Slavery in the bible

[exchemist]

You think God wrote the Bible?

Eh? Surely this is arguing that IF one contends that God wrote the bible then.......such and such..... ought to follow.

 

[leov]

Then God should have condemned it, as "He" did many, many other things.

It does not work, change of consciousness works.

 

[sooda]

Eh? Surely this is arguing that IF one contends that God wrote the bible then.......such and such..... ought to follow.

The Israelites were just Canaanites.

The Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron is Herodian. It NEVER belonged to Judah. They could only look at it from afar.

Grounds for disbelief

 

[SkepticThinker]

You think God wrote the Bible?

Nope.

 

[exchemist]

The Israelites were just Canaanites.

The Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron is Herodian. It NEVER belonged to Judah. They could only look at it from afar.

Grounds for disbelief

My hovercraft is full of eels.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Is that what the OP is arguing? I thought it was just that there was slavery practised by Jews and Christians in history.

It's not giving verse references but is referring to quotations of verses in exodus, leviticus, numbers and deuteronomy, and no it's not basing anything on history and summarizes scripture as the cause of slavery in #5 "5: god is the law on morality, so slavery is moral even if we choose not to accept it." That's a misconception. Also it puts forward passages about mixing fabrics as murderous institutions.

Its an argument against religion in the same spirit as numerous other threads. It overlooks that slavers use whatever excuse they can get and turn language on its *** to have their way. Recall the arguments in the US about slavery where plantation owners defended it as natural and beneficial for the slaves. They seized on whatever language and turned it around, anything to make their battle a moral one. I've seen tons of threads on RF which attempt to mischaracterize and villify the Jewish laws thinking to remove the heart of evil from humanity. This thread started like another of those.

If religions have problems I think those should be addressed. I don't think a mischaracterization is helpful in doing that. I also don't disagree with Sooda who is just trying to show that these texts should not be read like they are part of one book that is all the word of God. They are valuable works that contain a record of importance and demonstrate the development of an awareness of God. They don't enshrine either murder or slavery or cause them in society. They are directly written to oppose them, and mischaracterizations ought to be answered. Its awful that someone thinks of these books as intended to enslave people.

 

[exchemist]

It's not giving verse references but is referring to quotations of verses in exodus, leviticus, numbers and deuteronomy, and no it's not basing anything on history and summarizes scripture as the cause of slavery in #5 "5: god is the law on morality, so slavery is moral even if we choose not to accept it." That's a misconception. Also it puts forward passages about mixing fabrics as murderous institutions.

Its an argument against religion in the same spirit as numerous other threads. It overlooks that slavers use whatever excuse they can get and turn language on its *** to have their way. Recall the arguments in the US about slavery where plantation owners defended it as natural and beneficial for the slaves. They seized on whatever language and turned it around, anything to make their battle a moral one. I've seen tons of threads on RF which attempt to mischaracterize and villify the Jewish laws thinking to remove the heart of evil from humanity. This thread started like another of those.

If religions have problems I think those should be addressed. I don't think a mischaracterization is helpful in doing that. I also don't disagree with Sooda who is just trying to show that these texts should not be read like they are part of one book that is all the word of God. They are valuable works that contain a record of importance and demonstrate the development of an awareness of God. They don't enshrine either murder or slavery or cause them in society. They are directly written to oppose them, and mischaracterizations ought to be answered. Its awful that someone thinks of these books as intended to enslave people.

Well thanks for the exegesis. I did think the OP was rather unclear in what it was really arguing. Let's see if the author comes back and makes anything clearer.

But if it's an argument against religion, it can only be an argument against a very simplistic version of Judaism or Christianity, in which the bible is taken to be the direct and literal word of God, rather than a series of human texts, with (varying degrees of) divine inspiration behind them.

 

[sooda]

It's not giving verse references but is referring to quotations of verses in exodus, leviticus, numbers and deuteronomy, and no it's not basing anything on history and summarizes scripture as the cause of slavery in #5 "5: god is the law on morality, so slavery is moral even if we choose not to accept it." That's a misconception. Also it puts forward passages about mixing fabrics as murderous institutions.

