Is Slavery Moral?

[devolved]

That is simply not true.
Read your bible.


Leviticus 25:44-46
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.

Yes, and again you are detaching the context from voluntary contract. And you are attempting to carry over the modern baggage of slavery which does not apply.

In the past, there was no "job market". These were largely feudal agrarian societies, and you had two choices:

1) Cultivate land in your family clan
2) Hire yourself out to family clans as a worker-servant
3) Sell yourself into voluntary servitude for a certain period, or for life.

Of course there were other contexts like "results of war" and prison sentences, which carry different context, but still there is context of security via participation in some familiar enterprise.

In modern context the verse above would be equvalent to:

You can import workforce from outside of the country. You have to house and feed and provide for them. They are your possession/responsibility. Your sons may inherit your employees as a familiar enterprise.

BUT

There's no indication that 7 year rule does not apply if that's what slaves choose to do. Most of them would not choose to do so for sense of "job/life security". They could leave, and there's a direct command not to return them to their masters against their will.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

You seem to imply that masters were running around beating their slaves with sticks and this chunk of text validates such behavior . That word property... is literally translated as "money", as in owed debt. In legal context it would mean:

First of all, you should contextualize it with this:

When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.

-Exodus 21:26-27

The above is not merely applied with "eye" or "tooth". It comes after a metaphorical "eye for an eye" and "tooth for tooth" justice system.

What Exodus 21:20-21 is talking about is DEATH PENALTY. Do we kill the master who kills his slave? If yes, then master is put to death.

If slave survives the beating, as per the legal constraints of the -Exodus 21:26-27 would automatically set them free, because the master broke the contract.

If the slave dies after a couple of days after the incident... the reasoning is that it's unclear as to whether they would die as a result of beating, or if they died of some other causes. Therefore it's not sufficient to convict someone with death penalty.

The context is quite different from "you own these people, and you do with them whatever you want. The word property is actually literally translates to "payment/money".

 

[devolved]

What tripe...

You completely ignore the situation described to you concerning FOREIGN SLAVES. There is no “contract” there...they were bought and sold as property, they could be passed on down to children and they could be beaten to death, provided they survived over the weekend before dying...

I didn't. See the post above. Again, this is another case of projecting your present understanding on sociology and legal systems of the past.

1) The immediate context of "Foreign slaves" is not .... drive over to Mexico and buy some slaves off the market.

There were no clearly defined national borders. Countries and regions were defined by territorial allegiances between tribal entities that were comprised of family clans.

When these laws were outlined in context of Exodus, the context is "doing business" with surrounding tribes.

Business relationships in the past revolved around:

1) Trading goods, and animals
2) Trading workforce
3) Securing relationships through marriages

The entirety of Exodus 25 deals with guidelines for business relationships internally and externally.

For example....

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.

What do you think the above means? You just buy a random person walking on the street?

I grew up in Turkmenistan, where locals still save up $50,000 as a dowry payment for a wife for their son. Would that be an example of sex slave trading?

Understand the context of the culture first, and then we can have some nuanced conversation. Otherwise you are merely triggered by your own projections on the subject matter.

 

[Skreeper]

I didn't. See the post above. Again, this is another case of projecting your present understanding on sociology and legal systems of the past.

1) The immediate context of "Foreign slaves" is not .... drive over to Mexico and buy some slaves off the market.

There were no clearly defined national borders. Countries and regions were defined by territorial allegiances between tribal entities that were comprised of family clans.

When these laws were outlined in context of Exodus, the context is "doing business" with surrounding tribes.

Business relationships in the past revolved around:

1) Trading goods, and animals
2) Trading workforce
3) Securing relationships through marriages

The entirety of Exodus 25 deals with guidelines for business relationships internally and externally.

For example....

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.

What do you think the above means? You just buy a random person walking on the street?

I grew up in Turkmenistan, where locals still save up $50,000 as a dowry payment for a wife for their son. Would that be an example of sex slave trading?

Understand the context of the culture first, and then we can have some nuanced conversation. Otherwise you are merely triggered by your own projections on the subject matter.

I must say slavery apologetics nowadays become more and more elaborate.

I know it must be hard having to accept that your holy book teaches immoral practices. At least you put some effort into finding excuses.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sure, and OT slavery as describe carries attributes of justice and mercy in context of contractual agreement between human beings in CONTEXT OF THEIR IMMEDIATE ENVIRONMENT.

When you BUY slaves from another slave owner, then you are not drafting a contract between the slave and the new owner.

Instead, you are simply engaging in a commercial transaction between the you and the other owner. The slave has no say in the proceedings. That's kind of the thing of being a slave that is treated like a product: (s)he has no say in anything.

