"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.'

[TRANSPONDER]

....But aside from that it is not possible to make a person out of - dust, say - and claim he is a descendant of Abraham....

That depends on how a descendant of Abraham is defined. If it would for example go by genetics, I don't see why it would not be possible.

...as false as saying that there can be a square circle.

It requires acknowledging the third dimension, which may be supernatural for some. But, here is the guide how to do it:

1. A straight line from the point 0,0,0 (x,y,z) to the point 10,0,0.
2. Curved line from point 10,0,0 to point 10,10,0 through point 10,5,5.
3. A straight line from point 10,10,0 to point 0,10,0.
4. Curved line from point 0,10,0 to point 0,0,0 through point 0,5,-5.

It does require the Big Boss input. The discussion has happened before. Would a nano -exact replica of the Mona Lisa be the original? No, in fact it isn't and cannot be, but a Boss could demand that they are originals and will be accepted as such or else.

So a perfect genetic close of a Jew will not be a descendant of Abram because he was actually not, but a big Boss can say 'you will accept him as such'. But as Galilaeo anecdotally muttered after he had caved into the threats of the Vatican 'Neverthless, it does move'-

So I maintain that you cannot make a stone into a descendant of Abraham even if God had made a genetically exact copy of a Jew,

As to the circle squared through other dimensions, I shall have to let others debate about that. But if one can make a square circle, employing dimensional jiggery - pokery, once can propose an infinitely -recessed universe the same way.

[POI]

Beginning to recap, as Christians are not really engaging.... The silence is deafening....

These following two statements do not look to have been challenged by Christians:

1) The Bible can be used to endorse chattel slavery.
2) The Bible can be used to endorse slave breeding.

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

1) The specifics outweigh the generals. The 'golden rule' is the general rule. But specifics outweigh general rules, like the expressed caveats for chattel slavery. An analogy would be like a posted speed limit, or a red light, or to always make a complete stop at a stop sign. These would be the general rules. These posted laws do not also apply to some however, like traffic patrol in pursuit or medical/ambulance in route. Some caveats exist. Which are some specifics... Chattel slavery is an endorsed listed caveat, or a specific, to the general 'golden rule'. Further, the golden rule was already expressed, when chattel slavery was also endorsed, in the OT.

2) Theists will argue that 'hearts are/were hardened", which is why chattel slavery was/is allowed. Using basic logic, this argument fails. Divorce was allowed, even though divorce was considered a 'sin'. The Bible expressed why divorce was allowed anyways, even though God deemed this act a sin. I trust Christians think chattel slavery is worse? And yet, the Bible offers no such explanation as to why chattel slavery is still allowed, let alone expressing that chattel slavery is a 'sin.' Further, humans can conjure up many 'valid' reasons why divorce should still be allowed today, even though it is categorized as a "sin" in the Bible. And yet, can Christians do the same for chattel slavery? No. Further, the Bible argues that we will all 'sin'. Which means all hearts are essentially hardened regardless. This means that even when the Bible deems an act a sin, we will still always break it anyways. So the logic fails. The Bible does not express that such chattel slavery practices are a sin.

3) Jesus has no problem expressing his dislikes and remains silent about the already expressed allowances for chattel slavery. This means chattel slavery and slave breeding is not a 'sin'.

4) The Bible gives further instruction about slavery in the NT, while not expressing that it is a 'sin' in the NT either.

5) Differing rulesets apply to differing groups. (i.e.): If we read the Bible, in context throughout, the following hierarchy exists -- God > Jesus > man > woman > Hebrew male slave > female/foreign/bred slave > livestock > inanimate object. Not all rules are created equal.

There are likely more points, but this should be enough of a recap to demonstrate that yes, you can substantiate chattel slavery and slave breeding while using the Bible.

[1213]

...1) The specifics outweigh the generals. The 'golden rule' is the general rule. But specifics outweigh general rules,...

Sorry, in Christian view, God is higher than you. God doesn't say that people can ignore the "golden rule" for to treat others in a bad way. And that is why your whole argument collapses.

[TRANSPONDER]

...1) The specifics outweigh the generals. The 'golden rule' is the general rule. But specifics outweigh general rules,...

Sorry, in Christian view, God is higher than you. God doesn't say that people can ignore the "golden rule" for to treat others in a bad way. And that is why your whole argument collapses.

Disgusting The Bible says that Hebrews can buy slaves from foreign countries. They are property for life. The high status claimed for God and the All - encompassing Golden rule does not change what i in the Bible, and - despite the excellent tam's efforts, general Play nice' does not alter the fact that the NT nowhere condemns slavery much less have Jesus put the omission right on the sermon on the mount..

