Slavery

[e_c]

We’ve been over this. I’ve shown the many similarities between slavery as described in the Bible and more modern slavery. The idea of chattel slavery versus Biblical slavery is a fiction touted by pro-slavery Christians that is never proven or even demonstrated.

We’ve been through this as well. We don’t tell people that it’s ok to wrong if we think some of them will do it anyway. Some people are going to murder, or rape, or steal; but we tell them it’s wrong because we want to encourage that which is right.

There is no delineation in the Bible as to which types of slaves can be beaten to death with a rod. The Bible says his people can purchase slaves, which means they were not combatants against his people.

I’ve talked at length about God both setting up the social structure of the Hebrews as well as the fact that God would know of every possible social structure past, present, future, real or imagined. Lack of knowledge of a slaveless society is not a consideration when questioning why God gave specific instructions on allowing then increasing the practice of slavery among his people.

Paterfamilias is not in any way relevant to slavery. There have been many cultures for some time (even today) where the oldest male is the head of the household – all without a whiff of slavery. There’s no correlation between the two concepts.

Personally, I’ve put in a great deal of work on this matter. I’ve made specific claims and organized a series of points defending my position. The responses to what I’ve given have been vague and nebulous, unwilling or unable to address those very same points.

If you have another thought, perhaps you’d like to tackle that series of questions I gave a few posts ago. I think it will truly get to the heart of the matter and will be far more concrete than a series of potshots.

Well Mike, I went through your questions and decided not to post my answers (not all of which would have been to your expectations - including to #1, which I don’t think is clear at all). There are more basic issues… Like the spectrum of slavery, which you have most certainly not dismantled. In fact, it is so evident that there is indeed such a spectrum that I think it is incumbent upon you to prove that Biblical slavery (as commanded through law) IS chattel slavery - the only kind which is intrinsically evil… By the way, even though not necessarily for chattel slavery as a destination, the good old-fashioned capture-and-sell slavery we are all used to is punishable by death (Exodus 21:16)… I don’t see you talking about that.

We don’t forbid every bad or immoral thing through law. For example, chain smoking is immoral - and yet do we make it illegal? No - we just make sure that smoking is not done in certain places to minimize damage to others, that nothing particularly deadly goes into cigarettes, etc. Moses allowed for a bill of divorce (and then remarriage) - this action is evil in God’s mind, but it was better to allow the people to sin in this way than to destroy their will to follow the law at all - which God will not force people to follow but will leave them to their own choices. In this way, there is a progression… The New Covenant does not have such exceptions.

I’m disappointed that you can’t see how the paterfamilias concept would be relevant. It seems a rather simple connection to make - the delegation of the administration of penal justice to the head of a household. Do you really see no relevance? Further - you seem to be assuming corporal punishment is always wrong… Is that right? Do you believe capital punishment is wrong?

The responses to all your “points” have been “vague and nebulous” at least in part because, for all the zeal to interpret a text, we have still not actually chosen a specific piece of that text to analyze! How can this be a serious Biblical criticism thread when we are not even giving anything particular to analyze!? What precise words are being used (that might be ruined by modern English)? What is the fuller context of the passage? Who precisely is speaking? What is the purpose of that speaker? What is the circumstance outside the text to which it is responding? Etc. I will return to contributing if and when someone decides to pick a particular verse to examine - unless the forum changes come before then, in which case you will not see me anymore!

In the meantime, for a whirlwind tour of slavery in Scripture, see:

biblehub.com/topical/s/slave.htm

 

[mkoopman]

Well Mike, I went through your questions and decided not to post my answers (not all of which would have been to your expectations - including to #1, which I don’t think is clear at all). There are more basic issues… Like the spectrum of slavery, which you have most certainly not dismantled. In fact, it is so evident that there is indeed such a spectrum that I think it is incumbent upon you to prove that Biblical slavery (as commanded through law) IS chattel slavery - the only kind which is intrinsically evil… By the way, even though not necessarily for chattel slavery as a destination, the good old-fashioned capture-and-sell slavery we are all used to is punishable by death (Exodus 21:16)… I don’t see you talking about that.

We don’t forbid every bad or immoral thing through law. For example, chain smoking is immoral - and yet do we make it illegal? No - we just make sure that smoking is not done in certain places to minimize damage to others, that nothing particularly deadly goes into cigarettes, etc. Moses allowed for a bill of divorce (and then remarriage) - this action is evil in God’s mind, but it was better to allow the people to sin in this way than to destroy their will to follow the law at all - which God will not force people to follow but will leave them to their own choices. In this way, there is a progression… The New Covenant does not have such exceptions.

I’m disappointed that you can’t see how the paterfamilias concept would be relevant. It seems a rather simple connection to make - the delegation of the administration of penal justice to the head of a household. Do you really see no relevance? Further - you seem to be assuming corporal punishment is always wrong… Is that right? Do you believe capital punishment is wrong?

