Thought about slavery

[Darryl1958]

How silly.

The Bible was used as the rationale for ending slavery.

And correctly so.

Just for one major example, Sarah oppressed her Egyptian slave Hagar.
Then the story turns to Sarah’s progeny becoming slaves in Egypt for five hundred years until Moses redeemed them with the blood of the Passover lamb.

In giving his law, God told his redeemed people to remember that they were slave in Egypt, and how that felt, the next time that they saw fit to enslave somebody.

There has been no book in history that has been so inspirational to oppressed people in their fight for true freedom. Martin Luther King Jr. is a good example of how this has been so.

But the Bible is nothing like a How-To manual. There is much give and take, as people struggle to find the moral lessons of their own place and time, and what is possible within the limits that history places on all of us.

At one point, Hagar was about to die in the desert. She was neither physically, nor more importantly, psychologically and spiritually prepared to NOT be a slave.
Hagar no longer wanted to oppress her. She just wanted her gone. Slavery was not something being imposed on Hagar at this point.

Fittingly, after asking Hagar the slave where she was, the Angel of the Lord made it clear that a state of slavery was her spiritual condition. Therefore, he tells her to go back and be oppressed by Sarah.

The only freedom available for Hagar and her progeny in that spiritual state would be the freedom of a wild donkey, forever balking and kicking at the masters who oppress them.
But they remain tied to the master on their own accord, not know what freedom really even means.

Learning to be free is not an easy thing. Even now, we all exist in a state of redemption.
But freedom to what? … Freedom to sin?!!
“God forbid!!!”, as St Paul exhorts.

For those who chose sin becomes slaves to sin. Redemption becomes moot.

Slavery is a very human, and very complicated state of affairs. Yes, the Bible exhorts us to be free, redeems us to a life of freedom even, but it is contingent on us to find the parameters under which freedom truly becomes possible.

 

[adamhovey1988]

PLEASE actually read what the Bible says about slavery, it was most certainly not the European cartel slavery in recent centuries. I really hate it when people fail to actually read the Bible on the topic.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Are you REALLY interested in understanding this complex subject? Or is this just an easy talking point?

If the former, it’s all covered here:

Paul Copan: Did God Sanction Slavery in the Old Testament?
youtube.com/watch?v=CyLpygp4eSE

I’ll get to everyone else’s responses later but here’s my reaction to that 45 minute video. The parts outside of parentheses are the gists of each section. The parts in parentheses are my responses.

2:08 - People when they see slavery in the Bible they associate it with slavery in Antebellum South.
2:39 - Harriet Beecher Stowe said there was no protection for the slave’s life.
3:02 - Sam Harris said that the Old Testament considers slaves as farm equipment.
3:58 - In the Old Testament slavery is more like indentured servitude where it’s a contractual arrangement.
5:00 - The maximum term was seven years (He specifically ignores women, children, and those bought or born into slavery).
5:17 - Don’t be confused by terms “bought” and “sold” It means contractual terms, and once you were done you were free. (Again, when the Bible mentions slaves being bought and sold it is for those from neighboring nations – who were served until they died).
5:56 - He compares slaves to professional athletes (Once again he neglects even the most basic critical thinking, because athletes can retire at any time. Try and see if a slave can retire. Also let’s see the owner of the Cavs try and beat LeBron James with a staff.)
6:47 - “Servitude in ancient Israel was voluntary.” (HA! HA! HA! Note that there are no disclaimers, caveats, exemptions in his statement.)
7:34 - The family gets “parceled out” (which differs from indentured servitude, despite his earlier false contention that they were one and the same)
8:50 - He mentions that Israelite servants would eventually be released. (Good: This time he made the distinction between Israelite slave and non-Israelites slaves. Bad: It slipped his mind that this doesn’t count female Israelite slaves, children born of Isarelite slaves, and that a male Israelite slave would have to choose between freedom and any family gained during his servitude.)
9:08 - The male Israelite slave would be free after 7 years “unless he wants to attach himself to that household and remain with it for the rest of his life.” (He again skips over the fact that the reason why someone would choose not to be set free was due to blackmail – as arranged and approved by God – where a man choose his family over freedom.)
10:00 - “Servitude was not imposed by someone from the outside” (Again, HA!)
10:57 - The dignity of servants in Israel is kept because those who were freed became full citizens (To that I say, big deal. While slaves they have NO dignity. God himself calls them property.)
11:53 - Gleening (sp?) laws meant leaving the corners of the land uncut for the poor to feed from. (That’s great. Too bad it didn’t help those enslaved.)
12:29 - There were laws against charging interest. (Too bad it didn’t help those enslaved.)
13:00 - Poorer people were allowed to make lower-end animal sacrifices (Too bad it didn’t help those enslaved.)
13:22 - Debts could be cancelled every 7 years (Too bad it didn’t help those enslaved.)
13:46 - He says that Mosaic Law isn’t necessarily God’s intention. (He clearly hasn’t read his Bible, since the rules regarding slaves in the Old Testament come directly from God.)
14:22 - Ankura (sp?) Bible Dictionary said the Bible is the first instance of treating slaves as human beings (This despite God calling slaves property and the allowing of heinous things that one normally can not due to a person. Besides all that it’s yet another case of moral relativism.)
14:40 - “Three remarkable provisions in Israel” If southerners in the United States had taken in the following provisions, and used the Old Testament as a model, slavery would not have been a problem: #1. Anti-harm laws, i.e. set free if one loses an eye or tooth. (I’m curious to see if he mentions Exodus 21:20-21, since that allows for beatings and for manslaughter.) He also mentions that no such laws existed in the antebellum South. (That’s not entirely true. Not IN ANYWAY to defend slavery then, but there were a few “southern codes” that made it against the law for masters to be cruel to their slaves. #2. Laws that didn’t require runaway slaves to be returned to their masters (Shouldn’t thefact that there were runaway slaves show that often being a slave was harsh and cruel?) #3. Anti-kidnapping laws (Here he’s ignore the fact that God told his people he could purchase slaves from neighboring nations. So it’s not ok to kidnap someone but it was ok to
purchase from another someone who was kidnapped.)
18:00 - No other nation held the master to account for his own slaves. (Again that’s not entirely true. Besides looking at the Bible shows such a threshold to be embarrassingly low. And once again we are neck-deep in moral relativism.)

