How do we deal with the concept of slavery in the Old Testament?

[clem456]

I didn’t say God is a book, and I can’t believe I actually have to explain that to someone.

When someone uses the term “God of the Bible” they refer to Jehovah, Adonai, Yahweh – whichever name you want to use for the god of Christianity – as opposed to the god of the Jains or Islam or any of the multitude of other gods. It also means that we’re paying special attention to what that god says and does in the Bible.

Now that this has been explained, maybe you can answer any of the questions I’ve proposed starting with: Do you or do you not think that what is said in Exodus 21 was accurate? If not, why did you earlier say that Exodus 21 was not a mistranslation?

We do not believe there is a God of the bible, as if there is another god. We read the bible as a community, through, with, and in Christ.
Since you are liking fundamentalist scripture interpretation, you should read Genesis for yourself in your context with your understanding of the language you speak. You don’t need me to interpret it. And besides, I am not a professor of ancient cultures. I have no expertise whatsoever in the original languages, how accurately it translates into English, what slavery consisted of in ancient times. I have no expertise in ancient culture and thought.

So go ahead…pardon the interruption. I want to know what Catholics believe about slavery. :coffeeread:

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

We do not believe there is a God of the bible, as if there is another god. We read the bible as a community, through, with, and in Christ.
Since you are liking fundamentalist scripture interpretation, you should read Genesis for yourself in your context with your understanding of the language you speak. You don’t need me to interpret it. And besides, I am not a professor of ancient cultures. I have no expertise whatsoever in the original languages, how accurately it translates into English, what slavery consisted of in ancient times. I have no expertise in ancient culture and thought.

So go ahead…pardon the interruption. I want to know what Catholics believe about slavery. :coffeeread:

Wouldn’t it have just been easier to say that you won’t admit you’re wrong and that you’re not able or willing to answer any of the inconsistencies and problems I’ve brought up when considering what God says about slavery to his chosen people?

I’ll ask again: What is the figurative explanation for what God said in Exodus 21?

I’ll ask again: If God told Moses to allow divorce because men were killing their wives, what was the benefit that came from having children be sold or bought into slavery?

I’ll ask again: How do the verses that tell slaveowners to be nice to their slaves work with the ones that allow slaveowners to beat their slaves to the point of manslaughter or to the ones that treat them like property?

I’ll ask again: Was Exodus 21 an accurate representation of what God said to Moses? If not, was Exodus 20 where God gave the Ten Commandments to his people also not accurate?

If you’re not willing to engage in this further than stating I’m wrong with backing up a single solitary assertion, then let me know and I’ll save my effort for those who aren’t afraid to tackle the matter head-on.

 

[clem456]

Wouldn’t it have just been easier to say that you won’t admit you’re wrong and that you’re not able or willing to answer any of the inconsistencies and problems I’ve brought up when considering what God says about slavery to his chosen people?

I’ll ask again: What is the figurative explanation for what God said in Exodus 21?

I’ll ask again: If God told Moses to allow divorce because men were killing their wives, what was the benefit that came from having children be sold or bought into slavery?

I’ll ask again: How do the verses that tell slaveowners to be nice to their slaves work with the ones that allow slaveowners to beat their slaves to the point of manslaughter or to the ones that treat them like property?

I’ll ask again: Was Exodus 21 an accurate representation of what God said to Moses? If not, was Exodus 20 where God gave the Ten Commandments to his people also not accurate?

If you’re not willing to engage in this further than stating I’m wrong with backing up a single solitary assertion, then let me know and I’ll save my effort for those who aren’t afraid to tackle the matter head-on.

Apparently you are under the impression that I lived eons ago when Genesis was written. I did not, I can assure you I live now and speak and read English. You need to ask a bible scholar about ancient cultures.

But you are doing a great job at telling us what the ancient peoples thought, what their words meant exactly, what their culture was like. I’ll just listen while you do exegesis and tell us what Catholics believe and how we read scripture.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I’ll just listen while you do exegesis and tell us what Catholics believe and how we read scripture.

Translation: You are incapable of generating even the most basic of response against the valid points that I’ve made and now expect me to make your argument for you

So to everyone else out there who might want to have a real discussion on this topic: As it stands I’ve pointed out that God allowed for slavery. The most common argument is that we have to take into account the culture of the time. As I noted God said in Leviticus to his people not to concern themselves with the ways of other cultures. Also they were in the desert at the time and thus had no slaves of their own. I pointed out that God made all sorts of restrictions that differed greatly from those of other peoples, yet felt that slavery wasn’t nearly as much of a priority as not letting witches live or how to cut one’s hair.