The responses to all your “points” have been “vague and nebulous” at least in part because, for all the zeal to interpret a text, we have still not actually chosen a specific piece of that text to analyze! How can this be a serious Biblical criticism thread when we are not even giving anything particular to analyze!? What precise words are being used (that might be ruined by modern English)? What is the fuller context of the passage? Who precisely is speaking? What is the purpose of that speaker? What is the circumstance outside the text to which it is responding? Etc. I will return to contributing if and when someone decides to pick a particular verse to examine - unless the forum changes come before then, in which case you will not see me anymore!

In the meantime, for a whirlwind tour of slavery in Scripture, see:

biblehub.com/topical/s/slave.htm

You show some patience and compassion when the concept of exegesis is nowhere near to the supposed keystone of the argument. That God must write laws that only align with a morality that His creatures accept. Already divorce was raised but any concept other than the law of exodus which identifies the low nature of the human person, the courtiers of golden rams, is verbotten by the O.P. Divorce clearly is “good” by the new modern species that transcends the ancients by leaps and bounds.

That Christ became a slave to sin is ignored as irrelevant. That the Jewish people were in Egypt because of Joseph is irrelevant. That God used Joseph to show how He can make good result from evil intentions is irrelevant. Everything is irrelevant because only Mike’s opinion of how God teaches falsely is relevant.

God, of course, can not teach falsely, nor does He contain any evil. Neither does he tempt us or lead us to sin. So that when He had to give laws on slavery is not clearly seen as evidence for the stone hearts of men rather than God’s “incompetence” in being Divine is chilling. My eyes do not roll at such a misunderstanding of the Author of Life, my heart skips beats at the cold, stone heart that can misinterpret the Lord with impunity. But, the new greater race of superior superhuman with greater morality see things much clearer.

 

[ericc]

Hi.

Today I read in the Catechism where it clearly declares that slavery, the owning of one human person by another, is gravely wrong and an insult to human dignity. I personally agree.

But how does this reconcile with scripture, wherein slavery is accepted and even carefully regulated?

For example:

*“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed."

“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money."

“When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth."* Exodus 21

And the New Testament is no different:

*“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” Ephesians 6

“Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.”* 1 Peter

I don’t understand. God never said “slavery is wrong,” when he was giving commandments. Some say, “well that was the culture at the time so God allowed it.”

But why didn’t Jesus or the apostles say “Stop owning people,” or words to that effect, if God did not approve of it? They mentioned many less important things, such as eating meats, giving to the collection plate, women speaking in church, speaking in tongues, gossip, etc…

The southern states quoted the bible when defending slavery in the pre civil war United States. Which is correct, the bible or the catechism?

Thanks.

You have a nomadic people who are constantly being attacked by their enemies. How do you deal with war captives who are your enemies? Free them so that they can war with you again? Kill them? If keeping them alive is of the higher moral good, then a set of ownership rules is better than murder isn’t it?

Slavery is the norm during those times. Israelite rules of slave ownership is the best? among those. From what I gathered others can treat their slaves however they wish but Israelites have a rule book that punished the slave owner for intentionally killing of slave. And if the slave owner injured the slave seriously such as the eye, he has to let the slave go free and suffer the economic loss. Unheard of in those days. Roman slaves were told not to runaway because the penalties could be severe and the public can be punished by helping slaves to escape i.e. participation in the loss of an asset is deemed wrong. The public has a duty to return such assets to the relevant authorities or owner. Hence survival of slaves that ran away are not good. Freeing slaves may not ensure the survival of the freed men because the tribe/country that they originated from may no longer exist and having a master at least guarantee a roof and food. Perhaps they do not possess skills that allow them to earn a living as freemen nor protection from hostile forces which they enjoyed under the former master. Rome in the 1st half of the century conquered most of the lands around the Mediterranean. The Jews were under the rule of the Romans basically and yearning for a Messiah. One came preaching Kingdom of God which wasn’t what they wanted to hear. Jesus didn’t come to incite the Jews to revolt against the Roman masters knowing that if they did, they would lose. They tried and got squashed in 70 AD.

Slavery as well as divorce were tolerated because there were no better alternatives available to them. Women were considered chattel during those times. Women couldn’t survive on their own basically because they are not eligible inheritance -wise. If your hubby get killed in war or sickness, no one will feed the widow’s families because inheritance passed onto the hubby’s brothers if there is no male heir. There was no social welfare then.

Not too long ago, modern people will bomb the heck out of their “enemies” just in case their potential enemies may hurt them or possess weapons of mass destruction. Just wondering is slavery worse than preemptive strikes. Jailing your enemies and keeping them alive at taxpayers expense are not palatable to many folks. Some of them after serving their time return with a greater vengeance. So what do you do with your enemies?

Criticising ancient slavery as wrong is not a straightforward exercise. One has to ask what options were available to a Bronze Age people living in those conditions. Not too long ago, Kings/emperors/sultans/dictators were absolute monarchs in their countries. Democracies are the in -thing today. 2000 years from now, who knows what kind of system will be in place and what standards of judgement will be considered acceptable.

 

[Bradski]

2000 years from now, who knows what kind of system will be in place and what standards of judgement will be considered acceptable.

