Slavery, a Guide

[cvanwey]

Actually, yes I do believe what I am saying, else I wouldn't be saying it. I'm guessing that you don't believe what you are saying, though since you are so ready to attribute such falsehoods to others.

You really are daft if you think that I think it is a pure human concoction. I don't have a problem with the idea of human input, but at the heart of it is a God who defines a way of living with each other that was certainly radical for the time it was articulated and seems to be quite radical today. That then feeds in to specific renderings that are not as relevant today (and have also been superseded by a different covenant).

Kool. So apparently, your believe is that God endorsed an instruction manual on how to properly enslave people for life. Got it.

And, you apparently also agree wholeheartedly, even though you have told @Clizby WampusCat that you don't like the idea of owning humans as property?.?.?..?.?.?

I do own it, I just don't agree with they way you interpret everything the Bible says.

And yet, I keep demonstrating how your interpretation is objectively false.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I know you said you were done, but since Mindlight has reminded me of the OP, I wondered if you have changed your opinion of any of the following points you originally posted, or whether these really represent the whole picture or just a subset of them.

Maybe #6.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I looked up a definition of property. It would be interesting to see what you think of it or whether you have a better one: 'a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively.'

Not very useful, as such a term could apply to one's spouse, children, though I agree it doesn't then apply to prisoners.

On the other hand this then poses a problem for spouse and children - clearly by the way you are using the term they belong to you for life and it didn't cost a penny (well, in theory anyway).

It is more significant perhaps because ancient cultures had bride prices - i.e. you paid the price for your wife to their guardian (usually parents). And for this it really was for a lifetime!

My wife and kids are not my possessions. Slaves could be bought and sold as property, we cannot do that for our spouses and kids.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

1. I don't think that it is ok that people are owned as property at all. The fact that they have a method of getting free, is precisely why what the Bible is describing is not 'property' in the sense that you seem to be applying it, though see my comments above on the meaning of property.

The bible says they are property, can be bought and sold and inherited. This is what I mean by property. This is wrong.

I also think you have a naive idea about what to do with your enemies after they have been captured: set them free so they can attack you again (Survival of the Fittest means you wouldn't live long enough to pass your genes on, thankfully )

You never asked me what I think we should do but if you want to make prisoners of them, ok but don't make them your property. Prisoners are not property.

2. Again, I'm not in agreement with your statement, because the way you seem to be defining property is not how the slavery in Torah is shown to be working. A good God would come up with the best way - perhaps he did and your own prejudices are preventing you from seeing the practicalities of how it works.

Mind boggling. So a person owes another person a debt and the Best solution God can come up with is slavery to solve the problem?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I agree with the first half of this, and my hope is that you now no longer think that the master is using any kind of deceit (Ex 20:16. Lev 19:18, Lev 25:43,Dt 16: 19, Dt 24:14), though I think the reasons why the master might hold on to the wife are ambiguous, so we can only speculate on what they might be, but trickery or enticement is unlikely to be one of them.

So you believe people are sinful at birth but would not abuse this regulation?

 

[mindlight]

Ok, could god not have told the Israelites to knock it off on the slave thing? He did not write rules to regulate lying or murder etc. He told them those things were wrong, He made regulations of slaves instead of telling them it was wrong to own people as property. God knew there would be murder and lying throughout history but chose to tell people these things were wrong, not so for slavery. The most likely answer is that these rules were written by people that wanted to have slaves.

You said we have slaves today, I agree yet your God does nothing about it when He could stop it.

The bible is more realistic than that dealing with the fallen state of human hearts. There have always been these kinds of master-slave relationships. People for whatever reason tend to give up their own freedoms by irresponsible living that incurs great debts, by failing to stand up for what is right at the right time and there are unscrupulous individuals who take advantage of that. These possibilities cannot simply be legislated away and to do so would be to deny freewill. In a fallen world, one feature is masters and slaves, billionaires and paupers. Is it ideal to be poor, no of course not. Is it ideal to be unfree, no of course not. But people become poor and unfree for all sorts of reasons that cannot be simply removed, until every human heart is pure enough not to reintroduce the corruption. The Christian way is most realistic . It is about being real about people, living in hope that one day it will not be this way and doing what we can to abolish the worst forms of slavery in the meantime.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

My wife and kids are not my possessions. Slaves could be bought and sold as property, we cannot do that for our spouses and kids.

