Is Slavery Moral?

[Sanoy]

That's fine if we disagree. I am saying that they aren't better. But that is vastly different from attacking them and calling them "monsters" or "evil" as if I'm singling them out from all of ancient history for owning slaves.

As to the argument from silence, that was a fair call on what I said about Jesus confirming slavery, because He said nothing about slavery. The OT Law says you can buy slaves and force people to do labor, so it is not an argument from silence to not imagine there were laws contradicting the laws we know they did have. The OT isn't silent about slavery, so I can't make an argument from silence about it.

You've claimed that none of their servitude was for life and none of it was involuntary; those are key ingredients for slavery. Have I misunderstood your claims?

But how can you say they are no better when we have ANE laws and Israels law?

Forced is not in that verse, that is a translational choice relative to the Masoretic. The permission to buy slaves says nothing of the condition of it being involuntary which would stand in opposition to prior laws which explicitly condemn slave trade and prior textual narrative. The meaning of the word slavery requires a hermeneutical approach, not imagination. I have not seen you take a hermeneutical approach here.

As I understand it Israeli servitude was limited, but foriegn servitude can be for life if the servant wishes. I have seen no text showing involuntary servitude and we can't assume it is via English. The closest is a POW but no details are given. It is however reasonable to assume the POW's autonomy was limited as former hostiles but there is not enough information to make a moral judgement. My statement is that Israel is morally progressive in comparison to the ANE, which is readily verifiable by comparison of law codes, but it is not perfect, as Jesus later describes.

 

[cvanwey]

The meaning of the word slavery requires a hermeneutical approach, not imagination. I have not seen you take a hermeneutical approach here.

If a hermeneutical approach was the industry standard for theology, we would not have many conflicting doctrines in theology and Christianity. Furthermore, the Bible uses the word 'slavery'. If a specific complex context was to be explicitly used, wouldn't the God of the Bible know that humans would later modify it's meaning or usage? The God of the Bible would/should know that languages change, get re-translated, have multiple meanings, etc. Many have used the Bible to enforce slavery, and felt well justified doing so within their own rationales.

What is the 'correct' hermeneutic translation in this specific context? And how were you able to conclude such a translation?

As I understand it Israeli servitude was limited, but foriegn servitude can be for life if the servant wishes. I have seen no text showing involuntary servitude and we can't assume it is via English.

It states: "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.'

It never states, 'if the servant wishes'.

When I read the above Leviticus passage, it appears to clarify two points.

1. To make them slaves for life. Now one might ask, does the word 'make' mean 'to force' them, or 'to allow' them? However, the reason I opt for the former 'to force', is because of the very next reason.
2. You can rule over non-Jews ruthlessly. Why? because in the very next line, it explicitly states, 'but you must not rule over the Jews ruthlessly' - (And this may make some sense, because it speaks about indentured servants, in regards to the Jews specifically). However, ruling over non-Jews ruthlessly apparently appears acceptable, as implied from the text.

And since one can 'make' non-Jews kept for life, I doubt any non-Jew would volunteer or wish to remain in such arrangements. Most would flee after the first beating. Which then contradicts the entire premise of such scriptural verses.

Furthermore, from your line of thinking (i.e.) 'I have seen no text showing involuntary servitude and we can't assume it is via English.' - not mentioning something very specific can be applied to many rationales and justifications. The Bible advocates for slavery by topic, and instructs how to do so. If the Bible never mentioned slavery at all, hardly anyone would be stating the Bible advocates for such.

 

[Sanoy]

If a hermeneutical approach was the industry standard for theology, we would not have many conflicting doctrines in theology and Christianity. Furthermore, the Bible uses the word 'slavery'. If a specific complex context was to be explicitly used, wouldn't the God of the Bible know that humans would later modify it's meaning or usage? The God of the Bible would/should know that languages change, get re-translated, have multiple meanings, etc. Many have used the Bible to enforce slavery, and felt well justified doing so within their own rationales.

What is the 'correct' hermeneutic translation in this specific context? And how were you able to conclude such a translation?



It states: "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.'

It never states, 'if the servant wishes'.

When I read the above Leviticus passage, it appears to clarify two points.

1. To make them slaves for life. Now one might ask, does the word 'make' mean 'to force' them, or 'to allow' them? However, the reason I opt for the former 'to force', is because of the very next reason.
2. You can rule over non-Jews ruthlessly. Why? because in the very next line, it explicitly states, 'but you must not rule over the Jews ruthlessly' - (And this may make some sense, because it speaks about indentured servants, in regards to the Jews specifically). However, ruling over non-Jews ruthlessly apparently appears acceptable, as implied from the text.