Post this in any context as an atheist and it will be shouted down by any Christian who read it.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Slavery is the theft of a person’s labor.
What does the bible say about theft?

Slavery is a function of economic greed.
What does the bible say abuut greed?

Slavery treats others unfairly.
What does the bible say about the way we should treat others?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

As others have pointed out, there is a difference between being treated as a non-person, and being treated as a member of a lower class.

For example, ExNihilo pointed out that we treat children like the “property” of their parents in our society: sure, we use the different words like “guardianship,” but the underlying reality is still the same, and sure, we recognize certain rights of theirs apart from and against their parents, but so did Israel regarding their slaves.

I would agree that there is a difference between being treated as property and being treated as a lower class of person.

Animals are living creatures that are also property. Some have rights. This varies greatly depending on time, culture, and species. No need for specifics, but I want to make a point that it’s possible for an entity to:

1. Be a living creature
2. Have some rights
3. Not be human

For examply a dog in the modern western world has some rights yet it is still property.

A slave (in the Bible) would have more rights than an oxen, but still not have most basic human rights. He would be property, in most cases he or she could be traded or sold or passed on as an inheritence. In most cases a baby born of a slave is the property of the slaveowner in the same way a farmer who owns a cow owns all of its calves.

One of the most basic rights a human has is not to be killed by another without a very good reason (e.g. self-defense). Slaves did not have that right and could be beaten to death with a rod. There are no qualifications limiting when a master could beat his slave, nor limiting the death of that slave provided the death was agonizing and not quick.

A lower class person could not be harmed in such a way. Slaves in the Bible weren’t a lower class of people but property as God said.

Now, I think these kind of questions are limited in value here. The word “slave” is far too vague, and contains too much pathetic power.

I think we would advance the discussion better if we discussed things like, the morality of harsh punishments, the rights and duties of women, as well as the rights and duties of the laborer, and, of course, the justice of clearly defined and enforced social heirarchies (what is the difference between the slave and the serf?). After all, almost all of your objections concern these issues first and foremost: your objections to slavery under Mosaic Law stem from your views regarding these issues, I think.

I also think we should look into how these Mosaic Laws were observed in practical everyday experience.

If you think delving into those topics will justify God’s actions regarding slavery, then do so. Don’t expect other people to present those arguments for you.

We should also try to understand where the institution of slavery came from.

For the Hebrews after they were on the other end of the rod, the idea that slavery could be practiced came from God. See post 14 or my response to e_c two posts down.

We moderns tend to think that slavery was a result of some powerful people just walking into town and grabbing people because they want cheap labor (mainly because that’s what the colonial powers did), and there is truth to this, but, in reality, slavery is also largely a compromise between killing all of your POWs, and letting them kill you (which is why, say, Popes allowed Spain to take Muslim slaves).

Just as a lengthy aside popes allowed for slavery from early on before there were even Muslims. More importantly, they approved of slavery for more than those captured in war. The one caveat was not to enslave Christians or Jews.

We can start with the Council of Gangra (340 CE, which is 3 centuries before Islam). It said, “If anyone, on the pretext of godliness, teach a slave to scorn his master, and to leave his service, and not to afford his services to his own master with favor and all honor, let him be anathema.” It doesn’t say slaves obtained in war. It’s just slaves. What’s interesting is that most pro-slavery Christians will look at that and say well that’s just one council. This is despite this article from catholic.com and others like it which say the use of “let him be anathema” means that it’s “probably infallible”. But beyond that we have the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon. The Ecumenical Councils are to be treated as infallible in matters of faith and morals. This particular one listed several earlier councils/synods that it said should be treated as law. So not only is the command likely infallible based on its word usage, but it’s called law by a morally infallible council.

Check out Sicut Dudum, a bull from 1435, as well as several bulls before and after that one. The Canary Islands off the coast of Africa were not at war with Portugal. Yet Portugal wanted to take the natives as slave labor. Surely the pope would step in and put a stop to that, right? No. The pope capitulated hard to the King of Portugal and allowed that country to take slaves from the Canary Islands, but only those who would not convert to Christianity. This blackmail scheme benefit the pope in providing more worshippers and Portugal for providing more slaves. To get a keen sense of where the pope stood on the matter, when Portugal was taking natives who agreed to be Christians the pope’s response was not one of ending slavery, but lamenting that these actions were convincing natives to renege on conversion since it wasn’t a protection from being enslaved. Another bull made it clear that it was perfectly fine to take those natives of the Canary Islands who would not convert to Christianity. Let me repeat, Portugal wasn’t at war with them.

If you’re looking for a pope to speak out against slavery don’t start with the first and work forward. You’ll tucker yourself out.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Even the 13th Amendment allows slavery as punishment (and therefore doesn’t condemn slavery as inherently wrong). What this means is that slavery in the ancient world should be understood less as a social construction, and more like a fact of life that societies had to deal with somehow.

This might be much of the reason why Christ doesn’t seem to address it, and why St. Paul is more concerned with the acceptance of slaves as full Christians rather than the full destruction of the institution. St. Ireanaus makes arguments along the lines that destroying slavery in his time would cause society itself to collapse. I expect that Moses also understood this.

