Slavery in the bible

[SA Huguenot]

I can't follow this at all, I'm afraid. Slavery was an established practice in the ancient societies of the time. It seems to me the New Testament (which is what defines Christianity) barely refers to slavery and does not, so far as I can recall, attempt to commend or justify it. Do you have evidence that it does? If so in what passages?

and you also missed out on:
(Deuteronomy 24:7) If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.
And:
1Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Timothy 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men-stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
1Timothy 1:11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

California roads are crap. Yes, the state should make them work. Train them and put them to work.

...I'm not for selling them though.

So you're not for individuals owning them as property, correct? Then again I ask (because you didn't answer this part) - what has changed in the moral acceptability of slavery since Biblical times? Because make no mistake, The Bible describes lawful conditions under which people of its time could own other people as property. Not "the state" nor limited to "prisoners being put to work ." People could own other people, and this was permissible according to The Bible. So what has changed?

Also - I'd like to get your opinion about something. When we put these prisoners to work under this sort of pseudo-slavery, should the guards looking after them while they do the work be allowed to beat them to death as long as they survive a couple of days? That is to say, if one of these prisoners were beaten so severely "on the job" that they were hospitalized for a few days, and then ultimately died of their injuries, should the guard who beat them that severely just be let off, scott free? Because this is what The Bible calls for. No question. That scenario was morally acceptable according to The Bible. So if now that should not be morally permissible, then again - what has changed since those Biblical times?

 

[Audie]

Did you miss out on :

(Deuteronomy 24:7) If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.
And:
1Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Timothy 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men-stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
1Timothy 1:11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

Or did you choose not to read what I wrote, but still decided to beat the drum on God condoned slavery?
Come on my friend. Take the time and read what I found, and then critisize.
This is the accepted philosophical test of discovering truth.
Not investigating and assumtive reasoning is a terrible mistake for anyone's intelligence.

The great thing about the bible is that is says
whatever anyone wants it to say. You can
quote verses to support any side of any issue.

Let me guess-are you one of those fundies who
take the bible literally? Like genesis, say?

IF so, you'd be well advised to try to slip
away unnoticed, if there is mention of "intelligence"

 

[Cooky]

This thread is about slavery in the Bible.

Nobody claims the bible holds the fullness of all truth for all time. So it's a stupid thread.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I can't follow this at all, I'm afraid. Slavery was an established practice in the ancient societies of the time. It seems to me the New Testament (which is what defines Christianity) barely refers to slavery and does not, so far as I can recall, attempt to commend or justify it. Do you have evidence that it does? If so in what passages?

I'm going to slim this down then, to ONE question. Apparently multiple words and points confuse the absolute crap out of believers/theists/whatever-you-are:

WHAT MAKES MY ORIGINAL ANALOGY INAPPLICABLE?

 

[Cooky]

The great thing about the bible is that is says
whatever anyone wants it to say. You can
quote verses to support any side of any issue.

Which is why it can't be relied on alone. We need Church doctors to help us.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Describing under what circumstances you are legally allowed to beat your slaves to death (because again, let's never, ever allow Christians to forget, if they still die, but do so after 2 or 3 days, this exempts the master from punishment), may not be directly "endorsing" slavery. That is... it doesn't prescribe that you go get some slaves, and does not prescribe that you beat them. Fine. But allowing something under the law is done with the knowledge that there will be those interested in doing what is allowed under the law. It is, at least, a tacit show of support for the institution. Just as our government in the U.S. allows our citizens to own and conceal/carry guns. This is tacit support of owning and carrying guns. The government doesn't PRESCRIBE that you go out and buy a gun, but they support your doing so at your own discretion. If they DIDN'T support it... it wouldn't be law.

Happy? The Bible supports slavery.

