Slavery in the Bible: more than meets the eye?

[Shaul]

The Torah doesn’t allow for chattel slavery. The fact is that Judaism is the first religion that doesn’t allow chattel slavery.

 

[tas8831]

Re slavery from the eons of humans.

You are saying, in effect, "Slavery is the issue and God hasn't done a good job of stopping it."
The assumption here is "slavery"
If the bible said that God would wipe out slavery then you have a point
But the bible doesn't say that.

Who cares what the bible says? it was written by superstitious nomads in ancient times in which anything they didn't understand was attributed to some spirits or some nonsense.

Other creationist/evangelical types want to excuse Jehovah for not getting rid of slavery because, gee, golly, slavery was already happening!


But wait - didn't Jehovah CREATE humans? Didn't this Jehovah supposedly provide a list of 10 or 11 'commandments' - none of which prohibited slavery , half of which basically glorified Himself?

Nor does the bible speak about a whole range of social issues, from global warming to saving
the whales. What it does speak to is the universalism of man, brotherhood and love. But the
arbiter of this must be man himself, for he has been given free will. This is the job of the bible.

And yet, it provides RULES for how to treat slaves - Hebrew slaves could be released in 6 years, but foreign slaves were property for ever.

Surely, you know about this?

Rules for owning slaves - Yes!

Outlawing slavery? NOPE.

 

[Tumah]

I thought I commented in this thread, but it looks like I didn't.

Isn’t this interesting on slavery.

Duet 23:15 “… “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him…”

You help return lost property in the last chapters but when it comes to slaves… you let them stay free.

n

If you're trying to suggest that you think what this is saying is that a slave could just run away from their master and be free, then ... I don't have any words. That's absurd. All the slaves would just run away and people wouldn't buy slaves because they'd lose their money right off the bat. All the other laws about slavery would be a waste of parchment, because there wouldn't actually be any slaves.

Freedom for slaves built into the law and in more than one way. The year of jubilee when slaves were set free another example.

That's for Jewish slaves, not Canaanite slaves. For Canaanite slaves, it says in Lev. 25:46 that they must remain slaves forever.

 

[tas8831]

I thought I commented in this thread, but it looks like I didn't.

If you're trying to suggest that you think what this is saying is that a slave could just run away from their master and be free, then ... I don't have any words. That's absurd. All the slaves would just run away and people wouldn't buy slaves because they'd lose their money right off the bat. All the other laws about slavery would be a waste of parchment, because there wouldn't actually be any slaves. Come on, I know you're Christian, but just try to use your head.


That's for Jewish slaves, not Canaanite slaves. For Canaanite slaves, it says in Lev. 25:46 that then must remain slaves forever.

Surely you do not expect the devoted to read ALL of their holy book? They seem to solely focus on the 'good stuff' that, when 'read the right way', comports with their political/social views, and take at face value the admonitions of charismatic 'leaders' who tell them to ignore all that bad stuff that the haters quote... from their holy book...

 

[Tumah]

The Torah doesn’t allow for chattel slavery. The fact is that Judaism is the first religion that doesn’t allow chattel slavery.

This is wrong. In Jewish Law, chattel slavery is the required form of slavery for Gentile slaves.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Foreign slaves were not considered neighbors. Other tribes (foreigners) were not neighbors, they were enemies.

Jesus said love your enemies.

You are also adding (again) Bible interpretations rather than quoting the scriptures. Then you claim you don't need to look at the article with the apologist's interpretations/contexts, which is a double standard.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I firmly believe that the problem is pigheadedness. Yours, of course. The issue is exceedingly simple, and I am quite sure (again, opinion here, but I feel I have a lot of experience with you and these texts backing me up here) that you lament that fact that The Bible even contains these words. You don't like the fact that you have to defend the book in this way - and defend it you must. Because what it says is just plain wrong. The ideas that we're talking about are old, outdated, immoral by today's standards, and just plain horrific in implication. It's that easy... but YOU are the one who wants to make it difficult, because you just can't help yourself but try to defend these foolish ideas you've been clinging onto for so long. To double-back now would seem like so much has been wasted. I get it. Unfortunately, that's where you stand - that's where you apparently want to stand. So good luck to you. Go stand there... but never, ever ask me to stand alongside you back there. It's so far I can barely even see you waving that dirty, beckoning hand of yours.

