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?

[Simon's Legacy]

Good post. In my opinion people come away from these scriptural 'double standards' --in this instance being delivered from slavery but holding their own slaves--in one of three manners.
1) They make excuses for the double standard--in this case the typical argument is that, in the conditions of the time, holding these people as slaves was the only way to protect them and care for them.
2) They see it as proof of the evil that they believe is always at the base of religion
3) They see it as indicative of the human condition and try to learn from the presence of double standards in scripture how to overcome today's double standards.

[achilles12604]

In general, the section you picked for your attack was a weak example. I would have chosen the passages in Paul as they deal more with what actions slaves and masters should take. The section you picked simply acknowledges that slaves existed without condoning or rebuking that fact.

This aside, (and addressing the first of Simon's points at the same time), do you have a problem with servants? Perhaps endentured servants? From what I have read on the matter, slaves then were the equivalent to endentured servitude more recently.

The image most often construed with slavery today is people being beaten, split from families, tortured and killed. The slave boats which packed people in like cargo, the slave masters who hung slaves who ran away, these images do not portray an accurate representation of "slavery" in those days.

Beyond this, remember Paul's letter to Philemon where he personally supported his slave. While the Pagan world held to a certain view of the value of slaves, Christians at the time apparently saw slaves as people just like them. They saw people who deserved to be cared for and loved and looked after.

So while you can berate the bible in some places, consider others as well. And when choosing a passage, pick one that actually makes the point you were trying to make.

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.

And

you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave

do not give any moral compass to slavery, for or against. The are simply describing a scene that existed.

[Grumpy]

Simon's Legacy

As you predicted some will make the arguement that it was better for the slave for him to be owned.

Malleus

achilles12604 wrote

So while you can berate the bible in some places, consider others as well. And when choosing a passage, pick one that actually makes the point you were trying to make.

He is correct, you should have used the passages that say it is not a sin to beat your slave to death if it takes more than two days for him to die, or those which give the price you should charge/pay for men, women and children or your own daughter, or that unless a man was married when you bought him he is not entitled that his wife goes with him when he is released. The man must make a choice, either lose his wife and children or continue in slavery for the rest of his life(and a big hole in his ear to boot), or maybe the passages where Moses allows his soldiers(who were supposed to kill all living things in the city they conquered) to keep all the little girls("who have not known men"IE children, not women)for sex slaves. There are many more explicit passages than those you quoted.

Grumpy

[Righteous Indignation]

Here are a few more Bible qoutes regarding slavery:

And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. (Exodus 21:7 KJV)

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; (Ephesians 6:5 KJV)

Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye service, as men pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God; (Colossians 3:22 KJV)

Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; (Titus 2:9 KJV)

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. (1 Peter 2:18 KJV)

And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NKJV)

It seems to me that God would have no problem with a Christian being a card holding member of the KKK.

[achilles12604]

Here are a few more Bible qoutes regarding slavery:

And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. (Exodus 21:7 KJV)

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; (Ephesians 6:5 KJV)

Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye service, as men pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God; (Colossians 3:22 KJV)

Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; (Titus 2:9 KJV)

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. (1 Peter 2:18 KJV)

And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NKJV)

It seems to me that God would have no problem with a Christian being a card holding member of the KKK.

I once again note, that the 4 that apply to the New Covenent, say nothing more than "slaves, don't cause your masters huge problems."

This would make sense because if someone is a continual problem then violence and evil take root. If the slave simply accepts his servatude and does his best then Jesus parable about the servent becoming an heir along with the brothers would come true.

Amazing how everything fits together logically huh?

Thinking on it . . .

If I were in a position where I had two options, either let my family starve or submit myself into servatude which would ensure their safety and protection, I would gladly become a slave. And when I was there, I would do my best as I do now. Even a slave, if he does his best, can achieve a greater position over time. Look at Joseph. He did his best and ended up doing very well for himself.

So unless you assume the incorrect and unproven position that slavery then is the same brutal slavery as we saw in the 17 and 18 hundreds, then there really is not moral problem here.

[ENIGMA]

I once again note, that the 4 that apply to the New Covenent, say nothing more than "slaves, don't cause your masters huge problems."

This would make sense because if someone is a continual problem then violence and evil take root. If the slave simply accepts his servatude and does his best then Jesus parable about the servent becoming an heir along with the brothers would come true.

Really? So what servant of the Hiltons is currently sharing the wealth currently being wasted away by Paris Hilton?

So unless you assume the incorrect and unproven position that slavery then is the same brutal slavery as we saw in the 17 and 18 hundreds, then there really is not moral problem here.

Well, Slavery was brutal and nasty in the 14 and 15 hundreds as well:

Source

....
In one of his last works before his death, De thesauris in Peru, he vigorously defended the rights of the natives of Peru against the slavery imposed on them by the early Spanish Conquest. The work also questioned the right Spain had to take the treasures derived from the ransom of Atahualpa (the Inca leader), as well as those valuables found and taken from the burial sites of the Indigenous population.

The book was dedicated to King Philip II of Spain. Las Casas explained that he had supported the acts of barbarism when he first arrived in the New World, but that he soon became convinced that the horrendous acts would eventually lead to the collapse of Spain itself in an act of Divine retribution. According to Las Casas, it was the responsibility of the Spanish to convert the Indians, who would then be loyal subjects of Spain, rather than to kill them. To avoid the burden of slavery on them, Las Casas proposed that Africans be brought to America instead, though he later changed his mind about this when he saw the effects of slavery on Africans....

So exactly how far back do we need to go before we find non-brutal slavery?

