• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Slavery in the bible

exchemist

Veteran Member
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 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:


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:


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:

Exodus 21:27:


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. 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! But what does it mean when God changes His mind?It means fallibility, doesn't it? And we can't have that, now can we?
Tapdancer? What a hysterical rant.

If you would like to make a more temperate reply, I'll have a go at taking it seriously. But I'm not going to pick over this tirade, looking for rational bits and pieces to try to respond to.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
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.
I'm not sure how this changes the apparent fact that the God of the Bible never condemns the owning of human beings as property.

Did you miss out on this?

“‘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." -Leviticus 25:44-46

20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money." -Exodus 21-20-21


You're going on on about Hebrew slaves. You should read what the Bible says about non-Hebrew slaves. You seem to assume that I haven't actually read the Bible before.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
@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
I read it, and I saw no mention of beating as being prohibited, or actually even discouraged. All I saw were statements worded in such a way as to allow a lot of room for interpretation on that particular point - just like the Exodus quotes. For example, here (directly from the post you linked):

Nor should one shout or vent anger upon them extensively.

See that word "extensively" thrown in there? I want you to contemplate why that is in there. This is exactly like the laws stating that if a slave loses an eye or a tooth, then he is to be set free. It means, necessarily, that beatings for which the master was not, at all punished or thought to be in the wrong, occurred, all the time. But, if the beating was severe enough to result in the loss of a tooth or an eye, well then we kind of finally have to recognize that the slave is actually a human being, and we just did wrong by them. Up until they lose a tooth or an eye or die though? Well... that's all fair game. It is what is IMPLIED by the wording of the text that is at issue. What the text leaves open for people to undertake LAWFULLY.

If you have to let people know that you're not allowed to beat a slave to death, but ARE allowed to beat your slaves so badly that they die in 2 or 3 days, then let's not be naive... beating was a pretty commonplace occurrence.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Tapdancer? What a hysterical rant.

If you would like to make a more temperate reply, I'll have a go at taking it seriously. But I'm not going to pick over this tirade, looking for rational bits and pieces to try to respond to.
Typical. Honestly. T Y P I C A L.

The argument and citations either stand on their own or they don't... the trappings of it notwithstanding. If you were honest with yourself (and the rest of us) you'd own up to that. But whatever. Not wasting any more time on you. I already demolished your objections headlong and without prejudice. I don't need you to concede to know that that's what this little, whining "I don't have to listen to you, because you're being mean." statement (with absolutely NO REFUTATION from you) is. You take care now.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
@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.
By Rule 13 it appears that the beating of slaves is allowed. There are many verses on beating in the Bible so it appears to be an accepted practice. What is clearly banned is excessive bearings of slaves.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Things are immoral/moral according to God, depending on what time period we're talking about?

Please forgive me for being rigid in my word choice?

moral and immoral are, IMHO, not useful when speaking about an omniscient God. I'm not asking you to believe in God. But for the sake of the discussion of Jewish Law of Slavery, i think it's important to use the mainstream Jewish perspective that God is omniscient. Because of that moral and immoral become impossible to define.

That said, what are the facts:

Slavery was not forbidden. Slavery is no longer practiced. If God is omniscient, then it makes sense that God would know that people would come to this place in their development where the practice of slavery is abolished. Because of this, all any person can say for certain is, God did not forbid ( aka condoned ) slavery in the text of the Old Testament at that time. Without a modern day prophet communing with God in the same manner as Moses, no one knows whether or not God would approve of the modern day abolition of slavery.

And you're saying that eating shellfish is somehow on par with owning a human being as property?

No. In fact I'm saying the opposite. But this is going to sound crazy. And I may end up embarrassing myself with this next set of statements. So... here I go :rolleyes:

The prohibition of mixing linen and wool is not mundane in the Old Testament. That's what I said. not mundane. It's the same with the prohibition of eating shellfish... it's not mundane. All of the laws in the Old Testament, none of them are mundane.

Owning a slave is not required by Jewish Law. In this way, slave ownership is mundane. But *IF* a Jewish person owns a slave; proper treatment of this slave is not mundane. It's Holy. Avoiding improper treatment is Holy. Treating a slave kindly with mercy is Holy. But the act of owning a slave... not necessarily holy... not according to the Old Testament. According to the Old Testament, arguably, owning a slave is mundane.

This explains why Jewish people focus more time and energy making sure their clothing and food is kosher than they do on slave ownership. Owning slaves is not Holy.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
By Rule 13 it appears that the beating of slaves is allowed. There are many verses on beating in the Bible so it appears to be an accepted practice. What is clearly banned is excessive bearings of slaves.
What is excessive? This is why we need precedent to determine how the law was applied.

