Slavery in the bible.

Allandavid said:

The god of the bible could not think of a better economic system to recommend than humans taking ownership of their brothers?

The same god that had the wherewithal to construct the entire universe and everything living within it, couldn’t get past serfdom as an economic model...!?

Click to expand...

Again, this goes back to the whole Problem of Evil argument. You might as well ask why He didn't make earth exactly like Heaven.

Strathos said:

Again, this goes back to the whole Problem of Evil argument. You might as well ask why He didn't make earth exactly like Heaven.

Click to expand...

Admittedly though, with 10 commandments you think he might have snuck one in about not owning people. But no. Instead we have 4 commandments about the proper worship of God (blasphemy, worshipping other God's, idols, Sabbath) before we get to anything about people.

DogmaHunter said:

The difference is that there is no cup nore any personal ideas to fill the cup with.

What there is, is a book. And in that books are rules and regulations on how to practice slavery.

Click to expand...

Except the Bible is not a technical manual for slavers. Every child knows this, but somehow this escapes you. Get rid of your anger at our faith, empty your cup, and maybe you can learn something.

Allandavid said:

Your god supposedly sent ‘manna from heaven’ to nourish his chosen ones in the desert. I’m sure if he’d wanted to, he could toss a few falafels to sustain those dispossessed by war....

Click to expand...

But from a Christian perspective, God does feed the poor. That's why real Christians run food banks and they seek just laws so that the poor are not exploited. God, in this dispensation, principally works through earthly means.

Soyeong said:

You think that it would be more moral to leave them to die?

Click to expand...

Leaving them to die would have been more moral than torturing them to a slow death. So I guess they should have just left them to die.

durangodawood said:

Leaving them to die would have been more moral than torturing them to a slow death. So I guess they should have just left them to die.

Click to expand...

Huh? What does torturing people to a slow death have to do with anything?

Soyeong said:

Huh? What does torturing people to a slow death have to do with anything?

Click to expand...

I'm just comparing the various alternatives.

Lets list some from worst to best:
-slow torture unto death
-kick in the face and leave them to die
-leave them to die, minus the kick
-slavery (this is where you rank it apparently)
-give them some provisions and let them make their own way with the help of God
-integrate them into your society as people, not property

FireDragon76 said:

But from a Christian perspective, God does feed the poor. That's why real Christians run food banks and they seek just laws so that the poor are not exploited. God, in this dispensation, principally works through earthly means.

Click to expand...

So, following that thought, “working through earthly means” translates to “I can’t think of a better way of having the humans manage this than to encourage them to enslave one another”...!

Par5 said:

Even in the 21st century, it is a sad fact the slavery is still happening in the world. Most people find this disgusting practice to be totally repugnant and immoral. Slavery was very common in biblical times and it seems strange that the biblical god did not condemn the practice of having slaves, but instead gave instructions on the keeping of slaves. The same god that condemned a man to death for simply gathering sticks on the Sabbath, a "crime" hardly in the same league as slavery.
So the question is quite simply this. Do you consider it morally acceptable to consider another human being to be your property?

Click to expand...

Never!! I would die a thousand deaths before I allowed myself to feel that another human being was my "property". God forbid, and perish the thought.

Ygrene Imref said:

50 years would eliminate 99% of slave contracts in which slaves would benefit given the life expectancy - kind of how social security was praised as being good for the economy (since 90% of people did not live to be hexagenerians during that time, and therefore very few had to be paid what they put into the system.) Of course, ignoring culture this translates into English as "forever." But, the perpetuity lasted a lifetime (in context,) which is why foreigners were also inheritances to the children of Hebrews. If a Hebrew father bought slaves, he may die before 50 years - in which case a foreign slave becomes the inheritance of the children.

Click to expand...

Slave contacts weren't for a 50 year duration, rather Jubilee was at 50 year intervals. Given that fact a significantly higher proportion of slaves would live to experience a jubilee year.

Ygrene Imref said:

And, for some reason people are forgetting to take in context that Hebrews were not going around buying/stealing foreign slaves all of the time, or even some of the time. A slave/servant with an Hebrew master had to volunteer, or be a spoil. The Hebrews were not reavers; they were not so-called conquering imperialists invading nations on a whim (they would if you eat their children, or rape their family members continually.) So, the amount of foreign slaves Hebrews had from spoil was not very large. In fact, it was the family of those foreign slaves that constituted the "pool" of slaves for Hebrews. And, remember: when God gave the order to go to war, it usually meant they killed everyone. They weren't in the business of keeping the same entities with whom they warred - for good reason.

Click to expand...

The fact that these laws are given at Sinai, before the conquest of Canaan, we could indeed view the Israelites as conquering imperialists. There was plenty of spoils to come in the near future.

Ygrene Imref said:

That is not even incorporating the fact that it is still being ignored that "slavery," as it were, was an economy that is tantamount to work. (That particular bit is most hard for people to swallow because it means they are technically slaves themselves - and that they are calling kettles black by admonishing the same system of economy from antiquity they may extol in modernity.)

Click to expand...

Why then does the scripture make a distinction between a hired worker and a slave? Clearly not everyone who labors is considered a slave.
What then, you may ask, is the distinction between a hired worked and a slave? The same chapter tells us
The distinction back then is the same as it is now. Slaves are property, hired workers are not.


Let's look at Leviticus 25 in some more context

Firstly, let's acknowledge that the chapter is addressed to the Israelites.

