The bible and slavery - please post direct passages from the bible that you believe support slavery.

[Subduction Zone]

I am not interpretting. I am reading.

#1 Words have meanings. A car is not a truck. Maurijuana is not heroine. A minor is not an adult. A house cat is not a lynx.

#2 Laws are applied based on the words used in the law. The speed limit is different for a car compared to a truck. The speed limit is the same for cars and trucks in a school zone.

#3 If a law is written with a general rule followed by a specific example, the specific example is an exception. The speed limit is 55mph. The speed limit for trucks is 50mph. All vehicles have speed limit of 55mph except for trucks.

#4 If a law is written with a list of specific examples followed by a general rule, then the specific examples are leading up to the all inclusive rule. Bicycles, cars, and trucks need to stop for pedestrians. All vehicles on the road need to stop for pedestrians.

Both #3 and #4 can be combined simply as the later rule clarifies the earlier rule.

The law in the Torah about Hebrew slaves gaining freedom is given in two places. The later verse is all inclusive clarifying the earlier verse.

כי־ימכר לך אחיך העברי או העבריה ועבדך שש שנים ובשנה השביעת תשלחנו חפשי מעמך׃

And if your brother, a Hebrew(masculine) man, or a Hebrew(feminine) woman, is sold to you, and serves you six years; then in the seventh year you shall let them go free from you.
​

I did make a mistake quoting this verse in english previously. It doesn't say "man" or "woman". It says a Hebrew-masucline and a Hebrew-feminine. That means this law applies cradle to grave if the person is a Hebrew.

Judaism does not allow intermarriage. Looking at the previous verse which is what you are calling a trick to coerce the slave into indefinite servitude. It says that the Hebrew man is given a wife. This means that the wife is Hebrew. The children are also Hebrew. Therefore the freed slave is seperated from his wife and children for a maximum of 7 years.

Good to here?



You made a claim:



You now have the burden of proof.

"doomed for life" is clearly stated in Exodus 21:6.

Then his master shall bring him to the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or to the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.
​

"doomed for life" is never applied to the woman nor the children in any of the verses brought.

The burden is on you to prove the claim you made.

Sorry, no. You may not like the words that I use, but my interpretation appears to be far more accurate than yours. Let's try to avoid failed analogies. A slave is a slave until freed. For fellow Hebrews there was a legal end. There does not appear to be any for others. You have to add on interpretations that are not justified.

 

[Kathryn]

Okay, so then it's not just immoral for you, it's immoral for everyone.

Sorry, but I am uninterested in dictating morality to other consenting adults. Also, I chose to follow a faith that speaks to me personally - I don't want to enforce other consenting adults to conform to my personal beliefs. So I come at things from a perspective that differs from many other perspectives.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like I said earlier, I don't want to get off topic but the first five books of the bible are the Jewish Torah, in which the author is not named. Nor was authorship even considered important when it was written down and expanded upon. (This is also where most of the passages quoted about slavery come from.) But you're a bit behind in your scholarship, I believe, because the vast majority of biblical scholars today believe that the Torah was written by many authors over a long period of time. Many also believe that Moses wrote parts of the Pentateuch but not all of it.

Anywho, on to the New Testament. We'll start with the book of Matthew. It was originally written in Greek though there has been extended conversation about an Aramaic version. It, along with Mark and Luke, is considered to be one of the three Synoptic Gospels. John has a different take on the whole story line completely. Anyway, honestly, I'm pretty bored with this discussion, which is also off topic for the thread. But carry on if you like!

Some Christians and Jews do consider the author to be important. And there is no need to go into the Gospels now. It is the overly literalistic that tend to insist that the attributed authors are the actual authors.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Like I said earlier, I don't want to get off topic but the first five books of the bible are the Jewish Torah, in which the author is not named. Nor was authorship even considered important when it was written down and expanded upon. (This is also where most of the passages quoted about slavery come from.) But you're a bit behind in your scholarship, I believe, because the vast majority of biblical scholars today believe that the Torah was written by many authors over a long period of time. Many also believe that Moses wrote parts of the Pentateuch but not all of it.

Anywho, on to the New Testament. We'll start with the book of Matthew. It was originally written in Greek though there has been extended conversation about an Aramaic version. It, along with Mark and Luke, is considered to be one of the three Synoptic Gospels. John has a different take on the whole story line completely. Anyway, honestly, I'm pretty bored with this discussion, which is also off topic for the thread. But carry on if you like!

Sorry, but what scholars believe that Moses even existed in the first place, let alone wrote anything?

