Is Slavery Moral?

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Good, I think.
Actually , I just noticed the title question : "Is slavery moral? "

If a person is righteous, obeying God, they are moral (I guess by definition).

If a person is unrighteous, DISobeying God, they are immoral (again by definition).

Click to expand...

Blind obedience has never been the definition for morality...

Allandavid said:

What rot!

Click to expand...

What sort of response is that. You are going to get called on your shots here. If you are ignorant then you are going to be confronted with it so try dealing with it like an adult. The context of your comment here.

Telling slaves that they must “obey their masters” isn’t a condoning of slavery...??

Click to expand...

If addressing Paul then it is slaves obey, not slave must obey. And it is good advice given the time and circumstances. Paul knew more about the circumstances then we do. Certainly more than you. Never occured to you to ask why Paul would write such a thing or could it have anything to do with the hostile environment he had to live in? Its called myopia. You ignored all that and went on a rant.

In reality, we see exactly what we would expect if there were/are no gods

Click to expand...

You mean Slavery, brutality, pederasty, homosexuality, infanticide? Things like that? You know what follows chaos? Mass enslavement. And you are right. No God and it is back to pre Christian Rome and Greece. It just takes couple generations.

....human beings making decisions and taking actions to suit their own purposes and gradually evolving a sense of communal morality...

Click to expand...

Like the communal morality that enslaves other big-brained apes? What exactly is the morality of big-brained apes not that far out of the jungle and what group of big-brained apes makes all them determinations for the rest of us? While you are at it why should all the other big-brained apes obey? Why can't the stronger big-brained apes enslave the weaker big-brained apes?

Had your god (or the humans claiming to write on his behalf) wanted to end slavery, he could have done it with a snap of his fingers...if he in fact existed.

Click to expand...

Assuming God does exist why do you think he does not? Would He owe you anything? Would you expect God to do for us what we can do for ourselves? Do you expect yo momma to pay your bills when you can? God depicted

Is the Lord your God who brought the Israelites out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Ex. 20:2.
That is a self-description. Distinct from all the so-called others.
He liberated the Israelites when they called out to Him and because they could not liberate themselves. So if God depicted is pro-slavery then why did He liberate the Israelites from Egyptian slavery?

All the bible despisers here who crawl into bed with the southern racist slave owners and get warm and cozy because your all on the same page. The Bible supports slavery. Just keep repeating that mantra.

Allandavid said:

The specifics of what...? You quoted a large section of my comments there...

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm asking for specifics from a large section of your comments. Is that going to be a problem for you?

Telling slaves that they must “obey their masters” isn’t a condoning of slavery...?? And we can go further...Jesus at one point uses the analogy of a slave that doesn’t prepare for the arrival of his master being beaten more harshly than one who does...!

Click to expand...

It is that superficial outlook of what is being spoken about in the Bible as being one of the reasons men isolate scriptures to claim slavery is condoned in the Bible, or blacks are subhuman, or atheists are fools (though that one is correct). Anyone can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say, by isolating scriptures and taking it out of context; and that context is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If you do not have a grasp on the Gospels then it is a display of a fool trying to ascertain what the Bible condones and regulates from a verse.

Is that not a fair assessment from your response? That you are looking at the Bible superficially?

I see...god got it wrong the first time round and had to attempt a rewrite....?

Oh, I understand perfectly....because you have trotted out the same dishonesties that many others have, who wish to try to hide the realities of biblical slavery...very clear thanks...

Click to expand...

Yeah, you see alright... you take my quote out of context by deliberately bypassing the rest of it, which said "God found fault with the people and He would make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. (Jeremiah 31:31-34) That new covenant was found in Jesus.

If you are going to be a weasel about it, at least try to be not so obvious next time.

Abraxos said:

Yeah, I'm asking for specifics from a large section of your comments. Is that going to be a problem for you?

Click to expand...

Well, yes it is...if you don’t tell what it is that you require “specifics” for...! Good grief.....

