"Slavery" in the Bible

[POI]

Allow us readers to be very careful. We must make sure we identify the proper context here, to assure against hasty and/or self-serving conclusions.

Exodus 21:2-3:

"2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 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." <-- Okay, this seems clear enough, if you are a purchased Hebrew, with a wife, you are both to go free in year 7.

Exodus 21:4:

"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." <-- Here is where things start to look sketchy for the modern-day believer. If the slave is provided with a wife, and they have kids, the wife and kids are to stay with the slave master. They are not to go free.

Exodus 21:5-6:

"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." <-- More uncomfortability for the Christian here. Without getting into the weeds, common sense suggests a special rule is made to trick the male Hebrew into remaining a slave for life.

Leviticus 25:44-46:

"44 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." <-- More awkwardness for the believer, as the Bible reader clammers to find a rationale to make this passage not read the way it does.

Here is a basic definition of chattel slavery --> "Chattel slavery is full slavery in its traditional form whereby slaves are the complete property of their master, can be bought and sold by him and treated in any way that he wishes, which may include torture and other brutality, excessively bad working conditions, and sexual exploitation"

Looks like all the ingredients fit the given Bible description here, minus the torture. Wait a minute, this is covered in the rest of Exodus 21. (i.e.):

"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." <-- So basically, since the slave is your property, beatings with impunity are acceptable. Just don't kill them.

For debate:

By applying common sense, does/did the Bible ever, and/or currently still sanction chattel slavery?

Again, by using common sense, can a believer effectively use the Bible in support of breeding chattel slaves?

************************

Before you answer, consider this.... Since the NT does not mention the abolition of 'slavery', and yet the Bible makes further proclamation(s) and/or addendums (in favor of retaining 'slavery',) this means the Bible is not against chattel slavery either. Further, the Christian may want to introduce the importance of the 'golden rule'. However, the specifics outweigh the generals. The specifics of the rules for engagement of slavery are outside the 'golden rule'. Otherwise, the Bible would be a one-pager. 'Slavery' is an expressed exception to the general rule. Thus, anytime a specific scenario is not invoked, yes, 'golden rule.'

[POI]

Because of these scriptures, I think it would be possible only if person agrees with it, not against the will of the person.

Who would willfully agree to be a lifetime chattel slave? A slave's offspring is also instructed to be the property of the slave master. They do not get a choice. The women also do not get their own choice. This is all in Exodus 21.

Anyone who kidnaps someone and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

I already went over this in the OP. I'm not referring to kidnapping. Please read it again.

Exod. 21:16
"You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Lev. 19:18, Matt. 22:37-40

I already went over this in the bottom of the OP.

Further, your property is not "your neighbor". Your slave is your property. Your slave is your money. In order for them to be maximized fully, you have to whip them into shape. See post 233.

The expressed hierarchy is as follows:

God > Jesus > man > woman > slave > livestock > inanimate objects

[1213]

Because of these scriptures, I think it would be possible only if person agrees with it, not against the will of the person.

Who would willfully agree to be a lifetime chattel slave?

That is a good question. Bible indicates that some people wanted it. Difficult to know why, but one reason could be for example safety. Also many modern people submit to governments, although it is not reasonable in my opinion.

[1213]

More evasion. The video 'Totally different' refutes your points or excuses, rather. That evasiveness is plain when you say the essence of slavery is that one must work for someone else. Dude you just made your apologetic a laughing stock. Any child knows that working for someone else is work; slavery is being owned - not hired - by someone else.

Yes, if we ignore half of the Bible, it may support your straw-man.

Free worker gets his whole wage. Slave doesn't get his whole wage, as it is in the case of person who must pay taxes. The one who takes the tax, owns the person who must pay the tax.

...The excuse about kidnapping someone and selling them is absolutely nothing whatever to do with buying and selling people in the market place like any other transaction, which is what slavery is, and stealing property and selling it is a crime, even if we don't impose the death penalty.

If kidnapping is forbidden, then only way to get slaves is that the people voluntarily accept it.

...Slavery in the Bible is buying and owning for life foreign slaves, and it is not like Hebrews who have to be let go after 7 years (unless you can trick them into lifetime slavery), it not like stolen property, slave, wife, or ass, and it is absolutely not like paying for work or paying your taxes. That is being a part of society, which no doubt the Bible believers think they are exempt from, like the Churches, evangelical ministries and Creationist businesses are exempt from paying taxes.

If Jews would have obeyed all the rules, I think all the slaves should have been counted as Hebrews. But, this leads to interesting question, who can be counted as a Hebrew. IF everyone in Israel had to obey the Jewish rules, would they not then be also Jews?

He who is eight days old will be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he who is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner who is not of your seed. He who is born in your house, and he who is bought with your money, must be circumcised. My covenant will be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Gen. 17:12-13

[POI]

it is not reasonable in my opinion.

Exactly. It is not reasonable. So why then suggest "I think it would be possible only if person agrees with it, not against the will of the person."?

Further, females and children had no say, per Exodus 21 - the same chapter you use to defend your irrelevant position.

Again, my position is that 1) the Bible endorses lifetime chattel slavery. You agree that it is not reasonable to volunteer yourself to such a situation.

