• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Slavery IS Regulated in the Bible!

Status
Not open for further replies.

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
42,091
22,705
US
✟1,728,302.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Just curious which verses you are referencing? But even still, there exists plenty of NT verses which 'allow' slavery', with no clear definitions of what a slave is and is not.


That's like saying the NT also "allows" abortion. Those were real letters written to real people in a real society run by tough men with real swords. How was it going to not "allow" slavery?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
27,469
19,164
Colorado
✟528,635.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
There is no particular need for Christians to address instructions God gave to the early Jews.
Installed by Jews?

636341682924158691-Arkansas-10-commandments-monument.JPG
 
  • Haha
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
27,469
19,164
Colorado
✟528,635.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
American Christians began reaching back to the OT for daily moral guidance specifically for the purpose of rationalizing slavery and Manifest Destiny.
My point is many contemporary American Christians disagree with you about the need to address those ancient instructions.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
65
California
✟151,844.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private

That's like saying the NT also "allows" abortion. Those were real letters written to real people in a real society run by tough men with real swords. How was it going to not "allow" slavery?

I know you are a smart guy, but I would need to point out, the Bible does not go into nearly as much detail as to how one is to 'abort' their child. The Bible does go into detail, regarding whom they can enslave, for how long, what one is allowed to do to them, and specifies what race is excluded from all other said allowances and/or provisions. Not so much so with abortion.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
65
California
✟151,844.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
There is no particular need for Christians to address instructions God gave to the early Jews.

Jesus mentions slavery as well. I mentioned that much prior, if you've been following along? Maybe you have not? And I'm still waiting for the asserted verses, where the NT 'disallows' 'certain types' of 'slavery'?
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
65
California
✟151,844.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
My point is many contemporary American Christians disagree with you about the need to address those ancient instructions.

It appears we have a major dilemma. If the Bible is truth, which sect is correct? By what standard is 'the' one to adhere to? This again, is yet another reason doubters are warranted in their doubt. Religion is not very well defined. Furthermore, even IF some God/Gods exist, and even IF the Bible has 'God inspiration', it would appear the verses about slavery may not apply. It more-so seems like ad hoc additions, generated by men, to 'justify' their actions, and to tell others it is not 'sin' to practice as such (i.e.) slavery.

The reason I posit such a conclusion, is that such allowances are in direct conflict with Jesus's said 'Golden rule'.

At this point, I'm just regurgitating the OP, over and over again. I've exhausted this topic again and again. I have yet to hear anything new. I will respond further, only if someone brings something NEW to the table. Otherwise, I will politely watch in the background and let all you other intellectuals hash out the remaining details.

Fin
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
42,091
22,705
US
✟1,728,302.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My point is many contemporary American Christians disagree with you about the need to address those ancient instructions.

My point is that American Christians do so for evil reasons, then and now, and it wasn't always that way with Christians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟122,193.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Jesus said a lot of things. Playing 'Texas Sharpshooter' does not hide the fact that there exists verses, 'commanded or allowed by God', stating it is permissible for slave owners to beat their slaves, treat them as property, and pass them down for life.... As long as they are not Hebrew of course.

Where does God command slave owners to beat slaves? It’s on you to prove this. On to another point, all of mankind is sinful including the Jews. I think most Jews were probably not all that different than foreigners in surrounding countries, even including the ones which put on an outward appearance of righteousness, they were nevertheless as a den of wolves on the inside. So these Scriptures you have a problem with, the Levitical laws particularly, applied to both the regenerate and unregenerate Jew, the laws had a broader scope applying to all of Jewish society, they addressed the problems of that society during a particular time in history. I suspect the treatment of slaves in ancient Hebrew society as a whole surpassed the treatment of slaves outside of Hebrew society. I suspect that many of those who were already slaves were relieved when the Hebrews would visit their slave selling country and purchase them. Neither scenario sits well with our modern sensibilities, but consider the consequences of Hebrews going to other countries and setting them free in Israel. From what I understand, in ancient Israel the Lord desired His chosen people to be a separate people, and if the Hebrews allowed all slaves to be free and stay, they would have become overrun with slaves from surrounding countries and lost their identity as Israel. If on the other hand they cast them back out into where they came from, where the situation would turn from not great, to disastrous. Finally, as terrible as it is, slavery helped to support ancient economies and economic growth, without slavery many past societies would have entirely caved in long before they did. None of this is an attempt to justify, it is dealing with things as they were, with the problems that come with societies of sinners.

Still working the rest of a response but wanted to get this portion up. Trying to keep my son in line (for his good), hoping I can "spare the rod" before I have to all but force him to go to bed. Not always a joy being a responsible parent, an authority figure to him, much prefer to be his buddy, his friend, but I'm also his daddy too.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,677
11,531
Space Mountain!
✟1,362,137.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hmm, I want to grant you that this is a very good point, but something just doesn't sit right with me. Yes, we’re asking not out of mere academic interest but true concern that Christians get their morals from a book that condones slavery, but that doesn't have to be a moral concern on our part, as you seem to be suggesting. Why isn’t it sufficient to have pragmatic objections to a situation in which a significant portion of the population take a slavery-condoning book seriously as a moral guide? Even if I think morals are nonsense I have good reasons to be uneasy about that.

