Slavery in the bible

[Dan Mellis]

200+ years of hard work says otherwise.



The facts say otherwise.

Christian Abolitionism - Wikipedia

This was an intentional Christian movement.

I think you misread... I agree that they were devoted to ending slavery. Christianity might be the banner they did it under, but it's not as though it was a requirement. The recognition that slavery was wrong probably came first, then they looked to reconcile with their faith. I srriously doubt they said "wait! The bible says this is wrong! We should stop it!" (Mainly because it doesnt)

 

[Dan Mellis]

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.

Fair point about it being apples and oranges. I can accept that. However, I wasnt arguing that it was encouraged, but that it was permissed. You know how to discourage something? Just make it illegal. They did with plenty of other stuff, like when and how to work and what to wear and who to sleep with. Curiously, slavery is fine as long as you do it a certain way.

It's still harmful though. People still exist, and there are still those who take the bible at its word. I appreciate it isnt everyone, and that the vast majority agree that this passage highlights that the bible isnt perfect. My issue is that it still allows for that ridiculous minority who'd harm others. As a society, we have to run at the pace of our slowest members.

I don't believe in gods, so I don't feel the need to prove them immoral. I do feel the need to show that just saying "well god decides morality and he isn't always a nice guy but we just have to accept it and do his bidding" is an abhorrent thing to believe, and can be disastrous when any size portion of society believes it (i.e. those who would fly planes into buildings).

 

[Enoch07]

I srriously doubt they said "wait! The bible says this is wrong! We should stop it!" (Mainly because it doesnt)

That is kinda what happened to be honest. With the "second great awakening". People started realizing that Jesus would not have approved of slavery as we knew it in the U.S.

 

[Darkforbid]

So let me get this right:

If the only choices are become a slave and work for food or starving to death

You'd all choose starvation

 

[dybmh]

Fair point about it being apples and oranges. I can accept that. However, I wasnt arguing that it was encouraged, but that it was permissed.

I have always agreed with you that it is permissed.

Curiously, slavery is fine as long as you do it a certain way.

That is how the law works. It is a legal definition, not ethical advice. If you are looking for ethics and morality advice, perhaps what you want is in Proverbs.

It's still harmful though. People still exist, and there are still those who take the bible at its word.

If and when that happens you have a good point. Has anyone made that claim in this thread?

My issue is that it still allows for that ridiculous minority who'd harm others. As a society, we have to run at the pace of our slowest members.

You are focused on a ridiculous minority. Noted. You said "who'd harm others". I think this is important. Dan, no one is using Biblical Slavery to harm others any more. This thread represents a solution looking for a problem.

I do feel the need to show that just saying "well god decides morality and he isn't always a nice guy but we just have to accept it and do his bidding" is an abhorrent thing to believe, and can be disastrous when any size portion of society believes it (i.e. those who would fly planes into buildings).

1) Has anyone said this in this thread?
2) The people who fly planes into buildings did not justify their actions based on the laws of Biblical Slavery. That is a logical leap of Gaussian proportions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is kinda what happened to be honest. With the "second great awakening". People started realizing that Jesus would not have approved of slavery as we knew it in the U.S.

It can't be, because as pointed out, the Bible doesn't say anywhere that slavery is wrong. Nor does Jesus.

 

[Darkforbid]

It can't be, because as pointed out, the Bible doesn't say anywhere that slavery is wrong. Nor does Jesus.

OK how was slavery wrong at that time in history

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK how was slavery wrong at that time in history

It's wrong at all times in history because owning human beings as property is immoral. You'd think a God would know that. Unless objective morality changes depending on the whims of a god, in which case it is not objective morality at all.

 

[dybmh]

It's wrong at all times in history because owning human beings as property is immoral

Please forgive the interjection?

It is only immoral if the owner treats the person as property.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Please forgive the interjection?

Sure, no problem.

It is only immoral if the owner treats the person as property.

I don't think I agree, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

 

[dybmh]

@Dan Mellis @SkepticThinker ,

For me, I think it makes more sense to say that Slavery is Unethical; because that speaks to it on principle.

If you agree please consider that the law is rarely useful for measuring ethics ( and even less useful as a moral compass ).

 

[dybmh]

Example of legal but immoral and unethical behavior:

I can go to a pet store; buy a puppy and then euthanize it on the same day. This is because the law describes the puppy as a property. It's a reprehensible abhorrent idea; but, it is legal.

Defining the puppy as property makes sense legally, but not morally. Should the puppy be recognized and defined legally as a sentient being with rights to a full happy and healthy life? I propose it does do these things. The law does in other areas protect the quality of life for the puppy. But it also defines it as property.

