Slavery IS Regulated in the Bible!

[2PhiloVoid]

... so, let's begin to look at some legal logistics here.

If we take into account the law specified in Exodus 22:21, how would the ancient Israelites have wriggled out of this command if they harbored their own selfish ambitions to make recourse to slavery so as to manipulate, control or oppress foreigners/aliens/strangers/sojourners ... immigrants?

In trying to figure this out, I'm rather "vexed" ...

 

[gaara4158]

... so, let's begin to look at some legal logistics here.

If we take into account the law specified in Exodus 22:21, how would the ancient Israelites have wriggled out of this command if they harbored their own selfish ambitions to make recourse to slavery so as to manipulate, control or oppress foreigners/aliens/strangers/sojourners ... immigrants?

In trying to figure this out, I'm rather "vexed" ...

If I were an ancient Israelite pro-slavery selfish lawyer, I’d just find ways to make it so my target aliens didn’t properly qualify as “sojourners.”

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If I were an ancient Israelite pro-slavery selfish lawyer, I’d just find ways to make it so my target aliens didn’t properly qualify as “sojourners.”

...and how are you going to do this, Mr. Lawyer, when there's MORE than just this one, single law, as well as a bevy of 'historical narratives' that bear out the penalties of Israelite failure, showing the weight of what I've conveniently pulled out for us to consider?

In observing what your trying to say, gaara, it's this kind of non-academic chutzpah on the part of atheists and skeptics, with their "just so" statements in response to what Christians say, that really just makes me want to say something I'll really regret, like "Holy Sh-Moly"!!!!

 

[gaara4158]

...and how are you going to do this, Mr. Lawyer, when there's MORE than just this one, single law, as well as a bevy of 'historical narratives' that bear out the penalties of Israelite failure, showing the weight of what I've conveniently pulled out for us to consider?

In observing what your trying to say, gaara, it's this kind of non-academic chutzpah on the part of atheists and skeptics, with their "just so" statements in response to what Christians say, that really just makes me want to say something I'll really regret, like "Holy Sh-Moly"!!!!

In putting myself in the place of an ancient Israelite trying to interpret the Torah in a way that isn’t contradictory nor at odds with modern sensibilities concerning slavery, I’m afraid I have nothing at my disposal other than “non-academic chutzpah.”

 

[InterestedAtheist]

... so, let's begin to look at some legal logistics here.

If we take into account the law specified in Exodus 22:21, how would the ancient Israelites have wriggled out of this command if they harbored their own selfish ambitions to make recourse to slavery so as to manipulate, control or oppress foreigners/aliens/strangers/sojourners ... immigrants?

Are you really? Perhaps you aren't so familiar with your own Holy Book.
In trying to figure this out, I'm rather "vexed" ...

1The LORD said to Moses,
2"Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people."
5So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel.
8Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba--the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.
9The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder.
10They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps.
11They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals,
14Moses was angry with the officers of the army--the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds--who returned from the battle.
15"Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.
17Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,
18but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
32The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep,
3372,000 cattle,
3461,000 donkeys
35and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.

If want to justify enslaving people, it's ridiculously easy. Just tell yourself God doesn't like them. Read the Bible for yourself - it's full of God's instructions to attack, enslave and/or wipe out other people.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Again, see post #397. Quite simply, God is absolutely fine with taking, buying, keeping and punishing slaves. He makes His opinions on the topic perfectlt clear.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If want to justify enslaving people, it's ridiculously easy. Just tell yourself God doesn't like them. Read the Bible for yourself - it's full of God's instructions to attack, enslave and/or wipe out other people.

Or, you [especially you] can just keep asserting as such on a public website, as you're doing here, because you know that countless onlookers won't have a clue about where to start to show that "justification of enslavement" of FOREIGNERS couldn't just be done in any old way if one takes the totality of the Old Testament into account ....

...moreover, you can just keep asserting such on a public website over and over and over again, like you and @cvanwey do, because........................well, because quasi-democratic Republicanism, among a few other modern political orientations (like Communism and Socialism), make it safe for you to do so in the present, post-revolutionary age.

