What Is God's Rationale?

[POI]

Apologists have argued for various forms of Biblical slavery. Apparently, God did not just abolish the topic of slavery entirely, but instead created a special list of can do's and cannot do's for this category. HOWEVER, where the topic of lying is concerned, we see no such list of special instructions? And yet, off the top of one's head, we can formulate all sorts of situationals, where lying may even be deemed the best thing to do in a given set of circumstances.

For debate:

In the Bible, why isn't the topic of <lying> granted with, at least, the same level of flexibility and/or lattitude as the topic of <slavery>?

[iam1me2023]

[Replying to brunumb in post #45]

I'm not asking if it is permissible or not, or what it might be called. It's a simple direct question.

Do you believe that it is acceptable for one human being to own another as property or not? A simple yes or no is all that is necessary to answer that question.

And I'm telling you that it's not a simple direct question - because you haven't defined what you mean by one human being owning another as property. There have been countless variations of slavery, some of which are alive and well to this day - even if they aren't commonly referred to as such.

Until you can provide specifics, your question is ambiguous.

[iam1me2023]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #46]

All that tells me is that human ethics and moral are man - made. We got them before Judaism or the Bible and in different cultures that had never heard of YHWH. It has been improving and not really thanks to religion. Religions are well aware of the ideals we all work towards as humans, but takes more credit for that than it deserves and gives human ethics less credit for that than it should.

We make progress but it is not perfect and may never be. But it is time to recognise that Religion only borrows human ethics and pretends to be the author of it.

Men undoubtedly create systems of ethics/morality. Man as a moral agent is perfectly inline with the scriptural narrative - even before the OT Law was given, as well as after.

Romans 2:12-16 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

That said, the best moral system is to be found by studying and understanding the scriptures; especially as elucidated in the NT. Ultimately, understanding morality is not difficult: it means acting in accordance with love for God and one's fellowman. The difficultly comes in living accordingly and denying yourself.

[iam1me2023]

[Replying to POI in post #47]

A) My interpretation is not inconsistent. I'm not speaking about killing your slaves. I'm speaking about God granting complete impunity for beating your slaves. And now you want to use phrases like 'severe injury'? Wow! This must mean you acknowledge god sanctions/allows "minor injury", whatever that might be... But, we've already been over this. Exodus 21 clarifies what IS punishable. The slave's death or the slave's loss of eyes or teeth must be what you mean by "severe". The rest, ''minor'. Hence, no punishment; even if they suffer from 100 lashes to the back weekly. So let me ask you, logically... Can a slave master whip their slave on the back, chest, legs, back of the head, etc? Sure. They will likely not die or lose their eyes/teeth. These are then minor injuries, instructed for no punishment by God himself.

I'll even throw you a bone here.... It would be stupid for the master to beat their slave, as this is the master's money. But thanks to the sloppy and haphazard instruction of the Bible, the slave master can:

- Beat their slave if the slave refuses to work any longer...
- Are getting too old
- Have too many work-related injuries and can no longer perform a satisfactory task
- etc etc etc.........

Since the slave is their property, if their money is no longer worth anything, they may not be allowed to destroy it, but they can certainly beat it -- (with no penalty). This would be classified as sub-human, maybe above cattle.

Your interpretation is inconsistent - and reflects that you are trying to push other forms of slavery onto the one permitted within the OT Law. This is simple intellectual dishonesty. There is nothing within the scriptures or in later Jewish tradition that would suggest that slaves were viewed as sub-human or that you could treat them in any manner you wish. As opposed to pretty much any other form of slavery, the OT Law protects the well being of slaves. Masters had an obligation to take care of their servants.

"You shall not oppress a resident alien" (Ex 23:9), "You shall also love the stranger" (Deut 10:19), "you shall love the alien as yourself" (Lev 19:34), and "love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18).

Kidnapping people to be servant/slaves was punishable by death (Ex 21:16).

It was illegal to force escaped slaves to return to their masters (Deut 23:15-16).

Furthermore, the OT Law only reflects part of Jewish tradition - if you really want to dig into how slavery was practiced and what they considered permissible, then you need to study things like the Mishna - which includes punishment for slave owners who abuse their slaves, such as in your hypothetical cases above.

B) If you are not an Israelite, you could certainly be sub-human. It is a tribal religion after all. God apparently did or does favor Israelites. This is why the foreign slaves are instructed to be kept for life as property and treated more harshly, but not the Israelites - ala Leviticus 25.

That is simply false. First of all, there are laws are explicit laws in the OT saying to treat a foreigner as a native.

Leviticus 19:33-34 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

Secondly, God is the God of all nations; not just the Hebrews. Nor are the Jews considered to be a superior people in the scriptures - rather, the scriptures record all the ways they messed up. The scriptures don't hide their many sins, but put them on full display.

Thirdly, anyone can convert to Judaism - including slaves (who would then get treated under the more favorable laws for fellow Hebrews).

