Slavery, a Guide

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Sure like being killed with a sword ordered by god, or being killed by fire from the sky, or being killed by a bear.

Just because it is not the worst death does not mean it is not immoral. He could have just poofed them out of existence.

The sea represents the gentile world, so there's that.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I'm going to take your severe lack in response of post #479 as a concession to all provided counterpoints. As you stated in post #472, you may want to catch up to the rest of us, whom speak about the topic of 'Slavery, a Guide". When you feel you have caught up, please engage, if you should still disagree with what others are saying here.

And now to address your one response below.


Precisely, so that is the reason why this cannot be used to justify the American slave trade!

Virtually any slave trade can be justified, using the Bible. The Bible speaks about two distinct sects of slaves. The Israelites, and then all the rest.

You can start by simply reading Lev. 25:44-46:


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

Pay close attention to the part(s) in red. The provided guide tells it's readers that the Jewish slaves are treated differently from all the other sanctioned slaves, which were kept for life.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
I'm going to take your severe lack in response of post #479 as a concession to all provided counterpoints. As you stated in post #472, you may want to catch up to the rest of us, whom speak about the topic of 'Slavery, a Guide". When you feel you have caught up, please engage, if you should still disagree with what others are saying here.

And now to address your one response below.




Virtually any slave trade can be justified, using the Bible. The Bible speaks about two distinct sects of slaves. The Israelites, and then all the rest.

You can start by simply reading Lev. 25:44-46:


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

Pay close attention to the part(s) in red. The provided guide tells it's readers that the Jewish slaves are treated differently from all the other sanctioned slaves, which were kept for life.

It's true, but I was dealing with Hebrew slaves in my commentary, not any other type. Though there are still differences - principally any slave could gain his (or her freedom) by buying it, but converting to Judaism and waiting out the 6 years and slaves weren't treated as property in the sense that American slaves were. The latter had no way out except to escape and to hope for someone sympathetic to help them.
 
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
And no one evens asks if the woman needs or wants protection.
Of course not, because they did. Even now we have certain protections that apply to women that don't apply to men - maternity leave, for example.

Clearly a pregnant woman and even a mother with young cannot do many of the things that might be considered normal. Even today not everyone has a supportive partner and finds themselves having to work while rearing young children.

Women had a role to play and just because it doesn't fit neatly with modern sensibilities does not mean that it was misogyinistic.

Had you lived in those times, I think you would have found that pretty much every woman wanted some form of protection, whether a young mother or an older woman who could be cast off in favour of a younger model, or a widow need to be fed and looked after.

One might equally say no one even asks if the man should or wants to provide protection. Sometimes what ought to be, doesn't actually need that much articulating.
 
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Yet, it never says to not beat a slave. It also does say how to commit violence against a slave without losing your life. That is the point of the passage. It instructs how to beat your slave properly so the master has no consequences.
Actually not. if you read the whole chapter instead of just skipping to the bits that treat slaves, you would see a typical Hebrew writing style: parallelism.

So Ex 21:18: If men fight, and one strikes his neighbour with a stone or with his fist and he does not die, but must remain in in bed, and then if he gets up and walks about outside on his staff, then the one who struck him is innocent, except he must pay for the injured person's loss of time and see to it that hi is fully healed.

Followed immediately by "If a man strikes his male servant...."

So Fred who has a temper gets into a fight with his neighbour and his servant. He beats both and makes both bedridden for a short time:
- His neighbour he has to pay for this loss of livelihood for those few days - the neighbour cannot be out of pocket.
- His servant has no loss of livelihood as Fred is already paying for him during those few days, but now gets no service for his money.

Assuming that the neighbour and the servant both are worth X during the disability period, then Normally Fred would be paying X for X service (from the servant), but now he is paying 2X for zero service.

Fred really needs to sort out his temper!

