"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.'

[The Nice Centurion]

I have let this topic marinate long enough... It looks like theists have no argument(s) against the claims that the Bible can effectively be used to accomplish (2) tasks:

1) Sanction lifetime chattel slavery
2) Sanction the breeding of lifetime chattel slaves

Thank you for your participation.

Bible also can effectively be used to prove Flat Earth beyond doubt.

But about that chattel slave business;
I have the impression that christians, when confronted by such touchy biblical advices, tend to just to call it "obvious to see that this advice was for back then and not for our times".

Why it was morally perfect back then to do things like stoning homosexualists, killing faithless people after dragging them outside town (first commandment), or herding slaves - But is morally imperfect today remains misterious.

But christians face seems saved for the moment. And that counts.

[1213]

You know the answer to that, or should. Slavery is not ok for "Our" people (because God says so) Slavery for everyone else is ok. It is a human instinctive social view of 'Other tribes'.Take their women, enslave the men. That is what we get in a man -made religion and book.

Bible says:

Anyone who kidnaps someone and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
Exod. 21:16

How could anyone forcefully take a slave, if that is obeyed?

For instance by killing his parents and just taking the kid.

That person would then deserve death and the society could kill the person who took the kid.

[1213]

...
Bible also can effectively be used to prove Flat Earth beyond doubt...

How?

[TRANSPONDER]

You know the answer to that, or should. Slavery is not ok for "Our" people (because God says so) Slavery for everyone else is ok. It is a human instinctive social view of 'Other tribes'.Take their women, enslave the men. That is what we get in a man -made religion and book.

Bible says:

Anyone who kidnaps someone and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
Exod. 21:16

How could anyone forcefully take a slave, if that is obeyed?

For instance by killing his parents and just taking the kid.

That person would then deserve death and the society could kill the person who took the kid.

Normally, yes because murder (by an individual) was a crime (and is) but legally sanctioned in warfare, including when mandated by God, then it was fine. Sure, that was common in those days and up until the 18th c when the idea began that slavery was bad. It was people got that idea and it was not an idea from the Bible. The Bible condones slavery.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
Bible also can effectively be used to prove Flat Earth beyond doubt...

How?

Because 'the circle of the earth'is based on a Hebrew word that signifies a flat circle scribes out by compasses, not the word used for a sphere or ball. There are other debatable passages like being able to see all the countries of the world, but I could counter that myself (it means 'the known world and showing a wide expanse of land was symbolic of all the lands.Weak, but not indisputable. But the word for a scribed circle (chwug) and not a ball (dwr) is unarguable in my view. It delineates a flat circle ringed by mountains with a sky dome over it with the celestial objects trundling around it and god sitting on top on his throne. The cosmos of the bronze age given a Hebrew twist.

It is interesting that in this instance it is one of the points where science is not denied as Creationists do not want to become flat earthists. They get laughed at enough as it is.

[POI]

Bible also can effectively be used to prove Flat Earth beyond doubt.

Right. And after science debunked this claim, many then had no choice but to then pivot -- by suggesting such parts are not meant to be literal

But about that chattel slave business;
I have the impression that christians, when confronted by such touchy biblical advices, tend to just to call it "obvious to see that this advice was for back then and not for our times".

God has/had no problem, even back then, telling folks what he likes and dislikes. And when it comes to the "dislikes" list, 'chattel slavery', (which I reckon believers would agree is not a minor topic), never made God's 'dislikes' list.

Why it was morally perfect back then to do things like stoning homosexualists, killing faithless people after dragging them outside town (first commandment), or herding slaves - But is morally imperfect today remains misterious.

Yes, very mysterious

But christians face seems saved for the moment. And that counts.

Yes, being a (Cafeteria Christian) helps many.

[POI]

Continuing to see avoidance, from the Chrisitan community...

It looks like theists have no argument(s) against the claims that the Bible can effectively be used to accomplish (2) tasks:

1) Sanction lifetime chattel slavery
2) Sanction the breeding of lifetime chattel slaves

If you object, please say so and also explain why? Otherwise, the silence will continue to be deafening.

[1213]

Because 'the circle of the earth'is based on a Hebrew word that signifies a flat circle scribes out by compasses, not the word used for a sphere or ball.

I think that shows great ignorance and lack of 3D understanding. Firstly, a circle can be drawn to any 3D surface. Secondly, in the Bible earth means dry land, not the whole planet. Circle doesn't mean in any way flat surface, only that the edges of something were round.

There are other debatable passages like being able to see all the countries of the world, but I could counter that myself ....

By the context, I think the things were showed in vision, because the things showed would not be visible directly from a tall mountain, even it the countries would be right next to it.

[1213]

...The Bible condones slavery.

So does the modern society, when it accepts mandatory taxation. I think Bible gave better conditions than modern society gives.

[TRANSPONDER]

Because 'the circle of the earth'is based on a Hebrew word that signifies a flat circle scribes out by compasses, not the word used for a sphere or ball.

I think that shows great ignorance and lack of 3D understanding. Firstly, a circle can be drawn to any 3D surface. Secondly, in the Bible earth means dry land, not the whole planet. Circle doesn't mean in any way flat surface, only that the edges of something were round.

There are other debatable passages like being able to see all the countries of the world, but I could counter that myself ....

By the context, I think the things were showed in vision, because the things showed would not be visible directly from a tall mountain, even it the countries would be right next to it.

Well, that's another good post and I recall that you argued this before. But it is essentially an excuse you know, and to match the description you only need water receding to reveal dry land - as describes in genesis what seems to be from the Nile to Mesopotamia. You don't need anything scribed out. But to scribe out a flat circle and put a sky dome over it is smack in line with the cosmology of the time from..Egypt to Mesopotamia and the sun being made as an afterthought to trundle around inside the sky -dome fits the Babylonian Cosmology, where your idea of God scribing out a geographical region that was already there when the dry land of the earth appeared seems pretty pointless, doesn't it? It is merely an excuse to avoid the conclusion that the Bible describes an obsolete snowdome -cosmos by having God scribe a pointless circle on a round earth.

Your vision of all the world is an excuse, too and not what the bible says. As I recall ...no I'd better check...No, you are right. Luke says Jesus was taken up, in fact or in a vision...though of course Jesus would have to orbit the world and it doesn't say 'a vision' does it? So it is an excuse and an invented one, by you. Matthew probably adds his high mountain, though Luke being smarter may have known that wouldn't do, even if the earth WAS flat, but as has been observed, Matthew ain't of the smartest.

But really your excuse is not really workable, is it? Nice try, though.