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

[dybmh]

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.

He doesn't own her, she is not his slave. This is not an owner/slave relationship. If you actually quote the verses, it clearly says she does these things to herself. If *he* shaved her, and *he* trimmed her, and *he* stripped her. Ok, that's owner/slave. But that's not what it says. It says the opposite. She does 4 acts demonstrating consent. If it was just 1, yes, you could claim it's weak. But all 4, and waiting a month? Those become a strong rational argument that this is not rape.

And, it literally says he cannot sell her, she goes free. That's in every translation I can find. So now you are no longer misinterpretting, you are literally misquoting.

The "you broke it you bought it" idea is something super-imposed on to this. if you want that become a valid argument, it needs more than an assertion.

 

[dybmh]

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.

No. They don't contradict. I already showed you that servitude and freedom in the context of the Bible stories are divine providence. Both are to be respected. They do not contradict. Now you've claimed "a whole series of contradictory verses". Nice claim, can you prove it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. They don't contradict. I already showed you that servitude and freedom in the context of the Bible stories are divine providence. Both are to be respected. They do not contradict. Now you've claimed "a whole series of contradictory verses". Nice claim, can you prove it?

Of course they contradict. And you only demonstrated a very biased interpretation. You did not "show" anything. Your interpretations lead to even more contradictions. Interpreting the runaway slave verse as applying to foreign slaves does not raise any.

 

[dybmh]

Of course they contradict. And you only demonstrated a very biased interpretation. You did not "show" anything. Your interpretations lead to even more contradictions. Interpreting the runaway slave verse as applying to foreign slaves does not raise any.

It sure does raise a contradiction. In Leviticus it says that the foreign slave serves forever. But, an escaped slave is free. That is a contradiction. Regardless of how the verse is limited, there's still a contradiction if a person assumes that a slave is property.

The solution is easy. The slave isn't property. Just as the Jewish people were enslaved for a divine purpose and were freed for a divine purpose. A slave, no matter who they are, becomes a slave for a divine pupose, and becomes free for a divine purpose. I did show you that this is a viable and reasonable understanding of the law. Of course I assumed, based on your background, that you understood the concept of divine providence. All one needs to do, is recall the story of the exodus, how they ended up in egypt and how they ended up free, and a person can understand what's happening with the laws of slavery. Yes, a person can become aquired by another person, but they are still human, and they are not property in the same way as animals.

 

[dybmh]

@Subduction Zone ,

Here's how we know for certain that the maid-servant in Exodus consented to the marriage. She was not a sex-slave.

If she pleases not her master, who has designated her for himself, then shall he let her be redeemed; to sell her to a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he has dealt deceitfully with her.
​

... with her. Not with her father, with her. The maid had agreed. If it had said dealt deceitfully with the father, then yes, a person could conclude that the daughter did not consent, and the arragement happened soley between to the two men. But since it says with her, that means, she was involved and had agreed. I could go further with the Hebrew in the first clause to show this, but, the english here should suffice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone ,

Here's how we know for certain that the maid-servant in Exodus consented to the marriage. She was not a sex-slave.

If she pleases not her master, who has designated her for himself, then shall he let her be redeemed; to sell her to a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he has dealt deceitfully with her.
​

... with her. Not with her father, with her. The maid had agreed. If it had said dealt deceitfully with the father, then yes, a person could conclude that the daughter did not consent, and the arragement happened soley between to the two men. But since it says with her, that means, she was involved and had agreed. I could go further with the Hebrew in the first clause to show this, but, the english here should suffice.

Agreeing when their is no real choice is not agreeing. This should be obvious. If he has is way with her he can dump her, but he cannot sell her. Nice. What choice does she have? Live on the street? Become a prostitute? That was probably where a good number of them came from. Women that were used and abused and could find no other way to make a living. We are not talking about the most enlightened of times in the history of the world here.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

None of these condone slavery. Just the opposite. They prevent some chattel slavery conditions.

SOME chattel conditions? That's not condoning slavery to you?

These verses do not sanction the striking of servants.

Yes, they do. Good luck trying to convince others.

Ownership as servants, not as slaves.

An owned person is a slave.

