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

[Shaul]

Nope I didn't state a misinterpretation, i stated the logical conclusion, i.e. if the slave survives a day or two then dies everything is ok, except of course the slave owners has lost some money.


You are of course welcome to your interpretation. I would hope you allow me the same honour

But the verses do NOT say "if the slave survives a day or two then dies everything is ok, except of course the slave owners has lost some money". And I have pointed that out several times now. A person that strikes a servant could be liable for a whole host of other penalties that have nothing to do with money. The striker could even still be liable for manslaughter depending on the circumstances. So, no, you aren't allowed your own interpretation if it is indeed wrong. And yours is wrong.

 

[ChristineM]

But the verses do NOT say "if the slave survives a day or two then dies everything is ok, except of course the slave owners has lost some money". And I have pointed that out several times now. A person that strikes a servant could be liable for a whole host of other penalties that have nothing to do with money. The striker could even still be liable for manslaughter depending on the circumstances. So, no, you aren't allowed your own interpretation if it is indeed wrong. And yours is wrong.

Not withstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.



Enough said

 

[Shaul]

Not withstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.



Enough said

Wow. Take things out of context. Refuse to discuss. Close mind. Yep. That's "Enough".

 

[dybmh]

Let's not forget Exodus 21 2-6 where it tells you how to trick a person that has signed up for a seven year stint as an indentured servant into being a slave for life:

2If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free without paying anything. 3If he arrived alone, he is to leave alone; if he arrived with a wife, she is to leave with him. 4If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.5But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children; I do not want to go free,’ 6then his master is to bring him before the judges.a And he shall take him to the door or doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he shall serve his master for life.

First, thank you for explaining this. I've heard you mention it in the past, but never understood what you meant.

There's a couple of details here which I think are being overlooked.

From the wording of these verses, I think it's safe to conclude that the wife given by the owner is Jewish. It's not 100% clear, but, by claiming she is a wife, not a handmaid or concubine, at the very least the woman was converted at the time of marriage aka consummation. This means that at the most the slave would be away from their wife and children for a maximum of 7 years, or until jubilee, whichever comes first. During that time, the wife and children are provided for by the owner.

The other detail which I think is being overlooked is, that at that time and until much later in history, it was not uncommon for men to leave home for long periods of time finding work in remote areas leaving their wife and children alone. I'm not exactly sure how this worked, or how the wife and children survived on their own, but, it wouldn't be that strange for a freed slave to leave his wife and children while he gets setup with a home and a profession where he could provide for a family.

Let's not forget, the primary reason a Hebrew slave to have ended up that way was a matter of going into debt. So, the recently freed slave would not likely take a risk at becoming destitute again. Leaving his wife and children in someone else's care seems reasonable considering the circumstances.

And all of this ignores that owning a slave is an additional responsibility for the owner under Jewish law. Owning a slave for life is a rather large undertaking. Giving a slave a spouse, and having them reproduce is adding a lot more responsibility. These verses could be read in a completely opposite manner, in that, it is giving the slave the right to demand being provided food and shelter for their entire life if the owner attempts to increase the number of slaves they own through slave-to-slave procreation.

So, it's not really trickery taking these details into account. But, I think it's a really interesting perspective. Thank you for explaining it.

 

[ChristineM]

Wow. Take things out of context. Refuse to discuss. Close mind. Yep. That's "Enough".

Projection?

The verse is clear, if the slave continues to live for a day or two the owner won't be punished.

As i said, you are welcome to your interpretation. I take the bible as written

 

[dybmh]

That is incredibly barbaric and inhumane.
"Hey, bro! I raped your daughter. Here's the money. She's my wife now, you can't do anything about it, tough titties because God's says she now belongs to me."

Respectfully, this isn't a rape. That is not super-clear just looking at these verses in isolation. But comparing it to the previous verses where it obviously is a rape, and the rapist is put to death, then one can conclude these verses are prohibitting a man from promiscuity and then abadoning his partner.

 

[dybmh]

Is it moral to own another human being as property?

This is the crux of the issue, isn't it?

The simple answer is no, of course not, and that's why slavery has been abolished. However, it's not as simple as that.

