What is there to say about slavery and the Bible? Especially the Old Testament? (MERGED)

[Mike_from_NJ]

Slavery in the New Testament

In Luke 4:18 Jesus cites Isaiah 61:1 which, in practical application, condemns the slavery of his day: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed” (Luke 4:18).

Are you sure this isn’t Jesus just trying to suggest that those in captivity can find liberty (spiritually) by worshipping him? It doesn’t denounce the practice of slavery. In fact in one of his parables Jesus seems to approve of the beating of slaves:

Luke 12:47-48 - The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.”

The fact is Jesus and the apostles didn’t create an economic reform plan for Israel and Rome. That’s not the way the kingdom of God would come about. The kingdom of God is inward and culminates in the return of Christ at the end of the world. So, economic reform was not the goal of the early persecuted Christians. The church was born into an already existing secular social world. So when Paul exhorts slaves within the Roman systems to behave themselves, he is not promoting or advocating the situation they were in, but was calling for good-conduct while in such an already existing predicament in the hopes that the master would see such good conduct and convert to Christianity and be saved (Titus 2:10). It was for the benefit of people’s eternal salvation.

The complaints of people like myself who have issues with slavery in the Bible has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with morality. God, instead of saying that slavery was wrong, laid out plans for his people to bring hate and torture and misery into the world. By stating that the problem with slavery was an economic one the author (and you in support of this article) claims that slavery was an economic necessity. Please demonstrate this economic necessity.

And the article also uses the cannard about of the “situation” the Israelites were in with the culture immersed in slavery. As I’ve noted numerous times now, God said to ignore the practices of neighboring cultures. He also gave these rules about slaves to a people in the middle of the desert without slaves and who hadn’t had slaves in 430 years of captivity. There was no institution of slavery in that culture to ween the people off from.

Also the author gives another ends-justifies-the-means excuse how this slavery led (some would more accurately say “forced”) others into worship the Hebrew god. It’s another apologist who thinks an all-powerful god would not be powerful enough or smart enough to find another less evil way to increase people’s worship of him.

Galatians 3:28 says “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). 1 Corinthians 12:13 says “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:13). Colossians 3:11 says, “Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all” (Colossians 3:11).

This doesn’t condemn slavery, just that God wants all to worship him no matter who they are.

The Bible condemns slavery and the slave trade. In 1 Timothy 1:9-10 Paul castigates those who engage in slave trade in the context of his “vice list” of things to avoid.

Paul is not God.

Moreover, in Revelation 18:10-14 Babylon is rebuked and judged in the context of treating humans as cargo, trafficking slaves and idolatrously and greedily making wealth with merchants.

Here is Revelation 18:10-14

10Terrified at her torment, they will stand far off and cry:

“ ‘Woe! Woe to you, great city,
you mighty city of Babylon!
In one hour your doom has come!’

11“The merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her because no one buys their cargoes anymore— 12cargoes of gold, silver, precious stones and pearls; fine linen, purple, silk and scarlet cloth; every sort of citron wood, and articles of every kind made of ivory, costly wood, bronze, iron and marble; 13cargoes of cinnamon and spice, of incense, myrrh and frankincense, of wine and olive oil, of fine flour and wheat; cattle and sheep; horses and carriages; and human beings sold as slaves.

14“They will say, ‘The fruit you longed for is gone from you. All your luxury and splendor have vanished, never to be recovered.’

I must admit to a minimal knowledge of Revelation, but this doesn’t appear to make any mention of human trafficking. Please show me where that is.

 

[Achilles6129]

Does that mean that it is not wrong to enslave people, the way that ISIS is doing today to young women?

I would say it’s certainly wrong to enslave people today, just like it would be certainly wrong to execute homosexuals today. The commands in the Torah were meant for the land of Israel, not for anyone else. They were meant for the Israelites specifically.

However, the fact of the matter is that God still commanded slavery in the Torah. Since God can’t do anything evil, then obviously those commands were good. We could wonder exactly how this applies to the nature of God in regards to how he treats those who disobey his commands. Throughout Scripture, we encounter a God who brutally tortures and kills those who disobey his commands - I would say that slavery in the OT is certainly one facet of that.