Foreigners were considered strangers and sojourners in the land. They couldn't own property permanently, they could only lease with the price being determined by the number of years until jubilee. This ensured that the land stayed under the traditional ownership of the 12 tribes.



Here the word inhabitants is referring to the 12 tribes to whom God is giving the promised land to inhabit, not strangers or sojourners among them who weren't considered inhabitants. The very next sentence states "it shall be a jubilee into you". 'You' in this case is referring to the children of Israel being addressed in this chapter as stated in verse 2.

Every man returning to his possession and family again is referring to the Israelites, as foreigners didn't have possession in the land, and slaves didn't have family to return to.

Leviticus 25:39-55 then gets into the specifics. It gives three classes of slaves/servants and specific rules for each class. Hebrews who have sold themselves to Hebrews go free, and interestingly some believe this includes those who have voluntarily become slaves for life, the ones that have had their ear pierced. Hebrews who have sold themselves to foreigners go free if their relatives have failed to redeem them. Foreigners owned as slaves by Hebrews do not go free.

Furthermore foreigners debts were also not cancelled, Deuteronomy 15:1-3, so why would they set foreign slaves free?

FireDragon76 said:

Except the Bible is not a technical manual for slavers. Every child knows this, but somehow this escapes you.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it was.
Nonetheless, it has entire chapters dedicated on how to engage in the practice of slavery.
Why can't you just admit that? I mean, it's right there.......

Get rid of your anger at our faith, empty your cup, and maybe you can learn something.

Click to expand...

I'm not angry. I'm just saying... it's right there. You can read, right?

DogmaHunter said:

You have no idea what you are saying.
Regardless of your slave owners being nice peeps or not...
You'ld be a slave. You would have no rights. Answering "no" would not be an option.
You'ld have a say in nothing. You'ld be completely at the mercy of your owners.

You'ld be worse of then a pet cat.



The point about slavery is not so much about "working conditions" as it is about human dignity and the reducing of human beings to nothing more then "property" that can be sold, bought and inherited.

Click to expand...

Thanks I was playing devils advocate a little.

Par5 said:

Well, my moral compass, the one some Christians say I don't possess, tells me that these things are wrong and totally immoral.

Click to expand...

My church does not endorse slavery. I don't know of any large church that does. We don't pretend that everything in the Bible is necessarily moral by modern standards but that doesn't mean the Bible is worthless or that it is not given to us by God for our salvation. We do not think of the Bible or our religion in primarily moral terms.

My religion does not say that non-believers have no moral compass.

Do not let anger at Christians blind you.

DogmaHunter said:

Couple of points...

1. first and foremost, the bible doesn't make ANY mention of "just keeping slavery until it is economically no longer necessary". There is no biblical support for such an idea anywhere.

2. are you saying that the all-mighty, all-knowing creator of the universe was unable to come up with a social structure that had no need for slavery? Instead of commanding a bunch of laws and regulations on how to keep, buy, sell and inherit slaves, he could have just said "free the slaves and then do this and that"



Indeed, the people of the past didn't have any ethical problems with treating human beings as private property. It's actually quite a recent development that we started thinking differently about that.

But as I noted before: this isn't about human moral or human moral development. It is about your supposed god's "perfect and objective morality". Remember, this is a god who's frequently held up as THE moral standard. We humans are just puny mortal beings in a fallen state, who apparantly need to be told what is right and wrong.



Again, I fully agree that the people of the past saw these things differently and had other views on morals and ethics.

And the barbaric stuff described in the bible (and the quran, etc) indeed do reflect the primitive ways of those times. Which is exactly what I would expect as an atheist who considers these books to be of human origins.

I fully expect these stories to reflect the overall mentalities of those times. I also fully expect those texts to only reflect things from within a 500-ish mile radius.

I expect members of those ancient cultures to speak out against slavery about as much as them mentioning kangaroos.

However... in context of christianity being true, I would expect otherwise. I would expect an all-mighty, all-knowing god to know better. I would expect his god to be aware of the existance of kangaroos. I would also expect him to be aware of the moral and ethical barbarism in relation to slavery and treating humans as private property.

Click to expand...

In regards to points 1&2. To say "the bible doesn't make ANY mention of "just keeping slavery until it is economically no longer necessary"'. The Bible does point to a time where every man owns their little corner of Earth Micah 4:4. We just haven't arrived, we are the ones who were unable to come up with a social structure that had no need for slavery in the past. The Bible practically almost starts out by showing mankind learning the consequences of our actions in the garden of Eden. Free moral agency.

God allows people to do their thing, good or bad and it should be rather obvious that micromanaging our choices would have problems with the process of becoming free moral agents. In regards to the bold text of what you expect, that is your choice. It's not as if mankind let alone the individual can micromanage an all powerful person, we can't even get our politicians to listen to us on major issues.

Also when it comes to the issue of slavery in the Bible, we expect to be arbitrators of what constitutes good and evil, morally just and unjust and many would have an all powerful person placed on the wrong side of history. When it's really our fault to begin with. So yes we need to frequently hold up the God of Israel as THE moral standard. We humans are just puny mortal beings in a fallen state, who apparantly decided to keep slaves. In retrospect we need to be told what is right and wrong.

I think you don't understand how to properly read the Bible. You are still angry at Christians, still wounded. You project onto our God what you have experienced about us. But I don't recognize in my God what you say about him. My God does not endorse slavery, he commanded limits upon its evil, and in time, raised up prophets to tell us that its time was passed.