Judaism is a law based religion. These verses about slavery are in a legal context, not a moral context. From a legal perspective, there is nothing wrong with considering human beings as property especially when it comes to assessing damages.

Also, there's nothing wrong with treating my children as property under certain circumstances. If I choose to, I can take my child, put them in the car against their will, and take them to grandma's house, because it's better than leaving them home alone. I'm their parent, it's my choice, and the child is "mine".

As someone else brought up, there was no jail system in ancient Israel. If law abiding citizens are becoming wardens, their homes are becoming prisons, then these law abiding individuals treating a criminal as property, even beating them into submission, is not automatically immoral. Some times "Hard control techniques" are justified: Use of force continuum - Wikipedia

So, as a concept, legal "people as property" is not inherently immoral. It depends on the circumstances, it depends on what it actually means for both the owner and the owned. It depends on who is the owner and who is the owned.

In a primitive society, with a primitive justice system, in a legal context, owning people as property is not immoral, and some people might even choose to sell themselves into slavery.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I wasn't 'defending', just explaining.



Ever consider becoming a preacher?

Professionally I mean?

Edit: in the meantime, you might want to take this quiz: Mobile Survey

That is a red herring and has nothing to do with what the Bible says about slavery.

 

[F1fan]

Nor am I the one using apologetic interpretations. Quite the opposite. It is modern skeptics who insist on applying modern notions on anachronistic circumstances that are doing that.

You stated a misinterpretation of the verses. You claim it sanctioned beatings when the opposite is true. These verses penalize such. I correctly pointed that out. So it is quite ironic for you to complain about how the Bible is interpreted by others when you misinterpret it yourself.

The question is if God is absolute then why are his morals and laws changing over time?

Let's note that there is no new laws from God adjusting the laws in the Torah to more modern standards, so do you think those rules are still applicable? If not, by what authority to you reject the laws in the Torah?

 

[F1fan]

This is the crux of the issue, isn't it?

The simple answer is no,

Then why does God say it's OK?

...of course not, and that's why slavery has been abolished. However, it's not as simple as that.

It was abolished due to Enlightenment thought and the views that all humans are equal.

Judaism is a law based religion. These verses about slavery are in a legal context, not a moral context. From a legal perspective, there is nothing wrong with considering human beings as property especially when it comes to assessing damages.

No law would back you up here. Slavery is not being a prisoner. Imprisonment has a moral and legal justification, slavery doesn't since it is more tied to social prejudice. That's how children born to parents who are slaves are also slaves.

Also, there's nothing wrong with treating my children as property under certain circumstances. If I choose to, I can take my child, put them in the car against their will, and take them to grandma's house, because it's better than leaving them home alone. I'm their parent, it's my choice, and the child is "mine".

They aren't slaves, they are people in your legal, protective custody. You are mangling words and meanings to fit some bad interpretation of the Torah.

As someone else brought up, there was no jail system in ancient Israel. If law abiding citizens are becoming wardens, their homes are becoming prisons, then these law abiding individuals treating a criminal as property, even beating them into submission, is not automatically immoral. Some times "Hard control techniques" are justified: Use of force continuum - Wikipedia

So, as a concept, legal "people as property" is not inherently immoral. It depends on the circumstances, it depends on what it actually means for both the owner and the owned. It depends on who is the owner and who is the owned.

I don't think it a bad idea to make criminals do forced work for their victims as compensation and punishment. In these casess it is a circumstance that the criminals did, not just that they were brown, or from a certain tribe.

In a primitive society, with a primitive justice system, in a legal context, owning people as property is not immoral, and some people might even choose to sell themselves into slavery.

It seems the New Testament and even the Quran offers more advanced rules of social conduct, and as we see even the Hebrews of that era abandonded the laws in the Torah. The evolution of civil rights was certainly too long of a process for an absolute and wise God looking over his people.

 

[Altfish]

Why are you asking me?

Because you asked the question

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ownership as servants, not as slaves. It is not some nuanced difference. Ancient Jewish society outline a clear distinction between how its servants and the slaves in other societies. The labor of the persons could be owned but not the person themselves. They were servants, not chattel.

Hmmm ...

