Slavery in the bible

[Dan Mellis]

I think we can dispense with Exodus, as it is Old Testament, very primitive, like much of it and obviously superseded, for the Christian reader, by the teachings and examples in the New Testament. After all, thinking Christians don't take Genesis literally, nor - elsewhere in Exodus - the parting of the Red Sea, or indeed the Egyptian captivity itself, which I gather is thought ahistorical.

I've looked at the 3 epistles you quote and it strikes me as remarkable how consistent they all are. In context, all three passages, by two different writers, are at pains to stress that Christianity is not about overturning the social order but about how to live your life, spiritually, as an individual Christian. I do not know, but I start to suspect that there was perhaps a danger that the early Christians might become, or be seen to become, a revolutionary political movement. These writers seem (rightly, to my mind) anxious to stop that happening.

Willingness to accept one's lot in life, and make the best of it spiritually, which is what is recommended in these passages, is a feature of many world religions, not just Christianity.

It is not an endorsement of slavery.

Ok, if we're dispensing with exodus because the ot is primitive, then there go the 10 commandments etc.

They were also consistent in the message that slaves should obey their masters. How about we stop juggling and address the issue at hand? Forget the context. Its irrelevant. Why, in a book supposedly containing the rules of morality and god, would there be specific instructions on how and when to eat what but the only thing on slavery is how to behave as a slave and a slave owner?

 

[Dan Mellis]

And that's the difference between you and I. For me, morality is based on whether or not harm was done. The label, the title, and the legal definition ("people are property") are much less important than what people actually did.

Example:

When a sovereign ruler amassed large quantities of foreign slaves for a large building project. Is it moral or immoral? I propose, it's impossible to tell without more facts. A person would need to know:

• how the slaves became slaves in the first place
• how the monarch acquired the slaves
• what were the living conditions before the monarch acquired them
• what were the living conditions after the monarch acquired them

If the monarch used their army and literally stole people out of the homeland; where they were happy law abiding citizens; forced them to work long hours in harsh conditions; fed them poorly; treated them like property; then, that's immoral.

If the monarch purchased slaves who were already being treated horribly and improved their situation significantly; then, maybe it's not immoral.

Assuming that the first monarch is more likely based on the stories in the Bible and world history makes sense. But completely denying the possibility of the second monarch is a Presumption of Guilt.

Maybe looking at a less emotionally charged example will help?

Marriage. Marriage is defined in a very cold impersonal manner legally. But that's not what defines a marriage between two people. It's just cold and impersonal because that's how the law handles all issues.

If a couple gets married purely for the financial benefits and they don't really love each other or are committed to each other as a "till death do you part" couple; Are they actually married? In name only. Not in deed.

If a person is legally defined as a slave, but isn't treated like a slave are they still a slave?

You say, it doesn't matter how they are treated? Just listen to that?

It doesn't matter how they are treated???

...

Of course it matters how they are treated. If they are treated poorly, that is certainly worse that treating them well.

Just think about it. Doesn't it matter how they are treated? Does the legal definition matter more? or less? Does the label matter more or less?

-------------------------------------------------

I want to try to make one more point.

--------------------------------------------------

When speaking about genocide, gender issues, death penalty, rights for gay people, you and I both agree that applying a literal interpretation of the bible is literally immoral.

If, as I have shown for slavery, the actual law does not follow the literal interpretation either and encouraged kind and merciful treatment why is that irrelevant?

It has been shown that the bible critics who have replied to this thread do not know the law. The bible critics who replied to this thread assumed that the law followed the literal English translation. And they assumed that abusing a slave was allowed by law.

Can you honestly say that you, yourself did not assume that non-Jewish slaves could be legally beaten and humiliated based on the verses in the Old Testament, as long as they survived a few days after the beating?

Isn't it true that if I had ignored the legal details of Biblical Slavery, you would have maintained that assumption?

