Was slavery condemned in the Bible?

[Taz]

God wants to enslave all of mankind to his will. So says the bible.

I had no clue!

Please post where the bible says that.

tia

That's the whole point of the bible, to get people to obey god, and thus, to be enslaved by god's will.

 

[Meriweather]

Sure you did, you did exactly that...you offered an excuse (dealing with the times) for a Deity to condone an immoral act, not only that but Codify it into Law. That's the literal definition of relativism. "relative to these times, this was what they had to do so its okay that God codified it"

I think it might be very hard to find where I said God condoned or codified such a law.

 

[Taz]

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.

God is omnipotent and accountable to nobody. If He wanted to make gays and then tell people to hate them then He could totally do that.

On what basis do you have to believe that He wouldn't do things that you don't like? Humans do things that you don't like. A god would have even more autonomy than a human.

Then god is a douchebag and a total sack of shit.

 

[presonorek]

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.

God is omnipotent and accountable to nobody. If He wanted to make gays and then tell people to hate them then He could totally do that.

On what basis do you have to believe that He wouldn't do things that you don't like. Humans do things that you don't like. A god would have even more autonomy than a human.

God is a theory, and you are here asserting what are and are not its "powers," which is a completely ridiculous exercise.

Taz was referring to the God of Biblical literature. I used that identical literary reference that Taz used.

 

[G.T.]

Sure you did, you did exactly that...you offered an excuse (dealing with the times) for a Deity to condone an immoral act, not only that but Codify it into Law. That's the literal definition of relativism. "relative to these times, this was what they had to do so its okay that God codified it"

I think it might be very hard to find where I said God condoned or codified such a law.

Well, that makes sense then. I guess we're in complete agreement if that's not your belief.

 

[Meriweather]

Aside from the "sin" part, I mostly agree. I just don't believe in Sin.

How are you defining sin? I was taught (along with archery) that sometimes we don't hit the bullseye or the ideal. That miss of hitting the ideal is what we call sin. It is simple acknowledgement that we did not hit the ideal (which is hard to do), just as it is hard to always hit the bullseye on an archery target.

 

[Meriweather]

Not even the Book inspired by the Divine's words? Because that's what we're discussing.

If we're going to venture off into the abstract, thats fine and we might as well do that at this point because our views are mostly in accord with one another, on the topic.

Especially not a book inspired by God or the Divine. Why? Because God always allows for exceptions and each of us is convinced that we should be that exception. Have you ever known a person who doesn't look for the exception, doesn't want to be the exception?

 

[G.T.]

Aside from the "sin" part, I mostly agree. I just don't believe in Sin.

How are you defining sin? I was taught (along with archery) that sometimes we don't hit the bullseye or the ideal. That miss of hitting the ideal is what we call sin. It is simple acknowledgement that we did not hit the ideal (which is hard to do), just as it is hard to always hit the bullseye on an archery target.

Well, there's different ways of using terms - I suppose. I don't believe in the colloquial usage, I don't believe in what "sin" is as according to anyone's Religious text.

I do believe morals are objective, but by objective I mean an unbiased review of cause and effect as versus a goal.

I believe that if one bases their morality on any Religious Deity, they're Subjective i.e. based on that specific Subject and open to their whims. Whims such as..."these rules are good for hebrews, but not for others. these rules are good for today, but not after the new covenant." Crappola like that.

 

[Taz]

Not even the Book inspired by the Divine's words? Because that's what we're discussing.

If we're going to venture off into the abstract, thats fine and we might as well do that at this point because our views are mostly in accord with one another, on the topic.

Especially not a book inspired by God or the Divine. Why? Because God always allows for exceptions and each of us is convinced that we should be that exception. Have you ever known a person who doesn't look for the exception, doesn't want to be the exception?

I thought god made deformed and retard babies as the exceptions.

 

[G.T.]

Not even the Book inspired by the Divine's words? Because that's what we're discussing.

If we're going to venture off into the abstract, thats fine and we might as well do that at this point because our views are mostly in accord with one another, on the topic.

Especially not a book inspired by God or the Divine. Why? Because God always allows for exceptions and each of us is convinced that we should be that exception. Have you ever known a person who doesn't look for the exception, doesn't want to be the exception?

