Was slavery condemned in the Bible?

[irosie91]

Kidnapping in biblical times was FOR THE PURPOSE of obtaining slaves and it
was considered a serious crime (sorta like a felony) Legal Biblical slavery is not chattel slavery. It is more like indentured servitude of a limited term. It was
considered a really lousy situation.

Beating a human was alright because it wasn't chattel slavery?

This makes it justified?

Female Hebrews could be sold by their fathers into slavery for life.

That's okay?

Only kidnapping Hebrews was punishable. Non-Hebrew slaves had no such rules. Leviticus 25:44

If a male slave sold himself into mslavery to pay debt, and had kids while enslaved, the kids became his master's property permanently.

That's okay?

How about rules in exodus: If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.




Treating your human slaves "less bad" than they were traditionally treated....makes it OKAY for what the literal God of belief condones?



Religion

you are not entirely correct-----the issues are EXPOUNDED upon in the
Talmud which actually rules that INJURING A SLAVE in any way requires
that the slave be set free-----and paid for his time. The legal code of the
bible was-----according to scholars ----A WORK IN PROGRESS. ----that's
the basis of the weirdo idea of "tikkun" As to the issue of "permanent slavery"--
it is not clear to me that it was a fact for anyone

You missed the point, Rosie.

Slavery, at all, is wrong.

The Bible being a work in progress makes it not the inspired word of God, as an ipso facto, especially if it does (it does) condone beating your slave. Even if that's later amended in another, separate book, it's damning for the Bible being the "inspired word of God," as well as damning for objective morality as defined as grounded in God itself.

Then, the selling your daughters into slavery thing...the slaves being born into slavery thing...the different slavery rules for non-hebrews, as though non-hebrews don't deserve the same human rights....thing.

There really is no good argument for the way that the Bible condones slavery. That it's got some loopholes as compared to antebellum slavery is besides the point - it actually misses the point entirely.

OK you have found flaws in the legal system of that time. You are insisting
that the bible be treated in Jewish law in the same manner that muslims treat
the Koran------as if DICTATED WORD BY WORD BY "gawd" AND ABSOLUTELY
ETERNAL. There are some americans who like to use the CONSTITUTION
OF THE USA in the same manner. An interesting factoid is that even the
Talmudic scholars did not promote that idea------back in the day. Even more
interesting-----there are some ??hadiths suggesting that muhummad suffered
from the same malady with which you are afflicted

I'm suggesting that if some of it is trash and full of holes, there's no compelling reason to believe its over-arching and un-proven claim, the big one. The one that professed to know how everything got here.

Slavery is just ONE reason, of the multitudes.

A no-----Hebrew girls could not be sold into slavery for life.
B. no-----the delightful explanation for that which bothers you----is
the TIKKUN thing------the universe is not "COMPLETE" ...yet, thus
neither is the subject which we call TORAH---which is knowledge and law

 

[G.T.]

Beating a human was alright because it wasn't chattel slavery?

This makes it justified?

Female Hebrews could be sold by their fathers into slavery for life.

That's okay?

Only kidnapping Hebrews was punishable. Non-Hebrew slaves had no such rules. Leviticus 25:44

If a male slave sold himself into mslavery to pay debt, and had kids while enslaved, the kids became his master's property permanently.

That's okay?

How about rules in exodus: If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.




Treating your human slaves "less bad" than they were traditionally treated....makes it OKAY for what the literal God of belief condones?



Religion

you are not entirely correct-----the issues are EXPOUNDED upon in the
Talmud which actually rules that INJURING A SLAVE in any way requires
that the slave be set free-----and paid for his time. The legal code of the
bible was-----according to scholars ----A WORK IN PROGRESS. ----that's
the basis of the weirdo idea of "tikkun" As to the issue of "permanent slavery"--
it is not clear to me that it was a fact for anyone

You missed the point, Rosie.

Slavery, at all, is wrong.

The Bible being a work in progress makes it not the inspired word of God, as an ipso facto, especially if it does (it does) condone beating your slave. Even if that's later amended in another, separate book, it's damning for the Bible being the "inspired word of God," as well as damning for objective morality as defined as grounded in God itself.

Then, the selling your daughters into slavery thing...the slaves being born into slavery thing...the different slavery rules for non-hebrews, as though non-hebrews don't deserve the same human rights....thing.

There really is no good argument for the way that the Bible condones slavery. That it's got some loopholes as compared to antebellum slavery is besides the point - it actually misses the point entirely.

OK you have found flaws in the legal system of that time. You are insisting
that the bible be treated in Jewish law in the same manner that muslims treat
the Koran------as if DICTATED WORD BY WORD BY "gawd" AND ABSOLUTELY
ETERNAL. There are some americans who like to use the CONSTITUTION
OF THE USA in the same manner. An interesting factoid is that even the
Talmudic scholars did not promote that idea------back in the day. Even more
interesting-----there are some ??hadiths suggesting that muhummad suffered
from the same malady with which you are afflicted

I'm suggesting that if some of it is trash and full of holes, there's no compelling reason to believe its over-arching and un-proven claim, the big one. The one that professed to know how everything got here.

Slavery is just ONE reason, of the multitudes.

