"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.'

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, it is something I noticed. it might require some looking at. The matter is not just whether the rules to treat slaves decently applied to all of them,but whether it is made clear that Some slaves were property for life and were not allowed to god free after 7 years and that rule applied only to Hebrew slaves, which from previous discussion seems to be the case.

I think one interesting part of this is, who are Hebrews. Do you know how to define who is a Hebrew?

I could say so much about that remark, but I'll just say - the writers distinguished between a Hebrew from a foreign slave, so that's their problem, not mine.

In which case, is it wrong to own slaves as property for life, even if one treats them reasonably decently? Think carefully before you answer because if you say 'yes', you have smashed the case for the Bible and Christianity being moral, and if you say 'No', you have done the same thing.

Slavery in the Bible is a killer for Bible validity which is why it comes up as often as Cosmic origins comes up as a supposed killer for atheism.

If Bible allows slavery with certain conditions, I think it is hypocrite to say it is wrong, if one at the same time accepts mandatory taxes. Everyone who must pay taxes is a slave. So, if modern moral says slavery is wrong, it should also end mandatory taxes.

But, Bible gives right to own slaves. I have no problem with it, if the keepers obey every rule in the Bible accurately. I have a problem with it, if the keepers don't follow exactly every other rule in the Bible, as written in the Bible.

If you say that slavery is ok if it has 'conditions', I think it requires no further comment from me, even without discussion of whether the ameliorating conditions even apply to non - hebrew slaves. I also need hardly comment on your effort to equate paying taxes with slavery.

[TRANSPONDER]

...Bottom line is that, a slave master can beat their slaves, with impunity, provided they do not knock out eyes/teeth. This instruction apparently comes from the God you worship. Do you agree with God's instruction here?

I agree with God's instructions. By them, I think no one would beat anyone, not even slaves. For example I think this is a good instruction in this case:

You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he be of your brothers, or of your foreigners who are in your land within your gates: in his day you shall give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down on it; for he is poor, and sets his heart on it: lest he cry against you to Yahweh, and it be sin to you. The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. You shall not wrest the justice due to the foreigner, or to the fatherless, nor take the widow’s clothing to pledge; but you shall remember that you were a bondservant in Egypt, and Yahweh your God redeemed you there: therefore I command you to do this thing.
Deu. 24:14-18

But, maybe it depends much on, do you read it by letter, or by spirit.

There is a distinction between a hired servant and a slave (from foreigners) who were property. Even if they were covered by conditions, they were still property - chattel slaves. And you say if the Bible is ok with it, you are. But the implication is that foreign slaves (not hired servants) were NOT covered by these provisions.

Oh - and I read what the Bible says, not by what I want it to say. I noted some ambiguity - which you'd think a god would ensure was clear. But I'd say it is clear that lifetime ownership of foreign slaves is pretty definite, even if one cam make a case for them having to be decently treated.

Leviticus 25. 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."

Reading the chapter, it is clear that a distinction is made between Hebrews and non -Hebrews (and let the teachers of the law rule who is and is not and non Hebrews do not have the right of redemption that the Hebrew slave has - even when the Hebrew is bought as a slave by a rich foreigner. And if that is ok in the Bible it's ok with you Mr. Legree; and I trust the reader will think on that, come the next election.

[POI]

I agree with God's instructions.

Noted. This is what you agree to, for clarity:

1) If a male slave is provided with a wife, and they have children, the wife and the children remain with the slave master for life, ala (Ex. 21:4). This is slave breeding.

2) When the male slave realizes his wife and children cannot come with him, upon year 7, he may opt to remain with his family. Since 'indentured servants' and 'slaves' were likely illiterate, and also, no lawyer was there to disclose all provisions, prior to being acquired by a master, this was how the male was tricked into lifetime slavery. Ala (Ex. 21:5-6).

3) No rhyme or reason is stated, as to how much, or how often a slave can be beaten. Only that they can be beaten, with complete impunity, provided they are not killed. Ala (Ex. 21:20-21)

4) If the slave's eye or teeth should happen to pop out, the male slave can go free. I guess this is why slave masters whipped or beat their slaves from the back side. (Ex. 21:26-27)

5) Foreigners, or temporary residents, can be purchased as slaves for life. They are deemed the master's property. They can also be passed off to their kids as property. And if any slaves were to mate, and have kids, I bet the master got to keep them too, since it is his property. This is more slave breeding. Likely little different then owning livestock. (Lev. 25:44-46)

By them, I think no one would beat anyone, not even slaves.

Seems you are against beating your slaves. Why? God does not seem to be. Maybe you agree less than you state you do?

