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

[Quagmire]

Yes I understand that, because they didn't have the same conception of human rights that we do today.

'Human rights' wasn't even a thing back then in the sense that "you're human, therefore you have rights".

The question is, ought they have seen owning other people as property as a moral issue?

'Ought' doesn't work well as a stand-alone word unless you believe in some sort of universal, objective morality.

Moreover, ought a morally perfect deity condone it?

Again: the only way that question makes sense is if you believe in some sort of universal objective morality.

Why would it have been an immoral idea to release prisoners of war?

I didn't say it would be immoral, I said it would be a really bad idea.

If the other side has surrendered, unless you have reason to believe they're lying, and you've defeated them militarily and confiscated their weapons, etc. there's little to fear from them.

.
Weapons were easy to replace. It took less than a day for a skilled blacksmith to make a sword in the ancient world. Less than that to make a spear.

Contrast that with the 15 odd years that it took to raise and train a warrior.

If you let your enemy go, he's just going to grab another weapon somewhere and come back another day. Whatever his motivation was for attacking you in the first place wouldn't have changed just because it didn't work out for him the first time.

The children of your enemy would grow up to be warriors, the women would give birth to more warriors.

The issue is that prisoners were considered like spoils of war. So if they/their armies were defeated in battle, keeping them as slaves was seen as a kind of reward for the victor and punishment for the loser.

None of which changes the fact that letting them go would have been a really bad idea.

"Hey man, let's go over there and attack the Wokeanites . Worst case scenario it doesn't work and they just tell us to go home ".

Ever here of the Wokeanites? No?

There's a reason for that.

It was answered comprehensively by others

Your question was, but you never answered mine.

And it doesn't look like you're going to, for some reason.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're breaking the pattern by assuming permanent servitude for an AMAH when it is not written explicitly and clearly like all the other times when this is the case. Yes, there is an exception, and as I look closer the exception includes all classes as well. If a Hebrew slave, male or female or even a young woman declares that she loves her current situation, then the ear is pierced, and the service is permanent. That is literally in Deuteronomy 15:16-17. Here it uses the same word "AMAH" to describe a young woman who can choose permanent servitude. Does it make logical sense that the servitude is permanent by default if there is a process to grant this permanence?

The verse that I quoted does make it "explicit".

Here it is with more context. There are some ways that she could get out if the deal, but they are not up to the control of the enslaved:

7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

The owner has some duties to her, but if he fulfills those duties she is "not to go free as male servants do".

 

[dybmh]

The verse that I quoted does make it "explicit".

No. It doesn't. The pattern is: "shall serve him forever." (Exodus 21:6) "thus have them serve you forever" (Leviticus 25:46) "shall be a servant to you forever" (Deuteronomy 15:17). This is explicit. That's what explicit looks like. None of this is in the passage you have quoted.

Here it is with more context. There are some ways that she could get out if the deal, but they are not up to the control of the enslaved:

That's true if these verses are read in isolation. But the law doesn't work that way. Does US law guarantee absolute free speech? Are there some Americans who are 3/5s of a person? I can cherry pick parts of the law too, but that doesn't mean that the other parts get to be ignored.

The owner has some duties to her, but if he fulfills those duties she is "not to go free as male servants do".

That's not what it says. Now you are mixing and reading out of order. The passage begins "she is not to go free as male servants do". Then it describes the differences. The differences are: she cannot be resold, a slave can. If she is given to a member of the family she becomes part of that members household. That's a big difference. Because just a few verses back, the female slave remains with the owner. Here with a young woman, she goes with the new family. With a young woman "she goes free" if the owner does not fulfill their obligations. There is no mention of that with the other slave.

And you still ignoring Deuteronomy 15:17 which includes the AMAH and gives her the option for permanent servitude. How is there any way for the permanent service to be default if there is a process defined to establish this permanence?

So again, in order for your claim to be true, at least 3 verses are ignored.

 

[Altfish]

'

Your question was, but you never answered mine.

And it doesn't look like you're going to, for some reason.

I have nothing to add to what has been posted before. Do you want me to copy and paste?

 

[Quagmire]

@Altfish

OK, here's the conversation we just had in it's entirety:

You said:

Instead of one of The 10 Commandments being something like "You should have no other gods than me"
Why not scrap that and insert, "You should not own another human being and all humans should be treated equal."

I said:

Because that would have seemed ridiculous at the time.

You said:

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?

I ASKED (and here's the relevant part. Here's the question I'm talking about)

Why are you asking me?

