"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.'

[Purple Knight]

Where chattel slavery is concerned, none of that. Only endorsements.

No, not only endorsements. Enslaving Jews is not okay. They get protections a lot like those of modern workers.

So I'm going to ask you because I genuinely wonder this.

What if it really is only enslaving Jews chattel-style that isn't okay? What if enslaving others, even chattel slavery, actually is okay?

Some Black people are racially Jews. This could completely explain why American slavery was so uniquely immoral, and nothing else really can.

[POI]

What if enslaving others, even chattel slavery, actually is okay?

Then Christians have a lot to answer for. Why? Christians will argue that God gives us our moral compass. And since it is likely that most do not agree with chattel slavery, then we have a direct conflict. Something has to give. Where then does the Christian compromise their logic?

[Purple Knight]

Then Christians have a lot to answer for. Why? Christians will argue that God gives us our moral compass. And since it is likely that most do not agree with chattel slavery, then we have a direct conflict. Something has to give. Where then does the Christian compromise their logic?

The same moral compass that seems to point the same direction in everyone, agrees American slavery was the epitome of evil, and has no clear reason as to why nobody was really bothered by slavery before (or, even after) that.

My argument here is that the only time people's consciences will actually ding them for chattel slavery, is if the racial lines are opposite the ones proscribed for slavery in the Bible. They may not know this but this is actually a point for God embedding that in everyone's moral compass.

[POI]

Beginning to recap, as Christians are not really engaging.... The silence is deafening....

These following two statements do not look to have been challenged by Christians:

1) The Bible can be used to endorse chattel slavery.
2) The Bible can be used to endorse slave breeding.

*****************************************************************

1) The specifics outweigh the generals. The 'golden rule' is the general rule. But specifics outweigh general rules, like the expressed caveats for chattel slavery. An analogy would be like a posted speed limit, or a red light, or to always make a complete stop at a stop sign. These would be the general rules. These posted laws do not also apply to some however, like traffic patrol in pursuit or medical/ambulance in route. Some caveats exist. Which are some specifics... Chattel slavery is an endorsed listed caveat, or a specific, to the general 'golden rule'. Further, the golden rule was already expressed, when chattel slavery was also endorsed, in the OT.

2) Theists will argue that 'hearts are/were hardened", which is why chattel slavery was/is allowed. Using basic logic, this argument fails. Divorce was allowed, even though divorce was considered a 'sin'. The Bible expressed why divorce was allowed anyways, even though God deemed this act a sin. I trust Christians think chattel slavery is worse? And yet, the Bible offers no such explanation as to why chattel slavery is still allowed, let alone expressing that chattel slavery is a 'sin.' Further, humans can conjure up many 'valid' reasons why divorce should still be allowed today, even though it is categorized as a "sin" in the Bible. And yet, can Christians do the same for chattel slavery? No. Further, the Bible argues that we will all 'sin'. Which means all hearts are essentially hardened regardless. This means that even when the Bible deems an act a sin, we will still always break it anyways. So the logic fails. The Bible does not express that such chattel slavery practices are a sin.

3) Jesus has no problem expressing his dislikes and remains silent about the already expressed allowances for chattel slavery. This means chattel slavery and slave breeding is not a 'sin'.

4) The Bible gives further instruction about slavery in the NT, while not expressing that it is a 'sin' in the NT either.

5) Differing rulesets apply to differing groups. (i.e.): If we read the Bible, in context throughout, the following hierarchy exists -- God > Jesus > man > woman > Hebrew male slave > female/foreign/bred slave > livestock > inanimate object. Not all rules are created equal.

6) The erroring pen of scribes has allowed for verses in the Bible in which God does not endorse. Hmm, which ones would this be, and how would we know?

7) From another thread.... 'We are all slaves.' Great, let's reduce or water down this term this much. This way, Christians can avoid any real accountability. Yes, the term 'slave' has many meanings. However, in this topic, we are speaking about the Bible endorsing chattel slavery and slave breeding. Not instead how "Christians serve God and other men."

8) From another thread... Atheists present with a cognitive dissonance to point out that slavery is universally wrong. Okay, this is a red herring argument. Why? The point of this thread is to highlight that Christians do not like the forms of slavery in which the Bible condones, which is chattel slavery and slave breeding. Hence, Christians are at odds with their own morals.

There are likely more points, but this should be enough of a recap to demonstrate that yes, you can substantiate chattel slavery and slave breeding while using the Bible. And Christians no-likey....

[Tcg]

But why do you think you are the God, to determine what is an exception? Don't you understand that i don't follow you?

Moderator Comment

Please do not make any personal comments.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Tcg]

It is very simple matter, if one remains in truth.

Moderator Comment

Please do not make any personal comments.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[tam]

Peace to you POI and to you all,

First, I would like apologize for my erratic posting. My husband has been quite sick for more than a month (doing better now, but not well enough to go back to work yet). Between his illness and work, my time has been very limited, and may continue to be so for a while.

That being said, I have a day off - yay! - and would like to respond to this post.

[Replying to tam in post #281]

While I'm awaiting your other response, here is the answer to your questions:

1) Can you enslave another person if you are supposed to be the LEAST? As I've told you repeatedly now, the Bible offers some good stuff. But it also offers other stuff, like contradiction. In my last reply, I also re-emphasized the bottom of the OP, about the generals being over-taken by specifics.

I must point out, POI, that you did not answer the question. I'm not asking what you think the bible says or means. I am asking about you, yourself.

Can YOU enslave another person if you are supposed to make yourself a LEAST one?