 

[Achilles6129]

This does seem to be pretty strong. Can God change His mind about slavery, so that at one point in time it is OK, but at a future point in time it is immoral?

I think that the commands were meant for the Israelites alone. That being said, we do have to ponder what the commands mean for the nature of God. As I said above, I believe they are perfectly in line with the God revealed in Scripture: a God who brutally tortures and kills those who disobey his commands.

 

[DanielJT]

Hello,

I know that I am jumping in on this a little late. I hope that everyone is still around because I have been thinking about this quite a bit as of late. I am very interested in this topic.

I would like to address Mike from NJ, but anyone with relevant information on the matter is welcome to join in.

Mike, you are obviously an intelligent guy and seem to know Exodus and them some when it comes to the Bible. I was hoping you had some information on the culture of the time. This seems to me for the single reason that it is very hard to judge the actions of a culture of the past based on the standards of today.

I don’t mean to say that some things are not always wrong. The Holocaust, obviously, we both agree is wrong from no matter what time you are standing and looking at it. But I think that maybe the case for slavery is a bit different. I say this because I believe that, though our culture has changed and our view of societal structure have changed, the idea that we need to work towards a given goal has not, whether that be tilling the fields for the next harvest or building the pyramids or skyscrapers or whatever tomb/office space is assumed necessary at the time.

With that being said, there needs to be two sets of people - the leader/s, and the workers. I admit that there can be more than one leader, though I don’t see it as always advantageous. Also, there can be only one worker, but I see that as most disadvantageous.

So, along with the question of culture at the time, I wonder what your thoughts are on modern working conditions. We see them as much better, I imagine, then the past because I think that most of us are in the position where if we do not like our job we can, at the most, quite it and at the very least lodge a formal complaint. But I would challenge this view.

There are workers out there that, though they are not beaten when they do something wrong, are in a position of duress so much so that for them the idea of quitting or the threat of getting fired would be to enter into a lifestyle of very high emotional and mental distress. And even if they do manage to get out, the options elsewhere are not much better. I would use the example of the single parent working two shifts at Wal-Mart and/or McDonalds to support the family.

Would you agree with this? Would you agree that this is a type of slavery?

 

[DanielJT]

Also, Mike from NJ you mentioned in previous posts that God called for the manslaughter and rape of slaves. I was having trouble finding these passages. Where were those?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Mike, you are obviously an intelligent guy and seem to know Exodus and them some when it comes to the Bible. I was hoping you had some information on the culture of the time. This seems to me for the single reason that it is very hard to judge the actions of a culture of the past based on the standards of today.

Hey Daniel, I’m not judging the actions of the culture but of the God in the Bible in laying out the rules approving slavery and how it was to be done. The title of this topic is about God and his allowing of slavery. In fact, it’s safe to say that I’ve repeated how God told his people to not follow the practices of neighboring cultures so much as to be monotonous.

I don’t mean to say that some things are not always wrong. The Holocaust, obviously, we both agree is wrong from no matter what time you are standing and looking at it.

I would agree.

But I think that maybe the case for slavery is a bit different. I say this because I believe that, though our culture has changed and our view of societal structure have changed, the idea that we need to work towards a given goal has not, whether that be tilling the fields for the next harvest or building the pyramids or skyscrapers or whatever tomb/office space is assumed necessary at the time.

With that being said, there needs to be two sets of people - the leader/s, and the workers. I admit that there can be more than one leader, though I don’t see it as always advantageous. Also, there can be only one worker, but I see that as most disadvantageous.

The fact that large-scale projects sometimes require a structure of leader(s) and worker(s) doesn’t excuse slavery in the slightest.

So, along with the question of culture at the time, I wonder what your thoughts are on modern working conditions. We see them as much better, I imagine, then the past because I think that most of us are in the position where if we do not like our job we can, at the most, quite it and at the very least lodge a formal complaint. But I would challenge this view.

There are workers out there that, though they are not beaten when they do something wrong, are in a position of duress so much so that for them the idea of quitting or the threat of getting fired would be to enter into a lifestyle of very high emotional and mental distress. And even if they do manage to get out, the options elsewhere are not much better. I would use the example of the single parent working two shifts at Wal-Mart and/or McDonalds to support the family.