The second most common argument is that its equivalent to the temporary allowing of divorce to prevent men from murdering their wives (a dumb concept in its own right as there were already laws against murder). Yet there are no matching benefits that come from allowing slavery, including the allowed sexual slavery of girls, the allowed beating to death of slaves (so long as its not the same day), and the allowed practice of having children be born into slavery. It’s a terrible argument in a half-dozen ways.

To those who feel that I am wrong, please tell me why. If you feel that the verses I quote are not to be taken literally then explain how they work figuratively. Show me how Exodus 21 is supposed to be figurative while the Ten Commandments from the very same conversation between God and Moses is literal.

Please back your assertions more than essentially saying ‘Nuh-uh, you’re wrong!’

 

[clem456]

Translation: You are incapable of generating even the most basic of response against the valid points that I’ve made and now expect me to make your argument for you

Ummm no, if you read the thread you can find answers to your questions easily. So, what are we to assume then…?

I don’t expect you to make an argument for my helpless self, my wife is ready to feed and bathe me, so I will unsubscribe and let someone else take up your questions.

 

[lightbeamrider]

Paul’s violation of the Mosaic Code on slavery:

While in prison, Paul met a runaway slave, Onesimus, the property of a Christian – presumably Pheliemon. He sent the slave back to his owner. This action is forbidden in Deuteronomy 23:15-16:

“Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee.”

“He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.”

Rather than give the slave sanctuary, Paul returned him to his owner. Paul seems to hint that he would like Pheliemon to give Onesimus his freedom, but does not actually request it. See the Letter to Philemon in the Christian Scriptures.

The Deut verse had to do with slaves escaping from cruel Canaanite masters and seeking asylum. Biblical regulations presuppose humane treatment and accountability to God. Corporal punishment normal in ancient cultures but really not practical. Under Solomon, forced laborers were disciplined with whips which planted the seeds of revolt under his son. Harsh treatment of a large slave class never a good thing.

The situation with Paul, not the same. The Romans were the slavers and any talk of slave freedom could be construed as fomenting revolt. Not a good thing to do with the Romans. Escape slaves had zero options for making a living back then. Besides Paul assumed the humane treatment of Onesimus.

 

[lightbeamrider]

Translation: You are incapable of generating even the most basic of response against the valid points that I’ve made and now expect me to make your argument for you

Which ignores your inability to assume moral absolutes for all cultures at all times given your atheism. Since when did atheists become moral authorities? Most atheists would concur cultures decide what is right and wrong for their culture. There are no moral absolutes. So? What is your problem?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Which ignores your inability to assume moral absolutes for all cultures at all times given your atheism. Since when did atheists become moral authorities? Most atheists would concur cultures decide what is right and wrong for their culture. There are no moral absolutes. So? What is your problem?

Well one of my problems is that often times when Christians are confronted with serious moral issues of their faith instead of trying to give a reasoned explanation they will then try to misdirect the conversation as to the moral foundations of others.

But this is to be expected. True morality comes from taking into account the needs of others, to be willing to empathize with those whose actions we effect, to try and minimize harm to them. True morality is NOT just blindly doing what someone else tells you to, because when that someone tells you to enslave children, or that there are no moral problems with offering your daughters a gang of rapists, or that someone should be killed for picking up sticks on the wrong day, then you’re locked in to defending horrible acts.

I asked before and I’ll ask again, what benefit came from enslaving children? What greater good outcome derives from allowing the evil in beating a man so severely that he becomes immobile for a day or two before dying?

Focus less on my morality (which is quite sound) and more on why all these word games and distractions are necessary to defend the morality of something that is claimed to be goodness itself.

 

[lightbeamrider]

Well one of my problems is that often times when Christians are confronted with serious moral issues of their faith instead of trying to give a reasoned explanation they will then try to misdirect the conversation as to the moral foundations of others.

But this is to be expected. True morality comes from taking into account the needs of others, to be willing to empathize with those whose actions we effect, to try and minimize harm to them. True morality is NOT just blindly doing what someone else tells you to, because when that someone tells you to enslave children, or that there are no moral problems with offering your daughters a gang of rapists, or that someone should be killed for picking up sticks on the wrong day, then you’re locked in to defending horrible acts.