And since one can 'make' non-Jews kept for life, I doubt any non-Jew would volunteer or wish to remain in such arrangements. Most would flee after the first beating. Which then contradicts the entire premise of such scriptural verses.

Furthermore, from your line of thinking (i.e.) 'I have seen no text showing involuntary servitude and we can't assume it is via English.' - not mentioning something very specific can be applied to many rationales and justifications. The Bible advocates for slavery by topic, and instructs how to do so. If the Bible never mentioned slavery at all, hardly anyone would be stating the Bible advocates for such.

Sometimes Hermeneutics don't lead to a single conclusion that can be confirmed. The Bible does not use the word slavery, it is translated into English not written in English. If people care about the truth they will search it out. You cannot circumvent people from abusing statements the way they want.

The correct approach is to first assume it means what the author meant by it and then try to acquire that meaning from the surrounding text and personhood of the author. The very first thing you don't do is think anachronistically.

1.You cannot assume the condition from a tiny sentence like that. It does not inform us how they were bought, maybe they sold themselves that way, maybe it means they can change hands within a term. It does not say. Nor does it say they can be made slaves for life against their will.
2. I have already spoken about number 2. An Israelite had one master, Yahweh. They were to be treated loosely, not as full servents. They were to be treated as hired workers. Leviticus 25:40. Ruthless is laid out in this section as a contrast to hired worker and voluntary servitude, hence the reference to rule. The word means rigorously here, as in tightly. It doesn't say deal with them ruthlessly it says don't rule over them tightly. You have to look in the text for context especially in a collection of simple law statements.

It advocates voluntary servitude, which I find nothing wrong with.

 

[cvanwey]

Sometimes Hermeneutics don't lead to a single conclusion that can be confirmed. The Bible does not use the word slavery, it is translated into English not written in English. If people care about the truth they will search it out. You cannot circumvent people from abusing statements the way they want.

This further substantiates my point for two reasons...

1. It seems that if the word is God's chosen mechanism for truth, and God is aware that human language changes, gets re-translated, etc, etc; and that people would misinterpret such words (slavery), then maybe come up with a more unified and 'easier to grasp' method?

What is the actual and 'correct' definition of the word slavery used, in context, and how do you know? And why does all English versions choose the word slavery?

2. If hermeneutics is not universal, then why are you so worried about the other poster using hermeneutics, if it may not provide a universal conclusion?

1.You cannot assume the condition from a tiny sentence like that. It does not inform us how they were bought, maybe they sold themselves that way, maybe it means they can change hands within a term. It does not say. Nor does it say they can be made slaves for life against their will.

I have formed my conclusion based upon the provided verses within the Bible. Nothing speaks about willing participants. To simply assume so, appears to be wishful thinking to support a biased viewpoint. If it stated that anywhere in context, you would have a good point. But it doesn't.

It advocates voluntary servitude, which I find nothing wrong with.

As many have told you now, for the Jews, yes. But for everyone else (non-Jews), this is not the case.

 

[Sanoy]

This further substantiates my point for two reasons...

1. It seems that if the word is God's chosen mechanism for truth, and God is aware that human language changes, gets re-translated, etc, etc; and that people would misinterpret such words (slavery), then maybe come up with a more unified and 'easier to grasp' method?

What is the actual and 'correct' definition of the word slavery used, in context, and how do you know?

2. If hermeneutics is not universal, then why are you so worried about the other poster using hermeneutics, if it may not provide a universal conclusion?



I have formed my conclusion based upon the provided verses within the Bible. Nothing speaks about willing participants. To simply assume so, appears to be wishful thinking to support a biased viewpoint. If it stated that anywhere in context, you would have a good point. But it doesn't.



As many have told you now, for the Jews, yes. But for everyone else (non-Jews), this is not the case.

Those who want the truth will seek it, those who don't will never seek it. It sorts itself out. I have not seen any hermeneutical approach used yet to substantiate the proposition of assuming the English word. I'd be happy if that was even attempted.

We don't know the correct use, there is not enough information, but we have good reason to believe it is not referring to the English word and silence that it does.

You formed your conclusion by reading it in English with a modern interpretation, congrats, you gave it the same treatment as those that advocated slavery did. In fact you didn't find it from reading the Bible to understand it, you found it as a polemic online. Which website did you get it from.