Can you quit your job at any time you wish? Can you? You know the answer. Don't be so foolish as to equate two things that are not equal. This is one of the things theists consistently try to get away with that discredits them to no end in the eyes of anyone who can see through their crap.

I cannot quit my job at will when I need to put food on the table. Someone who lost a house and land through, say, a firestorm, could live with a neighbor and work in exchange for food and shelter. You've ignored my posts on this thread about debts beautifully remitted and etc.

I don't "have to" defend anything. Atheists hone in on about five scriptures in the entire Bible, all of them utterly out of context and also, logic, which to me, seems like a spiritual deception rather than the use of reason.

 

[tas8831]

Jesus said love your enemies.

Unless they are gay or Mexican, am i right?

You are also adding (again) Bible interpretations rather than quoting the scriptures. Then you claim you don't need to look at the article with the apologist's interpretations/contexts, which is a double standard.

Is that why you implied all evolutionists are racists? based on the typical righty disinformation you have fallen for?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Jesus said love your enemies.

You are also adding (again) Bible interpretations rather than quoting the scriptures. Then you claim you don't need to look at the article with the apologist's interpretations/contexts, which is a double standard.

That's great for Jesus.

You are adding interpretations, in your imagining that Jesus telling people to love their enemies somehow wipes out all the instructions on keeping slaves.

How about addressing what the Bible says about SLAVERY, like, anytime now.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I cannot quit my job at will when I need to put food on the table. Someone who lost a house and land through, say, a firestorm, could live with a neighbor and work in exchange for food and shelter. You've ignored my posts on this thread about debts beautifully remitted and etc.

Is this seriously where we are now? Comparing slavery to being employed? This is pathetic.

Dude, it's obvious your moral compass is telling you that slavery is wrong. The problem appears to be that the Bible doesn't actually say that, so you have to perform all these mental gymnastics and silly comparisons in order to attempt to water down what the Bible says in an attempt to make it more palatable. The problem is that you are more moral than your Bible.

I don't "have to" defend anything. Atheists hone in on about five scriptures in the entire Bible, all of them utterly out of context and also, logic, which to me, seems like a spiritual deception rather than the use of reason.

Ah, okay, so there's a context in which owning human beings as property is moral? This just gets worse and worse.

 

[viole]

Enslavement and extermination is a loving act? You are getting stranger by the minute.

Must be, since your God promoted both.

Ciao

- viole

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I cannot quit my job at will when I need to put food on the table.

Yes... yes you still can. You can. Can. CAN.

Is it just commonplace to tell lies as arguments now or what? I must have missed the memo.

I don't "have to" defend anything.

Then why not just stop? Can you? I wonder. Seems like a compulsion to me. Regardless, the scriptures DO need defended by someone - otherwise they would be ripped apart.

Atheists hone in on about five scriptures in the entire Bible, all of them utterly out of context and also, logic, which to me, seems like a spiritual deception rather than the use of reason.

Your funny little quip about "five scriptures in the entire Bible" is extremely misrepresentative. There are sites dedicated to cataloging the thousands of (even minute) contradictions within The Bible that span all over the place. There are huge glaring holes that people have picked into even the most supposedly "robust" or important pieces of scripture - like the sermon on the mount. And let's not forget the stupidity of the first 3 commandments - which seem to try and make morality all about how one should treat "God" rather than how one treats his fellow man. I submit that the very idea of morality doesn't have much more to do with anything other than our treatment of our fellow life-forms on this planet. No intelligently crafted prescriptive text on morality is going to include references to beings from another realm that no one can verify exist. The Bible is replete with old, outdated, numskull ideas, stories of God's own mistakes, attempts to fix mistakes, God's perpetration of genocide, infanticide, and with the "destiny" purported to be behind Jesus' crucifixion and God's hand in crafting "the plan" one could argue filicide. So... here we have HUGE tenets of your religion, all of which you know have been under the gun from nonbelievers. "Five scriptures." Pah. You apparently need to get out more.

