"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.'

[tam]

Peace to you,

Chattel slavery wherein one person owns another person?

Yes, if by sanction you mean 'give permission', "the bible" did permit it.

Noted. Continuing below....

I know how I know which one to believe. How do you know which one to believe?

The Bible sanctions chattel slavery. Pure and simple. You agree. Continuing below....

You never answered the question. Is that because you choose to ignore those verses in the bible that would speak against enslaving and oppressing another person?

Nope. Not without ignoring Christ (His words and His example.) For this, you can look at the links provided to Transponder a couple pages back.

Please re-read the question. I'll ask it again. I'll give you a hint, in bold:

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

That is the question that I answered. Unless you are going to suggest that there are no words from Christ in the bible?

Do you not realize that the culmination of that book is this: "This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Listen to Him."

You are using the "Jesus excuse" to try and get yourself out of the corner in which you have been backed into.

Lol... "Jesus excuse".

I am a Christian. A Christian follows Christ.

Simple.

For the reasoning from His words, see the linked posts to the other thread (see, it does come down to the same thing).

Christ - not "the bible" - is the Word of God. God is as Christ revealed Him to be. Christ is the One who speaks the truth, truth from the beginning, from God.

How does one pick/chose what Jesus said, verses being written by some other random's own opinions? To my knowledge, Jesus did not author ANY of the Book. I mean, did he issue his thumbprint after each and every verse approved/endorsed? Further, by the time anything was written to paper about him specifically, he was long dead for years/decades. Did someone keep Jesus' diary or memoirs, and then just transfer what HE said on paper to the official canon? Please do not tell me you are going to rely upon oral tradition for truth?

What difference does it make to your question? His words are recorded in the bible, and you would have to ignore His words to enslave someone else.

Not everything in the bible is true from the beginning or even what God desired. Some allowances (permissions) were made due to the hard-hearts of the people.

Are you saying God never actually sanctioned or sanctions chattel slavery, or, are you saying he did/does?.?.?.?

I am saying that some thing were permitted - but not because that is what God desired. If you want to know what God desires, then you have to look to Christ. Though those verses from Isaiah are pretty dang clear as well.

Perhaps these just do not 'fit' with the objective of this (and similar) threads.

"In everything" leaves no room for any "exceptions" to be 'outside' the golden rule. So not even a one-pager, but rather, a one-liner.

You are cherry picking.

Are you sure that is not what YOU are doing?

Explain to me how everything leaves room for any exceptions to be outside the golden rule.

Case/point:

"All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right."

This means "ALL scripture". And remember, when this statement was written, the NT was not a thing.

Uh huh. That verse is FROM the NT.

But this is a verse from scripture:

"How can you say we are wise for we have the law of [the LORD], when actually the lying pen of the scribes has mishandled it."

And yet, Exodus and Leviticus IS Scripture. And guess what, slavery is in both of them.

And yet Leviticus does not apply to Christians. Paul - the very person who wrote that letter to Timothy - knew and repeatedly stated this fact.

If the golden rule is all that matters, why grant permission for chattel slavery? Your excuse, this far, does not jive.

Does not jive with you. That does not mean something is untrue.

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

Now, getting back to your noted answer, that the Bible sanctions chattel slavery....

Why is the HECK would you follow a book which sanctions chattel slavery?

I don't.

I follow Christ.


Peace again to you.

[POI]

You never answered the question.

As to your question: How do you know which one to believe?

I read all the texts. And some texts give instructions for chattel slavery practices. I then ask why Christians continue to follow such a book?

Do you not realize that the culmination of that book is this: "This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Listen to Him."

Yes, the Bible is a collection of 66 books, written by 40 mostly anonymous authors, over the course of many centuries (roughly speaking). And?

Lol... "Jesus excuse".

I am a Christian. A Christian follows Christ.

Simple.

