Slavery - The Narrow Definition

[Purple Knight]

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?

[1213]

... and foreign slaves were not your neighbour...

Please show where that is said in the Bible?

[1213]

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?

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".

Proverbs 13:24
New International Version
24 Whoever spares the rod hates their children,
but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.

Some day you will learn that the Bible has a passage for every view, both for and against, and you only cherry pick the passages that are useful to you at the time.

Nice, thanks for the scripture. So, it seems Bible allows beating of even own children. So, why make an issue about beating slaves, if everyone was allowed to be beaten, at least in some situations?

[boatsnguitars]

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?

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".

Proverbs 13:24
New International Version
24 Whoever spares the rod hates their children,
but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.

Some day you will learn that the Bible has a passage for every view, both for and against, and you only cherry pick the passages that are useful to you at the time.

Nice, thanks for the scripture. So, it seems Bible allows beating of even own children. So, why make an issue about beating slaves, if everyone was allowed to be beaten, at least in some situations?

You just said, "I don't think Bible allows anyone to be beaten, because it has the "love your neighbor as yourself"."

So, you now admit the Bible encourages beating people - opposite to what you formally believed - correct?

Have you read the Bible? (Be honest - God is watching)

[TRANSPONDER]

... and foreign slaves were not your neighbour...

Please show where that is said in the Bible?

You are pulling the 'it does not use those exact words' ploy. Foreign slaves were property for for life and could be bequeathed to children. That is not being 'your neighbour'. Now you show me where it says in the Bible that foreign slaves were the 'Neighbours' of the hebrews.

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

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".

Proverbs 13:24
New International Version
24 Whoever spares the rod hates their children,
but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.

Some day you will learn that the Bible has a passage for every view, both for and against, and you only cherry pick the passages that are useful to you at the time.

Nice, thanks for the scripture. So, it seems Bible allows beating of even own children. So, why make an issue about beating slaves, if everyone was allowed to be beaten, at least in some situations?

Because children are the 'property of the parents, by birth, and even today we debate about whether they should be beaten or not, so even there Bible morality is dubious. But slaves were people bought and sold as property and that is today considered wrong while children being in the ownership of the parents is not, so the two things are not comparable, whether or not slaves were to be beaten or not.

That you are trying to justify slavery and even beating of slaves pretty much is better argument that anything I could post that your Bible - based morality is totally immoral and we should reject it.

[POI]

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".

Hmmm... 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?

I think mandatory taxes are bad and wrong. If someone voluntarily pays taxes and is a slave, that I think is acceptable.

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.

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.

Where Biblical slavery is concerned, only the Hebrew males had a choice. The women, slave offspring, and foreigners did not. I already went over all of this in another thread extensively, in which you also contributed.

You need to face the reality here. Much of the sanctioned/instructed "Biblical slavery" was NOT the choice of many who were enslaved.

[Purple Knight]

No, 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.

Slavery is immoral, but isn't slavery owning no less than an entire person?

If I sell my kidney, that's not slavery. If I sell my labour, that's not slavery.

[TRANSPONDER]

This was a problem I was battling with in the 70's but in the context of 'real democracy' (or the fad of New Marxism) that was seeping into the workplace.Not that they were problem, but secularist ethics were. They pointed up the 'slavery of society' polemic and I come to this conclusion: Back in the days when politics were simple - you hit the other fellow with a rock and dragged his wife off by the hair - you spent most of your time finding food and trying to stay alive. When farming and herding was invented, it became a lot easier and safer, and by the time of organised society, you even had time and money to waste, which is when they invented religion.

I came to see that we have always had to put in work and effort to live eat and survive, and it has (though social and technological advancement) been getting easier and better century by century, and what we have now is far, far easier to live, work and survive than ever before. I did not buy wage slavery apologetics from the pimplefaced Marxists of the 70's, nor do I buy it from the Bible lickers of the 21st c.

So the fact is that industrial archaeology shows that life has been getting better and easier all the time, and even the worst wage -slavetoday has a lifestyle that Indians back in the 1900's (I saw a vid on this last night (1) would regard as paradise. It is at best short -sighted, at worst a deceptive fabrication, that we are hard -done by wage slaves today; we are the coddled care -bears of advanced technology, and don't ever let those apologists for slavery (Bible at least, if not more) bamboozle you into buying their feigned bleating about how enslaved we all are by this leisure paradise we call society.

(1) I'll post it as it is interesting and a bit of an eye -opener.

[boatsnguitars]

I think mandatory taxes are bad and wrong. If someone voluntarily pays taxes and is a slave, that I think is acceptable.

What about laws against theft or harm? Do you think the State has an obligation to arrest, prevent or prosecute people who steal your car, or attack you?
Because who's going to pay for them to do their job?

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.

Voluntary slavery is called work. The point of slavery is that it's involuntary!


C'mon man!!!!!

[1213]

...
What about laws against theft or harm? Do you think the State has an obligation to arrest, prevent or prosecute people who steal your car, or attack you?
Because who's going to pay for them to do their job?
...

I think we have law against murder and theft already from the Bible, no need for state. But I am not against people voluntarily paying for services.