Is Slavery Moral?

[Moral Orel]

Why?

If someone wants to be a slave, I see nothing immoral about it.

If someone decides that they want to be a slave in their 20s, should they be able to change their mind in their 50s, or is that up to their owner to decide?

 

[cvanwey]

If someone decides that they want to be a slave in their 20s, should they be able to change their mind in their 50s, or is that up to their owner to decide?

According to the 'objective truth' of the Bible, the answer is pretty plain and simple:

'46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life'

 

[Noxot]

But in stated 'Biblical slavery', the human is then concluded as property. And property no longer yields the same rules and conditions as non-slaved humans. They might be above a 'chair' in hierarchy. However, they appear to be about on the same level as a dog or a horse. Meaning, they are living and breathing; so don't kill it, as it does continue to serve a future purpose.

I can't agree with people who would think less of other human beings, I happen to live in a better time than they did.

So I take it you have a moral issue with:

44Your male and female slaves shall come from the nations around you; from them you may purchase slaves. 45You 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'

I take issue with it as a literal command of how to act in the world but no issue with it when I understand it from a spiritual understanding which was preserved by the holy spirit in the crude ways of the humanity of that time.

so science is my slave. philosophy is my slave. the bible is my slave. everything that is good is my servant because I am Gods child. what does not serve humanity is evil and what does is good. such things from foreign nations may serve me and become property as opposed to personalities/human beings. I would not want science to reign supreme over me as a king, it should do what it was meant to do which is to serve humans.

as paul said "the letter kills but the spirit gives life" and also as Jesus said "you must be born from above".

Eph 4:7-8 (ESV2011)
But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift. Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.”

Ps 68:18 (ESV2011)
You ascended on high, leading a host of captives in your train and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the LORD God may dwell there.

 

[Sanoy]

You are the second poster to use the word 'anachronistic' now. However, such responses appear to instead demonstrate 'rationalization' and/or 'cognitive dissonance.' It also appears intellectually dishonest.

You are a very smart guy, I give you props for that... However, the Bible is very clear... Slaves are classified as [property]. And are therefore, sub-human. All other 'stated law's' do not apply to sub-humans.

So please continue to respond, and demonstrate further dishonesty. However, none of your responses will negate the Biblical verses, in which you appear to desperately attempt to 'justify' (i.e.) Exodus 21:20-21 and Leviticus 25:44-46

Thnx

I should demonstrate epistemic seriousness about something rather than wielding a modern word as polemic, which is intended here. You have 0 sincerity toward this just like every polemic you have run so far. Whenever you deal with an ancient text as a lay person, Anachronism should be your first concern. No, the OT is not very clear from a pair of sentences that are 3,000 years out of context and undefined. You reveal yourself by giving such a lax concern over an ancient text. I read ANE journals regularly, and know full well the pitfalls of Anachronism. I suppose in contrast, you know the full potential of Anachronism.

All Biblical servants voluntarily sell themselves as property. They are not subhuman, the Bible express that very clearly and in opposition to the modern word, that you wield by the handle. None of your responses will defend your polemic. All you can do is point to a verse and depend on Anachronism to do the rest. The Polemic fails at even the slightest hint of sincerity.

 

[dmmesdale]

Check the verses from the OP. They are all claimed to be 'inspired by God" from both the OT and NT.

Furthermore, no Jews resided in Egypt at this point in time.

You have unusual faith in the moderns. They or you do not know where the Jews resided. Now for your morning lesson. Slavery was fluid in the Bible. 1 Kings 11:11

11 So the Lord said to Solomon, “Because you have done this, and you have not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you, and will give it to your servant. (slave)
Eccl.2:26.
26 For to the one who pleases him God has given wisdom and knowledge and joy, but to the sinner he has given the business of gathering and collecting, only to give to one who pleases God. This also is vanity and a striving after wind.

 

[Sanoy]

Which thing specifically are you talking about that He "literally overturned"? He confirmed some things, and added some things, to the 10 Commandments and to "national law".

We absolutely can. Owning people is bad. Context doesn't matter sometimes. The reason you own people doesn't matter. If your answer to this thread is "sometimes, in some circumstances" then you've shown that we absolutely can fear that someday Christians, given enough power, might enslave people.

Your reasons aren't accurate anyways. They sacked foreign cities, and forced people from their homes under threat of death. That isn't "inclusion of foreign peoples".

"You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. " - That alone overturned a large chunk of the law code as it was all written with equality of harm in mind.