And doesn't it demonstrate a lack of intellectual integrity to claim that the legal definition is wholly irrelevant while earlier in the thread assuming that this sort of beating is legal, acceptable, and encouraged?

It all goes back to the fallacy of depending too much on a literal understanding of an English translation of the Old Testament. As I said, we both agree that a literal understanding would render immoral behavior.

If a Bible Critic literally refuses to accept that there is a deeper more complete, application of these verses in the face of evidence that supports it; then they are guilty of the same fallacy as anyone else who insists on reading the English translation of the Old Testament and applying it literally.

Why would a Bible critic insist on maintaining their attachment to the literal translation? To prove a point. That's all. Since there is no Biblical Slavery today, all that's left is the principle.

I think we're at an impasse here. I cannot, in any circumstance, accept that owning a human as property is moral. If a monarch bought a bunch of slaves and improved their lives, it would be immoral if that monarch didn't immediately free and/or employ them to complete whatever work needed doing. Of course treating someone well is better than mistreating them, my point was that owning someone as a slave is a dire mistreatment in the first place.

I'm not applying the bible literally. It would be like if I wrote a book full of great things that better humanity, but included a chapter on the best way to subjugate minorities without doing it too cruelly. Would it matter if 99% of the world read my book and thought it was good apart from that little bit? What about that 1% who decide that this is their license to mistreat people? It matters if racists think youre racist.

 

[dybmh]

I'm not applying the bible literally. It would be like if I wrote a book full of great things that better humanity, but included a chapter on the best way to subjugate minorities without doing it too cruelly. Would it matter if 99% of the world read my book and thought it was good apart from that little bit? What about that 1% who decide that this is their license to mistreat people? It matters if racists think youre racist.

Lots of people write crappy books. It doesn't matter unless someone applies the words in the book to harm people. And even then. the person who does the harm is ultimately responsible. From a perspective of morality, An author writing a book that condones violence is not even comparable to a person who actually harms people based on the written words.

If a monarch bought a bunch of slaves and improved their lives, it would be immoral if that monarch
didn't immediately free and/or employ them to complete whatever work needed doing.

OK... There's a practical problem here that you are not considering. But it's not relevant.

What is relevant?

I think we're at an impasse here.

The reason we are at an impasse is because your OP doesn't talk about what you want to talk about.

Please consider what you said in the OP?

I'd welcome people to point out flaws in ny understanding or refutations, and equally as interested to hear new arguments about it.

1: It isn't slavery, it's indetured servitude.

For your hebrew slaves, sure. That rule didnt apply to the slaves taken from other nations, who were bought and sold as property.

2: It's an old testament thing, the new testament releases christians from the old ways

Paul said "slaves, obey your masters, even the cruel ones." It's very much a new testament thing, too.

3: every 50 years they had to let them go

So? 50 minutes of slavery is immoral.

4: In the context of the time there was nothing wrong with it

There're three ways to come at this. The first is we're not in their time, so it's still wrong when preached in our time as the "truth". However, that may be a strawman argument. Another attack could be that if god does offer objective morality, it stands to reason that if it is immoral now, it was immoral then but they got it wrong. My preferred argument is that if you can write off that part of the bible due to historical context, then you can do the same with the notion if god (e.g. it was the only way they could explain the world they lived in and control their people)

5: god is the law on morality, so slavery is moral even if we choose not to accept it.

In that case, so is executing your wife for wearing two types of fabric. If you want to claim that slavery is moral because god said so, you'd be forced to accept every single thing in the bible as your only moral guideline. If you want to try and get me to accept that, you have to first prove that any god exists, then prove that it is the christian god.

Again, more than happy to hear where my reasoning is flawed, please explain though so I can correct it.

You listed 5 points, and you asked for feedback. Specifically you asked: "to hear where my reasoning is flawed, please explain though so I can correct it."

Well... it seems like the OP is, forgive me, disingenuous. And maybe this is the reason other more knowledgeable and capable Jewish people didn't contribute to your thread. maybe they detected that the OP was, forgive me, baiting.