It depends on what circumstance you're referring to.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

This is also one thing, Slavery, condoned in the Old Testament that's abhorrent by today's standards.


THERE ARE PLENTY MORE

I agree with your assessment, but I don't understand what is driving this concept of having changing morals. That is an advantage the people who are Bible believers have over you. Their moral standards, whether we agree or disagree; believe or disbelieve, are unchangeable. AND, they have an origination point.

A belief in God, heterosexuals and the man / wife, children, home with a picket fence, mom, apple pie, and unalienable Rights WERE the moral standards only 50 years ago. Now, such things are repugnant to the majority.

During this country's history with slavery, the average slave ate better, had better living quarters, dressed better and was just as healthy as his white skinned, blue collar contemporaries. When slavers brought a family of slaves into this country, they were sold as a lot most of the time and slaves were even given a stipend as incentives to be more productive. Am I glamorizing slavery? When I tell you about most Americans lives that live in slavery, will you then try to marginalize or justify it?

 

[G.T.]

This is also one thing, Slavery, condoned in the Old Testament that's abhorrent by today's standards.


THERE ARE PLENTY MORE

I agree with your assessment, but I don't understand what is driving this concept of having changing morals. That is an advantage the people who are Bible believers have over you. Their moral standards, whether we agree or disagree; believe or disbelieve, are unchangeable. AND, they have an origination point.

A belief in God, heterosexuals and the man / wife, children, home with a picket fence, mom, apple pie, and unalienable Rights WERE the moral standards only 50 years ago. Now, such things are repugnant to the majority.

During this country's history with slavery, the average slave ate better, had better living quarters, dressed better and was just as healthy as his white skinned, blue collar contemporaries. When slavers brought a family of slaves into this country, they were sold as a lot most of the time and slaves were even given a stipend as incentives to be more productive. Am I glamorizing slavery? When I tell you about most Americans lives that live in slavery, will you then try to marginalize or justify it?

That was incoherent. The Biblical morals DID change.

You just called them unchangable, and scripted an entire post based on as much.

Did change.
DID change.

That's the point. Jeezeeeeeeee

 

[Porter Rockwell]

This is also one thing, Slavery, condoned in the Old Testament that's abhorrent by today's standards.


THERE ARE PLENTY MORE

I agree with your assessment, but I don't understand what is driving this concept of having changing morals. That is an advantage the people who are Bible believers have over you. Their moral standards, whether we agree or disagree; believe or disbelieve, are unchangeable. AND, they have an origination point.

A belief in God, heterosexuals and the man / wife, children, home with a picket fence, mom, apple pie, and unalienable Rights WERE the moral standards only 50 years ago. Now, such things are repugnant to the majority.

During this country's history with slavery, the average slave ate better, had better living quarters, dressed better and was just as healthy as his white skinned, blue collar contemporaries. When slavers brought a family of slaves into this country, they were sold as a lot most of the time and slaves were even given a stipend as incentives to be more productive. Am I glamorizing slavery? When I tell you about most Americans lives that live in slavery, will you then try to marginalize or justify it?

That was incoherent. The Biblical morals DID change.

You just called them unchangable, and scripted an entire post based on as much.

Did change.
DID change.

That's the point. Jeezeeeeeeee

You may have interpreted them that way; however, consider this:

" For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." Malachi 3: 6

 

[anynameyouwish]

This is also one thing, Slavery, condoned in the Old Testament that's abhorrent by today's standards.


THERE ARE PLENTY MORE

I agree with your assessment, but I don't understand what is driving this concept of having changing morals. That is an advantage the people who are Bible believers have over you. Their moral standards, whether we agree or disagree; believe or disbelieve, are unchangeable. AND, they have an origination point.

A belief in God, heterosexuals and the man / wife, children, home with a picket fence, mom, apple pie, and unalienable Rights WERE the moral standards only 50 years ago. Now, such things are repugnant to the majority.

During this country's history with slavery, the average slave ate better, had better living quarters, dressed better and was just as healthy as his white skinned, blue collar contemporaries. When slavers brought a family of slaves into this country, they were sold as a lot most of the time and slaves were even given a stipend as incentives to be more productive. Am I glamorizing slavery? When I tell you about most Americans lives that live in slavery, will you then try to marginalize or justify it?

