Slavery in the Bible: more than meets the eye?

[Muffled]

Jesus is a servant of the God. So how is it that a servant of the God can be the God?

Who else would God serve?

 

[Muffled]

but, but, but . . .

You are right there is more citations in the OT to slavery, especially the differentiation between indentured servitude among Hebrews, and down right ownership of foreign slaves.

The failure of the Bible to condemn all forms of slavery, and places it advocate slavery, has lead to torcherous history of slavery in Christianity, and Islam.

I believe that is because people generalized it into the idea that all slavery is good. God saw fit to remove the Israelis from slavery in Egypt so He must have considered that slavery undesirable.

 

[Muffled]

Ya I don't know, Feudalism, vs Iqta, vs tribalism, vs theocracy vs republics, land taxation systems... Serfdom and lack of industry, that definitely brought down Russia itself. Or invented Communism! Whatever.

I believe communism is slavery to the common good. A person may not have self interest but must do what the commune decides.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Clearly, you didn't read the article in its entirety (as I predicted).

Anybody who has read the Bible doesn't need some apologetic article to explain away what is clearing stated therein.

 

[shunyadragon]

Re Before modern humans. I think modern humans have been around about 60,000 years.
And before that we had more robust Homo sapiens, and before that Homo Heidelbergensis,
Homo Antecessor, Homo neanderthal etc.. I am sure they did nearly everything modern
humans do - including ship building, women stealing, cannibalism, fighting over territory
etc.. Keeping slaves probably was on their mind too.

Sure they did?!?!?! You are surely mistaken based on the evidence. To boot, this off the subject.

You are going way out on the plank to justify this line of reasoning. Probably? What is known of the most primitive Neolithic cultures that exist today in the world there is no slavery. They are primitive tribal and family units and do war on occasion with other tribal units, and kidnap other tribal members, but they become part of the tribe, The best example is the Native Americans.

 

[shunyadragon]

As predicted, you refused to read the article in its entirety, which includes the above citations and more, spelled out for the rebellious.

Quoting the appropriate specific Biblical text that describes specifically the Hebrews practiced slavery of foreigners is more relevant than a long winded article.

You have not responded to the specific Biblical references I provided.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I think that is a good point. I think it is also interesting that selling slaves was not allowed.

Anyone who kidnaps someone and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
Ex. 21:16

For they are my servants, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt. They shall not be sold as slaves.
Lev. 25:42

It seems to me the simplistic view that the Bible approves carte blanche of slavery is missing the forest for the trees.

 

[whirlingmerc]

A moral book should not give prescriptions concerning freeing slaves at the jubilee, or what to do when one escapes, or anything of the sort. Sounds like a set of rules for stray dogs or other pets belonging to someone.

A moral book should say that humans cannot possibly be property. Period. Put it high in the list, instead of those useless commandments at the beginning. And that should make all those ridiculous prescriptions redundant to start with.

Of course, the Bible does not qualify as a moral book if we insist that humans cannot possibly be owned. The same if we insist that mass genocide and the indiscriminate killing of women and babies, is not moral.

What i find mind boggling is that most Christians really believe their morality comes from the subject(s) that wrote that book. I would not be so proud of it.

Ciao

- viole

Of course the worse slavery described in the Bible is the slavery to sin and all humans are offered freedom in the gospel.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe that is because people generalized it into the idea that all slavery is good. God saw fit to remove the Israelis from slavery in Egypt so He must have considered that slavery undesirable.

Bad logic, if true, God simply favored the Hebrews, and nothing to with slavery being unfavorable, because Hebrews had both indentured servitude for Hebrews and slavery of foreigners, and God did not object.

 

[shunyadragon]

Of course the worse slavery described in the Bible is the slavery to sin and all humans are offered freedom in the gospel.

Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with slavery as the subject of the thread and described in the Bible..

 

[PruePhillip]

Sure they did?!?!?! You are surely mistaken based on the evidence. To boot, this off the subject.

You are going way out on the plank to justify this line of reasoning. Probably? What is known of the most primitive Neolithic cultures that exist today in the world there is no slavery. They are primitive tribal and family units and do war on occasion with other tribal units, and kidnap other tribal members, but they become part of the tribe, The best example is the Native Americans.

Some cultures kept slaves, and then ate them.
That probably goes back before Neanderthals, too.