I presented good data to refine your understanding of biblical slavery. Contributing this data made me a target for criticism. But:

The whole time, the truth is: the concept of slavery is a problem for you; none of the details matter.

OK.

I agree. Owning another person is a horrible practice. It's dangerous, causes problems. On principle I agree with you and all the other people who reflected this point of view.

So where do we disagree? On the practical. Your 5 bullet points in the OP speak about practical application of the verses in the Old testament. But you don't care about the practical application. You care about the principle.

Fair enough.

Please note: had your thread ignored the practical and spoken purely on the principle I never would have contributed or shared what I know.

That's why we are at an impasse; because, we agree in principle. And...

You don't care about the practical in spite of the topics presented in the OP.

 

[Enoch07]

It's a lot easier for evil people to carry out evil actions when they are written down as clearly as they are in the Bible and supposedly commanded from the creator of the universe.

Again slavery in the Bible was wrote during ancient times. It was common practice then. People sold themselves into slavery. It was a way to survive.

It was perpetuated using the same Bible that does not anywhere condemn the practice of owning human beings as property and instead provides instruction on exactly how to obtain and keep slaves.

See answer above.

Pure conjecture and speculation was what your post on the matter was.

Nope just the facts.

Repeating your claims doesn't make them true.

The issue is about the immorality of it in a book that supposedly contains moral pronouncements from a God about how humans are supposed to behave.

It was a different world when the OT was wrote. Which is why we don't apply hardly any of it anymore. Any intellectual honest person would concede that.

Jesus's teachings lead to the end of slavery in the U.S. That's proof enough how it changed.

Socially acceptable maybe. I thought god provided objective morality though...

It was morally acceptable in the ancient world. Obviously it's not now. Which is why the Christian Abolitionist ended slavery in the U.S.

 

[Dan Mellis]

Lots of people write crappy books. It doesn't matter unless someone applies the words in the book to harm people. And even then. the person who does the harm is ultimately responsible. From a perspective of morality, An author writing a book that condones violence is not even comparable to a person who actually harms people based on the written words.

OK... There's a practical problem here that you are not considering. But it's not relevant.

What is relevant?



The reason we are at an impasse is because your OP doesn't talk about what you want to talk about.

Please consider what you said in the OP?


You listed 5 points, and you asked for feedback. Specifically you asked: "to hear where my reasoning is flawed, please explain though so I can correct it."

Well... it seems like the OP is, forgive me, disingenuous. And maybe this is the reason other more knowledgeable and capable Jewish people didn't contribute to your thread. maybe they detected that the OP was, forgive me, baiting.

I presented good data to refine your understanding of biblical slavery. Contributing this data made me a target for criticism. But:

The whole time, the truth is: the concept of slavery is a problem for you; none of the details matter.

OK.

I agree. Owning another person is a horrible practice. It's dangerous, causes problems. On principle I agree with you and all the other people who reflected this point of view.

So where do we disagree? On the practical. Your 5 bullet points in the OP speak about practical application of the verses in the Old testament. But you don't care about the practical application. You care about the principle.

Fair enough.

Please note: had your thread ignored the practical and spoken purely on the principle I never would have contributed or shared what I know.

That's why we are at an impasse; because, we agree in principle. And...

You don't care about the practical in spite of the topics presented in the OP.

Youre right - the author is not responsible for the actions of someone who goes out and does something awful. Unless the book calls for it to happen (insightment to violence etc). Now thats a seperate topic and I accept that the bible doesnt actually call for slavery to be legal. However, my issue is that people try to squirm around this issue by saying "ahh well its the ot, we can forget about it," or "you're ignoring the practical application."

I do appreciate the feedback on the arguments here, but I haven't been presented with any that addresses the topic at hand. I strongly suspect that this is because there is no addressing it, not without accepting that if the bible is utter rubbish here, we have to bring the rest of it into question.