Additional: I hope you can see that this law IS a law against beating your servant in the same way as the previous law is a law against attacking your neighbour. Saying "do not attack your neighbour/servant" is somewhat meaningless, since a) there is no inherent consequence for this; and b) it won't stop people doing it (as we know from laws in every land and time).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Ok, now I understand. If they are a Hebrew male they can voluntarily commit to being a slave to pay a debt. I agree to that. But if you are a hebrew female for example your father could sell you into slavery for a price, against your will Ex21:1.
Not necessarily. Look at Deuteronomy 15:12+. A repetition of the same laws, but here specifically it includes women. So Hebrew slaves could get their freedom, regardless of sex. The keeping of the mother might well be all about her completing her term as a servant.

The verse you reference is awkward, but 'selling' a daughter into servitude is all about setting her up for life - No husband and costing money, she would be better off with someone else who CAN afford to look after her and make proper use of her(!) Slave women, it seems, could be the mother of an heir to the inheritance (Abraham had a child with Sarah and another with her slave, Hagar; later Jacob has multiple children with his two wives and with their two slaves). It is awkward because we see this as a bad thing, but there is no indication that they would have, indeed the jealousy of Sarah against Hagar is indication that there was a lot of prestige involved in being the mother of Abraham's oldest son.

I said elsewhere that much of the treatment of women was about making sure that they were protected and looked after and this doesn't seem that much different, unless you look at it through 21st century lenses.
 
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
This is a big issue for me and one I had when I was a christian. God does not want me in heaven, he wants the perfect me, the sinless me. Which is not me at all. It is like telling my kid that I will only love you if you never screw up. God does not love believers he loves the perfect believers.
Looking through the thread to see what others have said, I've come across this.

I feel sorry that this is the impression you got from your experiences of church. The reality is that God loves us despite our imperfections.

For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.... but God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:6,8

A parent can love their child even when the screw up, but that does not mean that they are happy with such a screw up!
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Of course not, because they did. Even now we have certain protections that apply to women that don't apply to men - maternity leave, for example.
Yes, but the woman does not have to take the leave if she does not want to. No one is forcing a woman to take maternity leave.

Had you lived in those times, I think you would have found that pretty much every woman wanted some form of protection, whether a young mother or an older woman who could be cast off in favour of a younger model, or a widow need to be fed and looked after.
If all women wanted protection as you say then why not make it their choice? Why is giving women a choice a bad thing? Surely some women would not want the "protection".

One might equally say no one even asks if the man should or wants to provide protection. Sometimes what ought to be, doesn't actually need that much articulating.
Yet the man in this situation has the choice.
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Actually not. if you read the whole chapter instead of just skipping to the bits that treat slaves, you would see a typical Hebrew writing style: parallelism.

So Ex 21:18: If men fight, and one strikes his neighbour with a stone or with his fist and he does not die, but must remain in in bed, and then if he gets up and walks about outside on his staff, then the one who struck him is innocent, except he must pay for the injured person's loss of time and see to it that hi is fully healed.

Followed immediately by "If a man strikes his male servant...."

So Fred who has a temper gets into a fight with his neighbour and his servant. He beats both and makes both bedridden for a short time:
- His neighbour he has to pay for this loss of livelihood for those few days - the neighbour cannot be out of pocket.
- His servant has no loss of livelihood as Fred is already paying for him during those few days, but now gets no service for his money.

Assuming that the neighbour and the servant both are worth X during the disability period, then Normally Fred would be paying X for X service (from the servant), but now he is paying 2X for zero service.

Fred really needs to sort out his temper!

Additional: I hope you can see that this law IS a law against beating your servant in the same way as the previous law is a law against attacking your neighbour. Saying "do not attack your neighbour/servant" is somewhat meaningless, since a) there is no inherent consequence for this; and b) it won't stop people doing it (as we know from laws in every land and time).
So saying you can have no consequence for beating your slave is actually a law against beating them but saying "do not beat your slaves" is meaningless? I think this is just an example of explaining away what the text says. God could have been really clear about what He is saying here. These verses have been used to support slavery. Why would God allow this to be misused is such a terrible way?
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Not necessarily. Look at Deuteronomy 15:12+. A repetition of the same laws, but here specifically it includes women. So Hebrew slaves could get their freedom, regardless of sex. The keeping of the mother might well be all about her completing her term as a servant.
This is for Hebrew men and women only. Verse 12. Not all slaves.