You are very much detached from it, hence it's very difficult for you to understand as to why someone would submit themselves to servitude over debt payments or as means for "prison sentence" type of punishment.

You continue talking about this debt thing and servitude, but that is not what I am talking about. Read Leviticus 44-46. That's not about "debt" or "servitude".

That is just meeting up with another slave owner and buying slaves from him.
Those slaves don't have any debt towards you.
You're just buying them from their own, just like you would buy a house or a car or a cow.

Hence, it would be an equivalent of someone agreeing to be your butler for X number of years as means to repay for a car wreck.

The slaves you buy as per Leviticus 44-46, didn't agree to anything nore do they owe you any money for whatever reason.

If they wrote a butler services IOU that you could sell to someone else, you could sell their services to someone else.

Leviticus 44-46 says nothing of the sort.
These are people that are slaves for life, and which are even inherited permanently by your off spring.

Again, seriously: read your bible.

There's nothing morally reprehensible about contractual agreement between people. We still do it to this day.

No, we do not treat people as cattle that can be bought/sold/inherited.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Immoral or unethical according to who?

Reason.

 

[DogmaHunter]

According to any empathic human being that thinks about it for six seconds...

I think 6 seconds is already kind of long.

I'ld expect that most humans that aren't psychopaths/sociopaths, would practically instantly recognise such practice as being deeply immoral and even evil.

 

[Dave-W]

Reason.

And what makes human reasoning any better than the reasoning of a Being that can create universes?

 

[DogmaHunter]

And why is their perspective the final authority?

Because they can actually argue their case and explain it beyond "because this perceived authority says so…."

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, and again you are detaching the context from voluntary contract.

There is no voluntary contract.

1) Cultivate land in your family clan
2) Hire yourself out to family clans as a worker-servant
3) Sell yourself into voluntary servitude for a certain period, or for life.

There is no contract or "selling yourself" there.
Nore is there any "hiring yourself out".

There is only slavery: the trading in ownership of human beings, to such an extent that they are even inherited by off spring. It is property in every sense of the world.

You are ignoring all of this, like so many of your christian brethren do that can't bring themselves to admit how horrible these passages are.

In modern context the verse above would be equvalent to:

You can import workforce from outside of the country. You have to house and feed and provide for them. They are your possession/responsibility. Your sons may inherit your employees as a familiar enterprise.

You are adding to the bible here. Nowhere does it say anything remotely like this.

There's no indication that 7 year rule does not apply if that's what slaves choose to do.

The 7 year rule only applies to hebrew slaves. And even there, there is a "gotcha" where you can blackmail the hebrew slave into becoming your slave for life. It comes down to the hebrew either gaining his freedom and leaving his wife and kids behind (who remain your property) or he agrees to becoming your slave for life just so he can stay with his wife and kids.

You seem to imply that masters were running around beating their slaves with sticks and this chunk of text validates such behavior .

*I* am not implying anything. If you read that implication into that quote, then you are saying that the BIBLE ITSELF is implying that - because it's a straight quote from the bible.

Funny how that turned out, ey?

That word property... is literally translated as "money", as in owed debt. In legal context it would mean:

First of all, you should contextualize it with this:

When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.

-Exodus 21:26-27

Again imagining things and adding to the bible, just so you can feel comfortable with it, I see…

 

[devolved]

*I* am not implying anything. If you read that implication into that quote, then you are saying that the BIBLE ITSELF is implying that - because it's a straight quote from the bible.

Funny how that turned out, ey?

Please . You didn't just cut and paste a verse and asked what it meant.

 

[dmmesdale]

I must say slavery apologetics nowadays become more and more elaborate.

Nothing elaborate about moaning and groaning of Bible critics.

I know it must be hard having to accept that your holy book teaches immoral practices.

Immoral relative to what? Besides your opinion?

At least you put some effort into finding excuses.

Any effort bounces off the head of critics. Seems all is offered here is provocation and goading with zero attempts to understand anything.

 

[Skreeper]

Immoral relative to what? Besides your opinion?

Morality is for all intents and purposes about opinion. If you don't like it, there's the door. Maybe there is a different planet where things are to your liking?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

God sends people to hell, whom do not accept Christ's stated way of salvation, which means one is obligated to accept a supernatural claim, which means one must accept/believe in the supernatural.

Actually, believing in the supernatural is the normal state that modern men are educated out of so the requirement to believe in the supernatural is not that demanding for most men throughout history. The vast majority do or did and only a miniscule were educated out of that.

But yes, the answer to wrong doing is either punishment or forgiveness. You complain about this state of affairs but I assume you have nothing else to offer.