I asked before and I’ll ask again, what benefit came from enslaving children? What greater good outcome derives from allowing the evil in beating a man so severely that he becomes immobile for a day or two before dying?

Focus less on my morality (which is quite sound) and more on why all these word games and distractions are necessary to defend the morality of something that is claimed to be goodness itself.

Your morality is assumed and i think atheists who are mostly bible illiterates pull verses out of context for shock value as a means to trash the Bible. That is their real problem, not slavery. There is nothing preventing atheist from revising their so called moral stances if circumstances change since there is no anchor outside themselves. No beliefs in accountability to God. No existence post death. Nothingness surrounds atheism. Both before and after life. Invoking children which assumes helplessness comes off as hypocritical since most atheists are pro legal abortion, even when it was up to the day of delivery.

Given your atheism we do not see where you have any right to assume moral judgements on ancient cultures. To do so assumes moral absolutes and if you do that then you are arguing for God and against atheism.

Do you agree those ancient cultures had the right to decide right from wrong for their time and place and there are no moral absolutes? Yes or no?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Your morality is assumed and i think atheists who are mostly bible illiterates pull verses out of context for shock value as a means to trash the Bible. That is their real problem, not slavery.

Are you suggesting that I or other atheists aren’t concerned about slavery? It’s happening today just not allowed by the governments. It is an incredibly serious problem that isn’t getting enough attention.

What is interesting is that when non-Christians are told they don’t have the moral authority that Christians do, those Christians will point to the Bible over and over and over again yet are willfully blind to those awful things which are called for by God.

You say that I’m taking these verses out of context. If so, what is the proper context? Multiple people can get multiple understandings of a writing if it’s not clear. I ask you what is that proper context. If it’s not literal then what is the figurative understanding that we all should be using. Don’t just say it’s not literal and don’t say it’s out of context. Define what you mean. Break it down and back your assertions.

Now be careful if you are trying to say that it’s not literal. As I asked before and I’ll ask again: If the verses in Exodus 21 regarding slavery are figurative, then what are the figurative meanings of the other items in that chapter (which all appear to be basic civil law)? If the verses in Exodus 21 regarding slavery are figuartive, then does that mean the Ten Commandments as laid out in Exodus 20 (which is part of the same conversation as Exodus 21) not to be taken literally?

There is nothing preventing atheist from revising their so called moral stances if circumstances change since there is no anchor outside themselves.

As I mentioned, morality is not just doing what someone else says. It involves understanding humanity, to pay close attention to history, and to err on the side of kindness.

I asked before and you didn’t answer so I’ll ask again: What happens if the sole source of your morality (which you describe as an anchor) calls for clearly immoral acts? Does might make right in your understanding?

Real honest morality is not perfect. It comes with nuance and struggle. It sometimes fails but never as horrifically as it does in the Bible.

Given your atheism we do not see where you have any right to assume moral judgements on ancient cultures. To do so assumes moral absolutes and if you do that then you are arguing for God and against atheism.

First of all I’m not judging ancient cultures, I’m judging a deity who is not bound by what cultures do or don’t do. As I’ve demonstrated multiple times in this thread, for various other things both major and minor God laid down a law to his people that differed from that of other cultures – thus showing that the repeated argument that God had to allow slavery at first because of what other cultures were doing is completely false.

But let’s do this. Let’s pretend that these questions aren’t coming from me, but from a Jain, thus we can eliminate the problem of not having an absolute moral authority. How would you answer the questions then? These are legitimate questions and so for no one has given me any answers.

Do you agree those ancient cultures had the right to decide right from wrong for their time and place and there are no moral absolutes? Yes or no?

What is with this thread and strawmen? I’m not talking about what humans in an ancient cultures and what they decide is right and wrong, I’m talking about an all-powerful deity who is willing to kill if a baby’s foreskin isn’t removed in a timely manner but shrugs his shoulders and tells his people to do great evil other people.

 

[lightbeamrider]

Are you suggesting that I or other atheists aren’t concerned about slavery?

No.

It’s happening today just not allowed by the governments. It is an incredibly serious problem that isn’t getting enough attention.

Those governments decide what is right and wrong for them. Who are you to judge? It is atheists who assume rights come from men, not God. So? What is the problem?