A no-----Hebrew girls could not be sold into slavery for life.
B. no-----the delightful explanation for that which bothers you----is
the TIKKUN thing------the universe is not "COMPLETE" ...yet, thus
neither is the subject which we call TORAH---which is knowledge and law

You're now equivocating - and changing "Daughters" to "Hebrew girls."

ANY girls being able to be sold = BAD

Equivocating misses the Forrest for the trees.

 

[irosie91]

Folks miss the point when non-theists are invoking slavery in the Bible as an abhorrent paradigm. They scape-goat by saying "at the time" - - - - - like, "well, at the time, this was the least harmful version of slavery that had ever been achieved, so to call it bad is disingenuous, they were very different times!"

But that's a bad argument for defending a supposed morally objective, timeless being. Why that's not obvious, who knows! It flies in the face of moral objectivity, and boosts the argument that morals change as humans change them. It's an opposite-case for objective morality...and if we consider them subjective "by the times" like these folks do, then that comes with all of the fun surprises of moral relativism. Relative to...the times. Relative to... whatever their Dream Fairy commands.

We also might consider why...one that condones, and even commands, that if you beat your slave and he/she doesn't die, then you're free of punishment...is worthy of any type of worship. Pardon me but in my mind that'd be like worshiping a genocidal sociopath.

not entirely-----it means that the person is not guilty of Murder----any injury--------and somehow anything that draws blood is considered
"injury" must be compensated. -----which would be a MONETARY ISSUE---
actual injury means freedom for the slave. An interesting factoid----US law bases its definition of MURDER on the biblical principle-----which is KILLING WITH hatred ------in US law that is called "mens rea" Accidental or unintentional or "in a perception of need for defense" killing is called "manslaughter" In biblical law manslaughter could end up in EXILE to a special reserve city-----

I'm not picking up what you're putting down.

Owning a human is never okay. It's never BEEN okay. Nevermind you're condoned in beating them in certain ways, owning different types for different amounts of years, and able to sell your newborns into it.

That the Bible lays down ground-rules for their human ownership is a direct contradiction to Moral absolutism. It's Religious moral relativism. Directly.

the ancient biblical scholars described the biblical legal code as morally
relative ------WEIRD HUH? I will try to give the idea to you in Hebrew
(gawd help me!!! ) -----Torah midaber b'lashon ha'am" the rough
translation is >>> torah---which means something like Knowledge and Law----
uses the language of the people-----which means ---something like ---'that
which people can understand' The idea is that it had to be presented
according to that which could be "INJESTED" by humans at the time.
Try not to be so concrete in your thinking. ----in short----it ain't as absolute
as you SO DESIRE

I dont desire that it's absolute. Im outright saying that it's relativistic, and youre agreeing with me. There's no excuse for slavery, slavery light or anything of its kind...and an eternal all knowing being would NOT "inspire" the codification of such. THATS the point.

Thats weird.

the fact that you are not SATISFIED with the incomplete and imperfect world----
is-----believe it or not------supposed to be good-----makes you a scholar of
the Talmudic flavor. Long ago-----some Talmudic scholar----whose name
escapes me-----decided to discard slavery. You, too, are eligible to work on
IMPROVING THE WORLD (tikkun). Tikkun is supposed to be a basic principle-------kinda like ENTROPY is the basic principle that describes my housekeeping
skills. Entropy is necessary to describe FREE WILL-------and general but
VITAL mess------see CHAOStheory

 

[irosie91]

you are not entirely correct-----the issues are EXPOUNDED upon in the
Talmud which actually rules that INJURING A SLAVE in any way requires
that the slave be set free-----and paid for his time. The legal code of the
bible was-----according to scholars ----A WORK IN PROGRESS. ----that's
the basis of the weirdo idea of "tikkun" As to the issue of "permanent slavery"--
it is not clear to me that it was a fact for anyone

You missed the point, Rosie.

Slavery, at all, is wrong.

The Bible being a work in progress makes it not the inspired word of God, as an ipso facto, especially if it does (it does) condone beating your slave. Even if that's later amended in another, separate book, it's damning for the Bible being the "inspired word of God," as well as damning for objective morality as defined as grounded in God itself.

Then, the selling your daughters into slavery thing...the slaves being born into slavery thing...the different slavery rules for non-hebrews, as though non-hebrews don't deserve the same human rights....thing.

There really is no good argument for the way that the Bible condones slavery. That it's got some loopholes as compared to antebellum slavery is besides the point - it actually misses the point entirely.

OK you have found flaws in the legal system of that time. You are insisting
that the bible be treated in Jewish law in the same manner that muslims treat
the Koran------as if DICTATED WORD BY WORD BY "gawd" AND ABSOLUTELY
ETERNAL. There are some americans who like to use the CONSTITUTION
OF THE USA in the same manner. An interesting factoid is that even the
Talmudic scholars did not promote that idea------back in the day. Even more
interesting-----there are some ??hadiths suggesting that muhummad suffered
from the same malady with which you are afflicted

I'm suggesting that if some of it is trash and full of holes, there's no compelling reason to believe its over-arching and un-proven claim, the big one. The one that professed to know how everything got here.

Slavery is just ONE reason, of the multitudes.