You answered:

Because you asked the question

I said:

Remind me: which question was that exactly?

You said:

I've forgotten too

I pointed out:

This was the only question I asked you in this thread:
The bible and slavery - please post direct passages from the bible that you believe support slavery.

And you never answered it.

You said:

It was answered comprehensively by others

I said:

Your question was, but you never answered mine.

And it doesn't look like you're going to, for some reason.

To which you replied:

I have nothing to add to what has been posted before. Do you want me to copy and paste?

Yes, please copy and paste the post (using the Quote feature would work too) where you explained why one person who isn't a member of any Abrahamic faith would ask another person who isn't a member of any Abrahamic faith why 'God' doesn't update the Abrahamic scriptures, as if it were mutually agreed upon that the Abrahamic scriptures were in fact authored by 'God'.

Seems kind of silly to me.

 

[Altfish]

@Altfish

OK, here's the conversation we just had in it's entirety:

You said:



I said:



You said:



I ASKED (and here's the relevant part. Here's the question I'm talking about)



You answered:



I said:



You said:



I pointed out:



You said:



I said:



To which you replied:




Yes, please copy and paste the post (using the Quote feature would work too) where you explained why one person who isn't a member of any Abrahamic faith would ask another person who isn't a member of any Abrahamic faith why 'God' doesn't update the Abrahamic scriptures, as if it were mutually agreed upon that the Abrahamic scriptures were in fact authored by 'God'.

Seems kind of silly to me.

Good grief, you've too much time on your hand, get yourself a hobby.
I apologise if I've offended you by not properly answering but I have a cake to collect, dog to walk, ailing parents to visit.

 

[Kathryn]

Uh, no. I didn't say anything about that.

What I said was:

I don't think it matters what word they specifically used. What's described in the Bible is chattel slavery. Slaves are the described as the owner's property/money. As I'm pretty sure another poster has already pointed out.

I know what you said. But I would have to go back to the OT and the NT. We were discussing the various words used in the original languages, which DO have different meanings, other than simply chattel slavery. Slavery itself had different nuances through the centuries and in various settings over those centuries.

 

[Kathryn]

And they had everything from chattel slaves to beloved house servants back then. One cannot ignore the chattel slaves working in the fields because there are a few well treated ones. Nor has anyone denied that there were beloved house servants. The denial only seems to be about the existence of chattel slavery back then.

Not from me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I know what you said.

You didn't respond to it in that last post or in this post though.

But I would have to go back to the OT and the NT. We were discussing the various words used in the original languages, which DO have different meanings, other than simply chattel slavery. Slavery itself had different nuances through the centuries and in various settings over those centuries.

I'm not discussing the "various words" used in the Bible that people use to dance around what is obviously a description of chattel slavery. I'm talking about the description of it. And what it describes is human beings owning other human beings as property/money.

 

[Kathryn]

You didn't respond to it in that last post or in this post though.

I'm not discussing the "various words" used in the Bible that people use to dance around what is obviously a description of chattel slavery. I'm talking about the description of it. And what it describes is human beings owning other human beings as property/money.

Sigh. As I've stated numerous times, for some reason the KJV bible (which is widely used by various Christian sects) translates at least ten different words or phrases meaning everything from "beloved house servant" to "indentured servant" to "field hand" into one word - SLAVE (or slavery). This is not an accurate description of various types of servitude or slavery in the 21st century.

 

[metis]

Sigh. As I've stated numerous times, for some reason the KJV bible (which is widely used by various Christian sects) translates at least ten different words or phrases meaning everything from "beloved house servant" to "indentured servant" to "field hand" into one word - SLAVE (or slavery). This is not an accurate description of various types of servitude or slavery in the 21st century.

And that's a good point as there was not just one form of "slavery".

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sigh. As I've stated numerous times, for some reason the KJV bible (which is widely used by various Christian sects) translates at least ten different words or phrases meaning everything from "beloved house servant" to "indentured servant" to "field hand" into one word - SLAVE (or slavery). This is not an accurate description of various types of servitude or slavery in the 21st century.

I've already responded to this. Twice. Perhaps you could address my point. As I said, I'm talking about the actual descriptions in the Bible, which are most definitely descriptions of how to own human beings as property.