Would you agree with this? Would you agree that this is a type of slavery?

I’m not sure what any of this has to do with the topic of why God allowed slavery. It seems like you’re trying to equate the modern trouble of workers with no opportunities working long hours and little pay with slavery. We can go back in relatively-recent history to see mining towns where workers were paid in scrip, which could only be used in company-run stores. Things like that and scenarious that you brought up are injustices. I personally wouldn’t put that to the level of slavery, but it’s really not the point.

Not once in your post did you mention God. The only time you mentioned the Bible is referring to my knowledge of it. We’re trying to find out why God is laying out a plan telling his people to do wrong and calling it right.

Would you agree to the following points:

1. Even in biblical times there were ways to give workers rights and dignity.
2. Slavery as described in the Bible is far harsher in its leader/worker relationship than it needs to be.
3. Slavery as described in the Bible allows slaves to be beaten.
4. It is not necessary for a leader/worker relationship to all for leaders to beat workers.
5. Slavery as described in the Bible allows children to be born into slavery.
6. It is not necessary for a leader/worker relationship to have children born into slavery.
7. Slavery as descirbed in the Bible does not allow for freedom of movement.
8. In most (not all) cases of people in recent times who are in situations as you described that they can leave their employer in the hopes of moving elsewhere (freedom of movement) without fear of that employer or the authorities detaining them.
9. The type of slavery described in the Bible where a male Hebrew slave could sell his services to someone for 6 years is harsher then indentured servitude in terms of beatings, possible death, and the witholding of a wife and children for not staying beyond that 6 year period.
10. Couching the topic of slavery in the Bible solely on the fraction of those male Hebrew slaves selling their services is dishonest, as it neglects the other types of slavery described in the Bible.
11. This includes buying people from other nations as well as foreigners in their land.
12. Being bought by someone differs greatly than being stuck working terrible job(s).
13. In the Bible God gave numerous commands to his people.
14. Far from telling his people that owning people was wrong, God gave them explicit instructions on how to get slaves of their own.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Also, Mike from NJ you mentioned in previous posts that God called for the manslaughter and rape of slaves. I was having trouble finding these passages. Where were those?

Two things: One, I never said that God “called” for the manslaughter or rape of slaves, but allowed for it with absolutely no punishment whatsoever, which is almost as bad. Two, I listed those passages in post 95 and I’ve referenced those passages in other points earlier in the thread.

Exodus 21:20-21 has God telling slaveowners that if they beat a slave and that slave dies but a day or two after the beating it’s totally fine in his eyes. The killing of another with the intent to harm someone is manslaughter.

Exodus 21:7-11 has God – who loves all – how a father goes about selling his daughter who then has to please her new master and/or the master’s son(s). Making it so a girl can’t leave and force her to please a man or men in a sexual manner is rape in my book.

Also, when I referenced this several times earlier in the thread it was in a group of three things: beating, raping, and manslaughtering. Can I take it that by only asking about the last two that you accept that a slaveowner was allowed to beat his slaves – often viciously?

 

[Achilles6129]

Exodus 21:20-21 certainly has God telling his people that it’s ok to beat and manslaughter slaves.

Ex. 21:20-21 only addresses an instance where a slave deserves such punishment.

Exodus 21:7-11 talks about how a father can sell his daughter to another man who must please her master. She is a slave and it’s not like she can deny her body to her master or his son.

You’re adding rape into your interpretation of that passage. Nothing in that passage says that rape takes place, nor is there anywhere in the Torah where rape is condoned. As a matter of fact, it is specifically condemned (see Deut. 22:25-27).

Punishments are for crimes and wrong actions. What does a slave do that warrants such “punishments”?

A specific case isn’t given. It’s assumed that something was done that deserved the punishment.

I would disagree that despite God commanding such an evil practice that he wasn’t wrong.

I would disagree that slavery in this context is wrong, since it was directly commanded by God. Human beings are not very competent judges between the nature of good and evil; God is. God is more intelligent than human beings and we should trust his views of good/evil.

 

[Tomdstone]

Ex. 21:20-21 only addresses an instance where a slave deserves such punishment.

Why would the slave deserve to be beaten? also, the Bible says that the slave is the property of his master. What gives one human being the right to hold another human being as his property?