A no-----Hebrew girls could not be sold into slavery for life.
B. no-----the delightful explanation for that which bothers you----is
the TIKKUN thing------the universe is not "COMPLETE" ...yet, thus
neither is the subject which we call TORAH---which is knowledge and law

You're now equivocating - and changing "Daughters" to "Hebrew girls."

ANY girls being able to be sold = BAD

Equivocating misses the Forrest for the trees.

you are playing with semantics -----ok "daughters" ------even before DNA
confirmation of paternity

 

[G.T.]

Folks miss the point when non-theists are invoking slavery in the Bible as an abhorrent paradigm. They scape-goat by saying "at the time" - - - - - like, "well, at the time, this was the least harmful version of slavery that had ever been achieved, so to call it bad is disingenuous, they were very different times!"

But that's a bad argument for defending a supposed morally objective, timeless being. Why that's not obvious, who knows! It flies in the face of moral objectivity, and boosts the argument that morals change as humans change them. It's an opposite-case for objective morality...and if we consider them subjective "by the times" like these folks do, then that comes with all of the fun surprises of moral relativism. Relative to...the times. Relative to... whatever their Dream Fairy commands.

We also might consider why...one that condones, and even commands, that if you beat your slave and he/she doesn't die, then you're free of punishment...is worthy of any type of worship. Pardon me but in my mind that'd be like worshiping a genocidal sociopath.

not entirely-----it means that the person is not guilty of Murder----any injury--------and somehow anything that draws blood is considered
"injury" must be compensated. -----which would be a MONETARY ISSUE---
actual injury means freedom for the slave. An interesting factoid----US law bases its definition of MURDER on the biblical principle-----which is KILLING WITH hatred ------in US law that is called "mens rea" Accidental or unintentional or "in a perception of need for defense" killing is called "manslaughter" In biblical law manslaughter could end up in EXILE to a special reserve city-----

I'm not picking up what you're putting down.

Owning a human is never okay. It's never BEEN okay. Nevermind you're condoned in beating them in certain ways, owning different types for different amounts of years, and able to sell your newborns into it.

That the Bible lays down ground-rules for their human ownership is a direct contradiction to Moral absolutism. It's Religious moral relativism. Directly.

the ancient biblical scholars described the biblical legal code as morally
relative ------WEIRD HUH? I will try to give the idea to you in Hebrew
(gawd help me!!! ) -----Torah midaber b'lashon ha'am" the rough
translation is >>> torah---which means something like Knowledge and Law----
uses the language of the people-----which means ---something like ---'that
which people can understand' The idea is that it had to be presented
according to that which could be "INJESTED" by humans at the time.
Try not to be so concrete in your thinking. ----in short----it ain't as absolute
as you SO DESIRE

I dont desire that it's absolute. Im outright saying that it's relativistic, and youre agreeing with me. There's no excuse for slavery, slavery light or anything of its kind...and an eternal all knowing being would NOT "inspire" the codification of such. THATS the point.

Thats weird.

the fact that you are not SATISFIED with the incomplete and imperfect world----
is-----believe it or not------supposed to be good-----makes you a scholar of
the Talmudic flavor. Long ago-----some Talmudic scholar----whose name
escapes me-----decided to discard slavery. You, too, are eligible to work on
IMPROVING THE WORLD (tikkun). Tikkun is supposed to be a basic principle-------kinda like ENTROPY is the basic principle that describes my housekeeping
skills. Entropy is necessary to describe FREE WILL-------and general but
VITAL mess------see CHAOStheory

I'm discussing the Bible, not the world Rosie. If you'd like my views on other things, fire away. Ask questions. Kick around ideas with me, it's totally cool - but I dont classify "The Bible" as any type of handbook for understanding the World.

 

[G.T.]

You missed the point, Rosie.

Slavery, at all, is wrong.

The Bible being a work in progress makes it not the inspired word of God, as an ipso facto, especially if it does (it does) condone beating your slave. Even if that's later amended in another, separate book, it's damning for the Bible being the "inspired word of God," as well as damning for objective morality as defined as grounded in God itself.

Then, the selling your daughters into slavery thing...the slaves being born into slavery thing...the different slavery rules for non-hebrews, as though non-hebrews don't deserve the same human rights....thing.

There really is no good argument for the way that the Bible condones slavery. That it's got some loopholes as compared to antebellum slavery is besides the point - it actually misses the point entirely.

OK you have found flaws in the legal system of that time. You are insisting
that the bible be treated in Jewish law in the same manner that muslims treat
the Koran------as if DICTATED WORD BY WORD BY "gawd" AND ABSOLUTELY
ETERNAL. There are some americans who like to use the CONSTITUTION
OF THE USA in the same manner. An interesting factoid is that even the
Talmudic scholars did not promote that idea------back in the day. Even more
interesting-----there are some ??hadiths suggesting that muhummad suffered
from the same malady with which you are afflicted

I'm suggesting that if some of it is trash and full of holes, there's no compelling reason to believe its over-arching and un-proven claim, the big one. The one that professed to know how everything got here.

Slavery is just ONE reason, of the multitudes.

A no-----Hebrew girls could not be sold into slavery for life.
B. no-----the delightful explanation for that which bothers you----is
the TIKKUN thing------the universe is not "COMPLETE" ...yet, thus
neither is the subject which we call TORAH---which is knowledge and law

You're now equivocating - and changing "Daughters" to "Hebrew girls."

