Slavery IS Regulated in the Bible!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

- Christians disliked slavery enough to abolish it. Jesus could care less. Why would you boast about such Christian actions? Again, Jesus was, at least, indifferent to slavery. So mentioning that Christians were on the frontier forefront of eradicating slavery is NOT a 'feather in your cap.'

I was first trying to respond on a mobile device and autocorrect replaced the first words with "Havel". I paused. Then I wondered: could Havel help us communicate?

Is that name familiar?

(He's very famous if you are older and saw the Berlin Wall and Iron Curtain fall, and/or had followed the news in good newspapers like the New York Times subsequently during the 1990s.)
Václav Havel - Wikipedia

Havel was a playwright, a dissident in Czechoslovakia behind the Iron Curtain. Often being a dissident would mean beatings or imprisonment, or worse.

Prison. I knew he was in prison in the 80s, and knew why. I knew he was in danger always as long as he spoke out.

Imagine my jaw dropping when he was elected President of Czechoslovakia. It was not a lengthy process. It was a sudden, surprising thing.

I think my mouth literally dropped open in surprise. (and it's not like I'd only read 5 or 10 articles about the Iron Curtain falling apart at that time, but more like 100 to 300. In those days I'd read just about every page of the NYtimes news section fully, like 90% of all the news fully though all 8 or more pages)
....

Ok. If you are still with me, let's find out if Vaclav Havel can help you and me together, as 2 people.

Here are quotes that spring up when I searched 'Havel quotes'--

Have a look --

Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out.

Work for something because it is good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed.

The salvation of this human world lies nowhere else than in the human heart, in the human power to reflect, in human meekness and human responsibility.

Anyone who takes himself too seriously always runs the risk of looking ridiculous; anyone who can consistently laugh at himself does not.

Even a purely moral act that has no hope of any immediate and visible political effect can gradually and indirectly, over time, gain in political significance.

Sometimes I wonder if suicides aren't in fact sad guardians of the meaning of life.

I really do inhabit a system in which words are capable of shaking the entire structure of government, where words can prove mightier than ten military divisions.

-- Vaclav Havel, dissident who went from prison to President of Czechoslovakia.

Do you agree with his quotes I've underlined?

If you do agree with Havel in those quotes, that would help us communicate.

Havel was already becoming a dissident in 1968, and already suffered for it. It took a while for his words to help overturn the Czech government.
 
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
Sorry, not trying to ignore -- might you be ignoring a couple of things? It's not always easy to see what invalidates a favorite theory.

Neither of these continues after Christ -- involuntary slavery and other abuses will cease among those that choose the narrow gate of Matthew chapter 7, but will continue to be done by those that will go to the "second death".

No. I did answer this several times. You perpetually ignore / side step it....

- Slavery is not well defined in the Bible.
- God speaks about referring to slaves as property.
- Property has less rights than a 'free man'. Otherwise, they are not considered property.
- Hence, your verse does not apply to the slave/property.

Why do we KNOW this? Because the Bible says so. I trust you at least know the verses by now? Why else do we know this? Because Jesus reinforces the act of slavery. He never once tells slave owners that slaves are to no longer to be considered property. Nor, does He ever tell humans to release their 'involuntary' slaves. Again, why? Because slaves are less-than-human, in the sense that they are not free men. They are possessions. Limited rights, at best. And again, Jesus tells them what limited rights they DO have. Otherwise, Jesus would not specify the 'rules' of the 'slave'.

Yes, He reinforces the 'golden rule.' But guess what, the 'golden rule' was already issued in the OLD TESTAMENT (Leviticus 19:18). Hence, your notion that the 'golden rule' trumps all other said laws does not apply for many reasons.

1. The golden rule was established way back when, prior to Jesus.
2. The golden rule applies to free men.
3. Slaves are considered property; have less rights than a free man.
4. The Bible, however, specifically states what rights a slave does have (i.e.) can still worship Yahweh to reach heaven. But is limited while inside an earthly body.
5. God does not consider slavery a sin. Otherwise, He would have abolished this specific act. But instead of doing that, He lists the many allowable provisions FOR 'slavery'. If YOU do not like something, would YOU not only allow for it, but also setup many rules for it?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?...............????