Wait a minute, gaara! If you're saying that a "pragmatic objection" on your part involves your own concern over a matter in which biblical slavery may affect the moral processes of a portion of the present day population, then you're just proving the point that I was making (i.e that it's not a neutral issue). I'm not being merely pedantic or academic; I'm treating this as the ethical issue that it is.

So, I'm not quite sure what your actual objection is here. Rather, it looks as if you agree with me, but just from another angle.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
65
California
✟151,844.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Okay, I guess some of this is new. I'll bite (at the new stuff. Otherwise, just read all the repeated stuff aforementioned)....

Where does God command slave owners to beat slaves? It’s on you to prove this.

In that post, I stated " 'commanded or allowed by God', stating it is permissible for slave owners to beat their slaves, treat them as property, and pass them down for life "

Then simply read:

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

And

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.



On to another point, all of mankind is sinful including the Jews. I think most Jews were probably not all that different than foreigners in surrounding countries, even including the ones which put on an outward appearance of righteousness, they were nevertheless as a den of wolves on the inside. So these Scriptures you have a problem with, the Levitical laws particularly, applied to both the regenerate and unregenerate Jew, the laws had a broader scope applying to all of Jewish society, they addressed the problems of that society during a particular time in history. I suspect the treatment of slaves in ancient Hebrew society as a whole surpassed the treatment of slaves outside of Hebrew society. I suspect that many of those who were already slaves were relieved when the Hebrews would visit their slave selling country and purchase them. Neither scenario sits well with our modern sensibilities, but consider the consequences of Hebrews going to other countries and setting them free in Israel. From what I understand, in ancient Israel the Lord desired His chosen people to be a separate people, and if the Hebrews allowed all slaves to be free and stay, they would have become overrun with slaves from surrounding countries and lost their identity as Israel. If on the other hand they cast them back out into where they came from, where the situation would turn from not great, to disastrous. Finally, as terrible as it is, slavery helped to support ancient economies and economic growth, without slavery many past societies would have entirely caved in long before they did. None of this is an attempt to justify, it is dealing with things as they were, with the problems that come with societies of sinners.

The same case could be made from the slave owners of the forefathers of America, prior to the abolishment of it. Of course, replacing Hebrew references with African ones.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
65
California
✟151,844.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
"No, it applies to Christians all the same. But feel free not to address it, if you so choose." ;)

I would just like a straight answer. What does the verse mean to [you], in context?

I again, state that the term 'slave' is not well defined. However, what seems to be fairly defined is the specific allowances applicable to such said human property. What is your take? (Without providing a round-about novel)?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,677
11,531
Space Mountain!
✟1,362,137.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I would just like a straight answer. What does the verse mean to [you], in context?
In context? What constitutes 'context' in your estimation, because I've got over 20 books on biblical Hermeneutics and Exegesis alone, and as I've said before, I'm concerned that we might not even be able to get to the text in Leviticus itself because we actually disagree about what the meaning and application of 'interpretation' is in this instance; and now I'm concerned about what you think makes for contexts (plural).

You're usually claiming that you've "studied a whole lot" and have gleaned the best insights from various scholars. Ok. If so, it's time to back that assertion up, cvanwey; free passes aren't available in the Christian Apologetics section, or didn't you know?

I again, state that the term 'slave' is not well defined. However, what seems to be fairly defined is the specific allowances applicable to such said human property. What is your take? (Without providing a round-about novel)?
... What is my take? My 'take' is that the Leviticus 25 passage refers to people ("STRANGERS" or "SOJOURNERS") who are down on their luck financially and sell themselves to the Israelites in order to 'get by,' the SAME kinds of foreign people who, God says through Moses, should be allowed to the Passover feast if they abide by God's Law (and therefore are to be treated as those who are, by spiritual semblance, as "brethren"). That's generally how I interpret it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟122,193.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
In that post, I stated " 'commanded or allowed by God', stating it is permissible for slave owners to beat their slaves, treat them as property, and pass them down for life "

Then simply read:

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.

Forgive my dependency on more capable expositor's, here are a couple of different and short expositions of verse 45:

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
25:39-55 A native Israelite, if sold for debt, or for a crime, was to serve but six years, and to go out the seventh. If he sold himself, through poverty, both his work and his usage must be such as were fitting for a son of Abraham. Masters are required to give to their servants that which is just and equal, Col 4:1. At the year of jubilee the servant should go out free, he and his children, and should return to his own family. This typified redemption from the service of sin and Satan, by the grace of God in Christ, whose truth makes us free, Joh 8:32. We cannot ransom our fellow-sinners, but we may point out Christ to them; while by his grace our lives may adorn his gospel, express our love, show our gratitude, and glorify his holy name.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Property in foreign slaves is here distinctly permitted. It was a patriarchal custom Genesis 17:12. Such slaves might be captives taken in war (Numbers 31:6 following; Deuteronomy 20:14), or those consigned to slavery for their crimes, or those purchased of foreign slave-dealers. The price of a slave is supposed to have varied from thirty to fifty shekels. See Leviticus 27:3-4, note; Exodus 21:32, note; Zechariah 11:12-13, note; Matthew 26:15, note. It was the object of Moses, not at once to do away with slavery, but to discourage and to mitigate it. The Law would not suffer it to be forgotten that the slave was a man, and protected him in every way that was possible at the time against the injustice or cruelty of his master. See the notes at Exodus 21.

