Slavery in the Bible: more than meets the eye?

[SkepticThinker]

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

Oops, you straw manned my point again. That's a great way to avoid it, I guess.

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.

Yes, it's wrong. People are not property. People cannot achieve maximum well-being while owned as property by another person.

Funny how you always manage to avoid the Bible passages where slavery is condoned and instead divert to something else. It's obvious that you know slavery is immoral, but you're stuck having to defend the Bible at all costs. You really don't need to sacrifice your own moral compass to defend this stuff.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

They won't beat you within an inch of your life though, will they? Nor will they own you as property.

 

[Milton Platt]

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

No need to read an article about slavery to know whether slavery is ever acceptable....it is not....neither is indentured servitude. They are immoral, period.

 

[viole]

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.

Love your neighbor does not rule out the possibility to enslave or exterminate who is not your neighbor.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe that is not necessarily favor for the Israelis although that might be a part of it but rather favoring one type of slavery over another.

 

[Muffled]

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.

Do yo mean when ISIS captured Christian women and forced them to become slaves of Muslim men?

 

[Muffled]

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

I don't believe I would insult you by calling you good.

 

[viole]

I don't believe I would insult you by calling you good.

Of course not. But you would if you insist my morality comes from the authors of that book.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe that is not necessarily favor for the Israelis although that might be a part of it but rather favoring one type of slavery over another.

There is no indication of this since I cited direct citations describing slavery of foreigners by the Hebrews. The slavery described is bought and sold standard slavery.

With Hebrews among Hebrews it is described as indentured servitude.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe that is not necessarily favor for the Israelis although that might be a part of it but rather favoring one type of slavery over another.

My repeat post, not needed.

 

[Moz]

Hi

There is such a misunderstanding underlying this whole discussion. If truly interested in the subject then Milton Meltzer's book Slavery : A world History or Dan Carlins hardcore history episode-: slavery through out the ages would give some overview to this subject.

The political and military interactions between the tribal confederations of the fertile crescent were well established by the time that God got involved with them through the line of Abraham that he chose as his "people".
The treatment of prisoners of war and conquered peoples were set by the Summerians, Chaldeans, Elamites, Egyptians and the rest. Slavery, or serfdom or vasilage of some form or another was socio/ecomonic backbone of all pre industrial society.

The christian world that emerged in the 100's was born where slavery was the socio/economic model enforced by all the states that they encountered. They did not have the power to Ban slavery, if you were a slave then you were stuck as one. If you owned slaves there were laws that did not allow for the manumission of your slaves. Also freeing a slave often meant they would just starve. Captives were often given the choice of enslavement, with a possibility of freedom in the future, or death. Many chose slavery. As horrible as the thought is, it saved Lives. Tonnes of "Freedmen" rose through the ranks of both the political and economic world of the Romans and the Persians and some rose to advise and even Father Emperors. When Saladin conquered Jerusalem many of the Crusader nights captured CHOSE to become salves of the Moslems and were inducted into the Mamaluk slave army.
The American's rightfully have a chip on their shoulder about the racist model of chattel slavery that they engaged in but it is a much bigger longer and deeper picture than just that.
Peace.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

By "selectively cite scripture" you must mean your recognition that scriptures are AGAINST slavery, for example, love your neighbor as yourself.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Love your neighbor does not rule out the possibility to enslave or exterminate who is not your neighbor.

Ciao

- viole

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

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

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."

I'm sorry reading the whole article wasn't helpful. Why would I go in-depth with you if THAT was no help. Clearly, the issue is spiritual.

I think you are using "people as money" to hand wave against the fact that people's time IS money. I get WAGES for work. There were incredible provisions for people who experienced minor up to catastrophic loss in the Bible.

 

[shunyadragon]

By "selectively cite scripture" you must mean your recognition that scriptures are AGAINST slavery, for example, love your neighbor as yourself.

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

 

[BilliardsBall]

No need to read an article about slavery to know whether slavery is ever acceptable....it is not....neither is indentured servitude. They are immoral, period.

So, when I owe a credit card $25,000, they should NOT be allowed to garnish my wages? That's indentured servitude. (An indentured servant or indentured laborer is an employee (indenturee) within a system of unfree labor who is bound by a signed or forced contract (indenture) to work for a particular employer for a fixed time. The contract often lets the employer sell the labor of an indenturee to a third party.)

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I'm sorry reading the whole article wasn't helpful. Why would I go in-depth with you if THAT was no help. Clearly, the issue is spiritual.

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.

I think you are using "people as money" to hand wave against the fact that people's time IS money. I get WAGES for work. There were incredible provisions for people who experienced minor up to catastrophic loss in the Bible.

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.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So, when I owe a credit card $25,000, they should NOT be allowed to garnish my wages? That's indentured servitude. (An indentured servant or indentured laborer is an employee (indenturee) within a system of unfree labor who is bound by a signed or forced contract (indenture) to work for a particular employer for a fixed time. The contract often lets the employer sell the labor of an indenturee to a third party.)

Can the credit card company beat you? Are you not allowed to take legal recourse against them if they were to do something unlawful to you? Can the credit card company just up and decide that you aren't allowed to own various types of property in your other dealings in life? CAN THE CREDIT CARD COMPANY KEEP YOUR WIFE AND CHILDREN IF YOU MARRIED WHILE YOU WERE INDEBTED TO THEM?

Once again - STOP equating things that are not equivalent to try and ameliorate the horrors spelled out in The Bible. It seriously makes people believe that you aren't even thinking before you write some of this stuff.

 

[SkepticThinker]

By "selectively cite scripture" you must mean your recognition that scriptures are AGAINST slavery, for example, love your neighbor as yourself.

Only if you ignore the parts where God explains how to do slavery.

Weird how there is no part in the Bible where God condemns and bans slavery.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

What's strange is to focus on a one liner you've chosen from the Bible that doesn't even address slavery, while completely ignoring all the passages that condone slavery.
It's bizarre, actually.