Equivocation: you pick one part of the definition, while ignoring the main part. Your wife and children belong to you and you to them. That you cannot sell them doesn't make any difference to the definition of the word 'property'

If you are objecting to the buying and selling of people, because that relegates them to mere property... but property doesn't refer to things that are bought or sold, but things that belong and how they belong to you is irrelevant - they can choose it (like a spouse), they can be born in to it (like children), they can be inherited, they can be bought and they can be loaned (though the latter might not be defined as your property in that circumstance).

So really, my point is that it is not 'people as property' that you are objecting to but 'buying and selling people'.

Is that correct?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Mind boggling. So a person owes another person a debt and the Best solution God can come up with is slavery to solve the problem?

No, God came up with a way for a person to repay that debt themselves, you just call it 'slavery'. There is no indication that any Hebrew servant ever thought of themselves in the way that you are viewing them.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Yes, and you either 1) do not understand the 'context', 2) or representing cognitive dissonance, or 3) playing games.

"Slavery" is a specialty category. Hence, has special rules applied. "Pregnancy" is also a specialty category. Hence, also has special rules applied.

Hey, you were the one saying that the verses about the neighbour are irrelevant. Now you are saying that they are relevant? Make up your mind.

Slavery is a special case, but not an isolated one. We need to understand the laws about slavery in the context of the laws in general, and one of the things we need to do is ask why there is a specific law about slavery, which based on your approach (these are just manmade rules) you don't appear to be doing.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

2. All slaves are property and considered money just like an ox.

All slaves are property but based on a previous definition of property so are spouses and children.

And there are key differences between a slave and an ox, including: An Ox doesn't gain its freedom on the 7th anniversary (though it does get a year off); Slaughtering an ox doesn't put you up on a murder charge. An ox can't choose a wife or choose to remain because of it's spouse; An ox is not made in the image of God, nor can it worship God.

It might be better to say all slaves are property and considered of value/worth (and drop the ox bit entirely).

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The bible is more realistic than that dealing with the fallen state of human hearts. There have always been these kinds of master-slave relationships. People for whatever reason tend to give up their own freedoms by irresponsible living that incurs great debts, by failing to stand up for what is right at the right time and there are unscrupulous individuals who take advantage of that. These possibilities cannot simply be legislated away and to do so would be to deny freewill. In a fallen world, one feature is masters and slaves, billionaires and paupers. Is it ideal to be poor, no of course not. Is it ideal to be unfree, no of course not. But people become poor and unfree for all sorts of reasons that cannot be simply removed, until every human heart is pure enough not to reintroduce the corruption. The Christian way is most realistic . It is about being real about people, living in hope that one day it will not be this way and doing what we can to abolish the worst forms of slavery in the meantime.

Ok, if I were God I would have just said "don't own people as property." and enforced it. I guess your God has a different plan.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Equivocation: you pick one part of the definition, while ignoring the main part. Your wife and children belong to you and you to them. That you cannot sell them doesn't make any difference to the definition of the word 'property'

One, my wife and kids do not belong to me. That connotates possession. My wife and I are partners in life together by choice and we are stewards of our kids together. Two, the Bible is using the word property for the slaves and they can be bought or sold and inherited. You are straw manning my definition.

If you are objecting to the buying and selling of people, because that relegates them to mere property... but property doesn't refer to things that are bought or sold, but things that belong and how they belong to you is irrelevant - they can choose it (like a spouse), they can be born in to it (like children), they can be inherited, they can be bought and they can be loaned (though the latter might not be defined as your property in that circumstance).

So really, my point is that it is not 'people as property' that you are objecting to but 'buying and selling people'.

Is that correct?

My problem is that the Bible calls slaves property and says that they can be bought, sold and inherited as property.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

No, God came up with a way for a person to repay that debt themselves, you just call it 'slavery'. There is no indication that any Hebrew servant ever thought of themselves in the way that you are viewing them.