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

18:53 - Exodus 21:20-21. The word na-qum is used with capital punishment. (In the translations I’ve seen it’s associated with the words revenge and vengeance, which could mean capital punishment but not necessarily. It should be noted that there is no such question of meaning in Exodus 21:12 when a man intentionally kills another. yū-māṯ. = shall be put to death. As I’ve noted earlier in the thread it’s interesting how all of these calls for equality between slaves and non-slaves and yet here we don’t get one law governing the killing of another.) He then debates whether Exodus 21:20-21 pertains to all slaves or just non-Hebrew slaves (As though letting just non-Hebrew slaves get manslaughtered is good in any way.)
21:50 - He said this law is about accidental injuries due to quarrels. He compares it to Exodus 21:18-19 (Again people are equal but there are different rules for slaves and non-slaves. Also he neglects to mention that 20-21 outright means that beating a slave is a-ok.)
23:02 - Frederick Douglass was separated from his own mother. Biblical slavery keeps them all together.
24:40 - “Somehow” the wife and children are trapped in this arrangement. (Somehow? It’s God’s specific instructions telling slave owners not to free women or children born or sold into slavery.)
25:00 - This might be an issue where this is not gender specific. Maybe this can be gender-swapped. (This guy misses the point a lot, but so far this is the biggest one. It’s not that this is anti-woman. It’s anti-good. The idea of keeping a persons children and spouse from someone and blackmailing them to serve for ever to remain with them is bad. He is trying to call evil good and he’s doing so with moral relativism again. With regards to gender-swapping it doesn’t work with Exodus 21:4 which has the wife given to the male hebrew slave bearing children. On top of that this whole gender-swap thing is adding to scripture, which you would think he should know you’re not supposed to do.)
27:11 - He says one option is for the male slave to leave and wait out his wife and children’s “contracts”. (Of course, we know that such people don’t have “contracts” and serve for life. Also this is yet another example of how Biblical slavery is not like indentured servitude.) A second option would be for the freed man to buy out the “contracts” of the wife and children (He’s doubling down on his incorrectness.)
28:18 - The third option is to stay with the master forever, and that’s a good and stable thing. (Put aside how ridiculous this all is, and how much God is endorsing blackmail, and how the speaker is ignoring the option of letting them all go, the speaker is contradicting himself. If the male were to stay with his family, why wouldn’t he only stay for the length of the alleged contracts of his wife and children? That should be no more than another 7 years, yet God has the male opting to stay forever. Clearly there are no “contracts” for the wife and children. This is the speaker trying and failing to rescue the text.)
29:50 - Leviticus 25:45. Love the neighbor in the land. At first glance this looks like foreign slaves are property. Leviticus 19 says there is special care to be care to those foreigners living in Israel. The term acquire doesn’t necessarily mean to deal with selling or property. (This is despite God calling such slaves property twice in as many sentences.) The part where sojourners could be bequeathed needs to be read in light of 25:47 which says that they can become persons of means in Israel. (Wrong! Every commentary I’ve seen on this doesn’t describe those passages as saying sojourner slaves can gain wealth. It does say that sojourners in general may through trade end up gaining enough wealth that a poor Hebrew may sell his services to the rich sojourner. In doing so things are similar to if a Hebrew man sold himself to another Hebrew, except that the slave has certain other priveleges. It certainly doesn’t say that sojourner slaves can gain wealth and/or buy their way out of being slave.)
34:36 - Runaway slaves were given protection and not forced to return to harsh masters.
34:50 - Since foreigners in Israel couldn’t only land they often had little choice to but to become slaves. (That sounds like a fault of whoever came up with the rules for such a societal structure. Also the speaker is making it seem like the purchasing of slaves wasn’t a factor in how foreigners could become slaves.)