I don’t see how transitioning from a master-slave society to one of employer-employee would cause society to collapse. The fact that for most of the world we have societies that allow people to have liberties without societal collapse is more than enough evidence. If you think St. Iraneuas was correct then please show evidence where people simply had to own people.

There are dimensions of morality that are circumstantial. Morality is both absolute and relative, depending on whatever we are focused on. Not every thing is inherently wrong, but a thing can be wrong due to the situation.

Christi pax.

Moral relativism. Again. Got it! When you say it depends “on whatever we are foccused on” we are here focusing on the rights of those enslaved.

Normally when we talk about relative morality we ask whether an act against another is warranted based on a situation. Generally it is wrong to hit another person, but if the person is doing immediate harm to another then we can determine that the call not to hit another is outweighed by the need to stop the person from doing that immediate harm. With that we know that enslaving another person is wrong. The Catechism says as much. Are there circumstances that warrant allowing slavery? As I and others have gone over several times now the answer is a clear NO.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Here’s a reason God might have tolerated slavery: God wanted Israel to always know what it is truly like to be a slave so that they can fully understand what He means when He proclaims the First Commandment: I am the LORD your God, which have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Think about it: people are much more likely to miss the gravity of something they’ve only heard about. I know I’m like that.

Christi pax.

You believe God allowed slavery to set up a multi-millennium analogy to show the power difference between God and man is similar to that of master to slave? It’s possible two slaves side-by-side getting severely beaten had a conversation like this:

Slave 1: I hate master so much for doing this. Why won’t Adonai help us? Why did he approve this?
Slave 2: Don’t you see? This is just a real-life parable. It helps us understand the greatness of Him by him not helping us.
Slave 1: Gee, I never thought of it that way. This excrutiating pain makes so much more sense. Thanks!
Slave 2 collapses paralyzed after getting hit in the neck with a rod.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Well Mike, I went through your questions and decided not to post my answers (not all of which would have been to your expectations - including to #1, which I don’t think is clear at all).

That depends. I was looking for direct answers but was expecting non-answers, so I guess I got half.

There are more basic issues… Like the spectrum of slavery, which you have most certainly not dismantled. In fact, it is so evident that there is indeed such a spectrum that I think it is incumbent upon you to prove that Biblical slavery (as commanded through law) IS chattel slavery - the only kind which is intrinsically evil… By the way, even though not necessarily for chattel slavery as a destination, the good old-fashioned capture-and-sell slavery we are all used to is punishable by death (Exodus 21:16)… I don’t see you talking about that.

That’s because Exodus 21:16 is about telling his people they can’t just randomly take people as slaves. God is totally fine with the purchase of those other people have taken (Leviticus 25:44).

We don’t forbid every bad or immoral thing through law. For example, chain smoking is immoral - and yet do we make it illegal? No - we just make sure that smoking is not done in certain places to minimize damage to others, that nothing particularly deadly goes into cigarettes, etc. Moses allowed for a bill of divorce (and then remarriage) - this action is evil in God’s mind, but it was better to allow the people to sin in this way than to destroy their will to follow the law at all - which God will not force people to follow but will leave them to their own choices. In this way, there is a progression… The New Covenant does not have such exceptions.

We are more apt to declare something illegal if it brings harm to others. Slavery is one of the most harmful practices out there, and thankfully most countries today (as well as the Church) are strongly against it. We don’t have a law against eating too much cake since that doesn’t hurt others. As I’ve pointed out God has all sorts of rules against what to wear and eat, how to act each Saturday, what to do if you see a neighbor’s animal outside his property. These are minor compared to the brutal art of slavery. In giving his people instructions on how to beat and breed slaves God isn’t just saying it’s not illegal he’s also saying it’s not immoral.

I’ll ask a question that I asked before for those who claim God was progressing towards eliminating slavery: When was God planning to say slavery was wrong? How many thousands of years longer were we expected to wait?

I’m disappointed that you can’t see how the paterfamilias concept would be relevant. It seems a rather simple connection to make - the delegation of the administration of penal justice to the head of a household. Do you really see no relevance? Further - you seem to be assuming corporal punishment is always wrong… Is that right? Do you believe capital punishment is wrong?

I’m going to ask a direct question. Those people born or sold into slavery, what crime did they commit that would necessitate a punishment?

The responses to all your “points” have been “vague and nebulous” at least in part because, for all the zeal to interpret a text, we have still not actually chosen a specific piece of that text to analyze! How can this be a serious Biblical criticism thread when we are not even giving anything particular to analyze!? What precise words are being used (that might be ruined by modern English)? What is the fuller context of the passage? Who precisely is speaking? What is the purpose of that speaker? What is the circumstance outside the text to which it is responding? Etc. I will return to contributing if and when someone decides to pick a particular verse to examine - unless the forum changes come before then, in which case you will not see me anymore!

I seem to recall going into detail using the Bible to show why the common argument that God had to consider what other cultures were doing to allow slavery doesn’t hold water (Post #14).