I don't care about the practical application, you're right. Obviously slavery is wrong, everyone knows that. I do care that its this book that serves as the moral treatise from which many of our laws are derived. Mein kampf has comparable themes around how jews should be treated - its not all about that but I think people would have an issue with people holding it up in school assemblies.

 

[dybmh]

Youre right - the author is not responsible for the actions of someone who goes out and does something awful. Unless the book calls for it to happen (insightment to violence etc). Now thats a seperate topic and I accept that the bible doesnt actually call for slavery to be legal. However, my issue is that people try to squirm around this issue by saying "ahh well its the ot, we can forget about it," or "you're ignoring the practical application."

I do appreciate the feedback on the arguments here, but I haven't been presented with any that addresses the topic at hand. I strongly suspect that this is because there is no addressing it, not without accepting that if the bible is utter rubbish here, we have to bring the rest of it into question.

I don't care about the practical application, you're right. Obviously slavery is wrong, everyone knows that. I do care that its this book that serves as the moral treatise from which many of our laws are derived. Mein kampf has comparable themes around how jews should be treated - its not all about that but I think people would have an issue with people holding it up in school assemblies.

And so, the topic for discussion is:

Is the bible ( specifically: a Christian English translation of the Old Testament ) divine? Is it right or wrong to hold it up in assemblies, and in other places as something which is holy?

I will now attempt to gracefully bow out of the conversation.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The issue is about the immorality of it in a book that supposedly contains moral pronouncements from a God about how humans are supposed to behave.

Yes, and the larger issue is whether the Bible is an adequate moral resource in the 21st century. What we see here repeatedly is the believer toggling between the scriptures being timeless instruction on how to live provided by a perfect deity, and mere mortals reflecting their limited knowledge in ancient manuscripts, the degree to which their moral theory had evolved, and the conditions of ancient life.

And the believers demonstrate that they understand that owning people is immoral despite their scriptures failing to condemn the practice. They obviously obtained that knowledge from a different source, and by a different process than having faith in revealed commandments.

The knowledge could only have come from the rational ethics characteristic of secular humanism, wherein people make judgments about what kind of life is optimal for their society and themselves by the application of reason to compassion and the Golden Rule, developing guidelines thought to best facilitate those visions, and tweaking them where necessary to achieve the desired outcome.

Sometimes good intentions, such as with prohibition, turn out to have unintended and unwanted consequences, and so must be thrown out. Only a process like that can get one from the ethics of a holy book frozen in time without a prohibition against slavery, and a more modern ethical system that does forbid slavery explicitly.

An author writing a book that condones violence is not even comparable to a person who actually harms people based on the written words.

As far as I know, Manson didn't participate in the Tate - La Bianca murders almost exactly 50 years ago, but he went to prison for life for encouraging others to murder.

It was a different world when the OT was wrote. Which is why we don't apply hardly any of it anymore. Any intellectual honest person would concede that.

Yes, I concede that. It's also why I don't turn to antiquity for moral theory. Their writing may have been relevant in their time, but not today. Where does the Bible announce that democracy is a more moral system of government than monarchy, or that people be viewed as citizens with guaranteed personal rights rather including freedom from religion than subjects at the mercy of the whims of a despot, that society should be structured to facilitate the most opportunity for the most people to pursue happiness as they envision it, that women should be seen an men's equal rather than their property, and more. These are the values that define modern life, which is why a book that commands men to submit to gods, subjects to kings, slaves to masters, and wives to husbands simply isn't relevant today.

Jesus's teachings lead to the end of slavery in the U.S. That's proof enough how it changed.

Jesus had nothing to do with the abolition of slavery, which came almost two millennia after his death, and after the rise of modernity and Enlightenment values. That's where Americans got the idea that slavery was immoral. That's why Christians established a slave trade in the Americas, why many Christians owned slaves, and why so many Christians fought to the death to keep them slaves, citing their Bibles as justification for considering that the order intended by their god as indicated in their scriptures was just.

It was morally acceptable in the ancient world. Obviously it's not now. Which is why the Christian Abolitionist ended slavery in the U.S.