ANY girls being able to be sold = BAD

Equivocating misses the Forrest for the trees.

you are playing with semantics -----ok "daughters" ------even before DNA
confirmation of paternity

No, YOU were playing with semantics.

The old testament's slavery laws allow the selling of daughters into slavery...

you took that, and said not HEBREW daughters...

which misses the point: that selling ANY daughters, is a really shitty/fucked up thing to do...and it matters not if they're hebrew

 

[Meriweather]

Owning a human is never okay. It's never BEEN okay. Nevermind you're condoned in beating them in certain ways, owning different types for different amounts of years, and able to sell your newborns into it.

That the Bible lays down ground-rules for their human ownership is a direct contradiction to Moral absolutism. It's Religious moral relativism. Directly.

This focus is too narrow. First, Biblical slavery (versus Nineteenth Century Slavery) came about as solutions to security and indebtedness. What to do with the conquered people--kill them outright, drive them into the desert for a slow death, put them to work for their conquerors. Second, put someone in prison until the debt was paid off, or allow the debtor to offer himself as collateral until the debt was repaid? In this we see that Biblical slavery had--in its roots--good intentions. And, as with anything else that starts with good intentions, not so ethical people found ways to abuse it. Slavery became an economic reality in Biblical times. Yet, because of other Biblical laws by the time of Jesus, slaves in the Jewish culture had become rare indeed.

Compare it to abortion in our own time. There are those of us who are repulsed by the idea at all, yet at the same time we support laws that prohibit abortion from occurring say late in the pregnancy. This is not telling people how to get an abortion (just like the Biblical law was not telling people to beat their slaves) but an attempt to reign in abuse that was already occurring in society.

Clearly, slavery was already embedded in society by the time the Bible was written. How does God deal with what is? We can see that other of God's laws ate away at owning other people. It did not happen overnight, yet it did happen...through the Laws of God.

 

[irosie91]

not entirely-----it means that the person is not guilty of Murder----any injury--------and somehow anything that draws blood is considered
"injury" must be compensated. -----which would be a MONETARY ISSUE---
actual injury means freedom for the slave. An interesting factoid----US law bases its definition of MURDER on the biblical principle-----which is KILLING WITH hatred ------in US law that is called "mens rea" Accidental or unintentional or "in a perception of need for defense" killing is called "manslaughter" In biblical law manslaughter could end up in EXILE to a special reserve city-----

I'm not picking up what you're putting down.

Owning a human is never okay. It's never BEEN okay. Nevermind you're condoned in beating them in certain ways, owning different types for different amounts of years, and able to sell your newborns into it.

That the Bible lays down ground-rules for their human ownership is a direct contradiction to Moral absolutism. It's Religious moral relativism. Directly.

the ancient biblical scholars described the biblical legal code as morally
relative ------WEIRD HUH? I will try to give the idea to you in Hebrew
(gawd help me!!! ) -----Torah midaber b'lashon ha'am" the rough
translation is >>> torah---which means something like Knowledge and Law----
uses the language of the people-----which means ---something like ---'that
which people can understand' The idea is that it had to be presented
according to that which could be "INJESTED" by humans at the time.
Try not to be so concrete in your thinking. ----in short----it ain't as absolute
as you SO DESIRE

I dont desire that it's absolute. Im outright saying that it's relativistic, and youre agreeing with me. There's no excuse for slavery, slavery light or anything of its kind...and an eternal all knowing being would NOT "inspire" the codification of such. THATS the point.

Thats weird.

the fact that you are not SATISFIED with the incomplete and imperfect world----
is-----believe it or not------supposed to be good-----makes you a scholar of
the Talmudic flavor. Long ago-----some Talmudic scholar----whose name
escapes me-----decided to discard slavery. You, too, are eligible to work on
IMPROVING THE WORLD (tikkun). Tikkun is supposed to be a basic principle-------kinda like ENTROPY is the basic principle that describes my housekeeping
skills. Entropy is necessary to describe FREE WILL-------and general but
VITAL mess------see CHAOStheory

I'm discussing the Bible, not the world Rosie. If you'd like my views on other things, fire away. Ask questions. Kick around ideas with me, it's totally cool - but I dont classify "The Bible" as any type of handbook for understanding the World.

who does? The word "bible" means something like "book" in greek.
You want a book for understanding THE WORLD----read ON DREAMS
by Sigmund Freud and keep SHIVA in mind

 

[Meriweather]

The old testament's slavery laws allow the selling of daughters into slavery...

Okay. You are a very poor man in Biblical times. You cannot provide a dowry for you daughter(s). She is condemned to a life of poverty and most likely prostitution. You have a chance to sell her into a good family where she will be fed and clothed--and most likely become an additional wife to a rich man--or the wife of another servant--which still has more status and respect than a prostitute. What would you choose for your daughter?

 

[deanrd]

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

Slavery was not condemned in the Bible. In fact, the second quote is Timothy “in Jesus.
And this is actually why some African-Americans in the past have approved of slavery because Jesus approves of it.

I’m glad I could settle this question.

 

[ding]

You missed the point, Rosie.

Slavery, at all, is wrong.