I feel as though I'm speaking to a wall. You will, most likely, address very little of any my provided points. This one-sided conversation is getting old....

In closing...

Request number 12:

1. If you are a Jew, you are not to be enslaved for life. But if you are not a Jew, you can be enslaved for life. If we are 'all one in' with Christ, why the Jewish favoritism? Seems as though Jesus is fond of the flesh, Jewish flesh specifically.

2. God allows slavery then, now, and forever. Any form of slavery is permissible, as slavery is not well defined. God does not consider slavery a sin.

3. Your notion of progressive revelation seems odd. God allows slavery, and does not consider it sin. So why then is there a need for it to later be changed or abolished?

4. God would know people use all forms of slavery. And yet, God never clarifies that any of such slavery is 'wrong.' If God knows humans are either dumb, or self serving, why would God not clarify what type of slavery is not permissible?

5. In affect, what (you) are saying, is that it is the Christians which don't like slavery... Why does Jesus not agree wholeheartedly? Why is it a 'feather in your cap' moment that America abolished slavery, when Jesus could care less if it's abolished? Jesus allows for it.

6. Slaves are considered property (less-than-human). Slave owners are to do with their slaves what they will, as instructed by the NT.
 
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 was first trying to respond on a mobile device and autocorrect replaced the first words with "Havel". I paused. Then I wondered: could Havel help us communicate?

Is that name familiar?

(He's very famous if you are older and saw the Berlin Wall and Iron Curtain fall, and/or had followed the news in good newspapers like the New York Times subsequently during the 1990s.)
Václav Havel - Wikipedia

Havel was a playwright, a dissident in Czechoslovakia behind the Iron Curtain. Often being a dissident would mean beatings or imprisonment, or worse.

Prison. I knew he was in prison in the 80s, and knew why. I knew he was in danger always as long as he spoke out.

Imagine my jaw dropping when he was elected President of Czechoslovakia. It was not a lengthy process. It was a sudden, surprising thing.

I think my mouth literally dropped open in surprise. (and it's not like I'd only read 5 or 10 articles about the Iron Curtain falling apart at that time, but more like 100 to 300. In those days I'd read just about every page of the NYtimes news section fully, like 90% of all the news fully though all 8 or more pages)
....

Ok. If you are still with me, let's find out if Vaclav Havel can help you and me together, as 2 people.

Here are quotes that spring up when I searched 'Havel quotes'--

Have a look --

Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out.

Work for something because it is good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed.

The salvation of this human world lies nowhere else than in the human heart, in the human power to reflect, in human meekness and human responsibility.

Anyone who takes himself too seriously always runs the risk of looking ridiculous; anyone who can consistently laugh at himself does not.

Even a purely moral act that has no hope of any immediate and visible political effect can gradually and indirectly, over time, gain in political significance.

Sometimes I wonder if suicides aren't in fact sad guardians of the meaning of life.

I really do inhabit a system in which words are capable of shaking the entire structure of government, where words can prove mightier than ten military divisions.

-- Vaclav Havel, dissident who went from prison to President of Czechoslovakia.

Do you agree with his quotes I've underlined?

If you do agree with Havel in those quotes, that would help us communicate.

Havel was already becoming a dissident in 1968, and already suffered for it. It took a while for his words to help overturn the Czech government.

Thank you for this large distraction. The fact that you have ignored or side-stepped my many observations is more than telling.....

I have no ''opinion" as to whether slavery is bad or not. Actually, I do, but I know that does not matter.

My point is simple....

God does not consider slavery a sin. But you seem to. Why do you boast about it being the Christians eradicating slavery? Why does this matter to God?