It is that superficial outlook of what is being spoken about in the Bible as being one of the reasons men isolate scriptures to claim slavery is condoned in the Bible,

Click to expand...

It isn’t a claim...it’s there in black and white...so plain that many (most) Christians and Jews are comfortable in conceding that it does indeed condone slavery. They just use other arguments to justify it...

Anyone can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say, by isolating scriptures and taking it out of context; and that context is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

Translation: the only way to read the text is MY way....

If you do not have a grasp on the Gospels then it is a display of a fool trying to ascertain what the Bible condones and regulates from a verse.

Click to expand...

“You have to believe the Bible to understand the Bible”...yes, yes, I’ve heard that piece of ‘logic’ before...

Yeah, you see alright... you take my quote out of context by deliberately bypassing the rest of it, which said "God found fault with the people and He would make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. (Jeremiah 31:31-34) That new covenant was found in Jesus.

Click to expand...

Who also said NOTHING about the evil of slavery....

If you are going to be a weasel about it, at least try to be not so obvious next time.

Click to expand...

Watch your language....I usually only have to reprimand grade 7 students for name-calling...

Allandavid said:

Well, yes it is...if you don’t tell what it is that you require “specifics” for...! Good grief.....

Click to expand...

Pretty much all of it that I quoted. What I'm asking of you is that you detail your points with a little bit more substance rather than with a single sentence and expecting that would suffice. For example, you made the claim that the Bible says that people could buy slaves from the foreigners around them and that they would become property. What I'm asking for, is you substantiate that statement by providing some arguments on why you think that. Would that be a problem for you? You claim to be a teacher after-all, correct?

It isn’t a claim...it’s there in black and white...so plain that many (most) Christians and Jews are comfortable in conceding that it does indeed condone slavery. They just use other arguments to justify it...

Translation: the only way to read the text is MY way....

“You have to believe the Bible to understand the Bible”...yes, yes, I’ve heard that piece of ‘logic’ before...

Click to expand...

You don't have to believe the Bible to understand it. All one really requires is that they actually read the Bible and make a more informed viewpoint that I would be forced to consider seriously. As someone said: "It is the mark of an educated man to entertain a thought without accepting it." How then is it logical to assert a few verses while ignoring the rest of the book? It's like highlighting a few sentences from Whale Rider and insisting it's about birds.

Who also said NOTHING about the evil of slavery....

Click to expand...

This particular quote was in regards to the notion that there were two Covenants, which meant according to your rant God got it wrong the first time and had to rewrite it. This had nothing to do with the morality of slavery, though that was pointed out in other posts. Try and stay relevant to your own micro-points.

Watch your language....I usually only have to reprimand grade 7 students for name-calling...

Click to expand...

If the shoe fits wear it. My advice will be to try and not deliberately take quotes out of context and then project intellectual dishonesty as if people won't notice. Makes you look...

dmmesdale said:

What sort of response is that.

Click to expand...

The sort you get when you make a rotten argument....

If addressing Paul then it is slaves obey, not slave must obey. And it is good advice given the time and circumstances. Paul knew more about the circumstances then we do. Certainly more than you. Never occured to you to ask why Paul would write such a thing or could it have anything to do with the hostile environment he had to live in? Its called myopia. You ignored all that and went on a rant.

Click to expand...

Take your pick...Paul or Peter. They both made the same exhortation for slaves to obey their masters. But what would they know...after all, weren’t they supposed to be speaking on behalf of god/Jesus...?

You mean Slavery, brutality, pederasty, homosexuality, infanticide? Things like that? You know what follows chaos? Mass enslavement. And you are right. No God and it is back to pre Christian Rome and Greece. It just takes couple generations.

Click to expand...

Yep...those have all been part of the human condition...and another part is our ability to recognise where we need to change. No gods necessary, thanks...

Assuming God does exist why do you think he does not?

Click to expand...

I make no such assumptions....the world is full of people who assume various gods exist...and they all swear they’re right...

