Is Slavery Moral?

[DogmaHunter]

Hi we live in an era where bankruptcy and all is cool with no regard to who or how much you stiffed the other guy. most of history had debtor prisons so say you loaned a guy a large sum and he lost it he would be in prison until he paid the debt. This seems cruel but it also takes a very high regard for paying back what you borrow. So if you could not pay back you could become a slave and work off the debt. In this regard it is better than debtor prisons and better than taking no responsibility for the money you did not pay back. In war slavery was a better option than death. The slavery we had in the 18th century was certainly wrong as innocent people were kidnapped and forced into slavery for profit. In the new testament the idea of being a bond slave of Jesus is spoken off. This is cool. I do not think there will be slavery in the millennium.

Except slavery in the bible is not at all about paying of debts.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is false. Otherwise, please explain Leviticus 25:45-46, which also speaks about non Jewish people being kept for 'life', as 'slaves', and (also) being passed down to their children, and also being referred to as property.

This is also false, because the law states you could beat them, just as long as they did not die within two days, via Exodus 21:21. So I guess as long as you don't kill them, this is regulated sufficiently?

As long as you don't kill them directly, you mean.
If they died from the beating a week later in agony due to internal bleeding or severe head trauma for example - you're in the clear.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hebrew slavery was voluntary

1. non-hebrew slavery wasn't.

2. if you gave the hebrew slave a wife and children while he was a slave, the wife and children remained your property by the time the hebrew slave was to be set free. The hebrew then had a choice to make: either abbandon his wife and children, or "choose" to remain a slave for life. At which point you, as the master, should drive a nail through his ear and then he'll become your property forever (and your children will inherit the slaves, just like your house and other goods).

Read your bible.

and, as already explained, was a way to pay off debt or a way to make a living during tough economic times.

That is just false.

after a certain period of time slaves had to be set free and in some cases with compensation.

That's only true for hebrew slaves, and as explained above, there was a loophole where you as the master could blackmail the hebrew into becoming your slave for life. The slave's choice was literally freedom and abbandonment of his family on the one hand, or slavery for life together with his family on the other.

Such a moral system ey?

 

[dmmesdale]

1. non-hebrew slavery wasn't.

Actually it was. As in the case of Joshua 9 with the Gibeonites. Taking them in meant keeping them alive in most cases.

2. if you gave the hebrew slave a wife and children

The wife was nonHebrew.

while he was a slave, the wife and children remained your property by the time the hebrew slave was to be set free. The hebrew then had a choice to make: either abbandon his wife and children, or "choose" to remain a slave for life. At which point you, as the master, should drive a nail through his ear and then he'll become your property forever (and your children will inherit the slaves, just like your house and other goods).

Read your bible.

Don't know if there were the only two options since the indentured Servant could have stuck around and visited with wife and children or he could attempt to redeem. If the non-Hebrew converted then she was freed within seven yrs. They had rights in Israel.

That's only true for hebrew slaves, and as explained above, there was a loophole where you as the master could blackmail the hebrew into becoming your slave for life. The slave's choice was literally freedom and abbandonment of his family on the one hand, or slavery for life together with his family on the other.

Such a moral system ey?

It is not true the Bible condoned all slavery. It regulated certain types because slaves/indentured servants had rights from God to humane treatment. A limit on whippings for example means they could not be whipped to death or use as sex slaves to be discarded or sold like the surrounding nations. All them types not allowed as with stealing people. Thou shall not steal includes people. That means the type practiced yrs later in the west would have been illegal in Israel. All this will no doubt fall on deaf ears because the problem is really not with slavery but with the Bible which is despised. Besides, you have no basis for your so-called moral outrage given your start point. It carries no more weight than your opinion. Big-brained apes, by nature, are amoral.

 

[Allandavid]

It is not true the Bible condoned all slavery.

Yes it did actually...it simply had different rules for different categories of slaves. ALL people could be enslaved, but the Hebrews had to be treated differently to the foreigners...

A limit on whippings for example means they could not be whipped to death

Foreign slaves certainly could...as long as they lingered a few days before dying...!