 

[tas8831]

Your funny little quip about "five scriptures in the entire Bible" is extremely misrepresentative. There are sites dedicated to cataloging the thousands of (even minute) contradictions within The Bible that span all over the place.

I read a book titled "Self Contradictions in the Bible" about 30 years ago. It was first published in the 1800s. Anonymously. Seems the author was afraid of what might happen to him.
It was an interesting book - no commentary at all - just one line of scripture above, another line of contradictory Scripture below. Hundreds of examples.

I think the deluded apologists claim these as evidence of the bible's truth - they call it the 'argument from embarrassment' or some such nonsense. For why would bible scholars repeat such embarrassing writings from their Holy Scriptures if they were not TRUE???

There are huge glaring holes that people have picked into even the most supposedly "robust" or important pieces of scripture - like the sermon on the mount.... The Bible is replete with old, outdated, numskull ideas, stories of God's own mistakes, attempts to fix mistakes, God's perpetration of genocide, infanticide, and with the "destiny" purported to be behind Jesus' crucifixion and God's hand in crafting "the plan" one could argue filicide. So... here we have HUGE tenets of your religion, all of which you know have been under the gun from nonbelievers. "Five scriptures." Pah. You apparently need to get out more.

And even if it was a mere '5 Scriptures' - Slavery is OK; Slaughter infants if their parents don't worship ME ME ME; eat shellfish and DIE!; bring me foreskins!; wander for 40 years trying to get to a place that you can walk to in a couple of days!; etc. - those 5 should be plenty for a sensible person to scratch their heads and think, "Do I really want to base my life on this nonsense?"

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I read a book titled "Self Contradictions in the Bible" about 30 years ago. It was first published in the 1800s. Anonymously. Seems the author was afraid of what might happen to him.
It was an interesting book - no commentary at all - just one line of scripture above, another line of contradictory Scripture below. Hundreds of examples.

I always have to shake my head in wonder at the theists who claim that atheism is some modern development. Obviously there have been people questioning these things as long as there have been people advocating for them. When even a person of a different religious persuasion is a "nonbeliever" toward your claims, you kind of have no choice but to admit that "non-belief" has been around even longer than belief in every single case.

I think the deluded apologists claim these as evidence of the bible's truth - they call it the 'argument from embarrassment' or some such nonsense. For why would bible scholars repeat such embarrassing writings from their Holy Scriptures if they were not TRUE???

Now that's amazing. No stoop is too low, I guess. Though I have to wonder how you can claim two conflicting pieces of writing are simultaneously true.

And even if it was a mere '5 Scriptures' - Slavery is OK; Slaughter infants if their parents don't worship ME ME ME; eat shellfish and DIE!; bring me foreskins!; wander for 40 years trying to get to a place that you can walk to in a couple of days!; etc. - those 5 should be plenty for a sensible person to scratch their heads and think, "Do I really want to base my life on this nonsense?"

There are any number of groupings of 5 that should have any rational person wondering what the hell is going on in that book. I remember hearing tell of a guy who went into Bible studies with the intent of getting the conversation around to "this one religion he heard about." And once he had the people's attention, he would rattle off a bunch of fairly obscure and weird/incomprehensible things from The Bible itself, as if they were the tenets/beliefs of this other religion. Then, once they had gone around the room and all denounced those things as crazy and so obviously wrong or stupid, then he'd lay the truth on them about the fact that those things are found in The Bible - not some other religion - THEIRS.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Torah doesn’t allow for chattel slavery. The fact is that Judaism is the first religion that doesn’t allow chattel slavery.

Come again?

 

[tas8831]

And once he had the people's attention, he would rattle off a bunch of fairly obscure and weird/incomprehensible things from The Bible itself, as if they were the tenets/beliefs of this other religion. Then, once they had gone around the room and all denounced those things as crazy and so obviously wrong or stupid, then he'd lay the truth on them about the fact that those things are found in The Bible - not some other religion - THEIRS.

I can only imagine how that went over...

 

[Moz]

Hi
For all those condemning the Bible for allowing slavery, could they please supply what the alternative for war captives and conquered peoples would actually be.

