Slavery - The Narrow Definition

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Is the slavery of the Bible actually slavery?

I ask this because when people point out how modern wage slaves live, how their bosses control their lives outside of work, fire them for what they say on Twitter, it comes back to the same definitional defence: It is not one person owning another, therefore, it is not technically slavery.

So given the restriction that the slavery of the Bible does not allow you to beat your slave until it is permanently injured or dead, which you would have the right to do if you had full ownership of their entire body, the Bible therefore doesn't actually condone owning an entire person, just most of it. And most of it is fine, right?

[boatsnguitars]

Question for Debate: Is the slavery of the Bible actually slavery?

I ask this because when people point out how modern wage slaves live, how their bosses control their lives outside of work, fire them for what they say on Twitter, it comes back to the same definitional defence: It is not one person owning another, therefore, it is not technically slavery.

So given the restriction that the slavery of the Bible does not allow you to beat your slave until it is permanently injured or dead, which you would have the right to do if you had full ownership of their entire body, the Bible therefore doesn't actually condone owning an entire person, just most of it. And most of it is fine, right?

The closest thing we have to slavery - besides slavery - is the military. Yet, even in the military, you're not allowed to beat the soldiers until they are almost dead. My direct experience with the military is that they honor the people who serve, though there is a "break-in" period in which new recruits are put through rigorous trials to get them into shape and accept their chain of command. It's pretty brutal, but it's not beating someone to the point of incapacitation. Yes, there are outliers that abuse the new recruits, or push the elite too far - but they are reprimanded and brought up on charges. That is, it certainly isn't legal or the norm.

Seems that an individual simply owning another person is a whole different form of barbarity, which made sense when barbarians from 2000 years ago believed it was kosher, but it makes no sense that we have Christians today trying to defend it. "It's just indentured servitude! That's all! What's wrong with that? If I take a job at the mall, that's more abusive than what Jesus did to his slaves!"

[TRANSPONDER]

That could be a point to look at. There was a distinction between Hebrew slaves (of Hebrews) and foreign slaves.One was property for life and one had (under Biblical rules) to be released after 6 years and so could be represented as a rather beneficial and benign investured servitude. I recall it was even claimed that it could apply to all slaves, Hebrew or foreign because the rules on treatment of slaves (as property)did not specifically exclude foreign slaves.But the rule that they are you property for life and can be willed to your children, rather makes it clear that these rules on how to treat your slaves while they are your slaves only applies to Hebrew slaves.

It might be worth looking at the passage or passages in context and see whether this is made clear or is a bit arguable. I still say that the attempt to put in fair rules on treatment of lifetime slaves (as Foreign slaves specifically were) represents the best efforts of the Hebrews of the time to make fair laws, but falls far short of what a god should do regarding a practice which humanity itself would come to reject as immoral, but the god says nothing of the kind. It is Biblical morality falling far short of human morality and is evidence that it is the word on men of time, not of a god.

Which is of course why Believers are turning back flips to try to make the Bible mean what it does not say. Which is pretty much what Christian apologetics does throughout.

[boatsnguitars]

That could be a point to look at. There was a distinction between Hebrew slaves (of Hebrews) and foreign slaves.One was property for life and one had (under Biblical rules) to be released after 6 years and so could be represented as a rather beneficial and benign investured servitude. I recall it was even claimed that it could apply to all slaves, Hebrew or foreign because the rules on treatment of slaves (as property)did not specifically exclude foreign slaves.But the rule that they are you property for life and can be willed to your children, rather makes it clear that these rules on how to treat your slaves while they are your slaves only applies to Hebrew slaves.

It might be worth looking at the passage or passages in context and see whether this is made clear or is a bit arguable. I still say that the attempt to put in fair rules on treatment of lifetime slaves (as Foreign slaves specifically were) represents the best efforts of the Hebrews of the time to make fair laws, but falls far short of what a god should do regarding a practice which humanity itself would come to reject as immoral, but the god says nothing of the kind. It is Biblical morality falling far short of human morality and is evidence that it is the word on men of time, not of a god.

Which is of course why Believers are turning back flips to try to make the Bible mean what it does not say. Which is pretty much what Christian apologetics does throughout.

**Disclaimer: I am not pro-slavery!***

But, I wonder if there is an argument to make for slavery. That is, I could see Christians simply declaring slavery as not 'inherently wrong' - after all, if they believe there are objective moral values, and God didn't balk at slavery, then they can simple claim that society is simply whimscally declaring slavery bad as a recent fad, but the pendulum will swing back and people will think slavery is just fine.

It's a hard argument to make today, but - let's face it - Christians aren't shy about taking unpopular stands (it feeds their persecution complex).

I'm not saying it should be argued, only that one could try to say, "Hey, what's your standard for determining that Slavery (any kind) is Morally wrong?"

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #2]


The apologetic (that I've only seen once, or twice perhaps) is that blanket- imposed social duties like Taxation is tantamount to slavery. You are given no choice and is for life. Right? Right!

"Wrong...but I don't know where." (Charlie Brown).

It doesn't feel like slavery to have to kick in my taxes so I can have my garbage collected and lighting in my street. And maybe the point is that social duty applies to everyone, not just a few. Slavery is something that happens to a few that do not deserve it and did not ask for it. Though I've sometimes wondered whether state - imposed indentured servitude for a few who do richly deserve it wouldn't be good for them . Feel free to apply slippery slope arguments and comparisons with noted dictators.