I’m more than willing to do it again, if for no other reason than to show how to use specifics and legwork in a discussion:

1. Exouds 12:40-41 says the Hebrews were enslaved by the Egyptians for 430 years. (Some other verses say about 400 years or about 450 years, but the idea is the same.)
2. While wandering the desert after leaving Egypt God is said to have given rules on slavery. This is outlined in Exodus 21.
3. Exodus 20 through 24 has God telling his people to do and not do things different than what other cultures did.
4. Leviticus 20:23 says “You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them.”

When we take these passages and put them into context (I’m talking about real context not the apologists’ use of context that tries to convince people that X means not X.):

A) The people collectively had not owned slaves for centuries.
B) In the desert God introduced the topic of slavery to individuals who had never owned slaves.
C) The reason God told his people how to get and use slaves could not have been because other cultures were doing it, since he specifically said not to follow the practices of those cultures and he wasn’t afraid to tell them to operate differently from them in a number of ways.

I’ve brought up other passages here in this thread, but what I wrote just above should be more than enough meat to start contributing.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

In the meantime, for a whirlwind tour of slavery in Scripture, see:

biblehub.com/topical/s/slave.htm

This isn’t anything that hasn’t already brought up. I like that it admits that children of slaves were born into slavery, and that such practices allowed the number of slaves to grow. It also tries to claim the religious benefits of being a slave, ignroing the fact that perhaps the slaves wanted to worship their own god(s). Imagine being a slave in an Islamic country, where you would not only worked to the bone but would be forced into their religion. Freedom of worship is one of the many freedoms slaves lose. Everyone gets to be an Egdardo Mortara!

It also claims that Exodus 21:20 is a protection of the slave completely ignoring Exodus 21:21 (meaning slaves could be beaten and killed). It also claims the loss of an eye is a “minor personal injury”.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

You show some patience and compassion when the concept of exegesis is nowhere near to the supposed keystone of the argument. That God must write laws that only align with a morality that His creatures accept. Already divorce was raised but any concept other than the law of exodus which identifies the low nature of the human person, the courtiers of golden rams, is verbotten by the O.P. Divorce clearly is “good” by the new modern species that transcends the ancients by leaps and bounds.

That Christ became a slave to sin is ignored as irrelevant. That the Jewish people were in Egypt because of Joseph is irrelevant. That God used Joseph to show how He can make good result from evil intentions is irrelevant.

I’m repeating myself more than Ray J. Johnson! (I’m old.)

There is a great gap between The Problem of Evil (allowing evil in the world) and actively encourage the spread of evil and claiming good could conceivably come from it. You know what’s a better way to make good results? Doing good. Encouraging good over evil. Treating people like people and not like property to be bought, sold, raped, and beaten.

Everything is irrelevant because only Mike’s opinion of how God teaches falsely is relevant.

This Mike fella sure seems like he’s on the ball, what with his well-thought-out arguments and wanting people to be treated fairly. He’s one cool cat if you ask me!

God, of course, can not teach falsely, nor does He contain any evil. Neither does he tempt us or lead us to sin. So that when He had to give laws on slavery is not clearly seen as evidence for the stone hearts of men rather than God’s “incompetence” in being Divine is chilling. My eyes do not roll at such a misunderstanding of the Author of Life, my heart skips beats at the cold, stone heart that can misinterpret the Lord with impunity. But, the new greater race of superior superhuman with greater morality see things much clearer.

There is no misinterpretation here. I’ve explained meticulously why the various excuses for the inexcusable practice of slavery don’t measure up. If you disagree, then attack my specific points and not my character.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

You have a nomadic people who are constantly being attacked by their enemies. How do you deal with war captives who are your enemies? Free them so that they can war with you again? Kill them? If keeping them alive is of the higher moral good, then a set of ownership rules is better than murder isn’t it?

Slavery is the norm during those times.

Please see two posts above where it’s all there for perusal showing that just because other cultures had slaves doesn’t meanthe Israelites could have or should have also practiced it.

Israelite rules of slave ownership is the best? among those.

Being slightly less evil is still evil.

From what I gathered others can treat their slaves however they wish but Israelites have a rule book that punished the slave owner for intentionally killing of slave. And if the slave owner injured the slave seriously such as the eye, he has to let the slave go free and suffer the economic loss. Unheard of in those days.

I’m convinced! Slaveowners are the real victims here (not the ones who got beaten so hard they lost an eye).

Roman slaves were told not to runaway because the penalties could be severe and the public can be punished by helping slaves to escape i.e. participation in the loss of an asset is deemed wrong. The public has a duty to return such assets to the relevant authorities or owner. Hence survival of slaves that ran away are not good. Freeing slaves may not ensure the survival of the freed men because the tribe/country that they originated from may no longer exist and having a master at least guarantee a roof and food.

We see in my post above that the Church in the 4th century also took steps to make it harder for slaves to escape. Whatever the success rate would have been for escaped slaves, or the possible hardships they may have faced, it’s a choice a slave had to make. We don’t harangue 19th century slaves for using the Underground Railroad to try escaoaing, and the possible downsides certainly are not justifications to keep slaves (at any time) from escaping.

