Slavery

[Malleus]

Hi there, Malleus here, long time reader, first time complainer. I am wondering, is the so called moral high ground that various religious groups seem to take warranted, having just read a section of the ten commandments, I came upon a passage thus:

(1) Then God spoke all these words: (2) I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; (3) you shall have no other gods before me. (4) You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. (5) You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, (6) but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. (7) You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. (8) Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. (9) Six days you shall labor and do all your work. (10) But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. (11) For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it. (12) Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. (13) You shall not murder. (14) You shall not commit adultery. (15) You shall not steal. (16) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. (17) You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Exodus 20:1-17

As you can see, it first talks of how god has removed the followers from the house of slavery, yet seems to make it clear in the bolded sections that it is fine and dandy to own slaves. Opinions???

Question: Is the Bible a piece of Hate literature proposing double standards and endorsing slavery?

[micatala]

It seems to me that this discussion has been colored by the idea that Biblical morality does not change. That once the Bible (OT or NT) declares X is immoral or Y is moral, then it is so for all times.

I do not think this is a valid assumption, and I will be starting a thread to debate this particular question.

[Cmass]

It seems to me that this discussion has been colored by the idea that Biblical morality does not change. That once the Bible (OT or NT) declares X is immoral or Y is moral, then it is so for all times.

Oh, well now, ain't that a big 'ole can of worms!
If Biblical morality changes - such as slavery being moral when the Bible was written was written but immoral now, then the Bible is not a book of moral absolutes and thus it's claim as the word of God is in serious doubt.

[micatala]

IT is certainly opening up a can of worms. YOu might visit the can in the Christianity and Apologetics forum.

I think it is useful to look at moral laws as existing in 'layers'. The larger principles are the most important. 'Love your neighbor as yourself' takes precedence over 'do not eat meat sacrificed to idols', and Jesus basically said as much. Part of the problem I think is that different people have different 'layerings' of morality in their minds.

It is easier, and more appropriate IMV, to change laws in the 'lower layers' than in the upper ones. Many times, rules change because people come to realize that one moral law is actually in contradiction to another. This is arguably what happened with slavery. As there was no prohibition against slavery, it was OK, until people eventually realized that it was against the higher law of 'loving your neighbor'.

DId the Bible change?

No, arguably not.

But how we understood the Bible did change. Whether the BIble is 'fallible' or not, certainly people are fallible, and how we understand, interpret, and apply moral law is bound to change over time.

[unknownuser]

the Bible does not seem concerned with morals. the laws in it seem to be about man's relationship with God.

so it's against the law to divorce your wife, because that represents God divorcing you (sexist ofcourse, because there was no question of the wife divorcing the husband)

but it's lawful to kill every man woman and child in the city you conquer.

but it applies in the secular world too: it's ok to kill people during war, over oil, land, etc..

but it's wrong to kill a man on the street for his money, home, etc...

morals aren't absolute

[Righteous Indignation]

... You and Ami are the only Christians, I know, who endorse slavery and the cruelty inherent in that practice.

Ouch! I endorsed slavery and cruelty? WHEN?!

I feel obligated to come to Achilles defense on this. Sort of. I have never seen anything in his writings that would imply endorsement of slavery. The little I know of him indicates a great deal of empathy toward other people - even those of us with our seatbelts fastened in a handbasket bound for hell.

Slavery is clearly acceptable practice in many parts of the Bible - at the very least through neglect of it's denunciation. The Good Book lacks the outrage, the overt verbiage and level of denunciation required to render it anything more than a book of "don't ask don't tell".
One does not hand out commandments to follow (with threat of hellfire) that include how to properly treat your slaves unless it is OK on some level to own them in the first place. Otherwise the 10 commandments would simply state "Don't own slaves. It is wrong. Period."
Concerning the "proper" treatment of slaves: I think we need to step back for a second and take a good, hard look at just what the hell we are saying here. A slave is inherently in an a abusive relationship. This is a victim/victimizer relationship. No matter how nice of a fellow the master is, the relationship between master and slave is necessarily abusive. Only after the bond of slavery is TRULY broken can you can you talk about the proper treatment of slaves.
So, did abuse of slaves occur? No.
Slavery WAS abuse. Slavery IS abuse.