Thou shall not steal includes people. That means the type practiced yrs later in the west would have been illegal in Israel.

Indeed it would, because you couldn’t steal a man to place him in slavery...but you could certainly buy him into slavery...!

All this will no doubt fall on deaf ears because the problem is really not with slavery but with the Bible which is despised.

If the bible is despised, it is because it condones, amongst other horrors, the ownership as property of fellow human beings...

 

[dmmesdale]

Yes it did actually...it simply had different rules for different categories of slaves. ALL people could be enslaved, but the Hebrews had to be treated differently to the foreigners...

So? The nonHebrew were provided rights whereas their counterparts in surrounding nations had zero rights.

Foreign slaves certainly could...as long as they lingered a few days before dying...!

Provide one instance where a slave was whipped to the point of dying? The only known instance was the Egyptian whipping a Hebrew in Exodus. If a slave was whipped to death then it is murder and it is blood for blood in the Old. Repeat stated over and over. If his tooth was knocked out he is freed. It was highly regulated for the benefit of the slave/servant.

Indeed it would, because you couldn’t steal a man to place him in slavery...but you could certainly buy him into slavery...!

That limitation would make slavery in the west illegal since it was based on man stealing. Punishment is death. They sold selves into slavery/servants because of poverty. So don't conflate slave auctions with what went on in ancient Israel.

If the bible is despised,

It is. There is no if about it. Slavery is simply a means to bash the Bible by Bible illiterates.

it is because it condones, amongst other horrors, the ownership as property of fellow human beings...

So what is wrong with big-brained apes owning other big-brained apes? Other than your opinion, that is?

Job 31:13-15 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
13 “If I have despised the claim of my male or female slaves
When they filed a complaint against me,
14 What then could I do when God arises?
And when He calls me to account, what will I answer Him?
15 “Did not He who made me in the womb make him,
And the same one fashion us in the womb?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

According to the Bible, the God of the holy Old Testament and New Testament seem to condone slavery (a few samples below):

OT: Exodus 21, Leviticus 25:46
NT: Luke 12:47, and Luke 17:7-10, John 13:16, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2

Does this mean slavery is moral?

Thank you in advance for the response(s).

I think the mistake is saying the Bible condones slavery. The word "condone" is false. Let's use a modern example. There are nations where prostitution is legal. Does this mean the citizens condone it?

There are conditions that are not condoned but cannot be entirely eliminated and so to reduce the evil, it is regulated. We can pick something that modern men do not think immoral at all, divorce. Most nations have divorce laws. Does that mean the government condons it. Come to think of it, the Bible has divorce laws too. Does that mean God condons it? What did Jesus say? He said in the beginning it was not so. We can say that God condons the state where a married man and woman are one flesh and no man should break that apart. God condons marriage according to the Bible. He tolerates other choices. Why? Because men's hearts are hard ("men" meaning both man and woman.) Tolerate and condone are not the same thing.

 

[Allandavid]

So? The nonHebrew were provided rights whereas their counterparts in surrounding nations had zero rights.

You seem confused here. That statement makes no sense...

Provide one instance where a slave was whipped to the point of dying? The only known instance was the Egyptian whipping a Hebrew in Exodus. If a slave was whipped to death then it is murder and it is blood for blood in the Old. Repeat stated over and over. If his tooth was knocked out he is freed. It was highly regulated for the benefit of the slave/servant.

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.“

You can indeed beat your slave to death, but you must do it in such a way that he survives for “a day or two”...

So compassionate....

That limitation would make slavery in the west illegal since it was based on man stealing. Punishment is death. They sold selves into slavery/servants because of poverty. So don't conflate slave auctions with what went on in ancient Israel.

Why do you assume that I equate Western slavery with that in the bible? They were different....and both were evil...!

It is. There is no if about it. Slavery is simply a means to bash the Bible by Bible illiterates.

Do you know what process creates most atheists...? Reading the bible...!

So what is wrong with big-brained apes owning other big-brained apes? Other than your opinion, that is?