But the kicker there is, if social duties amounts to slavery, then does that make slavery good? Does it mean that a god that knows that slavery is as bad as paying taxes wouldn't speak out about it, saying one should not do it, but it had to be allowed like divorce because humans simply couldn't get by without it (Hardness of heart (1)? I think a god with a better moral sense than ours would have to do so at some point, not rubber - stamp it. So even if the taxes argument convinced, it doesn't make slavery moral or something that a god was perfectly right in not abolishing or even condemning. So I think the 'taxes' analogy like the 'play nice' apologetic does not excuse the Holy Book that failed to make a law against the practice of lifetime slavery and still shows it to be evidence - not that God is evil but that there is no god and the Bible is the work of men of the time.

(1)even then, Jesus forbade it, but he didn't forbid or even condemn slavery, which is why the NT is as culpable of endorsing and condoning slavery as the OT is.

[1213]

Question for Debate: Is the slavery of the Bible actually slavery?

I ask this because when people point out how modern wage slaves live, how their bosses control their lives outside of work, fire them for what they say on Twitter, it comes back to the same definitional defence: It is not one person owning another, therefore, it is not technically slavery.

So given the restriction that the slavery of the Bible does not allow you to beat your slave until it is permanently injured or dead, which you would have the right to do if you had full ownership of their entire body, the Bible therefore doesn't actually condone owning an entire person, just most of it. And most of it is fine, right?

Hmmm... modern governments own people, they tax them and beat them and put in a jail, if they don't obey?

US government seems to own also foreign people, because puts them in the concentration camp of Guantanamo bay and tortures them indefinably there?

I don't think Bible allows anyone to be beaten, because it has the "love your neighbor as yourself".

[boatsnguitars]

Here's what Jesus thought of slaves:
Luke 17: 7-10
7 “Suppose one of you has a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Will he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, ‘Come along now and sit down to eat’? 8 Won’t he rather say, ‘Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink’? 9 Will he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? 10 So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.’”

Get that? After the slave has been working for the master all day, the master tells him to "make my supper, biatch" and tells him not to thank the slave, because - of course.

BTW, it was customary for carpenters in First Century Judea to own slaves. Jesus was most likely a slave owner. Sure, he might have been one of the good ones, but it would have been extremely unusual for a carpenter not to own a slave or two. If Jesus wasn't a slave owner, his family definitely were, as were some of his apostles. (After all, Jesus didn't work for very long before he abandoned his family to become a bum.)

[boatsnguitars]

Question for Debate: Is the slavery of the Bible actually slavery?

I ask this because when people point out how modern wage slaves live, how their bosses control their lives outside of work, fire them for what they say on Twitter, it comes back to the same definitional defence: It is not one person owning another, therefore, it is not technically slavery.

So given the restriction that the slavery of the Bible does not allow you to beat your slave until it is permanently injured or dead, which you would have the right to do if you had full ownership of their entire body, the Bible therefore doesn't actually condone owning an entire person, just most of it. And most of it is fine, right?

Hmmm... modern governments own people, they tax them and beat them and put in a jail, if they don't obey?

US government seems to own also foreign people, because puts them in the concentration camp of Guantanamo bay and tortures them indefinably there?

I don't think Bible allows anyone to be beaten, because it has the "love your neighbor as yourself".

Proverbs 13:24
New International Version
24 Whoever spares the rod hates their children,
but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.

Some day you will learn that the Bible has a passage for every view, both for and against, and you only cherry pick the passages that are useful to you at the time.

[TRANSPONDER]

Question for Debate: Is the slavery of the Bible actually slavery?

I ask this because when people point out how modern wage slaves live, how their bosses control their lives outside of work, fire them for what they say on Twitter, it comes back to the same definitional defence: It is not one person owning another, therefore, it is not technically slavery.

So given the restriction that the slavery of the Bible does not allow you to beat your slave until it is permanently injured or dead, which you would have the right to do if you had full ownership of their entire body, the Bible therefore doesn't actually condone owning an entire person, just most of it. And most of it is fine, right?

Hmmm... modern governments own people, they tax them and beat them and put in a jail, if they don't obey?

US government seems to own also foreign people, because puts them in the concentration camp of Guantanamo bay and tortures them indefinably there?

I don't think Bible allows anyone to be beaten, because it has the "love your neighbor as yourself".

Well,you ought to know your Bible better as it has rules about how much you can beat your slave without incurring penalties (and I'm not sure that doesn't only apply to Hebrew save anyway) and foreign slaves were not your neighbour - they were your property. It says so, specifically.

Your example from taxes and the vagaries of imprisonment or social interaction on twitter and how ones' life can be ruined, is really not germane to the case. Like I said, if those things were wrong, slavery is still wrong and if God can come out and (through Jesus) forbid divorce, He can surely say slavery, Taxes, and imprisonment is wrong, but He doesn't though I believe the 'Lying tongue' is given some stick. But effectively, you are using a you too fallacy - because humans allow this doesn't excuse God from allowing it.

[boatsnguitars]

Question for Debate: Is the slavery of the Bible actually slavery?

I ask this because when people point out how modern wage slaves live, how their bosses control their lives outside of work, fire them for what they say on Twitter, it comes back to the same definitional defence: It is not one person owning another, therefore, it is not technically slavery.

So given the restriction that the slavery of the Bible does not allow you to beat your slave until it is permanently injured or dead, which you would have the right to do if you had full ownership of their entire body, the Bible therefore doesn't actually condone owning an entire person, just most of it. And most of it is fine, right?

Hmmm... modern governments own people, they tax them and beat them and put in a jail, if they don't obey?

US government seems to own also foreign people, because puts them in the concentration camp of Guantanamo bay and tortures them indefinably there?

I don't think Bible allows anyone to be beaten, because it has the "love your neighbor as yourself".

Proverbs 13:24
New International Version
24 Whoever spares the rod hates their children,
but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.


Some day you will learn that the Bible has a passage for every view, both for and against, and you only cherry pick the passages that are useful to you at the time.