Thanks you, Cmass! You seem sincere, so I will reevaluate my statement and get back to you. Until then, I apologize if I have crossed the line.

After some thought, I have come to the following conclusions:

"Righteous - We do not endorse or condone :

Beating, molesting, whipping, starving, stabbing, shooting, maiming, torturing or murdering anyone . . . ever.

At the same time, I still hold that slavery for many people in that era was a far better life then they would have had otherwise. That is why people then SOLD THEMSELVES INTO SLAVERY!"

Achilles’ statement implies that slavery was a positive. That the world was better because of slavery. This is an endorsement of Slavery. Just as, the following statement would be an endorsement of abortion: "A world with legal abortions is a far better place than one without." To offer either slavery or abortion as solutions to the problems of the world is to endorse them.

AMI was in total agreement with Achilles but made an even more extraordinary claim:

"Oh yes, and another thing, what about those who would agree to enter slavery? Like it or not, humans in fact are subordinate beings and don't mind being bossed about deep inside."

The reasoning here is: Not only were we better off being slaves, but it’s what we really wanted anyway.

Therefore; I stick to my statement that, "You [Achilles] and Ami are the only Christians, I know, who endorse slavery and the cruelty inherent in that practice." Please note, I am not implying that AMI or Achilles are cruel. I am stating that the practice is evil by it’s nature. AMI and Achilles do not understand that slavery is an inherently cruel practice. A quote comes to mind, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."

No human being is moral enough to have total power over another.

[unknownuser]

the marriage arrangement, as well as familial relations, viewed from our standpoint, would be considered more than harsh.

you guys keep judging these things by a different set of values.

we consider polygamy wrong. treating people differently because they are from another race or nation was all pretty normal in Biblical days. the christians keep trying to pretend that this was a different kind of slavery. it wasn't. it was the kind where, if your master happened to be nice (my yoke is easy(?)), you were ok, kind of like your boss today.

if your master was a tyrant, then you got beat everyday or whatever.

if your husband wanted he could beat the hel out of you and it was totally ok, it was within his rights and keep in mind that the kids were his property.

[Righteous Indignation]

the marriage arrangement, as well as familial relations, viewed from our standpoint, would be considered more than harsh.

you guys keep judging these things by a different set of values.

we consider polygamy wrong. treating people differently because they are from another race or nation was all pretty normal in Biblical days. the christians keep trying to pretend that this was a different kind of slavery. it wasn't. it was the kind where, if your master happened to be nice (my yoke is easy(?)), you were ok, kind of like your boss today.

if your master was a tyrant, then you got beat everyday or whatever.

if your husband wanted he could beat the hel out of you and it was totally ok, it was within his rights and keep in mind that the kids were his property.

Yes, I agree Unknownuser. In fact, I find it ironic that a Christian would use the argument that slaves were treated better in Rome than America. Are we to believe that Rome, the new Babylon, the home of the Christian-hating hedonists who worshipped false gods was a nicer place for slaves than the Jesus-loving God-fearing Baptist South? What does this say about Christianity? This is the kind of argument that wins the battle but loses the war.

[topaz]

If you're a salaried person, is not this a form of slavery ? isn't this an evolution of slavery ?

[topaz]

I don’t think this people understand that majority of the earth population are still slaves. The company you work for owns you. The company is your master. You obey what it tells you to do.

To my mind, all salaried people are slaves …

[McCulloch]

I don’t think this people understand that majority of the earth population are still slaves. The company you work for owns you. The company is your master. You obey what it tells you to do.

To my mind, all salaried people are slaves …

Only if you redefine the word slave. I sought the employment that I have. I may seek alternate employment. No one owns me. The firm I work for pays me to perform tasks. This is an exchange. Value for value.