"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]

Bible apologists explain that God had to go along with the mores of the time, which is why he put rules for the treatment of slaves.

Reminds me of a video I watched a while back:

"That's how it was back then?" Those dark matter 2525 animations have some good ones.

The bottom line of the atheist case is "If there was no God,. the world would look just the same".

The argument that we cannot expect there to be any commands that would too profoundly change the culture of the people of the time is pretty weak. The Jews had apparently just come out of slavery. it wasn'tpossibleto say 'No slaves'? No multiple gods, only Me (four times) was possible but no slaves,too far a jump. So the excuse goes.

And yet they know that God should go further than just what they were accustomed to, back then. That's why the Bible apologists are always trying to fit scientific discoveries into the Bible.Just as the Quran apologists try to wangle scientific knowledge into the Quran. The 'knocking star' (supposed to be a prediction of the pulsar) being one of the more notorious, somewhere between Fresh and salt water don't mix and the intelligently designed banana.

I don't want to go into a rant about the strangleghold that the Bible has on Western thought,or yet again post Tracie Harriss expressing bemusement that a fair slice of even Western Atheists think that going to church is a good thing for morals. But I will repeat a clip from the original startrek series where they had a 'courtroom' episode where the corncob .chewin' country lawyer wins his case over the slick city lawyer (American kultur ) beginning with a list of the milestones in moral codes. Starting with the Bible and then the codes of Hammurabbi. 'There's your problem right there', I thought. Hammurabbi came first and the Bible after that. Even if one thinks there was an exodus AFTER the first Babylonian Empire. But it'll take a while before that is the automatic order for a US - trained scriptwriter.

[1213]

I've spoken with a few Jewish people - ...
...So, with that, slavery would be completely man-made, and they just used God as the excuse.

The problem with that for me is, how do they know Jews originally just made up the whole thing.

[1213]

...The slavery issue is appended to the whole Problem of Evil, which has many parts,from why natural disasters occur if there is a god that could (so the Bible tells us) stop it to why prayer evidently doesn't work The easiest explanation (avoiding all manner of logical epicycles about hiddenness) is that the mishaps are natural and if there is a god, it doesn't intervene, in anything. Certainly not in telling humans Command no. 11'Thou shalt not buy sell nor own as property, any other human being."

Since the Israelites had themselves (as Leviticus points out) been recently enslaved, they knew it was not moral. It certainly cut across the golden rule and as apologists point out,that alone should be reason not to have chattel slavery. That's the hot point of debate - if the Bible were the record of God there should not be slavery. Is there? To me clearly there is in its'most blatant chattel -owning form. Lev.25. Christians may deny it, but to the impartial observer, it's as plain as a whipping =post.It was Ok for the Hebrews to own foreign slave for life....

Bible tells that kidnapper would deserve death penalty. So, if someone would capture a person to sell him, it would not work. I think this means there would not be any possibility to have a slave against the persons will. What do you think, how could someone sell a person against person's will, if the person can't be kidnapped and forcefully sold?

And, if person willingly wants to be a slave, should it not be allowed?

[JoeyKnothead]

However that may be, those passages appear to be given to the Hebrews and refer only to how they treat their fellow Hebrews. True, it says 'neighbour' and it may be arguable whether a foreigner living in their area is a neighbour or not, but that Leviticus passage remains. A Hebrew can buy a slave from the people around and they are his property for life. That appears to sort all ambiguity - the release after 6 years thing does not apply to non Hebrews. Bear in mind that even a Hebrew can be enslaved for life if he is given a wife and kids and elects to stay rather than take advantage of the 6 year rule,

If then he is a slave for life, how can it be suggested that foreign slaves benefit from a get - out that Hebrews don't?

You gave up too easy - the excuses to get the Bible off the slavery hook don't stand up to scrutiny.

Plenty fair. Some of us don't smart to good.

Frankly, I consider it quite obvious those who try to excuse slavery could use a screwdriver.

"to" hahahahahaha

[boatsnguitars]

I've spoken with a few Jewish people - ...
...So, with that, slavery would be completely man-made, and they just used God as the excuse.

The problem with that for me is, how do they know Jews originally just made up the whole thing.

Because they made it up? The explanation is that they don't accept the supernatural aspect of the OT (and obviously don't accept the NT), because it seems false on the face of it.
They feel they are allowed to use their intelligence to assess things.

[TRANSPONDER]

I've spoken with a few Jewish people - ...
...So, with that, slavery would be completely man-made, and they just used God as the excuse.

The problem with that for me is, how do they know Jews originally just made up the whole thing.

"Know"? it is Theist apologists make the point that we can't know anything for sure.Unless, apparently, it is an idea that they get and they say God is telling them.