Can you at least answer THAT much? And before you respond, please recognize that God does NOT consider slavery a sin ;)

Fin
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Everything any individual Christian does to anyone that they would not want others to do them is a sin by the Word of Christ, Matthew 7:12.

Christ's word is the Christian standard, and we know it's directly from God. It's a clear command from God. Since involuntary slavery is not what any of us would like done to us, it is sin to do to others, by His perfect standard which we are under since converting.

That's the definitive answer because it is His command to us.
 
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
Everything any individual Christian does to anyone that they would not want others to do them is a sin by the Word of Christ, Matthew 7:12.

Christ's word is the Christian standard, and we know it's directly from God. It's a clear command from God. Since involuntary slavery is not what any of us would like done to us, it is sin to do to others, by His perfect standard which we are under since converting.

That's the definitive answer because it is His command to us.

- Slavery is not well defined in the Bible.
- God speaks about referring to slaves as property.
- Property has less rights than a 'free man'. Otherwise, they are not considered property.
- Hence, your verse does not apply to the slave/property.

Why do we KNOW this? Because the Bible says so. I trust you at least know the verses by now? Why else do we know this? Because Jesus reinforces the act of slavery. He never once tells slave owners that slaves are to no longer to be considered property. Nor, does He ever tell humans to release their 'involuntary' slaves. Again, why? Because slaves are less-than-human, in the sense that they are not free men. They are possessions. Limited rights, at best. And again, Jesus tells them what limited rights they DO have. Otherwise, Jesus would not specify the 'rules' of the 'slave'.

Yes, He reinforces the 'golden rule.' But guess what, the 'golden rule' was already issued in the OLD TESTAMENT (Leviticus 19:18). Hence, your notion that the 'golden rule' trumps all other said laws does not apply for many reasons.

1. The golden rule was established way back when, prior to Jesus.
2. The golden rule applies to free men.
3. Slaves are considered property; have less rights than a free man.
4. The Bible, however, specifically states what rights a slave does have (i.e.) can still worship Yahweh to reach heaven. But is limited while inside an earthly body.
5. God does not consider slavery a sin. Otherwise, He would have abolished this specific act. But instead of doing that, He lists the many allowable provisions FOR 'slavery'. If YOU do not like something, would YOU not only allow for it, but also setup many rules for it?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?...............????


I feel as though I'm speaking to a wall. You will, most likely, address very little of any my provided points. This one-sided conversation is getting old....

In closing...

Request number 12:

1. If you are a Jew, you are not to be enslaved for life. But if you are not a Jew, you can be enslaved for life. If we are 'all one in' with Christ, why the Jewish favoritism? Seems as though Jesus is fond of the flesh, Jewish flesh specifically.

2. God allows slavery then, now, and forever. Any form of slavery is permissible, as slavery is not well defined. God does not consider slavery a sin.

3. Your notion of progressive revelation seems odd. God allows slavery, and does not consider it sin. So why then is there a need for it to later be changed or abolished?

4. God would know people use all forms of slavery. And yet, God never clarifies that any of such slavery is 'wrong.' If God knows humans are either dumb, or self serving, why would God not clarify what type of slavery is not permissible?

5. In affect, what (you) are saying, is that it is the Christians which don't like slavery... Why does Jesus not agree wholeheartedly? Why is it a 'feather in your cap' moment that America abolished slavery, when Jesus could care less if it's abolished? Jesus allows for it.

6. Slaves are considered property (less-than-human). Slave owners are to do with their slaves what they will, as instructed by the NT.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Leviticus 19:18 you mention just now is a list of commands to Israel as a people--

18 Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people; but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am Jehovah."

But Mathew 7:12 applies to all others around us, not only some certain people thought to be qualified as being neighbors as was believed previous to Christ, as He makes clear in Matthew 5:

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies...

This big step becomes abundantly clear in the world changing teachings of Christ.

Anyone reading the gospels with listening will get this, and that's another if many reasons to read through fully with true listening.