And Jesus follows his dad, or himself, depending on how you view the trinity. His dad, or himself, gave instructions for chattel slavery. Jesus later came long, saw it was going to be a massive issue down the road, and did not even bother to add a one-liner. I.E. Don't own chattel slaves. But went out his way to issue other rules of (do's and don'ts), which are also REDUNDANT to the "golden rule"?

What difference does it make to your question? His words are recorded in the bible, and you would have to ignore His words to enslave someone else.

Wait a minute, you stated "Christ - not "the bible" - is the Word of God.." And now you are telling me to read the Bible?.?.?

Which ones are his, and which ones aren't? Please re-read what I wrote below. Again, he would have no problem telling his followers, or anyone who would listen, not to own chattel slaves. Its a one-liner...

How does one pick/chose what Jesus said, verses being written by some other random's own opinions? To my knowledge, Jesus did not author ANY of the Book. I mean, did he issue his thumbprint after each and every verse approved/endorsed? Further, by the time anything was written to paper about him specifically, he was long dead for years/decades. Did someone keep Jesus' diary or memoirs, and then just transfer what HE said on paper to the official canon? Please do not tell me you are going to instead rely upon oral tradition for truth?

I am saying that some thing were permitted - but not because that is what God desired. If you want to know what God desires, then you have to look to Christ. Though those verses from Isaiah are pretty dang clear as well.

POI Why would God permit chattel slavery, but not shellfish or mixed fabrics?

Tam Uh huh. That verse is FROM the NT.[/color]

POI You've missed my point. The message was written before the NT was a thing. This message pertains to the OT. And the OT sanctions chattel slavery. And unless I'm mistaken, you consider Exodus scripture. Unless you ignore the Commandments, because it is not Scripture too? Jesus certainly didn't ignore Exodus.

Tam And yet Leviticus does not apply to Christians. Paul - the very person who wrote that letter to Timothy - knew and repeatedly stated this fact.

POI Nothing from Leviticus? How about Exodus? Cherry picking 101 in action here

Tam Does not jive with you. That does not mean something is untrue.

POI Again, he had no problem issuing laws against the ones, with the 'hardened hearts', about what not to do. Why skip such a large topic?

[tam]

Peace to you,

You never answered the question.

As to your question: How do you know which one to believe?

I read all the texts. And some texts give instructions for chattel slavery practices. I then ask why Christians continue to follow such a book?

That did not answer my question. If you have two contradictory verses - one where slavery is permitted in the law and one where God says that He wants every yoke to be lifted - how do you choose which one to believe is correct?

Do you not realize that the culmination of that book is this: "This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Listen to Him."

Yes, the Bible is a collection of 66 books, written by 40 mostly anonymous authors, over the course of many centuries (roughly speaking). And?

And... the culmination is the conclusion and the conclusion of that book tells us to listen to Christ. Therefore, in a discussion about the bible, His words are the ones we are to follow. His words come first (and last... as in have the final say). So that once again, His words leave NO room for a Christian to enslave another person. As has been stated and explained, in even greater detail, in those links from the other thread.

What difference does it make to your question? His words are recorded in the bible, and you would have to ignore His words to enslave someone else.

Wait a minute, you stated "Christ - not "the bible" - is the Word of God.." And now you are telling me to read the Bible?.?.?

Your OP is about the bible, is it not? You reiterated that the questions of the OP are about the bible, did you not? Well, the Bible contains some of the words of Christ... and He is the One to whom we are to listen. So again, you would have to ignore Him and His words in order to enslave another person.

Tam Uh huh. That verse is FROM the NT.[/color]

POI You've missed my point. The message was written before the NT was a thing. This message pertains to the OT. And the OT sanctions chattel slavery. And unless I'm mistaken, you consider Exodus scripture. Unless you ignore the Commandments, because it is not Scripture too? Jesus certainly didn't ignore Exodus.

I do not see your point still.

Tam And yet Leviticus does not apply to Christians. Paul - the very person who wrote that letter to Timothy - knew and repeatedly stated this fact.