Perhaps they do not possess skills that allow them to earn a living as freemen nor protection from hostile forces which they enjoyed under the former master.

I’m sure there are a great many pimps who try to give the same ridiculous positive spin regarding the ladies under their emply.

Rome in the 1st half of the century conquered most of the lands around the Mediterranean. The Jews were under the rule of the Romans basically and yearning for a Messiah. One came preaching Kingdom of God which wasn’t what they wanted to hear. Jesus didn’t come to incite the Jews to revolt against the Roman masters knowing that if they did, they would lose. They tried and got squashed in 70 AD.

The expectations of the Messiah is a whole other topic. Check out some of Kaninchen’s posts for a clear and concise rundown.

Slavery as well as divorce were tolerated because there were no better alternatives available to them. Women were considered chattel during those times. Women couldn’t survive on their own basically because they are not eligible inheritance -wise. If your hubby get killed in war or sickness, no one will feed the widow’s families because inheritance passed onto the hubby’s brothers if there is no male heir. There was no social welfare then.

Who laid much of the groundwork for how Isarelite society was to be run? As I’ve mentioned a few times now that was God. Somewhere between telling his people not to let a soceress live in Exodus and offering several paragraphs as to a proper post-birth cleaning ritual it wouldn’t have been hard for God to say either women were to be given inheritance rights (or at least in times like when a husband is killed). He told them not to work on the Sabbath, so it wouldn’t have been that hard to say do something for the benefit of each other. It’s simply not a reason to excuse or “tolerate” slavery.

Not too long ago, modern people will bomb the heck out of their “enemies” just in case their potential enemies may hurt them or possess weapons of mass destruction. Just wondering is slavery worse than preemptive strikes. Jailing your enemies and keeping them alive at taxpayers expense are not palatable to many folks. Some of them after serving their time return with a greater vengeance. So what do you do with your enemies?

I’ll say it again. The fact that God tells his people that they can purchase slaves and essentially breed slaves (getting the next generation of slaves from the previous ones already owned) you can’t fixate on prisoners of war. The only crime that people born into slavery committed was thinking that they were enslaved by reasonable people.

Criticising ancient slavery as wrong is not a straightforward exercise. One has to ask what options were available to a Bronze Age people living in those conditions. Not too long ago, Kings/emperors/sultans/dictators were absolute monarchs in their countries. Democracies are the in -thing today. 2000 years from now, who knows what kind of system will be in place and what standards of judgement will be considered acceptable.

One of the things I’ve brought up a few times in this thread is that A) God can see all things of all times, so he would have knowledge of multiple possible slaveless societies (including ones in our future). B) God laid the groundwork for Hebrew society, introducing slavery to a society four centuries removed from owning slaves. Pro-slavery Christians keep tell us who oppose slavery how limited a limitless God was.

 

[ericc]

Post this in any context as an atheist and it will be shouted down by any Christian who read it.

Why would it trigger such a response? After all we are not very good at predicting social or technological developments 500 years away not to say 2000 years. If you have mentioned that to me, I’d just look at the evidence and craft a response either siding or refuting the evidence you present. Anything else would be either an opinion or emotional feedback which you reserve the option to reply or just ignore as noise.

Of course some may just claim victory unilaterally without sufficient regard to the rebuttal but that is just the nature of such discussions. I’ve learned to live with it. But at least you have already laid out your views hopefully that another person may benefit from it. I believe all of us have our own way of presenting evidence/opinion and our biases can be clearly discerned and that is OK. I think your writings here have mellowed over the years if I am not mistaken. There are some wonderful chitchat on CAF. Unfortunately I can only occasionally participate when time allows.

 

[mkoopman]

If one gives instructions on how to do an evil act he certainly is condoning it. My go-to analogy is imagine if there was a town that said you can capture and rape women, but you couldn’t rape them on Wednesdays. No sane person would accept the notion that the elders of that town weren’t condoning the practice, nor would we call them good by saying they could only be harmed 6 of 7 days (like slaves in the Bible having the Sabbath off).

Also the limit of “rights” for a slave aren’t much more than only being beaten so hard that he or she lingers a day before dying as opposed to dying the same day.

This is wrong, entirely. Either you imply that God is malicious or the Divine Author is not the author of The Pentateuch. This is my understanding, entirely, of your position and argument. You make no attempt to apply the qualities of the author of life, nor the context of slavery in relationship to salvation, especially the salvation history of the time of the writings.

This response is not an ad hominem as you interpret my redaction and reaction to your propositiion. My reaction is indeed personal and apparently you misinterpret the emphasis on how upsetting the complete lack of understanding of the mercy and love of God and His irreplaceable role in manifesting human dignity is in your proposal. Jesus is the pivotal moment which enthrones human dignity. No social program of design by His creatures can be greater than The Incarnation. Interpreting human history without a Creator must be a lonely and desolate theater for announcing victory. Victory of Leninism over the natural family? Certainly this is the corollary that would be drawn from making God a liar and malefactor.

