"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]

There is no such place as eternal torment.

As I suspected. You chopped my last response right here:

"Before you answer, let me guess. (Paraphrased) "Oh, Jesus did not instruct that. That is again the lying pen of scribes". You see, you can cherry-pick all you'd like, and concoct this hippy Jesus character, which preaches love alone."

As I stated prior, you are formulating this loving hippy Jesus, when this may very well not be the case. You pick and choose Bible verses, to taste. Where-as I view them all, and place forth the ones which present uncomfortability for the theist. And this is when the apologetics 101 begins to fly. as we read along in your responses. The Bible does mention eternal torment, the gnashing of teeth, and condemnation for not believing. But of course Jesus is not behind any of those verses either You have found a way to 'navigate it', via apologetics 101.

A Good God would not send to hell a decent person, simply for not believing in his son.

Then I guess we can ignore Mark 16:16 too Cherry picking 101.

Not always, no.

He likely did not speak his mind about chattel slavery, gay sex, and men > women because he agreed with the scribes and/or his daddy.

Third request:

So as I stated, in my last response, you have 4 crappy choices:

1) Jesus agrees with his dad's instructions
2) Jesus does not agree with his dad's instructions
3) Jesus agrees with the random scribe's instructions
4) Jesus does not agree with this random scribe's instructions, and says nothing; not even a one-liner.

As I stated prior, they all suck, for YOU.

Which one are you getting behind, 1), 2), 3), or 4)?

[POI]

I also know that not every law was true, from God, from the beginning. Christ said so Himself. I also know that the lying pen of the scribes has mishandled the law, and even Christ said 'woe to you scribes.'

Here is what we seem to know....

- Jesus never wrote anything himself.
- Jesus never bothered to preserve anything later written about himself.
- Other people wrote on his behalf, way later, from oral tradition/memory/other.
- Jesus offered no oversight to determine what was, and what was not written about him. He was already dead. Unless this is where you wish to state - - Jesus offered inspiration after his death?

Thus, in regards to the bold, in which you polarized, how in the heck could we know Jesus' true thoughts?

In regards to 'slavery', we seem to have a true dichotomy:

1) Jesus was okay with the given instructions for chattel slavery practices.
2) He was not

All we have are later writings of what Jesus apparently said. And basically, nothing was mentioned about slavery, among other topics, like gay sex.

Thus, we can ask ourselves...

Did Jesus say something about chattel slavery, about not to do it anymore, or not? Either:

A) He did, and people did not write about it because they wanted the law to remain.
B) He didn't say anything about it, even though he mentioned many redundant things, when compared to the "golden rule", which are not nearly as impactful.

You seem to want to paint this Jesus character out to be this love machine, and would never say anything, in which you would not like. And yet, when the Bible apparently expresses a passage, in which came directly out of Jesus's mouth himself, of course this is not to be trusted. I.E "15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be damned."

During our exchange, it reminds of the term cafeteria Christian. Why not just say what you really mean. I.E. If you do not like it, Jesus did not say it You have apparently invented your own personal Jesus.

Why not just reconcile YOU are "morally superior" to the God you worship?

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to POI in post #142]

Why not just say what you really mean.

I have said what I really mean, POI. You may not like it, but that's not really my problem.

I.E. If you do not like it, Jesus did not say it

I cannot say this because it is not true. It is not true when you say it. It is not true when Transponder says it. It is not true when anyone says it.

I know this for a fact because I know myself.

The fact that some of you gentlemen seem to think you know what I mean better than I know what I mean... how much arrogance does that take? There might even be a term for it when a man tries to tell a woman what she really means, as if she does not know her own mind.

Why not just reconcile YOU are "morally superior" to the God you worship?

Because it would be a lie.

Simple as that.



Peace again.

[brunumb]

- Jesus never wrote anything himself.
- Jesus never bothered to preserve anything later written about himself.
- Other people wrote on his behalf, way later, from oral tradition/memory/other.
- Jesus offered no oversight to determine what was, and what was not written about him. He was already dead. Unless this is where you wish to state - - Jesus offered inspiration after his death?

As the son of God, Jesus really is not much chop. Although his dad didn't do much better when you consider everything he messed up as related in the OT.

[TRANSPONDER]

Peace to you,

[Replying to POI in post #142]

Why not just say what you really mean.

I have said what I really mean, POI. You may not like it, but that's not really my problem.

I.E. If you do not like it, Jesus did not say it

I cannot say this because it is not true. It is not true when you say it. It is not true when Transponder says it. It is not true when anyone says it.

I know this for a fact because I know myself.

The fact that some of you gentlemen seem to think you know what I mean better than I know what I mean... how much arrogance does that take? There might even be a term for it when a man tries to tell a woman what she really means, as if she does not know her own mind.

Why not just reconcile YOU are "morally superior" to the God you worship?

Because it would be a lie.

Simple as that.



Peace again.