 

[wiggbuggie]

don’t want to change the flow of the conversation but, if slavery is really a servitude in the OT does anyone know the original Hebrew word that is used? Is slaves too harsh of a word in modern times?

 

[jcrichton]

don’t want to change the flow of the conversation but, if slavery is really a servitude in the OT does anyone know the original Hebrew word that is used? Is slaves too harsh of a word in modern times?

Hi!
…I don’t think the terminology actually matters… there has always been a distinction in the treatment of slaves (either as indebted servants or as war prisoners or as bought as cattle) from nation to nation (and even within clans); the culture would dictate the treatment.

Though I’ve not read much history, I doubt that there would be much about Hebrew extreme abuse of their “slaves,” since they would have to answer to the Word of God.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Hi, Mike!
…you keep missing the point… God Calls adultery adultery and forbids it; yet, people who claim to be Believers continue to not only engage in adultery but they enable others including non-Believers to engage in it.

God also Demands that the Sacrament of Marriage to be insoluble; yet, Believers, including Catholics, continue to avail themselves of the states’ permission to divorce their spouses–sometimes over quite selfish reasons (again, not only engaging in the breaking of God’s Command but also enabling and facilitating both Believers and non-Believers to break God’s Command).

And as I’ve noted I can point out chapter and verse where God denounces divorce.

Though slavery (which has been brought about mostly by non-Christians, and specifically atheists)

I am very interested in seeing how on earth you can back up such a claim!

is horrific is a worldwide practice which no amount of Teaching will compel the participants to give up (as we have experienced it through history–the Church preached and preached an it stopped only so slowly, in the West);

I agree that there would still be slavery even if God had said slavery was bad, just as there is still murder even though God said not to murder, and there are still people who let sorcerers live even though God said not to.

The thing is just because God saying something wouldn’t stop a certain practice that doesn’t mean that God should tell his people how to perform said practice. Silence would have been better than calling evil good.

Also would you say that some people don’t do certain things because says not to do them? Not everybody, but some people. If God had been moral and said slavery was wrong, there likely would have been less slavery. There certainly wouldn’t be Hebrews and Christians who defended owning slaves by pointing to those passages in the Bible specifically showing God is perfectly fine with slave owning and slave (mis)treatment.

God will Call to Judgment both Believers and non-Believers but He will reserve the harshest Judgment for the breaking of His Tenets (which the imposing of slavery breaks). Since God is a God to all (yes, even to you) He will Resurrect all–those who were evil in their deeds will forever be Cast Away from any Good.

Did those who followed the tenets of Exodus 21 regarding slavery get cast away? Were they sent to Hell for doing what God said to do?

As in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, those who suffered will find Solace and Peace in God–those that inflicted evil… well we all know what will happen… for Eternity!

That’s kind of the disturbing trump card that apologists will use in defending not just slavery but other troubling passages in the Bible, as if to say it doesn’t matter the God brought about suffering because in the end some of them may go to Heaven

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Hi, Mike!
…yet, He did.

The Commandment not to kill.

The Hebrew word is murder.

This Commandment fully encompasses all the atrocities that the term entails. Do you not think that slavery is murder? Yes, there is physical constrains and abuse (specially in the sexual trade and forced labor) but a person is put to death daily–I would even venture, every second of their bondage! Thou Shall NOT KILL, is a Command that both Believers and non-Believers refuse to obey.

Murder can be a part of slavery but isn’t slavery itself.

Even if it was (which it’s not) what does it mean if God says his commandments in Exodus 20 then gives numerous rules on how to enslave in Exodus 21. That sounds like a contradiction to me.

If you pay attention to Scriptures you find that the Commandments did not change; yet, the practice (obedience to them) changed because God’s people (then and now) continuously sought ways to circumvent God’s Command.

So the Hebrews were in the desert. They had just escaped the Egyptians after 430 years of being slaves. They possessed no slaves and hadn’t possessed them for over a dozen generations. It’s at this point that God gives commands on how his people were to get, blackmail, beat, and otherwise treat slaves. That sounds like they were following God’s command.

