Looking for passges to justify Abraham having a slave

[Mike_from_NJ]

There are two distinct times when Moses came down with tablets. The laws pertaining to slavery were spelled out before Moses came down from the mountain the second time with the second set of tablets (Deut 10). Exodus 20-23 concerns the episode prior to the second set of tablets being brought down to the people.

They were spelled out before Moses came up the first time to get the first set of tablets.

Also it’s important to note that God allowed the Jews to have slaves in Exodus 12:44, back when they themselves were slaves. I’m assuming they didn’t have slaves at the time but was referring to future times when they would have slaves.

The first time Moses came with the “pristine” set of Ten Commandments (Deut 9) which were the definitive set of laws. Given that the people had rebelled (golden calf incident) and Moses in anger broke the tablets, he was commanded by God to spell of the “terms” of the covenant. The minimal ‘rules’ which formed a kind of baseline in terms of behaviour. These were not prescriptive but proscriptive in nature - a kind of limit to what the people were “permitted” to do rather than what they ought positively to do. Moses speaks of making the second set of tablets in Deuteronomy 10.

Yes, but nowhere in Deuteronomy 10 does it indicate the commands were somehow less pristine in the second set.
In Exodus 34:1, God says he will write the same words on the second set of tablets as he did on the first. He didn’t say similar or pretty close, but same.

I trimmed off your quote regarding the three types of laws for two reasons. One, I’ve already shown that both sets of tablets were the same. Two, it’s moot to our discussion of slavery. A leader can speak in different ways and forms. Imagine if the president of the United States said in some way that he wanted to repeal child abuse laws. He can say it in an interview. He can say it in the State of the Union address. He can say it by signing a law to do so. He can say it in a private conversation. No matter how he says it the words are forever on him. He has to take ownership of that position and if need be defend it, especially if many would consider such a position of evil.

Where does God defend owning slaves? In which of the three types of laws that you mentioned does God say that he’s allowing slaves and the horrible treatment of them either for us or because of our failings?

I asked several pertinent questions regarding God allowing slaves in my earlier post to you, and I’ll ask them again:

1. 
   *]Where is there condemnation of slavery in the Bible similar to that of divorce?
   *]What is the bright line that separates laws God gave because they are good and laws God gave because compromise was needed? It’s not placement in the Bible because the laws regarding slavery in Exodus 21 through 23 are interspersed with basic tort law.
   *]What greater wrongs would have occurred had slavery been outright forbidden by God?
   *]With slavery forbidden now, are those wrongs occurring now?
   *]If so, would it be better if we once again allowed and encouraged slavery?
   *]How does one properly exercise their free will in serving God if it requires them to do the exact opposite of what he asks of us?
   
   I’ll also add:
   • Besides divorce and slavery, what other compromises did God make in the law given to man?
   • Do you believe divorce is equally as wretched as slavery?

   The gist of the story is that the people were unable to live up to the expectations of God (first tablets written by God) and, therefore, the Mosaic Law (minimum legal requirements) had to be put into place to externally govern the behaviour of the people. The Law “permitted” certain behaviours precisely because that was all that the people as a whole were capable of. Jesus’ reference to Moses permitting divorce was but one aspect of the “hardness of heart” shown by the people. What would lead us to think that the people only showed hardness of heart with regard to divorce but not with regard to other moral requirements?

   Sure, what are and are not things that God compromised on with us due to hardness of our hearts? Again, how can we tell the difference?
   Also, why compromise on slavery? Short of murder or rape it is one of the most vile things imaginable. Why did it not rise to the level of avoiding picking up sticks on the Sabbath or coveting a neighbor’s new washing machine?
   

   Regarding the treatment of slaves, Deuteronomy has several passages where slaves were depicted as sharing in the prosperity and “joy” of the household as members of it.

   Really? So if Ariel Castro, the man who held three woman locked in his home, had spread some of the “joy” to his prisoners that would be ok? Does that mean he lets them have birthday cake each year or watch “Parks and Recreation”?
   The Bible says slaveowners can beat their slaves.
   The Bible says those owners whose slaves that die a day after being beaten suffer no punishment.
   The Bible says fathers can sell their daughters to another man, and that they are to try and please that man and/or his sons.
   The Bible says a Hebrew man can be force to choose between his freedom and his family.
   
   Prosperity and joy? Seriously?

 

[aragonjohn1]

Can’t find any yet.
Help!

God gives them dignity and put them on the same level as their masters in that time. they at the most could serve for 7 years so, in modern terms they are indentured servants not actual slaves( chattel slaves).

source

God bless

 

[philv]

A study in cultural anthropology may help to get a good sense that Christ came to save souls, not to change culture (besides morals) and social roles on various topics like slavery. You have to think in Abraham’s culture, which is hard to do, but we can try to understand it through the scriptures. If we read the bible from America, we have American cultural lenses, and thus it’s somewhat ethnocentric to say something is wrong in another culture. Like any social role, if we’re respectful to them and hold them up, that’s all Christ wants. In fact, he told the slaves to obey their masters as if they’re obeying God. So I believe this stands true in those cultures and how we need to get rid of our American lenses to understand cultures more in full. We do tend to have a growing modern belief that all humans should be free to live their highest potential, which we generally fall into due to our cultural beliefs, but still it’s a mix of cultures that believe this to be true, though some others still practice slavery in different forms. Overall, we need to look through Abraham’s cultural lenses than our own to understand these topics.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

God gives them dignity and put them on the same level as their masters in that time.