What is interesting is that when non-Christians are told they don’t have the moral authority that Christians do, those Christians will point to the Bible over and over and over again yet are willfully blind to those awful things which are called for by God.

Men bring slavery on themselves, not God. Slavery was universal in the ancient world. You can prove that wrong by producing a country that did not practice some type of slavery and good luck with that. Slavery regulated in the Bible for the benefit of the slave. Atheists do not have moral authority since they have no objective basis to assume so. Any moral authority alleged by atheists are abrogated due to their support of legal abortion even up to the day before delivery. Along with a host of other consequences including fetal experimentation. Those enslaved practiced ritual child homicide for 400+ years. Today we lock up or execute infant killers. Your analogy is akin to making child murders victims and the justice system villains.

You say that I’m taking these verses out of context.

Yup.

If so, what is the proper context?

How about ritual child homicide maniacs for starters.

Multiple people can get multiple understandings of a writing if it’s not clear.

What is your understanding of ritual child killers? A list of their offenses are presented in Lev. 18 for example. It applied to three people. The Egyptians, Canaanites and Israel. Pharaoh had his subjects murder male infants by throwing them into the river. They were warned and judged.

I asked before and you didn’t answer so I’ll ask again: What happens if the sole source of your morality (which you describe as an anchor) calls for clearly immoral acts? Does might make right in your understanding?

The source for Christian morality is Jesus. He did not command anybody to do anything immoral.

First of all I’m not judging ancient cultures, I’m judging a deity who is not bound by what cultures do or don’t do.

You don’t believe in that Deity anymore than you believe in Santa Claus.

What is with this thread and strawmen?

It was a valid question, not a strawman.

I’m not talking about what humans in an ancient cultures and what they decide is right and wrong, I’m talking about an all-powerful deity who is willing to kill if a baby’s foreskin isn’t removed in a timely manner but shrugs his shoulders and tells his people to do great evil other people.

Justice never evil. Besides you do imply rights come from men and if that is the case then you have no basis for your so called moral outrage. Deity depicted is the source of all life and can take it away. Your hostility prevents you from learning anything. Along with your ignorance of the subject matter.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Those governments decide what is right and wrong for them. Who are you to judge? It is atheists who assume rights come from men, not God. So? What is the problem?

When did I say rights come from men? When did atheists as a whole say that rights come from men? I said (multiple times already), that what is moral is determined by examining the needs and feelings of others, our history (both good and bad), human nature and what humans strive for, and most importantly to do the least harm as possible. I don’t believe in the divine right of kings to decide what is good or bad, and you need to either show me where I said rulers can do as they please or stop insinuating that I have.

Men bring slavery on themselves, not God.

Again, I’m not discussing ancient cultures but your version of God as described in the Bible. We have a god that intercedes on behalf of his people and frees them from the tyranny of the Egyptians. They are now in the desert and God tells them that they need a series of rules to show them what is and is not good. This is it! This is the point where God will set the Hebrews straight! Don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t bear false witness. All good things. Here’s how to sell your daughter into slavery. Huh?! Why would God lay out such specific guidlines for such a terrible practice.

You haven’t answered so I’ll ask yet again: Why was God so concerned about such minor details like letting witches live or what fringes to wear, yet tells his people to have slaves (including children) and beat them senselessly?

You haven’t answered so I’ll ask yet again: Why do you insist that God had to take into account what other cultures did and when he made many rules that ran counter to what those other cultures did?

Those enslaved practiced ritual child homicide for 400+ years. Today we lock up or execute infant killers. Your analogy is akin to making child murders victims and the justice system villains.

So you’re saying that every slave in Biblical times sacrificed children? Wow.

If so, what is the proper context?

How about ritual child homicide maniacs for starters.

How about them? How does a child of a man who can’t pay his debt on the same level as someone who murders children? They’re both slaves for life. One committed a crime and the other happened to be born in a land where the people believed a deity said his plight was good and fair.

Give me one or more of the passages that I’m taking out of context and explain its proper context using reason and full sentences.

What is your understanding of ritual child killers? A list of their offenses are presented in Lev. 18 for example. It applied to three people. The Egyptians, Canaanites and Israel. Pharaoh had his subjects murder male infants by throwing them into the river. They were warned and judged.