There's a reason the Jewish leaders felt very threatened -- it's an end to abusive power over others.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Christ ended any excuse or cover or exception for any and every abuse, including slavery and all other other wrongs also, and any and all future ones of any and every kind also.


 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
:scratch: ... if you remember, I stated that God condones slavery, not that He endorses it. These are two different "degrees" of acceptance. Then too, we obviously find somewhere in the theological mix of the O.T. (and in the N.T.) a rule that applies across the board to everyone and that rule is: "...those who 'have' will be given more (such as freedom, well-being and life), and those who 'do not have,' even what they have (again, things like freedom, well-being and life) may be taken away."
The difference between condoning and endorse is that to condone is to go along with something, even though you don't agree with it, whereas to endorse is to encourage something that you think is a positive good.

Like "beat your slaves if you wish" and "slaves, obey your masters because that is what God wants you to do".

When you say that God actually didn't want people to enslave others, buy them, sell them, and keep them in servitude with brutal punishments, you are simply ignoring the fact that He told people to do this.

And that's really all there is to it. It's a mistake to try to over-complicate it simple issues. Why the Bible endorses slavery may well be a complex debate (my two cents: because the humans who wrote God's words in the Bible invented a deity that reflected their own beliefs about slavery) but whether or not the Bible endorses slavery is a simple question with a simple answer.

Of course, in today's post-Holocaust, pro-Humanist, pro-uber-Everything except doing God's Will kind of world..............................................persons like you want to pull a Psalm 2 style coup. I guess if that's what you're feeling you must do, Good luck with all of that! You're going to need it!
You have to realise, atheists are just normal people. The Evil Atheist Conspiracy doesn't really exist. We're not against doing God's will, because we don't think God has a "will" to be against.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Letting an idea control your thinking is very disadvantageous, because it makes you see only some things, and blinds you to other things, and makes some things seem colored differently than they plainly are to a neutral eye. Break free of it, and be above it. You could, in time, have instead of a view that emphasizes some selected verses, and repaints some others, and just denies some others, a more neutral view that accepts all the verse as they are.
That is excellent advice for anyone, and I hope you will take it yourself.
Of the two of us, who do you think actually has the bias?
Me? I don't care in the slightest if the truth turns out to be that the Bible really is anti-slavery. Either way, God is just a character in a story, so far as I'm concerned.
But what if you're wrong? Do you think that might have any effect on you? Any reason why a Christian might have reason to wish that the Bible is not pro-slavery?

Which of us has a motive for wanting the truth to be the one thing and not the other?

That way you'd not have to overemphasize a nuanced secondary meaning way to read a verse like this and end up missing one of the plain meanings it says clearly and openly:

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
It's always good to notice nuanced secondary meanings. The inclusion of "neither slave nor free" sounds promising to anti-slavery people, but don't let your enthusiasm rush away with you.
First of all, if this was supposed to be some message that slaves should be freed - well isn't "there is neither slave nor free" a strange thing to say? Surely Paul should have said "everyone is free"? And then how about "In Christ Jesus"? Surely this is a terrible thing to say, if it's really talking about freeing slaves? That it only applies to Christians? But once you realise the real meaning, it makes perfect sense again.
And that real meaning becomes apparent when you read the passage properly - that is to say, looking to see the context properly, to see what Paul is actually saying - because, if you do that, you will see that he is telling the Galatians about salvation, and that salvation comes through following Jesus Christ, not by following ancient laws blindly (with particular attention to chopping off bits of penises!) It does not matter who you are or where you come from, all are welcome to be Christians - for there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female - Christianity is for all, no matter their station in life. That is the message.

