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

[lightbeamrider]

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?

Hammuribi has some interesting comparisons.

public.wsu.edu/~brians/world_civ/worldcivreader/world_civ_reader_1/hammurabi.html

195: If a son strike his father, his hands shall be [cut] off. (4)

196: If a [noble-]man put out the eye of another [noble-]man, his eye shall be put out. (5)

197: If he break another [noble-]man’s bone, his bone shall be broken.

198: If he put out the eye of a [commoner], or break the bone of a [commoner], he shall pay one [silver] mina.

199: If he put out the eye of a man’s slave, or break the bone of a man’s slave, he shall pay one-half of its value.

200: If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out.

201: If he knock out the teeth of a [commoner], he shall pay one-third of a [silver] mina.

history.com/news/history-lists/8-things-you-may-not-know-about-hammurabis-code

For crimes that could not be proven or disproven with hard evidence (such as claims of sorcery), the Code allowed for a “trial by ordeal”—an unusual practice where the accused was placed in a potentially deadly situation as a way of determining innocence. The Code notes that if an accused man jumps into the river and drowns, his accuser “shall take possession of his house.” However, if the gods spared the man and allowed him to escape unhurt, the accuser would be executed, and the man who jumped in the river would receive his house.

132: If the “finger is pointed” at a man’s wife about another man, but she is not caught sleeping with the other man, she shall jump into the river for [the sake of her] husband. (2)

 

[StGerardMajella]

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

You’re grossly misinterpreting the Hebrew meaning, my friend. Setting free slaves at the 7th year is granting freedom, which is a good thing. Here is the text for Exodus 21:3 according to the Masoretic text:

“If he (i.e., the slave) shall arrive by himself, he shall leave by himself; if he is the husband of a woman, his wife shall leave with him.”

The term “by himself” means unmarried. If he was single when placed into slavery, he may not be imposed to live with a non-Jewish maidservant. Only a slave already married to a Jewish woman who was being put into slavery for theft can be forced to live with a non-Jewish maidservant.

At the seventh year, the Jewish slave will be unlikely to want to stay with his non-Jewish maidservant, and will prefer to return with his Jewish wife and children. There is no hardship here. And again, as above, this is an already married Jewish slave who is a temporary slave for 6 years because he was caught stealing.

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).

The whole point of the “awl to the ear” quote is to encourage the slave to choose freedom. Read the Jewish Sages. They all agree, despite your opinion to the contrary.

This is also found in Deuteronomy 15:14, where the master is admonished to provide the newly freed slave with wine, food, etc. - to not send out the slave “empty-handed”.

Before the “awl to the ear” situation even occurs, the slave and master must go to the court, and the court will work to persuade the slave to choose freedom.

And, yes, the master was supposed to provide food, clothing, and money to the newly freed Jewish slave to encourage them in their newly found freedom.

It is the children of a married Jewish slave and a non-Jewish maidservant that remain the property of the master.

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.

Good grief. See above. With all due respect, you need to read a good Jewish commentary to understand these passages correctly.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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.

And as I’ve explained a few times now, God laid out rules on how to own slaves. He specifically told the Hebrews how to purchase slaves from neighboring countries. He told them with these acts they were to be treated as property. He said manslaughtering a slave in most cases comes with no penalty. What level of cognitive dissonance is required to say that he didn’t approve of it.

To further correct you, you misuse the term “argument from silence”. It is when someone doesn’t mention something – ergo, silence – and so we can not gauge that someone’s opinion on that something. God is far from silent on the matter of slavery. His approval is plain to see.

People called slaves ‘property’ and the bible uses the correct word.
Slavery was a fact of life then as now.

Let me stop you there for a second. I’ve asked this question numerous times on this thread and not gotten a straight answer yet. I’ll ask again: Why do people feel that God was bound to take into account the actions of other cultures regarding slavery when he made numerous restrictions to the Jews that were unique to his people? Are we to ignore what God said in Leviticus 20:23 “Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them.”?

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.

Wage slavery is an awful thing, I agree, but for someone who keeps throwing around the term “intellectual dishonesty” you’re doing just that by equivocating that with slavery as described in the Bible. Wage slavery comes in different ways, whether it be collusion among business owners, a workforce that greatly exceeds the number of jobs available, etc. But we’re talking about God here, allegedly omni-benevolent. He tells masters that they can beat their slaves (both as God the father and Jesus). He says they can have relations with the daughters sold to them. Indentured servitude was a real thing and did not involve the cruelty that God lays out as not requiring punishment.

Also the fact that the Bible mentions multiple times about slaves running away shows that A) it’s a false dichotomy that the options were either to be slaves or die of starvation, and B) that given the choice some slaves were willing to take that risk over slavery. It’s just God rarely allowed such choices to be made.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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.