 

[cvanwey]

Those who want the truth will seek it, those who don't will never seek it. It sorts itself out. I have not seen any hermeneutical approach used yet to substantiate the proposition of assuming the English word. I'd be happy if that was even attempted.

We don't know the correct use, there is not enough information, but we have good reason to believe it is not referring to the English word and silence that it does.

You formed your conclusion by reading it in English with a modern interpretation, congrats, you gave it the same treatment as those that advocated slavery did. In fact you didn't find it from reading the Bible to understand it, you found it as a polemic online. Which website did you get it from.

Dude, you have no clue of my background, education, research, etc.... You appear to be attempting to be going after my character, rather than defending the position. You are also shifting the burden of proof, by telling me to prove the Bible didn't only infer to willing participants. The Bible does not speak about such volunteers. So to assume so, is wishful thinking, on your part. We can only conclude what is written.

Telling people to research specific words, because they do no like the "English" translation is dishonest.

Furthermore, for the second time, you have stated that hermeneutics does not resolve the matter. And yet, you insist that anyone whom does not address a hermeneutic approach is doing it 'wrong.'

 

[Sanoy]

Dude, you have no clue of my background, education, research, etc.... You appear to be attempting to be going after my character, rather than defending the position. You are also shifting the burden of proof, by telling me to prove the Bible didn't only infer to willing participants. The Bible does not speak about such volunteers. So to assume so, is wishful thinking, on your part. We can only conclude what is written.

Telling people to research specific words, because they do no like the "English" translation is dishonest.

Furthermore, for the second time, you have stated that hermeneutics does not resolve the matter. And yet, you insist that anyone whom does not address a hermeneutic approach is doing it 'wrong.'

Maybe I'm mistaken. So are you telling me you came across this verse while reading the Bible trying to understand it? If not I'd love to know where you got it online.

Actually the burden of proof is yours, as the OP making the claim that these passages seem to condone slavery. Remember...this is your thread. I have held my own burden just fine, giving the contextual relevance and constraining passages. I am asking you to do the same, but so far you have been unable to do so and now act as if you have no burden.

It's dishonest to ask people to treat 3,000 year old content like it is 3,000 years old? No... it's dishonest to treat it like it isn't.

I said no such thing, I said sometimes Hermeneutics do not lead to a single conclusion. Anyone who reads 3,000 year old content as if English will suffice for a critical analysis is doing it wrong.

 

[cvanwey]

Maybe I'm mistaken.

In such a case, you most certainly are... I was a devout believer for 30+ years (but admit I did not read the Bible from cover to cover - only small parts). It wasn't until I interacted with many non-believers, whom presented such topics (like slavery), was I then exposed. Prior to then, I was not even aware the Bible spoke of it. I then read Exodus 21, in it's entirety. 'My' conclusion is that it appears man made and written with intent to endorse human wanted acts, and enforced by stating it was provided by 'God'. Not really an irrational conclusion, from my estimation.....

Actually the burden of proof is yours, as the OP making the claim that these passages seem to condone slavery.

I really don't want to go over stuff already gone through many times now. The Bible does appear to allow, condone, permit, regulate, etc.... As it never once states not to do so (like it does with many other topics, which are fare less controversial). The fact it speaks about slavery, and how to do so, means it does. Again, if the Bible never spoke about slavery at all, then maybe you'd have a point here.

Remember...this is your thread. I have held my own burden just fine, giving the contextual relevance and constraining passages. I am asking you to do the same, but so far you have been unable to do so and now act as if you have no burden.

Actually, you haven't. Many have asked you about the non-Jews. You do not really answer them, including me. (Post #764) "As many have told you now, for the Jews, yes. But for everyone else (non-Jews), this is not the case."

It's dishonest to ask people to treat 3,000 year old content like it is 3,000 years old? No... it's dishonest to treat it like it isn't.

Again, I already addressed this observation from post 764:

'It seems that if the word is God's chosen mechanism for truth, and God is aware that human language changes, gets re-translated, etc, etc; and that people would misinterpret such words (slavery), then maybe come up with a more unified and 'easier to grasp' method?'

I said no such thing, I said sometimes Hermeneutics do not lead to a single conclusion. Anyone who reads 3,000 year old content as if English will suffice for a critical analysis is doing it wrong.