Yes, they need to tell the indentured servants and slaves and for that matter also women, to be patient, and not turn to violence or disruption.
Because the revolution is inside the heart, by conversion.
While I am sure that you hate slavery as much as I, and that we both consider it to be a very great evil, I have to point out that in saying this, you are arguing the slavers' case for them. Martin Luther King was disappointed in people who said just such things as these:

"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”
 
Last edited:
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
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Jesus used the example of mistreating slaves as the epitome of evil, to represent all abuse, of every kind.
Actually, he used the example of slaves mistreating slaves as...well, I think calling it "the epitome of evil" is just you projecting your own ideas on the verse.
So: Jesus said, if the master comes home and finds a wicked slave is whipping the other slaves, he will be angry. This sounds like an excellent pro-slavery verse, and I'm not sure why you think it helps your case.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The difference between condoning and endorse is that to condone is to go along with something, even though you don't agree with it, whereas to endorse is to encourage something that you think is a positive good.

Like "beat your slaves if you wish" and "slaves, obey your masters because that is what God wants you to do".

When you say that God actually didn't want people to enslave others, buy them, sell them, and keep them in servitude with brutal punishments, you are simply ignoring the fact that He told people to do this.

And that's really all there is to it. It's a mistake to try to over-complicate it simple issues. Why the Bible endorses slavery may well be a complex debate (my two cents: because the humans who wrote God's words in the Bible invented a deity that reflected their own beliefs about slavery) but whether or not the Bible endorses slavery is a simple question with a simple answer.
And where does the O.T. command the Israelites to actually go out into the world and make slaves in a proactive, even aggressive fashion as the white Southern slave traders and owners of yesteryear in America did?

Frankly, I'm not seeing any, BUT I do see a host of commands where the Israelites are told by Moses (and by God) to be caring, even loving, of well-intended FOREIGNERS/STRANGERS/SOJOURNERS, the very "class" of people who would supposedly end up becoming slaves to the Israelites for life with ZERO possibility of manumission, according to you and @cvanwey.

But of course, as you and @cvanwey read in that article I previously posted, it seems unlikely that history utterly bears out that there was any consistent tradition among the Israelites or the later Jews wherein even foreign slaves were not manumitted. Sometimes they were kept for life;...............sometimes they were let go. And even if they were 'kept' for life, the Israelites were commanded to treat their slaves with compassion.

Of course, as we all keep bouncing along on this same old road which you and @cvanwey refuse to pave any further with hermenetical suffieciency, making it difficult for anyone else here to actually study the broader social implications inherent within the Torah, I guess we'll just keep ignoring with you the ways in which Ancient Israelite Jurisprudence more than likely handled the issues pertaining to foreign slaves in ancient Israel. Somehow, I get the feeling that you and @cvanwey think all of that should be my job ... but in my hermeneutical view, it's 'everyone's' job to do; i.e. everyone who dares to pick up ANY book that exists in the world. And if you guys don't like that principle, well then....TOUGH! Don't claim you've actually read and understood the Bible when you haven't. (If anything, you and @cvanwey are just showing that you both don't have any more hermeneutical insight than did white American southern slavers, and that really is too bad.)

If you guys can't up your 'game' on the hermeneutical frontier, I'll just have to decidely bow out of this discussion since I won't be able to take you all seriously ... and yes, that's how it's going to work, despite how you think 1 Peter 3:15 is supposed to bear out or not bear out.

You have to realise, atheists are just normal people. The Evil Atheist Conspiracy doesn't really exist. We're not against doing God's will, because we don't think God has a "will" to be against.
Yes, that I already know. And I'm sure you all are sincere in thinking you're doing the world a favor, which all in all, seems to me to be a social propensity that fits well with what I find in Scripture and, ironically, has likely been instigated by God Himself as a part of the whole process of judgement upon the world, as strange as that may seem to sound.
 
Last edited:
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Tinker Grey
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
And where does the O.T. command the Israelites to actually go out into the world and make slaves in a proactive, even aggressive fashion as the white Southern slave traders and owners of yesteryear in America did?
Oh, snap. So, just because they didn't extend their slavetrading across the known world, we'll give them a free pass.
Frankly, I'm not seeing any, BUT I do see a host of commands where the Israelites are told by Moses (and by God) to be caring, even loving, of well-intended FOREIGNERS/STRANGERS/SOJOURNERS, the very "class" of people who would supposedly end up becoming slaves to the Israelites for life with ZERO possibility of manumission, according to you and @cvanwey.
I'd be interested in seeing them as well. I'm kind of surprised you haven't posted any of these commandments you keep telling us about!
Still, when we do see them, what of it? Are you denying that slavery existed in Biblical times? The article you posted would disagree with you. Of course the Israelites had slaves, and of course they punished them because that's what you do with slaves.