The topic has nothing to say about slavery today,
just say'n, that's all.

 

[shunyadragon]

Some cultures kept slaves, and then ate them.
That probably goes back before Neanderthals, too.

Assertions without evidence. Canabalism is rare today and in the past history of humanity, and there is absolutely not evidence that Neolithic cultures kept slaves. Still not the topic of the thread.

Please document with evidence of Neolithic cultures had slaves

The topic has nothing to say about slavery today,
just say'n, that's all.

The topic has to do with slavery and the Bible. The Hebrews had foreign slaves just as slavery is defined today. This has been confirmed by the text of the Bible.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Clearly you don't want to comment on my post with anything real/substantial. I feel very strongly that this is because, ultimately, you know you have no real leg to stand on in this argument.

I do admit, the post/email/whatever-the-hell-it-was was EXTREMELY long. Unnecessarily long, if you ask me. This should be a fairly simple matter. If there is an adequate explanation that displays that slavery during these Biblical times was "not so bad" AND you have PROPER evidence to back up that statement, it should just be a matter of BRIEFLY explaining what that form of slavery was and then PRESENTING THE EVIDENCE. But that isn't what you have, is it? You have a source hemming and hawing ALL OVER THE PLACE. Ranging from what tangentially related, "heathen" cultures did when they won wars or bought slaves to talking about legal documents that DO NOT actually represent the real, human interactions and relationships that these people had, nor do they explicitly inform you how these people were treated.

I'll go back and read the rest of your insanely long, boring-as-hell post/email/whatever, from whoever the hell wrote it, and see if it contains some miraculous "twist" that suddenly makes everything I mentioned in my post (that you also effectively IGNORED, let's not forget - Mr. "Pot Calling the Kettle Black"), but I definitely am not going to be holding my breath. I'll let you know what I find - and believe me, if it isn't the "revelation" you claim it is, I'll let you know that too.

Based on how ticked off modern atheists are about "Bible slavery", and how bad their hermeneutics, the lengthy post was a need IMHO.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Anybody who has read the Bible doesn't need some apologetic article to explain away what is clearing stated therein.

This from someone who claims Christianity is invalid because sects interpret the same passages differently...!

Is slavery objectively wrong? I would say slavery is wrong based on “Love your neighbor as yourself”. Why would you say it is wrong? Note that I’m not shifting the goalposts. Rather, I’m pointing out the illogic of condemning the Bible for condoning slavery if all you have against slavery are emotion-filled arguments.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So, as promised, I read the rest. Here are my findings:
So, I notice a lot of claims like this, and support with quotes from The Bible about other laws that were supposed to be followed:
Can you address how this cancels out the violence that is supported by law, or the equating of people to "money" in Exodus 21:20-21? Can you please explain that to me?
And assuming statements like this:
Note how the author of this insane amount of (mostly useless) information just keeps trying to use more and more terms to make sure the reader believes that the slavery the Hebrews may have practices, as referenced in The Bible was "watered down", hell they almost make it out to be that the Masters were actually SAVING the slaves by taking them "under their wing" or something. Please explain how this excuses The Bible from equating people with "money." Please explain how this, in any way, excuses The Bible for describing the conditions by which you can beat another human to the point of death and not suffer any consequences yourself.
And more like this:
Please explain how this excuses The Bible from equating people with "money."
Or this:
Note the fun use of quotes to try and denote that slavery here isn't really slavery. Please tell me how the use of quotes like this excuses The Bible from describing the conditions under which one can beat another human being to death and get away with it - because the "six years and voluntary continuation" bit certainly doesn't do that... so I am figuring these quotes must have something to do with it.
And then there is this whole huge detour that this UTTER CRAP takes that talks about daughters being sold by their fathers to "save the household" and tries to make that out to be some noble thing, and talking about how this isn't really slavery either, but more a "better" situation for the daughter to be in because she is then some well-to-do neighbors concubine, etc. EVEN IF I take none of it as "slavery" - let's say I grant that selling your daughter off to someone isn't slavery - even IF I accept that, guess what none of these girls was given? A choice. We're still left with laws and a system that traps probably nearly ALL girls in these societies into situations they didn't necessarily want to be in, but had no choice in the matter.