And my point again, is why even bring up hermeneutics specifically, if it is not reliable? What? You don't think the many English versions have considered such a conclusion? If so, don't you think they would have used a differing word, verses 'slavery' by now, if another translation was actually more befitting? I would think so. That word appears pretty incriminating.

So going back to post 764 again, please actually address the following question posed:

What is the actual and 'correct' definition of the word slavery used, in context, and how do you know? And why does all English versions choose the word slavery?

 

[Kemet]

That totally depends on how one (re)defines slavery.

How do you redefine the beating and killing of a slave.
Are we know redefining murder?
Is murder immoral?

 

[Sanoy]

In such a case, you most certainly are... I was a devout believer for 30+ years (but admit I did not read the Bible from cover to cover - only small parts). It wasn't until I interacted with many non-believers, whom presented such topics (like slavery), was I then exposed. Prior to then, I was not even aware the Bible spoke of it. I then read Exodus 21, in it's entirety. 'My' conclusion is that it appears man made and written with intent to endorse human wanted acts, and enforced by stating it was provided by 'God'. Not really an irrational conclusion, from my estimation.....



I really don't want to go over stuff already gone through many times now. The Bible does appear to allow, condone, permit, regulate, etc.... As it never once states not to do so (like it does with many other topics, which are fare less controversial). The fact it speaks about slavery, and how to do so, means it does. Again, if the Bible never spoke about slavery at all, then maybe you'd have a point here.



Actually, you haven't. Many have asked you about the non-Jews. You do not really answer them, including me. (Post #764) "As many have told you now, for the Jews, yes. But for everyone else (non-Jews), this is not the case."



Again, I already addressed this observation from post 764:

'It seems that if the word is God's chosen mechanism for truth, and God is aware that human language changes, gets re-translated, etc, etc; and that people would misinterpret such words (slavery), then maybe come up with a more unified and 'easier to grasp' method?'



And my point again, is why even bring up hermeneutics specifically, if it is not reliable? What? You don't think the many English versions have considered such a conclusion? If so, don't you think they would have used a differing word, verses 'slavery' by now, if another translation was actually more befitting? I would think so. That word appears pretty incriminating.

So going back to post 764 again, please actually address the following question posed:

What is the actual and 'correct' definition of the word slavery used, in context, and how do you know? And why does all English versions choose the word slavery?

My point being that you did not try to understand it. There are many polemics online, some of which are even yours,that don't have any interest over the truth. So now you repeat the same statement for someone else to believe and lose faith, thats the gist right? It is irrational to think you have come to any conclusion because of a specious comment someone made that you did not investigate. I wonder what Christianity meant to you over those 30 years because you don't want to talk about it.

You can't say that, because it doesn't say x, it condones x. That is not a rational standpoint. What it does say is that any slave trader, or person found in his company will be executed. That seems to me to be a strong stance against slavery. Does it cover every conceivable scenario? no, but this is merely a collection of law, not the entire law. And what statements it has must be constrained by the rest of it's content.

I answered every question I was asked, you just haven't read every answer I have given. So you waited till post 764 to bear your burden? And no, that is not bearing your burden. Bearing your burden is doing more than saying the English word repeatedly, or quoting the English word. People will "misunderstand" anything they want to, you cannot stop it.

Hermeneutics is the only internal approach there is... It is highly effective, it's just not always fully conclusive or fully resolved. Translators have to make tough choices, sometimes there is no right choice with a text as one can betray the word for the context, or the context for the word. I think you would benefit a great deal in learning how translations and ancient texts are understood.

The best explanation that covers the entire content of both books is voluntary servitude. I have explained that over the last 2-3 pages if you want to go back. That stands against your base anachronistic reading. So if you want to bear your burden, which is your duty as the OP, you can show why it means involuntary slavery instead. But don't think you can start from here, I am not going to repeat myself when you are perfectly capable of reading what I have already written. I look forward to sitting back in your skeptic seat, and demanding things like "prove".

 

[cvanwey]

My point being that you did not try to understand it. There are many polemics online, some of which are even yours,that don't have any interest over the truth. So now you repeat the same statement for someone else to believe and lose faith, thats the gist right? It is irrational to think you have come to an conclusion because of a specious comment someone made that you did not investigate. I wonder what Christianity meant to you over those 30 years because you don't want to talk about it.