Abraxos said:

For example, you made the claim that the Bible says that people could buy slaves from the foreigners around them and that they would become property. What I'm asking for, is you substantiate that statement by providing some arguments on why you think that. Would that be a problem for you? You claim to be a teacher after-all, correct?

Click to expand...

Correct....

Leviticus 25:44-46 Living Bible (TLB)
44 “However, you may purchase slaves from the foreign nations living around you, 45 and you may purchase the children of the foreigners living among you, even though they have been born in your land. 46 They will be permanent slaves for you to pass on to your children after you; but your brothers, the people of Israel, shall not be treated so.“

Consider yourself taught.....

How strange...nothing but Kiwi crickets....

Allandavid said:

Correct....

Leviticus 25:44-46 Living Bible (TLB)
44 “However, you may purchase slaves from the foreign nations living around you, 45 and you may purchase the children of the foreigners living among you, even though they have been born in your land. 46 They will be permanent slaves for you to pass on to your children after you; but your brothers, the people of Israel, shall not be treated so.“

Consider yourself taught.....

Click to expand...

Israel was prohibited of practicing 'forced slavery,' and if they did, they were to be put to death as I mentioned previously: “Whoever kidnaps someone, either to sell him or to keep him as a slave, is to be put to death.” (Ex. 21:16)
"Slavery" quoted in Leviticus 25:44-46, is not forced slavery as our modern minds perceive slavery, but was talking about voluntary slavery. This was a common practice in ancient cultures not only exclusive to Israel, as seen in the Code of Hammurabi of the Babylonians. Voluntary slavery occurs when a person becomes so poor that they cannot make a living or are unable to support themselves and/or family; so they voluntarily consent to a person (in this case, an Israelite) who can provide a means to support them. This is further understood when you read the whole context of what was being spoken about beginning at Leviticus 25:39-49:

“If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves."

The issue of poverty was one of the reasons that people sold themselves as servants. Foreigners that lived in Israel or neighbouring countries selling themselves to Israelites for subsistence was allowed under the Law of Moses but was to be treated differently than a fellow countryman selling himself. Though they were foreigners, the Israelites were commanded: "Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner; remember that you were foreigners in Egypt. Do not mistreat any widow or orphan.” – (Ex. 22:21-22)
Leviticus 25:47-55 even specified that foreigners living in Israel becoming rich and Israelites selling themselves to them was a consideration and had rules and conduct.
The central issue here is that slavery was initiated by the slave, not by the owners, and definitely not by force. Also, there were also provisions for freedom. They could be bought back by a relative, or by their own money. “By their own money” spoken of in Leviticus 25:49 meant a certain freedom to gain wealth and buy their own freedom.

Also, the TLB English translation you used is misleading, and probably why you used that particular translation. Almost every other rendering of verse 46 uses the words: "You may pass them on to your children" as this wasn't something that was expected, common or necessary.

Abraxos said:

Israel was prohibited of practicing 'forced slavery,' and if they did, they were to be put to death as I mentioned previously: “Whoever kidnaps someone, either to sell him or to keep him as a slave, is to be put to death.” (Ex. 21:16)
"Slavery" quoted in Leviticus 25:44-46, is not forced slavery as our modern minds perceive slavery, but was talking about voluntary slavery. This was a common practice in ancient cultures not only exclusive to Israel, as seen in the Code of Hammurabi of the Babylonians. Voluntary slavery occurs when a person becomes so poor that they cannot make a living or are unable to support themselves and/or family; so they voluntarily consent to a person (in this case, an Israelite) who can provide a means to support them. This is further understood when you read the whole context of what was being spoken about beginning at Leviticus 25:39-49:

“If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves."

