomen are to rest on the Sabbath (Ex. xx. 10); indeed, the opportunity for the "son of thy handmaid" to have a "breathing-space" (A. V. "may be refreshed"wink is mentioned as one of the great motives for the institution of the Sabbath (Ex. xxiii. 12).
- The law which permitss a bond maid to get married to a master, and thus placing her on the same footing as any freewoman in Israel. [/b] Amongst others.


I could give several other rights from the Jewish encyclopaedia, that proves that they were to be treated as maids and servants, rather than as a slave.
The isrealites were a people under the Law and as such God permitted some established laws. If the Bible was as mischievious as you are, it would have removed these historical facts. But it reports them and centuries later, you are here fighting it like your problems.

You do not need to curse, some of us were raised with love and peace. Do not impose your viperous nature on people. Got get some love from your wife.

dalaman:


I won't stop calling you a fool so long as you are trying to justify slavery. Any body that can not come out and say that owing slaves is a bad thing remains a fool. Just as you are. Owning a house help is nothing compared to the slavery that occurred during biblical times you idiot. A house help is not and can never be bought or sold. A house help can not be inherited as property. A house help can not be beaten or branded. A house help can leave anytime the house help wants. A house help can own properties and live freely. That you are trying to compare a house help to a slave shows how sick and twisted your mind is. That you are trying to justify slavery also shows what a pathetic human being you are. Slavery is wrong end of story. Just accept that it is wrong and stop trying to defend the ancients who didn't know any better. But because these ancient savages are your God what ever it is they wrote down regardless of how wrong must be defended. Later fools like you will come and be telling us about some elusive love that you can not even show to yourselves.



Are these what you call rights? .

What about the right for them to be inherited and passed over to kids as property? You shamelessly omitted that right? What about the right to be beaten as long as they do not miss their body parts like arms or eyes? Even if they lose their body parts they are to be set free. What kind of right is that? You didn't mention that one. What about the right to be wedded of or serve as concubine to their masters? I didn't see you mention that one. Did you shamelessly forget that right as well? The right which see to it that they own no property nko? Did you forget to mention that one? You are a fool for justifying slavery. Take the elusive love you talk about and shove it up your behind. You are here justifying slavery and the next second you are talking about some elusive love that you can not give. I have told you on the other thread that you can not give what you do not have. When we see you guys showing love to each other in your various churches then we will begin to take you guys seriously. You can keep talking about love but we all know the reality, after all muslims are always telling us that Islam is a religion of peace.