If they were on the same level, surely a slave would be allowed to beat his master so long as he did not take out an eye or tooth. No, that’s not the case.
Exodus 21:12 says that if a person strikes a fatal blow on a person, the striker must die if the hit was intentional. Exodus 21:20-21 says that a fatal blow on a slave (so long as the slave lives for a day) goes without punishment because the slave is his property.
Even one of the articles you cited recognizes that if an animal kills a non-slave human that the punishment for an animal owner whose animal kills another may be death. The punishment if an animal kills a slave is not more than 30 shekels.

they at the most could serve for 7 years so,

This ONLY applied to slaves who were:

1. Male,
2. Hebrew,
3. and willing to abandon any wife or children he acquired as a slave.

Don’t make it seem like ALL slaves could only serve 7 years, because it’s simply not true. It ignores daughters whose fathers gave them up for slavery (since we might as well add rape to slavery) referenced in Exodus 21:2. It ignores slaves bought from neighboring lands. It ignores those male Hebrew slaves whose families were held for ransom so that they would serve forever. That’s blackmail.

in modern terms they are indentured servants not actual slaves( chattel slaves). source

?!?!
There is so much to ignore to try and equate slavery in the bible with indentured servitude.
Why does everyone ignore the beatings and the death and the blackmail?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

A study in cultural anthropology may help to get a good sense that Christ came to save souls, not to change culture (besides morals) and social roles on various topics like slavery. You have to think in Abraham’s culture, which is hard to do, but we can try to understand it through the scriptures. If we read the bible from America, we have American cultural lenses, and thus it’s somewhat ethnocentric to say something is wrong in another culture. Like any social role, if we’re respectful to them and hold them up, that’s all Christ wants. In fact, he told the slaves to obey their masters as if they’re obeying God. So I believe this stands true in those cultures and how we need to get rid of our American lenses to understand cultures more in full. We do tend to have a growing modern belief that all humans should be free to live their highest potential, which we generally fall into due to our cultural beliefs, but still it’s a mix of cultures that believe this to be true, though some others still practice slavery in different forms. Overall, we need to look through Abraham’s cultural lenses than our own to understand these topics.

This sure sounds like moral relativism to me. Slavery is not a social matter, it’s a fundamental wrong. You’re treating slavery like a custom that one group of people might find strange but should abide by when visiting another place. God is supposed to tell us what is good and what is evil. He listed numerous other practices much more minor than slavery as wrong, yet gives detailed instruction on how to implement slavery (and cruelly I might add).

As I discussed with Peter Plato, if God is going to allow and encourage something as barbarous as slavery he had better explain why (as he did centuries later with Jesus and divorce). Yet there is no explanation. In fact, reading the Bible passages about slavery only hold together if God sees nothing wrong with slavery.

 

[aragonjohn1]

"If they were on the same level, surely a slave would be allowed to beat his master so long as he did not take out an eye or tooth. No, that’s not the case. "
Exodus 21:12 says that if a person strikes a fatal blow on a person, the striker must die if the hit was intentional. Exodus 21:20-21 says that a fatal blow on a slave (so long as the slave lives for a day) goes without punishment because the slave is his property.
Even one of the articles you cited recognizes that if an animal kills a non-slave human that the punishment for an animal owner whose animal kills another may be death. The punishment if an animal kills a slave is not more than 30 shekels.

"This ONLY applied to slaves who were:

1. Male,
2. Hebrew,
3. and willing to abandon any wife or children he acquired as a slave."

“Don’t make it seem like ALL slaves could only serve 7 years, because it’s simply not true. It ignores daughters whose fathers gave them up for slavery (since we might as well add rape to slavery) referenced in Exodus 21:2. It ignores slaves bought from neighboring lands. It ignores those male Hebrew slaves whose families were held for ransom so that they would serve forever. That’s blackmail.”

?!?!
There is so much to ignore to try and equate slavery in the bible with indentured servitude.
Why does everyone ignore the beatings and the death and the blackmail?

i surely did not if you had read the sources concerning the difference between slaves, vassals, indentured servants, tributes, etc… E.G. the Egyptians had vassals, the pagans and “atheists” then had slaves, most of the Israelites had indentured servants( except for one tribe briefly in the book of isaiah and their misdeeds had the wages of death) , when a treaty was signed for peace tributes ( sometimes people ) were given E.G. king solomon.


you say "This ONLY applied to slaves who were:

1. Male,
2. Hebrew,
3. and willing to abandon any wife or children he acquired as a slave."
   but the Types of Slavery that are Permitted by the Bible:
   The Mosaic law permitted some types of slavery. These include:
   
   Voluntary servitude by the sons of Israel (indentured servants)
   Those who needed assistance, could not pay their debts, or needed protection from another were allowed under Biblical law to become indentured servants (see Ex. 21:2-6; Deut. 15:12-18). They were dependent on their master instead of the state. This was a way to aid the poor and give them an opportunity to get back on their feet. It was not to be a permanent subsidy. Many early settlers to America came as indentured servants. These servants were well treated and when released, given generous pay.
   Voluntary permanent slaves
   If indentured servants so chose, they could remain a slave (Ex. 21:2-6; Deut… 15:16-17). Their ear was pierced to indicate this permanent subjection. The law recognized that some people want the security of enslavement. Today, there are some people who would rather be dependent upon government to provide their needs (and with that provision accepting their commands) than do what is necessary to live free from its provision and direction. Some even act in a manner that puts them in jail, desiring the care and provision they get more than personal freedom.
   Thief or criminal making restitution
   A thief who could not, or did not, make restitution was sold as a slave: “If a man steals . . . he shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft” (Ex. 22:1,3). The servitude ceased when enough work was done to pay for the amount due in restitution.
   Pagans could be permanent slaves
   Leviticus 25:44-46 states: 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. 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. 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 [brother], the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.
   