In this case, it does not matter what <you> think. God's instruction sanctions such action with impunity. And you really agree? Then why are you trying to get out of it? If God is okay with beating your lifetime slaves, then so should you be, right?

For example I think this is a good instruction in this case:

You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he be of your brothers, or of your foreigners who are in your land within your gates: in his day you shall give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down on it; for he is poor, and sets his heart on it: lest he cry against you to Yahweh, and it be sin to you. The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. You shall not wrest the justice due to the foreigner, or to the fatherless, nor take the widow’s clothing to pledge; but you shall remember that you were a bondservant in Egypt, and Yahweh your God redeemed you there: therefore I command you to do this thing.
Deu. 24:14-18

Chattel slavery, which is what Leviticus 25:44-46 pretty much explains exactly, is apples and oranges to the verse you decided to provide. A chattel slave is not a 'hired servant'

But, maybe it depends much on, do you read it by letter, or by spirit.

I think you need to try a little harder. Your claimed 'spirit' is failing you. Thus far, you state you agree with God's instruction, while also stating a slave master would never beat their slaves. Well, God does not seem to have a problem with it, otherwise, God would instruct punishment, like God has no problem doing any time he wishes.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's clear our pal 1213 has put in the best job possible to try to make slavery not slavery, by trying to argue that passages about Hebrew non - slaves (hired servants) and non - Hebrew non - slaves relate to foreign slaves. They do not And if there is chattel slavery in the Bible, then it's ok with him. I thank him for being the only one to try to argue the case, but it hasn't been made. The Bible does condone chattel slavery of non -Hebrews,even if (I might concede) it tries to have reasonable rules about it. Thus either God condones slavery, in which case human morals are better than Biblical ones, or it was the opinions of the people of the time and nothing more than that. And that's what I go with.

[POI]

In celebration of my 2000th post, I would like to personally thank JehovasWitness for prompting the existence of this thread. As usual, (s)he dodged yet another question, which backed him into a proverbial debate corner (i.e. post 21) viewtopic.php?t=40601&start=20. Thus, I decided to create a new topic, to see if there exists a logical rationale for why God would seemingly sanction chattel slavery and slave breeding?

I have to ask myself, if Christians thought they really had an answer to this debate topic, I'm willing to bet we would see more than one person's feeble attempt....? Right?

Christians, how do you reconcile this reality? None of you have made any attempt to demonstrate the error of my ways, in reading the context of these passages. As stated prior, the silence is quite deafening.

[brunumb]

In celebration of my 2000th post, I would like to personally thank JehovasWitness for prompting the existence of this thread. As usual, he dodged yet another question, which backed him into a proverbial debate corner

If my memory serves me correctly, poster JehovahsWitness is a woman. I apologise if that is incorrect.

[1213]

...Well, God does not seem to have a problem with it...

By what I see, God don't want people to be treated wrongly. For example because of the rule "love your neighbor as yourself".

You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people; but you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am Yahweh.
Lev. 19:18

Do you have some good reason to ignore that instruction of God?

[1213]

...Bottom line is that, a slave master can beat their slaves, with impunity, provided they do not knock out eyes/teeth. This instruction apparently comes from the God you worship. Do you agree with God's instruction here?

I agree with God's instructions. By them, I think no one would beat anyone, not even slaves. For example I think this is a good instruction in this case:

You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he be of your brothers, or of your foreigners who are in your land within your gates: in his day you shall give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down on it; for he is poor, and sets his heart on it: lest he cry against you to Yahweh, and it be sin to you. The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. You shall not wrest the justice due to the foreigner, or to the fatherless, nor take the widow’s clothing to pledge; but you shall remember that you were a bondservant in Egypt, and Yahweh your God redeemed you there: therefore I command you to do this thing.
Deu. 24:14-18

But, maybe it depends much on, do you read it by letter, or by spirit.

There is a distinction between a hired servant and a slave (from foreigners) who were property....

If there is distinction, why is the scripture speaking of "bondservants" (=usually translated also slaves) in the same context with "hired servants"?

Interesting thing is, if I translate Deu. 24:14 from Hebrew to English, it says: "You shall not do evil to your brothers or to your enemies in your land at your gates". I think that is a good instruction.

[1213]

Not a fan of dental care, vaccines, antibiotics... or computers.... ?

I would rather take justice, freedom and clean environment.

[1213]

...
Is there some number of slaves I could have, before God gets upset?

First I would need to know, are you a Hebrew?

For purposes of this discussion, let's say I'm half Hebrew.
...

Thanks, but now I would need to know, what does that mean? What do you think a full Hebrew is?