at1with0 wrote:Wow, a rationalization for having slaves...If the masters are not jerks then it's not so bad...Didn't expect that but it's probably not that different from a Islamic-fundie to have a well-developed rationalization for enacting commandments in that book.
The passage in question clearly allows slaves. Would you rather be a slave, even a well-treated one, than dead? I'm not equating the two, I am comparing the two.
It basically says you can take slaves that aren't from your political construct. Koran says you should kill infidels.
Both books have black eyes.
Is it that you refuse to understand? Slavery was common, accepted practice in society back then. The bible merely takes what was already in full, normal practice across the world, and told the Israelites how to behave in that environment.
For you to suggest that I am rationalizing modern-day slavery is utterly preposterous. All I did was try to illustrate that the word "slave" today is surrounded by a whole bunch of negative connotations that back then, simply didn't exist. Back then it was completely common to conquer a land and take the conquered people and make them your farm hands, butlers, gardeners, launderers, animal caregivers, and all that other stuff that back then is what slaves did. Today the people that do the same things are called something other than slaves, and the only difference is, slaves were owned, meaning they couldn't just quit. That's a big difference, I grant that, but keep in mind they were the enemy before they were enslaved and just about the only other alternative in that day to ensure the safety of the conquering citizens, would have been to KILL the enemy citizens. Now, you have argued they were better off being killed than enslaved. I think you are on the fringe with that opinion.