Also, according to Maimonides gentle merciful treatment is prescribed in Job and Psalms. Doesn't rule 13 speak about chronology? Later verses clarify earlier verses?

Also: did you read post#93?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
What is excessive? This is why we need precedent to determine how the law was applied.

Also, according to Maimonides gentle merciful treatment is prescribed in Job and Psalms. Doesn't rule 13 speak about chronology? Later verses clarify earlier verses?

Also: did you read post#93?
That is also made clear. Serious bodily harm, such as the loss of an eye or a tooth was clearly thought to be excessive since that would result in the slave earning his or her freedom. Also what is "merciful"? That may simply mean only ten lashes of a whip instead of twenty.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
let's not be naive
I hear you. It does appear naive. I'm not denying it, OK?

But... we don't have any precedent to tell whether or not the implication is true.

The Mishneh Torah is not a single source of legality in Jewish Law. It is just the tip of the iceberg. The text in the Old Testament is the tippy-top of the iceberg. In order to be objective, a person needs precedents to see how the law was applied.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
That is also made clear. Serious bodily harm, such as the loss of an eye or a tooth was clearly thought to be excessive since that would result in the slave earning his or her freedom. Also what is "merciful"? That may simply mean only ten lashes of a whip instead of twenty.
If a person wants to discuss whether 1 lash or 20 lashes is moral, they would need to know the crime and have access to the evidence.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
That is also made clear. Serious bodily harm, such as the loss of an eye or a tooth was clearly thought to be excessive since that would result in the slave earning his or her freedom. Also what is "merciful"? That may simply mean only ten lashes of a whip instead of twenty.
Also... I just realized... are we comparing apples to apples?

In the circumstance where loss of limb or loss of an eye, does the text specify this loss was due to punishment from the slave owner? I think those circumstances are for when the slave was injured while working?

If you want to discuss it, maybe provide a list of the verses you're looking at. I can also review the verses speaking about fingers lost etc... but it would be better / easier if you provided the list.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
@A Vestigial Mote and @Subduction Zone ,

What do both of you think about this specific statement from the Laws of Servitude?

"Cruelty and arrogance are found only among idol-worshipping gentiles. By contrast, the descendants of Abraham our patriarch, i.e., the Jews whom the Holy One, blessed be He, granted the goodness of the Torah and commanded to observe righteous statutes and judgments, are merciful to all."

Cruelty is prohibited? Isn't it? Am I still being naive?
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
I hear you. It does appear naive. I'm not denying it, OK?

But... we don't have any precedent to tell whether or not the implication is true.

The Mishneh Torah is not a single source of legality in Jewish Law. It is just the tip of the iceberg. The text in the Old Testament is the tippy-top of the iceberg. In order to be objective, a person needs precedents to see how the law was applied.
But all this is almost irrelevant, because "slavery" was permissible in the first place. Trying to then go on to describe it as some sort of "happy-go-lucky-everyone-wins" type of slavery just displays such an amazing amount and caliber of mental and semantic gymnastics. It is inexcusable. Hence the reason I am so incredibly unforgiving and relentless on this topic. The Bible doesn't have it right. Christians who attempt to excuse The Bible don't have it right. Anyone who maintains a core belief that people owning their peers as property is wrong has got my vote. Period. Anyone else is going to get an earful now and for the rest of time. And I can only hope that there will continue to be others of the same mindset as myself.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
@A Vestigial Mote and @Subduction Zone ,

What do both of you think about this specific statement from the Laws of Servitude?

"Cruelty and arrogance are found only among idol-worshipping gentiles. By contrast, the descendants of Abraham our patriarch, i.e., the Jews whom the Holy One, blessed be He, granted the goodness of the Torah and commanded to observe righteous statutes and judgments, are merciful to all."

Cruelty is prohibited? Isn't it? Am I still being naive?

Well, it is sort of ambiguous, isn't it? All it says is that "Cruelty and arrogance" are found only among "idol-worshipping gentiles," and (besides being a bit absolute and therefore naive if taken literally) what that seems to say to me is that if you don't want to be thought of as an "idol-worshipping gentile," then don't be cruel. In the end, guess what it doesn't say? It doesn't say "no one should be cruel - not even idol-worshipping gentiles." Isn't that interesting?

Unrelated to your question, right off the bat, the statement itself is pretty much rooted in arrogance of its own. They're basically saying that only people that aren't in their tribe are cruel and arrogant - meaning necessarily that they believe themselves to be better than the others, if they believe that those are attributes that are of poorer quality or principles (which is basically assumed). And then they go on to say "By contrast" and then go on to say how great and blessed they are, they hold the keys to goodness, and leave it assumed that everyone else is screwing it all up. Arrogance galore in that paragraph. With an ironic cherry on top that they are ascribing arrogance to anyone but themselves. What the hell is wrong with these people?
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
I think the standard practice of most RF'ers in this circumstance would be to ask for a source...

so..