You’re really on this ritual child killer thing. Slaves weren’t just captors of enemy armies. They were bought from other nations, and I’d like you to show me how each one of these sold slaves were guilty of child murder. Christians seem to be willing to add all sorts of things to try and sand away the roughest edges of their scriptures.

The source for Christian morality is Jesus. He did not command anybody to do anything immoral.

Are you one of those people that say to ignore the Old Testament and just follow the New Testament? Is Jesus not also God like God the Father? Why were the Hebrews told that immoral acts were moral hundreds of years before he was in Mary’s womb? Why are God the Father and Jesus such seemingly polar opposites on this subject? Also, did you not see my quote from Jesus on an earlier page where he described how slaves should be beaten even if they don’t what they are doing is wrong?

You don’t believe in that Deity anymore than you believe in Santa Claus.

You’re absolutely right that I don’t believe in God. I can still assess his character even if I think he is fictional. I can say that George Bailey was troubled but overall a good man. I can say that Moriarity was brilliant and a villain. The difference is that there aren’t people out there basing their morality and even their entire existences on George Bailey or Moriarity. I don’t have to be told that I lack a moral base because I don’t follow the teachings of Rocky Balboa. Most importantly, it’s fair to point out when someone decrees that which they follow is perfect yet have to jump through incredible hoops to reinterpret or otherwise ignore that which they follow is far from perfect.

It was a valid question, not a strawman.

No, it was a strawman. I’m talking solely about what God does and everyone else keeps trying to change the subject to what ancient cultures did. If you think that my questions about God need to take into account what those ancient cultures did, then first rebut how I showed that God did not take into consideration what other cultures did in numerous ways when giving laws to his people.

Justice never evil. Besides you do imply rights come from men and if that is the case then you have no basis for your so called moral outrage. Deity depicted is the source of all life and can take it away.

You know the argument is falling apart when God’s actions are defended with what is essentially a Bill Cosby’s joke, “I put you into this world and I can take you out!”

Your hostility prevents you from learning anything. Along with your ignorance of the subject matter.

My hostility comes from not getting a straight answer no matter who I ask or how many times I ask. I seem to be well versed on the subject matter and you appear less than so when it comes to how atheists think.

 

[lightbeamrider]

Bye Mike. I’m done.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

With that being said, can anyone give me a straight answer to any of the questions I’ve asked so far? I’ve pointed out what I see are flaws in the two common defenses for slavery in the Bible (1. That it’s similar to the allowing of divorce. 2. That God had to take into account what other cultures were doing when allowing slavery.)

So far I’ve been cited for being an atheist but nothing detailing why Biblical slavery was both allowed and encouraged. If you don’t feel comfortable answering questions from an atheist, then pretend I’m a Jain instead. I’m no longer Mike from NJ, I’m Mike the Jain

 

[Lion_IRC]

Mike,

The bible says the love of money is the root of all evil - slavery is theft. Slavery is greed.

Slavery is NOT treating another person in a way you would like to be treated. (Golden rule)

The bible says it is wrong to deny a person payment for their labor.

The bible says stealing (a persons labor) is a sin.

The bible says greed is sinful. Slavery is a function of greed.

To claim that the bible “supports” slavery is as intellectually dishonest as saying that,
when modern medicine and health care workers apply the principle of
"harm minimisation", they somehow are “in favor” of drug abuse.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Mike,

The bible says the love of money is the root of all evil - slavery is theft. Slavery is greed.

If that is the case, why doesn’t God disallow slavery the same way he disallows theft in Exodus 22:1-4?

Slavery is NOT treating another person in a way you would like to be treated. (Golden rule)

If that is the case, why does God call slaves property several times in the Bible? Why does he allow a slave to be beaten to the point where he collapses and dies a day or two after if that is not how he wants slaves to be treated?

The bible says it is wrong to deny a person payment for their labor.

If that is the case, then why are the following slaves for life:

• Slaves bought from other countries (men, women, and children)
• Female Hebrew slaves that their masters don’t wish to discard
• Hebrew children born into slavery
• Male Hebrew slaves that are willing that submit to blackmail and choose to say with their slave families

The bible says stealing (a persons labor) is a sin.

See above.

The bible says greed is sinful. Slavery is a function of greed.

Where in the Bible does it say slavery is a function of greed or that it is sinful? I know of no such passages, but if you can find them how do you deal with the contradiction where God says slavery is proper and not sinful?