So, these girls are going somewhere with someone they hardly know, to be obligated to have sex with these people, and this is just "okay" because "the law" provided that they should be cared for? Do you think that law held up in ALL circumstances? Are you naive? Aren't you the one saying that all people are fallen, and sinners, and have all these predispositions to bad behavior? And you want to tell me that all of this is entirely "on the level?" Honestly... reading some of this stuff, it is probably WORSE than the slavery stuff in The Bible! Like this, WHAT THE HELL is this?
It literally says that if the "master" procured the wife of the slave for him, then that woman and any children the slave and the woman had are THE MASTER'S property! The guy who wrote this first recognizes this passage, quotes is, and then sets up like he's going to handily/easily refute how absolutely HORRIBLE this idea is and says this smug bit of garbage:

But when he "Defends" this passage/law, all he does is talk about how any wife to a slave must have also been a slave, and therefore was the master's property. Ummm... and this excuses the situation how? Well, let's see, the guy who wrote this crap says:
which I guess is supposed to take care of it from his point of view. This guy is completely desensitized by his religious zeal to anything he's saying, obviously. When he added that gem about how this "should not be a serious issue", he had just got done quoting this:
So apparently it is just fine and dandy for "master's" to force slaves to go have sex with strange women, in order to produce a child to then "own" also. What the hell is going on here? If anything, this guy is just digging deeper and deeper into a pit of heinous acts and possibilities that I would liken to some sick, twisted cultural underground and black market of sex and debauchery. I mean... if there were a society today doing these types of things, you Christians would be ALL OVER IT. Pointing to it as a sign that the world has turned to crap, and how everything is going downhill and "the end times are coming!" But, see this stuff in The Bible and it's "Oh, but everybody loved each other back then, so it's okay." You are seriously deluded. Just as deluded as the idiot who wrote all this crap up. Get with the program, man. Stop lying to yourself. I'm dead serious.
Once again, please explain to me how this excuses The Bible from equating people with "money" and describing how you can beat another human to death and get away with it.
Please explain to me how this excuses The Bible from equating people with "money" and describing how you can beat another human to death and get away with it.
And then the piece that is apparently in there to excuse Exodus 21:20-21:

So... this passage may actually have been "unparalleled in its humanitarian considerations." FOR THE TIME - let's even just grant that. The Bible was written to withstand ALL times, was it not? So, we have a book that exposes that some pretty horrible stuff has gone on, and instead of challenging it outright, it instead tries to soften the horror of it all a little. Do you get where I am coming from here? In many of our societies now, we would take a law like this being written onto the books as a serious backslide into uncivilized behavior, and an affront to our humanitarian efforts. And yet, this book is supposed to be the instruction manual for the ages, right? So how is it that this stuff made it into the book? How is this relevant for all times? Do you think we should adhere to these practices now? Should we revert to holding people, in our estimation, as "money?" Should we be allowed to beat our "money" for disciplinary reasons? If the "money" should eventually die as a result of our disciplinary actions, should we then be allowed to get out of any punishment for the act ourselves? If not, then why not? Isn't this all perfectly acceptable? How did your guy put it? "It should not be a serious issue." Right?
This is actually listed as a point defending Exodus 21: 20-21, within which a human being was just equated to "money." You'll have to forgive me if I am not on board with this. Not going to happen.
About as clear as mud. The law, as written, fosters certain ideas about people's relative worth and opens the possibilities for humans to own other humans. This is what it does. Period. And that is, in no way, "good." You, yourself, would probably already claim that people are prone to do terrible things to one another - to lie, cheat, steal - predisposed to sinning. Do you seriously want THE LAW to contain things that put such things into a light that casts them as acceptable? Like referring to other people as "money?" Drawing lines between people - this person can be owned, and this one can't? This person is "money," while this person is the owner of "money?" This person can beat the other for disciplinary reasons, and this other person cannot even lift a finger in protest to the law. Remember the part about slaves being unable to seek litigation against their masters? It's in there. And even that right there almost assuredly means that SOMEONE ELSE would have to advocate for the slave in any and all disputes against the master. They probably couldn't even take matters of abuse of the law to law officials themselves! And THIS is the system your guy wants us to think was hunky dory. I'm not buying it. You shouldn't either. That you have says A LOT about your character, honestly. If you think it doesn't, then go peddle your wares elsewhere. You are not welcome in my camp.