The same thing happens in the Old Testament. A person can be described as property, but it is not legal to treat the person the same as other property like an ax-handle or a pair of shoes. How to treat a person both legally and morally is described in other places in the Old Testament. This is why it's important, IMHO, to consider how the "slaves" were treated. In the American version of slavery we have records showing the mistreatment. In the Biblical version of slavery, no one in this thread really knows how often slaves were treated like property in a harsh and damaging manner. And, most importantly, no one in this thread really knows whether or not this harsh behavior was deemed to be a criminal act. For all we know: When a slave was mistreated, the guilty party could have been punished for their actions.

 

[dybmh]

It is only immoral if the owner treats the person as property.

I don't think I agree, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

It's not immoral if they are treated as family.

 

[SkepticThinker]

@Dan Mellis @SkepticThinker ,

For me, I think it makes more sense to say that Slavery is Unethical; because that speaks to it on principle.

If you agree please consider that the law is rarely useful for measuring ethics ( and even less useful as a moral compass ).

Okay, I agree that it is unethical. In my opinion, it's also immoral.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Example of legal but immoral and unethical behavior:

I can go to a pet store; buy a puppy and then euthanize it on the same day. This is because the law describes the puppy as a property. It's a reprehensible abhorrent idea; but, it is legal.

Defining the puppy as property makes sense legally, but not morally. Should the puppy be recognized and defined legally as a sentient being with rights to a full happy and healthy life? I propose it does do these things. The law does in other areas protect the quality of life for the puppy. But it also defines it as property.

The same thing happens in the Old Testament. A person can be described as property, but it is not legal to treat the person the same as other property like an ax-handle or a pair of shoes. How to treat a person both legally and morally is described in other places in the Old Testament. This is why it's important, IMHO, to consider how the "slaves" were treated. In the American version of slavery we have records showing the mistreatment. In the Biblical version of slavery, no one in this thread really knows how often slaves were treated like property in a harsh and damaging manner. And, most importantly, no one in this thread really knows whether or not this harsh behavior was deemed to be a criminal act. For all we know: When a slave was mistreated, the guilty party could have been punished for their actions.

While you're right that we can't know for sure how every slave was actually treated in practice, that is kind of beside the point here. What we're talking about are moral pronouncements supposedly handed out to us by the creator of the universe that is supposedly a moral agent. Why does a moral agent think owning human beings as property is acceptable?

You can own a slave and treat him as well as you'd like, but he's still your property and you still own him. Your treatment of him doesn't change that fact, for him.

 

[dybmh]

Okay, I agree that it is unethical. In my opinion, it's also immoral.

I echo the sentiments of @Darkforbid .

There are circumstances where, I think, a person could have purchased and owned a slave in the very distant past in a moral and decent manner. Not today though, it is a different world.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I echo the sentiments of @Darkforbid .

There are circumstances where, I think, a person could have purchased and owned a slave in the very distant past in a moral and decent manner. Not today though, it is a different world.

So you're saying that there is some context in which it is ethical to own another human being as property?

 

[dybmh]

What we're talking about are moral pronouncements supposedly handed out to us by the creator of the universe that is supposedly a moral agent. Why does a moral agent think owning human beings as property is acceptable?

Maybe this will help to explain my position? No one claims that the verses on Biblical Slavery in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy in the absence of all other verses are moral pronouncements. This is why a person who believes in the Inerrant Biblle as a Moral Authority not believe in beating slaves.

Regarding God as a moral agent....

No one can judge the morality of God accurately; lack of data.

 

[dybmh]

So you're saying that there is some context in which it is ethical to own another human being as property?

I am trying to find a way to answer your question....

It's possible. But not in today's world.

In today's world, the ethical approach when purchasing a slave is to set them free. This assumes a social safety net that would educate the slave and provide a base level of a dignified human quality of life for them. In the past these safety nets did not exist. And even in today's world, arguably, a slave may choose to remain a slave depending on how they are treated. Consider that jail inmates after long incarcerations may prefer life in jail. It's hard to imagine, but it does happen. ( ref: Post-Incarceration-Syndrome ).

There is another practical problem to buying slaves and then setting them free in the distant past: It could start a war or a refugee crisis. Do I need to spell this out?

 

[Enoch07]

It can't be, because as pointed out, the Bible doesn't say anywhere that slavery is wrong. Nor does Jesus.

John 13: 34-34

34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

All men would include slaves.

Sorry you just wrong.