"A belief in God, heterosexuals and the man / wife, children, home with a picket fence, mom, apple pie, and unalienable Rights WERE the moral standards only 50 years ago. Now, such things are repugnant to the majority."


repugnant?

you have to be a conservative....because only a very deranged brain would say something like that.

MOST people are in THOSE types of relationships; couples with or without childrn, homes, fences, backyards, and most people consider themselves religious.

these things are NOT repugnant.

We just modified them a bit; don't care if people marry or not, don't care if they do or do not have kids....and we don't care if they are religious.

but NOT repugnant.

"During this country's history with slavery, the average slave ate better, had better living quarters, dressed better and was just as healthy as his white skinned, blue collar contemporaries. When slavers brought a family of slaves into this country, they were sold as a lot most of the time and slaves were even given a stipend as incentives to be more productive. Am I glamorizing slavery? When I tell you about most Americans lives that live in slavery, will you then try to marginalize or justify it? "


Ok....then why do conservatives whine about being ENSLAVED by liberals?

I mean...if slaves had it so good.....why don't you want to be one?

 

[Meriweather]

Well, there's different ways of using terms - I suppose. I don't believe in the colloquial usage, I don't believe in what "sin" is as according to anyone's Religious text.

I do believe morals are objective, but by objective I mean an unbiased review of cause and effect as versus a goal.

I believe that if one bases their morality on any Religious Deity, they're Subjective i.e. based on that specific Subject and open to their whims. Whims such as..."these rules are good for hebrews, but not for others. these rules are good for today, but not after the new covenant." Crappola like that.

Well, the Catholic religious text is "missing the mark or the ideal". It comes from the Hebrew translation. I was taught that as a Catholic School child, and I haven't heard that it has changed. We are also taught that we miss this ideal through our own fault, not the fault of parents, society, peers, etc.

I am not sure what whims you feel God has. People have quite a few...such as, anyone can read and interpret the Bible by themselves with the aid of the Holy Spirit. Pure crock. It takes time, research, study into ancient civilizations and cultures, languages, and history. It takes being willing to step out of Modern Western, 21st Century perspectives and back into time where information was not conveyed in newspaper form, Encyclopedias, textbooks, etc. but in story form. If snakes and donkeys do not talk today, we may be certain nor did they speak then. Inspired by God or not, these stories contain human biases, human perspectives that were held back in the days in which they were written.

Does the Bible contain the Divine spark? Was it inspired by God? Absolutely. It was (just as importantly) written by men in a way that men of that time could relate to and understand. Who was the original audience? What did that author wish to convey to that original audience? How did the story grow to become inclusive and appealing to an even larger audience? All of this is vital if we are to understand the Word of God.

 

[anynameyouwish]

This is also one thing, Slavery, condoned in the Old Testament that's abhorrent by today's standards.


THERE ARE PLENTY MORE

I agree with your assessment, but I don't understand what is driving this concept of having changing morals. That is an advantage the people who are Bible believers have over you. Their moral standards, whether we agree or disagree; believe or disbelieve, are unchangeable. AND, they have an origination point.

A belief in God, heterosexuals and the man / wife, children, home with a picket fence, mom, apple pie, and unalienable Rights WERE the moral standards only 50 years ago. Now, such things are repugnant to the majority.

During this country's history with slavery, the average slave ate better, had better living quarters, dressed better and was just as healthy as his white skinned, blue collar contemporaries. When slavers brought a family of slaves into this country, they were sold as a lot most of the time and slaves were even given a stipend as incentives to be more productive. Am I glamorizing slavery? When I tell you about most Americans lives that live in slavery, will you then try to marginalize or justify it?

That was incoherent. The Biblical morals DID change.

You just called them unchangable, and scripted an entire post based on as much.

Did change.
DID change.

That's the point. Jeezeeeeeeee

as you state, the whole point of NT was about the CHANGES from the OT!

apparently god is a moral relativist.


as are his mindless minions.

 

[G.T.]