Again, I’m confused how you use the word silent to mean something that person speaks about. The scripture is quite clear that if the slave is beaten but doesn’t die the same day then there is no punishment. Who decides what is good or bad in that passage? God! Who makes the rules as to what deserves punishment? God! It’s not an argument from silence but an argument from it’s-right-there-in-black-and-white-from-the-horse’s-mouth.

…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.

Is this a strawman I see before me? You’re responding to my question regarding how only a small fraction of slaves were not slaves for life by noting that slave ownership wasn’t mandatory. Do you see how those two are not related to each other? Slave ownership wasn’t mandatory (which I agree with and NEVER said otherwise), but my concern is that for a majority of the slaves slave-being WAS mandatory. Except for those male Hebrew slaves who would sell their services for 6 years (often out of need) the other slaves that I mentioned were forced to be slaves.

And let’s not forget that my quote above was in response to your line “The bible says it is wrong to deny a person payment for their labor.” For those that wouldn’t be leaving on the 7th year maybe the payment to them was enough food to work to the bone six days a year, a promise not to knock out any eyes, a conjugal visit to birth some more slave labor, and on the seventh day words of hope that an all-loving deity was there would deal with their plight thousands of years later after dealing with bigger problems like mixing meat and dairy.

Furthermore you seem oblivious to the dire alternative faced by unwanted slaves.

As I mentioned just above the Bible notes that slaves would escape, showing that for some there was a third option and they were willing to risk their lives to take it.

…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.

Read what I wrote again. I at no point asked for a passage that said those words verbatim. I asked where God said not to own slaves as it was sinful. I asked where slavery derived from greed. I’d be interested in a passage number that even hinted at a connection between the general practice of slavery and sin or the general practice of slavery and greed. You don’t even have to quote the whole thing. Just book, chapter, and verse and I’ll look it up myself.

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?

Yes. Let’s break down your argument:

1. The Bible condemns greed and the love of money.
2. Some slave owners are greedy.
   Conclusion) Slavery is a function of greed and God disapproved of slavery.

~or~

1. The Bible condemns greed and the love of money.
2. Some farmers are greedy.
   Conclusion) Farming is a function of greed and God disapproved of farming.

You might need a few more parts to your argument.

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

Again, I didn’t ask for a verbatim quote, just a passage that a person could reasonably infer God was against slavery. When a prosecutor asks a man accused of murder why he told his friend to a put a hit on his wife, it’s clear to everyone that he’s not asking the accused why he said to his friend the exact words, “Put a hit out on my wife.”

With that understanding in place (I hope), please tell me how to resolve the contradiction between what the Bible clearly states about God approving of slavery and your claim that he was completely against it.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I didn’t link to one scholarly article. I linked to hundreds.

Yep, that’s my fault. A majority of the articles on that first page require payment but I did find a few that didn’t. So I did a little research at your behest and my understanding is that the policy favors decriminalization of drug use while at the same time working hard to bolster drug programs to assist those looking to cease being substance abusers.

You mentioned above that saying the Bible supports slavery is like saying that “harm minimilization” supports drug use. The two are not analagous. First, drug use is self-imposed unlike slavery. Sure drug use has its peer pressure but not quite on the level of a father selling his daughter, a slave being bought from another nation, or being born into it. Second, slavery is not an addiction. When the Hebrews got the Exodus conversation they had no slaves and had just escaped slavery themselves. They didn’t have to be weened off of slavery. Third, harm minimization comes from the fact that drug use is a real issue and it suggests that might be the best way to quell a problem that is essentially beyond the government’s control. God does not have to deal with a slavery problem. In fact, he introduces it only for it to be unlawful millennia later. Unlike the government God is not powerless. As I’ve noted again and again he made all sorts of rules both major and minor and demanded that they be followed. I’m not asking for God to have intervened supernaturally, just not saying how to buy, trade, and beat slaves. But as always God’s impotence against action rears its head the more uncomfortable the part of the Bible we’re in.

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

Yes, and as I’ve noted and as you’ve ignored slaves were also bought from other nations not due to war with the Hebrews. Your defense ignores those slaves as well as those young girls bought into slavery, those born into it, and those blackmailed to remain in it.

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

I’m not sure why you think people can’t be disgusted by slavery. I’m more alarmed when people in the 21st century treat it like it’s no big thing.

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.

I’m saying there’s a contradiction. Whenever the Biblical slavery issue comes up there will always be those that say to look at all the times God (usually in the form of his son) says to be nice to each other. Don’t look at the MANY paasages with advocate cruelty especially with regards to slavery!! It’s not fair to point those passages out because they don’t have the nice soft messages that these wonderful passages over HERE have. In some ways it’s not a contradiction because God doesn’t see slavery as theft. Stealing another man’s ox is theft, but not forcing someone to be a slave from birth.