Again, you are trying to go after me, verses the content ('is slavery moral'). I already told you. If you cannot accept it, o well. Why do you care for the reasons of my intention of previous faith, other? What does this have anything to do with the topic? What speaks volumes to me, is instead of acknowledging that the Bible endorses slavery, you appear to be (and pardon the assumption) providing an ad hoc, or alternative conclusion to retain your current position. This appear disingenuous, and delays the final outcome to the presented topic.

You can't say that because it doesn't say x, it condones x. That is not a rational standpoint. What it does say is that any slave trader, or person found in his company will be executed. That seems to me to be a strong stance against slavery. Does it cover every conceivable scenario? no, but this is merely a collection of law, not the entire law. And what statements it has must be constrained by the rest of it's content.

The Bible DOES state specifics. If you are not Jewish, you may be beaten just short of death, called property, inherited, kept for life, slavery family kept by the slave owner, etc.... So it does 'condone' it. If it did not state any of this, I would not state any of this...

Hermeneutics is the only approach there is... It is highly effective, it's just not always fully conclusive or fully resolved. Translators have to make tough choices, sometimes there is no right choice with a text as one can betray the word for the context, or the context for the word. I think you would benefit a great deal in learning how translations and ancient texts are understood.

You mean to tell me no English translation used hermeneutics? Because they continue to use the words 'slavery', 'beat', and 'property', when referring to non-Jewish slaves. So if no English translator is using differing words by now, then maybe you can forward them the same information you are now advising towards me.

The best explanation that covers the entire content of both books is voluntary servitude. I have explained that over the last 2-3 pages if you want to go back. That stands against your base anachronistic reading. So if you want to bear your burden, which is your duty as the OP, you can show why it means involuntary slavery instead. But don't think you can start from here, I am not going to repeat myself when you are perfectly capable of reading what I have already written.

And I know you are perfectly capable of reading as well. Every English version uses the words they chose. From your rational, its almost as if you are telling people, that they need to instead learn Greek or Aramaic and read the original manuscripts, otherwise, they will not receive proper instruction. That's funny.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Dude, you have no clue of my background, education, research, etc.... You appear to be attempting to be going after my character, rather than defending the position. You are also shifting the burden of proof, by telling me to prove the Bible didn't only infer to willing participants. The Bible does not speak about such volunteers. So to assume so, is wishful thinking, on your part. We can only conclude what is written.

Telling people to research specific words, because they do no like the "English" translation is dishonest.

Furthermore, for the second time, you have stated that hermeneutics does not resolve the matter. And yet, you insist that anyone whom does not address a hermeneutic approach is doing it 'wrong.'

Personally, I wouldn't say that hermeneutics is the "right" way as much as it is the more comprehensive way of approaching and reading any text, including the Bible. But of course, some people (both supposedly Holy Spirit filled Christians along with some of their Ex-Christian/atheist counterparts) prefer to simply slouch in their solipsism and insist that their own individualistic, 2-bit, face value, uneducated reading of the Bible is just a good as that of a fully studied, full-fledged (and not just 'bible only') academic Hermeneuticist. To which I would say, "Keep on dream'n the dream, 'cuz you ain't livin' it!"

 

[cvanwey]

Personally, I wouldn't say that hermeneutics is the "right" way as much as it is the more comprehensive way of approaching and reading any text, including the Bible. But of course, some people (both supposedly Holy Spirit filled Christians along with some of their Ex-Christian/atheist counterparts) prefer to simply slouch in their solipsism and insist that their own individualistic, 2-bit, face value, uneducated reading of the Bible is just a good as that of a fully studied, full-fledged (and not just 'bible only') academic Hermeneuticist. To which I would say, "Keep on dream'n the dream, 'cuz you ain't livin' it!"

I'm aware of basic hermeneutics, but thnx for the video.

1. How were you able to conclude your specific definition is correct (is it bias)? Because viewing the words 'slavery', 'property', and 'beating', in an unbias context does not shed positively for humanity.
2. Why do all English versions continue to use the words they use regarding slavery, beating, property, etc, if they are to easily be placed out of context?
3. How is there any possible 'moral' spin to such verses?
4. Seems God may have found a way to demonstrate his message with a more universal and unchanging method of transport?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm aware of basic hermeneutics, but thnx for the video.

You're welcome. But by "basic" hermeneutics, whatever do you mean? Do you mean to refer to the same general meaning as Jenz Zimmerman does in his non-biblical exposition of the nature of hermeneutics?

1. How were you able to conclude your specific definition is correct (is it bias)? Because viewing the words 'slavery', 'property', and 'beating', in an unbias context does not shed positively for humanity.