C) This is the pot calling the kettle black I'm not misrepresenting or embellishing anything. You are. I've spoken nothing about the American slave trade, or the killing of slaves. This is all you. I'm simply regurgitating what the Bible instructs in Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25, and you are deflecting.

You are misrepresenting and embellishing. You are attempting to take false ideas - like that slaves are subhuman - and force that onto the scriptures, when in fact such an idea clearly contradicts what the scriptures teach. And where are you getting such ideas from? You are taking them from other systems of slavery - even if you refuse to name the specific one(s) you have in mind.

[iam1me2023]

POI Well, digging into my argument any deeper depends on which denomination I'm exchanging with...? Case/point, if you are a Catholic (for example), we could discuss venial sins, in which all lies may qualify to a lesser or higher degree.

Further, I've debated plenty of "hermeneutic scholars" who give me conflicting answers to the same questions. So I do not think consulting a 'theologian' is going to get us a consistent answer across the board on virtually ANY question (open for interpretation). Case/point again, speaking to a Catholic vs. a protestant, for example.

I don't have a denomination - nor would it matter if I did. I've attended many different denominations over the years for various amounts of time - Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox. What is being discussed is the OT Law/Jewish Tradition, not a particular Christian denomination's doctrines.

The issue is that you have setup a strawman. You have framed an argument against a very particular interpretation of the scriptures that no Jew or Christian actually shares with you.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

It is not a sin if someone is given up some of their freedoms to pay off a debt, or like how we in most every country take people's freedom away when we put them into prison.

A lie is a sin always as Aquinas taught. However, not all sin is equal, as John said, some sin is unto death (mortal sins) and some sin is not (venial sin). Aquinas also taught that there could be a time when a lie, although sin, is for a greater good, such as saving life. This is a venial sin that could be necessary.

Just like war is always evil, but sometimes necessary, thus why most all people call it a necessary evil.

[POI]

U Your interpretation is inconsistent - and reflects that you are trying to push other forms of slavery onto the one permitted within the OT Law. This is simple intellectual dishonesty.

POI You are again the pot calling the kettle black. It is you, who is completely practicing intellectual dishonesty. See below...

U There is nothing within the scriptures or in later Jewish tradition that would suggest that slaves were viewed as sub-human or that you could treat them in any manner you wish.

POI Yet again, this is not what I said. Please stop presenting a strawman. Exodus 21 lays out what is and what is not deemed punishable. I've been over this three times now, and you keep ignoring. If the slave survives the beating without losing eyes and teeth --> NO PUNISHMENT. If the slave dies or loses eye/teeth --> PUNISHMENT. --- (read Exodus 21 for details).

If you are NOT a slave, i doubt God grant NO PUNISHMENT for beating all fellow free neighbors

U As opposed to pretty much any other form of slavery, the OT Law protects the well being of slaves. Masters had an obligation to take care of their servants.

POI I've been over this. The OT defines two types of 'slaves' -- A) volunteer Hebrew servants and B) 1) tricked male Hebrew servants, 2) women, 3) bred slaves 4) foreign slaves:

A) “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." (Ex. 21:2-3)

But... If the Hebrew servant was not aware of the entire law, and was given a mate and had offspring, at year 7, he would be confronted with the follwing:

B) 1) "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. 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." (Ex. 21:4-6)

B) 2) “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do." (Ex. 21:7)

B) 3) "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." (Ex. 21:4)

B) 4) 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. (Lev. 25:44-46)

U "You shall not oppress a resident alien" (Ex 23:9), "You shall also love the stranger" (Deut 10:19), "you shall love the alien as yourself" (Lev 19:34), and "love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18).

POI Which direction do you want to go here?

A) The Bible distinguishes (different laws) between the free and the enslaved
B) Attempt to reconcile the contradictions between the 'golden rule' and Biblical slavery, as I have laid out above.

There really is no option three for you here.... Either way, you are in between a rock and a hard place.

U Kidnapping people to be servant/slaves was punishable by death (Ex 21:16).

POI I never mentioned anything about kidnapping. Please stop trying to push your own canned apologetic agenda. Please read what I write.

U It was illegal to force escaped slaves to return to their masters (Deut 23:15-16).

POI Why in the heck would any slave try to escape? You have painted such a lovely picture of Biblical slavery

U That is simply false. First of all, there are laws are explicit laws in the OT saying to treat a foreigner as a native.

Leviticus 19:33-34 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

POI As stated above, the Bible goes out of its way to distinguish between the free and the enslaves. If it's not specifying as a servant or slave, they are not slaves to a specific master. And such individuals had differing rules than the enslaved. Just like the deemed Hebrew servants and the other slaves had differing rules. Just like men and women have differing rules. Just like children and parents have differing rules. etc....