POI Nothing from Leviticus? How about Exodus? Cherry picking 101 in action here

I spoke specifically about Leviticus because the laws are called Levitical laws. Regardless of where the law of the old covenant is written about (exodus or leviticus or anything else), that law does not apply to Christians. Paul - AGAIN - whose words you are using to state that these things are scripture, knew this and stated it himself. So you cannot use Paul to prop up your claim that the old covenant laws apply to Christians.

Christians are under Christ... and the law of the new covenant - the law that is written upon the heart - is love.


Peace again to you.

[brunumb]

That is one reason why I am against mandatory taxes, I think they are a modern form of slavery.

Do you believe that no one should be obliged to pay for the goods and services provided for them by others?

[POI]

That did not answer my question. If you have two contradictory verses - one where slavery is permitted in the law and one where God says that He wants every yoke to be lifted - how do you choose which one to believe is correct?

Well, the first question I would have to ask myself is, why place any importance on such a contradictory book?. And once I worked that all out, I would probably just ignore the verses that did not agree with my own morals, and issue excuse(s) to the ones who ask? You know, like, "their hearts were too hardened." Or, the "Jesus excuse".

Tam And... the culmination is the conclusion and the conclusion of that book tells us to listen to Christ. Therefore, in a discussion about the bible, His words are the ones we are to follow. His words come first (and last... as in have the final say). So that once again, His words leave NO room for a Christian to enslave another person. As has been stated and explained, in even greater detail, in those links from the other thread.

POI Please see above. Further, do Jesus and his dad, or instead the sinners who wrote the bad parts of "Leviticus/Exodus", not agree on morals?

Tam Your OP is about the bible, is it not? You reiterated that the questions of the OP are about the bible, did you not? Well, the Bible contains some of the words of Christ... and He is the One to whom we are to listen. So again, you would have to ignore Him and His words in order to enslave another person.

POI Circles.

How does one pick/chose what Jesus said, verses being written by some other random's own opinions? To my knowledge, Jesus did not author ANY of the Book. I mean, did he issue his thumbprint after each and every verse approved/endorsed? Further, by the time anything was written to paper about him specifically, he was long dead for years/decades. Did someone keep Jesus' diary or memoirs, and then just transfer what HE said on paper to the official canon? Please do not tell me you are going to instead rely upon oral tradition for truth?

Tam I do not see your point still.

POI Allow me to repeat it again....

The message was written before the NT was a thing. This message pertains to the OT. And the OT sanctions chattel slavery. And unless I'm mistaken, you consider Exodus scripture. Unless you ignore the Commandments, because it is not Scripture too? Jesus certainly didn't ignore Exodus.

Iam I spoke specifically about Leviticus because the laws are called Levitical laws. Regardless of where the law of the old covenant is written about (exodus or leviticus or anything else), that law does not apply to Christians. Paul - AGAIN - whose words you are using to state that these things are scripture, knew this and stated it himself. So you cannot use Paul to prop up your claim that the old covenant laws apply to Christians.

Christians are under Christ... and the law of the new covenant - the law that is written upon the heart - is love.

POI You have ignored major points.

--- Jesus bothered to mention do's and don'ts, which are completely redundant to the "golden rule". And yet, he still does anyways. And further, chattel slavery was not important enough to make the list; even though it would go down in history as one of history's greatest "atrocities"?

--- The Bible sanctions slavery, because hearts are hardened, but the Bible bothers to tell the hardened they can't eat shellfish or mix fabrics?

--- God has no problem laying down the law. And yet, sanctions chattel slavery.

--- What changed exactly, between the time his dad/other allowed chattel slavery, to a short period later, where he apparently does not mention slavery at all, which apparently also means he's against it? Where the one-liner for not owning chattel slaves? He has plenty of one-liners for all the other rules, which overlap the 'golden rule.'

--- Exodus has the 10 Commandments. So why assume the stuff about slavery is not Scripture too, when a verse says that ALL scripture is from God?

--- Doesn't Jesus agree with his dad, or who ever wrote the Torah?