So yes, God sends folks to a place of eternal damnation and torture, for lack in belief of a supernatural event. If I just so happen to attempt to try and live a moral life, following the Bible to the best of my abilities, at least as a moral compass (the golden rule, etc..), but just can't accept the supernatural claim, because I do not believe in the supernatural, along with not seeing enough evidence to support the resurrection claim, if the Bible is actually correct, then I go to hell, in accordance to scripture.

You are letting yourself off far too easily. The standard for Heaven is righeousness and if you reject the one offered by God but perfer your own, you standard or moral compass of just doing to the best of your abilities as you judge them is way too low. I could put it this way. You are not the judge of your moral success. Everyone who lived and worked and had dealings with you is. If there is anyone who has a just claim that your treatment of them was less than Jesus would have done, you are lost.

So yes, the government does not eternally torture people for lack in belief of the supernatural.

No the government sends people to multiple life sentences. If they lived forever, they would be in what some consider torture. God does not torture anyone, btw. Again you falsely accuse Him of evil. This is alone is a sin so even I from a distance can see that you are no where close to living out the goldern rule at all. You are in grave danger.

No, faith is believe without evidence. Faith is pretending to know something one does not actually know. Faith can be applied to any unfounded belief. Free will is the ability to control your thoughts. Make yourself truly believe anything without just cause... (i.e.) Make yourself believe China doesn't exist, for kicks. If you can, you have just demonstrated free will.

Since I believe, I am the expert and I can tell you that nothing you wrote above represents what faith is. Faith is acknowledging the validity of evidence and what it indicates. Faith is definately believing from the evidence. Only one kind, blind faith like the atheists have in their atheism, is without evidence.

Believe is mentioned three time in these verses. Believe or be condemned. It is an ultimatum. Well, like already stated, since I do not have the ability to completely control my thoughts, like I cannot make myself believe I can fly or believe China does not exist, I just don't think a resurrection actually happened.

You have the ability to control your words and by your words you will be condemned. You accuse God of evil over and over again unjustly. You refuse to accept that faith is based on evidence. Your list of sins is long just looking at your posts.

Person A tries to follow the moral teachings of the Bible, as a guideline, but thinks the resurrection was a metaphor.

Never met such a man. People quit because it is too costly and difficult. You have to give up much.

Person B tries to follow the moral teachings of the Bible, as a guideline, and thinks the resurrection is real, and accepts the action for grace, because of course, person B believes a resurrection happened.

Which one(s) go to heaven, and why?

Neither. The points where they did evil and the compliation of wrong doing in their lives builds up because neither, in your senerio, are forgiven.

I trust by now, that under Christianity, you are starting to understand that 'morals' are virtually irrelevant. The deciding factor is belief. Not believing in something is neither moral or immoral, but instead, amoral. Belief is based upon one's own needed evidence.

No, you continue to ignore WHAT one is believing. Believing in God will not do anyone any good UNLESS that means they CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOUR accordingly. Belief in the forgiveness of sins because of Jesus, that God will forgive one's sins (not sins in general) if one repents is the key. So it always matters WHAT one believes. Not all beliefs change matters or man.

If I don't believe my friend, when he told me he saw a UFO yesterday, does that make me moral or immoral? No.

You do not have to change a single small detail of your life or choices regarding UFOs. Same for the moon langing. If it never happened, what does it matter? (Btw, scientists were asked if evolution were shown to be false, would it affect their research and the majority said "no." )

Morality is the ability to distinguish between good/bad behavior. Belief does not fall within such a scope. One either believes, or doesn't.

If one believes NO ONE cares or will judge so that is justice, then it makes all the difference. I disagree strongly. Belief is everything.

I have NO doubt you believe. My point is, I don't, because I do not accept supernatural claims. Therefore, according to Christianity, I'm screwed, if actually true

Just live a perfect life without any sin against anyone and no only will you be loved beyond your wildest dreams, being kind and truthful and helpful and the most unselfish man in the neighborhood, you will stand before God and he will welcome you.

Could have fooled me, each verse explicitly mentioned belief three times

Again, belief in WHAT?

Again, you are placing your own rational twist, to make it make sense, and more palatable to you. I'm reading the verses for face value. No belief, no heaven. Pretty simple.

Actually you are editting out the bits you do not like such as WHAT one is believing and what believing really means. You want it to be purely a mental exercise which it is not.

This would again be false. Deeds and works are not what bring salvation. According to scripture, it is belief in salvation, (via a resurrection claim). I do not accept a resurrection claim, due to seemingly poor evidence. I'm furnace fuel (if true).

No, it is belief in the forgiveness of sins if one repents, asks forgiveness and receives it based on Jesus the Christ. It is not belief in being saved same as belief in marriage will not help one's relationship with one's spouse. There is more to it than a mental exercise.