The verse you reference is awkward, but 'selling' a daughter into servitude is all about setting her up for life - No husband and costing money, she would be better off with someone else who CAN afford to look after her and make proper use of her(!)
And yet she has no choice in the matter.

I said elsewhere that much of the treatment of women was about making sure that they were protected and looked after and this doesn't seem that much different, unless you look at it through 21st century lenses.
Why is it wrong to ask the woman what they want in the situation?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Yes, but the woman does not have to take the leave if she does not want to. No one is forcing a woman to take maternity leave.

If all women wanted protection as you say then why not make it their choice? Why is giving women a choice a bad thing? Surely some women would not want the "protection".

Yet the man in this situation has the choice.

I was using maternity leave as an example - I doubt many would not avail of it and the only reason they might not is because they don't get paid as much or some similar reason. Part of the reason why the choice was denied to them was because childbirth was a difficult thing and no-one wanted to make it more difficult because the lives of both mother and child would be at stake.

I suspect that many an abandoned wife would love for some kind of support network or guarantee that they could bring up their children safely and perhaps with a good father-figure around.

Do you really think the man has a choice in this circumstances as though it were easy come easy go. The commitment he has to service, marriage, childrearing are built into society. To go against it is allowed, but certainly not encouraged. The choice is there for all, but it is not encouraged for anyone.
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
892
54
Texas
✟109,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Looking through the thread to see what others have said, I've come across this.

I feel sorry that this is the impression you got from your experiences of church. The reality is that God loves us despite our imperfections.

For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.... but God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:6,8

A parent can love their child even when the screw up, but that does not mean that they are happy with such a screw up!
When my kids screw up I still want to be around them and be with them. God won't be with us if we sin. He sends us to hell because we are not perfect. I would never do that to my child no matter what they do, because I really do love them.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with why I don't believe. I don't believe because of the lack of good evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
So saying you can have no consequence for beating your slave is actually a law against beating them but saying "do not beat your slaves" is meaningless? I think this is just an example of explaining away what the text says. God could have been really clear about what He is saying here. These verses have been used to support slavery. Why would God allow this to be misused is such a terrible way?
Then let us apply the same reasoning to the preceding verses.

Nowhere does God say that you shouldn't fight your neighbours, therefore (by your reasoning) it is acceptable to God that you fight your neighbours?
 
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
This is for Hebrew men and women only. Verse 12. Not all slaves.

And yet she has no choice in the matter.

Why is it wrong to ask the woman what they want in the situation?
Yes it is for Hebrews only, but then that is what the early passages of Exodus are dealing with. These passages can justify 'slavery' in Hebrew terms for Hebrew people, but not for anyone else. At best they can be a guide for treating anyone who serves you with honesty and integrity.

Women did have the choice (as Deuteronomy indicates). That they chose a life of security for themselves and their families seems to have been a no brainer.

I've already pointed out that Hebrew servants made a commitment for the term of 7 years, whether male or female. At the end of that time they were free to go (and Deuteronomy actually indicates that they were supposed to have some kind of start-up also). They could leave at any time in that 7 years and either pay the outstanding debt or show that their master was cruel and dangerous (I heard someone mention that last week, though I've not yet come across the reference in my readings - but then I've not got out of Exodus yet).
 
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
When my kids screw up I still want to be around them and be with them. God won't be with us if we sin. He sends us to hell because we are not perfect. I would never do that to my child no matter what they do, because I really do love them.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with why I don't believe. I don't believe because of the lack of good evidence.
Actually that is not true of the Christian message. If your kids screw up and they don't want to be around you, you still do what you can to bring them back to a relationship with you. There may come a time, however when you know that nothing you can do or say will make the slightest bit of difference - they are intent on their own goals, no matter how self-destructive they are.