And you obviously did not read what I wrote.
Does the Bible say if you so much as beat a slave and he looses a tooth, he should be set free?
Do you think that men in ancient times did not lose their temper and went into a fighting rage where he attacked a slave?
dont you think that if he did so, and the slave died due to this attack, the Bible is correct in giving the death penalty to the attacking master?
What if the slave died of something totally unrelated after a few days, should the atacker then also be executed?
Look, if you are contend in taking one verse out of the context of everything the Bible says about say, slavery, to cast your way of thinking for whatever reason, know that you will be able to believe and disbelieve everything due to ignorance.
But go and check everything I attached, and then come an critisize.

 

[sooda]

So were mine. My great grandpa famously publushed the first written map of new amsterdam in the 1600's.

My family's house is on that map.

 

[SA Huguenot]

The great thing about the bible is that is says
whatever anyone wants it to say. You can
quote verses to support any side of any issue.

Let me guess-are you one of those fundies who
take the bible literally? Like genesis, say?

IF so, you'd be well advised to try to slip
away unnoticed, if there is mention of "intelligence"

And yes, if you pick and choose what you want out of the Bible, you can claim anything.
But, if you take the full contents, such as I did on slavery, then the Bible says one thing, and it can never be interperated into the opposite.
Do you think giving your quote is a highly intellectual argument?

 

[exchemist]

I'm going to slim this down then, to ONE question. Apparently multiple words and points confuse the absolute crap out of believers/theists/whatever-you-are:

WHAT MAKES MY ORIGINAL ANALOGY INAPPLICABLE?

It doesn't work like that. It is your analogy. You need to show explain why it is a good one, if it is not obvious. My problem at present is I don't understand what exactly you are claiming, in respect of Christianity and slavery. So far you have not supported your contention with references (you gave one but it did not say what you claimed) , so it is impossible for me to see why you might think it is good analogy. What is it in the NT you have in mind? Or is it perhaps something out of the OT, from a few thousand years earlier, even, than the time of Christ?

 

[SA Huguenot]

Which is why it can't be relied on alone. We need Church doctors to help us.

Well, I could not find evidence for the claim Audie made.
It is a silly argument indeed to tell me one can find anything in the Bible if you wish to twist its words.

 

[Audie]

And yes, if you pick and choose what you want out of the Bible, you can claim anything.
But, if you take the full contents, such as I did on slavery, then the Bible says one thing, and it can never be interperated into the opposite.
Do you think giving your quote is a highly intellectual argument?

You picked and chose your quotes.

The bible does not "say one thing". It often
says opposite things. You choose the one
thing you like.

You use the same words, that "pick and choose"
and "full context" that we see over and over
from people who use it to claim that their chosen
reading is the correct one. You are not original, every
pov on what the bible says makes the same claim.

Do you think giving your quote is a highly intellectual argument?

Your question here is just ungrammatical nonsense,
with no discernible meaning other than an effort
to turn my question back on me.

Are you somehow reluctant to reveal whether you
are one who holds genesis to be literal? Own
it, be proud of it!

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

And you obviously did not read what I wrote.
Does the Bible say if you so much as beat a slave and he looses a tooth, he should be set free?
Do you think that men in ancient times did not lose their temper and went into a fighting rage where he attacked a slave?
dont you think that if he did so, and the slave died due to this attack, the Bible is correct in giving the death penalty to the attacking master?
What if the slave died of something totally unrelated after a few days, should the atacker then also be executed?
Look, if you are contend in taking one verse out of the context of everything the Bible says about say, slavery, to cast your way of thinking for whatever reason, know that you will be able to believe and disbelieve everything due to ignorance.
But go and check everything I attached, and then come an critisize.

Wasn't even aware I had responded to you at all... but your points are all as much garbage as anyone else's. Nothing but excuse making and hoping that you can twist your way out of an uncomfortable situation.

The idea that stands, on its own, without possibility of challenge is this:

If, in our modern day law system, it was proposed that it be written into law that a person could lawfully beat someone to death for any reason outside of self-defense, if the beaten party went on to live for at least a couple of days, there would be no one to vote for this amendment to the law due to outstanding moral objection.

And the question still stands - what makes it okay that this was written into law in Biblical times?