--- Didn't the "golden rule" kinda already exist in the Torah? Leviticus 19:34: "But treat them just as you treat your own citizens.". And yet, chattel slavery is also instructed by name?

[tam]

Peace to you,

That did not answer my question. If you have two contradictory verses - one where slavery is permitted in the law and one where God says that He wants every yoke to be lifted - how do you choose which one to believe is correct?

Well, the first question I would have to ask myself is, why place any importance on such a contradictory book?. And once I worked that all out, I would probably just ignore the verses that did not agree with my own morals, and issue excuse(s) to the ones who ask? You know, like, "their hearts were too hardened." Or, the "Jesus excuse".

Well that is you. Not me.

But this is the reason that I did not post on this thread, and instead posted links to the other thread. You might say the two threads are different, but they are the same, and everything in this thread has been addressed in that thread.

Accept it, don't accept it, that is entirely up to you. But I answered your questions (on both threads). And while you may like to call my responses 'excuses' (an attempt to diminish my responses even though I have said nothing false)... what do you think your objections are other than excuses? Because you know - you know for a fact - that you cannot listen to Christ and His words and enslave another person against their will at the same time.

Yet you keep trying to find a way to make His words NOT matter. But that is not going to fly with a person who puts His words first.

How does one pick/chose what Jesus said, verses being written by some other random's own opinions?

How is this relevant to your OP? Or to anything I have said for that matter?


Peace again to you.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yeah, well you can dismiss it and make it about what You happen to think, but to we goddless and anyone whose mind is not firmly made up that God's mental messages to them are the only reliable truth, interpretation and Understanding, it is clear that the buying of foreigners as slave For Life in the OT is not sidelined by general be Nice exhortations in the OT, or NT. Jesus hollers about divorce, even though he didn't start the discussion, as you say, but he never even bothers to tut - tut about slavery.


Whatever you may prefer to think, to anyone with a bit of mental wabble -room, Slavery is not one of those things that was covered by the New Covenant.

Have a peaceful weekend and may the skies be clear wherever You are .

[POI]

Peace to you,

That did not answer my question. If you have two contradictory verses - one where slavery is permitted in the law and one where God says that He wants every yoke to be lifted - how do you choose which one to believe is correct?

Well, the first question I would have to ask myself is, why place any importance on such a contradictory book?. And once I worked that all out, I would probably just ignore the verses that did not agree with my own morals, and issue excuse(s) to the ones who ask? You know, like, "their hearts were too hardened." Or, the "Jesus excuse".

Well that is you. Not me.

But this is the reason that I did not post on this thread, and instead posted links to the other thread. You might say the two threads are different, but they are the same, and everything in this thread has been addressed in that thread.

Accept it, don't accept it, that is entirely up to you. But I answered your questions (on both threads). And while you may like to call my responses 'excuses' (an attempt to diminish my responses even though I have said nothing false)... what do you think your objections are other than excuses? Because you know - you know for a fact - that you cannot listen to Christ and His words and enslave another person against their will at the same time.

Yet you keep trying to find a way to make His words NOT matter. But that is not going to fly with a person who puts His words first.

How does one pick/chose what Jesus said, verses being written by some other random's own opinions?

How is this relevant to your OP? Or to anything I have said for that matter?


Peace again to you.

You are treading some very muddy waters here. Why? Your responses read as (Jesus <vs> the Bible).

1) Who inspired the Bible verses which Jesus did not directly inspire? YHWH, mortal men, other? And didn't Jesus agree with his dad?
2) Did Jesus (agree or disagree) with the instructions and/or allowances for chattel slavery in the Bible?
3) Since Jesus himself had no problem expressing rules, (which were completely redundant to the 'golden rule' anyways), why leave out clarification for the prior rules made about chattel slavery? And BTW, the 'golden rule' was not even a new concept from Jesus to begin with.
4) The 'golden rule' was "kind of" already a thing, in the Torah, as well as by others --- Confucius. And yet, many other rules and allowances were granted regardless, which completely overlap the 'golden rule' anyways -- ("good" and "bad").
5) Jesus had no problem expressing his dislikes. And yet, knowing chattel slavery was a thing condoned by Exodus/Leviticus, Exodus being a book he also references (via the Commandments), why not place a simple one-liner, that humans cannot reduce other humans into lifetime property?

