dude made some valid points


i think he was being sarcastic with the ending, i didn't take that bit seriously.you must have seen this shyt on facebook. i saw it a few days ago. good points but its got a bad ending..
i say sarcasm fail..i think he was being sarcastic with the ending, i didn't take that bit seriously.
4.3.1.2 Many of the documents concern enslavement for debt and contain redemption clauses. There is no direct evidence of a category of irredeemable chattel slaves, although it may be the case with slaves that are the object of purchase, inheritance, or gift
4.3.2.1 Most of the recorded cases of entry of free persons into slavery are by reason of debt or famine or both. Some documents refer to a general calamity, for example, “in the year of famine when three seah of barley cost one shekel of silver” (ASJ 13:37: mu.kala.ga ki 3 sila “e.me“ ana1 gín kubabbar izzaz), “in the year when enemy troops besieged the city and one seah of barley cost one shekel of silver” (TBR 25). Others refer to personal disaster, e.g., that “her creditors seized her and she could not pay them” (ASJ 13:36). A common practice was for a financier to pay off the various creditors in return for the debtor becoming his slave
4.3.2.2 A person would either enter into slavery or be sold by a parent or relative. Persons sold their wives , grandchildren, brother, sister, sister-in-law, daughter in-law, nephews, and niece.
4.3.2.3 Many of the documents emphasize that the transaction is voluntary (i“tu ramàni“u). This applies not only to self-sale but also to those who are the object of sale, although their consent must sometimes have been fictional, as in the case of a nursing infant.
4.3.3.1 In several cases, the status of children was separated from that of their slave parents. In ASJ 14:46, a prince of Carchemish declared the children of his slave free, while retaining the latter. In Emar 18, the king of Carchemish ruled that the children and father of a person enslaved for a judgment debt remained free.
4.3.4.1.1 A slave might be manumitted by his owner. Freedom was expressed in various ways: “released to (the god) Shamash” , “released to maryannu status”, “released to arawannu status”, or “may go where he pleases”
4.3.4.2.3 Slaves might redeem themselves out of their peculium. In one instance it is contemplated that the slave pay from “silver at his disposal” (“a qàti“u). A clause in another document allows the slave to redeem himself “if he makes one person from the house” (i“tu bìti 1 napi“ta ippa“) but apparently precludes him from acquiring a substitute from another for this purpose (i.e., of indebting himself with a third person)
~A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, Vol 2. pgs. 664 - 667.
4.5.5.3 Conditions
The slave was protected against three forms of maltreatment:
1. Excessive physical punishment. Even chattel slaves appear to have benefited to some extent from this protection.
2. Sexual abuse. Sexual intercourse with a woman amounted to an offense in the ancient Near East when it was an infringement of the rights of the person under whose authority she was, for example her father or her husband. Ownership of a chattel slave eliminated that authority but not entirely so in the case of a debt slave.
3. Sale abroad. Only native debt slaves were protected by this prohibition, which must in any case have been difficult to enforce in practice.
~A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, Vol. 1, pg. 43
LOL. He's about as wrong as two left feet, but don't let that stop anyone from actually thinking or researching his claims. Let's start out by defining 'slavery' since in the Ancient Near East, it wasn't an 'institution' like that of antebellum South or after the Islamic conquests. For instance, slavery as we know it, was involuntary and for the lifetime of the slave, whereas in the ANE (Ancient Near East), it was mostly voluntary and temporary. How do we know this is true? We have ancient writings from surrounding civilizations of Babylon, Akkad, Ur, Ugarit, etc. Mostly consisting of court documents that show slaves acting as agents for great merchant houses dating back to Neo-Babylon. The majority of slaves were volunteers as a result of debt or as a form of relief after a disaster, even as a form of adoption, not prisoners of war......
Slaves were also somewhat protected......
It is under these contexts that 'slaves' were referred to in all Ancient Near Eastern literature including the passages the gentlemen referred to in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. In short, slavery in the ANE bears little resemblance to slavery as modern society understands the term.
Dude's whole rant is invalid.



the cac mamba said:if american christianity isnt a tool of white supremacy, i dont know what is![]()
GrindtoFilthy said:^^^nice find but what about the bit of selling your daughters into slavery?
In the ancient world, a father, driven by poverty, might sell his daughter into a well-to-do family in order to ensure her future security. The sale presupposes marriage to the master or his son. Documents recording legal arrangements of this kind have survived from Nuzi. The Torah stipulates that the girl must be treated as a free woman; should the designated husband take an additional wife, he is still obligated to support her. A breach of faith gains her her freedom, and the master receives no compensation for the purchase price.