     In the Sabbath year all Hebrew debtors/slaves were released from their debts.. This was not so for foreigners (Deut. 15:3). Theologian R.J. Rushdoony writes, “since unbelievers are by nature slaves, they could be held as life-long slaves” 1 without piercing the ear to indicate their voluntary servitude (Lev. 25:44-46). This passage in Leviticus says that pagans could be permanent slaves and could be bequeathed to the children of the Hebrews. However, there are Biblical laws

cont …

 

[aragonjohn1]

If they were on the same level, surely a slave would be allowed to beat his master so long as he did not take out an eye or tooth. No, that’s not the case.
Exodus 21:12 says that if a person strikes a fatal blow on a person, the striker must die if the hit was intentional. Exodus 21:20-21 says that a fatal blow on a slave (so long as the slave lives for a day) goes without punishment because the slave is his property.
Even one of the articles you cited recognizes that if an animal kills a non-slave human that the punishment for an animal owner whose animal kills another may be death. The punishment if an animal kills a slave is not more than 30 shekels.

This ONLY applied to slaves who were:

1. Male,
2. Hebrew,
3. and willing to abandon any wife or children he acquired as a slave.

Don’t make it seem like ALL slaves could only serve 7 years, because it’s simply not true. It ignores daughters whose fathers gave them up for slavery (since we might as well add rape to slavery) referenced in Exodus 21:2. It ignores slaves bought from neighboring lands. It ignores those male Hebrew slaves whose families were held for ransom so that they would serve forever. That’s blackmail.

?!?!
There is so much to ignore to try and equate slavery in the bible with indentured servitude.
Why does everyone ignore the beatings and the death and the blackmail?

concerning slaves that are given for their protection and eventual redemption. Slaves could become part of the covenant and part of the family, even receiving an inheritance. Under the new covenant, a way was made to set slaves free internally, which should then be following by external preparation enabling those who were slaves to live at liberty, being self-governed under God.Involuntary Servitude is Not Biblical: Exodus 21:16 says: “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” Deuteronomy 24:7 states: “If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently, or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you.”Kidnapping and enforced slavery are forbidden and punishable by death. This was true for any man (Ex. 21:16), as well as for the Israelites (Deut. 24:7). This was stealing a man’s freedom. While aspects of slavery are Biblical (for punishment and restitution for theft, or for those who prefer the security of becoming a permanent bondservant), the Bible strictly forbids involuntary servitude. Any slave that ran away from his master (thus expressing his desire for freedom) was to be welcomed by the Israelites, not mistreated, and not returned. Deuteronomy 23:15-16

• Henry H. Halley, Halley’s Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965), p. 645
• 1. R.J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, vol.1, p. 137. (context)
• [Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) is mentioned in the Bible,
  
  Leviticus 23:
  26 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 27 Also the tenth day of this seventh month shall be the Day of Atonement. It shall be a holy convocation for you; you shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire to the Lord. 28 You shall do no customary work on it; and you shall offer an offering made by fire to the Lord.

The DAY OF ATONEMENT (Yom Kippur) is a day of repentance.](Freedom from Slavery)


God bless

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

i surely did not if you had read the sources concerning the difference between slaves, vassals, indentured servants, tributes, etc… E.G. the Egyptians had vassals, the pagans and “atheists” then had slaves, most of the Israelites had indentured servants( except for one tribe briefly in the book of isaiah and their misdeeds had the wages of death) , when a treaty was signed for peace tributes ( sometimes people ) were given E.G. king solomon.

So you’re saying that some other cultures were worse, so what is allowed in the Bible is sufficent/good? Are you indicating that MORALLY the Hebrew culture was better RELATIVE to others? God is supposed to be good, not less bad than other deities. He is said to be the sole aribitor as to what is good and what is evil. God has repeatedly put his foot down saying man will do this or not do that:

Usury to thy brother? Never!
Disobedient to one’s parents? Never! You will be stoned to death!
Owning another person and beating them? God is cool with that. Go right ahead, he’ll let that slide.

I can’t take any argument seriously that posits a perfectly good being that has to point at other cultures to make the evil being allowed to look good in comparison.

you say "This ONLY applied to slaves who were:

1. Male,
2. Hebrew,
3. and willing to abandon any wife or children he acquired as a slave."

And what I said is correct, no?

but the Types of Slavery that are Permitted by the Bible:
The Mosaic law permitted some types of slavery. These include:

Voluntary servitude by the sons of Israel (indentured servants)
Those who needed assistance, could not pay their debts, or needed protection from another were allowed under Biblical law to become indentured servants (see Ex. 21:2-6; Deut. 15:12-18). They were dependent on their master instead of the state. This was a way to aid the poor and give them an opportunity to get back on their feet. It was not to be a permanent subsidy. Many early settlers to America came as indentured servants. These servants were well treated and when released, given generous pay.

There is no indication that male Hebrew slaves were compensated after their years of servitude. Nor were indentured servants who worked with settlers in America forced to choose between their families and their freedom as is required in the Bible.

Voluntary permanent slaves
If indentured servants so chose, they could remain a slave (Ex. 21:2-6; Deut.. 15:16-17). Their ear was pierced to indicate this permanent subjection. The law recognized that some people want the security of enslavement. Today, there are some people who would rather be dependent upon government to provide their needs (and with that provision accepting their commands) than do what is necessary to live free from its provision and direction. Some even act in a manner that puts them in jail, desiring the care and provision they get more than personal freedom.

Hoo boy. You completely ignored my point, the third item in my list of slaves who could leave after serving their time.