The Bible being a work in progress makes it not the inspired word of God, as an ipso facto, especially if it does (it does) condone beating your slave. Even if that's later amended in another, separate book, it's damning for the Bible being the "inspired word of God," as well as damning for objective morality as defined as grounded in God itself.

Then, the selling your daughters into slavery thing...the slaves being born into slavery thing...the different slavery rules for non-hebrews, as though non-hebrews don't deserve the same human rights....thing.

There really is no good argument for the way that the Bible condones slavery. That it's got some loopholes as compared to antebellum slavery is besides the point - it actually misses the point entirely.

OK you have found flaws in the legal system of that time. You are insisting
that the bible be treated in Jewish law in the same manner that muslims treat
the Koran------as if DICTATED WORD BY WORD BY "gawd" AND ABSOLUTELY
ETERNAL. There are some americans who like to use the CONSTITUTION
OF THE USA in the same manner. An interesting factoid is that even the
Talmudic scholars did not promote that idea------back in the day. Even more
interesting-----there are some ??hadiths suggesting that muhummad suffered
from the same malady with which you are afflicted

I'm suggesting that if some of it is trash and full of holes, there's no compelling reason to believe its over-arching and un-proven claim, the big one. The one that professed to know how everything got here.

Slavery is just ONE reason, of the multitudes.

A no-----Hebrew girls could not be sold into slavery for life.
B. no-----the delightful explanation for that which bothers you----is
the TIKKUN thing------the universe is not "COMPLETE" ...yet, thus
neither is the subject which we call TORAH---which is knowledge and law

You're now equivocating - and changing "Daughters" to "Hebrew girls."

ANY girls being able to be sold = BAD

Equivocating misses the Forrest for the trees.

you are playing with semantics -----ok "daughters" ------even before DNA
confirmation of paternity

It seems to me that laws of the Jewish people were written for the Jewish people and were not written for their contemporaries who would not have followed the Jewish law anyway.

So for GT to argue that it should have been written for any daughter seems disingenuous.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

IIRC, the first slaveholder in the Bible was Abraham. If I'm not right, someone will correct me.

God put his own people into slavery for disobedience and he allowed his people to subdue other nations and take slaves. So, when, if ever, did it become a sin?

Slavery is not a sin. Kidnapping is a sin worthy of death. In the later years of American slavery, kidnapping was a common method of obtaining slaves. The victors of war are morally justified by Biblical standards to purchase and sell slaves. However, slavery is illegal in every single nation in the world so this debate is stupid.

It is widely accepted in the world today that slavery is wrong. The people owning slaves today are likely committing crimes in the nation where they dwell.

Even if slavery was wrong it doesn't matter. Most of the Biblical references to slavery is about how to act as a slave and how to act as a master. That's because some people were slaves and some were slave owners. It was a volatile type of human relationship. It probably needed to be addressed at that time.

Kidnapping in biblical times was FOR THE PURPOSE of obtaining slaves and it
was considered a serious crime (sorta like a felony) Legal Biblical slavery is not chattel slavery. It is more like indentured servitude of a limited term. It was
considered a really lousy situation.

Beating a human was alright because it wasn't chattel slavery?

This makes it justified?

Female Hebrews could be sold by their fathers into slavery for life.

That's okay?

Only kidnapping Hebrews was punishable. Non-Hebrew slaves had no such rules. Leviticus 25:44

If a male slave sold himself into mslavery to pay debt, and had kids while enslaved, the kids became his master's property permanently.

That's okay?

How about rules in exodus: If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.




Treating your human slaves "less bad" than they were traditionally treated....makes it OKAY for what the literal God of belief condones?



Religion

you are not entirely correct-----the issues are EXPOUNDED upon in the
Talmud which actually rules that INJURING A SLAVE in any way requires
that the slave be set free-----and paid for his time. The legal code of the
bible was-----according to scholars ----A WORK IN PROGRESS. ----that's
the basis of the weirdo idea of "tikkun" As to the issue of "permanent slavery"--
it is not clear to me that it was a fact for anyone

You missed the point, Rosie.

Slavery, at all, is wrong.

The Bible being a work in progress makes it not the inspired word of God, as an ipso facto, especially if it does (it does) condone beating your slave. Even if that's later amended in another, separate book, it's damning for the Bible being the "inspired word of God," as well as damning for objective morality as defined as grounded in God itself.

Then, the selling your daughters into slavery thing...the slaves being born into slavery thing...the different slavery rules for non-hebrews, as though non-hebrews don't deserve the same human rights....thing.

There really is no good argument for the way that the Bible condones slavery. That it's got some loopholes as compared to antebellum slavery is besides the point - it actually misses the point entirely.

Do you have any evidence that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God OR is that your personal belief?

 

[Taz]

Slavery is not a sin. Kidnapping is a sin worthy of death. In the later years of American slavery, kidnapping was a common method of obtaining slaves. The victors of war are morally justified by Biblical standards to purchase and sell slaves. However, slavery is illegal in every single nation in the world so this debate is stupid.

It is widely accepted in the world today that slavery is wrong. The people owning slaves today are likely committing crimes in the nation where they dwell.

Even if slavery was wrong it doesn't matter. Most of the Biblical references to slavery is about how to act as a slave and how to act as a master. That's because some people were slaves and some were slave owners. It was a volatile type of human relationship. It probably needed to be addressed at that time.

