"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]

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.

I already explained all this to you, ad nauseum, to the point where you simply aborted the entire exchange. Yes, the Bible supports slavery, under 'certain terms.' And these terms include attributes which pertain to chattel slavery, as outlined in the OP. Meaning, they are to be kept as property for life. Only the male Hebrews are to go free, the rest, cannot. Such individuals can be beaten with impunity, as long as they live. Which is fine, because I doubt a slave owner would want to 'off' their labor force anyways. Just keep them in line, by beating them on the back from time to time if they do not produce to the slave owner's satisfaction. So the take-away question becomes:

Does this even matter for you?

[1213]

...Meaning, they are to be kept as property for life...

But not against their will.

Such individuals can be beaten with impunity, as long as they live...

I don't think that is true, for example because:

If a man strikes his servant's eye, or his maid's eye, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. If he strikes out his man-servant's tooth, or his maid-servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.
Exod. 21:26-27

Also, there is obviously the law to love your neighbor as yourself, which prevents you to beat anyone with impunity. But, I understand that you accept only the parts that fits to your propaganda.

[POI]

But not against their will.

Unless you were tricked (like in Exodus 21:4-6), or offspring (like in Exodus 21:4), or a woman (like in Exodus 21:7), or a foreigner (like in Lev. 25:44-46). These 4 groups are held directly against their will.

I don't think that is true, for example because:

If a man strikes his servant's eye, or his maid's eye, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. If he strikes out his man-servant's tooth, or his maid-servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.
Exod. 21:26-27

We've been over this extensively 1213. Are you forgetting, or are just in denial? The slave is their labor - (Exodus 21:21). Why would one want to kill their own labor? If they are not working hard enough, whip them on the back a bit. Keep them in line! Make sure they put in a full day's work. Knocking out their eyes would blind them. They would then be useless to work the fields. This is why they were whipped on the back side. Complete impunity was granted for this sort of beatings.

Also, there is obviously the law to love your neighbor as yourself, which prevents you to beat anyone with impunity. But, I understand that you accept only the parts that fits to your propaganda.

We've been all over this extensively too 1213. I even addressed this in the OP. As well as many posts there-after. Do you have amnesia? Maybe you do. Okay, here we go, yet again....

Differing rules exist for differing folks. Case/point, notice how in Exodus 21 alone, rules differ between the free vs the enslaved, and also between the man vs the woman. The "golden rule" is a rule, yes, but then you would have to ignore the rule where parents can beat their children too. But guess what, the rules differ with parents vs children as well. Children are to obey the parent, period, or else. It's all about context. If the "golden rule" takes precedent among all else, then there would be no rules about slavery, beating children, burning witches, etc....... The Bible would be a very short book. Many exceptions exist. And the writers of the Bible made a very large exception for chattel slavery ownership.

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

I ask again, why are you okay with these pronouncements?

[TRANSPONDER]

...Meaning, they are to be kept as property for life...

But not against their will.

Such individuals can be beaten with impunity, as long as they live...

I don't think that is true, for example because:

If a man strikes his servant's eye, or his maid's eye, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. If he strikes out his man-servant's tooth, or his maid-servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.
Exod. 21:26-27

Also, there is obviously the law to love your neighbor as yourself, which prevents you to beat anyone with impunity. But, I understand that you accept only the parts that fits to your propaganda.

Against theior will - in the case of foreign slaves. Exodus 21 indicates that these are rules for Hebrew slaves. Fair conditions Unless they used the small - print escape clauses, like how to trick your slave into becoming a slave for life. But this clearly did not apply to foreign slaves.

I need hardly say more as the apologists will surely insist that it applies to all slaves unless is says 'hebrew slaves before each paragraph and 'this does not apply to foreign slaves' after.

But let's enjoy one of those entertaining classic vids that the Believers seem to think will earn them credits in heaven if they declare that they never watch such videos, and some have even paid me the compliments of studiously ignoring my posts

Leviticus 25
Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves.
43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
44"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.



and remember the golden rule, friends, it is what is the best explanation, not the most stubborn denial, that makes the case.