Without a "welfare state" what other solution to destitution is available in the ancient world?

Would banning slavery amongst the Hebrews have stopped the Babylonians, Assyrians, Elamites, Egyptians, Mitani, Hurrians, Philistines, Canaanites and ALL others from carrying on slavery?

Peace

 

[shunyadragon]

Jesus said love your enemies.

Nothing to do with slavery, of course, it may be interpreted that you should also love your slaves, but they are still slaves throughout history

You are also adding (again) Bible interpretations rather than quoting the scriptures. Then you claim you don't need to look at the article with the apologist's interpretations/contexts, which is a double standard.

No double standard on my part, but indeed the Hebrews had a standard of indentured servitude for Hebrews and slavery for foreigners as specifically described in scripture. I am not adding interpretations, you are. I cited specific citations from the Bible that Hebrews had foreign slaves, and it is matter of fact from scripture that foreigners were enemies and neighbors, and subject to slavery by Hebrews as owned and bought and sold.

Still no response explaining the scripture cited describing slavery by the Hebrews.

 

[tas8831]

Hi
For all those condemning the Bible for allowing slavery, could they please supply what the alternative for war captives and conquered peoples would actually be.

First - please clarify - is it your position that war captives and conquered peoples should be kept as slaves?
Second - could not the Creator of the Universe devise a better system?

Without a "welfare state" what other solution to destitution is available in the ancient world?

Well golly - obviously slavery!

Would banning slavery amongst the Hebrews have stopped the Babylonians, Assyrians, Elamites, Egyptians, Mitani, Hurrians, Philistines, Canaanites and ALL others from carrying on slavery?

Wait -so are you implying that the one true God - Jehovah - had no influence on he Babylonians, Assyrians, Elamites, Egyptians, Mitani, Hurrians, Philistines, Canaanites and ALL others? That Jehovah was just a tribal deity of the Hebrews?

 

[Moz]

First - please clarify - is it your position that war captives and conquered peoples should be kept as slaves?
Second - could not the Creator of the Universe devise a better system?



Well golly - obviously slavery!


Wait -so are you implying that the one true God - Jehovah - had no influence on he Babylonians, Assyrians, Elamites, Egyptians, Mitani, Hurrians, Philistines, Canaanites and ALL others? That Jehovah was just a tribal deity of the Hebrews?

Hi

First - please clarify - is it your position that war captives and conquered peoples should be kept as slaves?

My position... well it seems to be a fact that the ancient world had NO mechanism to deal with captured combatants other than slaughter or slavery.
What is YOUR solution to having captured 30 000 armed combatants. Truly to have any credibility in attacking what they did do, then you must have an idea for what they should have done instead.

Second - could not the Creator of the Universe devise a better system?

I'm not sure why you would think God devised the system. "God" did not get involved in the warfare business until the time of Abraham, this was when he chose the family through whom the seed would appear. The rules of warfare, mass slaughter or enslavement of captives and all the other stuff were already set by the nations that existed. If you know anything about Gen3:15,16 then you know that God left the rebellious world to make its own rules and he has to navigate his people amongst and within the systems that prevailed.

Well golly - obviously slavery!

Ok ... but sarcasm without an alternative is just a waste of time. The only alternative the ancient world had was death of one form or the other, but cool, what is your solution to the homeless and destitute in the ancient world?

Wait -so are you implying that the one true God - Jehovah - had no influence on he Babylonians, Assyrians, Elamites, Egyptians, Mitani, Hurrians, Philistines, Canaanites and ALL others? That Jehovah was just a tribal deity of the Hebrews?

OF COURSE Jehovah - had no influence on he Babylonians, Assyrians, Elamites, Egyptians, Mitani, Hurrians, Philistines, Canaanites and ALL others

OF COURSE Jehovah was just a tribal deity of the Hebrews

It really seems that you have a basic misunderstanding of the story that the Bible tells. Surely though the concept of "Gods chosen people" is somewhere in your database, these people were the ONLY ones that God claimed ownership of, the rest of mankind were left to make their own way and the two seeds were to co-exist until the end.
Peace