U Secondly, God is the God of all nations; not just the Hebrews. Nor are the Jews considered to be a superior people in the scriptures - rather, the scriptures record all the ways they messed up. The scriptures don't hide their many sins, but put them on full display

POI Well, in regard to slavery practices alone, the Israelites are not to be treated ruthlessly (ala Leviticus 25:46). This implies the ones who are not Israelites can be. Otherwise, it would not go out of its way to specify Israelites.

U Thirdly, anyone can convert to Judaism - including slaves (who would then get treated under the more favorable laws for fellow Hebrews).

POI I guess it would certainly behoove a foreign slave to "convert", so they may be treated a little better as a slave then, huh?

U You are misrepresenting and embellishing. You are attempting to take false ideas - like that slaves are subhuman

POI Negative. If a person is instructed/deemed property for life, and is instructed that no punishment be applied to the slave's master for beatings, I'd certainly call this poor individual a sub-human.

[POI]

POI Well, digging into my argument any deeper depends on which denomination I'm exchanging with...? Case/point, if you are a Catholic (for example), we could discuss venial sins, in which all lies may qualify to a lesser or higher degree.

Further, I've debated plenty of "hermeneutic scholars" who give me conflicting answers to the same questions. So I do not think consulting a 'theologian' is going to get us a consistent answer across the board on virtually ANY question (open for interpretation). Case/point again, speaking to a Catholic vs. a protestant, for example.

I don't have a denomination - nor would it matter if I did. I've attended many different denominations over the years for various amounts of time - Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox. What is being discussed is the OT Law/Jewish Tradition, not a particular Christian denomination's doctrines.

The issue is that you have setup a strawman. You have framed an argument against a very particular interpretation of the scriptures that no Jew or Christian actually shares with you.

No, it is not a strawman. Christians have differing views about lying. Case/point, read post 55. He is a Catholic and happily admits all lies are deemed a sin. This is, in part, why Catholics invented the concept of 'venial sins' or quote other stuff, again as he mentions in post 55. I too was raised Catholic and later converted to non-denominational.

This is also why I mentioned "white lies', "fibs', "stretching the truth", etc... When it comes down to it, if you were a homicide detective, and were grilling a murder suspect, you may lie to extract a confession. It's called a lie, again, because it's "marked by or containing untrue statements".

Now, you state it is NOT a sin because of its intent. But again, thus far, you are overreaching. Thus far, you have supplied one exception to the rule. The rule suggests lying is bad. Where in the Bible does it state that "any lie, simply done with loving intent, is deemed good" by God?

And again, unanswered, where loving intent is concerned, where exactly does Biblical slavery fit in?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

It is not a sin if someone is given up some of their freedoms to pay off a debt, or like how we in most every country take people's freedom away when we put them into prison.

It's also not a sin if you are a woman, born into slavery, or a tricked Hebrew male, or a foreign slave. These folks are kept for life. Remember, not all of these folks are criminals or debt payers. And yet, the Bible sanctions their lifetime slavery too.

A lie is a sin always as Aquinas taught. However, not all sin is equal, as John said, some sin is unto death (mortal sins) and some sin is not (venial sin). Aquinas also taught that there could be a time when a lie, although sin, is for a greater good, such as saving life. This is a venial sin that could be necessary.

Just like war is always evil, but sometimes necessary, thus why most all people call it a necessary evil.

Seems we need clarification here....? You and "iam1me2023" are at some odds --- which divides this debate.

You reconcile all lies are sin. He states that a well-intended lie is not a sin. How do we know which one of you two are right? Once we work this out, I guess we can continue, or not, with the debate topic....?

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #45]

I'm not asking if it is permissible or not, or what it might be called. It's a simple direct question.

Do you believe that it is acceptable for one human being to own another as property or not? A simple yes or no is all that is necessary to answer that question.

And I'm telling you that it's not a simple direct question - because you haven't defined what you mean by one human being owning another as property. There have been countless variations of slavery, some of which are alive and well to this day - even if they aren't commonly referred to as such.

Until you can provide specifics, your question is ambiguous.

There is nothing ambiguous about one human being owning another as property. I'm not interested in the countless variations of slavery. Put all of that aside and just consider the concept of ownership of one human being as property by another. Do you consider it to be acceptable under any circumstances?

[POI]

[Replying to brunumb in post #45]

I'm not asking if it is permissible or not, or what it might be called. It's a simple direct question.

Do you believe that it is acceptable for one human being to own another as property or not? A simple yes or no is all that is necessary to answer that question.

And I'm telling you that it's not a simple direct question - because you haven't defined what you mean by one human being owning another as property. There have been countless variations of slavery, some of which are alive and well to this day - even if they aren't commonly referred to as such.

Until you can provide specifics, your question is ambiguous.

There is nothing ambiguous about one human being owning another as property. I'm not interested in the countless variations of slavery. Put all of that aside and just consider the concept of ownership of one human being as property by another. Do you consider it to be acceptable under any circumstances?

I feel a "yes, BUT" answer in the works.