Christianity is just like Islam in that way. If you look at surahs that say to be nice (like 2:256 which says, “There is no compulsion in religion.”) there is no problem. If you pull up contradictory surahs (like 4:89 which says, “They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve … take them and kill them wherever ye find them.”) and suddenly there are cries of intellectal dishonesty and “You’re taking it off context” and “Non-Muslims can not accurately interpret the Quran.”

No! Let’s not “assume” that.
Because it’s false.

The fact that you’re disgusted by my analogy is a good sign and maybe you can judge how outsiders see it when people try to defend slavery. It’s too bad you wont look at the matter further, because I made a very excellent point.

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.

I’ve already used the Bible to make my case, it’s just no one seems capable of addressing those question I keep asking every single post. And you may find it outlandish but my comparison makes sense, it’s just that you’ve managed to convince yourself that allowed slavery wasn’t nearly as bad as allowed rape.

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.

That doesn’t fly. The Bible says rape of a Hebrew woman is bad, and the things non-Christians point out about it is the penalty involved which ends up punishing the victim a second time over. In no way does the Bible says slavery is bad.

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

You’re right that it doesn’t say those words. What it does say is that one can own and beat and rape slaves without concern for any blemishes on their moral character. Play with them and do as you wish, just make sure you let them be on Saturdays.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

StGerardMajella, why does your entire response focus on Exodus 21:2-3 and completely ignore Exodus 21:4-5?

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.

5“But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6then his master must take him before the judges.a He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

Only a slave already married to a Jewish woman who was being put into slavery for theft can be forced to live with a non-Jewish maidservant.

I at no point said that the slave who was being freed was or should be forced to remain with his wife and children (if he got them during his six years). What I said was that it was blackmail.

Do you understand how blackmail works? Person A either threatens to do something to person B or has something that person B can not part with. Person A takes advantage of the fear or love of person B and makes a bargain (in most cases a Hobbesian Choice) to get person B to do something he does not want to do.

In the scenario laid out in Exodus 21:4-5 a man is to be freed but loves his wife and children. The initial agreement between the man and the slave holder was to release him on the 7th year, but holds the man’s loved ones as a way to extend his service permanently. That is textbook blackmail. You know who forces a man to give up his freedom for his family? A sociopath. A God-approved sociopath. God couldn’t even tell the slaveholder to release any wife or children when the man made his 7th year. Instead the man not only has to submit to the blackmail but take an awl to the ear as thanks.

You were trying to spin this scenario very plainly described in the Bible as noble. Do you still believe so?

 

[Lion_IRC]

…as I’ve explained a few times now, God laid out rules on how to own slaves.

I dont need that explained. It’s a factual assertion not in dispute. (IOW - yes, I have read the bible.)

…He specifically told the Hebrews how to purchase slaves from neighboring countries. He told them with these acts they were to be treated as property. He said manslaughtering a slave in most cases comes with no penalty. What level of cognitive dissonance is required to say that he didn’t approve of it.

Right back at you! I argue that you are the one ignoring the overwhelming volume of text which weighs against slavery.
Do you just not accept my explanation that, whereas God would certainly desire that we not steal or under pay people for their labor, nonetheless He lays out apodictic AND juridic regulations on various social matters and that not all of these amount to “support for slavery”.
It seems you are doing the equivalent of folks who take words like…“who am I to judge” and try to infer that God approves of homosexuality/adultery.

…To further correct you, you misuse the term “argument from silence”. It is when someone doesn’t mention something – ergo, silence – and so we can not gauge that someone’s opinion on that something.

No, you were asking for scripture where God says slavery is a function of greed or that it is sinful and using the lack thereof as an argument from silence.

…God is far from silent on the matter of slavery. His approval is plain to see.

Plain to see for whom? Abraham Lincoln?

…Let me stop you there for a second. I’ve asked this question numerous times on this thread and not gotten a straight answer yet. I’ll ask again: Why do people feel that God was bound to take into account the actions of other cultures regarding slavery when he made numerous restrictions to the Jews that were unique to his people?

Reading that question, I can understand why it may not have yet been answered in a way you want.
“Why do people feel that God was bound to …”
a) God isnt ‘bound’ to do anything.
b) People may not ‘feel’ that He is either.

…Are we to ignore what God said in Leviticus 20:23 “Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them.”?

No. All scripture is profitable. I dont ignore any of it.

…Wage slavery is an awful thing, I agree, but for someone who keeps throwing around the term “intellectual dishonesty” you’re doing just that by equivocating that with slavery as described in the Bible.

I think it is a very accurate comparison and I use it quite deliberately.
Hence, no dishonesty can be inferred.