Kidnapping in biblical times was FOR THE PURPOSE of obtaining slaves and it
was considered a serious crime (sorta like a felony) Legal Biblical slavery is not chattel slavery. It is more like indentured servitude of a limited term. It was
considered a really lousy situation.

Beating a human was alright because it wasn't chattel slavery?

This makes it justified?

Female Hebrews could be sold by their fathers into slavery for life.

That's okay?

Only kidnapping Hebrews was punishable. Non-Hebrew slaves had no such rules. Leviticus 25:44

If a male slave sold himself into mslavery to pay debt, and had kids while enslaved, the kids became his master's property permanently.

That's okay?

How about rules in exodus: If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.




Treating your human slaves "less bad" than they were traditionally treated....makes it OKAY for what the literal God of belief condones?



Religion

you are not entirely correct-----the issues are EXPOUNDED upon in the
Talmud which actually rules that INJURING A SLAVE in any way requires
that the slave be set free-----and paid for his time. The legal code of the
bible was-----according to scholars ----A WORK IN PROGRESS. ----that's
the basis of the weirdo idea of "tikkun" As to the issue of "permanent slavery"--
it is not clear to me that it was a fact for anyone

You missed the point, Rosie.

Slavery, at all, is wrong.

The Bible being a work in progress makes it not the inspired word of God, as an ipso facto, especially if it does (it does) condone beating your slave. Even if that's later amended in another, separate book, it's damning for the Bible being the "inspired word of God," as well as damning for objective morality as defined as grounded in God itself.

Then, the selling your daughters into slavery thing...the slaves being born into slavery thing...the different slavery rules for non-hebrews, as though non-hebrews don't deserve the same human rights....thing.

There really is no good argument for the way that the Bible condones slavery. That it's got some loopholes as compared to antebellum slavery is besides the point - it actually misses the point entirely.

Do you have any evidence that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God OR is that your personal belief?

God wouldn't make gays and then tell people to hate them.

 

[G.T.]

Owning a human is never okay. It's never BEEN okay. Nevermind you're condoned in beating them in certain ways, owning different types for different amounts of years, and able to sell your newborns into it.

That the Bible lays down ground-rules for their human ownership is a direct contradiction to Moral absolutism. It's Religious moral relativism. Directly.

This focus is too narrow. First, Biblical slavery (versus Nineteenth Century Slavery) came about as solutions to security and indebtedness. What to do with the conquered people--kill them outright, drive them into the desert for a slow death, put them to work for their conquerors. Second, put someone in prison until the debt was paid off, or allow the debtor to offer himself as collateral until the debt was repaid? In this we see that Biblical slavery had--in its roots--good intentions. And, as with anything else that starts with good intentions, not so ethical people found ways to abuse it. Slavery became an economic reality in Biblical times. Yet, because of other Biblical laws by the time of Jesus, slaves in the Jewish culture had become rare indeed.

Compare it to abortion in our own time. There are those of us who are repulsed by the idea at all, yet at the same time we support laws that prohibit abortion from occurring say late in the pregnancy. This is not telling people how to get an abortion (just like the Biblical law was not telling people to beat their slaves) but an attempt to reign in abuse that was already occurring in society.

Clearly, slavery was already embedded in society by the time the Bible was written. How does God deal with what is? We can see that other of God's laws ate away at owning other people. It did not happen overnight, yet it did happen...through the Laws of God.

I'm going to take the focus off of the equivocation going on over what types of slavery there were and why - because there is a LOT of scholarship on that that firmly DISAGREES with what you had just written - - indebted slavery DID exist in the Ancient nearest but it was NOT the only kind - and it's NOT, also, the only kind the Bible is referring to and it CERTAINLY doesn't dismiss the allowance of selling CHILDREN into servitude...

Let's ignore all of that for a few moments and focus on some finer point here, that seems to be being missed:

The point is, is that if the Old Testament Slavery Laws were the inspired words of God - this eliminates any excuse whatsoever for condoning its occurrence and it also entails Religious Moral Relativism, as opposed to Objective Morality as grounded in said God's nature.

THAT'S the point, and it doesn't even need to be argued the varying degrees of severity of owning human slaves. Those things are an aside, but can in-fact, be argued.

I posted the video of a PhD in Ancient Near Eastern Culture who summarizes what's going on in regards to that aside. Slavery, yes in that form, was hideous. No two ways about it.

 

[G.T.]

Slavery is not a sin. Kidnapping is a sin worthy of death. In the later years of American slavery, kidnapping was a common method of obtaining slaves. The victors of war are morally justified by Biblical standards to purchase and sell slaves. However, slavery is illegal in every single nation in the world so this debate is stupid.

It is widely accepted in the world today that slavery is wrong. The people owning slaves today are likely committing crimes in the nation where they dwell.

Even if slavery was wrong it doesn't matter. Most of the Biblical references to slavery is about how to act as a slave and how to act as a master. That's because some people were slaves and some were slave owners. It was a volatile type of human relationship. It probably needed to be addressed at that time.

Kidnapping in biblical times was FOR THE PURPOSE of obtaining slaves and it
was considered a serious crime (sorta like a felony) Legal Biblical slavery is not chattel slavery. It is more like indentured servitude of a limited term. It was
considered a really lousy situation.