"Owning" people that submit themselves voluntarily for 7 years is not wrong. It is akin to our modern contractual labor agreements. When you get hired on a fish boat you are hired for a week, when you get hired as an actor you are obligated for years. Unlike with Actors you can actually get out of this agreement. They could be purchased back, or buy themselves back, or run away and not return without any worry of being caught. The Bible even says some of these servants loved the master so much that they committed their entire lives to them. Israel was Camelot. Think about it as someone being poor and destitute. You can't get a job because you need a place to live. This was an opportunity for people to get room and board and a paycheck and get back on their feet. It is nothing at all like the rest of the ANE. I am sorry but there is nothing wrong with voluntary servitude at all. If I was poor and homeless I would love such an opportunity.

Think about this...If Israel were mistreated slaves in Egypt, and Moses fled Egypt because he killed a man beating an Israelite slave. And Moses wrote this law regarding servitude. Why would he institute the same system as the ANE? He wouldn't, and if there is ambiguity in the text it should lean in the direction of the circumstances Israel was coming out of...real slavery. You don't even need to believe the historicity of that, it is in the same progressive narrative. You could believe the Bible was a complete hoax, but textual criticism would still require you to lean in that direction because both events are in the same narrative.

 

[Allandavid]

"You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. " - That alone overturned a large chunk of the law code as it was all written with equality of harm in mind.

"Owning" people that submit themselves voluntarily for 7 years is not wrong. It is akin to our modern contractual labor agreements. When you get hired on a fish boat you are hired for a week, when you get hired as an actor you are obligated for years. Unlike with Actors you can actually get out of this agreement. They could be purchased back, or buy themselves back, or run away and not return without any worry of being caught. The Bible even says some of these servants loved the master so much that they committed their entire lives to them. Israel was Camelot. Think about it as someone being poor and destitute. You can't get a job because you need a place to live. This was an opportunity for people to get room and board and a paycheck and get back on their feet. It is nothing at all like the rest of the ANE. I am sorry but there is nothing wrong with voluntary servitude at all. If I was poor and homeless I would love such an opportunity.

Think about this...If Israel were mistreated slaves in Egypt, and Moses fled Egypt because he killed a man beating an Israelite slave. And Moses wrote this law regarding servitude. Why would he institute the same system as the ANE? He wouldn't, and if there is ambiguity in the text it should lean in the direction of the circumstances Israel was coming out of...real slavery. You don't even need to believe the historicity of that, it is in the same progressive narrative. You could believe the Bible was a complete hoax, but textual criticism would still require you to lean in that direction because both events are in the same narrative.

And the foreign slaves....??

 

[cvanwey]

You have unusual faith in the moderns. They or you do not know where the Jews resided. Now for your morning lesson. Slavery was fluid in the Bible. 1 Kings 11:11

11 So the Lord said to Solomon, “Because you have done this, and you have not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you, and will give it to your servant. (slave)
Eccl.2:26.
26 For to the one who pleases him God has given wisdom and knowledge and joy, but to the sinner he has given the business of gathering and collecting, only to give to one who pleases God. This also is vanity and a striving after wind.

My morning lesson is Bible verses? Of course slavery is mentioned in the Bible. I have acknowledged this repeatedly. Heck, the title of the OP is related to Bible verses.

I state the verses were written by humans, with no divine inspiration. The lack in evidence for 2 million Jews in Egypt is simply an extra, in which one can add to the list of failed assertions... Meaning, the more that is discovered, or lack there-of, the less credible this 'authoritative' book becomes... I reckon slavery has been practiced, in some form or another, as far as humans have been able to do so... Writing about any form of slavery, during these times, would be just as mundane as writing about working, eating, going to the bathroom, or other. Slavery was a very large part in these times. People wrote verses to justify it, by stating it came from a God. Pretty simple...

This is my entire point of this thread... So what's more likely? And this is a very simple (A) or (B) answer.

(A) A god inspired such verses. Or, (B) People wrote it, and stated it came from 'above', but it actually didn't.

I will let your intellectual honesty wrestle with the most likely answer... Because the selection above really boils down to a simple dichotomy. Either God did or didn't have a hand in it....

Faith is belief in spite of evidence. In the case for the Bible, there exists no evidence to support Jews in Egypt. So where might my faith lie in this regard? This is a rhetorical question

 

[cvanwey]

I should demonstrate epistemic seriousness about something rather than wielding a modern word as polemic, which is intended here. You have 0 sincerity toward this just like every polemic you have run so far. Whenever you deal with an ancient text as a lay person, Anachronism should be your first concern. No, the OT is not very clear from a pair of sentences that are 3,000 years out of context and undefined. You reveal yourself by giving such a lax concern over an ancient text. I read ANE journals regularly, and know full well the pitfalls of Anachronism. I suppose in contrast, you know the full potential of Anachronism.