 

[Kathryn]

Sceptic Thinker, you and I appear to be talking over each other. Here's my point, and the point I was making and have been making all along - there are many different types of servitude and slavery discussed in the bible, and not all of it was chattel slavery where a person owned another person as property. However, for some reason, the KJV bible (used exclusively by many 21st century Christians, but not me) translates MANY different concepts of slavery or servitude (including voluntary servitude) into one or two words - slavery or slave. This implies that all servitude or slavery is the same, and it is not. Does the bible also talk about actual chattel slavery? Yes. But it also talks about all sorts of servitude which many tend to lump under one label.

I brought up the whole concept of OT vs NT because there IS a difference between the two, to most followers of Abrahamic religions. But I really, really don't want to get into all that, even though the vast majority of quoted verses come from the OT.

Sorry - gotta go.

 

[dybmh]

I'm talking about the actual descriptions in the Bible, which are most definitely descriptions of how to own human beings as property.

OK, here's an actual description distinguising between how human slaves/servants are treated compared to property.

You shall not deliver to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you;

He shall live with you, among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of your gates, where it pleases him best; you shall not oppress him.
​

Compare that to:

If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey going astray, you shall surely bring it back to him again.

You shall not watch your brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and hide yourself from them; you shall in any case bring them again to your brother.​

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sceptic Thinker, you and I appear to be talking over each other. Here's my point, and the point I was making and have been making all along - there are many different types of servitude and slavery discussed in the bible, and not all of it was chattel slavery where a person owned another person as property. However, for some reason, the KJV bible (used exclusively by many 21st century Christians, but not me) translates MANY different concepts of slavery or servitude (including voluntary servitude) into one or two words - slavery or slave. This implies that all servitude or slavery is the same, and it is not. Does the bible also talk about actual chattel slavery? Yes. But it also talks about all sorts of servitude which many tend to lump under one label.

Of course there are all kinds of different ways to exploit people. No big news there. And of course all of that is discussed in the Bible in a time when all this stuff was acceptable.

The problem is, you're hung up on which word to use, while I'm talking about the actual descriptions in the Bible where God supposedly says it's hunky dory to own and trade (non-Hebrew) human beings as property. I even gave you a verse as a reference.

I brought up the whole concept of OT vs NT because there IS a difference between the two, to most followers of Abrahamic religions. But I really, really don't want to get into all that, even though the vast majority of quoted verses come from the OT.

Sorry - gotta go.

If you want to throw out the OT, then that presents a whole host of other problems, because that's where you get original sin from, and all the supposed prophecies,, plus the ten commandments, just to name a few.

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK, here's an actual description distinguising between how human slaves/servants are treated compared to property.

You shall not deliver to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you;

He shall live with you, among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of your gates, where it pleases him best; you shall not oppress him.
​

Compare that to:

If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey going astray, you shall surely bring it back to him again.

You shall not watch your brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and hide yourself from them; you shall in any case bring them again to your brother.​

Exodus 20:20-21
20If a man strikes his manservant or maidservant with a rod, and the servant dies by his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21However, if the servant gets up after a day or two, the owner shall not be punished, since the servant is his property.

Leviticus 25:44-46
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

 

[dybmh]

Exodus 20:20-21
20If a man strikes his manservant or maidservant with a rod, and the servant dies by his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21However, if the servant gets up after a day or two, the owner shall not be punished, since the servant is his property.

Leviticus 25:44-46
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

But, if they escape, they are free. So, the word "property" here doesn't really mean property does it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

But, if they escape, they are free. So, the word "property" here doesn't really mean property does it?

Buying and selling humans? That's an exchange of property.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not from me.

Your OP seemed to go against that idea. You asked for verses that demonstrated that there was slavery in the Bible and you got plenty. You also heard some apologetics trying to excuse this behavior. Now if it was just the behavior of people that would be understandable. People are not perfect and people of that time were far less advanced than we are. But supposedly there was a God that said "Hey! It's okay to have slaves as long as you do not abuse them too badly. Beating them? That is fine, just don't kill them outright or give them a permanent debilitating injury. Can I rape the women? Sure, go ahead. But remember, if you rape her, you bought her. No returning of used goods". The "God" that wrote those laws looks far too human. An all powerful God that regularly interfered with the people of that time could have said "No owning other people" and punished those that broke that law and supported those that obeyed it. In battles God frequently abandoned the Hebrews for some petty wrong, or even some rights that they did.

Those laws indicate to me at least that that part of the Bible is purely a work of man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But, if they escape, they are free. So, the word "property" here doesn't really mean property does it?

It was also illegal. By that logic if a person steals your car it was never your property.