Beating a human was alright because it wasn't chattel slavery?

This makes it justified?

Female Hebrews could be sold by their fathers into slavery for life.

That's okay?

Only kidnapping Hebrews was punishable. Non-Hebrew slaves had no such rules. Leviticus 25:44

If a male slave sold himself into mslavery to pay debt, and had kids while enslaved, the kids became his master's property permanently.

That's okay?

How about rules in exodus: If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.




Treating your human slaves "less bad" than they were traditionally treated....makes it OKAY for what the literal God of belief condones?



Religion

you are not entirely correct-----the issues are EXPOUNDED upon in the
Talmud which actually rules that INJURING A SLAVE in any way requires
that the slave be set free-----and paid for his time. The legal code of the
bible was-----according to scholars ----A WORK IN PROGRESS. ----that's
the basis of the weirdo idea of "tikkun" As to the issue of "permanent slavery"--
it is not clear to me that it was a fact for anyone

You missed the point, Rosie.

Slavery, at all, is wrong.

The Bible being a work in progress makes it not the inspired word of God, as an ipso facto, especially if it does (it does) condone beating your slave. Even if that's later amended in another, separate book, it's damning for the Bible being the "inspired word of God," as well as damning for objective morality as defined as grounded in God itself.

Then, the selling your daughters into slavery thing...the slaves being born into slavery thing...the different slavery rules for non-hebrews, as though non-hebrews don't deserve the same human rights....thing.

There really is no good argument for the way that the Bible condones slavery. That it's got some loopholes as compared to antebellum slavery is besides the point - it actually misses the point entirely.

Do you have any evidence that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God OR is that your personal belief?

MY belief is besides the point, but yes that is my belief is that it's indeed NOT the inspired word of God.

The point is that it's a morally relativistic God. The caveman way of saying it is: "slavery ok then slavery bad"

I'm not gunna unga bunga, though.

And Rosie as well as Merri are making my point for me.

"it's because of the times"



DUH! It's because of the times. That IS, in fact, the entire point.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Kidnapping in biblical times was FOR THE PURPOSE of obtaining slaves and it
was considered a serious crime (sorta like a felony) Legal Biblical slavery is not chattel slavery. It is more like indentured servitude of a limited term. It was
considered a really lousy situation.

Beating a human was alright because it wasn't chattel slavery?

This makes it justified?

Female Hebrews could be sold by their fathers into slavery for life.

That's okay?

Only kidnapping Hebrews was punishable. Non-Hebrew slaves had no such rules. Leviticus 25:44

If a male slave sold himself into mslavery to pay debt, and had kids while enslaved, the kids became his master's property permanently.

That's okay?

How about rules in exodus: If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.




Treating your human slaves "less bad" than they were traditionally treated....makes it OKAY for what the literal God of belief condones?



Religion

you are not entirely correct-----the issues are EXPOUNDED upon in the
Talmud which actually rules that INJURING A SLAVE in any way requires
that the slave be set free-----and paid for his time. The legal code of the
bible was-----according to scholars ----A WORK IN PROGRESS. ----that's
the basis of the weirdo idea of "tikkun" As to the issue of "permanent slavery"--
it is not clear to me that it was a fact for anyone

You missed the point, Rosie.

Slavery, at all, is wrong.

The Bible being a work in progress makes it not the inspired word of God, as an ipso facto, especially if it does (it does) condone beating your slave. Even if that's later amended in another, separate book, it's damning for the Bible being the "inspired word of God," as well as damning for objective morality as defined as grounded in God itself.

Then, the selling your daughters into slavery thing...the slaves being born into slavery thing...the different slavery rules for non-hebrews, as though non-hebrews don't deserve the same human rights....thing.

There really is no good argument for the way that the Bible condones slavery. That it's got some loopholes as compared to antebellum slavery is besides the point - it actually misses the point entirely.

Do you have any evidence that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God OR is that your personal belief?

God wouldn't make gays and then tell people to hate them.

Who you choose to go to bed with is a personal choice. "God" don't make gays any more than he makes people thieves, fat girl chasers, or drug addicts. People have free will and do stuff like that of their own accord.

 

[G.T.]

I'm not picking up what you're putting down.

Owning a human is never okay. It's never BEEN okay. Nevermind you're condoned in beating them in certain ways, owning different types for different amounts of years, and able to sell your newborns into it.

That the Bible lays down ground-rules for their human ownership is a direct contradiction to Moral absolutism. It's Religious moral relativism. Directly.

the ancient biblical scholars described the biblical legal code as morally
relative ------WEIRD HUH? I will try to give the idea to you in Hebrew
(gawd help me!!! ) -----Torah midaber b'lashon ha'am" the rough
translation is >>> torah---which means something like Knowledge and Law----
uses the language of the people-----which means ---something like ---'that
which people can understand' The idea is that it had to be presented
according to that which could be "INJESTED" by humans at the time.
Try not to be so concrete in your thinking. ----in short----it ain't as absolute
as you SO DESIRE

I dont desire that it's absolute. Im outright saying that it's relativistic, and youre agreeing with me. There's no excuse for slavery, slavery light or anything of its kind...and an eternal all knowing being would NOT "inspire" the codification of such. THATS the point.

