Question for Debate: Is the slavery of the Bible actually slavery?
I ask this because when people point out how modern wage slaves live, how their bosses control their lives outside of work, fire them for what they say on Twitter, it comes back to the same definitional defence: It is not one person owning another, therefore, it is not technically slavery.
So given the restriction that the slavery of the Bible does not allow you to beat your slave until it is permanently injured or dead, which you would have the right to do if you had full ownership of their entire body, the Bible therefore doesn't actually condone owning an entire person, just most of it. And most of it is fine, right?
Slavery - The Narrow Definition
Moderator: Moderators
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3465
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1129 times
- Been thanked: 729 times
- POI
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3268
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
- Has thanked: 1544 times
- Been thanked: 1047 times
Re: Slavery - The Narrow Definition
Post #11Hmmm... Let us play devil's advocate here. All you have done here is bring up a topic you do not like. Okay. Let's say what you said is true, regarding 'taxes". Great. By applying your own rationale, you are bringing up taxation, and comparing it to slavery. Which means you probably do not like either. So again, playing devil's advocate, "taxation, as applied by the government, is bad." I guess this means you also concede that slavery is bad. Otherwise., why randomly compare the topic of slavery to taxation at all?1213 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 5:15 am Hmmm... modern governments own people, they tax them and beat them and put in a jail, if they don't obey?
US government seems to own also foreign people, because puts them in the concentration camp of Guantanamo bay and tortures them indefinably there?
I don't think Bible allows anyone to be beaten, because it has the "love your neighbor as yourself".
And in regard to your statement about the 'golden rule'... How exactly does one square the fact that the Bible preaches both a) the granting of permission to keep others as property for life, while also b) telling one to love others as yourself? Which one do you completely IGNORE? I can't imagine ANYONE would volunteer to become someone's property for life.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3465
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1129 times
- Been thanked: 729 times
Re: Slavery - The Narrow Definition
Post #12TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 4:47 amBut the kicker there is, if social duties amounts to slavery, then does that make slavery good?
I lean towards the idea that it was only American slavery, along racial lines, that was morally wrong. I lean towards slavery not being wrong, because it either includes so much that it includes taxation because it's forced, or so little that it does not include what is described in the Bible as being slavery, because it forbids certain things the master might do to the slave, and therefore the master does not have full ownership.boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 4:36 amBut, I wonder if there is an argument to make for slavery. That is, I could see Christians simply declaring slavery as not 'inherently wrong' - after all, if they believe there are objective moral values, and God didn't balk at slavery, then they can simple claim that society is simply whimscally declaring slavery bad as a recent fad, but the pendulum will swing back and people will think slavery is just fine.
It's a hard argument to make today, but - let's face it - Christians aren't shy about taking unpopular stands (it feeds their persecution complex).
I'm not saying it should be argued, only that one could try to say, "Hey, what's your standard for determining that Slavery (any kind) is Morally wrong?"
As America started to realise that slavery was wrong, maybe what they were realising, was that racism was wrong, and slavery was just how that racism was manifesting.
You're not going to like my answer. The Bible never says Gentiles may own slaves. The Bible just says, to Christians, if you are a slave, serve your master honestly and don't steal from him.POI wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 7:43 amAnd in regard to your statement about the 'golden rule'... How exactly does one square the fact that the Bible preaches both a) the granting of permission to keep others as property for life, while also b) telling one to love others as yourself? Which one do you completely IGNORE? I can't imagine ANYONE would volunteer to become someone's property for life.
Jews do not have to love Gentiles as themselves. In fact, in the case of slavery, it says they don't.
The reason this is not actually inconsistent, is that the Bible is (in a modern sense, and assuming Jews have the privilege the Bible gives them) racist.
- POI
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3268
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
- Has thanked: 1544 times
- Been thanked: 1047 times
Re: Slavery - The Narrow Definition
Post #13You might have a point. A point I've encountered before. Meaning, if this is a tribal religion, like most religions are, and if one admits this --- then 'inconsistent' it is notPurple Knight wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 1:44 pm You're not going to like my answer. The Bible never says Gentiles may own slaves. The Bible just says, to Christians, if you are a slave, serve your master honestly and don't steal from him.
Jews do not have to love Gentiles as themselves. In fact, in the case of slavery, it says they don't.