…Wage slavery comes in different ways, whether it be collusion among business owners, a workforce that greatly exceeds the number of jobs available, etc.

Whats the difference between work or starve in Bangladesh and work or starve in ancient Israel?
What accusation would you make against God if He said to the Israelites, do not have any slave at any time…even if it means slaves have no food and nowhere to live?

…But we’re talking about God here, allegedly omni-benevolent.

Yes, and omniscient.
So when He uses the correct word "slave’ in the bible, to mean the same thing which people at that time understood as a matter of fact, He does so in a pragmatic way – not in an enthusiastic, go-for-it, endorsement of slavery.

…He tells masters that they can beat their slaves (both as God the father and Jesus). He says they can have relations with the daughters sold to them. Indentured servitude was a real thing and did not involve the cruelty that God lays out as not requiring punishment.

Again, why can you not see that Israelite slave owners were ALSO bound to the higher, more emphatic Torah admonitions about helping those in need, both in physical need and financial need, about honesty, about our fellow humans being in God’s likeness.

…Also the fact that the Bible mentions multiple times about slaves running away shows that A) it’s a false dichotomy that the options were either to be slaves or die of starvation…

Well, what are you complaining about?
The fact that slaves DIDN’T run away indicates that in so many cases, they realized the dire alternative. This bears out my earlier point about what would happen to those unwanted slaves if they had no food or housing.

 

[lightbeamrider]

Yep, that’s my fault. A majority of the articles on that first page require payment but I did find a few that didn’t. So I did a little research at your behest and my understanding is that the policy favors decriminalization of drug use while at the same time working hard to bolster drug programs to assist those looking to cease being substance abusers.

You mentioned above that saying the Bible supports slavery is like saying that “harm minimilization” supports drug use. The two are not analagous. First, drug use is self-imposed unlike slavery.

Wrong. Read the Gibeonite deception in Judges 9-10.
bible.com/bible/463/jos.9.nabre
They self imposed by deception to avoid death. Joshua is then compelled to march all night to save Gibeon since the others nations considered Gibeonites traitors and went on the attack. Joshua did not have to do anything. He could have sat back and let the pagan nations destroy Gibeon and attack afterwards. Joshua did not owe Gibeon anything.

Slavery was an act of mercy in the Old. The two are analogous. Hebrew regulation far less strict then other forms in the ancient world. Had the Sabbath off, religious holidays, every seven years the ground went fallow. They could convert which would have brought about an elevation in status. Marriage for non Hebrew females meant an elevation in status. Quoting from Exodus assumes the Exodus actually happened? If so you are the only atheist i know who views the Exodus as history. Or is slave regulation treated as real and the Exodus as fiction? All of these you ignore. Also ignored is Hammaurbi.

Contempt for God depicted does not validate atheism. God could exist even if you do not like Him.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Right back at you! I argue that you are the one ignoring the overwhelming volume of text which weighs against slavery.
Do you just not accept my explanation that, whereas God would certainly desire that we not steal or under pay people for their labor, nonetheless He lays out apodictic AND juridic regulations on various social matters and that not all of these amount to “support for slavery”.
It seems you are doing the equivalent of folks who take words like…“who am I to judge” and try to infer that God approves of homosexuality/adultery.

You claim to know a lot about what I think, but a reading of the Bible clearly shows that God does not approve of homosexuality and adultery. In fact, I have to take issue with those who are trying to put a positive spin and try to square homosexuality with Christianity. They so desperately want to stay within their Christianity while at the same time suggest that the Bible doesn’t mean what it says about homosexuals. Usually this entails stating that those uncomfortable passages are not to be taken literally, or that the position on homosexuals was taking into account that of the people at the time but is no longer in effect. They’ll twist word meanings if it suits their ends. Hey, that sounds like Christians trying to whitewash God’s position on slavery! Well, look at that.

No, you were asking for scripture where God says slavery is a function of greed or that it is sinful and using the lack thereof as an argument from silence.

Incorrect. I asked you to back up the assertion that you made that God was against slavery because God is against greed. You said that and as such it is your job now that demonstrate why you’ve made said assertion.

Do you know what is an example of an actual argument from silence would be: Stating that God is against genetically modified foods. God has no opinion on the matter as far as I can tell, and yet there are a small handful of people who indicate God is against them. That differs from my saying that God is silent on the idea of slavery. He speaks quite a bit about it, all in favor. That is not silence.

You never did answer the question that indicates the idea that slavery was a function of greed, just complained about my phrasing, so I’ll ask again: What can we read that demonstrates that God felt that slavery was a function of greed. If the connection between the two concept is direct, then show me where I can look. If the connection between the two concepts is indirect, then please connect the dots in a logical manner. Remember, the best argument you’ve given to connect those concepts is to say that some slave owners were greedy, and I showed how that argument fails miserably. Do you have a better argument on hand?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

…God is far from silent on the matter of slavery. His approval is plain to see.