[achilles12604]

I once again note, that the 4 that apply to the New Covenent, say nothing more than "slaves, don't cause your masters huge problems."

This would make sense because if someone is a continual problem then violence and evil take root. If the slave simply accepts his servatude and does his best then Jesus parable about the servent becoming an heir along with the brothers would come true.

Really? So what servant of the Hiltons is currently sharing the wealth currently being wasted away by Paris Hilton?

So unless you assume the incorrect and unproven position that slavery then is the same brutal slavery as we saw in the 17 and 18 hundreds, then there really is not moral problem here.

Well, Slavery was brutal and nasty in the 14 and 15 hundreds as well:

Source

....
In one of his last works before his death, De thesauris in Peru, he vigorously defended the rights of the natives of Peru against the slavery imposed on them by the early Spanish Conquest. The work also questioned the right Spain had to take the treasures derived from the ransom of Atahualpa (the Inca leader), as well as those valuables found and taken from the burial sites of the Indigenous population.

The book was dedicated to King Philip II of Spain. Las Casas explained that he had supported the acts of barbarism when he first arrived in the New World, but that he soon became convinced that the horrendous acts would eventually lead to the collapse of Spain itself in an act of Divine retribution. According to Las Casas, it was the responsibility of the Spanish to convert the Indians, who would then be loyal subjects of Spain, rather than to kill them. To avoid the burden of slavery on them, Las Casas proposed that Africans be brought to America instead, though he later changed his mind about this when he saw the effects of slavery on Africans....

So exactly how far back do we need to go before we find non-brutal slavery?

Nothing you wrote has diddly squat to do with what I wrote on a serious note. Now if you were attempting to be funny, then your jokes need work. If you were really trying to refute what I wrote, then explain to me what Hilton has to do with a culture 2000 years ago and why you can't accept the fact that the term slave has different meanings for different cultures especially when spread over 2000 years.

Your post was so erronious, I'm not sure where to start. Therefore, I think you may have been offering satire. Was your post a farce or was it to be taken seriously? (I'm not trying to be mean. I am really that confused)

[ENIGMA]

Nothing you wrote has diddly squat to do with what I wrote on a serious note. Now if you were attempting to be funny, then your jokes need work. If you were really trying to refute what I wrote, then explain to me what Hilton has to do with a culture 2000 years ago

Because it is an instance where:

If the slave simply accepts his servatude and does his best then Jesus parable about the servent becoming an heir along with the brothers would come true.

Do faithful servents inevitably become heirs? Often they have tended to get shafted from any such inheritance in my understanding. That is why I bring up the example of Paris Hilton. Would you have me believe that there is nobody else more capable of managing money and boosting the name, reputation, and/or financial status of the Hiltons out of all those who served her Father? Why then is she left with wealth that almost everyone realizes will be squandered.

How many examples are there to the contrary? Likely few and far between.

and why you can't accept the fact that the term slave has different meanings for different cultures especially when spread over 2000 years.

So, how far back do we have to go until we get to a time and a culture that has the nice "happy" version of slavery that you state? Do be sure to give references that such instances of slavery were the rule, not the exception. It's at least before the 1400's as stated in the bit of my previous post that followed the bit about Paris Hilton.

Any actual evidence of such benevolent slavery occurring in "the good old days", or are we now making philosophical conjectures about history?

[Malleus]

In general, the section you picked for your attack was a weak example. I would have chosen the passages in Paul as they deal more with what actions slaves and masters should take. The section you picked simply acknowledges that slaves existed without condoning or rebuking that fact.

Achilles, whilst I admit it may not have been the best example, the fact that god states that, for instance you may not make your slave work on sunday, it implies that it is fine for you to make your slave work on the other 6 days, in point of fact condoning the ownership of slaves. After all, if you werent allowed to own slaves why would god feel the need to mention rules and regulations for owning slaves in the 10 commandments. The truth of this approval is apparent further in the examples provided by Righteous Indignation.

Further to that point, whilst you speak of farces, you still seem to throw out euphemisms like:

I once again note, that the 4 that apply to the New Covenent, say nothing more than "slaves, don't cause your masters huge problems."

This would make sense because if someone is a continual problem then violence and evil take root. If the slave simply accepts his servatude and does his best then Jesus parable about the servent becoming an heir along with the brothers would come true.

Amazing how everything fits together logically huh?

A continuable problem for whom I might ask. You mean the person who has been bought and is now being forced to labour under a master who no doubt forces his own culture upon him. After all they were taken from neighbouring lands so it is doubtful that they held the same beliefs as the christian masters at the time, but hey, as long as they're pagans who cares right? It is merely the same christian fundamentalism which prevailed amoung the spanish hundreds of years later when Queen Isabella signed the royal decree stating that black slaves could be taken from their home lands by christians because that is the only way they would be able to nurture them and provide them with the comfort that only christianity can provide... coddswallopp.

As the logic that is someone was not obedient violence and evil would take root, what about the quote from righteous indignation

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. (1 Peter 2:18 KJV)

It would seem from "but also the harsh" that evil and violence is already present in the oppressors (the christians fyi), and how could you logically say that they are acting in the best interests of the slaves when it clearly states to live in fear and be complacent in the face of torture, violence etc. (in fact the passage seems to leave the door open to any number of atrocites committed by the master is fine).

And before you come back with "the good christian masters wouldnt do that", take your own advice and use some logic, these are the people who bought the slaves in the first place after taking them out of their home lands, and who have complete control and the power of fear over these people. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Isnt it amazing how everything fits together logically.

Malleus