No, when the Bible says they are property of the master that can never go free (lev 25). Call it what your want but that is the concept I disagree with.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

All slaves are property but based on a previous definition of property so are spouses and children.

No, that was your definition not the definition from the bible. the bible says they are property, it says they can be bought, sold and inherited.

My wife and kids are not my property as defined by the bible as it relates to the slaves.

And there are key differences between a slave and an ox, including: An Ox doesn't gain its freedom on the 7th anniversary (though it does get a year off); Slaughtering an ox doesn't put you up on a murder charge. An ox can't choose a wife or choose to remain because of it's spouse; An ox is not made in the image of God, nor can it worship God.

It might be better to say all slaves are property and considered of value/worth (and drop the ox bit entirely).

Can these servants leave at any time? Can these servants be bought, sold and inherited?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

3. Only Hebrew slaves are to be released on the year of Jubilee, not all slaves.

This one is not true at all. Hebrew and Resident Foreigners can be released. on the year of Jubilee.

At face value that seems to imply everyone, though all the references I looked up suggest that 'Resident Foreigner' is a term that refers to non-Hebrew believers, so most, if not all, 'slaves' would be released on the Sabbath Year.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

4. All slaves can be beaten but Hebrew slaves cannot be beaten to death.

This one really made me laugh.

You should have said that all slaves can be beaten and left it at that. Hebrew (and Resident Foreigners) could be beaten to death also, although this might result in a murder charge.

Personally I think that would be applied to all slaves, since there is no reason to suppose from reading the Torah that Judges would rule any kind of murder as acceptable (You shall not commit murder is one of the Ten Commandments).

And while you point out that it was acceptable to beat your slave, the same reasoning would end up concluding that it is ok to hit your neighbour with a stone or fist. Or that it is fine for a slave to beat his master with a stick.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

This one really made me laugh.

You should have said that all slaves can be beaten and left it at that. Hebrew (and Resident Foreigners) could be beaten to death also, although this might result in a murder charge.

Personally I think that would be applied to all slaves, since there is no reason to suppose from reading the Torah that Judges would rule any kind of murder as acceptable (You shall not commit murder is one of the Ten Commandments).

And while you point out that it was acceptable to beat your slave, the same reasoning would end up concluding that it is ok to hit your neighbour with a stone or fist. Or that it is fine for a slave to beat his master with a stick.

I have answered this before a couple of times.

 

[cvanwey]

Hey, you were the one saying that the verses about the neighbour are irrelevant. Now you are saying that they are relevant? Make up your mind.

Slavery is a special case, but not an isolated one. We need to understand the laws about slavery in the context of the laws in general, and one of the things we need to do is ask why there is a specific law about slavery, which based on your approach (these are just manmade rules) you don't appear to be doing.

I have made my case quite extensively. You are just side-stepping or ignoring it. You seem to only want to exchange on the 'laws' related to "volunteer Hebrew servants", but want to turn a blind eye to the rest.

You can start by no longer ignoring posts #589, #599, and #601.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

5. If a male Hebrew rapes a slave he will not be put to death if he gives restitution to God, if he rapes a non-slave he shall be put to death.

I found this one quite interesting, not least because I don't really understand what is going on, but also because the closest parallel law that deals with the same scenario in a non-slave woman (Dt 22:28-29) he doesn't die either and has to pay the father some money and marry the woman.

I don't like either law and maybe it is just us misunderstanding the situation. However it should be noted that in all cases of rape there is a punishment that the man has to pay, whether it is a life, a bride price or an offering to God. Not sure how I feel about that given I have strong feelings about rape.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

I have made my case quite extensively. You are just side-stepping or ignoring it. You seem to only want to exchange on the 'laws' related to "volunteer Hebrew servants", but want to turn a blind eye to the rest.

You can start by no longer ignoring posts #589, #599, and #601.

I could, but to be truthful, repetition bores me and so far it seems to me that you have not heard anything I've said. So, if I ignore you, it means I just haven't gotten around to it or I just don't think it worthwhile repeating myself ad infinitum.