Plain to see for whom? Abraham Lincoln?

Thank goodness for Abraham Lincoln. He didn’t care that there were people pointing at their Bibles and shouting that God said they could own slaves. He didn’t rely on the morality of those holding the whips and chains.

Reading that question, I can understand why it may not have yet been answered in a way you want.
“Why do people feel that God was bound to …”
a) God isnt ‘bound’ to do anything.
b) People may not ‘feel’ that He is either.

So you understand the gist of my question, yet you are doing everything in your power to not answer it. It’s another instance where you reply to me about not liking how I phrased the question so as to brush it aside without a true response.

…Are we to ignore what God said in Leviticus 20:23 “Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them.”?

No. All scripture is profitable. I dont ignore any of it.

And once again you are given the opportunity to answer a straightforward question and refuse to do so. God says to ignore the customs of other nations. How does that square with the rationalization that he did just that in allowing slavery?

Whats the difference between work or starve in Bangladesh and work or starve in ancient Israel?
What accusation would you make against God if He said to the Israelites, do not have any slave at any time…even if it means slaves have no food and nowhere to live?

Ah, it’s the old joke abput a child killing his parents and then begging the court for leniency since he is an orphan. If God didn’t tell his people to buy slaves from other nations, then those slaves wouldn’t be in the perdicament of staying with their masters or trying to make a new life in a foreign land (or more likely trying to make it back to the land from which they were bought).

Yes, and omniscient.

Don’t forget monstrous!

So when He uses the correct word "slave’ in the bible, to mean the same thing which people at that time understood as a matter of fact, He does so in a pragmatic way – not in an enthusiastic, go-for-it, endorsement of slavery.

So when he tells his people to purchase slaves from other nations he’s not doing it in a go-for-it kind of way? When he tells his people that they can blackmail male Hebrew slaves to stay in order to be with their families this is done out of pragamatism (as opposed to letting those families go along with the slave to be released)? Please back up your assertions.

Again, why can you not see that Israelite slave owners were ALSO bound to the higher, more emphatic Torah admonitions about helping those in need, both in physical need and financial need, about honesty, about our fellow humans being in God’s likeness.

Because it rings so incredibly hollow, and the words of God are contradictory to say the least. You can’t keep fixating on the times when God says to be nice while at the same time treating the passages like those in Exodus 21 as though they aren’t there or don’t mean what they clearly mean. It would be like forgiving Ariel Castro for his kidnappings because he was nice to his captives every once in while. Remove head from sand and it’s easier to see the truth.

Well, what are you complaining about?
The fact that slaves DIDN’T run away indicates that in so many cases, they realized the dire alternative. This bears out my earlier point about what would happen to those unwanted slaves if they had no food or housing.

Isn’t it likely that some of those slaves didn’t run away for fear of getting caught (and the punishment that it entailed)? We know this is true for slaves in America. To ignore the fear of violence (and in the case of female slaves, rape) that could be doled out at will by slaveholder leaves your argument in the same state as your other arguments so far.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Wrong. Read the Gibeonite deception in Judges 9-10.
bible.com/bible/463/jos.9.nabre
They self imposed by deception to avoid death. Joshua is then compelled to march all night to save Gibeon since the others nations considered Gibeonites traitors and went on the attack. Joshua did not have to do anything. He could have sat back and let the pagan nations destroy Gibeon and attack afterwards. Joshua did not owe Gibeon anything.

“Hey, look at that guy playing golf.”
“So that’s what golf is. Now I know that all golfers are old white men with gray hair.”
“No, golfers can be man or woman, young or old, and any color hair.”
“But you pointed to him and said he was a golfer.”
“Yes, but he is but one example of a golfer. We don’t take a single example and formulate everything about a group by that single example.”
“Aaaah, now I know.”
“And knowing is half the battle!”

You gave me one example (of dubious veracity) to show how in that case slavery was a choice. And as I’ve pointed out so many times, slaves in the Bible could become slaves in many different ways – including from birth or purchased from other nations. Why focus on this tale and not on the plight of those who were thrust into slavery?

Slavery was an act of mercy in the Old. The two are analogous. Hebrew regulation far less strict then other forms in the ancient world. Had the Sabbath off, religious holidays, every seven years the ground went fallow. They could convert which would have brought about an elevation in status. Marriage for non Hebrew females meant an elevation in status.