To claim that the bible “supports” slavery is as intellectually dishonest as saying that, when modern medicine and health care workers apply the principle of "harm minimisation", they somehow are “in favor” of drug abuse.

First the article that you linked to is not free to read. Do you have a different link that covers the same ground?
Second it is not intellectually dishonest to state that the Bible supports slavery. God himself told the Hebrews what to do in obtaining slaves. Leviticus 25:44-46 says:

44‘As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45‘Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46‘You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

Also here’s an analogy similar to one I made earlier in the thread: Let’s assume that there is a place that tells people that if you rape someone on a Wednesday or are diseased when you rape someone then you must pay a fine to the government. Otherwise there is no penalty for raping. Would you say that place allows for rape, even though it has put some small restrictions on its practice? This is just like in the Bible where God tells people they can buy slaves from other countries, and can’t knock a tooth or an eye, and male Hebrew slaves (in most cases) can’t be kept forever, but otherwise have fun. God allows for slavery. There is absolutely no intellectual dishonesty, just reading it as-is without trying to desperately whitewash what it says.

 

[thinkandmull]

The Catholic Church does not read the bible in a fundamentalist way.
IF you are interested, this is a good place to start:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

Well that’s the reason we have a Church, because how else do we know we know how to interpret the Bible. One gospel may be literal, another not. Who knows. With an authority it’s just paper and dust.

"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21"If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

I don’t see the problem. What is harsh punishment today may have been different for their bodies back then. What I have a problem with is “an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, limb for a limb”. That’s straight out torture. Is it possible that this was a general exaggeration?

 

[StGerardMajella]

If that is the case, then why are the following slaves for life:

• Slaves bought from other countries (men, women, and children)
• Female Hebrew slaves that their masters don’t wish to discard
• Hebrew children born into slavery
• Male Hebrew slaves that are willing that submit to blackmail and choose to say with their slave families

After 6 years of slavery, Hebrew slaves are set free in the 7th year. Non-Hebrew slaves were prisoners of war, and subject to permanent slavery.

and if he defies his master saying that he wishes to stay with them, then his ear is to be pierced with an awl and is to serve for life.

If after being given the option for freedom, a slave elects to remain a slave instead of embracing freedom, then this is where the “awl piercing” of the ear of the slave would theoretically take place. The idea being that as a master you do everything you can to persuade the slave to embrace his new freedom, including providing money, food, clothing etc. to help the slave get a start on his new life.

A slave that refuses his freedom is deserving of this ill treatment. In reality, this never or rarely would occur - Slaves would choose freedom.

What I have a problem with is “an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, limb for a limb”. That’s straight out torture. Is it possible that this was a general exaggeration?

The Jewish Sages all agree that “an eye for an eye” was not to be taken literally, and referred to monetary damages only, not physical affliction.

When reading the Torah, it is best to have a good Jewish commentary to help explain the laws. Art Scroll, while not a Catholic resource, has some excellent Jewish commentaries written in plain English that help shed light on these unusual rules found in the Torah.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

After 6 years of slavery, Hebrew slaves are set free in the 7th year. Non-Hebrew slaves were prisoners of war, and subject to permanent slavery.

First problem: It’s not all Hebrew slaves, it’s adult male hebrew slaves. No females or children born or sold into slavery could leave on the 7th year.

Second problem: Non-Hebrew slaves were not always prisoners of war. Remember God said the Hebrews could “purchase” slaves in neighboring nations meaning that in those cases they were not people who were at war with the Hebrews. They were items to be bought like how 19th century Americans bought Africans from nations they were not at war with. God told the Hebrews to shop for slaves they could beat just like shopping for a donkey.

If after being given the option for freedom, a slave elects to remain a slave instead of embracing freedom, then this is where the “awl piercing” of the ear of the slave would theoretically take place. The idea being that as a master you do everything you can to persuade the slave to embrace his new freedom, including providing money, food, clothing etc. to help the slave get a start on his new life.

That is a terrible spin you’re putting on Exodus 21:2-6. You’re making it seem like the slaveowner is the good guy. Here’s what that passage actually says:

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.

Here we see that the slaveowner is submitting the about-to-be free slave into blackmail. It plainly states that the reason such a slave would give up his freedom is to be with his wife and children (who you ignored were slaves for live). To try and twist as though the slaveowner would give the slave money and urge him to seek is freedom not only isn’t in the Bible but is the opposite tone that the actual passage gives. You’re trying to make a horrid thing feel like a triumph by adding things to scripture (which you’re absolutely not supposed to do according to the Bible).