But of course, as you and @cvanwey read in that article I previously posted, it seems unlikely that history utterly bears out that there was any consistent tradition among the Israelites or the later Jews wherein even foreign slaves were not manumitted. Sometimes they were kept for life;...............sometimes they were let go. And even if they were 'kept' for life, they were to treat their slaves with compassion.
You might want to read the article you posted again yourself. While it takes pains to point out all the relatively (a word it uses frequently) positive points of Jewish slavery, it does admit that it was not a good or moral way to live. Basically, you're whitewashing the issue. Yes, some forms of slavery were better than others. No, slavery was not therefore a good thing.
You know, it's not surprising that the arguments on this thread would mirror the antebellum arguments, but I wasn't expecting you and Halbhh to be using the pro-slavery arguments. Yet here you are doing it - you arguing that slavery isn't that bad when practised "properly", and Halbhh arguing that it's not right to fight social injustice, but we must wait patiently for God to sort things out.
Now, you may quibble with me about your doing this, but I bet the slaves who heard arguments like these could clearly tell who was on their side and who wasn't.

Of course, as we all keep bouncing along on this same old road which you and @cvanwey refuse to pave any further with hermenetical suffieciency, making it difficult for anyone else here to actually study the broader social implications inherent within the Torah, I guess we'll just keep ignoring with you the ways in which Ancient Israelite Jurisprudence more than likely handled the issues pertaining to foreign slaves in ancient Israel. Somehow, I get the feeling that you and @cvanwey think all of that should be my job ... but in my hermeneutical view, it's 'everyone's' job to do who dares to pick up ANY book that exists in the world. And if you guys don't like that principle, well then....TOUGH! Don't claim you've actually read and understood the Bible when you haven't. (If anything, you and @cvanwey are just showing that you both don't have any more hermeneutical insight that white American southern slavers, and that really is too bad.)
Yes, yes, yes. Nobody but you has the insight to discuss these things. We've heard it before.
In fact, the American southern slavers had plenty of hermeneutical insight. Their mistake was not in thinking that slavery was the will of God, but in not realising that the will of God was immoral.

Quite simply, if you look at the Bible, it is pro-slavery. There's no way you can twist the verses into anything other than saying "Slavery is right and proper, and this is how you should do it".
If you guys can't up your 'game' on the hermeneutical frontier, I'll just have to decidely bow out of this discussion since I won't be able to take you all seriously ... and yes, that's how it's going to work, despite how you think 1 Peter 3:15 is supposed to bear out or not bear out.
A little more meekness would certainly be nice.
Yes, that I already know. And I'm sure you all are sincere in thinking you're doing the world a favor, which all in all, seems to me to be a social propensity that fits well with what I find in Scripture and, ironically, has likely been instigated by God Himself as a part of the whole process of judgement upon the world, as strange as that may seem to sound.
Any favours I'm doing the world are unlikely to happen on Christian Forums. This is relaxation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out.
This is not at all inconsistent with taking action to make things better.
Work for something because it is good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed.
Work for something - excellent point.
The salvation of this human world lies nowhere else than in the human heart, in the human power to reflect, in human meekness and human responsibility.
This is also not inconsistent with taking action.
Even a purely moral act that has no hope of any immediate and visible political effect can gradually and indirectly, over time, gain in political significance.
An act. In other words, take action, even if it seems to be hopeless. Wise words.
I really do inhabit a system in which words are capable of shaking the entire structure of government, where words can prove mightier than ten military divisions.
He sounds quite similar to Gandhi and King in speaking against nonviolence, and I suspect he would have shared their views that evils such as racism and slavery needed to be acted against determinedly by nonviolent means, including denouncing them vigorously (the very opposite of the Bible, which endorsed slavery enthusiastically) and advising nonviolent protests (the very opposite of the Bible, which advises cheerful compliance with evil - "Slaves, be obedient to your masters, whether they be just or unjust...")