I knew we’d get some moral relativism eventually. You do know that the Church speaks out against it, right? An omni-benevolent god would be able to tell his people to not be cruel at all, but you’re just so happy that he told the Hebrews to be a little less cruel. You mentioned days off, that’s just like my analogy earlier about a place that would allow rape, just not on Wednesdays. Would we be happy if a place did that when compared to another place that allowed it seven days a week? Also how can you honestly say that slavery was an act of mercy when it allowed for slaves to be beaten, manslaughtered and raped? Again, moral relativism is at play.

Quoting from Exodus assumes the Exodus actually happened? If so you are the only atheist i know who views the Exodus as history. Or is slave regulation treated as real and the Exodus as fiction?

I don’t see Exodus as history. The problem is believers who did and do believe it is history and did acts based on that belief. The Hebrews living in Israel belived it was real. They believed their God told them those things and owned slaves accordingly. People down through the years believed Exodus was true and used that to show that owning and beating slaves was moral.

I don’t quote from Exodus because I believe it. I quote it because there are too many people today who call evil as good because they do, and it’s important for me that I don’t let those people get away with handwaving and downplaying one of the greatest examples of inhumanity towards man because it makes some believers feel uncomfortable.

Also ignored is Hammaurbi.

Again, moral relativism.

Contempt for God depicted does not validate atheism. God could exist even if you do not like Him.

Both are true. But I don’t show my contempt for the character called God because I want to validate my atheism. I show my contempt for this character because of his utterly contempable endorsement of slavery.

 

[Lion_IRC]

…Hey, that sounds like Christians trying to whitewash God’s position on slavery! Well, look at that.

Touché.
But you help me make my point nonetheless because atheists can twist scripture too.

Lion IRC;12790975:

No, you were asking for scripture where God says slavery is a function of greed or that it is sinful and using the lack thereof as an argument from silence.

…Incorrect. I asked you to back up the assertion that you made that God was against slavery because God is against greed. You said that and as such it is your job now that demonstrate why you’ve made said assertion.

Well, pardon me for linking slavery with human greed.

OK. So you presumably think that, (according to your reading of the bible,) God doesnt share that view.

I argue that He does, but that because slavery was a practical reality He acknowledged it by way of juridic laws and regulations which were designed to ‘manage’ the problem in a harm minimization fashion rather than giving an immediate, all-encompassing command prohibiting any/all forms of slavery/servitude - which would have meant that Hebrews could neither sell themselves into slavery, nor take part in the practice of slave ownership. This would NOT have made one iota of difference to the institution of slavery elsewhere in every other pagan country of biblical antiquity. (IMHO)
Thus, the only people not owning (caring for) slaves, had that been the case, would have been those ancient Hebrews with their biblical ethics about the sacred worth of human life.

… Do you know what is an example of an actual argument from silence would be: Stating that God is against genetically modified foods. God has no opinion on the matter as far as I can tell and yet there are a small handful of people who indicate God is against them. That differs from my saying that God is silent on the idea of slavery. He speaks quite a bit about it, all in favor. That is not silence.

I’m afraid I disagree and see no hope for persuasion in either dierction on this matter.
You claim that God doesnt speak emphatically against slavery and that His slavery regulations amount to approval of the practice.
I say that if God was on the side of slave owners He wouldnt impose ANY regulations on how slaves ought to be treated. Moreover, I dont seem to be able to make any headway with you insofar as my claim that God-fearing, Torah-observant Israelites (who happened to own slaves) would have balanced their treatment of those people in light of scripture which you seem to think is irrelevant to slavery.

…You never did answer the question that indicates the idea that slavery was a function of greed, just complained about my phrasing, so I’ll ask again: What can we read that demonstrates that God felt that slavery was a function of greed. If the connection between the two concept is direct, then show me where I can look. If the connection between the two concepts is indirect, then please connect the dots in a logical manner.

I cant really ‘complain’ about your phrasing. I just find it problematic because, if slavery as it was in the time of the bible, really was totally and completely immoral and the moral equivalent of stealing a persons labor without payment, then it really would amount to pure greed and sin.
And you, ironically, are arguing that God didnt perceive this and neither did the Israelites - well the ones who owned slaves.
Isnt it more likely that, in the historical context, what they called ‘slavery’ in many/most cases did have some mutual benefit between slave and slave owner? And that to the extent that God “supported” it as you say, the practice wasnt always done for pure greed?

…Remember, the best argument you’ve given to connect those concepts is to say that some slave owners were greedy, and I showed how that argument fails miserably. Do you have a better argument on hand?

If you have two groups of slave owners;

• one that is driven by greed (the love of money)
• and another that views slavery as an unfortunate reality - a necessary evil - but better than the alternative
  …can you not see that God might view those two differently?

 

[Lion_IRC]

I wish I had more time to chat.
:juggle:

 

[StGerardMajella]

StGerardMajella, why does your entire response focus on Exodus 21:2-3 and completely ignore Exodus 21:4-5?