The reason this is not actually inconsistent, is that the Bible is (in a modern sense, and assuming Jews have the privilege the Bible gives them) racist.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
-
- Savant
- Posts: 7955
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 931 times
- Been thanked: 3484 times
Re: Slavery - The Narrow Definition
Post #14[Replying to Purple Knight in post #12]
It was all kinds of slavery, everywhere, From China to Arabia and from Russia to America. That religions do not speak out against it and it was human reason, rather, shows that religion is a self -serving, tribal, elitist and self -serving human invention, and it is high time we were done with it. It is fearsome if apologetics to keep religion instituted requires that we turn back and say 'Well, maybe slavery is ok...".
It was all kinds of slavery, everywhere, From China to Arabia and from Russia to America. That religions do not speak out against it and it was human reason, rather, shows that religion is a self -serving, tribal, elitist and self -serving human invention, and it is high time we were done with it. It is fearsome if apologetics to keep religion instituted requires that we turn back and say 'Well, maybe slavery is ok...".
- theophile
- Guru
- Posts: 1581
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 126 times
Re: Slavery - The Narrow Definition
Post #15I feel like people never want to recognize that Christianity is a slave morality. It calls us all to be slaves (/servants) to each other. Hence why it took off with the slave class of the Roman empire. Hence why you never see Jesus condemn slavery. (Because it's his core teaching.)Purple Knight wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 2:39 am Question for Debate: Is the slavery of the Bible actually slavery?
I ask this because when people point out how modern wage slaves live, how their bosses control their lives outside of work, fire them for what they say on Twitter, it comes back to the same definitional defence: It is not one person owning another, therefore, it is not technically slavery.
So given the restriction that the slavery of the Bible does not allow you to beat your slave until it is permanently injured or dead, which you would have the right to do if you had full ownership of their entire body, the Bible therefore doesn't actually condone owning an entire person, just most of it. And most of it is fine, right?
So it's in the context of this radicalization of slavery that we should understand biblical slavery. i.e., What is a slave when we are all slaves to each other? The slave becomes the master, no? (It's like how Paul says, the weak will overcome the strong. Or Jesus, and how the meek will inherit the earth...)
-
- Savant
- Posts: 7955
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 931 times
- Been thanked: 3484 times
Re: Slavery - The Narrow Definition
Post #16I cannot think that a common purpose in making a society in negotiation with each other equates to slavery, either in the subjection of persons (not to mention a group of people considered inferiors) without much in the way of rights and freedoms (slavery) or the unquestioning acceptance of commands and demands made by religion. To both, I believe humanity has made progression in thought and personal rights, and questioning and requirement of accountability applies to social or political bodies, and to religion, and if it doesn't (like dictatorship and theocracy) it is high time it did.
-
- Sage
- Posts: 898
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:18 pm
- Has thanked: 41 times
- Been thanked: 225 times
Re: Slavery - The Narrow Definition
Post #17No, in a post-enlightenment western society slavery is inherently immoral. It violates our primary values, such as self-determination and a personal view of dignity. We can discuss the morality of the way modern employment works, but it is different from slavery at a fundamental level. We also view corporal punishment as barbaric.
The OT was written to a pre-enlightenment, Semitic, collectivist culture. People viewed themselves primarily as part of a group and secondarily as individuals. Slavery was viewed as unfavorable, but morally far better than failing to contribute to society in some way. To be a drain on society would be a serious violation of that culture's values. Because of this slavery in that culture was not morally wrong. They also would view the lengthy incarceration common in our society as barbaric.
The underlying ethic of the OT passages on slavery - that we should not abuse those we have power over - is universal.
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
-Charles Darwin
-Charles Darwin
- boatsnguitars
- Banned
- Posts: 2060
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
- Has thanked: 477 times
- Been thanked: 580 times
Re: Slavery - The Narrow Definition
Post #18Taxation and slavery are too different to be considered similar. Yes, there are analogies one can make, but the differences are too important. Owning another human being is different than having them pay into the common fund. They are welcome to live and make money how and where they like, have whatever children, do drugs, etc. You have total freedom - but for the amount that you need to pay based on your income (which is based on the State's infrastructure that allows you to make your income - if you only sell tomatoes by the roadside as your income, you are benefitting from the road, from the security of police and military, etc.).Purple Knight wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 1:44 pmTRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 4:47 amBut the kicker there is, if social duties amounts to slavery, then does that make slavery good?I lean towards the idea that it was only American slavery, along racial lines, that was morally wrong. I lean towards slavery not being wrong, because it either includes so much that it includes taxation because it's forced, or so little that it does not include what is described in the Bible as being slavery, because it forbids certain things the master might do to the slave, and therefore the master does not have full ownership.boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 4:36 amBut, I wonder if there is an argument to make for slavery. That is, I could see Christians simply declaring slavery as not 'inherently wrong' - after all, if they believe there are objective moral values, and God didn't balk at slavery, then they can simple claim that society is simply whimscally declaring slavery bad as a recent fad, but the pendulum will swing back and people will think slavery is just fine.