Christianity had nothing to do with the abolition of slavery. It's Bible doesn't understand or teach that slavery is immoral.

Christians are continually trying to take credit for the achievements of secular philosophy, but deserve none. Christianity did not give us the US Constitution, science, or end slavery even if some Christians participated in those things. Many Christians are capable of doing what secular humanists do, such as scientists who believe in gods leaving their faith-based beliefs at the laboratory or observatory door on Monday morning.

But when they do, they are using reason applied to evidence rather than faith and revelation to make decisions. That's not Christianity even when Christians are doing it. Witness Newton switching from the rational mode to the faith-based mode. After inventing calculus, and writing on physical topics including celestial motions under the influence of gravity - work Newton could have done were he an atheist - Newton reaches the limits of his knowledge and switches to religious mode. His mathematics is incomplete, and cannot account for why the solar system is stable. He thinks that massive planets like Jupiter and Saturn should exert disruptive gravitational tugs on planets like Mars and Earth as they orbit the sun faster than these larger planets and pass them repeatedly, and that this would result in the smaller, faster planets either being cast into the sun or out of the solar system.

From Newton's Principia

• “The six primary Planets are revolv'd about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. . . . But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. . . . This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Was that a helpful idea - the hand of god magically reaches down to nudge planets back into place? Newton's universe needs someone to run it, but as is always the case, inserting a god into any scientific explanation adds nothing - no explanatory or predictive power.

But do you want to know what does? The rational, skeptical, empiric method. Laplace came along over a century later with a new form of mathematics - pertubation theory - and restored harmony and stability to the solar system without invoking a god. The lesson is clear. One method consistently churns out useful ideas that can improve the human condition - reason applied to evidence - while the other cannot as Newton deftly illustrated.

Likewise with slavery and the competing ethical theories of Christianity and secular humanism. Only the latter is capable of eliminating ethical deficiencies.

 

[dybmh]

An author writing a book that condones violence is not even comparable to a person who actually harms people based on the written words.

As far as I know, Manson didn't participate in the Tate - La Bianca murders almost exactly 50 years ago, but he went to prison for life for encouraging others to murder.

3 points:

1) How did Manson encourage them? I think that is the difference.

2) If we are speaking about crime and legality, the statute of limitations has expired. Biblical Slavery is no longer practiced, and has not been practiced for a very very long time.

3) A superficial understanding of the Old Testament condones owning people as property. But I propose that it does not encourage it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again slavery in the Bible was wrote during ancient times. It was common practice then. People sold themselves into slavery. It was a way to survive.



See answer above.



Nope just the facts.





It was a different world when the OT was wrote. Which is why we don't apply hardly any of it anymore. Any intellectual honest person would concede that.

Jesus's teachings lead to the end of slavery in the U.S. That's proof enough how it changed.



It was morally acceptable in the ancient world. Obviously it's not now. Which is why the Christian Abolitionist ended slavery in the U.S.

Yes, I realize it was a long time ago, and that long ago some civilizations practiced slavery as laid out in the Bible. But that is beside the point.

The problem is that we're talking about moral pronouncements made by a God that we're told is the only pathway to objective morality. That this God you worship is objectively moral, by nature; that anything said God tells us to do is moral. Then we read the book that is supposed to contain all this stuff, and it's got a whole chapter where this God, rather than explicitly stating that slavery is wrong, as "he" does with a variety of other sins like eating shellfish or wearing clothing of mixed fabrics or murdering people or coveting your neighbour's property (which includes his wife), instead provides instructions on how to own human beings as property, without ever once saying that owning human beings as property is immoral. So that anything humans did to end slavery, they did for their own reasons, apart from whatever God or the Bible claims about it, because the Bible never states that it is immoral. So much for the idea that there is an unchanging, objective morality that comes from a deity.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, and the larger issue is whether the Bible is an adequate moral resource in the 21st century. What we see here repeatedly is the believer toggling between the scriptures being timeless instruction on how to live provided by a perfect deity, and mere mortals reflecting their limited knowledge in ancient manuscripts, the degree to which their moral theory had evolved, and the conditions of ancient life.