In the ancient world, debts were remitted, for one example, with indentured servitude. Hebrew debts were cancelled in the seventh year, something still not happening with today's loans and credit cards. Seven year limits would compel reduction of debt tremendously. There would be only slight debts accrued by governments and individuals.

The article contained about 1,000 words explaining why someone could not "beat their slave to death [or near death]" at will.

People are money in terms of "the borrower is servant to the lender". A mortgage company may respect your person fully, but will take your home or sue you if you fail to pay.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Quoting the appropriate specific Biblical text that describes specifically the Hebrews practiced slavery of foreigners is more relevant than a long winded article.

You have not responded to the specific Biblical references I provided.

And... sorry to trouble you to read an article that refutes the sloppy (none!) hermeneutics you added to your proof texts.

We should always disbelieve apologists if they write LONG articles to dispel canards.

 

[shunyadragon]

Based on how ticked off modern atheists are about "Bible slavery", and how bad their hermeneutics, the lengthy post was a need IMHO.

I am ticked off as how many Christians selectively cite scripture concluding Hebrews did not practice slavery, as codified in their scripture, to justify their agenda. I am not a atheist.

Rewriting history to justify an agenda is a no no.

 

[shunyadragon]

And... sorry to trouble you to read an article that refutes the sloppy (none!) hermeneutics you added to your proof texts.

We should always disbelieve apologists if they write LONG articles to dispel canards.

Quoting the appropriate specific Biblical text that describes specifically the Hebrews practiced slavery of foreigners is more relevant than a long winded article.

You have not responded to the specific Biblical references I provided.

 

[viole]

Of course the worse slavery described in the Bible is the slavery to sin and all humans are offered freedom in the gospel.

As I said, the Bible is totally discredited when it comes to do moral judgements. I would even go so far to take it as an insult, if someone tells me that my morality comes from that book.

Ciao

- viole

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The article contained about 1,000 words explaining why someone could not "beat their slave to death [or near death]" at will.

So what? I mean it. So what? What happened if a master DID beat a slave until near death and they died only after a few days? What happened? The Bible states plainly what would happen in that case. I don't care if there are a hundred thousand words about what not to do to your slave, and that includes beating. If you also provide for a specific case within which beating is not punished, even if it results in death? You failed to maintain your attempt to establish worth of that other human being. Period. What is so hard to understand or admit about this?

Just imagine a SLAVE reading the law and coming across that part. Hell... I even flinch when I am reading a disclaimer/waiver form for some park/ride and they mention that they are not liable should serious injury occur. Seriously now... how does one get through to you that these words are just not okay?

People are money in terms of "the borrower is servant to the lender". A mortgage company may respect your person fully, but will take your home or sue you if you fail to pay.

And how do you think people would react to a company who literally named their lenders as "money" within a contract or lawful document they drafted up? Hmm? And we're not even talking about some "Evil capitalist corporation" here in our discussions. No. We're talking about THE BIBLE. THE BIBLE! And so, I submit, The Bible is willing to degrade human worth to that of money EVEN MORE THAN A GREEDY CORPORATION. I suppose you could say "At least The Bible is honest." Right? Once again... do you think before you write this stuff? Do you stop and think before you just blindly push forward in defense of The Bible? I don't believe you do, and as evidence for that belief, I would submit your brief, incomprehensive replies to my posts about your article. I read the entire thing, as asked, and you respond to maybe one or two points with a general reply. I know who I'll never trust enough to read anything they say is meaningful and worthwhile in defense of their religion - especially if it is over 20,000 words in length.

What did you think about my point regarding the selling of daughters into marriages to what amount to strangers to whom they are then obligated to have sex? And how about the part about masters of the house pairing their slaves up with "foreign bond-women" in order to produce children that would go on to become slaves of the household as well? These things were just casually mentioned as if they were in defense against slavery being atrocious during Biblical times, and yet, as I stated, Christians today would DEFINITELY call-out such behaviors as sin, immoral, and lecherous. So how about it? Care to answer what you'd think of someone who forced their servant to go mate with some stranger in order to produce child-servants for their household? Do you really expect anyone to feel that this ameliorates the slavery situation in The Bible? Did your guy who wrote that nearly 30,000 word pile of inadequate garbage think that this makes it "all better?" He sure seemed to think so: "So, this should not be a serious issue for us."