So you demand that the world, mostly atheist (though not unreligious since even atheism is a form of religion–a “godless” form), be compelled by Believers (some which are so conflicted that they might as well not claim the title) to do “the right thing” because it says so in Scriptures—and you assert that evil/unrighteousness would have been eradicated by God posting a “do not” compulsory list?

“The right thing” regarding slavery (which in this case is NOT owning people) does not appear in the Scriptures. It doesn’t take a certain religion or lack thereof but compassion to know that it’s wrong. And again I’m not saying God saying do not enslave would have ended the practice, but it could have reduced it. But you know what certainly increased the amount of slavery: God saying it was just fine and detailing how one could do it without punishment.

You fail to understand that God has already placed in our heart the need to Choose Him over unrighteousness and evil.

Why on earth would I choose God over anyone else that knows slavery is wrong? Yahweh is certainly not where one turns to avoid evil when it comes to slavery.

Yet, man chooses his own will, plagued with all the heinous and atrocious exploits that hurts and oppresses humanity and guarantees Damnation, rather than obeying God’s Will.

So basically, you demand free will while, simultaneously, blaming God for the ills of the world, am I not correct?

You are most certainly with no qualifications whatsoever not correct. You are saying slavery is not part of God’s will despite what he says in Exodus, Leviticus, and the rest of the Bible.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Hi, Mike!

…again, you are confusing issues.

Some time ago it became mandatory that businesses provide employees with health insurance and other benefits… then there was the fire extinguisher mandate… does that mean that all employers are obliged to ascertain the health of each of their employees or to educate every person they hire on the sound use of a fire extinguisher?

Did your parents tell you which laws applied to you as a child, then as a young adult, then as an adult…? Did the government?

Yet, the laws are there.

Only when you chose to break a law (parents/society) did any of the rules apply, was this not the case?

You are on quite a tangent. I’ll use this analogy again because it’s quite apropos: Would a law that allowed women to be raped only 6 days a week be a good law? Would a person who proposed such a law be a good lawgiver? Could we say that lawgiver is perfectly good?

No to all three questions. Focusing on small differences between the slavery in the Bible and that of other neighboring nations at the time is not measure of good but just slightly-less-evil. A good lawgiver would say rape should be illegal everyday. A good lawgiver doesn’t make slavery legal then point out how they get every Sabbath off or how they can be set free if they lose an eye. A perfectly good lawgiver doesn’t tell his people to do evil and then let more moral people thousands of years later move society away from that evil.

Ditto with Scriptures. Thou shall not break the Sabbath was Written to compel Believers to uphold the Sabbath. Just because it was there it did not imply that it was used on any occasion.

I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here. I think you’re saying that we shouldn’t assume that all Sabbath-breakers were punished. If I’m correct, then so what. If the number of people killed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath is greater than zero, then it’s a bad law. If the number of people enslaved is greater than zero, then the laws given by God himself that allowed them are bad laws.

When we buy plants or acquire pets we, normally, get instructions (either written on pamphlet/card/plastic tag/orally), does that mean that it is presumed that we will abuse these plants and animals as soon as we are out of the sight of the seller/provider?

It’s not analogous. Plants aren’t people and God’s allow for cruelty to be done by slave owners to slaves, specifically without punishment by God.

…and you are correct in distinguishing what God would do if we transgress His Commandment. Moses had not obeyed the Covenant demand of Circumcision so God acted to Correct his error. Now, (you may only see the half-empty glass) have you considered what actually took place? Where was Moses prior to the incident? Median (v. 19). Did you noticed what was about to take place? Moses was to embark on Yahweh God’s Mission to Free the Hebrews from Egypt’s Bondage (vs. 21-23).

Moses was entering into an elevated relationship with God–Moses would be God’s representative; his relationship with God would now enter into a religious (Worship) form and God demands that those who are in such relationship be Bonded to Him (in this case through the act of Circumcision)–interestingly, though, Moses’ wife is made aware of just what to do!

Where was this swiftness by God when a boy was beaten by his master? Where was God when the thousandths daughter sold by the thousandth father was being forced upon sexually by the son of a slave owner or by the owner himself? God has strange priorities.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Then, perhaps there is some aspect to slavery as it was practiced in Israel that you do not understand. We’re not talking about Twelve Years a Slave here - the slavery practiced by the Jews was closer to servitude than slavery.

As I’ve demonstrated repeatedly that is simply not the case. Pro-slavery Christians like to compare slavery in the Bible like indentured servitude, but I’ve shown the differences – not the least of which is the ability to be manslaughtered.

No, I’m pretty sure I meant “as a direct result”.