If you have to sincerely ask that question, then I truly pity you...

 

[Allandavid]

I think the mistake is saying the Bible condons slavery. The word "condon" is false. Let's use a modern example. There are nations where prostitution is legal. Does this mean the citizens condone it?

There are conditions that are not condoned but cannot be entirely eliminated and so to reduce the evil, it is regulated. We can pick something that modern men do not think immoral at all, divorce. Most nations have divorce laws. Does that mean the government condons it. Come to think of it, the Bible has divorce laws too. Does that mean God condons it? What did Jesus say? He said in the beginning it was not so. We can say that God condons the state where a married man and woman are one flesh and no man should break that apart. God condons marriage according to the Bible. He tolerates other choices. Why? Because men's hearts are hard ("men" meaning both man and woman.) Tolerate and condone are not the same thing.

You seem to misunderstand the language (and it’s “condone” by the way). To condone IS to tolerate...it is to tolerate something that is usually considered immoral or offensive. The people writing the bible are claiming that a god condoned the practice of slavery...

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You seem to misunderstand the language (and it’s “condone” by the way). To condone IS to tolerate...it is to tolerate something that is usually considered immoral or offensive. The people writing the bible are claiming that a god condoned the practice of slavery...

Definition from the web:
Definition of condone
condoned; condoning
transitive verb
: to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless

Alllandavid, you seem to not understand the word "condone." Governments that regulate prostitution do not therefore think it is acceptable, forgivable or harmless. The word "tolerate" is not among the derfinitions.

God did not condone divorce or slavery. But it was tolerated because the heart of people can be very hard. If the OP had used "tolerate" it would have been a different question, hence "condone" was used to be able to accuse God of moral evil. "Tolerate" does not do that and so was not used in the OP. Slavery is not acceptable, forgivable or harmless in the eyes of God same as divorce.

 

[dmmesdale]

You seem confused here. That statement makes no sense...

There were slaves in surrounding countries that had no rights. Slaves/servants under Torah law had rights. The confusion is with you, not me.

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.“
You can indeed beat your slave to death, but you must do it in such a way that he survives for “a day or two”...

So compassionate....

Your understanding of the verse in question is superficial and just plain wrong. Now provide an example where any slave under Hebrew law was whipped relative to the verse in question. 2nd request.

Why do you assume that I equate Western slavery with that in the bible? They were different....and both were evil...!

Evil relative to what? Other than your opinion?

Do you know what process creates most atheists...? Reading the bible...!

You have no understanding of the Bible.

If you have to sincerely ask that question, then I truly pity you...

I do not care about your pity nor your unwelcome assessment. It is an underhanded personal attack which is all too typical. The question is valid and you did not answer because all you really have is opinion. That has no weight or relevance nor is there any reason to assume it has any value. Why should any big-brained ape care what you think about ancient cultures? What you do is ignore because your case is weak. Your outrage irrelevant. Big-brained apes owning weaker big-brained apes is about as outrageous as a rock falling off a cliff. It is perfectly natural given your start point of atheism. Even if you claim some sort of moral high ground (standing on air since there is no moral foundation) there is reason to modify since you have no anchor. Nothing that rationally binds you to any so-called conviction. Atheistic convictions are meaningless and can rationally change with the seasons. Your cherry picked critiques are examples of the fallacy of presentism.
Quote.
In literary and historical analysis, presentism is the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past.

 

[Allandavid]

Alllandavid, you seem to not understand the word "condone." Governments that regulate prostitution do not therefore think it is acceptable, forgivable or harmless. The word "tolerate" is not among the derfinitions.

Sigh.......

tolerate


See definition of tolerate

VERB
1‘their leader would not tolerate serious dissent’

SYNONYMS
allow, permit, authorize, sanction, condone, indulge, agree to, accede to, approve of

God did not condone divorce or slavery. But it was tolerated because the heart of people can be very hard.