Well, there's different ways of using terms - I suppose. I don't believe in the colloquial usage, I don't believe in what "sin" is as according to anyone's Religious text.

I do believe morals are objective, but by objective I mean an unbiased review of cause and effect as versus a goal.

I believe that if one bases their morality on any Religious Deity, they're Subjective i.e. based on that specific Subject and open to their whims. Whims such as..."these rules are good for hebrews, but not for others. these rules are good for today, but not after the new covenant." Crappola like that.

Well, the Catholic religious text is "missing the mark or the ideal". It comes from the Hebrew translation. I was taught that as a Catholic School child, and I haven't heard that it has changed. We are also taught that we miss this ideal through our own fault, not the fault of parents, society, peers, etc.

I am not sure what whims you feel God has. People have quite a few...such as, anyone can read and interpret the Bible by themselves with the aid of the Holy Spirit. Pure crock. It takes time, research, study into ancient civilizations and cultures, languages, and history. It takes being willing to step out of Modern Western, 21st Century perspectives and back into time where information was not conveyed in newspaper form, Encyclopedias, textbooks, etc. but in story form. If snakes and donkeys do not talk today, we may be certain nor did they speak then. Inspired by God or not, these stories contain human biases, human perspectives that were held back in the days in which they were written.

Does the Bible contain the Divine spark? Was it inspired by God? Absolutely. It was (just as importantly) written by men in a way that men of that time could relate to and understand. Who was the original audience? What did that author wish to convey to that original audience? How did the story grow to become inclusive and appealing to an even larger audience? All of this is vital if we are to understand the Word of God.

I don't believe that any of it is true, so that's where we differ but I do believe we likely share many of the same ideals and stuff. You're very nice, I def. appreciate that

 

[Porter Rockwell]

This is also one thing, Slavery, condoned in the Old Testament that's abhorrent by today's standards.


THERE ARE PLENTY MORE

I agree with your assessment, but I don't understand what is driving this concept of having changing morals. That is an advantage the people who are Bible believers have over you. Their moral standards, whether we agree or disagree; believe or disbelieve, are unchangeable. AND, they have an origination point.

A belief in God, heterosexuals and the man / wife, children, home with a picket fence, mom, apple pie, and unalienable Rights WERE the moral standards only 50 years ago. Now, such things are repugnant to the majority.

During this country's history with slavery, the average slave ate better, had better living quarters, dressed better and was just as healthy as his white skinned, blue collar contemporaries. When slavers brought a family of slaves into this country, they were sold as a lot most of the time and slaves were even given a stipend as incentives to be more productive. Am I glamorizing slavery? When I tell you about most Americans lives that live in slavery, will you then try to marginalize or justify it?

"A belief in God, heterosexuals and the man / wife, children, home with a picket fence, mom, apple pie, and unalienable Rights WERE the moral standards only 50 years ago. Now, such things are repugnant to the majority."


repugnant?

you have to be a conservative....because only a very deranged brain would say something like that.

MOST people are in THOSE types of relationships; couples with or without childrn, homes, fences, backyards, and most people consider themselves religious.

these things are NOT repugnant.

We just modified them a bit; don't care if people marry or not, don't care if they do or do not have kids....and we don't care if they are religious.

but NOT repugnant.

"During this country's history with slavery, the average slave ate better, had better living quarters, dressed better and was just as healthy as his white skinned, blue collar contemporaries. When slavers brought a family of slaves into this country, they were sold as a lot most of the time and slaves were even given a stipend as incentives to be more productive. Am I glamorizing slavery? When I tell you about most Americans lives that live in slavery, will you then try to marginalize or justify it? "


Ok....then why do conservatives whine about being ENSLAVED by liberals?

I mean...if slaves had it so good.....why don't you want to be one?

I don't know if I qualify as being right wing; the right wing don't think so. I'm persona non grata at their functions and people dare not utter my name - though I admittedly WAS conservative up to the early 2000s when those who WERE conservative adopted another set of values. If it makes you happy to accuse me of that, it's okay by me, except that I don't have a clue as to what conservatives are wailing about because I don't read their B.S., don't hang with them, and don't listen to them on radio or watch them on tv.