Then your errors comes from your contention and not your choice of words

In the American South, families were routinely split up by plantation owners. Israel did not do this. It was a more humane form of slavery. You just don’t want to admit this.

I talked about this in my response to Paul Copan, but I’ll risk repeating myself.

1. When a person sold himself as an indentured servant he didn’t sell his wife and children as well.
2. The wife and children were to serve forever.
3. Because of 2, the men were blackmailed into not going free after 6 or 7 years but stayed with his family.
4. Paul Copan alleged (quite incorrectly) that woman and child slaves also had “contracts”, but it’s interesting that a male who was freed wouldn’t return to serve until the end of his family’s contract but forever.
5. Is separating families awful? Abolutely. But don’t try to play off this set up (which only was used for male Hebrew slaves) as anything but a differently evil setup used to keep Hebrew slaves forever.

Are you REALLY interested in understanding this complex subject? Or is this just an easy talking point?

I didn’t watch a man make numerous errors in a 45 minute video for nothing. I haven’t made sure to list every reference to back up my points for kicks. I understand the subject. I’m just not willing to wring and twist the meaning of words to get a reading that runs counter to what the words actually say.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

don’t want to change the flow of the conversation but, if slavery is really a servitude in the OT does anyone know the original Hebrew word that is used? Is slaves too harsh of a word in modern times?

I find biblehub.com to be a pretty good site. They have interlinear translations, a collection of commentaries, as well as the Hebrew for the Old Testament.

Just checking the Hebrew for Exodus 21 it has a few uses of slave/servant:

Exodus 21:2 has e·ḇeḏ
Exodus 21:7 has lə·’ā·māh to signify a maidservant or female slave
Exodus 21:9 has hā·‘ă·ḇā·ḏîm.to signify menservants or male slaves
Exodus 21:20 has ‘aḇ·dōw

You can also check this page which does the same thing.

I don’t Hebrew so I can’t verify any usage or translations, but I hope that helps.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I find biblehub.com to be a pretty good site. They have interlinear translations, a collection of commentaries, as well as the Hebrew for the Old Testament.

Just checking the Hebrew for Exodus 21 it has a few uses of slave/servant:

Exodus 21:2 has e·ḇeḏ
Exodus 21:7 has lə·’ā·māh to signify a maidservant or female slave
Exodus 21:9 has hā·‘ă·ḇā·ḏîm.to signify menservants or male slaves
Exodus 21:20 has ‘aḇ·dōw

You can also check this page which does the same thing.

I don’t Hebrew so I can’t verify any usage or translations, but I hope that helps.

 

[jcrichton]

And as I’ve noted I can point out chapter and verse where God denounces divorce.

I am very interested in seeing how on earth you can back up such a claim!

I agree that there would still be slavery even if God had said slavery was bad, just as there is still murder even though God said not to murder, and there are still people who let sorcerers live even though God said not to.

The thing is just because God saying something wouldn’t stop a certain practice that doesn’t mean that God should tell his people how to perform said practice. Silence would have been better than calling evil good.

Also would you say that some people don’t do certain things because says not to do them? Not everybody, but some people. If God had been moral and said slavery was wrong, there likely would have been less slavery. There certainly wouldn’t be Hebrews and Christians who defended owning slaves by pointing to those passages in the Bible specifically showing God is perfectly fine with slave owning and slave (mis)treatment.

Did those who followed the tenets of Exodus 21 regarding slavery get cast away? Were they sent to Hell for doing what God said to do?

That’s kind of the disturbing trump card that apologists will use in defending not just slavery but other troubling passages in the Bible, as if to say it doesn’t matter the God brought about suffering because in the end some of them may go to Heaven

…we could go on forever–if our fate would join us at one place but it would be redundant… circular arguments can gain nothing…

God Bless!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

…we could go on forever–if our fate would join us at one place but it would be redundant… circular arguments can gain nothing…

God Bless!

Good night!

 

[Darryl1958]

don’t want to change the flow of the conversation but, if slavery is really a servitude in the OT does anyone know the original Hebrew word that is used? Is slaves too harsh of a word in modern times?

Certainly modern times have changed the meaning of the word slave.
Paul calling himself, and us slaves of Christ reveals that the word had many more nuances to it than what slave has come to mean during the times of the antebellum South and in our times of white slavery and the like.

It is almost impossible for the modern year to hear the word slave and not feel a strong emotional abhorrence against it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ll get to everyone else’s responses later but here’s my reaction to that 45 minute video. The parts outside of parentheses are the gists of each section. The parts in parentheses are my responses.

I give you props for actually watching the video.

2:08 - People when they see slavery in the Bible they associate it with slavery in Antebellum South.

Do you make this mistake?