A slave that refuses his freedom is deserving of this ill treatment. In reality, this never or rarely would occur - Slaves would choose freedom.

No man deserves ill treatment (like on the scale of Exodus 21:20-21) especially those who’ve made a sad but noble sacrifice of giving up his freedom to remain with the ones he loves. No man deserves to be treated like property to be abused and denied the basic dignity that each man holds. It’s disgusting on its very face.

 

[Lion_IRC]

If that is the case, why doesn’t God disallow slavery the same way he disallows theft in Exodus 22:1-4?

This is called an argument from silence.
Asking why God didn’t say this and why God didn’t do that, is not proof that God approves of every single thing He didn’t specifically designate as sinful.

…If that is the case, why does God call slaves property several times in the Bible?

People called slaves ‘property’ and the bible uses the correct word.
Slavery was a fact of life then as now.
Have you ever purchased anything cheap from Walmart, made by foreign workers who get nothing for their labor except a subsistence wage - just enough to eat?
That’s slavery!
In the ancient world slaves worked or they died of starvation.

… Why does he allow a slave to be beaten to the point where he collapses and dies a day or two after if that is not how he wants slaves to be treated?

Hang on pal. God isn’t the one beating slaves and He isn’t saying that’s how He wants slaves treated. Again, you’re arguing from scripture’s silence and vagueness and claiming…therefore God approves of slavery.

…If that is the case, then why are the following slaves for life:

• Slaves bought from other countries (men, women, and children)
• Female Hebrew slaves that their masters don’t wish to discard
• Hebrew children born into slavery
• Male Hebrew slaves that are willing that submit to blackmail and choose to say with their slave families

Hello!!! Slave ownership isn’t MANDATORY.
Furthermore you seem oblivious to the dire alternative faced by unwanted slaves.

…Where in the Bible does it say slavery is a function of greed or that it is sinful?

Are you pathologically incapable of anything but word-for-word literalism in regard to the meaning of a piece of text?
No, the bible doesn’t say quote : “slavery is a function of greed”
I never claimed that it DID say those exact words in that order.
The bible clearly condemns greed and the love of money - which is the root of all evil.
Now you tell me, are some slave owners greedy?

… I know of no such passages, but if you can find them how do you deal with the contradiction where God says slavery is proper and not sinful?

God does NOT say, quote : “Slavery is proper and not sinful.”
(…See? I can do that too.)

…First the article that you linked to is not free to read. Do you have a different link that covers the same ground?

I didn’t link to one scholarly article. I linked to hundreds. Pick any one you like.
They all cover the principle of “harm minimisation” whereby bad stuff in society, (like drugs) is pragmatically accepted as a fact of life and you try to make the best of a bad situation.

Ancient nations enslaved conquered enemies in wartime. You have thousands/millions of people who are either slaves or dead.

And you wanna cherry pick the bibles’ passing references to the ethics and civic regulation of slave ownership, and turn that into a polemic???

…Second it is not intellectually dishonest to state that the Bible supports slavery. God himself told the Hebrews what to do in obtaining slaves. Leviticus 25:44-46 says:

It is intellectually dishonest to be the only person in a room full of biblical theists who ALL deny your (non-theist) interpretation of their book which they all collectively say does NOT mean what you claim - whilst you, simultaneously, deny every other biblical text that repeatedly denounces greed and theft and clearly advocates treating others the way you want them to treat you.

…Also here’s an analogy similar to one I made earlier in the thread: Let’s assume that there is a place that tells people that if you rape someone on a Wednesday

No! Let’s not “assume” that.
Because it’s false.
That you need to fabricate such an outlandish comparison merely demonstrates that you can’t make your case based on what the bible does say - but instead are clutching at straw arguments based on what the bible DOESNT say.
Counter-apologists use that same type of canard about the biblical view of rape as well. The bible doesn’t condone rape just because it speaks about the legal and social practicalities of how such an act should be dealt with in various cases.

… This is just like in the Bible where God tells people they can buy slaves from other countries, and can’t knock a tooth or an eye, and male Hebrew slaves (in most cases) can’t be kept forever, but otherwise have fun.

More intellectual dishonesty. Nowhere in the bible does it say to slave owners : “have fun”.