Its an argument against religion in the same spirit as numerous other threads. It overlooks that slavers use whatever excuse they can get and turn language on its *** to have their way. Recall the arguments in the US about slavery where plantation owners defended it as natural and beneficial for the slaves. They seized on whatever language and turned it around, anything to make their battle a moral one. I've seen tons of threads on RF which attempt to mischaracterize and villify the Jewish laws thinking to remove the heart of evil from humanity. This thread started like another of those.

If religions have problems I think those should be addressed. I don't think a mischaracterization is helpful in doing that. I also don't disagree with Sooda who is just trying to show that these texts should not be read like they are part of one book that is all the word of God. They are valuable works that contain a record of importance and demonstrate the development of an awareness of God. They don't enshrine either murder or slavery or cause them in society. They are directly written to oppose them, and mischaracterizations ought to be answered. Its awful that someone thinks of these books as intended to enslave people.

" I also don't disagree with Sooda who is just trying to show that these texts should not be read like they are part of one book that is all the word of God. They are valuable works that contain a record of importance and demonstrate the development of an awareness of God."

I don't know about that. They justify murder of the Cananites..

Gibeonites Enslaved - The Brick Testament
www.thebricktestament.com/joshua/gibeonites_enslaved/jos09_03.html
Gibeonites Enslaved. Joshua 9:3 The people of Gibeon heard what Joshua had done to Jericho and Ai.

And, it all a lie.

 

[sooda]

Then God should have condemned it, as "He" did many, many other things.

No.. Remember the Israelites enslaved the Gibeonites... who were descended from Amorites .. On the timeline, they date to 2300 BC …. Long before Abraham.

 

[Lee Hays]

It's there. We all know its there. I'd like to get into it, listing the arguments I've heard and my refutations of each. 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.

Also, I'm not interested in being preached at, so if you're thinking of doing that please don't (especially if you're gonna say that point 5 is correct. you can guarantee I'll burst a vessel trying to ignore those comments)

So - the way I’ve always “looked” at it =
The Bible - when you read it - you really bead to think about what you read...
I have a job (most people do) my boss - tells me what to do & I will follow - or find another job.
You can apply the “slavery” in the Bible to work.
So - obey your boss - it’s smart.

The Bible also says - apostles cant be poised if you drink poison... ok, so I think the Bible automatically thinks your Not stupid - if you willfully drink poison - you gonna die! Don’t test God negatively - you will get negative results.
I believe it “means” if someone was to try and poison you - it simply won’t work.

 

[sooda]

So - the way I’ve always “looked” at it =
The Bible - when you read it - you really bead to think about what you read...
I have a job (most people do) my boss - tells me what to do & I will follow - or find another job.
You can apply the “slavery” in the Bible to work.
So - obey your boss - it’s smart.

The Bible also says - apostles cant be poised if you drink poison... ok, so I think the Bible automatically thinks your Not stupid - if you willfully drink poison - you gonna die! Don’t test God negatively - you will get negative results.
I believe it “means” if someone was to try and poison you - it simply won’t work.

Gibeonites as mentioned in the Bible.

• Joshua 10:12. Stating Amorites as the people of Gibeon.
• 2 Samuel 21:1. Years of famine in David’s time as a result of King Saul killing the Gibeonites.
• 2 Samuel 21:2. Gibeonites as the remnant of the Amorites.
• 2 Samuel 21:3-14. Details about sacrificing the seven men of Saul’s sons to the Gibeonites as atonement after Saul’s treatment to the Gibeonites.
• Joshua 9:3-21. The Gibeonites were able to trick Joshua and the Israelites that they came from a very far away place. They were able to make a covenant with the Israelites and had been allowed to live with them as the woodcutters and water carriers for the whole congregation.
• Joshua 9:22-23. Joshua found out about the deception but spared the Gibeonites, yet cursed them by saying “you shall never cease being slaves.”

 

[SkepticThinker]

It does not work, change of consciousness works.

I'm sorry, I don't think I know what you mean.

 

[leov]

I'm sorry, I don't think I know what you mean.

At some point humanity realized that they are not comfortable with slavery.

 

[SkepticThinker]

At some point humanity realized that they are not comfortable with slavery.

Ah yes, I see. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Enoch07]

And you conveniently omit that those who utilized The Bible to advocate FOR slavery during that same time-frame were also Christian.