The aspects of God, such as both omnipotence and omniscience are precedent over the interpretation of His Word. They must be understood in drawing understanding from Scripture. So, if slavery is an evil, as it is and was at the time of this writing then how must we interpret this writing. Is God sardonic in his “humorous” approach to the stone hearts of men? I offer this as an alternative, but truly the stone hearts of men are at issue, not the infinite goodness of God. Your proposition that God is teaching evil is not possible when the aspects of divinity are applied to God’s Word. The only understanding one can then make that supports your proposition is that The Pentateuch is not inspired writing. Is this then what we are to make of your argument? I presume that this is so.

Be happy in your communist paradise - but I suggest you consider the paradise that Christ opened in His Passion and death as a slave to sin to set us free from the consequence of sin. I hope your mind can be renewed to the concept of eternal life and your materialistic viewpoint widened to comprehend how much God loves you. Or, remain a slave to sin and death for eternity. Seven years of labor to your father-in-law seems hardly consequential in consideration of the gates of heaven.

 

[e_c]

We are more apt to declare something illegal if it brings harm to others. Slavery is one of the most harmful practices out there, and thankfully most countries today (as well as the Church) are strongly against it. We don’t have a law against eating too much cake since that doesn’t hurt others. As I’ve pointed out God has all sorts of rules against what to wear and eat, how to act each Saturday, what to do if you see a neighbor’s animal outside his property. These are minor compared to the brutal art of slavery. In giving his people instructions on how to beat and breed slaves God isn’t just saying it’s not illegal he’s also saying it’s not immoral.
…
I’m going to ask a direct question. Those people born or sold into slavery, what crime did they commit that would necessitate a punishment?

I seem to recall going into detail using the Bible to show why the common argument that God had to consider what other cultures were doing to allow slavery doesn’t hold water (Post #14).
…

I’ve brought up other passages here in this thread, but what I wrote just above should be more than enough meat to start contributing.

You are begging the question again and again by not admitting of a spectrum of slavery, which is quite frustrating. Some kinds of slavery were very beneficial to both the master and the slave, including his children, whom he knowingly would be signing over to labor in a consensual deal! And if he is enslaved for a crime, the lack of an infrastructure to support slave children outside of remaining in the household and earning their keep - which, by the way, is also part of the punishment for the parent - would certainly justify some kinds of forced labor for a non-criminal child of a criminal parent, especially considering it is better for the child generally to be raised by their parents… who in this case are slaves! What is the alternative? Throwing them into the desert and wishing them well? Not very merciful… Orphans did not fare well in the ancient Near East - part of why God repeatedly mentions His special concern for them (along with widows).

One might recall the feudal system to bring perspective here, or a family who lives in a mansion and works as the servants of the owners… Biblical slavery was often a symbiotic relationship. If all we are thinking of is Kunta Kinte, then there can be no progress. Nobody is arguing for this capture and sell chattel slavery.

I’ll comment on Leviticus 25:44, as it is a single verse and one which you seem to think is particularly problematic. The context - which would be obvious to a diligent student of the Torah (remember that well educated 13 year old boys in 1st century Palestine would practically be able to recite the whole thing from memory) - is laid out in Deuteronomy 20:14-18 and 21:10. The “nations” are those guys who are perpetually at war with Israel… They are the bad guys. They are indeed rightly enslaved in perpetuity - their “evil ways” sometimes include, by the way, sacrificing their own children. Bad folks, you know. Israelites, on the other hand, could not be held as slaves in perpetuity (thus the Jubilee and other possibilities of redeeming them). The thought that Israelites are buying these slaves THROUGH (from) the nations comes from you, not from the text you cited. It is not at all clear that the text means to say that the nations themselves are doing the selling of some unknown enslaved persons (they may perhaps be from the nations themselves, however - this would fit with the general task of Israel to dominate the goyyim). On the other hand, slaves certainly may be bought OUT OF (from) the nations. If you want to do the Hebrew to clarify this point, go for it. I suggest it is unnecessary, given the broader context of the Torah’s treatment of the issue.

As for the claim about teaching slavery - no. They already knew it, after living it for 400 years (and, I think, did probably have slaves themselves in Egypt, in varying degrees), just like they knew divorce. God knew they would be doing these things, Moses knew it too, and so the practices - which are morally hazardous, at least - were moderated and tolerated for the sake of avoiding greater evils.

Mike, any difficulty which you have is, I suggest, either not grounded in the right understanding of the text itself, or is due to a broader divergence of your view of morality with the Judeo-Christian view. The former can be helped with a thorough study of reliable commentaries and the ancient semitic language and ANE cultures. The latter is another issue.

I do not think I can help much more. There are loads of commentaries on this issue which can be consulted easily enough. I will now depart from the thread.