3:02 - Sam Harris said that the Old Testament considers slaves as farm equipment.

Which makes a great soundbite but is wildly inaccurate.

3:58 - In the Old Testament slavery is more like indentured servitude where it’s a contractual arrangement.

Do you agree or disagree with this comparison? Why or why not?

5:00 - The maximum term was seven years (He specifically ignores women, children, and those bought or born into slavery).

Doesn’t he address this later in the talk? :yup:

5:17 - Don’t be confused by terms “bought” and “sold” It means contractual terms, and once you were done you were free. (Again, when the Bible mentions slaves being bought and sold it is for those from neighboring nations – who were served until they died).

Agreed. Non-Hebrew slaves WERE treated very differently. And he explains why, doesn’t he? :yup:

5:56 - He compares slaves to professional athletes (Once again he neglects even the most basic critical thinking, because athletes can retire at any time. Try and see if a slave can retire. Also let’s see the owner of the Cavs try and beat LeBron James with a staff.)

But this does not undermine the fact that LANGUAGE used in the “trading” of athletes is analogous to the language of the OT buying and selling and trading.

You mentioned the “blackmailing” of a slave in a previous post wherein an owner could say to the slave, “Sure, you’re free to go, but your wife stays. So, do you want to stay, also?” Do you remember making that charge against God?

Well, what about professional athletes who are told that they can either accept lower salary or be “traded” or “sold” to another team? Isn’t that blackmail, also? The wife and kids have friends, they are settled into good schools, etc. What does the athlete do? Uproot his family or take the pay cut?

Modern life is not much different, but I’m betting you are less harsh with team owners than you are toward God.

6:47 - “Servitude in ancient Israel was voluntary.” (HA! HA! HA! Note that there are no disclaimers, caveats, exemptions in his statement.)

HAHAHAHAHA! Note that you provide no evidence to the contrary.

7:34 - The family gets “parceled out” (which differs from indentured servitude, despite his earlier false contention that they were one and the same)
8:50 - He mentions that Israelite servants would eventually be released. (Good: This time he made the distinction between Israelite slave and non-Israelites slaves. Bad: It slipped his mind that this doesn’t count female Israelite slaves, children born of Isarelite slaves, and that a male Israelite slave would have to choose between freedom and any family gained during his servitude.)
9:08 - The male Israelite slave would be free after 7 years “unless he wants to attach himself to that household and remain with it for the rest of his life.” (He again skips over the fact that the reason why someone would choose not to be set free was due to blackmail – as arranged and approved by God – where a man choose his family over freedom.)

Again, you skip over the fact that if the owner provided the wife for his slave, then she is still the owner’s property as are the kids. And again, you skip over the blackmailing of professional athletes, military personnel and even the average corporate Joe who is informed that his job is being relocated accross country. Take it or leave it.

10:00 - “Servitude was not imposed by someone from the outside” (Again, HA!)

Again, where is your evidence to the contrary?

10:57 - The dignity of servants in Israel is kept because those who were freed became full citizens (To that I say, big deal. While slaves they have NO dignity. God himself calls them property.)

Do you think it was a big deal to those who were in slavery to know that they would eventually be freed compared with the slavery practiced in the antebellum South?
Do you think it was a big deal to those so freed to be full citizens again?

You just can’t see how this was radically different from the practices of other nations, because you don’t WANT to see how God improved the lives of the poor.

11:53 - Gleening (sp?) laws meant leaving the corners of the land uncut for the poor to feed from. (That’s great. Too bad it didn’t help those enslaved.)
12:29 - There were laws against charging interest. (Too bad it didn’t help those enslaved.)
13:00 - Poorer people were allowed to make lower-end animal sacrifices (Too bad it didn’t help those enslaved.)
13:22 - Debts could be cancelled every 7 years (Too bad it didn’t help those enslaved.)

Conveniently overlooking the fact that the gleaning laws, interest laws, etc., imposed by God were designed to help the poor from BECOMING slaves due to their excessive poverty.

You want to excoriate God for what you consider to be unfair treatment of indentured servants without acknowledging that Israel’s laws were designed to minimize the need for such servitude in the first place.

I don’t need to go on dismantling your “argument”. My point has been made.

It is evident that you don’t see the laws of Israel as a radical improvement because you don’t WANT to see them as such. You WANT a convenient excuse to view God as a moral monster, and although the truth has been explained to you, you refuse to listen.

Cling to this attack on God if you wish, but it’s a paper tiger.

 

[Randy_Carson]

don’t want to change the flow of the conversation but, if slavery is really a servitude in the OT does anyone know the original Hebrew word that is used? Is slaves too harsh of a word in modern times?