As I showed above, those words are interchangeable. The bottom line is that, according to the claims, your god didn’t hesitate to intervene on other occasions when he considered that human ‘hearts’ were too ‘hard’. If he possessed the powers and the will that some people claim, he could have ended slavery in a second...AND replaced it with a more humane system.

If the OP had used "tolerate" it would have been a different question, hence "condone" was used to be able to accuse God of moral evil. "Tolerate" does not do that and so was not used in the OP. Slavery is not acceptable, forgivable or harmless in the eyes of God same as divorce.

Your understanding of these terms is poor and is therefore a weak basis to frame your argument...

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Sigh.......

tolerate


See definition of tolerate

VERB
1‘their leader would not tolerate serious dissent’

SYNONYMS
allow, permit, authorize, sanction, condone, indulge, agree to, accede to, approve of

Sigh! I guess the sublties of English are lost on you. Most people would not say that something they tolerate, they approve of. Yet there it is, in your mind the same. We had probably better move on because you do not see the difference between condone, tolerate, approve of, and authorize.

As I showed above, those words are interchangeable.

As above, you do not see the difference and think, therefore, there is none.

The bottom line is that, according to the claims, your god didn’t hesitate to intervene on other occasions when he considered that human ‘hearts’ were too ‘hard’.

When did I say that?

If he possessed the powers and the will that some people claim, he could have ended slavery in a second...AND replaced it with a more humane system.

I know the answer to this but since you do not understand the difference between tolerate and approve of, you will not understand something much deeper.

Your understanding of these terms is poor and is therefore a weak basis to frame your argument...

Said the pot...... Try substituting "you approved of that" to someone who merely had tolerated an action they disliked and see if they accept your accusation. This is testing your position in real life. If they agree that an action they thought they just tolerated they actually had approved of.

 

[Allandavid]

Sigh! I guess the sublties of English are lost on you. Most people would not say that something they tolerate, they approve of. Yet there it is, in your mind the same. We had probably better move on because you do not see the difference between condone, tolerate, approve of, and authorize.

That would be “subtleties”.........that’s ok, I can see you’re having difficulties...

Oh, and whilst I don’t usually sink to using dictionary definitions to pitch an argument, that quote showing that those two words are synonyms for one another is from the Oxford Dictionary....you know, English ‘n’ all....?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

That would be “subtleties”.........that’s ok, I can see you’re having difficulties...

The usual atheist ad hominem defense. Just tell someone who tolerated bad behaviour that they really approved of it and see how that works. See if they think the difference between tolerate and approve of is merely a subtle one. I am very sure you will not do so as it will not make you popular.

Oh, and whilst I don’t usually sink to using dictionary definitions to pitch an argument, that quote showing that those two words are synonyms for one another is from the Oxford Dictionary....you know, English ‘n’ all....?

Yes, I know. I used a thesarus for synonyms many years ago and know the difference between a definition and a synonym.

It is always surprising to me that atheists use the ad hominem attack over and over and never see it and rarely rise above it.

 

[cvanwey]

I think the mistake is saying the Bible condones slavery. The word "condone" is false. Let's use a modern example. There are nations where prostitution is legal. Does this mean the citizens condone it?

This is a bad example... Apparently, God is the law maker, not the citizens. The writers claim 'God' writes the laws of the Bible. My point, is that even you most likely disagree with any form of owning other humans as property. However, God 'condones' it. So what is your point?

Prostitution is legal in some states. You don't agree. Fine. But, you are not the law maker. So the state authoritatively condones it. You hit my point right on the head.

My point...? Is slavery moral? I bet you think it is not. And yet, the Bible condones slavery. Just like Nevada condones brothels, that you most likely disagree with. You can choose to attempt to change the law of Nevada, or move away. What happens if you don't agree with the practices of the Bible? This is why many no longer choose to accept the tenets of the Bible, or even ultimately become agnostic/skeptics/atheist/other...

 

[Dorothy Mae]

This is a bad example... Apparently, God is the law maker, not the citizens. The writers claim 'God' writes the laws of the Bible. My point, is that even you most likely disagree with any form of owning other humans as property. However, God 'condones' it. So what is your point?