...well, IF you heard what Zimmerman said, there isn't really a position that isn't in some way biased. One could almost say that some level of bias is inherent within the act of perceiving the world or any aspect of or in the world.

2. Why do all English versions continue to use the words they use regarding slavery, beating, property, etc, if they are to easily be placed out of context?

Context has more to do with 'filling in' and expanding our understanding of the various relational and conceptual pathways that an idea--slavery in this case, really 'biblical slavery' as opposed to say, good ol' American Slavery--is found to be connected to.

3. How is there any possible 'moral' spin to such verses?

For starters, just as in say the general term, 'capitalism,' there are various stages and permutations of the concept's extension as it is situated in time, place, and culture. We can't just say, 'slavery is slavery' and then drop our hands and shrug our shoulders and walk off, because to do so would not really be to accurately identify the issue and then shoulder as best we can the full burden of sifting through and considering as many factors as possible in our process of evaluating biblical slavery as a social and ethical phenomenon in its own right. This is particularly relevant in that we often compare O.T. slavery to the slavery we so often think of in association with clearly oppressed African men and women who were essentially forced to the Americas against their will as a part of an international slave trade and not of a specific conquest/war.

4. Seems God may have found a way to demonstrate his message with a more universal and unchanging method of transport?

.........like what? Telepathy? Yeah, I can just see it now: "Attention, men and women of Earth...this is God, speaking to untold billions of you from my eternal abode in the Great Beyond--listen to me!" Yeah, I don't know how well that will actually go over. It sounds intriguing, but....

 

[cvanwey]

You're welcome. But by "basic" hermeneutics, whatever do you mean? Do you mean to refer to the same general meaning as Jenz Zimmerman does in his non-biblical exposition of the nature of hermeneutics?

I mean I'm aware of the topic, but it is not my paid profession. Using any form of hermeneutics, does not absolve the verses regarding 'slavery', without using hermeneutic gymnastics, from my estimation.

...well, IF you heard what Zimmerman said, there isn't really a position that isn't in some way biased. One could almost say that some level of bias is inherent within the act of perceiving the world or any aspect of or in the world.

So 'slavery' is bias, 'property for life' is bias, 'beat' is bias? Please enlighten me as to my perceived bias?

Speaking of the world, is me perceiving the world as a sphere also a bias?

Context has more to do with 'filling in' and expanding our understanding of the various relational and conceptual pathways that an idea--slavery in this case, really 'biblical slavery' as opposed to say, good ol' American Slavery--is found to be connected to.

Oh please tell... What is 'biblical slavery', and how does it 'differ' from non-biblical slavery (especial if you aren't a Jew)? Does the non-biblical slavery not refer to slaves as property, don't beat slaves, and don't keep slaves for life?

For starters, just as in say the general term, 'capitalism,' there are various stages and permutations of the concept's extension as it is situation in time, place, and culture. We can't just say, 'slavery is slavery' and then drop our hands and shrug our shoulders and walk off, because to do so would not really be to accurately identify the issue and then shoulder as best we can the full burden of sifting through and considering as many factors as possible in our process of evaluating biblical slavery as a social and ethical phenomenon in its own right, particularly as it may compare to the slavery we so often think of in association with clearly oppressed African men and women who were essentially forced to the Americas against their will as a part of an international slave trade and not of a specific conquest/war.

No, I can still call it slavery because the Bible describes what one is permitted to do, which is to beat them just short of death, keep them for life, and call them property, and obtain slaves from the nations around you

.........like what? Telepathy? Yeah, I can just see it now: "Attention, men and women of Earth...this is God, speaking to untold billions of you from my eternal abode in the Great Beyond--listen to me!" Yeah, I don't know how well that will actually go over. It sounds intriguing, but....

Seems odd that Yahweh chose the exact same method as all other claimed holy claims use, from their claimed Gods (i.e.) holy text. Meaning, whispering to a few select individuals, and having them writing contradictory stuff to paper, where many spin it to jive with their own interpretation later.

And just because I do not have a 'better' method, does not mean I cannot critique the current fallible method. It would really be no different than someone tells me a complicated math equation equals a 'ham sandwich'. Though I do not know the 'correct' math answer, does not mean I cannot observe faults in the given method of answer.