As far as it is concerned, Jesus has no problem if humans own other humans as chattel slaves. Using the 'golden rule' or 'love', as an excuse works no better here, then it does for Leviticus, which also mentions the 'golden rule', and in another passage of the same book, condones chattel slavery.

Jesus remaining silent on the matter, where he has no problem speaking up, implies he was good with chattel slavery.

You've also mentioned a new covenant. Well, in what world does chattel slavery ever fit, in ANY covenant?

[tam]

Peace to you,

Yeah, well you can dismiss it and make it about what You happen to think, but to we goddless and anyone whose mind is not firmly made up that God's mental messages to them are the only reliable truth, interpretation and Understanding, it is clear that the buying of foreigners as slave For Life in the OT is not sidelined by general be Nice exhortations in the OT, or NT. Jesus hollers about divorce, even though he didn't start the discussion, as you say, but he never even bothers to tut - tut about slavery.


Whatever you may prefer to think, to anyone with a bit of mental wabble -room, Slavery is not one of those things that was covered by the New Covenant.

Come on now. How is this any different than me or any other theist saying to you, "Yeah, well you can dismiss it and make it about what you happen to think, but to we faithful and anyone whose mind is not closed, it is clear that one cannot listen to Christ and enslave another person against their will at the same time...."

I did not resort to anything personal in my remarks to make my point. I did not have to. I also used what is written in the bible that is under discussion to make my argument. Just to keep you guys on track, even though you guys keep trying to make it about me.

Have a peaceful weekend and may the skies be clear wherever You are

.

Well we have dark clouds and thunder, but this is a good thing (rain), since my province has been in a state of emergency due to fires over the last week. The city I am in is fine, the fires are all around us and farther north.

But peace also to you.

[POI]

Come on now. How is this any different than me or any other theist saying to you, "Yeah, well you can dismiss it and make it about what you happen to think, but to we faithful and anyone whose mind is not closed, it is clear that one cannot listen to Christ and enslave another person against their will at the same time...."

I did not resort to anything personal in my remarks to make my point. I did not have to. I also used what is written in the bible that is under discussion to make my argument.

If you ignore your interlocutors, you can certainly retain your statement(s). But, me being patient, here they are again:

It is NOT clear, that one can listen to Christ and think it's okay to enslave another person against their will.... Why?

1. Leviticus mentions the "golden rule", while still providing instruction for chattel slavery. The specifics outweigh the generals. If God never mentioned slavery, then sure, 'golden rule'. Exceptions exist for the general rule. Chattel slavery was an exception made by God. Did Jesus agree with his dad here?

2. Jesus goes out of his way to mention many things to do, INSTEAD of just mentioning the second "greatest" Commandment-- (the golden rule). He goes out of his way to mention no stealing, no lying, no adultery, no murder, treat your mom with respect, and etc... Heck, he even emphasizes NOT to work on the Sabbath. But for some strange reason, even though many of these are all completely redundant, when compared to the 'golden rule', he leaves out "don't own other people as property"? --- Even though His dad provided instructions to do so in a previous book in which Jesus pledged allegiance to. I guess this topic was NOT important enough for him to issue a one-liner, even though it would end up being one the greatest recorded 'atrocities' in human history to date. I have to ask, is lying always a sin? More-so than owning another person? If not, why did Jesus mention lying, but nothing about chattel slavery? They BOTH apply to the golden rule, and yet Jesus goes out of his way to mention stuff, which appears trivial, in comparison. Again, a one-liner would have been sufficient.

3. Being that Jesus did not write anything to paper, and we are to rely upon oral tradition, how in the heck are we to know exactly what Jesus did and did not say?