Also, your "died of something totally unrelated after a few days" is such a load of crap. This proves to me that you are so dishonest or deluded that you're willing to remake or reinterpret anything at all of your choosing in defense of your "special book" and credulous beliefs. To make this statement accurate or plausible, The Bible itself would need to state that the death had to occur of completely unrelated causes. But that is not what it states, and you know this. I suggest you start examining yourself a little more closely in the mirror.

 

[Audie]

Well, I could not find evidence for the claim Audie made.
It is a silly argument indeed to tell me one can find anything in the Bible if you wish to twist its words.

So everyone who does not find what you find
in the bible is silly, and twists its words?

 

[dybmh]

@A Vestigial Mote ,
Respectfully: This is your original analogy?

"What if, during the times in U.S. history of the heaviest segregation, our law books prescribed the moral way in which you could beat black people in the street such that you weren't to be punished if you followed the guidelines?"

The problem with this analogy is that the Jewish Law apparently ( I am not an expert ) does not allow beating a slave in the way you describe above.

Please refer to reply#93 in this thread: hyperlink >>> reply#93 - Slavery in the bible

 

[Cooky]

So you're not for individuals owning them as property, correct? Then again I ask (because you didn't answer this part) - what has changed in the moral acceptability of slavery since Biblical times? Because make no mistake, The Bible describes lawful conditions under which people of its time could own other people as property. Not "the state" nor limited to "prisoners being put to work ." People could own other people, and this was permissible according to The Bible. So what has changed?

Also - I'd like to get your opinion about something. When we put these prisoners to work under this sort of pseudo-slavery, should the guards looking after them while they do the work be allowed to beat them to death as long as they survive a couple of days? That is to say, if one of these prisoners were beaten so severely "on the job" that they were hospitalized for a few days, and then ultimately died of their injuries, should the guard who beat them that severely just be let off, scott free? Because this is what The Bible calls for. No question. That scenario was morally acceptable according to The Bible. So if now that should not be morally permissible, then again - what has changed since those Biblical times?

Catholics don't base their lives on biblical fundamentalism... We reject Sola Scriptura, so please familiarize yourself with whom you're speaking to in debates.

...My wanting to put prisoners to work has nothing to do with my religion. It's a personal thought based on what I see as logical.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It doesn't work like that. It is your analogy. You need to show explain why it is a good one, if it is not obvious. My problem at present is I don't understand what exactly you are claiming, in respect of Christianity and slavery. So far you have not supported your contention with references (you gave one but it did not say what you claimed) , so it is impossible for me to see why you might think it is good analogy. What is it in the NT you have in mind? Or is it perhaps something out of the OT, from a few thousand years earlier, even, than the time of Christ?

You already know the chain of defense of my ideas, and I already did support my analogy with specific points that should have been enough IF YOU KNOW THE PERTINENT PORTIONS OF YOUR BIBLE AT ALL WELL. But fine, you asked for it. You think I cant provide? Think again Mr. Tapdancer:

From the old testament, Exodus 21:20–21:

And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.

It says, quite simply, that if a slave is beaten by the master and dies immediately, then the master should be punished, but if the beating is bad enough that the slave dies after a couple of days, then the master shouldn't be punished, because the implication is that he's already out the slave and the labor, which is punishment enough. the And now is when you would say something like "Oh my gosh! I had no idea that sort of statement was made in The Bible! Well, in any case, Jesus never said it, so it doesn't count!" Which is then where we get to Jesus' own words (and you knew this was coming also, don't lie to yourself now):

Matthew 5:18:

For verily I say unto you, Till
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from
the law, till all be fulfilled.

So, here we see that Jesus fully endorses the law of the Old Testament. I mean... he can't very well be talking about the New Testament, can he? It wasn't even written!!! Hahahahahahahahahaha! Oh boy... so funny. Give me a second to stop laughing... heh heh... ahhh... hoooo... yeah...good stuff, good stuff.

And so, back to my analogy, which I will quote again here:

What if, during the times in U.S. history of the heaviest segregation, our law books prescribed the moral way in which you could beat black people in the street such that you weren't to be punished if you followed the guidelines? "Never use a rod with over 300 MPa tensile strength.", "Be sure you are in full view of at least 3 other witnesses.", "Do not strike to the point that eyes or teeth are lost."