All Biblical servants voluntarily sell themselves as property. They are not subhuman, the Bible express that very clearly and in opposition to the modern word, that you wield by the handle. None of your responses will defend your polemic. All you can do is point to a verse and depend on Anachronism to do the rest. The Polemic fails at even the slightest hint of sincerity.

Though I appreciate the criticism and further demonstration in my lack of knowledge, I'm going to make this blatantly simple for you...

To avoid a bunch of back and forth, let's cut to the chase.... The question I pose for you below, comes with a small disclaimer... Meaning, either way you answer, has no relevancy to whether or not Yahweh actually exists. So please feel free to actually answer below honestly...

Did Yahweh have a hand in all allowed slavery verses? Yes or No?

If 'yes', prove it. If 'no', then this will of course raise many additional logical follow up questions....

 

[Sanoy]

And the foreign slaves....??

What about them? I'm asking you to tell me the issue, not just link the verse. In other words show me you are reading under Moses's intentions rather than modern definitions.

 

[cvanwey]

What about them? I'm asking you to tell me the issue, not just link the verse.

Sorry to insult your intelligence.... But I feel overwhelmed in sending you a 10 minute video. Though I doubt you will actually watch it; I please ask that you do.

 

[Sanoy]

Though I appreciate the criticism and further demonstration in my lack of knowledge, I'm going to make this blatantly simple for you...

To avoid a bunch of back and forth, let's cut to the chase.... The question I pose for you below, comes with a small disclaimer... Meaning, either way you answer, has no relevancy to whether or not Yahweh actually exists. So please feel free to actually answer below honestly...

Did Yahweh have a hand in all allowed slavery verses? Yes or No?

If 'yes', prove it. If 'no', then this will of course raise many additional logical follow up questions....

Good you have given up wielding anachronistic terms.

We are back to where we started where you ask an unsensible question like "prove" God did it. That is not a situation upon which proof can be asked. God certainly inspired Moses by His General and explicit revelation, and if His general revelation here, which I suspect, then He inspired the moral wellspring in Moses, who incultures these intuitions into a progressive law which latter Christ fulfills more deply having a greater moral epistemology. If that is true we should see two progressive leaps at both points which is factually the case.

 

[Sanoy]

Sorry to insult your intelligence.... But I feel overwhelmed in sending you a 10 minute video. Though I doubt you will actually watch it; I please ask that you do.

Your intuition is correct. As a general rule I don't make "Heres this" posts or bother with them. I expect both myself and the person I engage with to have their own reasons which they can articulate themselves.

 

[cvanwey]

Good you have given up wielding anachronistic terms.

We are back to where we started where you ask an unsensible question like "prove" God did it. That is not a situation upon which proof can be asked. God certainly inspired Moses by His General and explicit revelation, and if His general revelation then He inspired the moral wellspring in Moses, who incultures these intuitions into a progressive law which latter Christ fulfills more deply having a greater moral epistemology. If that is true we should see two progressive leaps at both points which is factually the case.

You never stop with the digs, do you. Even if everything you said was 'fact' about me, it still pails in comparison to the demonstrated intellectual dishonesty.

Now all you need to do is actually prove the character Moses actually existed for absolute starters; to support your blanket assertions. This ought to be fun!

 

[cvanwey]

Your intuition is correct. As a general rule I don't make "Heres this" posts or bother with them. I expect both myself and the person I engage with to have their own reasons which they can articulate themselves.

I just figured you might want to actually see what responses (you demonstrate) directly inspire such videos.

O well...

 

[Sanoy]

You never stop with the digs, do you. Even if everything you said was 'fact' about me, it still pails in comparison to the demonstrated intellectual dishonesty.

Now all you need to do is actually prove the character Moses actually existed for absolute starters; to support your blanket assertions. This ought to be fun!

I don't have to prove Moses existed to end this polemic, I can just point my comments to the textual author. And your "proof" demand for such things is just embarrassing your understanding of epistemology.

 

[dmmesdale]

My morning lesson is Bible verses? Of course slavery is mentioned in the Bible. I have acknowledged this repeatedly. Heck, the title of the OP is related to Bible verses.