That being said, I'm sorry, but in every area of entertainment, it caters to inter-racial relationships, gays, transgender, etc., etc. I don't have cable or satellite tv (just the old antenna), but what stations I do get don't have any recent shows that cater to your generic WASP family. Nope... there has to be an inter-racial couple, the obligatory gay or transgender and one show I watched had all that plus the handicapped guy, an overweight woman, an undocumented worker, senile elderly people, a Jewish kid, and the only white males are depicted as being dumber than a bag of hammers.

If the guy who is straight and married wants to hang with others of like mind, even you jump out of your chair and began hurling insults - i.e. a deranged mind. Because I notice that America is less tolerant of the values this country was built on, I'm deranged???? Surely you jest.

I am a slave; I don't enjoy it and I don't blame the liberals. The Republicans wanted the income tax. The Republicans wanted the National ID / REAL ID Act E Verify so that human beings could be registered and treated like the property of Uncle Scam. It is the Republicans wanting government to dictate who a company should and should not hire. It was the Republicans that illegally ratified the 14th Amendment which, in turn, repealed the Bill of Rights. And now, the Republicans have voted in the most anti-gun president in the history of the United States.

In my world, I look at differently than you. The Democrats want things to happen, but the Republicans make them happen. I'm only confused by the fight. Both the left and the right are going to the same destination; only by different routes. BOTH sides are all about human enslavement. Neither side can claim any moral high ground.

The Democrat wants my gun; the Republicans obsess over controlling my property; Democrats find my views repulsive and would criminalize me even saying aloud what I think; Republicans censor me and refuse anyone to dissent from the party line. When it comes to left v. right, I don't even know what the two sides are fighting about when both find the values (which used to include unalienable Rights - and that is inclusive of Liberty) to be antithetical to this new generation.

 

[Meriweather]

I don't believe that any of it is true, so that's where we differ but I do believe we likely share many of the same ideals and stuff. You're very nice, I def. appreciate that

If I am nice, then it is because I am responding in kind to another very nice person. I believe the Bible presents the truth of human nature, human interaction and honest lessons for us. I find the intelligence and storytelling abilities of ancient man to be astounding--Genesis is sheer genius (unless one takes it literally).

What is amusing (while at the same time ironic) is how the Bible explains God cannot be contained, He is not human, He does not have human form or human emotions...and then proceeds to portray Him in precisely that way. The other thing that is difficult for us to absorb is that there was no separation of Church and State, people couldn't even imagine such a thing, and nor could they imagine the scientific advances that are common knowledge today (floods, earthquakes, volcanoes are natural disasters, not sent by God).

Even so, in their stories we see precisely the same reactions we see today when we face disaster. Disaster illuminates how we could have done better; it leaves us with a sense of survivor's guilt; like Noah's family, we are introduced to two dichotomies: Which is better, to keep family matters private or to publicly admit Dad has a drinking problem and needs the help of the community?

We lose all that when we get into the ridiculous debates about the flood being about God killing innocent babies.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

This is also one thing, Slavery, condoned in the Old Testament that's abhorrent by today's standards.


THERE ARE PLENTY MORE

I agree with your assessment, but I don't understand what is driving this concept of having changing morals. That is an advantage the people who are Bible believers have over you. Their moral standards, whether we agree or disagree; believe or disbelieve, are unchangeable. AND, they have an origination point.

A belief in God, heterosexuals and the man / wife, children, home with a picket fence, mom, apple pie, and unalienable Rights WERE the moral standards only 50 years ago. Now, such things are repugnant to the majority.

During this country's history with slavery, the average slave ate better, had better living quarters, dressed better and was just as healthy as his white skinned, blue collar contemporaries. When slavers brought a family of slaves into this country, they were sold as a lot most of the time and slaves were even given a stipend as incentives to be more productive. Am I glamorizing slavery? When I tell you about most Americans lives that live in slavery, will you then try to marginalize or justify it?

That was incoherent. The Biblical morals DID change.

You just called them unchangable, and scripted an entire post based on as much.

Did change.
DID change.

That's the point. Jeezeeeeeeee

as you state, the whole point of NT was about the CHANGES from the OT!

apparently god is a moral relativist.


as are his mindless minions.

If you believe that, I can only say I am sorry for you.