It is fair enough that you don't believe because of the lack of good evidence, but I'd hate to think that lack includes misunderstandings like this.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
It's true, but I was dealing with Hebrew slaves in my commentary, not any other type. Though there are still differences - principally any slave could gain his (or her freedom) by buying it, but converting to Judaism and waiting out the 6 years and slaves weren't treated as property in the sense that American slaves were. The latter had no way out except to escape and to hope for someone sympathetic to help them.

Then your response is even less relevant. You stated "that is the reason why this cannot be used to justify the American slave trade!"

The Bible can most certainly be used to support the "American slave trade." You just simply need to know where to look. Did you happen to see Chapter and Verse, for which I provided in post 484? Did you also happen to see my initial rebuttal, in post 479?

You also stated "any slave' can earn their freedom. This is also fundamentally false. Please again look at my rebuttal in post #479.
 
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
This passage was exclusive to the Jews. Why does God provide special instructions for one sect of people, based upon attributes humans cannot even control? Seems God favors some over others.



Again, this law was written exclusively for the Jews alone. All others were not to ever go free.


I thought I'd said somewhere at the beginning that initially I was dealing exclusively with Hebrew slaves, so apologies for the misconception.

What attributes are there that humans cannot control?

Of course God favours some - he made a covenant with the descendants of Abraham for goodness sake. They were a chosen people.


I noticed you skipped passage 7?

“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do."


Why is that?


I've covered it elsewhere - See Deuteronomy 15:12 where the freedom of female slaves is also guaranteed. However culturally the woman needed to be supported and should not be allowed freedom if that entailed no protection.

Women, whom were still living with their fathers, because they were not yet married, had virtually no rights of their own. Heck, they virtually had no rights either way, (married or single). They might as well have been "slaves" regardless. Consent was issued by a male, whether it be the father, the husband, or other.

I agree - but this was the cultural norm, whether in the Hebrew tribes, or the Canaanites or the other Near Eastern nations. Rights or not, they certainly had better protection (at least in theory) than in other nations.

The above passage states that you may beat your slave(s), as long as they do not die. The passages also reassure the reader that the slave is the master's property.

I prefer the NET, "... for he has suffered the loss", but the principle is the same either way and it is the same principle as that already stated for 'neighbour', i.e. compensation for inability to work. The neighbour gets compensated financially because he is unable to work. The master of the 'slave' gets compensated also because his servant is unable to work, but as he is the one compensating, he is also the one suffering the loss - net effect is no direct financial loss, but there is the loss of a worker unable to work for a few days. See post 487 for an example of how this works.

As stated above, Verse 16 is not speaking about slaves ;) Verses 12-19 are speaking about other situations. It's not until you get to Verse 20 that the Bible singles out the "slaves".
I guess this is why masters would beat their slaves from the back side. This way, you cannot knock out their eyes or teeth. Furthermore, a blind slave is likely a worthless slave.


It is the same principle at work both times. If you injure someone, you pay for their livelihood, whether it is a neighbour (pay them directly) or a slave (pay with loss income from that slave). And I think you are mistaken about beating on the back side. These laws were administered by Judges who I think had a lot more common sense than the average skeptic!

If you are born into slavery, you are a slave for life (ala Scripture). If you are not an Israelite, you are a slave for life (again in Scripture). If you are a female, you are also slave for life. According to Chapter and Verse, a master is able to purchase slaves from a foreign land, provided they were born into slavery.

Not entirely true. I'll concede the non-Hebrew slave situation for the moment as I haven't got as far as looking into that, but for Hebrews, male and female, nothing is binding and there were ways out (see the reference to Deuteronomy above). There is also provision for slaves to escape cruel masters, though at the moment I'm not sure where I read that - I'm still working my way through Exodus with side trips elsewhere.