 

[Tomdstone]

I would disagree that slavery in this context is wrong, since it was directly commanded by God. Human beings are not very competent judges between the nature of good and evil; God is. God is more intelligent than human beings and we should trust his views of good/evil.

I doubt that you would continue to hold that slavery is not wrong if your master were beating you and treating you as his property.

 

[DanielJT]

Hey Daniel, I’m not judging the actions of the culture but of the God in the Bible in laying out the rules approving slavery and how it was to be done.

Absolutely, we are looking at what God allows and trying to understand. I bring up the culture of the times because, while I believe there is an ideal situation when it comes to developing worker/leader relationships, I think it is important to realize that leading different cultures that are in different economic situations and resources towards that ideal should be done in different ways.

The fact that large-scale projects sometimes require a structure of leader(s) and worker(s) doesn’t excuse slavery in the slightest.

I disagree to a certain extent. And this is why I bring up the culture of the time. I think we both agree that people need to pull their weight. In the culture that we live in - very individualistic and with an economic system based on monetary exchange - when someone is not pulling their weight the suffer a more natural consequence of losing employment, not gaining money, and losing access to resources.

Back then, in a culture based on community and trade, what would be the natural consequence of someone not wanting to (or possibly unable to) pull their own weight. I would assume that it would be starvation. But the people, not unlike those of today, do not want those around them to starve. But at the same time, taking on another mouth to feed is a large responsibility. A slave was another mouth to feed, and there were no public programs to help get that slave fed. The responsibility was on the slave owner. The individual.

Taking on a slave that does not want to work, what would be the proper consequence? Starvation or beating?

You said that Exodus 20:20-21 allows the slaughter of a slave. I see it clearly defining a line which states you may discipline the slave according to the cultural norms of that time, but killing the slave “will surely be avenged.”

Would you agree to the following points:

1. Even in biblical times there were ways to give workers rights and dignity.

1. Yes, I believe that is what Exodus is trying to do. Aren’t these laws?
2. This is the culture of the time. I don’t think that the emotional distress the workers of today are subject to is any better then the physical distress of back then. And again, I want to point out that your interpretation of Exodus 20:20-21 is a blatant misinterpretation. Manslaughter is being protected AGAINST. Not allowed.
3. Agreed
4. Agreed, but when there are members of a community that do not want to pull their weight the leaders need to have some form of motivation. I just don’t see how asking politely considering the conditions at the time would work.
   The question here really is “how much did the community depend on these slaves?” and “How did the slaves understand their own place within the community?”
5. Scripture citation?
6. If a slave has a child, is it not the owner feeding the child, not the slave?

7-8) Here you seem to assume that detention is the worst of consequences. Why do so many prisoners repeat offend? Because our detention facilities, though harsh environments, are easier to deal with then going out on your own and earning your keep for some individuals.
On this one I would ask you this: Is every slave a willing member of the community, or do they require some motivation to understand what it means to be a part of it. This is a tribal culture that had to stay strong or die. Prisoners of war - kill them or make them slaves? because they would not want to participate, you can’t just keep them around and feed them, and I would argue that keeping them as slaves give them time to integrate into the community.

1. If someone sold their services, there must be an understanding. If the slave were to start falling being on their deal, what would be the consequence? There’s no court to sue. Or jail to detain.

10-11) Considering you are just bringing this up with me I find it a little insulting that you haven given me a chance to look into your concerns address them as I see fit. Give me a citation and I would be happy - and interested myself - to look into it and get back to you.

1. Depends on the boss/leader. A responsible owner would be better than a dishonest and manipulative boss.

13-14) As I said above, I believe that in a tribal culture, where tribes are going to war with one another, a peaceful and honest tribe taking over an overly aggressive dishonest tribe would be the ideal in this situation. And far from killing all the tribal members, bringing them into the peace tribe would be the goal. Assuming that the dishonest tribe members are not going to be willing at first, and you can’t just tie them up and feed them, slavery would be a good starting point towards inclusion.

I’m interested to hear your thoughts on that.