Thats weird.

the fact that you are not SATISFIED with the incomplete and imperfect world----
is-----believe it or not------supposed to be good-----makes you a scholar of
the Talmudic flavor. Long ago-----some Talmudic scholar----whose name
escapes me-----decided to discard slavery. You, too, are eligible to work on
IMPROVING THE WORLD (tikkun). Tikkun is supposed to be a basic principle-------kinda like ENTROPY is the basic principle that describes my housekeeping
skills. Entropy is necessary to describe FREE WILL-------and general but
VITAL mess------see CHAOStheory

I'm discussing the Bible, not the world Rosie. If you'd like my views on other things, fire away. Ask questions. Kick around ideas with me, it's totally cool - but I dont classify "The Bible" as any type of handbook for understanding the World.

who does? The word "bible" means something like "book" in greek.
You want a book for understanding THE WORLD----read ON DREAMS
by Sigmund Freud and keep SHIVA in mind

I'm happy to take-on your recommends, no worries.

 

[G.T.]

The old testament's slavery laws allow the selling of daughters into slavery...

Okay. You are a very poor man in Biblical times. You cannot provide a dowry for you daughter(s). She is condemned to a life of poverty and most likely prostitution. You have a chance to sell her into a good family where she will be fed and clothed--and most likely become an additional wife to a rich man--or the wife of another servant--which still has more status and respect than a prostitute. What would you choose for your daughter?

Freedom.

And as an aside, also in response: What you just elucidated was moral relativism. "Relative to "X," being sold into ownership is not so bad and "Slavery is wrong" is therefore not some absolute."

That's an argument against Moral Objectivity.

 

[Meriweather]

The point is, is that if the Old Testament Slavery Laws were the inspired words of God - this eliminates any excuse whatsoever for condoning its occurrence and it also entails Religious Moral Relativism, as opposed to Objective Morality as grounded in said God's nature.

The Bible did not deal in theory, but in reality. Moral Relativism and Objective Morality are later theories, similar to what occurs in the Sports world with Monday morning quarterbacking. My point (and belief) is that God does not look at the world or what is currently going on and then zaps it into proper order or behavior. Jesus once compared making a change to how yeast works...slowly, but in the end it leavens the entire loaf.

If something is in the works, is that moral relativism or objective morality? Perhaps that would be another debate for our Monday morning quarterbacking?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Kidnapping in biblical times was FOR THE PURPOSE of obtaining slaves and it
was considered a serious crime (sorta like a felony) Legal Biblical slavery is not chattel slavery. It is more like indentured servitude of a limited term. It was
considered a really lousy situation.

Beating a human was alright because it wasn't chattel slavery?

This makes it justified?

Female Hebrews could be sold by their fathers into slavery for life.

That's okay?

Only kidnapping Hebrews was punishable. Non-Hebrew slaves had no such rules. Leviticus 25:44

If a male slave sold himself into mslavery to pay debt, and had kids while enslaved, the kids became his master's property permanently.

That's okay?

How about rules in exodus: If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.




Treating your human slaves "less bad" than they were traditionally treated....makes it OKAY for what the literal God of belief condones?



Religion

you are not entirely correct-----the issues are EXPOUNDED upon in the
Talmud which actually rules that INJURING A SLAVE in any way requires
that the slave be set free-----and paid for his time. The legal code of the
bible was-----according to scholars ----A WORK IN PROGRESS. ----that's
the basis of the weirdo idea of "tikkun" As to the issue of "permanent slavery"--
it is not clear to me that it was a fact for anyone

You missed the point, Rosie.

Slavery, at all, is wrong.

The Bible being a work in progress makes it not the inspired word of God, as an ipso facto, especially if it does (it does) condone beating your slave. Even if that's later amended in another, separate book, it's damning for the Bible being the "inspired word of God," as well as damning for objective morality as defined as grounded in God itself.

Then, the selling your daughters into slavery thing...the slaves being born into slavery thing...the different slavery rules for non-hebrews, as though non-hebrews don't deserve the same human rights....thing.

There really is no good argument for the way that the Bible condones slavery. That it's got some loopholes as compared to antebellum slavery is besides the point - it actually misses the point entirely.

Do you have any evidence that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God OR is that your personal belief?

MY belief is besides the point, but yes that is my belief is that it's indeed NOT the inspired word of God.

The point is that it's a morally relativistic God. The caveman way of saying it is: "slavery ok then slavery bad"

I'm not gunna unga bunga, though.

And Rosie as well as Merri are making my point for me.

"it's because of the times"



DUH! It's because of the times. That IS, in fact, the entire point.

I think it is insulting to say that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God as if it were fact, so glad we could clear that up.

Whether slavery is right or wrong all depends upon the moral measuring rod you use. It also depends upon how you apply the definition. For example:

"Slavery, condition in which one human being was owned by another. A slave was considered by law as property, or chattel, and was deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons."

slavery | Definition, History, & Facts

So, if people hold other individuals in bondage and subjugation, then it is wrong, but if corporations or governments implement it, then it is acceptable?

We live under a yoke of bondage and slavery every day. Most of the time, it serves no purpose except to control people. Voters on both sides of the political aisle vote in favor of different aspects of this subjugation so I'm still trying to figure out what the reasoning is to claim that slavery is wrong.