20If a man strikes his manservant or maidservant with a rod, and the servant dies by his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21However, if the servant gets up after a day or two, the owner shall not be punished, since the servant is his property.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First, thank you for explaining this. I've heard you mention it in the past, but never understood what you meant.

There's a couple of details here which I think are being overlooked.

From the wording of these verses, I think it's safe to conclude that the wife given by the owner is Jewish. It's not 100% clear, but, by claiming she is a wife, not a handmaid or concubine, at the very least the woman was converted at the time of marriage aka consummation. This means that at the most the slave would be away from their wife and children for a maximum of 7 years, or until jubilee, whichever comes first. During that time, the wife and children are provided for by the owner.

The other detail which I think is being overlooked is, that at that time and until much later in history, it was not uncommon for men to leave home for long periods of time finding work in remote areas leaving their wife and children alone. I'm not exactly sure how this worked, or how the wife and children survived on their own, but, it wouldn't be that strange for a freed slave to leave his wife and children while he gets setup with a home and a profession where he could provide for a family.

Let's not forget, the primary reason a Hebrew slave to have ended up that way was a matter of going into debt. So, the recently freed slave would not likely take a risk at becoming destitute again. Leaving his wife and children in someone else's care seems reasonable considering the circumstances.

And all of this ignores that owning a slave is an additional responsibility for the owner under Jewish law. Owning a slave for life is a rather large undertaking. Giving a slave a spouse, and having them reproduce is adding a lot more responsibility. These verses could be read in a completely opposite manner, in that, it is giving the slave the right to demand being provided food and shelter for their entire life if the owner attempts to increase the number of slaves they own through slave-to-slave procreation.

So, it's not really trickery taking these details into account. But, I think it's a really interesting perspective. Thank you for explaining it.

Where do you get that she was Jewish from context? I do not see that in their anywhere. And kids under seven, which is the oldest that they could be make terrible slaves. They would have to be freed on their seventh year too. If anything the context is that they are not Jewish.

EDIT: And the later half of your argument appears to be total non sequitur.

Once again, this is a indentured servant type slave who got his wife from his owner. She was clearly not Jewish because when he left the wife was still his slave. The children were from after he "married" her. They were not "his children". Again the context on that is rather clear.

You may be trying to alter the text because it is uncomfortable for you to admit that the Bible supported slavery in this rather dishonest manner.

 

[Left Coast]

All cultures practiced slavery in antiquity, and it wasn't seen as a matter of morality, it was seen as a matter of practicality.

Yes I understand that, because they didn't have the same conception of human rights that we do today. The question is, ought they have seen owning other people as property as a moral issue? Moreover, ought a morally perfect deity condone it?

The only other two options would have been to kill captured enemies, which is arguably less moral, or let them go, which generally speaking would have been a really bad idea.

Why would it have been an immoral idea to release prisoners of war? If the other side has surrendered, unless you have reason to believe they're lying, and you've defeated them militarily and confiscated their weapons, etc. there's little to fear from them.

The issue is that prisoners were considered like spoils of war. So if they/their armies were defeated in battle, keeping them as slaves was seen as a kind of reward for the victor and punishment for the loser.

 

[Quagmire]

That is a red herring and has nothing to do with what the Bible says about slavery.

No, it has to do with calling people on their sanctomy.

You said:

Saying slavery is wrong and beating slaves is wrong is just basic morals and I would hope all would have this view.

I'm betting you didn't (and probably won't) take the quiz, but if you ever did you would see that there's still a quite a bit of slavery going on in the world, and if you're anything like most consumers in the first world you're responsible for your share.

How well do you think the slaves who make your Nikes are treated?

Edit: and no, I wasn't 'defending' slavery in the Bible.

If someone says the sky is orange with purple polka dots and I tell them that it's blue, I'm not defending the sky or the color blue, I'm just trying to get them to look at things for what they are.

 

[Father Heathen]

Exodus 21:7-11 shows that female children are not chattel. It proscribes special protective restrictions on the conditions for a female child so they could not be exploited. Exodus 21:20-21 affirms that servants have a right to life. In conjunction with other verses, servants also have rights against bodily injury. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 proscribes penalties that can be levied against men that rape or sexually exploit unmarried women. These are not the maximum penalties but are minimum ones. Also note that penalties are more rigorous in other cases. This is not really about slavery at all.