Finally, I cannot understand any successful society that does not have some sort of leader/worker structure. This is why I brought up ours as a way to compare and contextualize. My point that, God understands how society works. Some things, like a worker/leader relationship are necessary, and a leader being able to punish a worker (without killing them) comes about, not because God allowed it, but because workers don’t always want to work. A worker today can leave their job if they do not like it because we have an integrated society where traveling from city to city is as simple has hopping a bus. This was not the case back then, and traveling between communities was much more complicated, communities were must more tightly nit.

If you had to hit a man over the head to ensure that he would neither starve nor become your enemy (or fall victim to the enemy much worse than you) would you?

 

[Tomdstone]

And again, I want to point out that your interpretation of Exodus 20:20-21 is a blatant misinterpretation.

My reading of the passage says that slaves can be beaten because they are the property of the Master. Why should one human being have the authority to hold another man as his property?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Ex. 21:20-21 only addresses an instance where a slave deserves such punishment.

I think Tomdstone said it best, asking why a slave deserve to be beaten.

For the pro-slavery people I always like to make an analogy to other cruelties so we don’t perpetuate this idea that slavery is this friendly worker-employer relationship or that of a lovable servant like Alice from The Brady Bunch. Slavery (including that which is described in the Bible) is harsh and cruel. Many slaves were bought into slavery or born into it. The only crime they committed was hoping their masters had even a modicum of compassion or that the deity that they worshipped which they claimed was love actually showed love.

But even pushing that all aside, where does it say that punishment was only for those slaves who had done something to “deserve” it. The implication in Exodus 21:20-21 is quite clear. Why could a slaveowner beat a slave? Because the slave was property. There is not a mention of a slave “deserving” it (despite how nauseating such a rationalization is).

You’re adding rape into your interpretation of that passage. Nothing in that passage says that rape takes place, nor is there anywhere in the Torah where rape is condoned.

What do you call it where a young girl is forced to have sex with a man against her will?

As a matter of fact, it is specifically condemned (see Deut. 22:25-27).

That’s funny. If a man rapes a woman (either in the country or if the woman cries out while being raped in the city) that is betrothed to another, that is condemned. You left out Deut. 22:28-29, where if a man rapes a woman not betrothed to another then the man only has to pay a penalty to the girl’s father and marry the girl. The girl has no say in the matter on if she wants to marry her rapists (because God is love?).

None of this matters in the case of a girl sold by her father to another man. She is the property of the master and his family.

A specific case isn’t given. It’s assumed that something was done that deserved the punishment.

Again, nowhere is it assumed that is the case. Show where it says that.

I would disagree that slavery in this context is wrong, since it was directly commanded by God. Human beings are not very competent judges between the nature of good and evil; God is. God is more intelligent than human beings and we should trust his views of good/evil.

So I can’t show what God did was wrong because doing so would make God look evil? It’s also a variant of the Euthyphro Dilemma: “Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?” Since we know that owning people is not good, then it must be the latter. That or perhaps God is just not good. As far as whether human beings are better at judging between good and evil, I can’t speak for every person but personally I’ll take and win that challenge every time.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Absolutely, we are looking at what God allows and trying to understand. I bring up the culture of the times because, while I believe there is an ideal situation when it comes to developing worker/leader relationships, I think it is important to realize that leading different cultures that are in different economic situations and resources towards that ideal should be done in different ways.

As I’ve stated before it never ceases to amaze me whenever believers are fine with their God being impotent in the face of grave injustice. Was God not wise enough to lay out a situation for his people that including not being cruel to others? Was God not powerful enough to demand the Israelites stand up against the practices of other cultures? We know that second question is not true, since God told his people to do all sorts of things from not murdering, to honoring the Sabbath, to not letting a sorcerer live.

You said that leading different cultures to the ideal should be done in different ways, and God was utter incapable of finding one way that didn’t include slavery?

I disagree to a certain extent…

Back then, in a culture based on community and trade, what would be the natural consequence of someone not wanting to (or possibly unable to) pull their own weight.

Who decides what that weight is? There are no limits to what work the slave must do apart from not work on the Sabbath.

I would assume that it would be starvation. But the people, not unlike those of today, do not want those around them to starve. But at the same time, taking on another mouth to feed is a large responsibility. A slave was another mouth to feed,

Oh the burden that weighs upon the slaveowner. How I weep for their ceaseless burden.

and there were no public programs to help get that slave fed. The responsibility was on the slave owner. The individual.