 

[dybmh]

Sorry, no. You may not like the words that I use, but my interpretation appears to be far more accurate than yours. Let's try to avoid failed analogies. A slave is a slave until freed. For fellow Hebrews there was a legal end. There does not appear to be any for others. You have to add on interpretations that are not justified.

OK. We agree on two important points. First a Hebrew slave, male or female, cradle to grave, is freed after 7 years maximum (Deuteronomy 15:12). Second we agree that none of the verses brought clearly say the woman or the children are doomed for life (Exodus 21:2-6)

Correct?

 

[F1fan]

Man is a fallen creature. That's how I see it.

Are you "seeing it" because this is what you adopted from Christianity? I've heard the same thing from Christians, and this concept is tied to the creation myth of Adam and Eve. So this fallen nature could just be as symbolic as the myths in Genesis. I don't know what your type of interpretation is, but the whole lineage of concepts in Christianity begin with these genesis myths. Salvation itself is tied to this fallen nature, so if it is real, then at what point do symbolic Jewish stories become real phenomenon in Christian theology?

I have often agued that the whole Jesus story is absurd literally, a Rube Goldberg theology. It is such a clumsy process to interpret literally. This includes the ideas of heaven and hell. All these ideas make vastly more sense as metaphors for the human condition. Look at salvation, it isn't Jesus that saves a believer. God and Jesus (or God/Jesus/Holy Spirit) are done, they are on permanent vacation and getting sun on a beach. God created Jesus, let him grow up, allowed him to be executed and sacrificed to himself to pay for the sins of mankind, and now this gift is available to all. Jesus was killed 2000 years ago, his job is done. Who makes the decidion to accept the gift? It's the person who saves themselves, the sinner, the filthy rag. So if you decide to accept the gift then it is YOU who saved yourself.

Even heaven and hell don;t work as real concepts. Many Christians insist that the saved go to heaven and the rest are hellbound. There are many differnet claims about how to get to heaven. Some say it is to accept the gift. Others say it is works. I've heard that works aren't important and once a person is saved they are saved regardless what they do. Christians have argued that Hilter, who as a good Catholic altar boy, is in heaven since he accepted Christ, but Gandhi is in hell since he never did.

To my mind salvation, heaven and hell are more practical as metaphors. Heaven comes as a heavenly state of mind when a person is moral, rational, ethical, and does right action. By doing this path they save themselves from a hellish state of mind, which is greed, lies, deception, corruption, etc. A person would want to follow a right path that leads to a heavenely statem and through introspection avoid the temptations to do harm against the self and others. This is what Jesus meant by loving others as the self. Love is a coherent and consistent motive in life that leads to a right, or ritheous, path. I think so many following rigid dogma are distracted from their own spiritual journey, and they become little more than empty agents for religion. This includes the literal belief in ideas like salavtion and heaven. These build the ego, not help develop the spirit.

Give a man any book or any government for that matter, and he will twist it to meet his own needs and to say whatever he wants it to say.

Ironically I see this is what Christians have done. How many divisions dfoes Christianity have, some 41,000? That's a lot of believers making the "truth" fit something they want. This is the dilemma with assuming concepts are literal, as there is little that can support this assumption. At least a symbolic approach will challenge the self, and make no bones about there being an absolute truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK. We agree on two important points. First a Hebrew slave, male or female, cradle to grave, is freed after 7 years maximum (Deuteronomy 15:12). Second we agree that none of the verses brought clearly say the woman or the children are doomed for life (Exodus 21:2-6)

Correct?

Some female Hebrew slaves. And why does a verse have to say that slavery is for life for some when by context it obviously is. Non Hebrew slaves are referred to as property. They are passed on to one's heirs. That it tells you how the Hebrews are to be freed tells us that the others are not to be freed.

 

[Kathryn]

Are you "seeing it" because this is what you adopted from Christianity? I've heard the same thing from Christians, and this concept is tied to the creation myth of Adam and Eve. So this fallen nature could just be as symbolic as the myths in Genesis. I don't know what your type of interpretation is, but the whole lineage of concepts in Christianity begin with these genesis myths. Salvation itself is tied to this fallen nature, so if it is real, then at what point do symbolic Jewish stories become real phenomenon in Christian theology?

I have often agued that the whole Jesus story is absurd literally, a Rube Goldberg theology. It is such a clumsy process to interpret literally. This includes the ideas of heaven and hell. All these ideas make vastly more sense as metaphors for the human condition. Look at salvation, it isn't Jesus that saves a believer. God and Jesus (or God/Jesus/Holy Spirit) are done, they are on permanent vacation and getting sun on a beach. God created Jesus, let him grow up, allowed him to be executed and sacrificed to himself to pay for the sins of mankind, and now this gift is available to all. Jesus was killed 2000 years ago, his job is done. Who makes the decidion to accept the gift? It's the person who saves themselves, the sinner, the filthy rag. So if you decide to accept the gift then it is YOU who saved yourself.