The problem here with your assertions as to the 'ease' of slavery in the O.T. is that there are more than a few other little tidbits in the Old Testament Law that apply, along with the fact that there were appointed judges of the Law who were to lead the various cases that came about.

So, in essence, the Israelite people themselves were not "free" to just interpret the Law Willy-Nilly, however they felt like, as is implied in the following verses:

Deuteronomy 12:8-9 (NKJV)

8 “You shall not at all do as we are doing here today—every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes— 9 for as yet you have not come to the rest and the inheritance which the Lord your God is giving you ...
​

Deuteronomy 12:28 (NKJV)

Observe and obey all these words which I command you, that it may go well with you and your children after you forever, when you do what is good and right in the sight of the Lord your God.
​

 

[cvanwey]

Other uncontested observations thus far, regarding the 'regulation' of 'slavery'. More of a summary, if you will, to compile all of the convo's issued thus far... Feel free to addressing any of them individually, as to not overwhelm anyone

- If God does not abolish slavery, that means God does not consider slavery a sin.
- Christians boast of being on the forefront of abolishing slavery in the American South, which means Christians must somehow think slavery is a sin.
- If chattle slavery was again legalized today, the Bible would allow for it. Meaning, it is not considered sin.
- Slavery is not well defined. Wouldn't God know humans are dumb and/or self serving, and want to deploy 'improper' slavery practices?
- Slaves are considered property and/or a possession and/or money. Meaning, they are not issued the same rights as free humans.
- Jesus says nothing to abolish slavery - (see the first point).
- Many Christians will claim 'progressive revelation', in regards to slavery. But why would there need to be progressive revelation, if slavery is not a sin to begin with?
- God gave special circumstances for the practice of 'slavery', based upon uncontrollable circumstances, (i.e.) the flesh.
- At one point in history, God completely seemed to allow the taking of virgins, as the spoils of war. Does He still? And even if He no longer allows for such, why was it okay at one point in time? Furthermore, will there ever exist a circumstance, in the future, where God could issue the allowance once again?
- Jesus tells slaves to work for Christian slave masters even harder. And yet, Jesus does not tell slave masters to just no longer be slave masters.
- Slaves have their own special set of rules, apart from Matthew 7:12 or Mark 12:31, as they are considered property/possessions/money.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

- Christians boast of being on the forefront of abolishing slavery, which means Christians must somehow think slavery is a sin.

Slavery did not end because people decided that slavery was wrong. Slavery ended because new forms of labor relations emerged that proved to be more efficient, starting with feudalism in the Middle Ages.

- Slaves have their own special set of rules, apart from Matthew 7:12 or Mark 12:31, as they are considered property/possessions/money.

No, the Golden Rule applies to slaves as well. They may legally be property, but they are morally and actually men.

 

[cvanwey]

Slavery did not end because people decided that slavery was wrong. Slavery ended because new forms of labor relations emerged that proved to be more efficient, starting with feudalism in the Middle Ages.

Thank you for taking the time to respond...

Maybe I should have been a little more precise on this point.... The provided bullet point was in response to prior Christian remarks, regarding being on the forefront of the abolition of American slavery in the south. Meaning, 'responders' in this thread seem to suggest that it was the Christians whom decided slavery needed to be abolished. So why would this be a 'feather in their cap'?

Again, sorry I did not clarify. I will edit that post...

 

[cvanwey]

No, the Golden Rule applies to slaves as well. They may legally be property, but they are morally and actually men.

Huh?

'the Golden Rule applies to slaves as well'. Then they wouldn't be considered property/possessions/money. They would instead be considered workers, not slaves classified as their slave master's money, being kept for life, beaten for life, inherited for life; like you could also do with money and suffer no dyer consequences - As it is not a sin to also do as such with your other possessions.

'They may legally be property' Yes. As the Bible states, forever. Property do not possess the same rights. Hence, Jesus/God has to clarify what special rights such property does have. Such as, they can worship God. But are still to be property, the master's possession.