The issue of poverty was one of the reasons that people sold themselves as servants. Foreigners that lived in Israel or neighbouring countries selling themselves to Israelites for subsistence was allowed under the Law of Moses but was to be treated differently than a fellow countryman selling himself. Though they were foreigners, the Israelites were commanded: "Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner; remember that you were foreigners in Egypt. Do not mistreat any widow or orphan.” – (Ex. 22:21-22)
Leviticus 25:47-55 even specified that foreigners living in Israel becoming rich and Israelites selling themselves to them was a consideration and had rules and conduct.
The central issue here is that slavery was initiated by the slave, not by the owners, and definitely not by force. Also, there were also provisions for freedom. They could be bought back by a relative, or by their own money. “By their own money” spoken of in Leviticus 25:49 meant a certain freedom to gain wealth and buy their own freedom.

Also, the TLB English translation you used is misleading, and probably why you used that particular translation. Almost every other rendering of verse 46 uses the words: "You may pass them on to your children" as this wasn't something that was expected, common or necessary.

Click to expand...

Very well....since I am a teacher, let’s grade your efforts up there...

Now, you do get some marks for attempting a reply...but unfortunately that’s where it ends. Because after that you are very wrong on nearly every point....oh dear...

1. Ex 21:16 refers, as the verse says, to kidnaping, not to the buying of slaves. In fact, the verse makes that clear, as it states that it is illegal to steal a man, whether or not you’re going to keep him for yourself or sell him on. The crime is in the stealing, not the enslaving...

2. The treatment of “strangers” is not a reference to those who are enslaved. Once again, the verse itself gives you the clue...”do not mistreat a widow or orphan” it stresses. This is a general exhortation to be hospitable to strangers in your land. The current president of the USA could take note...

3. You become confused over the issue of a Jew finding himself in poverty and selling himself as a slave to a wealthy foreigner. Remember, the rules for enslaved Jews are quite different to foreign slaves. Jews can, as the verse points out, be bought out of slavery, or can buy themselves out if they are able. This says nothing about the fate of the foreign slave, however, who is property for life and so are his children.

4. I’m happy to use any translation you choose. The use of the word “may” implies permission. When the students in my class ask me “may I go to the bathroom”, I give them permission by replying “yes, you may”.
I realise that the increasing drift of Kiwis to Australia indicates a yearning for our superior standard of education, but surely you can understand such a simple grammatical structure...?

Allandavid said:

Very well....since I am a teacher, let’s grade your efforts up there...

Now, you do get some marks for attempting a reply...but unfortunately that’s where it ends. Because after that you are very wrong on nearly every point....oh dear...

1. Ex 21:16 refers, as the verse says, to kidnaping, not to the buying of slaves. In fact, the verse makes that clear, as it states that it is illegal to steal a man, whether or not you’re going to keep him for yourself or sell him on. The crime is in the stealing, not the enslaving...

Click to expand...

"Whoever kidnaps someone, either to sell him or to keep him as a slave, is to be put to death."

This verse describes the motivations behind the Kidnapping of someone, which is to take for themselves or to sell them. This kind of kidnapping is condemned in the Law of Moses. Other kidnapping scenarios may have other motivations that are not condemned to death. Again, without context of the reasons behind the kidnapping you are going to struggle with this continually. Basically, kidnapping for means of slavery or slave-trading is what is being mentioned here, not just "stealing is punishable by death," while avoiding the context of the kidnapping.

2. The treatment of “strangers” is not a reference to those who are enslaved. Once again, the verse itself gives you the clue...”do not mistreat a widow or orphan” it stresses. This is a general exhortation to be hospitable to strangers in your land. The current president of the USA could take note...


3. You become confused over the issue of a Jew finding himself in poverty and selling himself as a slave to a wealthy foreigner. Remember, the rules for enslaved Jews are quite different to foreign slaves. Jews can, as the verse points out, be bought out of slavery, or can buy themselves out if they are able. This says nothing about the fate of the foreign slave, however, who is property for life and so are his children.

Click to expand...

Lol, I know the majority of your posts on CF are obsessed with Trump (odd as you're from Australia, not America), but try and leave him out of this discussion as it's not relevant.