My position is also that 2) the Bible endorses the breeding of new chattel slaves. The OP explains. I also explain in post 233, which also links to a response sent to otseng, via post 3830 of another thread about slavery. The 'golden rule' does not apply. Nor, am I speaking about kidnapping. You have no rebuttal for these two points, in which no one would reasonably volunteer for, as of yet. Got anything else? If not, then you must reconcile the Bible endorses these points without contest.

[Difflugia]

If kidnapping is forbidden, then only way to get slaves is that the people voluntarily accept it.

There are lots of things that were involuntary on the part of the brand new slaves, but not kidnapping as such. Prisoners of war were subject to slavery, but that wasn't kidnapping. Selling one's daughters into slavery made slaves of them without their consent, but it wasn't kidnapping. Being a slave and having children made one's children into slaves without their consent, but it wasn't kidnapping.

[1213]

If kidnapping is forbidden, then only way to get slaves is that the people voluntarily accept it.

There are lots of things that were involuntary on the part of the brand new slaves, but not kidnapping as such. Prisoners of war were subject to slavery, but that wasn't kidnapping. Selling one's daughters into slavery made slaves of them without their consent, but it wasn't kidnapping. Being a slave and having children made one's children into slaves without their consent, but it wasn't kidnapping.

By what I know, kidnapping means abduction and confinement of a person against their will. It is not just a kid taking a nap. This is why I think slavery would not be possible against persons own will, if all Bible rules would be obeyed.

[POI]

By what I know, kidnapping means abduction and confinement of a person against their will. It is not just a kid taking a nap. This is why I think slavery would not be possible against persons own will, if all Bible rules would be obeyed.

Your response is not relevant to what Difflugia is saying. The unwilling can still be lifetime slaves. (i.e.) Selling one's daughter...:

"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." - Exodus 21

Or if the male slave is given a wife and they have children, the children have no say in the matter. If the children opt not to be willing participants, too bad!: (i.e.):

"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." - Exodus 21

[TRANSPONDER]

I think what muddies the waters is that these regulating rules only apply to Hebrew slaves. Ex 21 begins with that and goes on : "He has no right to sell her to foreigners," which makes it clear that we are talking about the treatment of Hebrew slaves or servants. This does not apply to foreign slave who, it appears, had no rights, other than an owner does not destroy his own purchases.

The stuff about kidnapping or runaway slaves is irrelevant as it is not about slaves' rights but whether the Hebrew is breaking the law or not. I don't know whether it is looking for excuses and trying to mislead by good old 'out of context' which the Bible apologists do but accuse Bible critics of doing it.

But I guess that most of them know it is evasion and attempted misdirection as they appear to prefer to simply ignore the matter.

Conclusion: The OT was a book written by men for a particular culture. It does not tell the truth, or at least not the whole truth and at best tries to argue for a just society - at least for the Hebrews and any peaceful foreigners living with them. But it is not a book from, by or about a god, and nor is the NT. Slavery is the slam dunk 'not from a god' - unless it is evil, as has been said. Neither of those are to the liking of the Bible - believer, so they either deny everything or say nothing. ,

cue: 'Jesus made everything new'. But NT just as bad, not just on slavery (which it tacitly endorses by omission of condemnation) but wrong on Genesis which it appears to cite, as well as a flat earth with a dome over it as in Genesis. Never mind medical misinformation. But the slam dunk of the NT is the Nativities. Demonstrably false, at least one and credibly both and thus of course a precedent of a false story makes the contradictory resurrection fail (denial aside) so there we are; fail for the Bible, NT and Old alike, and the Bible apologists can only lie, misdirect or say nothing and hope that people don't listen to us.

"Please shut up and go away" is or was the underlying meme in the 80's - 90's and it is still there. They would dearly love atheists to vanish so only One side is presented to the people.

[POI]

I've let this topic marinate for about 3 months now. By now, I figured some Christan would come along and demonstrate that the 2 debate questions are nonsense. However, to the contrary, the answers to the 2 debates questions instead look to be as follows:

1) By applying common sense, does/did the Bible ever, and/or currently still sanction chattel slavery? YES

2) Again, by using common sense, can a believer effectively use the Bible in support of breeding chattel slaves? YES

Receipts have been issued, and no one looks to be able to argue for a (NO) for these two questions. Christians, does this even matter for you, that your 'god' supports chattel slavery practices?

[1213]

I've let this topic marinate for about 3 months now. By now, I figured some Christan would come along and demonstrate that the 2 debate questions are nonsense. However, to the contrary, the answers to the 2 debates questions instead look to be as follows:

1) By applying common sense, does/did the Bible ever, and/or currently still sanction chattel slavery? YES

2) Again, by using common sense, can a believer effectively use the Bible in support of breeding chattel slaves? YES

Receipts have been issued, and no one looks to be able to argue for a (NO) for these two questions. Christians, does this even matter for you, that your 'god' supports chattel slavery practices?

I don't think Bible uses word chattel, that is why I can't say Bible supports any chattel thing. But, it is true that Bible accepts slavery with certain terms. And if one doesn't ignore the terms, I don't see how anyone could keep other person as a slave against the persons will.