Even heaven and hell don;t work as real concepts. Many Christians insist that the saved go to heaven and the rest are hellbound. There are many differnet claims about how to get to heaven. Some say it is to accept the gift. Others say it is works. I've heard that works aren't important and once a person is saved they are saved regardless what they do. Christians have argued that Hilter, who as a good Catholic altar boy, is in heaven since he accepted Christ, but Gandhi is in hell since he never did.

To my mind salvation, heaven and hell are more practical as metaphors. Heaven comes as a heavenly state of mind when a person is moral, rational, ethical, and does right action. By doing this path they save themselves from a hellish state of mind, which is greed, lies, deception, corruption, etc. A person would want to follow a right path that leads to a heavenely statem and through introspection avoid the temptations to do harm against the self and others. This is what Jesus meant by loving others as the self. Love is a coherent and consistent motive in life that leads to a right, or ritheous, path. I think so many following rigid dogma are distracted from their own spiritual journey, and they become little more than empty agents for religion. This includes the literal belief in ideas like salavtion and heaven. These build the ego, not help develop the spirit.


Ironically I see this is what Christians have done. How many divisions dfoes Christianity have, some 41,000? That's a lot of believers making the "truth" fit something they want. This is the dilemma with assuming concepts are literal, as there is little that can support this assumption. At least a symbolic approach will challenge the self, and make no bones about there being an absolute truth.

Sorry, but I'm only going to respond to your last paragraph by saying this - regardless of religion or a lack thereof, man seems to make a mess of things. Sort of proves my point but I digress.

By the way, I am not concerned with what other Christians, or even other Catholics, believe. I am concerned about my own life. I am concerned with what others force on other non consenting adults. I am concerned with actions of and toward non adults or those who do not have the capacity to consent. That's about it. It keeps me really, really busy. In fact, in just a bit I need to get off this computer and do, you know, real life.

 

[Kathryn]

Sorry, but what scholars believe that Moses even existed in the first place, let alone wrote anything?

I am not going to give you a name by name account. But generally scholars agree that Moses or a Moses-like person existed at some point. Hey, this was a long, long time ago.

 

[F1fan]

A passage having been used to support slavery is not proof that the passage is really meant to say that. It seems that The Bible keeps pace with the level people are at in their understanding, They deal with slavery over time, Paul says slave traders are the biggest sinners.

What is so difficult with "all humans are equal regardless of skin color, language, culture", etc.? Half of 19th century America couldn't sort it out? The laws in the Old Testament are quite detailed and highly complex. Are you suggesting these people couldn't understand the sort of attitudes that the 19th century Enlightenment reasoned?

Could it be better explained as the Old Testament was written by mortals and used a God as window dresssing as a means to exercise a "higher authority"? Look at the evolution of Yahweh. he was one of numerous gods that included Baal, El, and his companion Ashera. These other gods were eliminated as the Caananites evolved into the Hebrews. Christianity evolved from the Hebrews, and inevitably changed Yahweh through what Jesus taught. This meant the old Hebrew laws are obsolete. Kind of. Some Christians still cherry pick bits to advance their own desires. Anything goes under Christianity.

 

[Kathryn]

Some Christians and Jews do consider the author to be important. And there is no need to go into the Gospels now. It is the overly literalistic that tend to insist that the attributed authors are the actual authors.

Like I said, you believe what you want to believe and I'll believe what I want to believe. I will treat you the way I want to be treated and hopefully you'll do the same in return. That's all I really ask for.

I am so not fun. Sorry! LOL

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am not going to give you a name by name account. But generally scholars agree that Moses or a Moses-like person existed at some point. Hey, this was a long, long time ago.

I'm not aware of any scholars that view Moses as anything more than a figure of legend.

 

[dybmh]

Some female Hebrew slaves.

It doesn't say that.

And why does a verse have to say that slavery is for life for some when by context it obviously is.

First, because these are your standards. Previously you objected to a lenient interpretation, and objected to making assumptions. I'm playing by your rules. If you want to change those rules, that's fine; but that cuts both ways. Are you going strictly by the text or not?

Non Hebrew slaves are referred to as property. They are passed on to one's heirs. That it tells you how the Hebrews are to be freed tells us that the others are not to be freed.

All of this is perfectly fine. The distinction you have identified is Hebrew compared to non-Hebrew. You use the words "the others". So, I respectfully refer you back to what you said:

Some female Hebrew slaves

Where does this idea come from?