I'd imagine it was good business practices to bread your slaves. This way, these offspring are yours for life. You also do not have to buy them. And to boot, this method is Bible approved.

In this instance you are right, but possibly not in the way you think. Having multiple children has always been a survival tactic, less so now because we have dealt with many of the causes of infant and child mortality. In my lifetime we were still measuring infant mortality in the West, though I think that has now more or less ceased.

You are right about not having to buy them, but you do have to look after them, ensure they are fed and protected and when they reached adulthood they had all the rights of all other Hebrew slaves - namely they could just leave at the end of their term without incurring any debt (or leave beforehand by incurring some kind of debt).

Odds are if you were a male and had a good master you would stick around, however (even if not forever). If you were female and couldn't find a suitable husband then having some master to look after you was just as good a prospect.

And theoretically, whoever was your master, they had to look after you for life - even when you could no longer bear children. Not necessarily a good investment, then (which is probably why there are rules for looking after widows and orphans).

it seems to me that this is all a matter of perspective. The mere fact that Hebrews had multiple ways of getting out of their service makes this a totally different prospect to American slavery, where the only option was escape.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I thought I'd said somewhere at the beginning that initially I was dealing exclusively with Hebrew slaves, so apologies for the misconception.

No worries :)

What attributes are there that humans cannot control?

You cannot control if you are born an Israelite. And yet, God applied favor to Israelites.

Of course God favours some - he made a covenant with the descendants of Abraham for goodness sake. They were a chosen people.

Please see directly above. Seems strange God applies special circumstances for something which one has no control; your race/bloodline?


I've covered it elsewhere - See Deuteronomy 15:12 where the freedom of female slaves is also guaranteed. However culturally the woman needed to be supported and should not be allowed freedom if that entailed no protection.

Only if you are a Hebrew. And also only if they voluntarily went into the situation. This implies choice. Please remember what the Verse states, "sell themselves". I would argue that true 'slaves' are forced, or do not have a choice. The Bible speaks about this as well.... Hence, the distinction between slaves and indentured servants.

For starters, in Exodus 21 "If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master". Which means all offspring remain with the slave master, free and clear. Such women and children have no choice in the matter.


I agree - but this was the cultural norm, whether in the Hebrew tribes, or the Canaanites or the other Near Eastern nations. Rights or not, they certainly had better protection (at least in theory) than in other nations.

The best God could do was write instructions to apply to these human's 'cultural norms'? I don't think so ;) God has no problem telling His readers what is and is not a 'sin'. Apparently, God was fine with allowing humans to apply much less rights to women, verses men.


I prefer the NET, "... for he has suffered the loss", but the principle is the same either way and it is the same principle as that already stated for 'neighbour', i.e. compensation for inability to work. The neighbour gets compensated financially because he is unable to work. The master of the 'slave' gets compensated also because his servant is unable to work, but as he is the one compensating, he is also the one suffering the loss - net effect is no direct financial loss, but there is the loss of a worker unable to work for a few days. See post 487 for an example of how this works

You seemed to skate right around what I directly said. The Bible instructs it is okay to beat your slaves, just as long as they do not die. This means you could whip/other your slave(s) daily, and do not even need to furnish any specific sufficient reason(s) for doing so... The Bible offers no "reasons to beat your slave" approval list.

The Bible also instructs that a slave is your property, which ties directly back to the above....

God seems just fine with classifying "slaves" as sub-human.

It is the same principle at work both times. If you injure someone, you pay for their livelihood, whether it is a neighbour (pay them directly) or a slave (pay with loss income from that slave). And I think you are mistaken about beating on the back side. These laws were administered by Judges who I think had a lot more common sense than the average skeptic!

The Bible does not mention too much about slavery. It is pretty vague. Hence, you should be an expert in Biblical slavery in no time. I'll wait for you to catch up :)

God goes out of His way to mention the topic, but then leaves this subject wide open for 'interpretation.'