'but they are morally and actually men.' In so far as they possess the same physical equipment, and can worship the same God. But they are not free to leave their masters, as those rights were taken away the second God stated the masters can keep their slaves for life.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In putting myself in the place of an ancient Israelite trying to interpret the Torah in a way that isn’t contradictory nor at odds with modern sensibilities concerning slavery, I’m afraid I have nothing at my disposal other than “non-academic chutzpah.”

You may have to explain to me what "trying" to place yourself in such a position is supposed to mean, especially if you're going to do it with only "non-academic chutzpah" and without any tension with modern sensibilities. I mean, to me, as a former student myself, among other things, this just sounds like a cop-out of sorts. It sounds like you just don't want to truly put your best effort forward. It's either that or you feel you need some help to research these things.

...and what's so special about 'modern' sensibilities other than that they are...*ahem* ... relatively modern? When it comes to ethics and morality, Modern just means 'post-revolutionary,' really, and from the philosophical study I've done of various frames of social ethics as they have mutated through and beyond the various revolutions and then through post-modern diversification, I haven't seen much in the way of any real or lasting moral progress being attained by humanity, nor much in the way of any significant provision being made for human well-being in the world. In fact, in my view, the way the world is politically eschewing the Bible and heading forward in its supposed 'Wisdom' is approximately the way I'd expect it to go if ... people let their modern sensibilities become unquestioned idols in and of themselves.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Or, you [especially you] can just keep asserting as such on a public website, as you're doing here, because you know that countless onlookers won't have a clue about where to start to show that "justification of enslavement" of FOREIGNERS couldn't just be done in any old way if one takes the totality of the Old Testament into account ....

...moreover, you can just keep asserting such on a public website over and over and over again, like you and @cvanwey do, because........................well, because quasi-democratic Republicanism, among a few other modern political orientations (like Communism and Socialism), make it safe for you to do so in the present, post-revolutionary age.

The problem here with your assertions as to the 'ease' of slavery in the O.T. is that there are more than a few other little tidbits in the Old Testament Law that apply, along with the fact that there were appointed judges of the Law who were to lead the various cases that came about.

So, in essence, the Israelite people themselves were not "free" to just interpret the Law Willy-Nilly, however they felt like, as is implied in the following verses:

Deuteronomy 12:8-9 (NKJV)

8 “You shall not at all do as we are doing here today—every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes— 9 for as yet you have not come to the rest and the inheritance which the Lord your God is giving you ...
​

Deuteronomy 12:28 (NKJV)

Observe and obey all these words which I command you, that it may go well with you and your children after you forever, when you do what is good and right in the sight of the Lord your God.
​

1. It sounds like you're getting a bit annoyed that we are free to say what we want, and that the Bible is no longer legally protected from criticism. That is a pity.
2. You haven't addressed the cases of people within the Bible committing appalling acts, including taking slaves.
3. The question on this thread is "Does the Bible endorse slavery and say that it is right to take, keep and punish slaves". That question was answered many, many pages ago - indeed, almost from the start. Since then, you and Halbhh have been trying to, well, basically, distract us from the main issue, with discussions about Czech politicians, Israelite judges and the Golden Rule - any of which may have made fascinating discussions, but none of which address the real issue.
Your own particular defence (which seems to be "Despite what it says in the Old Testament, it wouldn't have worked out like that in practice, because of various other factors") doesn't hold water. First, the Bible quite clearly shows people taking, keeping and punishing slaves, at the command of God and His chosen prophets. Second, the question is not "Were the Israelites a slave state comparable to, say, antebellum USA?" but rather, "Does the Bible support slavery?"

That question has now been answered; and, by your failure to even address it, you are effectively conceding the debate.
God has shown that He is happy for people to enslave others.
The Bible is pro-slavery.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

You may have to explain to me what "trying" to place yourself in such a position is supposed to mean, especially if you're going to do it with only "non-academic chutzpah" and without any tension with modern sensibilities. I mean, to me, as a former student myself, among other things, this just sounds like a cop-out of sorts. It sounds like you just don't want to truly put your best effort forward. It's either that or you feel you need some help to research these things.