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

Mental gymnastics.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As someone else brought up, there was no jail system in ancient Israel. If law abiding citizens are becoming wardens, their homes are becoming prisons, then these law abiding individuals treating a criminal as property, even beating them into submission, is not automatically immoral. Some times "Hard control techniques" are justified: Use of force continuum - Wikipedia

Except we know that's not the best or ideal way to bring about desired behaviors.

Respectfully, this isn't a rape. That is not super-clear just looking at these verses in isolation. But comparing it to the previous verses where it obviously is a rape, and the rapist is put to death, then one can conclude these verses are prohibitting a man from promiscuity and then abadoning his partner.

We've created the idea of marital rape since that was written, and forcing a woman to be married does amount to that, and it is treating the woman like property with no will of her own.

So, as a concept, legal "people as property" is not inherently immoral. It depends on the circumstances, it depends on what it actually means for both the owner and the owned. It depends on who is the owner and who is the owned.

People are not property to be owned. As for the example of kids? Yeah, that's how a lot of kids don't get needed medical treatment and how many of them needlessly die. They are property of the parent, and the owner of said property gets all final say so. That is sick.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No, it has to do with calling people on their sanctomy.

You said:



I'm betting you didn't (and probably won't) take the quiz, but if you ever did you would see that there's still a quite a bit of slavery going on in the world, and if you're anything like most consumers in the first world you're responsible for your share.

How well do you think the slaves who make your Nikes are treated?

Edit: and no, I wasn't 'defending' slavery in the Bible.

If someone says the sky is orange with purple polka dots and I tell them that it's blue, I'm not defending the sky or the color blue, I'm just trying to get them to look at things for what they are.

Again, saying slavery is wrong is not being sanctimonious any more than saying murder is wrong. Seems like you are engaging in the same sanctimony that you accuse me of. I acknowledge a form of slavery exists today but this is not the subject of the thread.

 

[Quagmire]

Again, saying slavery is wrong is not being sanctimonious

It is if you're still facilitating it yourself by financing the slave owners.

Wait a minute, you're right. That isn't being sanctimonious, it's being hypocritical.

My bad.

This was the sanctimonious part:
"

. Saying slavery is wrong and beating slaves is wrong is just basic morals and I would hope all would have this view.

 

[dybmh]

Where do you get that she was Jewish from context? I do not see that in their anywhere. And kids under seven, which is the oldest that they could be make terrible slaves. They would have to be freed on their seventh year too. If anything the context is that they are not Jewish.

EDIT: And the later half of your argument appears to be total non sequitur.

Once again, this is a indentured servant type slave who got his wife from his owner. She was clearly not Jewish because when he left the wife was still his slave. The children were from after he "married" her. They were not "his children". Again the context on that is rather clear.

You may be trying to alter the text because it is uncomfortable for you to admit that the Bible supported slavery in this rather dishonest manner.

Well... like I said. The woman is his "wife" not concubine, not handmaid. We agree to this point right?

Also, the verse is talking about a Hebrew slave. That's right there in the verse.

It's well known that intermarriage is forbidden in Judaism.

We're explicitly forbidden to make a covenant with any of them, the other nations. What do you think a marriage is? That's a covenant.

There was no official conversion in ancient times. The process happened often through marriage.

Earliest Form of “Conversion” was Assimilation

While there were no “conversions,” many non-Israelites joined the Israelite community, often through marriage or acceptance of the beliefs and practices of the community.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/conversion-history-ancient-period/
​

So, in this context, "wife" means Jewish.

Yes, the children would also need to go free after 7 years or Jubilee which ever came first. Yes, infants make terrible slaves. More reason that this law actually discourages rather than encourages.

No, I'm not reading it a particular way just because I don't like the ramifications. I am perfectly comfortable with all the issues, the brutality, the negative role-modeling, that happens in the Hebrew bible.

This one particular idea, tricking someone to becoming a permanent slave is creative, but, doesn't quite fit.