Allow me to quote Exodus 21:4-5 since that seems to be glossed over:

“If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’”

Even the Bible notes that the reason a slave would choose to stay with a master is because his wife and children belong to the master. Nowhere does it say that if the slave is too lazy to look for a job he might agree to stay with his master. To equate slaves put in this blackmail situation with things like welfare queens requires ignoring what the Bible says.

Thief or criminal making restitution
A thief who could not, or did not, make restitution was sold as a slave: “If a man steals . . . he shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft” (Ex. 22:1,3). The servitude ceased when enough work was done to pay for the amount due in restitution.

This is indentured servitude, paying in labor what is owed. Of course if he acquires a wife or children during that time he’ll have to make the choice of leaving or staying forever – which isn’t indentured servitude.

Pagans could be permanent slaves
Leviticus 25:44-46 states: 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. 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. 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 [brother], the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

I’m glad that you quoted this passage, since it gives a fair showing as to lifetime servitude. This doesn’t help in showing slavery as just or anything less than evil.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

     In the Sabbath year all Hebrew debtors/slaves were released from their debts.. This was not so for foreigners (Deut. 15:3). Theologian R.J. Rushdoony writes, “since unbelievers are by nature slaves, they could be held as life-long slaves”

I want to stop here for a second and ask how you would feel if another religion said the same thing about unbelievers from their perspective. To say that one man has the right to strip a man’s rights, dignity, freedom, health, family, and sanity merely because he believes differently speaks volume as to why good people can often be the most intolerant. It shows how people can divorce themselves from the guilt that should come from cruel acts by dehumanizing the targets of those acts.

On top of that, R.J. Rushdoony is using a false equivocation here. To say one is a “slave” to their upbringing or their environment is not the same use of “slave” as to chain a person and render them sub-human property.

However, there are Biblical laws concerning slaves that are given for their protection and eventual redemption. Slaves could become part of the covenant and part of the family, even receiving an inheritance. Under the new covenant, a way was made to set slaves free internally, which should then be following by external preparation enabling those who were slaves to live at liberty, being self-governed under God.

I like the use of “should” here. Slaveowners should be nice to slaves and make them part of the family. There are no requirements to do so. It talks about setting slaves “internally” while still allowing them to be beaten to death. It’s a mixed bag. The whole thing smacks of a person hurting someone because that person claims to know what’s best for him. This indicates that the slave will come to know and love God through his master. Where is the free will that allows a man to believe or not believe without a whiphand to guide him?

Involuntary Servitude is Not Biblical: Exodus 21:16 says: “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” Deuteronomy 24:7 states: “If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently, or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you.”Kidnapping and enforced slavery are forbidden and punishable by death. This was true for any man (Ex. 21:16), as well as for the Israelites (Deut. 24:7). This was stealing a man’s freedom.

You can’t quote those passages and ignore the ones that have been discussed in this thread. So no I can’t take a random person off the street and enslave him. But I can buy one that has come from a neighboring country though, and surely his servitude is involuntary. I can buy another man’s daughter and force myself upon her. Surely her servitude is not voluntrary. The children of slaves I aquired are mine. Children. Absolutely their servitude is not voluntary. It’s a ridiculous notion to peg all of the slaves in these different scenarious as eager and willing like it’s the worst notions from “Gone With The Wind”. By the guidelines given in the Bible, much of the slavery described was involuntary and was done so with God’s blessing and encouragement.

Any slave that ran away from his master (thus expressing his desire for freedom) was to be welcomed by the Israelites, not mistreated, and not returned. Deuteronomy 23:15-16

It would be a stretch to say that Deuteronomy 23:15-16 allows one to give up being a slave at will. You claim that running away expresses a desire for freedom. Could a slave go to his master and say he wanted to be free, and would master have to let him go? Of course not! The fact that one has to flee immediately means that one’s servitude is certainly involuntary. If a criminal suspect escapes to a country with no extradition treaty, that doesn’t mean the country he is fleeing from doesn’t hold criminals captive against their will.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It would be a stretch to say that Deuteronomy 23:15-16 allows one to give up being a slave at will. You claim that running away expresses a desire for freedom. Could a slave go to his master and say he wanted to be free, and would master have to let him go? Of course not! The fact that one has to flee immediately means that one’s servitude is certainly involuntary. If a criminal suspect escapes to a country with no extradition treaty, that doesn’t mean the country he is fleeing from doesn’t hold criminals captive against their will.

What is interesting here is that your analysis invokes a modern western view of libertarian freedom, one which holds freedom to be at the pinnacle of ‘good.’ Unfortunately it is also one which is ultimately untenable and nonsensical.

Freedom is not a good in its own right, it is ‘good’ only in respect to verifiably good ends. Being ‘free to’ pursue objectively good ends is the perspective from which cultures previous to modern western cultures viewed the value of freedom.

This takes us back, for example, to notions of divorce. From your perspective, a person in a marriage who no longer wants to be in the marriage has become a ‘slave’ to his/her spouse and children because s/he is ‘tied’ to them or ‘captive against their will.’

On your view, a Catholic conception of marriage as a lifelong commitment is tantamount to slavery of the same kind you decry was in effect in ancient times as soon as the ‘ties’ are against one’s willingness to comply. Love for another becomes, according to libertarian freedom, ultimately an act of self-imposed slavery because one binds oneself unnecessarily to another person.