But here it is the incoherence of the Christian claim for their god. Unless they 'bite the bullet' and say 'God can do what he wants' (1) the the moral failure of slavery invalidates the claim of a just and loving god (as per all the problem of evil) such as the Christians claim. Sure, they attempt to wish the evidence away but as we have seen it fails, and they must either fall into denial about what the Bible actually says, or accept that Biblegod makes no sense and cannot be what Christianity claims. That is why atheists do not believe the Bible is true, let alone the ideas of God (and Jews wrote it themselves, is the conclusion). Understandably, they generally opt for faithbased denial and reject the evidence. Which is the whole problem with Religious thinking and argument.

(1) which in fact validates the atheist argument as who would worship a vile dictator other than out of fear?

...The slavery issue is appended to the whole Problem of Evil, which has many parts,from why natural disasters occur if there is a god that could (so the Bible tells us) stop it to why prayer evidently doesn't work The easiest explanation (avoiding all manner of logical epicycles about hiddenness) is that the mishaps are natural and if there is a god, it doesn't intervene, in anything. Certainly not in telling humans Command no. 11'Thou shalt not buy sell nor own as property, any other human being."

Since the Israelites had themselves (as Leviticus points out) been recently enslaved, they knew it was not moral. It certainly cut across the golden rule and as apologists point out,that alone should be reason not to have chattel slavery. That's the hot point of debate - if the Bible were the record of God there should not be slavery. Is there? To me clearly there is in its'most blatant chattel -owning form. Lev.25. Christians may deny it, but to the impartial observer, it's as plain as a whipping =post.It was Ok for the Hebrews to own foreign slave for life....

Bible tells that kidnapper would deserve death penalty. So, if someone would capture a person to sell him, it would not work. I think this means there would not be any possibility to have a slave against the persons will. What do you think, how could someone sell a person against person's will, if the person can't be kidnapped and forcefully sold?

And, if person willingly wants to be a slave, should it not be allowed?

This is a problem of Jewish law. It would be for the rabbis to sort that out. But of course it would depend upon whom the kidnapped person was. I assume it is a Hebrew as the OT laws are made for the protection of Hebrews. We can assume the kidnapper is also a Hebrew .He has offended against the laws on the treatment of Hebrews and should suffer the penalty

If the kidnapped person is a runaway slave, it is also a crime as the slave is the other person's property. I'll leave it to the teachers of the law to argue whether the kidnapper should be rewarded for returning the kidnapped person to the owner (if a slave) or killed forkidnapping the slave in the first place.

Perhaps rewarded and then killed, as in the Goon show 'Tales of Pliny the elder' "Why does this minstrel humble himself so?" "He tells me he wants to die rich." "And so he shall; give him this bag of gold and then strangle him." However, whether it is a Hebrew slave who should be released after six years or a foreign - origin slave who is slave for life is irrelevant to the legal point there.

[TRANSPONDER]

However that may be, those passages appear to be given to the Hebrews and refer only to how they treat their fellow Hebrews. True, it says 'neighbour' and it may be arguable whether a foreigner living in their area is a neighbour or not, but that Leviticus passage remains. A Hebrew can buy a slave from the people around and they are his property for life. That appears to sort all ambiguity - the release after 6 years thing does not apply to non Hebrews. Bear in mind that even a Hebrew can be enslaved for life if he is given a wife and kids and elects to stay rather than take advantage of the 6 year rule,

If then he is a slave for life, how can it be suggested that foreign slaves benefit from a get - out that Hebrews don't?

You gave up too easy - the excuses to get the Bible off the slavery hook don't stand up to scrutiny.

Plenty fair. Some of us don't smart to good.

Frankly, I consider it quite obvious those who try to excuse slavery could use a screwdriver.

"to" hahahahahaha

Well, it can get complicated. Especially when the Bible - apologists try to wrongfoot or confuse the goddless with trying to find apparent flaws in the atheist argument when they are irrelevant anyway.

[POI]

Thus far, it appears the Christians have no answers to refute my two claims (i.e.):

1. The Bible sanctions/condones chattel slavery
2. The Bible sanctions/condones the breeding of chattel slaves.

"1213" dropped off the grid, at post #76.

Is there no one else?

[brunumb]

New post (8 May) from CosmicSkeptic.

[POI]

New post (8 May) from CosmicSkeptic.

I'll, try to watch when I have time.


I'm already pretty confident the Bible does sanction/condone chattel slavery practices. I'm starting to get the feeling Christians, who actually study the text, do too.

I guess my take away continues to be.... As I asked 1213 in post #76:

Christians, how do you reconcile that your own morals do not align with the God in which you worship?