When did the Jewish people of the bible stop taking slaves.

[Samson33]

I am sorry about my disrespectful comments about God as he appears in the OT. Sometimes I believe(for about a couple months now) and sometimes doubt appears in my heart and takes the message and the teachings away. I ask for forgiveness from the CAF community I really am sorry. The Saint I can relate to the most is St. Thomas because I try to believe, but I guess I am not trying hard enough and the message seems bad to me. I am sorry if I upset anyway, but it is just hard for me to understand God as the way he is in the OT. Through I know on a deeper level that the NT is inseparable from the OT.

My deepest apologies from a a man who believes and tries to believe,

Samson33

 

[exnihilo]

You really can’t see the difference? Your grandfather was monetarily compensated for his service, and your grandfather was not conscripted for life. The analogy is absurd, and it is insulting to people who have been held in chattel slavery for life, without compensation for their work, and with no option for ever being freed. Still can’t see the difference?

So you are saying slavery is acceptable if it is for a limited time and if you give the slave some money? Those don’t really seem to be significant differences, particularly the fact of monetary compensation. What is your reasoning that underlies that? Also on a historical note, some slaves were given wages in certain circumstances (see this note about Thomas Jefferson). So by your reasoning when that occurred slavery would be acceptable?

Would you object to being owned by another person? Would you, in good conscience, own another person as property?

Morality isn’t determined by what I would personally like. That is the cause of many of our problems today. Reasoning that way has led to ‘gay marriage’ and widespread abortion.

 

[RyanBlack]

So you are saying slavery is acceptable if it is for a limited time and if you give the slave some money? Those don’t really seem to be significant differences, particularly the fact of monetary compensation. What is your reasoning that underlies that? Also on a historical note, some slaves were given wages in certain circumstances (see this note about Thomas Jefferson). So by your reasoning when that occurred slavery would be acceptable?

Morality isn’t determined by what I would personally like. That is the cause of many of our problems today. Reasoning that way has led to ‘gay marriage’ and widespread abortion.

The comparison you’re making is absurd. What happened to your grandfather, and others who were drafted for military service is not slavery. Your grandfather was not owned by another individual, and it was not a permanent condition. There are many things in life we are coerced into doing. Coercion alone does not constitute slavery. I’m a school teacher, and I assure you that the overwhelming majority of my students come to school only because they are coerced into coming either by their parents or by the state. That does not make them slaves. Slavery involves being OWNED by another individual, who decides how you will be compensated (probably limited to providing you with food and shelter of his choice, not yours). And no, compensating someone does not make the condition of their being owned by you acceptable. Owning someone violates their fundamental human dignity and denies the fact that they are made in the image of God.

I didn’t say that morality is determined by what you like, but have you ever heard of the Golden Rule, you know, that guide to treating others that was given by Jesus Christ? It seems to me that the Golden Rule is perfectly applicable here. As I would not consent to being owned by another person, I would not own another person.

Slavery is immoral. Anyone who can’t see that has a very warped sense of morality, particularly in light of some of the particular forms slavery has taken over the last 500 years. You make both yourself and other Christians look like heartless monsters, as well as like fools to suggest otherwise.

The things you are saying in this thread are scandalous–a stumbling block, particulary to people of African descent. I suggest you stop and retract some of the garbage you’ve put out.

 

[benjohnson]

. The Saint I can relate to the most is St. Thomas because I try to believe, but I guess I am not trying hard enough and the message seems bad to me.
Samson33

Samson, that’s quite noble to admit that. I too am filled with doubt.

If I had some advice, it would be to take you time, let your Catholic church present the bible to you with the teachings behind it.

In my opinion, the bible is too complex to open it up without careful study and instruction. Without proper guidance, you can come to conclusions that are exactly opposite of what the bible says.

Enjoy your journey!

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Actually what you believe is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that jews had strict laws that governed this practice

I think what I believe is very relevant. Taking a “that’s just the way it is” approach on something so repugnant means betraying entirely one’s conscience. Strict laws do not automatically make something right – as Catholics would agree on several other matters.