Hi!
…I don’t think the terminology actually matters… there has always been a distinction in the treatment of slaves (either as indebted servants or as war prisoners or as bought as cattle) from nation to nation (and even within clans); the culture would dictate the treatment.

Though I’ve not read much history, I doubt that there would be much about Hebrew extreme abuse of their “slaves,” since they would have to answer to the Word of God.

Maran atha!

Angel

MikefromNJ is also overlooking the many times when God specifically commanded the Israelites to care for the needs of the widows, the orphans and the foreigners.

Why these three? Because they had no one else to protect them.

Additionally, God repeatedly reminded the Israelites of their own slavery in Egypt. So, if God is commanding the Israelites to treat their slaves well, is this not an improvement over the lot of slaves in other nations?

But Mike does not want to give God the credit for initiating this new approach to the humane treatment of people who found themselves in dire circumstances requiring them to become servants or die of starvation, etc.

 

[jcrichton]

MikefromNJ is also overlooking the many times when God specifically commanded the Israelites to care for the needs of the widows, the orphans and the foreigners.

Why these three? Because they had no one else to protect them.

Additionally, God repeatedly reminded the Israelites of their own slavery in Egypt. So, if God is commanding the Israelites to treat their slaves well, is this not an improvement over the lot of slaves in other nations?

But Mike does not want to give God the credit for initiating this new approach to the humane treatment of people who found themselves in dire circumstances requiring them to become servants or die of starvation, etc.

Hi, Randy!
I concur with you… I’ve noticed that behavior with most who are anti-Catholic/anti-God–they reach for the stars then blame God for not making them easily accessible…

I heard everything from feeling sorry to being mad at God for all the people that “God will damn to Hell.” No matter how tactfully or explosively I explain that man has the freedom to choose not to go to Hell because it is not God Who damns us but our own determination to remain unrighteous… it does not take! They always manage to not see reason; which almost always reminds me of Jesus’ Word on the Pharisees and Sadducees:

29 And all the people hearing, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with John’s baptism. 30 But the Pharisees and the lawyers despised the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized by him. 31 And the Lord said: Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? 32 They are like to children sitting in the marketplace, and speaking one to another, and saying: We have piped to you, and you have not danced: we have mourned, and you have not wept. 33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and you say: He hath a devil. 34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking: and you say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a drinker of wine, a friend of publicans and sinners. (St. Luke 7:29-34)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Which makes a great soundbite but is wildly inaccurate.

Does God not twice call slaves property? Does he not say they can be purchased? Does he not say they can be passed down to future generations? All they need is a John Deere logo on the side.

Do you agree or disagree with this comparison? Why or why not?

I’ve shown that I do not, both later in the video-watching posts as well as post 4 where I wrote, “hadulzo, what you are referring to is indentured servitude, which was a real thing. It did not involve being born into slavery, sold into slavery, or having one’s children become slaves. It also did not involve the threat of manslaughter (see Exodus 21:20-21). This common apologetic that there is a distinction between slavery of say the 19th century slavery (so-called “chattel slavery”) and that of Biblical times falls to tatters upon examination.”

Doesn’t he address this later in the talk? :yup:

He does, but it’s important to try and be accurate at all times and not trying to slip in exceptions later on.

Agreed. Non-Hebrew slaves WERE treated very differently. And he explains why, doesn’t he? :yup:

You’re missing the point. He’s saying the terms bought and sold don’t mean what we think they mean because some male Hebrews worked out agreement to serve for 6 or 7 years. He’s neglecting (and I think willfully) that non-Hebrew slaves were bought and sold as well as inherited.

But ignoring even that, he doesn’t give a good reason why a god who allegedly created all people should choose to be less cruel to one set of people versus another.

But this does not undermine the fact that LANGUAGE used in the “trading” of athletes is analogous to the language of the OT buying and selling and trading.

You mentioned the “blackmailing” of a slave in a previous post wherein an owner could say to the slave, “Sure, you’re free to go, but your wife stays. So, do you want to stay, also?” Do you remember making that charge against God?

Well, what about professional athletes who are told that they can either accept lower salary or be “traded” or “sold” to another team? Isn’t that blackmail, also? The wife and kids have friends, they are settled into good schools, etc. What does the athlete do? Uproot his family or take the pay cut?

Do you understand the economics of sports? When a player signs up for the draft (or if undrafted signs as a free agent) he knows that as part of his contract his services may get traded to another team. His family is aware of that possibility and may decide to move in such a case or stay where they are and have the athlete do more traveling than most. The player may choose to retire from the league as is his right.