But I will state one thing. If the word is the method, then I'm sure Yahweh could have found a way to have it preserved. I mean, at least have Jesus fly around to differing parts of the world and pass out carbon fiber covered and type written text to all nations. Not instead speaking 'divinely', to a few lucky local people, whom are to then create the cannon to paper decades/centuries later. And then hope it spread globally at some point.

 

[Non sequitur]

How do you redefine the beating and killing of a slave.
Are we know redefining murder?
Is murder immoral?

I don't redefine it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm having trouble finding something to reply to your most recent post that I didn't already address, so I'm just going to quote myself in reply to these. I'll bold the pertinent parts so that you notice them.

You:



Now me:

So yes, a third party can take ownership of the things you own. If Jim takes ownership of himself again, and always had the ability to do so, then he was never really owned by Bob. Jim always owned himself and had the ability to remove himself from any situation he didn't like. Just like pets. They can't take ownership of themselves, but a third party can seize them from you and cause you to not own them anymore.

And why would it need to be a third party? If Jim owns his own body....and enters into a contract with Maxine wherein he is her slave for 10 years, after which ownership returns to him....how is that any different than if it went to a third party?

If the time period was predetermined, that control of Jim returns to Jim after a set amount of time, then Jim only rented himself to Bob, much like you would rent a U-Haul.

I don't see that it is....for starters, rent is something you pay for. Furthermore, the owner you're renting from retains ownership of the property.

If someone consents to being owned....even for a day....then for that day, they are property...not owner.

You don't own that truck while it's in your possession, U-Haul does. You may be treating it like property, and acting in generally the same manner as if you owned it, but you don't really own it.

Right....you can see how that would be different from entering a contract with U-Haul wherein they allowed you to own one of their trucks for a day.

You:

Now me:

So most people won't want to, and the few that do would still want to retain their rights. That covers everybody.

I'm sorry, where did you get the idea that those who were willing to enter into slavery of their own volition would only do so conditionally?

Kissiah Petitions to Become a Slave

Read the first court petition there....it's of a freed black woman who wishes to return to slavery, unconditionally, for the rest of her life. There's actually a fair number of these.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that if there were someone who would at some point in their life desire to forfeit all of their rights, is the person who takes ownership being moral? Obviously, the slave in this scenario isn't who we're questioning the morality of, just the owner.

Why not? As long as we're talking about people of sound mind...who are giving consent and clear about the agreement....what could possibly be immoral about it?

If Jim changes his mind later on, and Bob says, "Tough noogies! You signed a contract, you're mine!", that would require a strong lack of empathy and an unreasonable amount of self interest to do.

I'll agree with the lack of empathy part.

If Bob always intended to let Jim go if he did ever change his mind, regardless of what was said during the initial agreement, then he never really considered himself to be the owner of Jim. He was merely treating him like property.

Lol And the difference between property and treating anything like property?

 

[Moral Orel]

Forced is not in that verse, that is a translational choice relative to the Masoretic.

It's in the context. If they open the gates, they do labor. If they don't open the gates they die. How is that not "forced"? There isn't a third option.

The permission to buy slaves says nothing of the condition of it being involuntary which would stand in opposition to prior laws which explicitly condemn slave trade and prior textual narrative.

It says nothing of it being voluntary. That law does not outlaw the slave trade. You keep repeating that, but it's false. It outlaws purchasing one specific type of slave based on how he was initially acquired. If it weren't for the Law explicitly stating you can buy slaves from foreigners, you might be able to wiggle the entire slave trade into that context, but since it does, you can't. You are adding things that aren't there.

As I understand it Israeli servitude was limited, but foriegn servitude can be for life if the servant wishes.

That's false. Hebrew male slaves can choose to be slaves for life, Hebrew women can be slaves for life with no mention of them having a choice in the matter at all, and foreign slaves are explicitly allowed to be enslaved for life and inherited to the children of the slave owner.

Yes but Adultery wasn't an economic foundation of his country nor was it a law.

Adultery was a law in the same sense that slavery was a law: they were both permitted by the law. I'm not saying Jesus should have told them to overthrow the government, but He could have said "You have heard that you can purchase slaves, but I say never own another person as property". It would have fit perfectly with the other things He condemns, followed the same format, and wouldn't have called for any government interference like you're implying must automatically follow from decrying owning people as property. There is nothing impeding Him from condemning it, He chose not to.