I suggest you really study scripture again. Belief in salvation is key. Works and deeds are virtually irrelevant. Otherwise, you are basically some form of a Catholic. Yahweh's version of a sin, is basically anything done against His commands. Not believing is apparently the pinnacle or cardinal sin of these commands. The rest, becomes a mute point.

I give up. You want to edit out what one is believing in and believing in salvation is not it at all. There is no "believe you will be saved and you will be" a kind of do it yourself position thinking way to Heaven. I gave you other scriptures and you do not like them. That is, if you do not want truth, truth will not impose itself upon you until all times to run away from truth are gone.

Well, I wish you well, my friend. May you one day doubt your doubt and think about what you are doubting and that most of mankind believed in the spiritual world down through the millennia. Btw, belief in the supernatural is not a saving faith. The demons do that.

Be happy to converse more but I think we finished this one, doncha agree?

 

[devolved]

There is no voluntary contract.

You can say that with certainty that there is no elements of voluntary contract?

 

[devolved]

There is no contract or "selling yourself" there.
Nore is there any "hiring yourself out".

Really... explain to me then how the below would work in such context?

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.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And what makes human reasoning any better than the reasoning of a Being that can create universes?

It is real. ;-)

Jokes aside (although I actually meant it), religious commandments aren't reasoned. They are just commandments / assertions.

A reasoned argument, is always better then blank assertions.

See, that's kind of the big breakthrough that happened in morality over the years…
No longer was it enough to dictate morals in an authorative manner.
Now, if you say "x is wrong", you're actually required to explain why it is wrong.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Please . You didn't just cut and paste a verse and asked what it meant.

Nore did I copy paste that verse in context of wheter or not it is allowed to beat slaves.

I was talking about how slaves are regarded as property.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You can say that with certainty that there is no elements of voluntary contract?

You are free to point out where in Leviticus it says that the slave who's being traded or inherited has any say in the matter.

Perhaps now is a good time to quote the part right before Leviticus 44.... I'll add 44 again immediatly after it as well, so that the larger context is extra clear:


39 If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves.
40 They are to be treated as hired or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee.
41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors.
42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt they must not be sold as slaves.
43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly but fear your God
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


How about that ey? The verses immediatly preceeding Lev 44 explicitly make a distinction between what YOU are talking about (they are 'workers' that sell themselves, not 'slaves') and ACTUAL slaves.

You're not the first I encounter who focusses only on that part and completely ignores the rest.

The bible itself literally makes a distinction between "servitude" and "slavery". And just to be clear: it does NOT say of the latter to NOT do it.

The text literally says that non-israelites can be treated as full blown slaves. As in property.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Really... explain to me then how the below would work in such context?

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.

The sentence before that reads "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves".

The sentence you quote thus means that you can also buy slaves from the people who live among you temporarily.

So when it says "you may also buy some of the temporary residents…", the "some" refers to SLAVES.

You can rewrite that as "you may also by slaves of the temporary residents…"

And then it goes on to state explicitly that such treatment is not allowed of israelites. It says explicitly that you shall not rule over israelites ruthlessly - implying that it is perfectly okay to do so with non-israelites.

Here's another translation of that verse that states it less ambiguously:

43You are not to rule over them harshly, but you shall fear your God. 44Your male and female slaves shall come from the nations around you; from them you may purchase slaves. 45 You may also purchase them from the foreigners residing among you or their clans living among you who are born in your land. These may become your property

 

[devolved]

The bible itself literally makes a distinction between "servitude" and "slavery". And just to be clear: it does NOT say of the latter to NOT do it.

It only says that if you are applying a generic modernized translation that makes that distinction. A word for word literal translation doesn't.

39 `And when thy brother becometh poor with thee, and he hath been sold to thee, thou dost not lay on him servile service;

40 as an hireling, as a settler, he is with thee, till the year of the jubilee he doth serve with thee, --

41 then he hath gone out from thee, he and his sons with him, and hath turned back unto his family; even unto the possession of his fathers he doth turn back.

42 `For they [are] My servants, whom I have brought out from the land of Egypt: they are not sold [with] the sale of a servant;

43 thou rulest not over him with rigour, and thou hast been afraid of thy God.

44 `And thy man-servant and thy handmaid whom thou hast [are] of the nations who [are] round about you; of them ye buy man-servant and handmaid,

45 and also of the sons of the settlers who are sojourning with you, of them ye buy, and of their families who [are] with you, which they have begotten in your land, and they have been to you for a possession;

46 and ye have taken them for inheritance to your sons after you, to occupy [for] a possession; to the age ye lay service upon them, but upon your brethren, the sons of Israel, one with another, thou dost not rule over him with rigour.