And the believers demonstrate that they understand that owning people is immoral despite their scriptures failing to condemn the practice. They obviously obtained that knowledge from a different source, and by a different process than having faith in revealed commandments.

The knowledge could only have come from the rational ethics characteristic of secular humanism, wherein people make judgments about what kind of life is optimal for their society and themselves by the application of reason to compassion and the Golden Rule, developing guidelines thought to best facilitate those visions, and tweaking them where necessary to achieve the desired outcome.

Sometimes good intentions, such as with prohibition, turn out to have unintended and unwanted consequences, and so must be thrown out. Only a process like that can get one from the ethics of a holy book frozen in time without a prohibition against slavery, and a more modern ethical system that does forbid slavery explicitly.



As far as I know, Manson didn't participate in the Tate - La Bianca murders almost exactly 50 years ago, but he went to prison for life for encouraging others to murder.



Yes, I concede that. It's also why I don't turn to antiquity for moral theory. Their writing may have been relevant in their time, but not today. Where does the Bible announce that democracy is a more moral system of government than monarchy, or that people be viewed as citizens with guaranteed personal rights rather including freedom from religion than subjects at the mercy of the whims of a despot, that society should be structured to facilitate the most opportunity for the most people to pursue happiness as they envision it, that women should be seen an men's equal rather than their property, and more. These are the values that define modern life, which is why a book that commands men to submit to gods, subjects to kings, slaves to masters, and wives to husbands simply isn't relevant today.



Jesus had nothing to do with the abolition of slavery, which came almost two millennia after his death, and after the rise of modernity and Enlightenment values. That's where Americans got the idea that slavery was immoral. That's why Christians established a slave trade in the Americas, why many Christians owned slaves, and why so many Christians fought to the death to keep them slaves, citing their Bibles as justification for considering that the order intended by their god as indicated in their scriptures was just.



Christianity had nothing to do with the abolition of slavery. It's Bible doesn't understand or teach that slavery is immoral.

Christians are continually trying to take credit for the achievements of secular philosophy, but deserve none. Christianity did not give us the US Constitution, science, or end slavery even if some Christians participated in those things. Many Christians are capable of doing what secular humanists do, such as scientists who believe in gods leaving their faith-based beliefs at the laboratory or observatory door on Monday morning.

But when they do, they are using reason applied to evidence rather than faith and revelation to make decisions. That's not Christianity even when Christians are doing it. Witness Newton switching from the rational mode to the faith-based mode. After inventing calculus, and writing on physical topics including celestial motions under the influence of gravity - work Newton could have done were he an atheist - Newton reaches the limits of his knowledge and switches to religious mode. His mathematics is incomplete, and cannot account for why the solar system is stable. He thinks that massive planets like Jupiter and Saturn should exert disruptive gravitational tugs on planets like Mars and Earth as they orbit the sun faster than these larger planets and pass them repeatedly, and that this would result in the smaller, faster planets either being cast into the sun or out of the solar system.

From Newton's Principia

• “The six primary Planets are revolv'd about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. . . . But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. . . . This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Was that a helpful idea - the hand of god magically reaches down to nudge planets back into place? Newton's universe needs someone to run it, but as is always the case, inserting a god into any scientific explanation adds nothing - no explanatory or predictive power.

But do you want to know what does? The rational, skeptical, empiric method. Laplace came along over a century later with a new form of mathematics - pertubation theory - and restored harmony and stability to the solar system without invoking a god. The lesson is clear. One method consistently churns out useful ideas that can improve the human condition - reason applied to evidence - while the other cannot as Newton deftly illustrated.

Likewise with slavery and the competing ethical theories of Christianity and secular humanism. Only the latter is capable of eliminating ethical deficiencies.

I couldn't agree more. And as usual, you've said what I wanted to say much better than I did.