@A Vestigial Mote, do you have any evidence for this?
My source is still The Bible itself. It can be assumed that people were beaten, and on top of that, beaten to death enough that they had to put laws in place to curtail it. They wouldn't have had to make the law in the first place if everybody treated their slaves like all apologetic Christians seem to want to pretend was the case - and there were no beatings, etc.

Although, I suppose we need to establish that first: Do you believe that the laws surrounding slavery written into The Bible were proactive and had no actual precedent established for their foundations? Alternatively, do you have anything to provide evidence that any precedent of cruelty within slavery was set only by outsiders or "idol-worshipping gentiles?"
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You conveniently omit the fact it was Christian abolitionist who ended the slave trade in America.

Who established the slave trade? Who was defending it from those opposed to it? Christians.

Where did those in opposition learn that slavery was immoral? Not the Christian Bible.

One point is that God didn't ever approve of slavery. Joseph in Egypt even called it an evil when he was sold into slavery by his brothers.

The god of the Christian Bible condoned slavery. Any secular humanist could have done better.

I don't see what the problem is here. Nobody claims either the Jews or the early Christians, 2000 years, ago led perfect moral lives, nor does anyone claim that the social structures of the time were the moral equal of what we have in many modern societies. Slavery is just one example.

There is no problem if we assume that the Bible is the writings of ancient people, not a god. That is what we would expect if the former is the case, but not if a good and intelligent god was involved.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
So, those who were involved in slave-ownership (that is, members of households within which lived an actual slave "owner") totaled greater than 5% for sure. The number would be some large percentage of the total number of people that comprise 24.9% of households. Point being - there were A LOT more people than 5% who would have very likely been arguing for the legality of slavery.

The 5% number is adequate. It reflects that 5% of the population of the south owned slaves. Which is accurate. Slaves were very expensive. In today's economy only the top "1%" would be able to be rich enough to own them. Unless you think that 25% of the Souths population was in the top 1% income of the U.S. at the time. Which is a preposterous idea.

But, let's be clear, it WAS NOT "Christianity" that was instrumental in ending slavery. I

It was though. :) I know that goes against the narrative you was taught. But truth tends to do that.

And I think you knew this - making your sourcing of me entirely disingenuous.

Only if you was disingenuous to begin with. Which I don't think so. I think you was correct, about that. Secular slave owners were driven by greed (mostly).
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
But all this is almost irrelevant
I agree. Almost. I think it's important to know the verse, the law, and how it is applied. If I didn't bring the actual law, then people assume that the law matches the verse. But in this case it doesn't.

Most people hear the word slavery and they automatically think of indigenous people being stolen from their homes, put in chains, eating slop, etc... And, without looking at the law, these assumptions are reasonable. But really what we're talking about is an ancient method of crowd sourced incarceration.

"slavery" was permissible in the first place. Trying to then go on to describe it as some sort of "happy-go-lucky-everyone-wins" type of slavery just displays such an amazing amount and caliber of mental and semantic gymnastics. It is inexcusable.
Look, if it was happy-go-lucky and everybody wins, I would expect that it would still be practiced today. Today we have jails and offenders are incarcerated. It's a better system, theoretically.
Hence the reason I am so incredibly unforgiving and relentless on this topic.
I'm not asking for your forgiveness, i appreciate your passion. But I do think that without precedent, your indignation is probably influenced by all the other horrible things people do in he name of the God of Abraham.

In High School, in History class, a friend of mine raised her hand and disclosed that her family owned a plantation and that they owned slaves, but, treated their slaves well. The comment rendered laughter and ridicule because there are so many accounts of slaves being harshly treated, stolen from their homes, denied access to a simple dignified life. All of this thru no fault of their own. In this case, my friend was ignorant because of the multitudes of accounts from slaves and slave owners to describe what actually happened. We do not have that information for Jewish Slavery system. And there is significant evidence that slaves in this ancient system were criminals found guilty in court.

The Bible doesn't have it right. Christians who attempt to excuse The Bible don't have it right. Anyone who maintains a core belief that people owning their peers as property is wrong has got my vote.
I agree. Reading an english translation of the Old Testament as "literally right" without looking at the oral law, midrash, and talmud is problematic at best, catastrophic at worst.

Anyone else is going to get an earful now and for the rest of time. And I can only hope that there will continue to be others of the same mindset as myself.
Good. I hope you stay passionate. It helps keep me honest.
 
Top