You present a nice illustration of the problem for the believer in divine command theory, which is the assumption that if God did or commanded it, it must be of exemplary moral status. Now, you have to try to find arguments to justify that to people who don't labor under that premise, which as you've seen, you can't do.

 

[dybmh]

Agreeing when their is no real choice is not agreeing. This should be obvious. If he has is way with her he can dump her, but he cannot sell her. Nice. What choice does she have? Live on the street? Become a prostitute? That was probably where a good number of them came from. Women that were used and abused and could find no other way to make a living. We are not talking about the most enlightened of times in the history of the world here.

What choice does she have? She could choose to stay in her father's household.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What choice does she have? She could choose to stay in her father's household.

Right now we are discussing prisoners of war. Ill gotten booty.

 

[dybmh]

Right now we are discussing prisoners of war. Ill gotten booty.

Ok, still not a sex slave. The example of capturing POWs and making them slaves is one thing. But, claiming that rape is permitted is another. You claimed that rape was permitted. And you're wrong. The "captive-bride" can be immoral all on its own, for a number of reasons. But claiming it permits rape is false. In order to become the wife, and have sex, there's a process which has 4 individual consentual acts which must be done first. What else ya got, besides the "captive-bride"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, still not a sex slave. The example of capturing POWs and making them slaves is one thing. But, claiming that rape is permitted is another. You claimed that rape was permitted. And you're wrong. The "captive-bride" can be immoral all on its own, for a number of reasons. But claiming it permits rape is false. In order to become the wife, and have sex, there's a process which has 4 individual consentual acts which must be done first. What else ya got, besides the "captive-bride"?

When a woman has no real choice it is rape. A solider sees a gal, and likes her looks. Kills her family, or his cohorts do. The has to go through the rigamarole to make her "less attractive" and have a short mourning period. It is then accept her advances or hit the road with no means of support. That sounds pretty rapey to me.

 

[dybmh]

When a woman has no real choice it is rape. A solider sees a gal, and likes her looks. Kills her family, or his cohorts do. The has to go through the rigamarole to make her "less attractive" and have a short mourning period. It is then accept her advances or hit the road with no means of support. That sounds pretty rapey to me.

She does have a choice. And again, you are changing the text He doesn't make her less attractive, she makes herself less attractive. Each of those acts, she must do to herself. If you need to change the text to make it into rape, it's a fail. Yes, she has the option to leave at any point in this process. If you ask someone, "is this OK?" They say yes. Then you say, prove it in these 3 ways. And they do each one. Then you wait a month, and they still say yes. That's the opposite of rape.

At worst, this is coersion, not rape. But even then, if you look at the indicators for coersion, one person says no repeatedly, and the other person pushes forward anyway. In this case the person is saying yes repeatedly. In the links below it does indicate that a power imbalance is a potential problem. How many relationships are perfectly balanced? But if a person enthusiastically says "yes", then it's full steam ahead. I'm not sure how else the Torah can describe this sort of consent other than giving multiple different forms of consent plus a waiting period. Either way, the person is not a sex slave, it isn't rape. They are free to leave.

Sexual coercion
How Do You Know If You Were Sexually Coerced?

 

[Subduction Zone]

She does have a choice. And again, you are changing the text He doesn't make her less attractive, she makes herself less attractive. Each of those acts, she must do to herself. If you need to change the text to make it into rape, it's a fail. Yes, she has the option to leave at any point in this process. If you ask someone, "is this OK?" They say yes. Then you say, prove it in these 3 ways. And they do each one. Then you wait a month, and they still say yes. That's the opposite of rape.

At worst, this is coersion, not rape. But even then, if you look at the indicators for coersion, one person says no repeatedly, and the other person pushes forward anyway. In this case the person is saying yes repeatedly. In the links below it does indicate that a power imbalance is a potential problem. How many relationships are perfectly balanced? But if a person enthusiastically says "yes", then it's full steam ahead. I'm not sure how else the Torah can describe this sort of consent other than giving multiple different forms of consent plus a waiting period. Either way, the person is not a sex slave, it isn't rape. They are free to leave.

Sexual coercion
How Do You Know If You Were Sexually Coerced?

That is not a real choice.