What is being ignored is that on an orthodox Jewish and Catholic perspective, love for others, in particular for God, is the ultimate act of freedom because it involves unshackling oneself from one’s own fallen ego in order to become one with the other. In the case of God, who is, again according to Catholic ontology, the ultimate fullness of being - ipsum esse subsistens - the ultimate cause, end and purpose of all being, binding oneself to God would be the entire point of existence and freedom. Whereas binding oneself to oneself, to one’s own will, would be an ultimate act of futility since for contingent beings, like humans, we are ultimately nothing except what we have been created to be. Divorcing oneself from God, Being itself, would be sheer madness and this kind of self-will (libertarian freedom,) ultimately pointless. We are powerless to create ourselves even though the power of instrumental causation has led us to believe, FALSELY, that we do hold real power in our own hands.

The point here being that your argument is completely nullified when we don’t accept your premise that no religion has any greater claim on human obligation or will than any other. If, ultimately, the God of Israel is Creator of the universe and the end for which all creation is intended, then pursuing God ‘with our whole heart, our whole mind and whole being’ is not as you would claim ‘enslavement’ but rather the ultimate act of freedom, a getting beyond one’s own limitations rather than succumbing to them as if our libertarian freedom was grounded in anything that could ultimately underwrite it in any efficacious way.

To be clear, Catholic teaching is that as contingent and created - but fallen - beings we are, ultimately speaking, powerless to carry out the ramblings of our desires in any consistently important way. We are slaves, that is the very essence of our fallen state. It is in the realization of that enslavement that there is hope for overcoming our condition.

Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. “The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

 

[aragonjohn1]

what is good and what is evil. God has repeatedly put his foot down saying man will do this or not do that:

"Usury to thy brother? Never!
Disobedient to one’s parents? Never! You will be stoned to death!
Owning another person and beating them? God is cool with that. Go right ahead, he’ll let that slide.posits a perfectly good being that has to point at other cultures to make the evil being allowed

There is no indication that male Hebrew slaves were compensated after their years of servitude. Nor were indentured servants who worked with settlers in America forced to choose between their families and their freedom as is required in the Bible."

"Hoo boy. You completely ignored my point, the third item in my list of slaves who could leave after serving their time. Allow me to quote Exodus 21:4-5 since that seems to be glossed over:

“If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’”

Even the Bible notes that the reason a slave would choose to stay with a master is because his wife and children belong to the master. Nowhere does it say that if the slave is too lazy to look for a job he might agree to stay with his master. I’m glad that you quoted this passage, since it gives a fair showing as to lifetime servitude. This doesn’t help in showing slavery as just or anything less than evil.

cont …

 

[aragonjohn1]

you say ; “Usury to thy brother? Never!
Disobedient to one’s parents? Never! You will be stoned to death!
Owning another person and beating them? God is cool with that. Go right ahead, he’ll let that slide.I can’t take any argument seriously that posits a perfectly good being that has to point at other cultures to make the evil being allowed to loo … nor were indentured servants who worked with settlers in America forced to choose between their families and their freedom as is required in the Bible.”


the wages of sin are death a gentile being part of the Covenant of God was better than “dying in defiant sin” or as Good as innocence. back Then Jesus’ eternal Sacrifice was promised so only a good life, sacrifice, and giving could save one in that context. also there is usually a great difference between ancient, early, Greek, Christian Hebrew, roman, pagan, 15th century, and “modern” slavery in all forms.

"Usury to thy brother? Never!
Disobedient to one’s parents? Never! You will be stoned to death!
Owning another person and beating them? God is cool with that. Go right ahead, he’ll let that slide.

I can’t take any argument seriously that posits a perfectly good being that has to point at other cultures to make the evil being allowed to look good in comparison.

And what I said is correct, no?

There is no indication that male Hebrew slaves were compensated after their years of servitude. Nor were indentured servants who worked with settlers in America forced to choose between their families and their freedom as is required in the Bible."

sorry, can answer what i know of what i remember and learn. just, ask someone else if You need to.

still disobedience in Christianity to parents is a mortal sin
usury, is usually robbery in short but, even worse if one commits the second greatest f sins; being a traitor. have you heard of parental authority? Exodus 21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. (21) Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. context: ( Secondly, chapter 20 verses 20-~ says if the slave dies, you were to be put to death. When the Word says the slave died a few days later, it is saying that they died for a reason unrelated to the beating. Again, thou shalt not kill. This command is throughout the entire Bible and cannot be ignored in this situation. Let’s read this passage in context.

Exodus 21:20-27 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. (21) Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. (22) If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow (as in the child was born prematurely and is ok): he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. (23) And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, (24) Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (25) Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (26) And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. (27) And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.
As you look at this passage you see God’s justice in these matters. If you injure someone, you shall receive the exact injury in return. If a slave loses an eye, tooth or something else, they were to be set free.) .i do not think i will be able to understand why a person is mean to another so, ask someone else.

“I can’t take any argument seriously that posits a perfectly good being that has to point at other cultures to make the evil being allowed to look good in comparison.”

no, not true many religions and atheists back then in early Judaism did in fact promise but not fulfill some similar Traditions and history from similar ancestors and forefathers.

"the study of these cultures of the near east is necessary for a thorough understanding of the Bible. It was the religious and spiritual concepts of these peoples which had profound influence upon the Hebrews and Greeks. Moreover, by way of the Judaeo-Christian religion many of these spiritual and religious concepts have been able to creep into the modern civilized world If we accept the Old Testament as being “true” we will find it full of errors, contradictions, and obvious impossibilities–as that the Pentateuch was written by Moses. But if we accept it as “truth” we will find it to be one of the most logical vehicles of mankind’s deepest devotional thoughts and aspirations, couched in language which still retains its original vigour and its moral intensity.For from attempting to destroy the unefulness of the Old Testament, archaeologist are attempting to give a better understanding of the contents of the Bible. They realize that religion, as for as possible, must be scientifically tenable. It is my opinion that “Biblical criticism” and “Biblical archaeology” will serve to justify the position of the church in modern culture, especially in the face of modern youth who are taught to “weigh and consider.”