You just confirmed that the rules are different based on being Hebrew compared to "the others". In-group vs. out-group. I said:

a Hebrew slave, male or female, cradle to grave, is freed after 7 years maximum (Deuteronomy 15:12).

If the slave is "in-group", the rule is freedom after 7 years maximum. Where is the context which introduces ambiguity in this?

It can't be coming from Leviticus 25:44-46 which discusses the non-Hebrew slave. Here again it clearly distiguishes between the Hebrew compared to the non-Hebrew slave.

 

[F1fan]

Sorry, but I'm only going to respond to your last paragraph

Disappointing because I am curious about your thoughts on my propositions. Certainly you have some thoughts on Christian concepts making more sense as symbolic and not literal.

by saying this - regardless of religion or a lack thereof, man seems to make a mess of things. Sort of proves my point but I digress.

I would argue that the old Hebrew laws were an attempt to stabilize society in the 1000-600 BCE era. Slavery solved one problem but created more, more mess as you might call it. Did Christianity solve any problems? Obviously it did not end slavery, nor genocide. If anything contributed to practical solutions it was the Enlightenment.

By the way, I am not concerned with what other Christians, or even other Catholics, believe. I am concerned about my own life. I am concerned with what others force on other non consenting adults. I am concerned with actions of and toward non adults or those who do not have the capacity to consent. That's about it. It keeps me really, really busy. In fact, in just a bit I need to get off this computer and do, you know, real life.

I'd be curious to hear more about your personal views. To be honest you seem to be holding back and being careful what you share. I'm guessing you are having some inner conflicts about interpretation and your own personal moral sense. We atheists can ask some pretty hard questions so I can understand the reservations. I think if you take some risks here you will find more accepting folks than there seems to be.

 

[Left Coast]

Sorry, but I am uninterested in dictating morality to other consenting adults. Also, I chose to follow a faith that speaks to me personally - I don't want to enforce other consenting adults to conform to my personal beliefs. So I come at things from a perspective that differs from many other perspectives.

The problem there is that if we don't condemn slavery, we are already allowing what you don't want to happen - for other adults to enforce their will on others.

Why do you think it's so difficult for you to just say, yeah, slavery is deeply ****ed up, we shouldn't support it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like I said, you believe what you want to believe and I'll believe what I want to believe. I will treat you the way I want to be treated and hopefully you'll do the same in return. That's all I really ask for.

I am so not fun. Sorry! LOL

It is not a matter of me wanting to believe. I might accuse some Christians of that, I read what it says. I do not jump through hoops to try to find explanations of the evil verses of the Bible. The Bible was written by men during more primitive times. That they got some of their morals wrong is not unexpected.

 

[Kathryn]

I'm not aware of any scholars that view Moses as anything more than a figure of legend.

OK. Sorry but I am very aware of such scholars. Like I said, I am just not going to give you a name by name list. As I stated, many scholars believe that Moses is a mixture of a true person and various legends. Like I said, this was a very, very long time ago in a region and time full of many differing beliefs, many of which weren't written down for centuries but instead were oral traditions.

 

[Kathryn]

The problem there is that if we don't condemn slavery, we are already allowing what you don't want to happen - for other adults to enforce their will on others.

Why do you think it's so difficult for you to just say, yeah, slavery is deeply ****ed up, we shouldn't support it?

I live my life without owning slaves. I wouldn't own anyone. I wouldn't hang out with people who did so. That being said, I am a 21st century American woman. I am a product of many things, including that mindset. It's easy for me not to own slaves, but it's harder for me not to inadvertently support slavery in some cases though I try.

 

[Kathryn]

It is not a matter of me wanting to believe. I might accuse some Christians of that, I read what it says. I do not jump through hoops to try to find explanations of the evil verses of the Bible. The Bible was written by men during more primitive times. That they got some of their morals wrong is not unexpected.

Like I said, believe what you want to and I'll do the same. I read what it says too. Thankfully, I don't believe that the bible is the have all end all truth. There is a lot of truth outside the books of the bible.

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK. Sorry but I am very aware of such scholars. Like I said, I am just not going to give you a name by name list.

If there is a such a list, then I would submit that they are people who have a vested interest in the Moses of the Bible being an actual real person.
There is no evidence for Moses outside the Bible, which is where the claims about him are. And there is no evidence whatsoever for the exodus story.

As I stated, many scholars believe that Moses is a mixture of a true person and various legends. Like I said, this was a very, very long time ago in a region and time full of many differing beliefs, many of which weren't written down for centuries but instead were oral traditions.

Which is how we tend to view anyone mentioned in history, when we don't have any good evidence for them actually existing. Like King Arthur, for example.

A history of oral traditions makes it even worse, as it is basically a game of Telephone. And we know how that goes.