Both of these together consider a broader context for v.45 and I think they provide helpful insight. Today we would call some slaves POW's, other slave situations might be comparable to worker arrangements in China.

It's also worth noting the little word "may" which indicates to the reader a permissiveness which should not be taken as a command or even a recommendation.

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

I'll pass on commentary here and simply note that that verse 20 is clear about protecting slaves, the threat of punishment to the master/lord of the servant helped serve as deterrent to beating a slave, which indicates to me a difference between slavery in Hebrew society and slavery in other nations/countries. Verse 21 does seem to give allowance for a severe punishment to a disobedient slave, though I do not know what would warrant (in ancient Hebrew society) such a behind the woodshed punishment. Spare the rod spoil the slave? Seems the punishment would have to fit the offense to be just, but the text does not or at least the quoted text does not go into details about offenses.

The same case could be made from the slave owners of the forefathers of America, prior to the abolishment of it. Of course, replacing Hebrew references with African ones.

I have an issue with that line of thinking though, America was not founded on Judaism, and Christianity recognizes the progressive nature of the covenants and indeed revelation from God. So however one wishes to spin it, equivocating Judaism with Christianity would be a fallacy.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,340
9,285
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,223,341.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hmm, I want to grant you that this is a very good point, but something just doesn't sit right with me. Yes, we’re asking not out of mere academic interest but true concern that Christians get their morals from a book that condones slavery, but that doesn't have to be a moral concern on our part, as you seem to be suggesting. Why isn’t it sufficient to have pragmatic objections to a situation in which a significant portion of the population take a slavery-condoning book seriously as a moral guide? Even if I think morals are nonsense I have good reasons to be uneasy about that.

It's wise to be concerned about human tendency to do major evil, but to see how your ally then is actually authentic Christianity, see post #61 and my posts after #61.
 
Upvote 0

devolved

Newbie
Sep 4, 2013
1,332
364
US
✟75,427.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
I know this topic is anything but new, but I have to bring it up, because it would more likely appear that such verses were written by humans, whom simply passed them off as God pronouncements. Which is yet another reason non-believers can so easily read from this book and not take it too seriously.

You are viewing the Biblical narrative from a POV of "perfect state" as opposed to from a POV of directional nudging of humanity to a more perfect state.

As such, there are only two means when it comes to cultural context of human existence, especially in days where there were no centralized media and legal structure. You could either wipe entire population, and re-educating the next one. Or you could gradually introduce new concepts that direct the successive generations towards certain end.
 
Upvote 0

devolved

Newbie
Sep 4, 2013
1,332
364
US
✟75,427.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
It stands, with reason, to conclude, a Hebrew, or someone instructed by an authoritative Hebrew, wrote such verses, and stated they came from a higher authority to make it 'acceptable' law practices.

It would be rather odd that the same Hebrews would make laws regarding sheltering runaway slaves and not returning them to their masters.

Slavery in the past served as the only viable economic context for contractual labor. The analogy would be an employee of the modern corporation binding themselves to a certain contractual employment in exchange for salary, and as such, the employee would be a company asset that would be sold with the company if the company would be transferred ownership.

Certain people in the past had no other options but to willingly adhere to a life of a slave, since they had no independent means of self-sustenance. Likewise, it served as debt-repayment mechanism, and penal mechanism for criminals and war captives.

So, there was more to it than simply capturing people against their will and using them for mechanical labor.

It's not a uniquely Hebrew concept. It was a context for most of the humanity's history in various cultures and continents that were rather parallel.

Hebrew approach to slavery was "progressive" in a sense that it did set boundaries around that relationship, and it was gradually shifted to Christian narrative of "being slaves to each other", which would be a very difficult concept to defend from mere perspective of Hebrew nationalism.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,441
2,688
United States
✟216,414.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Wait a minute, gaara! If you're saying that a "pragmatic objection" on your part involves your own concern over a matter in which biblical slavery may affect the moral processes of a portion of the present day population, then you're just proving the point that I was making (i.e that it's not a neutral issue). I'm not being merely pedantic or academic; I'm treating this as the ethical issue that it is.

So, I'm not quite sure what your actual objection is here. Rather, it looks as if you agree with me, but just from another angle.
Hmm, maybe. My main issue was that you seemed to be deflecting the question of why Christians abhor slavery when God allows it by asking why atheists abhor slavery, as though pragmatic reasons aren’t enough.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.