He does not condone slavery. He regulates the diplorable state to reduce human suffering. He no more condones slavery that He condones adultery.

Prostitution is legal in some states. You don't agree.

What? You did not read my post. I said it is legal in some COUNTRYs. That is a fact. You need to be more careful when you accuse others of positions to see if they really said that. I said the opposite.

So the state authoritatively condones it. You hit my point right on the head.

Since most modern states are government by the people, and I know some people do not approve of it, the state does not condone it. It is regulated and allowed. Does not mean it is condoned.

My point...? Is slavery moral? I bet you think it is not. And yet, the Bible condones slavery.

This is just a repeat. The Bible does not condone slavery. You guys do not understand the word condone.

Just like Nevada condones brothels, that you most likely disagree with. You can choose to attempt to change the law of Nevada, or move away. What happens if you don't agree with the practices of the Bible? This is why many no longer choose to accept the tenets of the Bible, or even ultimately become agnostic/skeptics/atheist/other...

It is more likely the reason you hint at, they love the sin of brothels and gambling and other things being a child of God would prevent one from enjoying. That is a more likely reason.

But hey, accusing God of evil eases the conscience as one pursures morally wrong choices.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

My point...? Is slavery moral?

Yes. Early civilizations forming during the Neolithic needed a means to task some people the menial or physically strenuous tasks to that the ruling classes would have sufficient time to do their work of directing society, and until the emergence of the feudal system in medieval Europe, that meant slavery. No need to whitewash it. If you were a slave, life usually sucked. Still, we'd couldn't have moved past the stone age without it. When it arose, it was actually a step up, because before slavery, people captured by enemy tribes were usually killed on the spot and possibly eaten afterwards.

The abolition of slavery didn't come about because people decided that it was wrong. Rather it was the emergence of other forms of labor relations gave us the luxury of worrying about whether it was right or wrong. How easy it is to condemn slavery today - now that we have machines to do the work that slaves used to do!

 

[cvanwey]

Yes. Early civilizations forming during the Neolithic needed a means to task some people the menial or physically strenuous tasks to that the ruling classes would have sufficient time to do their work of directing society, and until the emergence of the feudal system in medieval Europe, that meant slavery. No need to whitewash it. If you were a slave, life usually sucked. Still, we'd couldn't have moved past the stone age without it. When it arose, it was actually a step up, because before slavery, people captured by enemy tribes were usually killed on the spot and possibly eaten afterwards.

The abolition of slavery didn't come about because people decided that it was wrong. Rather it was the emergence of other forms of labor relations gave us the luxury of worrying about whether it was right or wrong. How easy it is to condemn slavery today - now that we have machines to do the work that slaves used to do!

You sound very rational. Except:

Leviticus 25:44-46 New International Version (NIV)
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.

(and...)

Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version (NIV)
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.

************

Since truth is objective, this rule can still apply today, and forever. So if I 'buy' your wife today, because I need labor in my country, it is objectively okay I don't even really need your permission. I'm from a far away land; a third world country. I need labor. As long as you are not an Israelite, I'm golden in God's eyes...

 

[cvanwey]

He does not condone slavery. He regulates the diplorable state to reduce human suffering. He no more condones slavery that He condones adultery.
What? You did not read my post. I said it is legal in some COUNTRYs. That is a fact. You need to be more careful when you accuse others of positions to see if they really said that. I said the opposite.
Since most modern states are government by the people, and I know some people do not approve of it, the state does not condone it. It is regulated and allowed. Does not mean it is condoned.
This is just a repeat. The Bible does not condone slavery. You guys do not understand the word condone.
It is more likely the reason you hint at, they love the sin of brothels and gambling and other things being a child of God would prevent one from enjoying. That is a more likely reason.

But hey, accusing God of evil eases the conscience as one pursures morally wrong choices.

We are just going in circles at this point. Please read the entire thread. It's very long. We keep going in circles here..... I'm not going to answer the same questions over and over. Please take the time to read the thread, if you are going to place a response. Please add something new.... Not what was already debunked 100 posts ago...