Re-read my response. I already addressed this part of Exodus in quite a bit of detail. The “awl in the ear” passage never happens because the slave is convinced to take up freedom. He is persuaded by both his master, and the court system.

The slave is not “blackmailed”. See below.

In the scenario laid out in Exodus 21:4-5 a man is to be freed but loves his wife and children. The initial agreement between the man and the slave holder was to release him on the 7th year, but holds the man’s loved ones as a way to extend his service permanently. That is textbook blackmail.

Again, you are taking the text completely out of context. Nowhere does the text make any inference that the Jewish slave loves this second, non-Jewish wife. You are placing your own values and interpretation into the text.

First, the Jewish slave is already married to a Jewish wife. The “wife” you are referring to here is a second, non-Jewish wife, of which the Jewish slave has little to no affection.

The Jewish slave has no attachments to the non-Jewish wife, and any offspring as a result of this arrangement become the property of the master. The Jewish slave is, however, affectionate and attached to his first wife, who is Jewish. At the seventh year, the Jewish slave returns to his Jewish wife - the first one, not the second (non-Jewish) wife from when he was a slave.

There is no hardship here for the Jewish slave in this case. And this case is also highly rare and unusual in another sense - This particular instance is only for a Jewish slave who was caught stealing. And the Jewish slave has to already be married. These conditions are not imposed on Jewish slaves that were single, unmarried.

The whole point here is that you have to read the Jewish commentaries from the Jewish Sages to better understand the context and meaning. You cannot read these passages in a silo.

You have to remember that the whole story of Exodus and the Torah itself is about freedom. Why the seventh year? It refers back to the Sabbath - the seventh day of complete rest from labor. The same goes with slavery - In this case, we see the Creator outlining laws of slavery for the Jewish people - His Chosen People - that incorporates this concept of liberation and freedom.

In all seriousness, pick up a copy of the Art Scroll Stone Edition of the Chumash, which gives a cursory commentary on these topics in both Hebrew and English. I think once you delve into this topic further, you will actually find much that is positive in these discussions about this particular topic.

 

[lightbeamrider]

You gave me one example (of dubious veracity) to show how in that case slavery was a choice. And as I’ve pointed out so many times, slaves in the Bible could become slaves in many different ways – including from birth or purchased from other nations. Why focus on this tale and not on the plight of those who were thrust into slavery?

How convenient, now it is a tale as is Exodus and slave regulation is treated as real. One example is all i needed given your statement.

First, drug use is self-imposed unlike slavery.

Which presupposes all were forced into slavery. If that is the case then you need to prove it. You don’t know how many were forced or how many saw it as a valid option given their circumstances. Also ignored is the fact Joshua rescues Gibeon when he really did not have to. Why? Because they were under his care and he did the right thing. You fixate on certain points and ignore everything else and anybody can tell you that is not proper hermeneutics. Anyone can select quote from Scripture to justify anything. It is called eisegesis or reading bias into scripture. Agenda reading.

I knew we’d get some moral relativism eventually. You do know that the Church speaks out against it, right? An omni-benevolent god would be able to tell his people to not be cruel at all,

He did. Another poster pointed out Job 31:13-15, which presupposes accountability to God for how we treat others. Proper use of authority. All this was ignored. Church people opposed and supported slavery based on the bible in America. There were legal arguments for and against.

but you’re just so happy that he told the Hebrews to be a little less cruel.

I would say going down and rescuing Gibeon was generous given the situation as a whole. Not a little less cruel.

You mentioned days off, that’s just like my analogy earlier about a place that would allow rape, just not on Wednesdays.

Rape was illegal in those days, slavery was legal.

Also how can you honestly say that slavery was an act of mercy when it allowed for slaves to be beaten, manslaughtered and raped? Again, moral relativism is at play.

Corporal punishment common for both slaves and non slaves. They even have it today. It was not practical for the ancients. Abuse meant revolt. I don’t know why you are addressing manslaughter and rape. Those type of things could happen under the Romans and the Greeks where slaves had zero rights. Not ancient Israel. Slaves in Rome could be killed at any time by their owners. With females and young boys it could be sex on demand. But you are not interested in that, are you.

I don’t see Exodus as history.

Yet treat slave regulation in Exodus as real. How convenient.
.

I don’t quote from Exodus because I believe it. I quote it because there are too many people today who call evil as good because they do, and it’s important for me that I don’t let those people get away with handwaving and downplaying one of the greatest examples of inhumanity towards man because it makes some believers feel uncomfortable.

Right you are the moral authority. Atheists now the moral authorities folks.

Both are true. But I don’t show my contempt for the character called God because I want to validate my atheism. I show my contempt for this character because of his utterly contempable endorsement of slavery.