This is not analogous to what is described in the Bible regarding slavery. While, yes, there are some people who make an agreement with a slave owner to serve for 6 or 7 years, that is simply not true for all such persons. On top of that, a person joining the NBA does not automatically force his wife and children to work for that team. Eli Manning has several daughters while under contract with the New York Giants. John Mara, the Giants co-owner, does not have rights to Eli’s kids. He can’t force Eli to sign an extension for life by witholding access to those kids.

It should also be noted that the leagues, the players’ associations, and state and federal governments have protections in place to prevent abuse to players by teams. And even then, there was never abuse to level of manslaughter which God apparently thought was good.

No, the analogy fails under the mildest of scrutiny.

Modern life is not much different, but I’m betting you are less harsh with team owners than you are toward God.

Team owners can trade the services of players and the players agree to that as part of the compromise of getting paid the amounts they do. If a great baseball player doesn’t want to risk moving his family he finds another line of work. People bought or born into slavery don’t have such options, and to compare the two is just silly.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

HAHAHAHAHA! Note that you provide no evidence to the contrary.

What have I been going off on for the entirety of this thread? That there are people who are bought or born into slavery and have not made agreements with their owners to serve. It’s impossible to miss that point I’ve made ad nauseum.

Did children born into slavery serve voluntarily?
Did daughters sold into slavery by their fathers do so voluntarily?
Did people from other lands bought by Hebrews serve voluntarily?

Again, you skip over the fact that if the owner provided the wife for his slave, then she is still the owner’s property as are the kids. And again, you skip over the blackmailing of professional athletes, military personnel and even the average corporate Joe who is informed that his job is being relocated accross country. Take it or leave it.

That’s just it. Professional athletes can leave it. Military personnel (apart from times of war) know this before signing up. Corporate Joes know this and can leave it.

But even beyond that, you’re again trying to compare women and children who were brutalized, tortured, raped, and so forth with families who may have to move as part of a spouse’s job. It’s simply not the same.

Again, where is your evidence to the contrary?

You’re not looking very. Check out posts that are written by “Mike from NJ”. That cat has repeatedly explained why “Servitude was not imposed by someone from the outside” is such a ludicrous statement. There’s no need to be obtuse.

Do you think it was a big deal to those who were in slavery to know that they would eventually be freed compared with the slavery practiced in the antebellum South?
Do you think it was a big deal to those so freed to be full citizens again?

Again that’s moral relativism something Catholics allegedly are not to engage in. People were bought by those of another nation and forced to serve under threat of beatings or rape until they died, an event that the owner could expediate. Am I supposed to look at keeping families together as something that supercedes how dispicable that structure God allowed is? Am I supposed to be amazed at the generosity of a God that would make sure slaves could only be beaten, raped, and manslaughters sixth-sevenths of the week?

You just can’t see how this was radically different from the practices of other nations, because you don’t WANT to see how God improved the lives of the poor.

Again, you’re neck deep in moral relativism. This is why I can’t buy it when people say that God can only do good.

Conveniently overlooking the fact that the gleaning laws, interest laws, etc., imposed by God were designed to help the poor from BECOMING slaves due to their excessive poverty.

I live in a town with its fair share of poor. The state tax is halved to incentivize business in the area. My apartment complex is next door to a WIC (Women Infants Children) building used to simplify and ease getting goods and services to poor families. There are many great programs to help the poor get on their feet. But imagine that in exchange for said services the children were forced into child labor and the single mothers to do even worse.

That wouldn’t happen, but in the Bible the same God that allegedly gave those gleaning laws and interest laws also set up a structure by which those poor who still needed help could have unspeakable harm done to them all with the approval of God.

And again we’re only seeing the benefits for those who would sell themselves for service. This doesn’t take into account those foreigners purchase with the approval of God, those daughters sold with the approval of God, or those born into slavery with the approval of God.

You want to excoriate God for what you consider to be unfair treatment of indentured servants without acknowledging that Israel’s laws were designed to minimize the need for such servitude in the first place.

Minor good does not overcome major evil. There’s no reason God couldn’t have told his people not to purchase foreigners. There’s no reason God couldn’t have told his people not to beat slaves. There’s no reason God couldn’t have told his people to treat such people as employees and not property. There’s no reason God had to take into account the practices of neighboring nations, especially when he told his people not to do so.

There’s simply no reason to tell his people to not own people, period.

I don’t need to go on dismantling your “argument”. My point has been made.

It is evident that you don’t see the laws of Israel as a radical improvement because you don’t WANT to see them as such. You WANT a convenient excuse to view God as a moral monster, and although the truth has been explained to you, you refuse to listen.

Cling to this attack on God if you wish, but it’s a paper tiger.

I listen, it’s just that what I hear I find simultaneously revolting and astounding. There are no limits people will go to defend the God character in the Bible, even reveling in his impotence, his incompetence, and his uncaringness.