Let them go? Maybe promise to be good to them? Maybe for the male Hebrew slaves promise they can have their wives and kids back after 6 years?

And let’s not leave out the responsibility of God. God is the one who set up this framework of sadness.

You said that Exodus 20:20-21 allows the slaughter of a slave. I see it clearly defining a line which states you may discipline the slave according to the cultural norms of that time, but killing the slave “will surely be avenged.”

You can see that if you like, but that’s not what the words say at all. And again the Bible doesn’t say beating slaves is for discipline, but because the slave is property. And again discipline requires a wrong act. For those bought or born into slavery it’s more than understandable why they wouldn’t have their hearts into working every waking non-Sabbath hour for someone who took away nearly ounce of humanity from him or her.

1. Yes, I believe that is what Exodus is trying to do. Aren’t these laws?

These laws gave slaves rights and dignity?! The rights are few and far between and mostly for male Hebrew slaves. No one considered property or who can be dispatched and/or harmed with little to no punishment extends dignity.

1. This is the culture of the time.

And God had no impact on the culture of the time? He didn’t tell them to do or not do things unique to the Israelites? Did he not say to not follow the cultures of neighboring nations?

I don’t think that the emotional distress the workers of today are subject to is any better then the physical distress of back then. And again, I want to point out that your interpretation of Exodus 20:20-21 is a blatant misinterpretation. Manslaughter is being protected AGAINST. Not allowed.

Not allowed? Blatant misinterpreatation? That’s funny. It’s a guide on how to do it. It spoke out against manslaughter where the victim died the same day, but made no effort to tell slaveowners not to use force against slaves. We have people who high powered weapons who intend to kill people where the victims don’t die the same day. Imagine the pain and suffering of someone beaten so brutally that he or she is basically immobile and withers in bed knowing that death is close at hand.

1. Agreed

I’m glad you stated that. I’ve spoken to others who won’t admit to the beating of slaves.

1. Agreed, but when there are members of a community that do not want to pull their weight the leaders need to have some form of motivation. I just don’t see how asking politely considering the conditions at the time would work.

I’m not sure where asking politely falls under the category of threatened beatings and death.

The question here really is “how much did the community depend on these slaves?” and “How did the slaves understand their own place within the community?”

The first answer is that it doesn’t matter. Wrong is wrong. Moral relativity is something Catholics are not supposed to use as a defense. The second answer is probably, “Aaaaahhh! Please stop beating me! Why won’t you let me go? Have these people no consciences?”

{Part 1 of 2}

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

1. Scripture citation?

Well we’ve already gone over the part of Exodus 21 where if a male Hebrew slave has a child while a slave that child is a slave forever. That should be enough, but there are a few more references.

Leviticus 22:10-11 says, “No one outside a priest’s family may eat the sacred offering, nor may the guest of a priest or his hired worker eat it. But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if a slave is born in his household, that slave may eat his food.”

Exodus 23:12 says, “Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and your donkey may rest and the slave born in your household, and the alien as well, may be refreshed.”

1. If a slave has a child, is it not the owner feeding the child, not the slave?

Indentured servants did not have children born into indentured servitude. Employees (the analogy you’ve used here) don’t have children who by default become emplyees.

7-8) Here you seem to assume that detention is the worst of consequences. Why do so many prisoners repeat offend? Because our detention facilities, though harsh environments, are easier to deal with then going out on your own and earning your keep for some individuals.

Yes, a very small subset of prisoners purposely commit crimes to remain imprisoned, and you think that negates anyone’s feelings about being imprisoned. Let the folks at The Innocence Project know they can stop what they’re doing. Because Joe Schmo mugger got himself caught to get three square meals a day they don’t need to work on the hundreds of case about people yearning to leave prison after being wrongly convicted.

On this one I would ask you this: Is every slave a willing member of the community, or do they require some motivation to understand what it means to be a part of it. This is a tribal culture that had to stay strong or die. Prisoners of war - kill them or make them slaves? because they would not want to participate, you can’t just keep them around and feed them, and I would argue that keeping them as slaves give them time to integrate into the community.

