Don' be so blind as to think that modernity has a better employee-employer relationship. Some people do get massive abuse from their PEERS, and then their employers.
If your boss says you can't have long hair, what are you going to do?
If your boss says you cannot have a wife, what are you going to do? What do humans do in real life?
If your boss tells you that you are too happy and chipper, what do
people do?
Let's go beyond the naivete, and/or don't patronize the intelligence of others by pretending the world that was was so much more barbaric than modernity - especially if you have very little perspective, operating on "pathos" rather than "logos." And, yes you and others who cannot grasp the difference between Hebrew slavery culture and American slavery, for example, or Phoenecian slavery. That is likely because you do not care that much - which is fine, but it makes for exposure of holes in your own argument. If the Most High God is who He is, then His people are the Most High People. The Hebrews (again, you are ignorant of the literary easter egg as it were) were the Most High's chosen people; their "possessions," or
dominion, as Adam had, covered everything - including other people. Dominion; the bastardization is deep for modernity. Ownership like the Americans or Western slavery? Absolutely not. However, this is no joke.
The Most High God has always been training His people to be rulers and judges; it is going to happen. If you can understand monarchies, then why is this so hard to grasp concerning dominion over other persons? Why is it hard to understand that entities that are royalty have subjects? Comparing Hebrew slavery to the cliche is categorically erroneous. It is very simple:
The Hebrews did not rape their male and female slaves.
The Hebrews did not use the children of slaves as foot-warmers and stools.
The Hebrews did not hang slaves from trees and make a family event of it - including children.
The Hebrews did not BREED slaves with their parents and/or relatives.
The Hebrews did not publicly sodomized men for the purposes of demeaning and emasculating them.
The Hebrews did not create a class separation between slaves, and then play both sides of controlled opposition to perpetuate the caste for their benefit.
The Hebrews did not turn law enforcement into monstrosities of once outlawed slavery.
The Hebrews did not hold the debt of their slaves FOREVER, and gave them freedom after seven years.
America did this in 400 years, and the West did this for several hundreds of years. Your choice to be ignorant of these things is your choice, but it does not dampen the truth of what slavery was under the Most High God.
Anytime God has to spell it out for us in rules and guidelines, it is because He expected us to be righteous in that we would know right from wrong - and we failed to meet that expectation abysmally. But we are human; we would rather proudly argue He is wrong than admit our own faults.
Now, to the actual verses - Starting at Exodus 21 - with the context in place.
Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.
If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
Where does God condone doing 1/10 of the things the Western world has done with slavery? Aren't believers told the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? Just because God doesn't explicitly tell us that He opposes Western slavery, as it were, doesn't mean He approves of it. Incidentally, God does not once tell us to treat slaves in the way the world has treated slaves.
If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
If you don't understand what marriage under God is, then you wont understand this verse. When you marry under the Most High God, you become a literal unit. That means she is him, and he is her. This, again, may be a hard concept to grasp given the condition of marriage in the world.
If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
This spells out that if a master appoints a wife to one of his slaves (i.e. under his employ,) then the slave goes free by himself (because the woman appointed to him works for the master.) Sex in the bible is marriage; that when you "know" someone, you have sex and make it official marriage. This woman wouldn't have been the the one he loved (in most allcases; that is why the context of "appointment" is in the verse.) It would have been something he had access to as a slave or someone who worked for a living (as opposed to having wealth.) This is an allusion to the story of Jacob - and therefore an allusion to Christ - in that Jacob sold himself into slavery to gain the woman he wanted (Christ became man to gain the Church.)
And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
As alluded to above, if your boss tells you to have a certain haircut what do people do? Isn't that the argument used in America when ethnic persons, especially, complain about their bosses demanding certain hair styles? That, they should do what the employer wants, or they should have known what was expected?
Why is it so hard to understand a master giving his subject an earring - especially if the subject PLAINLY says that he loves his master, wife and kids; he will not go free. In other words, he chooses to be under the subject of his master (and he chooses for his family also).
I have definitely heard arguments ON THESE FORUMS about how well American slavers were treated, and how some of them actually elected to stay with their masters (as if they had a better choice than death or worse. Incredible ignorance nonetheless, but here is a legitimate example of a master subject, or "slave" relationship. People do more for their sports team that cares nothing about them, and does not provide them with housing and a salary (for example.) Some players harlot themselves out to the highest bidding company. This is a legitimate master-subject relationship that is actually symbiotic rather than parasitic delusion under the guise of no-risk benefit.
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
Hyperbolic, Modern Examples of this verse that we should actually be outraged with: Lindsay Lohan, Miley Cyrus, Olsen Twins, Paris Hilton, Kardashians, Beyonce, etc. And, they still never go free; they will die under contract and/or under the marriage of another (including the state.)
Why is it so hard to understand that men were figuratively or literally sending their children (who may actually be adults) to a Subject Master that would take care of them and provide for them. Isn't that what people in the States do when they put their children up for adoption?
If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
Yaad means to appoint in Hebrew - like appointing someone as wife to a man. You don't think it is decent to tell the Hebrews to redeem the women's honor and chastity lost since they appointed them as their wives through exchange/arrangement - and then dumped them? Does anyone in the world have even that much decency to redeem the honor and chastity lost of the people they sleep with? Do people even care that much?