There are a lot of social creatures out there that do not have our morals. Ants, Bees, wolves, Lions, birds. When I was in college I watched ducks get rapped nearly everyday day outside the lunch hall window. They evolved the morality that that was okay, and there is no binding force that keeps our morality what it is if we ground it to evolution, nor is it any highground. Evolution is concerned only with survival that passes on DNA. That is the extent of it. Turn the other cheek, and don't enslave man, doesn't help me pass on my DNA. And don't forget happiness itself, as a biological function, can evolve, there is nothing holding it to what it is besides mutation and natural selection. While this may seem insurmountable now all it takes is a selective pressure and all this "moral highground" goes out the window, those that are immoral survive on the backs of their brethren and pass on their genes, now epigenetically selected, and survival selected toward immorality. This morality is a house build on sand. And think back to the ANE under this condition, they were acting upon their evolved morality at that time, while we, in the modern era, are merely acting according to a different evolved morality which may change entirely in a thousand years. There is no high ground, no truly right or wrong behavior, or even compulsion to obey our selected morality under this system. So if you do feel like what they did is objectively wrong you should reject your current grounding as it's foundation is not capable of supporting such a weight. Israel is merely unfashionable here, not truly wrong. We cannot judge an inch without a ruler, and the ruler being applied here persistently changes it's length making it no good at all.

We can imagine that evolution could have turned out differently for us, and we can imagine that it will be different in a million years. But we can also imagine that God could have been malevolent instead of benevolent. He could have been "hate" instead of being "love". What we can imagine doesn't matter. We find ourselves in a situation where being nice is objectively more likely to result in happiness for ourselves and others. That's all that matters.

 

[Moral Orel]

Right....you can see how that would be different from entering a contract with U-Haul wherein they allowed you to own one of their trucks for a day.

How does that even make sense? If I own that truck, I can give it away or sell it. If I can't do whatever I want with it, then I don't own it, whoever I have to return it to retains ownership of it even if I can use it in a lot of different ways. Do you not see a distinction between owning and renting? Most of your post lacks any distinction between these concepts, so I think it's best to clear this up. It's my claim. Don't I get to define "ownership"? And if you disagree, you can feel free to point out which specific portions of my example of Jim and Bob you think don't apply to owning an object.

I'm sorry, where did you get the idea that those who were willing to enter into slavery of their own volition would only do so conditionally?

Kissiah Petitions to Become a Slave

Read the first court petition there....it's of a freed black woman who wishes to return to slavery, unconditionally, for the rest of her life. There's actually a fair number of these.

I went on to say, "even if there were", so it doesn't really matter that some folks did. In this instance though, she stated that she would be destitute otherwise, not that she simply felt that was the life for her. If someone was going to cut me or stab me and gave me the choice, I'd choose being cut. That doesn't mean cutting or stabbing people is okay.

I'll agree with the lack of empathy part.

Half way there. Are you saying it's a reasonable amount of self interest to put what you gain from controlling another person above their desire for freedom?

Lol And the difference between property and treating anything like property?

When my kid was little he used to climb on my back and ride me like a horse. I'm not actually a horse, he didn't consider me to be an actual horse, and he didn't do to me everything that anyone would do to a horse. He didn't shoe me, he didn't brush my hair and feed me apples.

 

[Ana the Ist]

How does that even make sense? If I own that truck, I can give it away or sell it. If I can't do whatever I want with it, then I don't own it, whoever I have to return it to retains ownership of it even if I can use it in a lot of different ways. Do you not see a distinction between owning and renting? Most of your post lacks any distinction between these concepts, so I think it's best to clear this up.

I actually addressed the distinction....rental involves paying for use. It need not be temporary...you could arguably rent a apartment till you die.

I went on to say, "even if there were", so it doesn't really matter that some folks did. In this instance though, she stated that she would be destitute otherwise, not that she simply felt that was the life for her.

Lol and??? I would be destitute if I didn't have my current job...that doesn't mean my employers immorally took advantage of me.

It's not a situation where someone threatened or even coerced her. She made a choice.

Half way there. Are you saying it's a reasonable amount of self interest to put what you gain from controlling another person above their desire for freedom?

I would say that what's reasonable in that context is a matter of perspective.

When my kid was little he used to climb on my back and ride me like a horse. I'm not actually a horse, he didn't consider me to be an actual horse, and he didn't do to me everything that anyone would do to a horse. He didn't shoe me, he didn't brush my hair and feed me apples.

Cool story...how does that apply to my question? You said if owner intended to eventually let slave go....they weren't really property. You do realize that many slaves were freed by their masters....right? Does that mean that the whole time they weren't actually property?