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 workyou, 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 neighbors house; you shall not covet your neighbors 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?

[Simon's Legacy]

Achilles, agreed, I overstated your position. I apologize. You weren't saying God imposed slavery to ensure the coming of Christ. But you were saying that God only delivered the Israelites so that Christ could be born in Bethlehem--and therefore it is of no consequence whether the Israelites themselves practiced slavery nor that the scriptures allowed it. I disagree. If we start with the supposition that God doesn't care, then we end up arguing, as you do, that it wasn't all that bad. And then we end up, as Grumpy points out, just looking ridiculous. If we are to look ridiculous as Christians, let it be for hoping "for a mystical world of no pain and everyone being happy."
Still, as Silverstein says, I've been to the land of happy. It is a bore, I admit. But I believe the message of Christians to those who suffer injustice is neither, 'this will make you stronger' nor 'it will be for the best'. Rather it should always be, 'this is wrong, I will fight beside you to end it no matter what it costs.'

[achilles12604]

achilles12604

I notice that no matter how many times I say this, it is totally ignored by the atheist crowd. Seems to me that this is pretty good evidence that bias can blind one side to anything except what they have already determined to be truth.

You are ignoring that experts in history (I mentioned names and sources before), have determined that often, "slavery" was servatude and people opted to become "slaves" to avoid the streets.

Mainly because it is a distiction without a difference.

You speak of "indentured servants" as if they were not slaves, but they were. You say "they signed the contracts" as if they had a choice, they did not.(other than a miserable death for themselves and their loved ones.)
And you try to say that slavery was not so bad as it was in the 19th century, but it was. After all, as long as you made sure your slave lived for more than two days(in agony, more than likely) it was morally acceptable for you to break his arms and legs. Then he might live a week or so, until gangreen set in and finished him off(but you were off the hook by then). Such moral weaseling is just sophistry(or apoligetics) trying to square Biblically accepted evil with the moral attitudes of today, It just doesn't meet the smell test.

Grumpy

I think our differences of opinion come from different expectations of what "Slavery" constituted.

I am thinking of "slavery" in the time of Paul (At least the ROMAN slaves he was talking to), as endentured servants, much like many europeans who agreed to serve rich lords who would pay thier passage to America. People did this in droves. Not just a few.

Obviously it couldn't be that bad or else why would so many people not only leave the lives they were used to in other countries but then become servants? Obviously it wasn't as bad as you make it out to be.

Besides, what alternative would you suggest to those people of ancient days who were facing so much hardship?

You write

You speak of "indentured servants" as if they were not slaves, but they were. You say "they signed the contracts" as if they had a choice, they did not.(other than a miserable death for themselves and their loved ones.)

OK. What would you suggest those people do? Please give us another option. Remeber than ancient Rome didn't have Social security, Food stamps, Welfare or anything else like that so what would you suggest? Please come up with something and I'll consider it. Until then, it seems that they had a perfectly good option which obviously quite a few CHOSE to take over the starvation and death I mentioned earlier. What would you tell them?

Also you wrote.

After all, as long as you made sure your slave lived for more than two days(in agony, more than likely) it was morally acceptable for you to break his arms and legs. Then he might live a week or so, until gangreen set in and finished him off(but you were off the hook by then). Such moral weaseling is just sophistry(or apoligetics) trying to square Biblically accepted evil with the moral attitudes of today, It just doesn't meet the smell test.

but this wouldn't make sense. Do you have a source for this? It wouldn't make sense to do this right off the bat because then you just lost all the money and time you put into the person paying off their debts and then training them. You logic is very flawed!

I loved your editing b y the way. Very dramatic.

in agony, more than likely)

until gangreen set in and finished him off(but you were off the hook by then

You could write fiction.

[achilles12604]

Achilles, agreed, I overstated your position. I apologize. You weren't saying God imposed slavery to ensure the coming of Christ. But you were saying that God only delivered the Israelites so that Christ could be born in Bethlehem--and therefore it is of no consequence whether the Israelites themselves practiced slavery nor that the scriptures allowed it. I disagree. If we start with the supposition that God doesn't care, then we end up arguing, as you do, that it wasn't all that bad. And then we end up, as Grumpy points out, just looking ridiculous. If we are to look ridiculous as Christians, let it be for hoping "for a mystical world of no pain and everyone being happy."
Still, as Silverstein says, I've been to the land of happy. It is a bore, I admit. But I believe the message of Christians to those who suffer injustice is neither, 'this will make you stronger' nor 'it will be for the best'. Rather it should always be, 'this is wrong, I will fight beside you to end it no matter what it costs.'

But you were saying that God only delivered the Israelites so that Christ could be born in Bethlehem--and therefore it is of no consequence whether the Israelites themselves practiced slavery nor that the scriptures allowed it.