Little by little, we will see that it is us, and this generation that is actually appallingly degenerate - and that we often call something that is right wrong, and praising (or, at the very least ignoring) what is wrong.
And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
What is the problem with this verse? It is better than how women are treated today; at least there is a rule that stipulates the woman would have to be dealt with like a daughter. Making a subject the wife of the master, or wife of the son of the master, was tantamount to giving a commoner a regal title. It is the same business arrangement done in the "modern, civilized" world, differing by wording. "If I can get my daughter to marry [insert family name/rich person here,] then she will be set for life!"
If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
Alimony.
And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
So, if a man cant do any of those three aforementioned, he has to let her go free with no strings attached: break even. Do people do that marginal decent thing today, or do they often string people along and bring both to an abysmal state - financially, emotionally and psychologically?
He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
What is the problem with this verse? Did American slave owners adhere to this basic decency? How many empires and "civilized" nations actually believed this, and followed through? Lip service is worth its weight in copper.
And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.
Problem? If you do not commit premeditated murder and kill someone out of your own vengeance - but the incident happened by providence - then He will redeem you and protect you. How often do you think American slaves were delivered to the Columbians by God - and not that it was the Columbian slave owner that indiscriminately killed slaves on a whim?
But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.
What is the problem her? If someone tries to murder your neighbor - which, in the Hebrew culture is like a relative - then when you catch that one, kill him. American slavery distorted this, and made it seem like God was saying that they have full authority to kill any slave. The problem is that the slaves weren't presumptuously approaching their neighbor; they were fighting from freedom from rape, brutality, killing, breeding and public humiliation.
And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
If you have the audacity to strike your parents you deserve to be put to sleep - slave or royalty.
And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
If you kidnap someone, and then try to exchange them for profit then you die. What is wrong with that? How many times did American slave owners kidnap free persons, and then entrap them in slavery again? How many of them were put to death for this (and necessarily deserved it - given how they treated slaves?)
And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
If everything out of a child's mouth are curses and foul disrespect, then that child was to die. I can understand how this can be foreign; most parents rarely discipline their children, and some even cultivate the behavior of such children.
And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:
If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.
If you get into a fight with someone, and you can move around, but the other is in the hospital (for example,) then everything is fine if you pay for the hospital bills, and supplement for time/pain and suffering. Isn't that a well-known system practiced in the States (even lauded as a security?)
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
What is wrong with this verse? If a man kills his servant/subject, then he needs to be avenged (Namak in Hebrew.)
Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
If you recover from something in two days, then you are not disabled by it. And, as said, that is his employee/money; he isn't going to be punished for it. Employers do more damage to their employees that takes much longer than 2 days to get over. It is accepted as part of a "game," or "the business."
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
If you are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman such that she delivers prematurely, then she have to be avenged (Nakam) - in terms of compensation determined by arbiters (husband, etc.). What is the problem?
Doesn't this happen often? Two knuckle-headed, testosterone-infused entities so focused on their fight inadvertently hurt the females who try to stop them - and sometimes they are pregnant. In fact, this would especially be the case if it was a case of defending the woman of a man.
And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
If there is serious injury, the equal recompense. What is the problem? Do you think this is comparable to American slavery - where slave owners beat, raped, killed and humiliated pregnant women?
And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.
What is the problem? Are you hearing God approving of these behaviors because you don't see explicit mention of Him denouncing it? Because, that is not what is happening.
And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.
Problem?
Now, let's address Deuteronomy 25:46
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
The word "forever" is
olam in Hebrew, and it means
perpetuity. If you read 36 verses before (Deut 25:10), you would see that God says,
And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.
Everyone that was slave was released every 50 years. Name one time where a civilized empire had these kinds of provisions - that every 50 years its subjects are
free. It is an intellectual injustice, and disingenuous to compare Hebrew slavery to American, Roman, Greek slavery, etc. The latter empires were the ones that kept their slaves slaves forever - until they died. Women especially, and men were not "taken;" they had a choice: die or become a subject of the New State. But, usually the Hebrews were ordered to kill
everyone. Even that is something that baffles "scholars" because they, too, are not invested in the actual relationship with God. They wouldn't understand about how the Philistines, for example, had giant man-eating entities that were killing Hebrews and using their bones as soup stock. There is a lot the canon 1) doesn't say, or 2) briefly mentions, and if you are ignorant of Hebrew history, then you won't understand what is going on. It isn't a subject to be dissected; it is a relationship.
And, you honestly do yourself an injustice by following this paradigm of assuming and comparing with American or Historical slavery - especially when the guidelines are explicitly spelled out. Just like most people don't realize they are under a spell, most people don't realize they are slaves to a system because of the euphemism of "employer/employee relationship." This is despite the fact that various media refer to these humans as
consumers.
I stand completely by my initial thesis. Perhaps if we didn't ignore history, treat slavery as if it was 10,000 years ago, and stop apologizing for its evil we wouldn't fall under the deceptive spell of relativism, and equate everything to an legitimate atrocity.