[1213]

...This is why they were whipped on the back side. Complete impunity was granted for this sort of beatings. ...

If you ignore the love your neighbor part, you could do that to anyone, not only to slaves.

[1213]

...Exodus 21 indicates that these are rules for Hebrew slaves. ...

And that is pointless, if you can't define who is a Hebrew. Can you tell how to define a Hebrew correctly?

[TRANSPONDER]

...Exodus 21 indicates that these are rules for Hebrew slaves. ...

And that is pointless, if you can't define who is a Hebrew. Can you tell how to define a Hebrew correctly?

We did this before. Let the Hebrews, then or now, decide who is a Hebrew and who is not. Then as now, Foreign countries is a clear enough concept and the Bible says that Hebrews can buy lifetime, chattel, slave from those.

Your attempt at a diversion only shows that you have no good answer to the clear point that the Bible endorses or condones chattel slavery of foreign people.

[tam]

Peace to you,

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:

Oftentimes people see what they want to see. Or what others have trained them to see.

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

Did it ever? Maybe.

Does it still? No.

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

No. Not unless you ignore Christ. Not just His words, but also the example He left for us and told us to follow. He did not enslave anyone, nor does He even force anyone to serve or follow Him. If we ARE following Him, however, we must do the same. He even said to make ourselves the LEAST... and to serve OTHERS. How can you enslave someone (against their will or not) if you have made yourself LESS than them? How can you enslave someone if you are supposed to be serving THEM?

Of course there is also 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'... and love others as yourself.

It is very simple.

So... a person could ignore everything about Christ, and use some verses to justify their enslavement of others (and others' children.) But then that would be a misuse, right?

Receipts have been issued, and no one looks to be able to argue for a (NO) for these two questions.

There have been many arguments in this thread for a (no), for certainty, to the second question.

Christians, does this even matter for you, that your 'god' supports chattel slavery practices?

My God is as Christ reveals Him to be. So this question does not apply to me or to my God. And even if chattel slavery was permitted once upon a time, that would be due to the hard-heartedness of the people and/or circumstances at the time (Mark 10:5). God is as Christ shows Him to be. And even in the OT, you can see that God desires that every yoke be broken. Isaiah 58:

"Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?
7
Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter
when you see the naked, to clothe them,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?
8
Then your light will break forth like the dawn,
and your healing will quickly appear;
then your righteousness[a] will go before you,
and the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard.
9
Then you will call, and the Lord will answer;
you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I.



Peace to you, and to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[TRANSPONDER]

Nice to see you, Tam, and nice try. But the 'Play nice' excuse won't do. Jesus even mentions slaves or hears about them, but never once does he express any disapproval of the practice or say (in the sermons, for instance) that it is written that you may buy slaves, for life, from the countries around you; but I say to you that you shall not own another person as property.

This is just more evidence that the Bible, NT and old, was written by people of the time, not by anyone speaking for a god, or his son. Morally speaking, by the late 18th century, human morality had Bible ethics beat.

[tam]

Peace to you Transponder, nice to see you too!

Nice to see you, Tam, and nice try. But the 'Play nice' excuse won't do.

It is not a 'play nice' excuse.

Can you enslave another person if you are supposed to be the LEAST?

Can you enslave another person (or their children) if you supposed to be serving THEM?

Can you enslave another person (or their children) if you are supposed to 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you?"

Did Christ force anyone to serve Him?

Did Christ enslave anyone against their will?

If your answer is no, and it can only be no, how are you following His example if you enslave someone (and/or their children)? If you force others to be your slaves?


These are not rhetorical questions. You don't have to answer them publicly, but I don't know how you answer them honestly and still think you can enslave others and follow Christ at the same time.

Jesus even mentions slaves or hears about them, but never once does he express any disapproval of the practice or say (in the sermons, for instance) that it is written that you may buy slaves, for life, from the countries around you; but I say to you that you shall not own another person as property.

He did not say these words (as far as we know from what is written.) But please answer the questions above (even if just to yourself.)


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy