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

[dybmh]

Buying and selling humans? That's an exchange of property.

But not the same as cattle. Property has to be returned to its owner. That is what is actually described in the text. If the actual description is valued, then this detail cannot be ignored.

 

[dybmh]

It was also illegal. By that logic if a person steals your car it was never your property.

It's not illegal. That's false. It clearly says it is legal. That's the "actual description" in the text. And the "actual description" was supposed to be the metric. The fact that it doesn't make logical sense is because the label "property" doesn't fit for a slave in Torah the same way the word "property" fits for a car. And that means understanding what's described in Torah as the english word "property" doesn't fit. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

 

[dybmh]

Can I rape the women? Sure,

Ah. Please bring the verses which describe allowing rape. We already have the verse clearly prohibiting rape. Now it's your burden to show one that allows it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not illegal. That's false. It clearly says it is legal. That's the "actual description" in the text. And the "actual description" was supposed to be the metric. The fact that it doesn't make logical sense is because the label "property" doesn't fit for a slave in Torah the same way the word "property" fits for a car. And that means understanding what's described in Torah as the english word "property" doesn't fit. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

Where does it say that it is legal for slaves to escape?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah. Please bring the verses which describe allowing rape. We already have the verse clearly prohibiting rape. Now it's your burden to show one that allows it.

They have already be brought up. For example when they conquered cities they were allowed to take women prisoners. Now you may call it a "marriage" but if you saw it happen today you would call it rape.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But not the same as cattle. Property has to be returned to its owner. That is what is actually described in the text. If the actual description is valued, then this detail cannot be ignored.

Another poster already responded to this and I concur with that response.

 

[dybmh]

Where does it say that it is legal for slaves to escape?

Deuteronomy 23:15-16. Escape is legal. What does the word escape mean? It means to run away and obtain freedom. These verses describe a slave running away gaining freedom and it is prohibited to reverse the course of those events. Escape is legal.

( Edit: the verse numbers above needed to be changed. The english numbering doesn't match the Hebrew )

 

[dybmh]

They have already be brought up. For example when they conquered cities they were allowed to take women prisoners. Now you may call it a "marriage" but if you saw it happen today you would call it rape.

"They have been brought.... for example...." This implies there are multiple places where you claim rape is permitted. To the best of my knowledge there is only 1 place which is misundertood as rape. And yes, it is the "captive-bride". However, a careful reading especially in Hebrew describes consent. One can certainly argue that a woman in that circumstance cannot properly consent. But she has a whole month to leave if she is feeling coerced. The verses do not allow the man forcing himself on the woman. If she says "no" she is to be set free and cannot be sold as a slave. In other words, she is not "bought and sold" like chattel. And rape is not allowed.

 

[dybmh]

Another poster already responded to this and I concur with that response.

Sure. You are agreeing to ignore the verses that describe a slave as different than property. IOW your claims about property are cherry picked.

 

[Quagmire]

Good grief, you've too much time on your hand, get yourself a hobby.

I do we have a hobby, it's: trying to get people to own up to their mistakes.

It isn't very rewarding, but it can be amusing as hell.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Deuteronomy 23:16-17. Escape is legal. What does the word escape mean? It means to run away and obtain freedom. These verses describe a slave running away gaining freedom and it is prohibited to reverse the course of those events. Escape is legal.

Do you think that it really means that in context? Unfortunately due to the high volume of articles by apologists it is hard to find the works of actual scholars in this argument. Luckily we still have Wikipedia. It seems that verse is more likely about slaves that escaped from another country:

The Bible and slavery - Wikipedia
Although a literal reading would indicate that this applies to slaves of all nationalities and locations, the Mishnah and many commentators consider the rule to have the much narrower application, to just those slaves who flee from outside Israelite territory into it.[25][26]

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure. You are agreeing to ignore the verses that describe a slave as different than property. IOW your claims about property are cherry picked.

No one is doing that. They may be ignoring your biased interpretation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"They have been brought.... for example...." This implies there are multiple places where you claim rape is permitted. To the best of my knowledge there is only 1 place which is misundertood as rape. And yes, it is the "captive-bride". However, a careful reading especially in Hebrew describes consent. One can certainly argue that a woman in that circumstance cannot properly consent. But she has a whole month to leave if she is feeling coerced. The verses do not allow the man forcing himself on the woman. If she says "no" she is to be set free and cannot be sold as a slave. In other words, she is not "bought and sold" like chattel. And rape is not allowed.

That is only because your personal bias does not allow a rational interpretation of those verses.