I would say apart from the male Hebrew slaves that had sold their services to pay a debt that the vast majority of slaves as described in the Bible were not willing members of that community. Maybe they shouldn’t have bought foreigners in either neighboring countries or their own, then they wouldn’t have to worry about if they wanted to be a part of the community.

And integrating them into the community, does that mean to teach them about the deity on the Sabbath then for the next 6 days beat them greatly for resting when they take a rest when tilling the fields. Is that the kind of integrating you are talking about?

1. If someone sold their services, there must be an understanding. If the slave were to start falling being on their deal, what would be the consequence? There’s no court to sue. Or jail to detain.

You might be fine with killing a slave or keeping their children forever, but I’m not.

10-11) Considering you are just bringing this up with me I find it a little insulting that you haven given me a chance to look into your concerns address them as I see fit. Give me a citation and I would be happy - and interested myself - to look into it and get back to you.

Every single solitary post I’ve made in this thread concerns slaves beyond just those who sold themselves into slavery to pay off a debt.

1. Depends on the boss/leader. A responsible owner would be better than a dishonest and manipulative boss.

A dishonest boss doesn’t have the right to beat me, kill me, take my kids, restrict me from moving about, or looking for another job.

13-14) As I said above, I believe that in a tribal culture, where tribes are going to war with one another, a peaceful and honest tribe taking over an overly aggressive dishonest tribe would be the ideal in this situation. And far from killing all the tribal members, bringing them into the peace tribe would be the goal. Assuming that the dishonest tribe members are not going to be willing at first, and you can’t just tie them up and feed them, slavery would be a good starting point towards inclusion.

Slavery is a terrible starting point for everything. There are ways to put together a social structure without slavery, no matter the time or place. It’s wrong on its face, but unfortunately (at least according to the Bible) God’s morality falters in that regard.

If you had to hit a man over the head to ensure that he would neither starve nor become your enemy (or fall victim to the enemy much worse than you) would you?

Every act is compared to all possible acts in determining whether it is good or bad. I can not fathom a scenario where hitting a person over the head would keep a man from starving, and certainly not one where there aren’t much better ways to keep that man from starving. That’s the key – was slavery the best way to “help” people? Was it the 77,000th best way to “help” people.

 

[DanielJT]

As I’ve stated before it never ceases to amaze me whenever believers are fine with their God being impotent in the face of grave injustice. Was God not wise enough to lay out a situation for his people that including not being cruel to others? Was God not powerful enough to demand the Israelites stand up against the practices of other cultures? We know that second question is not true, since God told his people to do all sorts of things from not murdering, to honoring the Sabbath, to not letting a sorcerer live.

You said that leading different cultures to the ideal should be done in different ways, and God was utter incapable of finding one way that didn’t include slavery?

Who decides what that weight is? There are no limits to what work the slave must do apart from not work on the Sabbath.

{Part 1 of 2}

This is getting pretty big and scattered. Maybe we can par it down?

First, we need to get something straight. In none of your biblical citations do I see evidence that killing a slave was allowed for. Exodus 20:20-21 clearly guards against that. Repeatedly bring up the idea that a slave faced the threat of death every day is dishonest.

Second, you keep invoking the harsh conditions of the slave. This is why I asked you about the culture of the time. In out culture, slavery is seen and measured by our experience of the settlers with African American and Native American slaves.

You and I can both agree that this treatment of slaves was wrong.

But can you give me some evidence that this was the same situation for the Israelites? Isn’t it possible that, being a tribal culture, the idea of having slaves for them was the same idea as having butlers and maids in mid-century England? Is it at all possible, in your mind, to have a respectful relationship between a slave and the owner and even have it be advantageous to the whole tribe in the matter of inducting an additional productive member (foreign slaves) into the tribe?

I need more and am looking for more insight into this matter, and I am willing to look at what you bring to the conversation. But you and I have to be honest with each other. You seem to be looking at Leviticus and Exodus as God telling His people, “Do what you want with the slaves, they don’t matter,” when clearly that’s not what it is. If anything, it is evidence that there was slavery and that God called on His people to deal with the situation in a certain way.

Exodus 20:20-21 does not imply that God was good with a master beating a slave to death. It is the exact opposite.