And what I said is correct, no?

all of what You just said/wrote does contain more than some Truth.

• slavery; youth apologetics
• scholar on slavery
• source
• books.google.com/books?id=z4epGQpNyucC

God bless and hopefully peace

 

[aragonjohn1]

I want to stop ^ ^ answered

It’s a ridiculous willing like it’s the worst notions from “Gone With The Wind”. By the guidelines given in the Bible, much of the slavery described was involuntary and was done so with God’s blessing and encouragement.

It would be a stretch to say that Deuteronomy 23:15-16 allows one to give up being a slave at will. You claim that running away expresses a desire for freedom. Could a slave go to his master and say he wanted to be free, and would master have to let him go? Of course not! The fact that one has to flee immediately means that one’s servitude is certainly involuntary. If a criminal suspect escapes to a country with no extradition treaty, that doesn’t mean the country he is fleeing from doesn’t hold criminals captive against their will.

context of: Deuteronomy 23:15 “You shall not hand over to his master a slave” The central interpretive question is the nationality of a slave and of his master. To whom does this exactly refer? This must refer to a foreign slave or a foreign slave-master (or both). This does clearly show Israel’s understanding that a slave is more than an animated tool. YHWH allows servitude under certain restrictions and limits, but He also cares for the powerless, helpless, and vulnerable!

23:16 Notice the repeated freedoms YHWH demands for the escaped foreign slave:

1. “live in your midst” - BDB 442, KB 444
2. “the place which he shall choose” - BDB 103, KB 119, Qal imperfect
3. “where it pleases him” - BDB 373 II
4. “you shall not mistreat him” - BDB 413, KB 416, Hiphil imperfect

What freedom and protection! All other ancient Near Eastern law codes demanded the return (and with it probable death) of runaway slaves. The Mosaic covenant focuses on the rights and protection of the weak, powerless, socially ostracized, and poor.

please do not try to nitpick the bible for any justification use that cultures and our Tradition to aid ( unless You are inspired/blessed by our one God )

• moses and Deuteronomy

God bless

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

What is interesting here is that your analysis invokes a modern western view of libertarian freedom, one which holds freedom to be at the pinnacle of ‘good.’

I will say that more freedom is definitely preferable to less. I would not say that freedom is the “pinnacle” of good, but it is something to be strived for and not denied without a very strong reason.

Freedom is not a good in its own right, it is ‘good’ only in respect to verifiably good ends. Being ‘free to’ pursue objectively good ends is the perspective from which cultures previous to modern western cultures viewed the value of freedom.

Two things I would say to that. One, who decides what is a verifiable good? Would a specifically non-Catholic end by default not be good? Two, I would say that freedoms that do not encroach on the freedoms of others are good. This would include neutral freedoms that don’t harm others.

This takes us back, for example, to notions of divorce. From your perspective, a person in a marriage who no longer wants to be in the marriage has become a ‘slave’ to his/her spouse and children because s/he is ‘tied’ to them or ‘captive against their will.’

When have I defined marriage in such a way? I’m not the one equating slavery with divorce. You claim that God has despite not showing evidence as such.

On your view, a Catholic conception of marriage as a lifelong commitment is tantamount to slavery of the same kind you decry was in effect in ancient times as soon as the ‘ties’ are against one’s willingness to comply. Love for another becomes, according to libertarian freedom, ultimately an act of self-imposed slavery because one binds oneself unnecessarily to another person.

Your claim as to my view on Catholic marriage is also wrong. First, consider the fact that most of the slaves in biblical times did not agree to the terms of their agreement, unlike couples getting married. Second, marriage is not an act that allows for one party to be killed by another. Third, you seem to believe that people who are in favor of increased freedom are cold and calculating and see love as a computed maneuver.

What is being ignored is that on an orthodox Jewish and Catholic perspective, love for others, in particular for God, is the ultimate act of freedom because it involves unshackling oneself from one’s own fallen ego in order to become one with the other.

Now just going by those statements alone you’ll see similar statements by other movements, that freedom comes from submitting to a certain set of beliefs unquestioningly. Some of the movements include cults and despotic governments. As George Orwell wrote in describing Oceania, “Freedom is slavery.”

Now that doesn’t mean that a movement who makes such statements is necessarily wrong, but can a group demonstrate that it’s good while at the same time do acts that are clearly evil? I say it can’t. To claim goodness and not act accordingly disproves that claim.

Divorcing oneself from God, Being itself, would be sheer madness and this kind of self-will (libertarian freedom,) ultimately pointless. We are powerless to create ourselves even though the power of instrumental causation has led us to believe, FALSELY, that we do hold real power in our own hands.

Please let me know if I’m misrepresenting your position:

1. God is the ultimate truth.
2. If a man is without God then he is deluded, and what he sees are freedoms really aren’t.
3. If a man is enslaved he gives up these false freedoms but is granted the freedom to believe in God.
4. Slavery is therefore good.

If you go through CAF, often people ask why God does or doesn’t do this or that. A very common answer is that God does not want to intrude our freewill. Yet, here where the children of slaves, and their children, and their children, and their children are given no freewill. They have the freedom to obey and the freedom to be brutalized and they have the freedom to die. How can God be the ultimate good and be so monstrous?

What you present here is a twisted form of Stockholm Syndrome. You hope that the slaves who are caught up in this sheer madness see down as up and black as white until they believe what has happened to them is pure good.