I never said that was the only reason. I said it was a logicial reason. Also, while I do realize the scriptures have numerous places involving slavery, for some reason people continue to point to almost exclusive old testament examples of this. Yet this is mearly a description of what occured in history. It has nothing to do with the doctrine of Christianity. Show me a place where Jesus says, "Thou shall own slaves and beat them on a regular basis" and I will conceed the point.

Christianity does not advocate slavery. It simply gives good advice to those already in slavery.


Also, as I pointed out to Grumpy, Slavery, is a loose term. It's definition changes with every person. So Slavery could very easily, (and according to the sources I provided, probably was) be like servatude. Really, for Christianity not advocating it in the first place but rather suggesting a course of action for those already under it, and the fact that even today in civilized nations (Europe, America, Japan, Etc) we still see servants, I do not understand why this is such a big deal for biblical interpretation.

[Simon's Legacy]

Achilles, I think we've come to the point of agreement on terms--just differ on what it means. You see the glass half full, I see it half empty. You ask, "Show me a place where Jesus says, "Thou shall own slaves and beat them on a regular basis" and I will conceed the point." I ask, "Show me a place where Jesus says, "Thou shall NOT own slaves or beat anyone in service to you for any reason." and I will concede the point."

[achilles12604]

Achilles, I think we've come to the point of agreement on terms--just differ on what it means. You see the glass half full, I see it half empty. You ask, "Show me a place where Jesus says, "Thou shall own slaves and beat them on a regular basis" and I will conceed the point." I ask, "Show me a place where Jesus says, "Thou shall NOT own slaves or beat anyone in service to you for any reason." and I will concede the point."

Exactly. Athiests view that Christianity endorses slavery when really all Paul was doing was giving good logical advise to those already in servatude. His advise would aid the servants of the masters in so far as avoiding problems down the road.

Christianity does however offer many ideas which are anti-slavery. Ideas like love your neighbor, anyone who wants to rule should become the least among you, aid anyone who comes to you looking for aid even your enemy, things like this.

All these ideas are contrary to slavery so since there is no passage saying "YES GO GET SLAVES" or "DO NOT GO GET SLAVES", we should analize the rest of the teachings to see if it upholds the ideas of slavery. Obviously it does not. I can not find any ideas being preached by Jesus or Paul (or anyone else for that matter), about murder people, hurt anyone, beat those who are against you, or things like that. It isn't there.

[Simon's Legacy]

Achilles, exactly!! Which points directly to where Christianity ought to be headed today. We see how over time we recognized the need to stop slavery--despite other verses to the contrary. We see how over time we recognized the need to stop serving kings--despite other verses to the contrary. We see how over time we recognized the need to stop separating the races--despite other verses to the contrary. We see how over time we recognized the equality between women and men--despite other verses to the contrary. In all those instances, until the change was complete, many Christians argued that the Bible DID command those practices. And, in time, we will see the equality between gay and straight couples as well--though for a period many Christians will argue that the Bible DOES command otherwise. It just takes time for the deeper, wiser messages of the gospel to sink into the existing culture.

[Grumpy]

achilles12604

Oh, Pleeze!!!

Exodus 21:20
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

So as long as the "servant" lasts more than two days, the owner who beat him is off the hook. Therefore he is not wrong to have beaten the servent, "for he is his money."

Word for word out og the KJV.

Grumpy

[achilles12604]

achilles12604

Oh, Pleeze!!!

Exodus 21:20
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

So as long as the "servant" lasts more than two days, the owner who beat him is off the hook. Therefore he is not wrong to have beaten the servent, "for he is his money."

Word for word out og the KJV.



Grumpy

Find a Christian reference or drop it entirely.

[Righteous Indignation]

achilles12604

Oh, Pleeze!!!

Exodus 21:20
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

So as long as the "servant" lasts more than two days, the owner who beat him is off the hook. Therefore he is not wrong to have beaten the servent, "for he is his money."

Word for word out og the KJV.



Grumpy

Find a Christian reference or drop it entirely.

Ok, let me get this straight. Christians have decided that Exodus is no longer true? Sounds good to me! People can stop overpopulating the earth because of "be fruitful and multiply" and we can all stop arguing about evolution. Great!

[Righteous Indignation]

Show me a place where Jesus says, "Thou shall own slaves and beat them on a regular basis" and I will concede the point.

How about:
Luke 12:47-48 (King James Version)

"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

So we see that Jesus actually condones the beating of servants and reinforces the Exodus verse:

Exodus 21:20-21 (King James Version)

"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

Achilles, you have asked what would be the alternative to slavery. The answer is simple: A days wages for a days work.