This is why slave masters acquired virtual carte blanche to do with their slaves, as they pleased. You will not find specific instructions as to what reasons are and are not acceptable for beating your slaves. The Bible only permits that you can beat them, as long as you do not kill them, or that you do not put out their eyes or teeth.


Seems logical that if you were a Bible reader, and see that the only caveats, for not setting your slaves free, was to assure they retain their eyes and teeth; then just beat them on their back side.

Not entirely true. I'll concede the non-Hebrew slave situation for the moment as I haven't got as far as looking into that, but for Hebrews, male and female, nothing is binding and there were ways out (see the reference to Deuteronomy above). There is also provision for slaves to escape cruel masters, though at the moment I'm not sure where I read that - I'm still working my way through Exodus with side trips elsewhere.

Keep working your way through.... If you are born into slavery, you remain one. See Exodus 21. See Lev. 25.

Besides, "escape" nullifies all anyways. This goes without saying... And wait until you get to the NT, it doesn't really get much better there either. It's likely no wonder slave masters would read select Bible passages to their slaves - to keep them in line.


In this instance you are right, but possibly not in the way you think. Having multiple children has always been a survival tactic, less so now because we have dealt with many of the causes of infant and child mortality. In my lifetime we were still measuring infant mortality in the West, though I think that has now more or less ceased.

You are right about not having to buy them, but you do have to look after them, ensure they are fed and protected and when they reached adulthood they had all the rights of all other Hebrew slaves - namely they could just leave at the end of their term without incurring any debt (or leave beforehand by incurring some kind of debt).

Odds are if you were a male and had a good master you would stick around, however (even if not forever). If you were female and couldn't find a suitable husband then having some master to look after you was just as good a prospect.

And theoretically, whoever was your master, they had to look after you for life - even when you could no longer bear children. Not necessarily a good investment, then (which is probably why there are rules for looking after widows and orphans).

it seems to me that this is all a matter of perspective. The mere fact that Hebrews had multiple ways of getting out of their service makes this a totally different prospect to American slavery, where the only option was escape.

I find your rationale lacking. If my slave could no longer bear children, maybe I just beat them for that reason, daily for the rest of their lives, or until they ''escape".


Or maybe I start beating them once they become too old to work any longer, until they 'escape'.

My point here is that if you are born into slavery, you have no choice. You ARE a slave for life. Appealing to Stockholm syndrome makes it okay?


The slave's offspring could then be sold for profit, ala Leviticus 25:44-46. Or, they could stay with them for more free labor. If they do not produce, beat them until they leave. Or, maybe knock out one of their teeth so they MUST go free.

You see how the loopholes are written?

And again, you could pretty much only possibly opt out if you initially opted in :) Otherwise, you are a slave for life.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Or maybe I start beating them once they become too old to work any longer, until they 'escape'.

My point here is that if you are born into slavery, you have no choice. You ARE a slave for life. Appealing to Stockholm syndrome makes it okay?


The slave's offspring could then be sold for profit, ala Leviticus 25:44-46. Or, they could stay with them for more free labor. If they do not produce, beat them until they leave. Or, maybe knock out one of their teeth so they MUST go free.

You see how the loopholes are written?

And again, you could pretty much only possibly opt out if you initially opted in :) Otherwise, you are a slave for life.

I don't think you understand what I, or Torah, is teaching on this subject. Any law where there is consequences for your actions is not some kind of tacit agreement that it is ok to do it - on the contrary it is pointing out that you are skating on thin ice.

Maybe you are just a cynic - knocking out a tooth just so that they can get rid of a slave: glass half empty, eh? There are much less violent and cheaper ways of doing this - just let them go free.

I don't doubt there would have been some who tried to make use of such a loophole, but bear in mind this was not a set of laws with no judgement for failing to live up to them. At the end there is a God judging both slave and master equally. It is clear that Israelites took this seriously much of the time and when they didn't outside nations invaded and took them captive.