 

[dybmh]

Do you think that it really means that in context? Unfortunately due to the high volume of articles by apologists it is hard to find the works of actual scholars in this argument. Luckily we still have Wikipedia. It seems that verse is more likely about slaves that escaped from another country:

The Bible and slavery - Wikipedia
Although a literal reading would indicate that this applies to slaves of all nationalities and locations, the Mishnah and many commentators consider the rule to have the much narrower application, to just those slaves who flee from outside Israelite territory into it.[25][26]

Literally going by the text were the rules established in the beginning of the debate. I offered to allow those rules to be softened, and you declined. Also, if you want to go by the Mishnah, you have to be consistent. The mishnah describes a process for becoming a wife, which includes consent, legal documentation, etc. So, you get to choose. Going by the Mishnah, these verses, limit who is allowed to escape. But also going by the Mishnah means marriage is consential. And the Mishnah also confirms that a maidservant is free based on signs of maturity.

And demonizing people who take a optimistic view is just as silly as demonizing those who take the pessimistic view. As if an optimist cannot be a scholar...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Literally going by the text were the rules established in the beginning of the debate. I offered to allow those rules to be softened, and you declined. Also, if you want to go by the Mishnah, you have to be consistent. The mishnah describes a process for becoming a wife, which includes consent, legal documentation, etc. So, you get to choose. Going by the Mishnah, these verses, limit who is allowed to escape. But also going by the Mishnah means marriage is consential. And the Mishnah also confirms that a maidservant is free based on signs of maturity.

And demonizing people who take a optimistic view is just as silly as demonizing those who take the pessimistic view. As if an optimist cannot be a scholar...

The problem is that "literally going by the text" you have a self contradicting interpretation.

 

[dybmh]

That is only because your personal bias does not allow a rational interpretation of those verses.

And this is why it's important to bring the actual words of the verse to show that it is rational. Rational means with reasons. Here are the reasons:

• The woman shaves *herself*
• The woman trims *herself*
• The woman strips *herself*
• The woman *herself* stays in the home for a month

Consent, consent, consent, consent... 4 times and is given a whole month to change her mind.

Add to that ths idea of legal escape. She comes from a foreign nation, that means everyone agrees, the verse applies. She has a whole month to escape and be free.

 

[chlotilde]

Of course there are all kinds of different ways to exploit people. No big news there. And of course all of that is discussed in the Bible in a time when all this stuff was acceptable.
.

acceptable then? Ha! some choose it today.
Marxism denies everyone individual rights. And just like some of our (US) plantation owners denied rights with boots to the neck, too many Marxists have done it that way for me to want to join that club.

 

[dybmh]

The problem is that "literally going by the text" you have a self contradicting interpretation.

No, it's not contradicting. It's only contradicting if a person holds onto the word "property" and ignores how the concept is described in Torah. It's going to be difficult for an Atheist to understand. You used to be religious, maybe setting aside the atheism temporarily and trying to look at it from a spiritual perspective would help? From a Jewish perspective, these things happen by divine providence. An individual finds themself in servitude by divine providence. A person frees themself also by divine providence. Interfering with that divine providence is going against the will of God. Escape is legal just as servitude is legal. No contradiction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And this is why it's important to bring the actual words of the verse to show that it is rational. Rational means with reasons. Here are the reasons:

• The woman shaves *herself*
• The woman trims *herself*
• The woman strips *herself*
• The woman *herself* stays in the home for a month

Consent, consent, consent, consent... 4 times and is given a whole month to change her mind.

Add to that ths idea of legal escape. She comes from a foreign nation, that means everyone agrees, the verse applies. She has a whole month to escape and be free.

Nope, you can't have consent in an owner/slave relationship. Those are merely very weak justifications. And if she rejects him he can sell her.

You keep forgetting the "you broke it you bought it" mentality of that time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it's not contradicting. It's only contradicting if a person holds onto the word "property" and ignores how the concept is described in Torah. It's going to be difficult for an Atheist to understand. You used to be religious, maybe setting aside the atheism temporarily and trying to look at it from a spiritual perspective would help? From a Jewish perspective, these things happen by divine providence. An individual finds themself in servitude by divine providence. A person frees themself also by divine providence. Interfering with that divine providence is going against the will of God. Escape is legal just as servitude is legal. No contradiction.

We use the word properly because the verses repeatedly refer to slaves as property. You found a contradictory verse. That is when a deeper look is needed. In the case that started this out the man "given" a wife could have just took her with him when he left if your interpretation is correct. Those verse clearly indicate that is not the case.

Your interpretation causes a whole series of contradictory verses. The interpretation that it applies to foreign slaves does not have that problem.