Less than 5% of Southerners owned slaves. Not even all of those were Christian. So to blame 95+% for the actions of less than 5% is a BS at the very least.

And, honestly, they had plenty of ammunition to take into the argument. The Bible blatantly supports/condones slavery.

Obviously not or else Christian Abolitionist wouldn't have been the ones to wins slavery.

That's one of the biggest dangers of religion in general. Cosmic-level justification of atrocity.

Dunno ending slavery was a pretty sweet win over the secularist.

 

[Enoch07]

It was also Christians who justified it and kept it going.

Less than 5% of southerners owned slaves. Not even all of those were Christian.

So go ahead and blame the 95%+ for the actions of the very few.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Less than 5% of Southerners owned slaves. Not even all of those were Christian. So to blame 95+% for the actions of less than 5% is a BS at the very least.

At that time almost all of the slave owners would have been Christian. What beliefs do you think that they had? Muslims were practically zero. There were very few atheists then. There may have been a handful of Jews.

Obviously not or else Christian Abolitionist wouldn't have been the ones to wins slavery.

No, the Christian abolitionists did so despite the Bible, not due to the Bible. Yes, the Bible is rather vaguely written so one can support almost anything if one abuses it a bit. But an unbiased reading of the Bible shows that there was no major problem with slavery in it.

Dunno ending slavery was a pretty sweet win over the secularist.

Now that is a pure nonsense claim that you cannot support. What secularists opposed ending slavery? I have seen you spout some nonsense, but that one has to be in the top ten.

 

[sooda]

At that time almost all of the slave owners would have been Christian. What beliefs do you think that they had? Muslims were practically zero. There were very few atheists then. There may have been a handful of Jews.


No, the Christian abolitionists did so despite the Bible, not due to the Bible. Yes, the Bible is rather vaguely written so one can support almost anything if one abuses it a bit. But an unbiased reading of the Bible shows that there was no major problem with slavery in it.

Now that is a pure nonsense claim that you cannot support. What secularists opposed ending slavery? I have seen you spout some nonsense, but that one has to be in the top ten.

Jews were well represented as factors and brokers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jews were well represented as factors and brokers.

That does not appear to be the case. Jews as a population had a higher percentage of slave ownership. But their numbers were so small that they still played a very limited roll in the slave trade:

Jews and the African Slave Trade | My Jewish Learning

From the linked article:

'Davis went on to note that in the American South in 1830 there were “120 Jews among the 45,000 slaveholders owning twenty or more slaves and only twenty Jews among the 12,000 slaveholders owning fifty or more slaves.” '

A high percentage of Jews owning slaves can give a false picture. Population wise they were a fraction of a percentage of the overall population so even with a high percentage of slave ownership they still played a very minor role.

 

[Vee]

It's there. We all know its there. I'd like to get into it, listing the arguments I've heard and my refutations of each. 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.

Also, I'm not interested in being preached at, so if you're thinking of doing that please don't (especially if you're gonna say that point 5 is correct. you can guarantee I'll burst a vessel trying to ignore those comments)

Those are some very good observations and I've asked myself the same questions before. I did some research and I couldn't find any indication that the enslavement of humans by other humans was part of God’s purpose or that He encouraged it in any way. He did, however, allow it. Why, I don't know. I couldn't find a clear answer to that one. Maybe because by the time the Bible began to be written, humans had already established social structures and economic systems that were the opposite of godly principles.
From what I was able to find in my research into the Bible, there were some regulations that made being a slave in Bible times very different from what happened years latter with the slave trade that we are more familiar with.
For example, taking a man by force and then selling him was punishable by death (Exodus 21:16). A thief who wasn't able to pay back what he had stolen could be sold as a slave and in this way pay off his debt but once he paid he could walk free.
Cruel physical abuse towards slaves was forbidden and if a slave was seriously hurt he was to be set free (Exodus 21:26, 27). The law required that every 50 years all Israelite slaves were to be freed, independently of how long the individual had been a slave and when they god released their masters were supposed to be generous towards them.
I'm not in any way defending slavery, but even though in Bible times it was allowed, at least it was regulated. If slave owners followed the laws or not, that's a whole different story.