All this verse shows (Ex. 22:21-22) is that the Israelites were commanded by God Himself to not oppress and mistreat foreigners. It follows that our modern perception of slavery is not what is being spoken of in Leviticus 25:44-45, as how is 'forced slavery' NOT a mistreatment and an oppression of foreigners?

4. I’m happy to use any translation you choose. The use of the word “may” implies permission. When the students in my class ask me “may I go to the bathroom”, I give them permission by replying “yes, you may”.

I realise that the increasing drift of Kiwis to Australia indicates a yearning for our superior standard of education, but surely you can understand such a simple grammatical structure...?

Click to expand...

"They will be permanent slaves for you to pass on to your children after you; but your brothers, the people of Israel, shall not be treated so.“ (TLB)

You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them... (ESV)
You may give them as inheritance to your children after you to possess as property. You may enslave them perpetually. (NET)
You may give them as inherited property to your children after you, to own as properties in perpetuity. You may make bond slaves of them... (ISV)
Etc...

The reason I brought this up is because the TLB English translation on this verse implies "they are permanent slaves to be passed on," which is the part I find quite misleading in this context. "You may" as demonstrated in other English translations involves that the decision is conditional depending on the owner and/or the slave. This can be expressed in Exodus 21:5 as servants who do not choose to be free, but want to remain under their masters household may do so under certain protocols before God and judges, and a ceremony for declaring him to be a slave for life. There is a similar procedure described in Deuteronomy 15:16 in which a person could become a slave for life because “he may love you and your family and be content to stay.”

Secondly, given the fact that slaves could earn money, they could buy their own freedom: “if they themselves earn enough, they may buy their own freedom.” (Leviticus 25:49)

Abraxos said:

"Whoever kidnaps someone, either to sell him or to keep him as a slave, is to be put to death."

This verse describes the motivations behind the Kidnapping of someone, which is to take for themselves or to sell them. This kind of kidnapping is condemned in the Law of Moses. Other kidnapping scenarios may have other motivations that are not condemned to death. Again, without context of the reasons behind the kidnapping you are going to struggle with this continually. Basically, kidnapping for means of slavery or slave-trading is what is being mentioned here, not just "stealing is punishable by death," while avoiding the context of the kidnapping.


Lol, I know the majority of your posts on CF are obsessed with Trump (odd as you're from Australia, not America), but try and leave him out of this discussion as it's not relevant.

All this verse shows (Ex. 22:21-22) is that the Israelites were commanded by God Himself to not oppress and mistreat foreigners. It follows that our modern perception of slavery is not what is being spoken of in Leviticus 25:44-45, as how is 'forced slavery' NOT a mistreatment and an oppression of foreigners?


"They will be permanent slaves for you to pass on to your children after you; but your brothers, the people of Israel, shall not be treated so.“ (TLB)

You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them... (ESV)
You may give them as inheritance to your children after you to possess as property. You may enslave them perpetually. (NET)
You may give them as inherited property to your children after you, to own as properties in perpetuity. You may make bond slaves of them... (ISV)
Etc...

The reason I brought this up is because the TLB English translation on this verse implies "they are permanent slaves to be passed on," which is the part I find quite misleading in this context. "You may" as demonstrated in other English translations involves that the decision is conditional depending on the owner and/or the slave. This can be expressed in Exodus 21:5 as servants who do not choose to be free, but want to remain under their masters household may do so under certain protocols before God and judges, and a ceremony for declaring him to be a slave for life. There is a similar procedure described in Deuteronomy 15:16 in which a person could become a slave for life because “he may love you and your family and be content to stay.”

Secondly, given the fact that slaves could earn money, they could buy their own freedom: “if they themselves earn enough, they may buy their own freedom.” (Leviticus 25:49)

Click to expand...

Again with the kidnaping...! Yes, kidnaping was punishable....buying slaves was not! Please, your utter desperation is showing....