So, what I am drawing on here is the fact that "SLAVERY" (something that used to be morally permissible, but no longer is) was legal during the time the Old Testament was written (and remember, the OT is applicable because JESUS SAYS it is applicable), just as "SEGREGATION " (something that used to be morally permissible, but no longer is) was legal during a particular time in U.S./more-modern history. That parallel is pretty darn obvious. And then within that, I am asking what you would believe the implication (that is, the take-away by the layman) of a MODERN LAW to be if it directly described the ways in which you could beat a black person and not be prosecuted under the law. So, I have substituted "slavery" for "segregation" and "slave" for "person or color", and then nearly everything else remains the same. Even the bit about not being allowed to knock out teeth or eyes, see? Look:

Exodus 21:26:

And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.

Exodus 21:27:

And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.

And, obviously, I am going for shock value here - making it incredibly obvious that it WOULD NOT BE OKAY by our standards today to allow someone to be beaten under the law in this way - but note that I didn't even make mention in my analogy of anyone dying! And then I would ask people to juxtapose that sense of horror at those thoughts in modern times with what is nearly the exact same situation from Biblical times (a person considered to be of lower stature in society being beaten severely at the hands of another member of society deemed to be of higher stature), and imagine that, instead of horror, those people (and God, apparently) thought it all commonplace, and just fine and dandy. And I then ask, if God is the arbiter of morality... then what could have changed that now we don't write such laws into our law books? Why is it now not okay? Has God's mind on this matter changed? And if not, then aren't we sort of going against His prescriptions with our ideas today? Would you say our morality has evolved beyond God's?

And ultimately (on top of all the other INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS implications of my points above) my claim is that providing the lawful ways in which one is allowed to conduct business is showing lawful, government support for such business. And when "the government" we're talking about is "God", well... it means God supports these things. Period. And can the government change its mind? Of course it can! The government is people, and people are fallible. But what does it mean when God changes His mind? It again means fallibility, doesn't it? And we can't have that, now can we?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Catholics don't base their lives on biblical fundamentalism... We reject Sola Scriptura, so please familiarize yourself with whom you're speaking to in debates.

...My wanting to put prisoners to work has nothing to do with my religion. It's a personal thought based on what I see as logical.

My apologies. Though I would assume that, even if you don't defer to The Bible as an ultimate source of your religious beliefs, you certainly defer to God, correct?

I'll direct my question to you about God's ideas then.

Do you think God finds slavery to be wholly objectionable now? And additionally, do you think that God found slavery wholly objectionable when The Bible was written? And if, within there, God changed His mind about slavery, does this mean that God made some mistakes?

 

[SkepticThinker]

• God didn't condemn and forbid owning a slave in the text of the Old Testament at that time.
• According to the Old Testament abstaining from eating shellfish is not mundane.
• According to the Old Testament abstaining from mixing wool and linen is not mundane.

I'm not sure how this addresses my point.

So things are immoral/moral according to God, depending on what time period we're talking about?
And you're saying that eating shellfish is somehow on par with owning a human being as property?

 

[dybmh]

@A Vestigial Mote ,

In response to the verses you brought form Exodus. As I stated earlier, the Jewish law does not match what is said in these verses. Why? Because other verses put limits on these verses.

It's not exactly taking the verses in Exodus out of context. But in a legal matter, there are rules for reconciling verses in the Old Testament. They are called, The 13 rules for Torah Interpretation.

Here is a link to the OU website ( the Orthodox Union ). This is the same "OU" that puts kosher labels on food in America. They are a respected group of Rabbi's. I think you can trust the information on their website as being representative of authentic Jewish Law.

hyperlink >>> OU.org - The 13 Rules of Rabbi Yishmael

The 13th rule speaks about what to do if 2 verses contradict each other.

I suspect this is why the Jewish Law does not allow beating a slave even though the verse in Exodus says it is acceptable.