Peace,
-e_c

 

[mkoopman]

You believe God allowed slavery to set up a multi-millennium analogy to show the power difference between God and man is similar to that of master to slave? It’s possible two slaves side-by-side getting severely beaten had a conversation like this:

Slave 1: I hate master so much for doing this. Why won’t Adonai help us? Why did he approve this?
Slave 2: Don’t you see? This is just a real-life parable. It helps us understand the greatness of Him by him not helping us.
Slave 1: Gee, I never thought of it that way. This excrutiating pain makes so much more sense. Thanks!
Slave 2 collapses paralyzed after getting hit in the neck with a rod.

You can add a little color but that’s plagiarism. Plus consider the recent disposition of the most famous recent speaker to use this content.

Does the database you use include all the meta tags?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

mkoopman, I’m writing up responses to both your recent post and e_c’s recent post; but I wanted to respond as I am confused by this:

You can add a little color but that’s plagiarism.

What do you think I plagiarized? Do you have a link to the original source?

Plus consider the recent disposition of the most famous recent speaker to use this content.

Who are you referring to and what do you mean by his or her “recent disposition”?

Does the database you use include all the meta tags?

I have no idea what you’re talking about here.

 

[mkoopman]

mkoopman, I’m writing up responses to both your recent post and e_c’s recent post; but I wanted to respond as I am confused by this:

What do you think I plagiarized? Do you have a link to the original source?

Who are you referring to and what do you mean by his or her “recent disposition”?

I have no idea what you’re talking about here.

You said you were old. You have no knowledge of MultiGen and Interleaf?

Did you know Farrakhan’s speech writer? The Christian writer who entered into a relationship with his Muslim speaker that may be a strong element of Farrakhan’s conversion.

Maybe you are not that old and your lead pipe slave dialog is just a bit of good fortune? I believe that dialog without the slight sense twist as you present it is under a creative commons license what is not the same as public domain.

The government interleaf based database related to the system known as Dialogue may be public domain by now.

Are you stating the slave dialog you presented is your original work? I don’t have any government databases so handy to trace the origin, just my memory. But if you were the last person to speak with a principal developer of that database the specific logics you followed to this slave dialog would be well burned into your memory, also.

You should be more careful if you order cocktails for lunch and ask for Molotov. They may have some ready in the back. An astronaut, Frederick, Douglass told me. You never met Secretary Brown, did you?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

You said you were old. You have no knowledge of MultiGen and Interleaf?

I wasn’t familiar with them, but I see those are names of databases (among other things). I don’t know what the names of two database programs have to do with an accusation of plaigarism.

Did you know Farrakhan’s speech writer? The Christian writer who entered into a relationship with his Muslim speaker that may be a strong element of Farrakhan’s conversion.

Does this person have a name? Are you saying that this speechwriter once wrote something like that which I posted?

Can I just a get straight answer?

Maybe you are not that old and your lead pipe slave dialog is just a bit of good fortune? I believe that dialog without the slight sense twist as you present it is under a creative commons license what is not the same as public domain.

What is the piece of text that you say I plaigarized? Who said or wrote it? It should be pretty straightforward to back up your very serious claim.

The government interleaf based database related to the system known as Dialogue may be public domain by now.

Why do you keep bringing up databases? Are you saying that there is a database out there which contains the text you claim I plaigarized? Just point to it.

Are you stating the slave dialog you presented is your original work? I don’t have any government databases so handy to trace the origin, just my memory. But if you were the last person to speak with a principal developer of that database the specific logics you followed to this slave dialog would be well burned into your memory, also.

After you wrote that God allowed slavery for thousands upon thousands of years because he wanted to demonstrate an analogy was something I found quite humorous. From there I imagined how that were to play out among slaves if it were actually true. It was so silly it wrote itself.

You should be more careful if you order cocktails for lunch and ask for Molotov. They may have some ready in the back. An astronaut, Frederick, Douglass told me. You never met Secretary Brown, did you?

Huh? I’ve never heard of an astronaut named Frederick Douglass. Who is Secretary Brown? What on earth does this all have to with what you are accusing me of?

 

[mkoopman]

Can I just a get straight answer?

It should be pretty straightforward to back up your very serious claim.

I need to back up a claim to a selection of dialog so common it was given the short name Thunk?
What is it you are trying to prove?
You are now the mugwump God?

That is an unfortunately dangerous road to trod.
I saw an Indian Deli explode over who had rights to be mugwump God. Mike Hunt from the Jersey Shore bar, astronaut playboy and all, may regret going there. Your play, player.

Why do you keep bringing up databases?

Because they are parts of the game system you are using. Odd thing it landed on mugwump thunk, you think?

After you wrote that God allowed slavery for thousands upon thousands of years because he wanted to demonstrate an analogy was something I found quite humorous.

Humorous? You claim to have some compassion or moral outrage and find it humorous? God allows slavery because he gave us free will and man has a hardened heart. It is this hardened heart and God’s wrath which Moses quelled identified in slavery rules. Man is not becoming like angels and your playing games with both “Thunk” and a concept as serious as slavery clarifies this aspect of the new, greater, morality that you claim.

Oh, and knock, knock, good luck at thunk. Hope I don’t see you at a deli or in the Baltic Ocean. Bub.

Huh?

Acting clueless is not the same as invincible ignorance.