 

[Tomdstone]

Exodus 20:20-21 does not imply that God was good with a master beating a slave to death. It is the exact opposite.

Is it OK for one person to beat another and treat him as his property?

 

[Tomdstone]

Isn’t it possible that, being a tribal culture, the idea of having slaves for them was the same idea as having butlers and maids in mid-century England?.

No, because a maid is not the property of her boss and she can quit her job whenever she wants to.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

This is getting pretty big and scattered. Maybe we can par it down?

First, we need to get something straight. In none of your biblical citations do I see evidence that killing a slave was allowed for. Exodus 20:20-21 clearly guards against that. Repeatedly bring up the idea that a slave faced the threat of death every day is dishonest.

How can verses which tell how a master can beat his slave with a rod, that slave dies a day or two later, and God saying there was no punishment for this lead you to believe that God doesn’t allow for some killing of slaves? It’s a straightforward as can be. The fact that a slave could be beaten or potentially killed was a threat hanging over those slaves. I am honest in not trying to make the passages say something they are not. Dishonesty comes from reading something then having no regard for word meanings in order to push a wanted viewpoint.

Second, you keep invoking the harsh conditions of the slave. This is why I asked you about the culture of the time. In out culture, slavery is seen and measured by our experience of the settlers with African American and Native American slaves.

You and I can both agree that this treatment of slaves was wrong.

But can you give me some evidence that this was the same situation for the Israelites?

Because they could be hurt. Because they could be killed. Because they were not free to leave. Because they could be raped. Because they could be kept from their families. Because they could be bought and sold like a piece of meat. It’s all there when it’s not ignored.

Isn’t it possible that, being a tribal culture, the idea of having slaves for them was the same idea as having butlers and maids in mid-century England? Is it at all possible, in your mind, to have a respectful relationship between a slave and the owner and even have it be advantageous to the whole tribe in the matter of inducting an additional productive member (foreign slaves) into the tribe?

Show me where a maid can beating with a rod and die. Show me where a butler has to choose between leaving a job without his family and opting to stay in a job he doesn’t want with an employer who has his family hostage.

I need more and am looking for more insight into this matter, and I am willing to look at what you bring to the conversation.

Try looking at all of the many verses honestly and not from a position of assuming anything God does in the Bible is by default good.

But you and I have to be honest with each other. You seem to be looking at Leviticus and Exodus as God telling His people, “Do what you want with the slaves, they don’t matter,” when clearly that’s not what it is.

The Bible gives only the mildest of protections to slaves, similar to those given to slaves in 19th century America. Slaveowners were given a great deal of leeway in the Bible.

If anything, it is evidence that there was slavery and that God called on His people to deal with the situation in a certain way.

And that way was exceptionally evil.

Twice in my earlier response to you I asked if God could have come up with a plan for his people that didn’t require slavery. Because remember when God supposed handed down the laws to his people they were in the desert without slaves after escaping Egyptian servitude for the past 430 years. Remember God said not to follow the practices of neighboring nations, so the statement “evidence that there was slavery” has no worth in that explanation.

I’ll ask again. Could God have given laws to his people that would allow them to survive without the use of slavery – specifically the kind where people were purchased or were born into slavery? If not, was the reason possibly because God wasn’t intelligent enough to do so or was impotent against the influence of other cultures?

Exodus 20:20-21 does not imply that God was good with a master beating a slave to death. It is the exact opposite.

Then maybe he shouldn’t have said that there were be no punishment for just such an act. Imagine a town who had no legal penalties against rape or murder, but the mayor assured his citizens that they were against them. How empty would such words be?

 

[DanielJT]

How can verses which tell how a master can beat his slave with a rod, that slave dies a day or two later, and God saying there was no punishment for this lead you to believe that God doesn’t allow for some killing of slaves? It’s a straightforward as can be. The fact that a slave could be beaten or potentially killed was a threat hanging over those slaves. I am honest in not trying to make the passages say something they are not. Dishonesty comes from reading something then having no regard for word meanings in order to push a wanted viewpoint.

One thing at a time. We need to clear this up -

Exodus 20:20 “20 “And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished.”

My reading of this is that if you beat your servant to death you will be punished.

Agreed?