Men brought slavery on themselves as others and myself have already told you and you ignored. The practice was regulated for the benefit of the slave.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion IRC:

Mike from NJ:

…Let me stop you there for a second. I’ve asked this question numerous times on this thread and not gotten a straight answer yet. I’ll ask again: Why do people feel that God was bound to take into account the actions of other cultures regarding slavery when he made numerous restrictions to the Jews that were unique to his people?

Reading that question, I can understand why it may not have yet been answered in a way you want.
“Why do people feel that God was bound to …”
a) God isnt ‘bound’ to do anything.
b) People may not ‘feel’ that He is either.

So you understand the gist of my question, yet you are doing everything in your power to not answer it. It’s another instance where you reply to me about not liking how I phrased the question so as to brush it aside without a true response.

And once again you are given the opportunity to answer a straightforward question and refuse to do so. God says to ignore the customs of other nations. How does that square with the rationalization that he did just that in allowing slavery?

OK
Let’s hash this awkwardly-worded question out once and for all before we carry on.

“Why do people feel that God was bound to take into account the actions of other cultures regarding slavery when he made numerous restrictions to the Jews that were unique to his people?”

Assuming that (some) people DO mistakenly feel that God is ‘bound’ to do anything,
(or certain things,)
and assuming that He actually is in fact ‘bound’ as you say to do that particular thing,
and assuming that He DID take into account the cultural zeitgeist of surrounding gentile nations,
and assuming that whatever it was that He eventually took into account was significant in His formation of those rules,
…my best guess as to why they think that is because they believe God is Lord of all nations and God doesn’t act or think in a vacuum. They probably believe God understood human nature more broadly than just myopically focusing on the Israelites.

Remember, the Old Testament speaks of other nations - in many cases - as the sons of Ham, (Egypt) the Ishmaelites, the Moabites (descendants of Lot), etc. And this reflects the fact that Israels’ neighbors were not biblically irrelevant and unrelated, but were intrinsically a part of a bigger narrative picture as far as God’s thinking.

 

[clem456]

…
Both are true. But I don’t show my contempt for the character called God because I want to validate my atheism. I show my contempt for this character because of his utterly contempable endorsement of slavery.

God does not endorse slavery.
And before you proffer your fundamentalist assertion “it says so right there in the bible”, please educate yourself on how the Catholic Church reads scripture. There were several posts which referred you to material, but here we are making the same arguments days later. What is there to discuss if you don’t understand those you want to disagree with?

Your reading of scripture is fudamentalist (I just find that odd in a somewhat humorous way). It allows for no reading that contradicts your own literalist reading, hence we go round and round in circles.

 

[lightbeamrider]

Both are true. But I don’t show my contempt for the character called God because I want to validate my atheism. I show my contempt for this character because of his utterly contempable endorsement of slavery.

Your contempt for God prevents you from looking at it dispassionately and as a whole. God liberated the Israelites from cruel Egyptian slavery. That means God does not endorse cruel types. It is not all that hard to understand if even in theory. Joseph is sold into slavery by his brothers and ends up saving many from the consequences of famine including his family. There is reconciliation with his family. The bible God works within the fallen system to bring about results.

You have it backwards. Your contempt for God drives you to interpret Scripture in a manner which vilifies God. Your methods employed is no different than taking a few verses out of the Old to justify killing so called witches. Really, the only ones who agree with your warped interpretations are like minded atheists and rabid KKKers who you are in bed with. Both you and them believe the Bible God endorses slavery.

The abuse of a thing does not invalidate its legit use. Proper hermeneutics is not invalided by abusive agenda driven conclusions. Nobody here believes in a God which endorses slavery, force rape or manslaughter. These claims are outrageous. Slavery, force rape and manslaughter are the results of man going it alone apart from God. That means they are the result of practical atheism which assumes no accountability to God and can treat others any way they like. Pharaoh was a practical atheist relative to God depicted in the Bible. He assumed he had all power and could do what he wanted with no consequences. He did not look out for the best interest of those Hebrews under his care. Nor did he look out for the best interest of the Egyptians making them complicit in the crime of infant murder. Joshua did look out for the best interest of Gibeon. Even if it meant marching all night to do battle against five kings. Who wants to march all night to do battle in the morning against a formidable foe when one really does not have to?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Hey, just a quick note: As more people chime in on the thread and as the word count keeps growing ever larger it’s going to take me longer than before to respond back. Please bear with me.

Hugs and kisses.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Hey, just a quick note: As more people chime in on the thread and as the word count keeps growing ever larger it’s going to take me longer than before to respond back. Please bear with me.

Hugs and kisses.

:tiphat:
No stress.

I know what it’s like to be on a forum where you feel like you’re playing tennis with 10 opponents.