The verse in Exodus 22 is one of the ‘Social Responsibility’ clauses...it talks in GENERAL TERMS about being courteous and non-oppressive of foreigners. It does NOT, however, preclude the Jews from being able to buy slaves from among those people. Nor does it preclude taking slaves from among those people as the spoils of war...

And yes....”you may, you may, you may”...this indicates that PERMSSION is granted to do these things...you can keep a slave for life, you can pass him on to your offspring as property...!

And again, regarding a slave being able to buy his freedom (or have it bought for him)...this is in reference to JEWS who are enslaved...! Look at the verses that precede and follow it ...read 47 through 55 as a continuous passage...it talks about “your BRETHREN”... do you not know what that means? It means your fellow ISRAELITES...!
No such option exists for the FOREIGN slave...

Honestly, I wish some of you folk would read your bible as thoroughly as most atheists have...but then, you’d probably end up as atheists yourselves...

Allandavid said:

Again with the kidnaping...! Yes, kidnaping was punishable....buying slaves was not! Please, your utter desperation is showing....

The verse in Exodus 22 is one of the ‘Social Responsibility’ clauses...it talks in GENERAL TERMS about being courteous and non-oppressive of foreigners. It does NOT, however, preclude the Jews from being able to buy slaves from among those people. Nor does it preclude taking slaves from among those people as the spoils of war...

Click to expand...

This is how you are reading it:
“Whoever kidnaps someone, _____ __ ____ ___ __ __ ____ ___ __ _ _____ is to be put to death.” – Exodus 21:16

This is how you actually read the verse honestly and objectively:
“Whoever kidnaps someone, either to sell him or to keep him as a slave is to be put to death.” – Exodus 21:16

Every instance of 'kidnapping' in the Bible is in regards to slave-trading or forced enslavement, and Exodus 21:16 is specifically about kidnapping for means of forced slavery. You say kidnapping is punishable by death, yet the verse doesn't end there does it? Read it in it's context without skipping the rest of it as you are known to do often. That is the very definition of dishonesty. Also, I do not see how a foreigner that has made a contract of servitude to an Israelite somehow excludes him from social laws in ancient Hebrew culture. In the Hebraic context of "slavery," it doesn't make him any less a foreigner, or voluntary slavery somehow diminishes their societal relevancy.
Buying slaves was, as I had explained, was a mutual consenting contract both by the impoverished person selling themselves to an Israelite, and the Israelite allowed under the Law of Moses to consent to buying them. As I initially pointed out, this was voluntary and was a known practice among ancient cultures, and forced slavery was strongly disapproved of in Hebraic law.

Forced slavery =/= Voluntary slavery.

And yes....”you may, you may, you may”...this indicates that PERMSSION is granted to do these things...you can keep a slave for life, you can pass him on to your offspring as property...!

Click to expand...

The issue is that the TLB English translation implies that they are "permanent slaves," which isn't exactly accurate, as I had shown that servitude under these circumstances was conditional, not permanent. The verses say “you may” pass them on to your children, not that it was automatic, necessary, expected, or standard practice.

And again, regarding a slave being able to buy his freedom (or have it bought for him)...this is in reference to JEWS who are enslaved...! Look at the verses that precede and follow it ...read 47 through 55 as a continuous passage...it talks about “your BRETHREN”... do you not know what that means? It means your fellow ISRAELITES...!
No such option exists for the FOREIGN slave...

Honestly, I wish some of you folk would read your bible as thoroughly as most atheists have...but then, you’d probably end up as atheists yourselves...

Click to expand...

Well essentially yes, as the Old Testament concerns the Israelites. Leviticus 25:39-55 are the laws concerning servitude, designed to preserve the honour of the Jewish nation as a free and chosen people, and enabling them to achieve redemption as it was their custom. This doesn't apply to foreigners as they are not Hebrews, but the context of slavery was always about a consent to servitude due to personal reform or recovery, not for exploitation.