Deuteronomy 15:12 If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free.

Exodus 21:3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him.

I am not surprised that you chose to cease quoting the bible at this point. Immediately after we get the following:

4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,** he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.**
So what have we learned? A Hebrew slave who is to be set free but he got his wife/children after becoming a slave, he then has to make the choice of losing his family or getting pierced with an awl and being a slave forever. Is this a choice? This sounds more like something from the Saw movies than the purported origin of all love.

Also daughters can be sold into slavery. Female Herbrew slaves don’t get to be freed after so many years. This makes the choice just above that some male Hebrew slaves had to make even more heartbreaking, as he simply couldn’t wait for her release. The only escape for her is if the master decides to make her a bride and she doesn’t please him (and one can safely assume that with threats of violence the female slave will do what she can to please her master). There is no recourse for the female slave who is not chosen as a bride. She is a slave forever thanks to her father.

As an aside, it seems there are no problems in this passage with someone having multiple wives. Marraige has always been a bond between one man and one (or more) wives.

It doesn’t say, but I’m curious as to what happens to babies born of slave mothers. Do sons get to be released after seven years or are they slaves forever?

Leviticus 25:39 "'If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave.

Now this is good as it specifically states that this person is an indentured servant and not a slave.

But this does not excuse those people that are slaves, and you’ve completely ignored non-Hebrew slave who don’t even get the awl choice that Hebrew slaves get.

You’ve also ignore the big passage that no amount of handwaving, mushmouthed excuses, and diversions can explain:

Exodus 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

 

[aragonjohn1]

I am curious,

In the bible there is a lot of reference to the Jewish people and instruction on how to treat slaves, who to take as slaves. ect. (generalization)
(Jesus never preached agaist it either for that matter)
In which time line has the Jewish faith considered this to be immoral or corrupt practice.
I suppose much of this would have been in regards to the area or country of the world ect.
(British Enlightenment for example) (Coloniel USA)
I am curious becuase I am a struggling catholic and I really don’t like God. I’m trying to make some kind of sense out of the bible.
Since Jewish people where given the ok from God in the desert to take slaves, does that mean its still ok for them this day and age.
Say in comparrison to a modern day muslim country where Christians are still kept agaist there will in Africa where there are still modern day martyrs

Hope this question made some kind of sense thanks…

Ever since the Diaspora slave owning
Even though it is now fairly rare: wealthy Jews have owned non-Jewish slaves wherever slavery was recognized by law. As soon as it became optional whether bondmen or bondwomen should be circumcised and converted into Jewish bondage, generally they were not thus received. Under older decisions (“Yad,” 'Abadim, v. 5) the Biblical rule that the bondman or bondwoman becomes free by the loss of “eye or tooth” is applied only to those received into the Jewish fold; hence though the lack of witnesses and of ordained judges might be overcome, this path to freedom was shut off by the absence of bondmen and bondwomen to whom it applied.
The position is taken by the later authorities that in buying a slave under a Gentile government, the Israelite acquires only the services, but not the body, unless the law of the kingdom permits him to buy the latter also.

Some more on this

• myjewishlearning.com/blog/history-community/yes-jews-owned-slaves/
• jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13799-slaves-and-slavery

Shalom
God bless

 

[504Katrin]

I am sorry about my disrespectful comments about God as he appears in the OT. Sometimes I believe(for about a couple months now) and sometimes doubt appears in my heart and takes the message and the teachings away. I ask for forgiveness from the CAF community I really am sorry. The Saint I can relate to the most is St. Thomas because I try to believe, but I guess I am not trying hard enough and the message seems bad to me. I am sorry if I upset anyway, but it is just hard for me to understand God as the way he is in the OT. Through I know on a deeper level that the NT is inseparable from the OT.

My deepest apologies from a a man who believes and tries to believe,

Samson33

Pease accept my apology also for probably having made you feel uncomfortable and for having prompted you to apologize.

 

[Jessup]

That homosexual comment was a typo from a quote I was trying to pull into my post from someone else. That entire paragraph is not mine. Sorry for the mixup
[/quote]