 

[Dan Mellis]

Again slavery in the Bible was wrote during ancient times. It was common practice then. People sold themselves into slavery. It was a way to survive.



See answer above.



Nope just the facts.





It was a different world when the OT was wrote. Which is why we don't apply hardly any of it anymore. Any intellectual honest person would concede that.

Jesus's teachings lead to the end of slavery in the U.S. That's proof enough how it changed.



It was morally acceptable in the ancient world. Obviously it's not now. Which is why the Christian Abolitionist ended slavery in the U.S.

The issue at hand is that people still try and claim the moral high ground for being a christian, even though their book is so clearly immoral in so many places. You just proved this point - the fact that it was a christian who ended slavery is completely irrelevant. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that he was an abolitionist despite his christianity. It would seem that he might have made a better humanist...

 

[Dan Mellis]

And so, the topic for discussion is:

Is the bible ( specifically: a Christian English translation of the Old Testament ) divine? Is it right or wrong to hold it up in assemblies, and in other places as something which is holy?

I will now attempt to gracefully bow out of the conversation.

That's where this all leads, yes although I'd argue that any version has the same sort of themes in regarding ownership of people as property. If they don't, the message isn't the same.

This is just one part of that, much bigger, discussion.

 

[dybmh]

That's where this all leads, yes although I'd argue that any version has the same sort of themes in regarding ownership of people as property. If they don't, the message isn't the same.

This is just one part of that, much bigger, discussion.

When I have observed the topic of slavery discussed by Orthodox Rabbis ( and it is intended to be reviewed yearly by Jewish people per Rabbinic decree ) owning a human being is strongly discouraged. There is significant support for this in The Torah, but not in an English Translation of the written Torah.

The expression I hear over and over: Acquiring a slave is gaining a master.

 

[Enoch07]

So that anything humans did to end slavery, they did for their own reasons, apart from whatever God or the Bible claims about it, because the Bible never states that it is immoral.

Your opinion just doesn't hold up to scrutiny though despite being shown facts that refute it.

It was Christian Abolitionist that ended slavery in the U.S. You can deny it all day but that is fact simple as that.

 

[Enoch07]

In fact, it might be more accurate to say that he was an abolitionist despite his christianity.

It wasn't just one person. It was many people over a period of 200 years combined efforts. That's not a flash in the pan one off thing. That is several generations of people devoted to ended slavery through Christ teachings.

 

[Dan Mellis]

That is several generations of people devoted to ended slavery through Christ teachings.

No, they were devoted to ending slavery. There is absolutely no reason to believe that they did so in the name of christ or by using christ's teachings. They ended slavery, and they were christian. One does not follow from the other. Claiming the credit for god is an affront to their achievments as incredible, determined and good human beings.

 

[Dan Mellis]

When I have observed the topic of slavery discussed by Orthodox Rabbis ( and it is intended to be reviewed yearly by Jewish people per Rabbinic decree ) owning a human being is strongly discouraged. There is significant support for this in The Torah, but not in an English Translation of the written Torah.

The expression I hear over and over: Acquiring a slave is gaining a master.

Does the Torah still have the passages about how much to sell slaves for and how to treat them when you buy them?

I get that it's not black and white. But pointing to a passage that kind of discourages slavery doesn't counter the passages that go into detail about how to do it. If a person credited with knowing absoluted morality comissioned and released a book which detailed how to bomb a school, but said "bombing schools is kinda bad though but its up to you i guess," we wouldn't all go 'ahh well he said it was bad.' We'd maybe start to think that they guy who commissioned the book had a poor moral compass.

 

[Enoch07]

No, they were devoted to ending slavery.

200+ years of hard work says otherwise.

They ended slavery, and they were christian. One does not follow from the other. Claiming the credit for god is an affront to their achievments as incredible, determined and good human beings.

The facts say otherwise.

Christian Abolitionism - Wikipedia

This was an intentional Christian movement.

