The bible and slavery - please post direct passages from the bible that you believe support slavery.

[Quagmire]

So why would God allow for beating the slave under certain conditions?

My post was about the practice of slavery overall and the reasons why it was universally practiced.

I didn't say anything one way or another about the laws involved.

(Going to ignore the rest of your post because it doesn't have anything to do with anything I said, and to be honest with you it just sounds like a lot of sanctimonious grandstanding to me).

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

My post was about the practice of slavery overall and the reasons why it was universally practiced.

I didn't say anything one way or another about the laws involved.

(Going to ignore the rest of your post because it doesn't have anything to do with anything I said, and to be honest with you it just sounds like a lot of sanctimonious grandstanding to me).

Well you were defending slavery as practiced in the bible. Saying slavery is wrong and beating slaves is wrong is just basic morals and I would hope all would have this view.

 

[Quagmire]

Well you were defending slavery as practiced in the bible.

I wasn't 'defending', just explaining.

Saying slavery is wrong and beating slaves is wrong is just basic morals and I would hope all would have this view.

Ever consider becoming a preacher?

Professionally I mean?

Edit: in the meantime, you might want to take this quiz: Mobile Survey

 

[viole]

Is it right to judge past societies by 21st century standards?

Ergo, morality is relative.

ciao

- viokw

 

[Shaul]

Sure. Let's go with Exodus 21:7-11, Exodus 21:20-21, and Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Exodus 21:7-11 shows that female children are not chattel. It proscribes special protective restrictions on the conditions for a female child so they could not be exploited. Exodus 21:20-21 affirms that servants have a right to life. In conjunction with other verses, servants also have rights against bodily injury. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 proscribes penalties that can be levied against men that rape or sexually exploit unmarried women. These are not the maximum penalties but are minimum ones. Also note that penalties are more rigorous in other cases. This is not really about slavery at all.

None of these condone slavery. Just the opposite. They prevent some chattel slavery conditions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Personally I wouldn't do it because it goes against the second great commandment by Jesus for me, which is "love your neighbor as yourself." It would be morally wrong for me to do it.

So the Bible contradicts itself. There is nothing new about that. Your OP question was about slavery in the Bible and verses in the Bible clearly support it. I will not dispute that Jesus's second great commandment is one that could be used to oppose slavery. I doubt if anyone pointing out the verses that show that the Bible supports slavery do not also understand that the Bible contradicts itself quite often.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exodus 21:7-11 shows that female children are not chattel. It proscribes special protective restrictions on the conditions for a female child so they could not be exploited. Exodus 21:20-21 affirms that servants have a right to life. In conjunction with other verses, servants also have rights against bodily injury. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 proscribes penalties that can be levied against men that rape or sexually exploit unmarried women. These are not the maximum penalties but are minimum ones. Also note that penalties are more rigorous in other cases. This is not really about slavery at all.

None of these condone slavery. Just the opposite. They prevent some chattel slavery conditions.

No, just because there are limits on what one can do with one's property does not mean that women were not property.. Why do you think that makes a difference?

 

[Shaul]

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Yes. Which means that if the servant immediately dies from the strike then the striker is liable for manslaughter. But if the stricken servant survives a number of days ("if he continue a day or two") then he is not liable for manslaughter. Because the cause of death could be something other than the injury manslaughter does not apply. However the striker is still very much liable for other possible sanctions, just not those of manslaughter.

I was quite correct. These verses do not sanction the striking of servants. It proscribes the penalties involved in such cases.

 

[Shaul]

Leviticus 25:44-46 NKJV

And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.

Ownership, human trafficking, slavery.

Apologists always ignore what is most inconvenient and irrelevant in modern times. Or they try to twist the obvious into something entirely comfortable for them to fit a current narrative.

Ownership as servants, not as slaves. It is not some nuanced difference. Ancient Jewish society outline a clear distinction between how its servants and the slaves in other societies. The labor of the persons could be owned but not the person themselves. They were servants, not chattel.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. Which means that if the servant immediately dies from the strike then the striker is liable for manslaughter. But if the stricken servant survives a number of days ("if he continue a day or two") then he is not liable for manslaughter. Because the cause of death could be something other than the injury manslaughter does not apply. However the striker is still very much liable for other possible sanctions, just not those of manslaughter.

I was quite correct. These verses do not sanction the striking of servants. It proscribes the penalties involved in such cases.

You appear to be trying to add in some vague and unjustified eisegesis. In those days the ability to understand the cause of death was rather limited. You would need to show that there is punishment for any damage aside from losing a tooth or an eye. It seems that body shots that caused a lingering death would go unpunished..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ownership as servants, not as slaves. It is not some nuanced difference. Ancient Jewish society outline a clear distinction between how its servants and the slaves in other societies. The labor of the persons could be owned but not the person themselves. They were servants, not chattel.