Gotta observe that, although you do a good job off stretching broad 'Play Nice' exhortations to cover all eventualities, when Jesus is berating the Sadducees and Teachers of the law for their misuse of the law, he never points out that they never tried to get chattel slavery for Foreigners (and Jesus had a particular approval of them) abolished. It's just another reason to add to the others to think it was all written by men who were relying on their own opinions, not those of a divine mentor.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to POI in post #137]

In all of that, you still refuse to answer the questions asked of you.

I think that speaks volumes in and of itself.


I know that I cannot enslave another person against their will. Love does not enslave a person against their will. The golden rule does not permit a person to enslave another person against their will. Christ enslaved no one against their will - and we who belong to Him are to follow His example. Christ commanded me (and the rest of us who belong to Him) to make ourselves the LEAST. If we are the LEAST, how can we make someone even less? It is a logical impossibility. If we are to serve all others, how can we force someone to serve us? Makes no sense.


I also know that not every law was true, from God, from the beginning. Christ said so Himself. I also know that the lying pen of the scribes has mishandled the law, and even Christ said 'woe to you scribes.'


I am to listen to Christ and remain in Him.


Am I supposed to pretend I do not understand the golden rule? Am I supposed to pretend I do not know that love cannot enslave another person against their will? Am I supposed to pretend that Christ told us to love even our enemies? Should I cherry-pick and pretend that God did not say He wanted every yoke to be broken and for the oppressed to be set free?


Of course not.



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

You are, beyond doubt, an excellent example of the species. I'm proud just to've met ya.

[POI]

Peace to you,

[Replying to POI in post #142]

Why not just say what you really mean.

I have said what I really mean, POI. You may not like it, but that's not really my problem.

I.E. If you do not like it, Jesus did not say it

I cannot say this because it is not true. It is not true when you say it. It is not true when Transponder says it. It is not true when anyone says it.

I know this for a fact because I know myself.

The fact that some of you gentlemen seem to think you know what I mean better than I know what I mean... how much arrogance does that take? There might even be a term for it when a man tries to tell a woman what she really means, as if she does not know her own mind.

Why not just reconcile YOU are "morally superior" to the God you worship?

Because it would be a lie.

Simple as that.



Peace again.

Well, I'm not going to rinse/repeat stuff I keep telling you, over and over and over again. Your own cognitive dissonance is your own "cross to bare". But when you make statements such as "Would a Good God send a decent atheist to hell?", and I repeatedly sight a verse (mark 16:15-16), which expresses to the contrary of your statement, in which you continue to ignore, what else am I to assume?

It's safe to say, that if you had the chance to abolish any laws, in which were made by men, chattel slavery would have made the list. You would not have remained silent, as silence is just as culpable. Hence, your argument is either that 1) scribes omitted Jesus' word to end chattel slavery, (or), 2) Jesus was complicit, by way of negligence. If you opt for option 1), then Jesus had absolutely no oversight on what was written in the Bible. If you opt for option 2), then you ARE more "moral" than your god.

[JoeyKnothead]

Deleted post because my dooficity is only exceeded by my stupidity.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

There is slavery in the bible, indentured servitude, and there were rules given that were used to govern how to treat indentured servants.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

There is slavery in the bible, indentured servitude, and there were rules given that were used to govern how to treat indentured servants.

I agree. Or at least agree that you have a case. I'm going to put on my theist hat here, but not the 'Lie for Jesus' hat. I will not say that lifetime slavery of non - Hebrew slaves is indentured servitude. The Bible says specifically that it is lifetime chattel slavery as property, and thus, the 'indentured servitude' rule applies only to Hebrews. Even then, there is a way that a Hebrew slave can be made into a lifetime slave. By giving him a wife which he does not want to leave behind.

The rules were intended to be just and fair according to the customs of the time. Perhaps even to foreign slaves for lifetime. At best one can say that God did not approve of slavery but had to go along with it.

Taking my Theist hat off, I will now say that I do not buy that excuse for a minute. In context (which was that foreigners were pretty much scum, fit only to be the slaves of the Hebrews, as the Edomites found out), it seems that God was fine with lifetime slavery of non Hebrews and you could do pretty much what you liked with them, and the 'Play Nice' rule only extended to Hebrew slaves or other Hebrews. Slavery, even relatively benign slavery, is not ok with humanity these days as a global view (even if a lot of humans are really ok with it) and thus we have done better than Biblical morality and thus have relegated the Bible to being no more than a record of the views of the time, including the NT which does, by silence, give assent, as Thomas More says in the Catholic propaganda play that you surely know, to continued slavery.

And that is why it is the work of men, not of a god, if the science - denying Genesis and the total contradiction of the nativities did not already make that plain, and no amount of fiddling with what the Bible says will make it anything else.

That is my opinion and you will no doubt have yours, but it is what I will continue to argue to anyone willing to listen, every time you or any other Bible apologist posts excuses to try to whitewash the immorality of the Bible, paper over the self - destructive contradictions in it, or explain away or even endorse the science - denial in it. There I stand; I can and will do no other.