"Ye have heard that the people of Moses could buy slaves from the countries around them; they would become their property. But i say to you that ye shall not own another person as property".

Easy. One line. Not done.

"I could do better than this" (Theramin trees; 'Losing faith').

What explanation fits the facts? That - like other religions - Both OT and NT were written by men of the time, and in no way represents the views or teaching of a god, and in no way is a guide to how to live today, nor a truth that people should believe.

[POI]

...1) The specifics outweigh the generals. The 'golden rule' is the general rule. But specifics outweigh general rules,...

Sorry, in Christian view, God is higher than you. God doesn't say that people can ignore the "golden rule" for to treat others in a bad way. And that is why your whole argument collapses.

This is merely another nuh-uh response alone. I've laid out 5 points, for which you have not even attempted to refute, in post 292. Until you address points 1) thru 5), of point 292, your response here is completely baseless.

[POI]

Christians,

Please explain why you ladies and gents support a book which can be used to endorse both chattel slavery and also slave breeding?

If you disagree with the above, or, perceive the above to be a "loaded question," please then reference and address post 292.

If you Christians neither answer the question, or, make no effort to present a case against post 292, then the silence remains quite deafening.

Thanks

[1213]

...
If you disagree with the above, or, perceive the above to be a "loaded question," please then reference and address post 292.
...

I think I have already addressed your loaded question. There is no Biblical reason to ignore the "golden rule" as you seem to do. And it sets certain constrictions to the owning of the slaves. Also the rule not to kidnap anyone sets a certain constrictions. This means, your statements are not accurate. They should be:

1) The Bible can be used to endorse chattel slavery, in certain conditions, not against persons will.
2) The Bible can be used to endorse slave breeding, in certain conditions, not against persons will.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
If you disagree with the above, or, perceive the above to be a "loaded question," please then reference and address post 292.
...

I think I have already addressed your loaded question. There is no Biblical reason to ignore the "golden rule" as you seem to do. And it sets certain constrictions to the owning of the slaves. Also the rule not to kidnap anyone sets a certain constrictions. This means, your statements are not accurate. They should be:

1) The Bible can be used to endorse chattel slavery, in certain conditions, not against persons will.
2) The Bible can be used to endorse slave breeding, in certain conditions, not against persons will.

What miserable attempts at evasion. The lie that the 'Golden Rule' Love you neighbor and other broad and diffuse 'play nice' exhortations somehow mean that permission to own foreign slaves for life as property, and even rules how to do it.

The attempt to slip 'not against the persons' will, which is in no way mentioned in the plain permission to buy and own foreign slaves, is a last ditch attempt to excuse the unexcusable.

Because the choice facing the Bible believer is stark - either Bible is inexcusable, or those who try to defend it are inexcusable.

No wonder they resort to all manner of tricks, miserable, crafty or dirty, to try to get out of it.

[POI]

...
If you disagree with the above, or, perceive the above to be a "loaded question," please then reference and address post 292.
...

I think I have already addressed your loaded question. There is no Biblical reason to ignore the "golden rule" as you seem to do.

You did not address points 1) thru 5) of post 292. I speak to this....

And it sets certain constrictions to the owning of the slaves.

Right, and I've spoken about this too. You just ignore these facts.

Also the rule not to kidnap anyone sets a certain constrictions.

I've always agreed here. I'm not speaking about kidnapping. Not in the least. So please stop bringing up kidnapping. The ways in which the Bible endorses slavery does not involve kidnapping. It instead relies upon breeding and trickery.

This means, your statements are not accurate.

No, this means you continue to place words in my mouth, for which I have never said.

They should be:

1) The Bible can be used to endorse chattel slavery, in certain conditions, not against persons will.
2) The Bible can be used to endorse slave breeding, in certain conditions, not against persons will.

Correction:

1) The Bible can be used to endorse chattel slavery, in certain conditions, against these persons will.
2) The Bible can be used to endorse slave breeding, in certain conditions, against these persons will.

Why?

Exodus 21:4-7 explains how the decision is not always made by the one whom is to be enslaved, but by another. This means the enslaved themselves can be enslaved against their will, in certain instances.

[1213]

... This means the enslaved themselves can be enslaved against their will, in certain instances.

That would be kidnapping and also against the golden rule. But, obviously it is clear now that you don't like the parts that don't fit to your propaganda.