 

[dybmh]

Does the Torah still have the passages about how much to sell slaves for and how to treat them when you buy them?

I get that it's not black and white. But pointing to a passage that kind of discourages slavery doesn't counter the passages that go into detail about how to do it. If a person credited with knowing absoluted morality comissioned and released a book which detailed how to bomb a school, but said "bombing schools is kinda bad though but its up to you i guess," we wouldn't all go 'ahh well he said it was bad.' We'd maybe start to think that they guy who commissioned the book had a poor moral compass.

Respectfully... I do not think this is a fair comparison.

1) Biblical slavery does not exist anymore. If you want to compare it to a book describing how to construct an IED? There are no materials to make the IED ( no slaves to purchase ). So the manual describing the process has been rendered inert. In this example: the book is harmless.

2) Biblical Slavery is described in legal terms. If you want an apples to apples comparison, consider the modern laws pertaining to divorce. Does the law encourage divorce? Maybe yes, maybe no. Consider the laws pertaining to operating a motor vehicle? Does the law encourage owning a car? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Please consider: how does the law encourage or discourage behavior? Taxes and regulation. Tax credits and less regulation encourage behavior; Increased taxes and increased regulation discourage behavior.

Your entire premise is: if there is a rule, then the behavior is encouraged. If there are more rules, it is certainly encouraged? That's why you are asking for more detail about the particulars of cost and the process of purchasing a slave? To show that the practice is encouraged? That is not true when it comes to law. More rules is not evidence that the behavior is encouraged. More rules means the behavior is discouraged. Each slave was taxed. More slaves more taxes. I already told you that Slave ownership is discouraged, not encouraged.

This is why it doesn't matter if the price of a slave and the process for purchasing them is documented explicitly. Yes, it is probably defined. But it still doesn't show that Biblical Slavery is encouraged. As I have shown, more regulations and taxes discourage the practice. And each slave was taxed.

---------------------------------------------

But none of this matters, right? You are looking for evidence to show that God is immoral. And your evidence is that Slavery is allowed, and if God is moral, then the practice should have been prohibited, right?

My opinion? You cannot judge morality without knowing the end of the story and all the details in the middle.

Look, if and when a religious person makes the claim that their "Bible" reflects a perfect moral system, the concept of biblical slavery is a great argument to refute their claim. It's a slam dunk.

If someone says the God of Abraham is only Love and Puppies and Cinnamon Crackers, the concept of Biblical Slavery is a great argument to refute their claim.

And the converse is also true. If a person wants to claim that the English translation of the First 5 books of the Torah is not a perfect moral system, Biblical Slavery is good evidence to support it. If a person wants to claim that the God of Abraham is not **only** Love, and Champagne, and Rose Petals, then the concept of Biblical Slavery is good evidence to support it.

But, Biblical Slavery is not good supporting evidence to show that God is immoral. No human being can show that God is immoral due to lack of evidence. And that is why none of this really matters. The real claim you are trying to make is that God is immoral. And no one can prove that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your opinion just doesn't hold up to scrutiny though despite being shown facts that refute it.

It was Christian Abolitionist that ended slavery in the U.S. You can deny it all day but that is fact simple as that.

Oh, but it does. And if you don't think so, then please share with me some quotes from the Bible indicating that owning human beings as property is immoral.

The Bible doesn't say anywhere that slavery is wrong. Instead, the Bible provides instruction on how to obtain and keep slaves. Jesus never corrects that in the New Testament, and Paul goes on to tell slaves to obey their masters (even the cruel ones).

So while the people who fought for abolition may have been Christians (which most people were at that time and place), and while they may have cherry picked some nice things from the Bible to back up their arguments, the fact of the matter is that they didn't derive the idea that slavery is immoral from a Bible that never declares it immoral. That came from their own personal sense of morality. Also let's not forget that at the same time, there were Christians using the Bible to argue in favour of slavery. Those people would have had a case to stand on at least, given what the Bible says in favour of slavery.