Hebrew slaves could choose to leave any time (provided they pay for the remainder of their service) and the master could let them leave any time also (suffering the loss of service and also providing for them, according to Deuteronomy).

Those born into slavery were slaves only until they became adults and responsible for themselves. They could then opt out as per all Hebrew slaves (Deuteronomy again). So they served as children... but really that means they were looked after, fed and taught as all Hebrew children were.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I don't think you understand what I, or Torah, is teaching on this subject.

Yes I do. And when you make unfounded assertions, I will correct you; using Chapter and Verse.

Any law where there is consequences for your actions is not some kind of tacit agreement that it is ok to do it - on the contrary it is pointing out that you are skating on thin ice.

Slavery is not a law, it is an allowance. God is stating what you can and cannot do if you should decide to engage within it's practices. This is partially why the topic @Clizby WampusCat raised is called "Slavery, a Guide." One of the fundamental problems, which seems to surface, is that the author brings up the topic of 'slavery', but continues to remain rather vague. This appears wreckless.


Maybe you are just a cynic

No, I am a realist. If one wishes to carry out 'slavery' practices, they could most certainly carry out their wishes, by justification of the Bible itself. You state the American slave trade is not warranted, and yet you begin by not even wanting to delve into Lev. 25:44-46????


knocking out a tooth just so that they can get rid of a slave: glass half empty, eh? There are much less violent and cheaper ways of doing this - just let them go free.

You brought up the 'tooth' because this is what the Bible instructs. However, the Bible does not give a comprehensive [do's and do not] list for acceptable 'slavery practices'. Quite the contrary. A matter of fact, the Bible does not provide hardly any rules as for what justifies a slave's beating, or, how often you may or may not beat your slaves. Hence, a slave trader could most certainly use the Bible to justify their "business practices". And such 'slavery' practices does not seem to be displeasing to God; provided you do not kill them, knock out their eyes, or their teeth. You can keep them for life, beat them with virtual impunity, and categorize them as your 'property' or (sub-human).


I don't doubt there would have been some who tried to make use of such a loophole, but bear in mind this was not a set of laws with no judgement for failing to live up to them. At the end there is a God judging both slave and master equally.

The laws are clearly different between the 'free' and the 'slave(s)'. Apparently, if one is classified as a 'slave', this categorized 'slave' does not obtain the same protective laws as the "free". "Slaves" have their own special compartmentalized set of rules. This is clear when reading Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 respectively.

It is clear that Israelites took this seriously much of the time and when they didn't outside nations invaded and took them captive.

Maybe this is why there was a special clause to treat the Israelites differently (i.e. Lev. 25:46):


"but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Hebrew slaves could choose to leave any time (provided they pay for the remainder of their service) and the master could let them leave any time also (suffering the loss of service and also providing for them, according to Deuteronomy).

I already addressed this.... The Verse you provided was written exclusively for the one's who voluntarily opted in. They are classified as 'indentured servants', not 'slaves'. The 'slaves' are to never go free, via Lev. 25:44-46.


Those born into slavery were slaves only until they became adults and responsible for themselves. They could then opt out as per all Hebrew slaves (Deuteronomy again). So they served as children... but really that means they were looked after, fed and taught as all Hebrew children were

Nope. Already addressed a few times now. Please read your Bible.


************************

Were you going to address the rest of post #500?.?.?.? Here are the missed/skipped highlights:

- God seems to favor one race of people. Which is a trait humans have absolutely no control over.
- The slave master gets to keep slave bread offspring.
- God seems to write laws which humans are already doing, rather than expressing His disagreement for such practices. Which must mean God is okay with 'slavery' in general.
- The rules of 'slavery' differ between men and women.
- The Bible condones the beating of your slaves, with virtually no regards to what is and is not an acceptable 'justification' for doing so.
- The entire topic of 'slavery' is quite vague, rendering justification for virtually any form of slavery practices.
 
Upvote 0