2) Can you enslave another person (or their children) if you supposed to be serving THEM? I've already touched on this too. Differing rules apply to differing groups, genders, regions, and races. When reading the Bible, in all its given context, the hierarchy reads as follows:

God > Jesus > man > woman > Hebrew male slave > female/foreign/bred slave > livestock > inanimate object

Once more, you did not answer the question.

Can YOU enslave another person (or their children) if YOU are supposed to be serving THEM?

3) Can you enslave another person (or their children) if you are supposed to 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" Again, the specifics outweigh the generals. The 'golden rule' is a general, while the specifics of chattel slavery supersede. Otherwise, the rule would not have been brought forth, which clearly violates the general "golden rule" otherwise Chattel slavery is one of the many exceptions. Also, as already stated above and prior, differing rules exist for differing folks and regions. See Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 for details.

Once again, you have not answered the question. You have responded... but responding to a question is not the same as answering a question. Politicians, for example, do it all the time to avoid answering the question.

Can YOU enslave another person (or their children) if YOU are supposed to 'do unto others as YOU would have them do unto you?'

4) Did Christ force anyone to serve Him? Nope. I never claimed Jesus did. But he clearly endorses chattel slavery practices. And in those given "laws", women and bred offspring have no say in the matter. The fathers of the daughters do, as well as the slave masters of the bred offspring do.

Thank you for the direct answer, "Nope."

So if Christ never forced anyone to serve Him... and HIS followers are to follow His EXAMPLE... how can HIS followers then force others to serve them while also claiming to be following Christ and His example/commands?

5) Did Christ enslave anyone against their will? Already addressed above.

See question stated below:

6) If your answer is no, and it can only be no, how are you following His example if you enslave someone (and/or their children)? If you force others to be your slaves? Easy, see my response(s) above It's also called contradiction, with a large mix of Christian apologetics/spin.

So in other words, you can't enslave others against their will without contradicting Christ and His word/example? Correct? I just want to make sure I am understanding your response correctly.


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

[POI]

I wish you and your family much health and happiness.... Okay, back to the thread....

[Replying to tam in post #337]

This was already address in my OP. My own view on these questions do not align with the Bible's view. I reckon your answer is exactly the same as mine. Which is NO! Based upon your pointed questions, you logically cannot. So now, please reconcile all of what the Bible endorses, for which YOU would not. Oh yea, you already did. 'Erring pens' and 'divorce allowances.' A recap has been issued in post 334.

TY!

[POI]

Topic bump:

The silence is deafening....

These following two statements do not look to have been challenged by Christians:

1) The Bible can be used to endorse chattel slavery.
2) The Bible can be used to endorse slave breeding.

*****************************************************************

1) The specifics outweigh the generals. The 'golden rule' is the general rule. But specifics outweigh general rules, like the expressed caveats for chattel slavery. An analogy would be like a posted speed limit, or a red light, or to always make a complete stop at a stop sign. These would be the general rules. These posted laws do not also apply to some however, like traffic patrol in pursuit or medical/ambulance in route. Some caveats exist. Which are some specifics... Chattel slavery is an endorsed listed caveat, or a specific, to the general 'golden rule'. Further, the golden rule was already expressed, when chattel slavery was also endorsed, in the OT.

2) Theists will argue that 'hearts are/were hardened", which is why chattel slavery was/is allowed. Using basic logic, this argument fails. Divorce was allowed, even though divorce was considered a 'sin'. The Bible expressed why divorce was allowed anyways, even though God deemed this act a sin. I trust Christians think chattel slavery is worse? And yet, the Bible offers no such explanation as to why chattel slavery is still allowed, let alone expressing that chattel slavery is a 'sin.' Further, humans can conjure up many 'valid' reasons why divorce should still be allowed today, even though it is categorized as a "sin" in the Bible. And yet, can Christians do the same for chattel slavery? No. Further, the Bible argues that we will all 'sin'. Which means all hearts are essentially hardened regardless. This means that even when the Bible deems an act a sin, we will still always break it anyways. So the logic fails. The Bible does not express that such chattel slavery practices are a sin.

3) Jesus has no problem expressing his dislikes and remains silent about the already expressed allowances for chattel slavery. This means chattel slavery and slave breeding is not a 'sin'.

4) The Bible gives further instruction about slavery in the NT, while not expressing that it is a 'sin' in the NT either.

5) Differing rulesets apply to differing groups. (i.e.): If we read the Bible, in context throughout, the following hierarchy exists -- God > Jesus > man > woman > Hebrew male slave > female/foreign/bred slave > livestock > inanimate object. Not all rules are created equal.

6) The erroring pen of scribes has allowed for verses in the Bible in which God does not endorse. Hmm, which ones would this be, and how would we know?

7) From another thread.... 'We are all slaves.' Great, let's reduce or water down this term this much. This way, Christians can avoid any real accountability. Yes, the term 'slave' has many meanings. However, in this topic, we are speaking about the Bible endorsing chattel slavery and slave breeding. Not instead how "Christians serve God and other men."

8) From another thread... Atheists present with a cognitive dissonance to point out that slavery is universally wrong. Okay, this is a red herring argument. Why? The point of this thread is to highlight that Christians do not like the forms of slavery in which the Bible condones, which is chattel slavery and slave breeding. Hence, Christians are at odds with their own morals.

There are likely more points, but this should be enough of a recap to demonstrate that yes, you can substantiate chattel slavery and slave breeding while using the Bible. And Christians no-likey....

[1213]

...The specifics outweigh the generals. ...

Where does the Bible say so? Why do you think you can tell what rules are to be used and what not?