The clear problem for you is that those verses cannot be the "word of God" and have your God be anything but an incompetent evil being. I know that you are much better than that. One has to lower oneself to try to defend certain parts of the Bible. Those parts make sense if they were just written by the ignorant people of that time. They make no sense if they are supposedly the word of God.

 

[dybmh]

That is not a real choice.

The clear problem for you is that those verses cannot be the "word of God" and have your God be anything but an incompetent evil being. I know that you are much better than that. One has to lower oneself to try to defend certain parts of the Bible. Those parts make sense if they were just written by the ignorant people of that time. They make no sense if they are supposedly the word of God.

Strange things happen in war, and strange things happen in love. The classic example of consent in spite of captivity is Patty Hearst who consented to sex with her captors because she agreed with their ideology. So consent can happen even when it is under duress. Love between enemies during a time of war is also possible. There's a bizzare story about a prisoner of a concentration camp during the holocaust who fell in love, so she claims, with one of the guards in spite of witnessing him commit atrocities. Yes, a terrible story, but it demonstrates that love can happen in spite of being captured, in spite of being enemies, in spite of witnessing atrocities at the hands of the beloved. SS Guard who Fell in Love with a Jew in Auschwitz - Aish.com The Torah seems to recognize this, that the invading force may develop feelings for the indigenous people, and the indigenous people may develope feelings for the invaders, and those feelings need to be managed. Rape needs to be prohibited, and that's precisely what it does. The only way to see it differently is to ignore what is written in favor of a knee-jerk reaction. Yes I believe the Torah is divine. And that means I probe deeper and in detail when confronted with something which appears immoral or contradictory. This is not a flaw, it is an asset.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Strange things happen in war, and strange things happen in love. The classic example of consent in spite of captivity is Patty Hearst who consented to sex with her captors because she agreed with their ideology. So consent can happen even when it is under duress. Love between enemies during a time of war is also possible. There's a bizzare story about a prisoner of a concentration camp during the holocaust who fell in love, so she claims, with one of the guards in spite of witnessing him commit atrocities. Yes, a terrible story, but it demonstrates that love can happen in spite of being captured, in spite of being enemies, in spite of witnessing atrocities at the hands of the beloved. SS Guard who Fell in Love with a Jew in Auschwitz - Aish.com The Torah seems to recognize this, that the invading force may develop feelings for the indigenous people, and the indigenous people may develope feelings for the invaders, and those feelings need to be managed. Rape needs to be prohibited, and that's precisely what it does. The only way to see it differently is to ignore what is written in favor of a knee-jerk reaction. Yes I believe the Torah is divine. And that means I probe deeper and in detail when confronted with something which appears immoral or contradictory. This is not a flaw, it is an asset.

It can happen. But that does not mean that it always happened. In fact that would probably be the exception. In other words, just because it may be a choice for a very few, does not mean that it is a choice for everyone.

This is recognized today. It is why there are rules against doctors falling in love with patients. The patients often do not have a full choice. And that is in a much kinder environment.

 

[Kathryn]

If you want to throw out the OT, then that presents a whole host of other problems, because that's where you get original sin from, and all the supposed prophecies,, plus the ten commandments, just to name a few.

I never said that I want to throw out the OT. I said that the OT and the NT are different to most followers of Abrahamic religions.

 

[Kathryn]

Your OP seemed to go against that idea. .

Really? How so?

 

[Kathryn]

Agreeing when their is no real choice is not agreeing. This should be obvious. If he has is way with her he can dump her, but he cannot sell her. Nice. What choice does she have? Live on the street? Become a prostitute? That was probably where a good number of them came from. Women that were used and abused and could find no other way to make a living. We are not talking about the most enlightened of times in the history of the world here.

I believe that even in this enlightened 21st century American society, we still have many, many prostitutes. Just sayin' that nothing seems to be new.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? How so?

Your attitude, and early denial, appeared to be of one that pretended that there were no flaws in the Bible at a!!.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe that even in this enlightened 21st century American society, we still have many, many prostitutes. Just sayin' that nothing seems to be new.

True.The problem with prostitution is not that the women are doing anything wrong. It is the hypocritical judgement that they receive.