In regards that we are talking about Hebraic laws, nowhere in the ancient world was there such divine concern for a resident stranger in a land not their own. The Torah contains over fifty references of the legal rights for a foreigner which should remove any doubt of a shred of xenophobia known in modern perspectives on slavery.

Deuteronomy 23:15-16 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.

Exodus 22:20 You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Exodus 23:9 You shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the soul of the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Leviticus 19:34 The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Deuteronomy 10:19 You too must befriend the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Deuteronomy 23:7 Do not despise an Edomite, for the Edomites are related to you. Do not despise an Egyptian, because you resided as foreigners in their country.

Deuteronomy 24:22 Always remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt; therefore do I enjoin you to observe this commandment.

Just from a handful of verses we see that the Hebraic laws provide no reason why foreigners were prevented from gaining freedom from a contract they initiated. The circumstances probably were more favourable for them to remain in servitude if they were well taken care of, but to assume there was "no option" to gain a living wage, or freeing themselves from a contract is really an argument from silence.

If there are any here that practice Judaism or are well versed in the Torah, I'd be interested on your view of slavery in the Old Testament.

Abraxos said:

If there are any here that practice Judaism or are well versed in the Torah, I'd be interested on your view of slavery in the Old Testament.

Click to expand...

There was a few months ago an excellent and thorough description of the
instructions of Yahweh and the regulations of slavery which benefited all involved, protecting the lives and dignity and sustenance of everyone properly ,
said 'description' being , sigh, somewhere on the web...... perhaps I can find it again, or made a copy, or someone else might know about this?

Abraxos said:

This is how you actually read the verse honestly and objectively:
“Whoever kidnaps someone, either to sell him or to keep him as a slave is to be put to death.” – Exodus 21:16

Click to expand...

We’ll come back to honesty in a moment...but, that verse is exactly as I have been quoting it. The crime here for which you can be punished is kidnapping....the parenthetical phrase about why the kidnapper has stolen the man removes any justification for the crime. If we were to put it in today’s vernacular, we might say something like...”you cannot kidnap anyone; and it doesn’t matter whether you are going to sell them to someone or keep them as a slave yourself...you simply can’t kidnap people!”

Every instance of 'kidnapping' in the Bible is in regards to slave-trading or forced enslavement, and Exodus 21:16 is specifically about kidnapping for means of forced slavery. You say kidnapping is punishable by death, yet the verse doesn't end there does it?

Click to expand...

Yes, it does actually...! Look for yourself . The verses preceding and following are about completely different admonitions...!

Read it in it's context without skipping the rest of it as you are known to do often. That is the very definition of dishonesty.

Click to expand...

There’s that reference to honesty again. Do you understand what projection is...?

This from the person who tried to pass off a single verse as an argument for foreign slaves being able to buy their way out. Yet, when we read ALL of the surrounding verses, we see that this is a clear reference to JEWS as slaves.

Please lecture me again about honesty...

Now, concerning the permanent nature of the enslavement of foreigners....you seem to be attempting a lame argument that it’s the translation that I chose (which I did randomly by the way) that presents a bias.

Fine...take your pick...

NIV: You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life

New King James: And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves.

New American Standard: You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves

King James: 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

English Standard: You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever.

How many more do you need....!?

Look, as I mention elsewhere, there are a large number of Christian apologists who have no problem accepting biblical slavery as it was...they just find other ways to justify it. It does you no credit to attempt to massage those texts so that they convey a meaning that you would rather they did...

Saucy said:

The slavery in the bible is really a type of welfare.

Click to expand...

lol!

You didn't read the OT, did you?
Not with attention anyway.

The laws exist to keep the bosses from abusing their slaves.

Click to expand...

Indeed! That's why the bosses can only beat the slaves to the extent that they "don't die within a day or two".

It's a choice they had to pay off debts or to survive when times were bad by working for the rich.

Click to expand...

Except when it wasn't and they were just bought, sold, inherited as a bunch of goods with no free will or rights whatsoever. Or obtained as spoils of war or whatever.