The point here being that your argument is completely nullified when we don’t accept your premise that no religion has any greater claim on human obligation or will than any other. If, ultimately, the God of Israel is Creator of the universe and the end for which all creation is intended, then pursuing God ‘with our whole heart, our whole mind and whole being’ is not as you would claim ‘enslavement’ but rather the ultimate act of freedom, a getting beyond one’s own limitations rather than succumbing to them as if our libertarian freedom was grounded in anything that could ultimately underwrite it in any efficacious way.

1. Let’s assume God is truth.
2. Let’s assume because God is truth he is also pure good.
3. God wants to bring people to be him.
4. Being omnipotent he has many ways to do that.
5. He chose a way (slavery) that involves death, suffering, and utterly disregarding the golden rule.
6. Slavery is evil.
7. God can not be good for he encourages evil in his people.

To be clear, Catholic teaching is that as contingent and created - but fallen - beings we are, ultimately speaking, powerless to carry out the ramblings of our desires in any consistently important way. We are slaves, that is the very essence of our fallen state. It is in the realization of that enslavement that there is hope for overcoming our condition.

“We were never at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.”

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

still disobedience in Christianity to parents is a mortal sin
usury, is usually robbery in short but, even worse if one commits the second greatest f sins; being a traitor. have you heard of parental authority? Exodus 21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. (21) Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. context: ( Secondly, chapter 20 verses 20-~ says if the slave dies, you were to be put to death. When the Word says the slave died a few days later, it is saying that they died for a reason unrelated to the beating. Again, thou shalt not kill. This command is throughout the entire Bible and cannot be ignored in this situation. Let’s read this passage in context.
…
As you look at this passage you see God’s justice in these matters. If you injure someone, you shall receive the exact injury in return. If a slave loses an eye, tooth or something else, they were to be set free.) .i do not think i will be able to understand why a person is mean to another so, ask someone else.

This comparison of translations doesn’t have any one that says the slaveowner would be put to death. Most say that slaveowner is “punished”. Exodus 21:32 gives a punishment for death of a slave by an animal to be less than that of death of a non-slave of an animal, so it’s hard to say that the punihsment for a slaveowner whose slave dies the same day he’s beaten is death.

But still it’s not the point. Manslaughter of a slave (who doesn’t die the same day) is allowed. Beating of a slave that doesn’t knock out a tooth or eye is allowed. That’s wrong. There’s no way around this. There’s no talking out of this. Devestating physical harm – including harm that may lead to death – should be denounced and not praised.

no, not true many religions and atheists back then in early Judaism did in fact promise but not fulfill some similar Traditions and history from similar ancestors and forefathers.

"the study of these cultures of the near east is necessary for a thorough understanding of the Bible. It was the religious and spiritual concepts of these peoples which had profound influence upon the Hebrews and Greeks.

I always find it fascinating when believers treat God as limited in power and finite in knowledge. To compare and contrast with other cultures not run by all-encompassing deities is to say God is impotent in solving his people’s problems. I’m not asking for a true deus ex machina, but it’s not too much to ask that this can be worked out through non-evil means.

For from attempting to destroy the unefulness of the Old Testament, archaeologist are attempting to give a better understanding of the contents of the Bible. They realize that religion, as for as possible, must be scientifically tenable. It is my opinion that “Biblical criticism” and “Biblical archaeology” will serve to justify the position of the church in modern culture, especially in the face of modern youth who are taught to “weigh and consider.”

In order to justify the position of slavery as described in the Bible, any Biblical criticism and Biblical archaeology must somehow determine that those passages I’ve quoted so many times now are not accurate of the position of the Hebrew people or their god. The Bible has to not mean what it so very clearly says.

please do not try to nitpick the bible for any justification use that cultures and our Tradition to aid ( unless You are inspired/blessed by our one God )

I don’t need to be a Mormon to say that the Native Americans were not a long lost tribe of Israel.
I don’t need to be a Muslim to say that Surah 18:29 “Whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve.” contradicts Surah 9:5 “Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush.”
I don’t need to be a Christian to say that slavery is wrong and no niceties about treating slaves supercedes the malice they can be showed according to the Biblical passages.

 

[Amandil]

The arrogance and chronological snobbery of atheists like “Mike” is that he presumes to judge Abraham for having a “slave” as if if he lived Abraham’s life in that time and place that there’s no way that he would own a slave.

It’s impossible for him to know that with any certainty.

The same goes for “Jam”.

You cannot impose your modern ideas of “discrimination” or “discrimitedness” onto a time and culture and make hypocritical moral judgements against persons because they offend your modern ideas.

And since you deny the existence of God I think that it’s safe to assume that you believe that morality is individual and subjective?

And if so what exactly is the moral criteria for your moral indignation towards Abraham anyway?

If all morality is equally valid(because morality doesn’t come from God but from individuals), according to what criteria or principle do you criticize the morality of Abraham owning a slave?

Or is it rather that you are biased and prejudiced against the Bible so you look to justify that prejudice by hypocritically attacking God and theists by attacking Abraham?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I will say that more freedom is definitely preferable to less. I would not say that freedom is the “pinnacle” of good, but it is something to be strived for and not denied without a very strong reason.

Two things I would say to that. One, who decides what is a verifiable good? Would a specifically non-Catholic end by default not be good? Two, I would say that freedoms that do not encroach on the freedoms of others are good. This would include neutral freedoms that don’t harm others.

As soon as subjective moral agents without full access to the truth are involved in moral deliberations then there is an ‘in principle’ conflict that occurs between what is morally obligatory and what has been subjectively determined as ‘right’ by the subjective agent. Where the subjective determination of an agent is discordant with the absolute moral truth or obligation, the subjective agent will view it as an infringement of his/her right to self-determination.