And yet the OT clearly states more than once that they are the slave owner's property. How do you justify this claim in light of the verses that clearly state that the person, not the labor, is the owner's property?

 

[ChristineM]

Yes. Which means that if the servant immediately dies from the strike then the striker is liable for manslaughter. But if the stricken servant survives a number of days ("if he continue a day or two") then he is not liable for manslaughter. Because the cause of death could be something other than the injury manslaughter does not apply. However the striker is still very much liable for other possible sanctions, just not those of manslaughter.

I was quite correct. These verses do not sanction the striking of servants. It proscribes the penalties involved in such cases.

So it's ok to beat your slave within a fraction of death. But if he dies from his injuries in a couple of days then everything is hunkydory.

Nope you are not correct but you use apologetic to interpret the bible in the way that suits you best.

 

[Altfish]

Because that would have seemed ridiculous at the time.
.

BUT, that is one of the major issues with The Bible, it is at least 2000 years old.
If god is so great why doesn't she issue an updated version?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So it's ok to beat your slave within a fraction of death. But if he dies from his injuries in a couple of days then everything is hunkydory.

Nope you are not correct but you use apologetic to interpret the bible in the way that suits you best.

After a couple of days. Whew! We do not want to be jumping the gun here. Make sure that beaten slaves gets the best health care possible for a day or two. After that he is clearly a slacker.

 

[Shaul]

So it's ok to beat your slave within a fraction of death. But if he dies from his injuries in a couple of days then everything is hunkydory.

Nope you are not correct but you use apologetic to interpret the bible in the way that suits you best.

Nobody said that. What I wrote was that it was not "ok" to beat a servant (note, servant not slave). I clearly wrote that there are always penalties for striking a servant. But if someone strikes a servant and causes the immediate death of that servant then he is liable for manslaughter, which is a capital offense.

Nor am I the one using apologetic interpretations. Quite the opposite. It is modern skeptics who insist on applying modern notions on anachronistic circumstances that are doing that.

You stated a misinterpretation of the verses. You claim it sanctioned beatings when the opposite is true. These verses penalize such. I correctly pointed that out. So it is quite ironic for you to complain about how the Bible is interpreted by others when you misinterpret it yourself.

 

[Quagmire]

BUT, that is one of the major issues with The Bible, it is at least 2000 years old.
If god is so great why doesn't she issue an updated version?

Why are you asking me?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 proscribes penalties that can be levied against men that rape or sexually exploit unmarried women.

That is incredibly barbaric and inhumane.
"Hey, bro! I raped your daughter. Here's the money. She's my wife now, you can't do anything about it, tough titties because God's says she now belongs to me."

 

[ChristineM]

Nobody said that. What I wrote was that it was not "ok" to beat a servant (note, servant not slave). I clearly wrote that there are always penalties for striking a servant. But if someone strikes a servant and causes the immediate death of that servant then he is liable for manslaughter, which is a capital offense.

Nor am I the one using apologetic interpretations. Quite the opposite. It is modern skeptics who insist on applying modern notions on anachronistic circumstances that are doing that.

You stated a misinterpretation of the verses. You claim it sanctioned beatings when the opposite is true. These verses penalize such. I correctly pointed that out. So it is quite ironic for you to complain about how the Bible is interpreted by others when you misinterpret it yourself.

Nope I didn't state a misinterpretation, i stated the logical conclusion, i.e. if the slave survives a day or two then dies everything is ok, except of course the slave owners has lost some money.


You are of course welcome to your interpretation. I would hope you allow me the same honour

 

[Shaul]

That is incredibly barbaric and inhumane.
"Hey, bro! I raped your daughter. Here's the money. She's my wife now, you can't do anything about it, tough titties because God's says she now belongs to me."

Did you deliberately misread what I wrote?!
I wrote that it was one (criminal) sanction against rape. I did NOT write that it was the only one. Personally I think just societies should have sanctions and penalties against rape. That doesn't make them barbaric or inhumane.

You also read things into the verses that simply aren't there. The rape victim doesn't have to marry the rapist. Torah says a woman has the ultimate right of refusal about marriage. What it says is that a rapist must offer her marriage. Which, unlike in our day, carried a whole host of obligations beyond money even if the offer was refused.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Did you deliberately misread what I wrote?!
I wrote that it was one (criminal) sanction against rape. I did NOT write that it was the only one. Personally I think just societies should have sanctions and penalties against rape. That doesn't make them barbaric or inhumane.

Rape a woman and get her for a wife is not really a penalty, but is an atrocity of hideous cruelty and barbaric torture for the woman.