I state the verses were written by humans, with no divine inspiration. The lack in evidence for 2 million Jews in Egypt is simply an extra, in which one can add to the list of failed assertions... Meaning, the more that is discovered, or lack there-of, the less credible this 'authoritative' book becomes... I reckon slavery has been practiced, in some form or another, as far as humans have been able to do so... Writing about any form of slavery, during these times, would be just as mundane as writing about working, eating, going to the bathroom, or other. Slavery was a very large part in these times. People wrote verses to justify it, by stating it came from a God. Pretty simple...

There was no need to justify it since they did not view it as anything unusual. Besides the context indicates judgment against Solomon. Solomon enacted forced labor for his building projects and Jeroboam was one of his many slaves. Jeroboam ended up with a big chunk of Solomon's kingdom. Your moderns won't tell you that because they and you are not interested in the facts. Only in promoting your prejudices.

This is my entire point of this thread... So what's more likely? And this is a very simple (A) or (B) answer.

(A) A god inspired such verses. Or, (B) People wrote it, and stated it came from 'above', but it actually didn't.

I will let your intellectual honesty wrestle with the most likely answer... Because the selection above really boils down to a simple dichotomy. Either God did or didn't have a hand in it....

The inspiration for Exod 18 was a polytheistic pagan priest, not God. So again it depends on the verse.

Faith is belief in spite of evidence.

That is blind faith. Not faith.

In the case for the Bible, there exists no evidence to support Jews in Egypt.

The evidence is scripture itself. Testimony. That is evidence. Also nothing which refutes. If you don't believe they were there then it is up to you to produce contrary evidence to support your position. You have not met that burden.

So where might my faith lie in this regard? This is a rhetorical question

Your blind faith is in the moderns who are feeding you lies and you are swallowing them up.

 

[dmmesdale]

And the foreign slaves....??

Joshua 9

 

[cvanwey]

I don't have to prove Moses existed to end this polemic, I can just move my comments to the Author. And your "proof" demand for such things is just embarrassing your understanding of epistemology.

What's 'embarrassing' is your flagrant display of intellectual dishonesty, to either yourself, or to me.

Hence, the reason you avoid so many obvious observations. (i.e.)

- The Bible was written by humans, and nothing more...
- When people read these verses, it's very easy to 'justify' any slavery, because this is the beauty of language.
- People wrote about slavery to justify the use of slavery, and said it came from God.
- That humans, being referenced as property, now makes them no better than a pet.
- That owning Non-Jews for life is jacked up

You know.... Obvious stuff like that...

Again, you are intelligent, but reveal further lack in sincerity with every new response. You seem more enthralled with 'critiquing' my 'lack' in communication style, rather than actually addressing the issues. And when you do 'address' them, it avoids all obvious conclusions.

Why not just reconcile that you too agree that such slavery verses were written by humans, with absolutely no divine inspiration, so we may move forward. Because 'my intuition' also tells me, that deep down, you do agree

And once such clarifications are made, then can the real work begin

 

[Sanoy]

What's 'embarrassing' is your flagrant display of intellectual dishonesty, to either yourself, or to me.

Hence, the reason you avoid so many obvious observations. (i.e.)

- The Bible was written by humans, and nothing more...
- When people read these verses, it's very easy to 'justify' any slavery, because this is the beauty of language.
- People wrote about slavery to justify the use of slavery, and said it came from God.
- That humans, being referenced as property, now makes them no better than a pet.

You know.... Obvious stuff like that...

Again, you are intelligent, but reveal further lack in sincerity with every new response. You seem more enthralled with 'critiquing' my 'lack' in communication style, rather than actually addressing the issues. And when you do 'address' them, it avoids all obvious conclusions...

But thanks....

Why not just reconcile that you too agree that such slavery verses were written by humans, with absolutely no divine inspiration, so we may move forward. Because 'my intuition' also tells me, that deep down, you do agree

And once such clarifications are made, then can the real work begin

Since when did appropriate texual criticism become intellectual dishonesty. You throw that word around a lot you know, I have even seen you include it in the title of strawman polemics.

1. How many times does it need to be said to you that humans wrote the Bible...10x? 20x? We are at 10 now so how many does it take for you to retain that info?
2/3. Sure people can misread a text and make faulty conclusions based on anachronism. This thread is an exhibit of that.
4. That has yet to be given an exegesis.

I'm glad to see the complete collapse of presenting your OP through your use of complaints instead. Progress is good, and I will be here for your next polemic. But what if instead of wasting your time launching these failed polemics, we talk about what Christianity meant to you and why you left it. What if we utilized this incredible resource to have an actual discussion regarding the truth? Does that interest you, or will you only utilize this resource for launching polemics?