I do not think it is that difficult to determine what the nature of ‘good’ is, what is difficult is to have subjective moral agents comply with the determination. This is precisely the point at which some form of coercion is typically applied. It is the reason even modern western states have police, jails and courts to impose limitations on the freedoms of some.

This takes us back to the point about slavery. It is not just in marriage, but in the nature of morality itself, as obligatory, that we encounter a conflict between freedom and limits on that freedom.

I would argue that in some times and cultures the kind of limitations on freedoms decried today - and for good reason - might have been necessary.

When have I defined marriage in such a way? I’m not the one equating slavery with divorce. You claim that God has despite not showing evidence as such.

Your claim as to my view on Catholic marriage is also wrong. First, consider the fact that most of the slaves in biblical times did not agree to the terms of their agreement, unlike couples getting married.

I am not clear where your evidence for such a claim is to be found. How do you know what most slaves in the time of the Patriarchs (your use of “biblical times” seems deliberately contrived to open the issue to further objections) did not agree to the terms?

The specific example of Hagar (slave of Abraham) seems to contradict this claim. One episode presents Abraham sending Hagar away at the bidding of Sarah. I have argued in other threads that this shows a deliberate moral failing on the part of Abraham because it meant the sure death of Hagar and Ishmael, her son, and was the very reason that Abraham understood that God’s demand that he put his own son Isaac to death was a consequence of justice (as per later lex talionis requirements.) The reason Abraham knew this is because he understood (as did Hagar and Sarah) that by setting Hagar and Ishmael ‘free,’ he was, in fact, putting them to death, which meant the death of his son ‘whom he loved’ would have been a fair consequence. Hagar and Ishmael could not have survived absent a community to which they were a part to insure their needs, which is surely the reason Hagar cried out to God and God mercifully answered her.

I would argue that this would have been the case in many ‘slave’ situations at the time. Keeping ostracized or refugee individuals from other cultures would have been a mercy to them. In fact, the law concerning a male slave who married a female slave belonging to a ‘household’ was intended to insure the safety of the family unit since an impetuous male leaving the safety of the community would have endangered the lives of the entire family unit.

Second, marriage is not an act that allows for one party to be killed by another.

Recall that at the time of the patriarchs and, later, under Mosaic Law, there was no ‘system’ of justice. Execution of the law was a matter in the hands of heads of family groups and the community at large. It was a means of keeping the community in check for the safety of all. It functioned in the same way that punishment did at the hands of formal judicial systems did in later times - primarily for four reasons: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation and incapacitation. Deterrence and incapacitation being very important where incarceration was impossible.

The fact that you disagree that specific punitive measures did not accord with your view of the ‘justice’ does not mean these might not have been warranted at the time for the sake of communal safety. You would need to show a more encompassing argument that such measures were beyond justification AT THE TIME and given the circumstances.

Continued…

 

[Peter_Plato]

… from last.

Third, you seem to believe that people who are in favor of increased freedom are cold and calculating and see love as a computed maneuver.

Actually, I don’t believe this at all. From a subjective point of view, it is far easier to view moral obligations as ‘cold and calculating’ especially when one’s own freedoms are being restricted.

Now just going by those statements alone you’ll see similar statements by other movements, that freedom comes from submitting to a certain set of beliefs unquestioningly. Some of the movements include cults and despotic governments. As George Orwell wrote in describing Oceania, “Freedom is slavery.”

This misses my point completely. You gesture towards untruths and ‘cults’ in an attempt to disparage my point which was if God is ultimate truth (Being itself) then whatever we may subjectively ‘feel’ regarding our freedoms may in fact be contrary to the truth, to moral obligation and even to our own true best interests. In this case we would simply be wrong in insisting on ‘being free.’

This brings me back to my point that ‘freedom’ devoid of an identifiable end good is incomprehensible and irrational. There is no value in pursuing ‘freedom’ for its own sake, which is often spouted as the mantra of liberal democrats.

Logically speaking, this is also the reason why slavery, as a state of freedom restriction, is not wrong, in principle. The question always must be raised in the context of restricted from what end and for what reason.

By this logic, it can be shown that pre-Civil War chattel slavery (restriction of the freedoms of some in order to materially profit others) was moral wrong, but that the kind of slavery present in some ancient times (restriction of the freedoms of some in order to insure the welfare of those individuals themselves and the community at large) might have been permissible and, even, necessary.

This involves a much more exhaustive analysis of the situation than you have provided. I am not saying that I have made that case, but I am claiming there could very well be a case to be made and that your argument is weak precisely because you haven’t considered this point.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

Looking for passges to justify Abraham having a slave

Firstly, only Abraham can justify or even explain that. Secondly, You need to remember that you are looking at the past through 21st. Century American (western) culture and mores. Don’t be too quick to judge a dead and buried culture by your modern standards. You won’t gain much in understanding unless you can understand the culture in which Abraham lived in context. Good luck with that.

 

[clem456]

I ask because I think anyone who follows the bible should be able to answer this question.
**If you can not justify **Abraham having a slave then just say you can not find scriptural support for it.
I am offended that you would ask if I would want a slave myself.
Do you think that everyone asking about anything in the holy scriptures is asking because they seek to do the horrid things that took place in them?
How have you really answered my question?
This is Catholic Answers Forum, and you have given me nada on facts about Abraham. All you have done so far is to hand wave.

I’m going to ask what seems like a fussy question.

What do you mean exactly by “justify”. What are you looking for?