...and what's so special about 'modern' sensibilities other than that they are...*ahem* ... relatively modern? When it comes to ethics and morality, Modern just means 'post-revolutionary,' really, and from the philosophical study I've done of various frames of social ethics as they have mutated through and beyond the various revolutions and then through post-modern diversification, I haven't seen much in the way of any real or lasting moral progress being attained by humanity, nor much in the way of any significant provision being made for human well-being in the world. In fact, in my view, the way the world is politically eschewing the Bible and heading forward in its supposed 'Wisdom' is approximately the way I'd expect it to go if ... people let their modern sensibilities become unquestioned idols in and of themselves.

Do you agree that slavery is wrong?
If the answer is yes, then there's no need to have a debate about morality. We all agree that taking slaves is wrong, and the question is settled. All we have to do now is determine if the Bible supports slavery.
By reading it, we can easily tell that it does.
And that's all there is to it. As I said earlier, it's a mistake to complicate simple questions.

 

[gaara4158]

You may have to explain to me what "trying" to place yourself in such a position is supposed to mean, especially if you're going to do it with only "non-academic chutzpah" and without any tension with modern sensibilities. I mean, to me, as a former student myself, among other things, this just sounds like a cop-out of sorts. It sounds like you just don't want to truly put your best effort forward. It's either that or you feel you need some help to research these things.

I’m just not properly motivated to steelman a position in favor of biblical infallibility and any single position re:slavery. I can pick out verses both for and against ugly treatment of foreigners and I’m not confident an effort to reconcile them hermeneutically would be worth my time. But that’s not to say I couldn’t twist the Bible’s words to say whatever I wanted, there’s plenty of precedent for that.

 

[Norbert L]

Especially when you are also given 'carte blanche' to beat them, just short of death, (as long as they are not Hebrew). So yes, it would appear the Bible too 'may' present racism, in the sense that if you are not a Jew, all bets are off.

Not sure if this has been mentioned before. When examining slavery in the Bible, Exodus 21:20-21 gets pointed out a lot and a conclusion is drawn. God allows slaves to be beat just short of death, 'carte blanche' as an analogy. But if a person would just continue reading they would find 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." in verses 26 and 27.

So no it wasn't carte blanche, nor could it be described as possible racism Leviticus 19:33-34.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before. When examining slavery in the Bible, Exodus 21:20-21 gets pointed out a lot and a conclusion is drawn. God allows slaves to be beat just short of death, 'carte blanche' as an analogy. But if a person would just continue reading they would find 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." in verses 26 and 27.

So no it wasn't carte blanche, nor could it be described as possible racism Leviticus 19:33-34.

That is a relevant point, yes. But overall, if we are asking the question 'does the Bible support slavery?' the answer simply has to be, yes.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I’m just not properly motivated to steelman a position in favor of biblical infallibility and any single position re:slavery. I can pick out verses both for and against ugly treatment of foreigners and I’m not confident an effort to reconcile them hermeneutically would be worth my time. But that’s not to say I couldn’t twist the Bible’s words to say whatever I wanted, there’s plenty of precedent for that.

...what then are you "motivated" for here, gaara? If you're not here to 'try' to discuss and learn, then you're leaving me little by which to, in turn, be motivated in having any interlocution with you over the Bible and/or Christian faith. Maybe you're just here to talk about the weather? Sports? What? IDK.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you agree that slavery is wrong?
If the answer is yes, then there's no need to have a debate about morality. We all agree that taking slaves is wrong, and the question is settled. All we have to do now is determine if the Bible supports slavery.
By reading it, we can easily tell that it does.
And that's all there is to it. As I said earlier, it's a mistake to complicate simple questions.

Do I agree that slavery is wrong? I could say "yes," as you suppose that I might, but then if I did so in a flat-out fashion, that would be to allow this thread to obscure the fact that if I do agree with you on this point, it is for a different set of reasons, via a different paradigm, than that which you yourself subscribe to...

...and that isn't something I can afford to just let go by.

Besides, if there's any simple observation about the conceptual structures of the Bible and the kind of slavery it seems to convey, that simple observation is that all of these issues are ... COMPLEX.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Do I agree that slavery is wrong? I could say "yes," as you suppose that I might, but then if I did so in a flat-out fashion

...you would be disagreeing with the Bible. Yes, I know. Come on, Philo - you were almost there.