It's a hard argument to make today, but - let's face it - Christians aren't shy about taking unpopular stands (it feeds their persecution complex).
I'm not saying it should be argued, only that one could try to say, "Hey, what's your standard for determining that Slavery (any kind) is Morally wrong?"
As America started to realise that slavery was wrong, maybe what they were realising, was that racism was wrong, and slavery was just how that racism was manifesting.
You're not going to like my answer. The Bible never says Gentiles may own slaves. The Bible just says, to Christians, if you are a slave, serve your master honestly and don't steal from him.POI wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 7:43 amAnd in regard to your statement about the 'golden rule'... How exactly does one square the fact that the Bible preaches both a) the granting of permission to keep others as property for life, while also b) telling one to love others as yourself? Which one do you completely IGNORE? I can't imagine ANYONE would volunteer to become someone's property for life.
Jews do not have to love Gentiles as themselves. In fact, in the case of slavery, it says they don't.
The reason this is not actually inconsistent, is that the Bible is (in a modern sense, and assuming Jews have the privilege the Bible gives them) racist.
With slavery, you have no rights. It's just not a comparison.
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm
-
- Savant
- Posts: 7955
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 931 times
- Been thanked: 3484 times
Re: Slavery - The Narrow Definition
Post #19I cannot buy that excuse for a minute. Slavery was considered wrong - if it was you or your own people. If it was others, that was fine. The Mosaic Law was actually a bit more advanced because it had rules against slavery of other hebrews - most cultures didn't mind enslaving their own people. It had advantages as they were easy to control, cheap and you could do what you like. Cultural wealth was based on them, but that does not nor did not make it right, and it makes any god that endorsed or condoned it when we do not today, is immoral and thus cannot be the perfectly good god of the Bible. That god does not exist. You cannot wriggle out of it.bjs1 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 11:37 pmNo, in a post-enlightenment western society slavery is inherently immoral. It violates our primary values, such as self-determination and a personal view of dignity. We can discuss the morality of the way modern employment works, but it is different from slavery at a fundamental level. We also view corporal punishment as barbaric.
The OT was written to a pre-enlightenment, Semitic, collectivist culture. People viewed themselves primarily as part of a group and secondarily as individuals. Slavery was viewed as unfavorable, but morally far better than failing to contribute to society in some way. To be a drain on society would be a serious violation of that culture's values. Because of this slavery in that culture was not morally wrong. They also would view the lengthy incarceration common in our society as barbaric.
The underlying ethic of the OT passages on slavery - that we should not abuse those we have power over - is universal.
-
Online1213
- Savant
- Posts: 11333
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
- Location: Finland
- Has thanked: 312 times
- Been thanked: 357 times
Re: Slavery - The Narrow Definition
Post #20I think mandatory taxes are bad and wrong. If someone voluntarily pays taxes and is a slave, that I think is acceptable.POI wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 7:43 amHmmm... Let us play devil's advocate here. All you have done here is bring up a topic you do not like. Okay. Let's say what you said is true, regarding 'taxes". Great. By applying your own rationale, you are bringing up taxation, and comparing it to slavery. Which means you probably do not like either. So again, playing devil's advocate, "taxation, as applied by the government, is bad." I guess this means you also concede that slavery is bad. Otherwise., why randomly compare the topic of slavery to taxation at all?1213 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 5:15 am Hmmm... modern governments own people, they tax them and beat them and put in a jail, if they don't obey?
US government seems to own also foreign people, because puts them in the concentration camp of Guantanamo bay and tortures them indefinably there?
I don't think Bible allows anyone to be beaten, because it has the "love your neighbor as yourself".
No need to ignore anything. Slavery can be accepted, if person accepts it. If people can voluntarily pay taxes, they could as well voluntarily be slaves.POI wrote: ↑Fri Jun 02, 2023 7:43 amAnd in regard to your statement about the 'golden rule'... How exactly does one square the fact that the Bible preaches both a) the granting of permission to keep others as property for life, while also b) telling one to love others as yourself? Which one do you completely IGNORE? I can't imagine ANYONE would volunteer to become someone's property for life.