The argument you are making is antithetical to true anti-slavery, and despite these quotes from Havel, he himself would have disagreed with them. He spent much of his life taking direct action against oppressors - making speeches and writing plays denouncing them, founding, joining and supporting organisations agains oppressors, and going to jail for his views.
The interesting thing is that this is what happened to Jesus and the apostles. They too spoke out against what they saw as evils. They made fiery speeches, they urged people to change their ways, they were punished for the radical views. But on slavery, their views were conventional. Why? It can only be because they didn't see slavery as evil.

Tell me, what possible part of the Bible can you find which gives the impression that anyone in the Bible thought that admonitions to be good to others applied to slaves or the slave trade?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: cvanwey
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

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Oh, snap. So, just because they didn't extend their slavetrading across the known world, we'll give them a free pass.

I'd be interested in seeing them as well. I'm kind of surprised you haven't posted any of these commandments you keep telling us about!
Still, when we do see them, what of it? Are you denying that slavery existed in Biblical times? The article you posted would disagree with you. Of course the Israelites had slaves, and of course they punished them because that's what you do with slaves.


You might want to read the article you posted again yourself. While it takes pains to point out all the relatively (a word it uses frequently) positive points of Jewish slavery, it does admit that it was not a good or moral way to live. Basically, you're whitewashing the issue. Yes, some forms of slavery were better than others. No, slavery was not therefore a good thing.
You know, it's not surprising that the arguments on this thread would mirror the antebellum arguments, but I wasn't expecting you and Halbhh to be using the pro-slavery arguments. Yet here you are doing it - you arguing that slavery isn't that bad when practised "properly", and Halbhh arguing that it's not right to fight social injustice, but we must wait patiently for God to sort things out.
Now, you may quibble with me about your doing this, but I bet the slaves who heard arguments like these could clearly tell who was on their side and who wasn't.


Yes, yes, yes. Nobody but you has the insight to discuss these things. We've heard it before.
In fact, the American southern slavers had plenty of hermeneutical insight. Their mistake was not in thinking that slavery was the will of God, but in not realising that the will of God was immoral.

Quite simply, if you look at the Bible, it is pro-slavery. There's no way you can twist the verses into anything other than saying "Slavery is right and proper, and this is how you should do it".

A little more meekness would certainly be nice.

Any favours I'm doing the world are unlikely to happen on Christian Forums. This is relaxation.

Ok, you "asked" for a little more meekness. Here you go!

STAR-WARS-1540189.png
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If the Bible isn't pro-slavery, then what on earth are all of these things doing in it?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl1.htm

Although an owner could beat a male or female slave, she/he would have to avoid serious injury to eyes or teeth. The owner would have to avoid beating the slave to death. But it was acceptable to beat a slave so severely that it only disabled him or her for two days:
Exodus 21:20-21
"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."

Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."

Exodus 21:7 "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 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. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Sexual Activity with an Engaged Female Slave: A man who rapes or engages in consensual sex with a female slave who is engaged to be married to another man must sacrifice an animal in the temple in order to obtain God's forgiveness. The female slave would be whipped. There is apparently no punishment or ritual animal killing required if the female slave were not engaged; men could rape such slaves with impunity.
topbul2d.gif
Leviticus 19:20-22: "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him."

In a foreign war, an Israelite can take any woman he wishes, against her will, as a slave.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14: "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her [i.e. rape her or engage in consensual sex], and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."

Now. In exactly what way are these passages anti-slavery? In what way are they not pro-slavery?
It's really a simple question, with only one answer; and we have now spent twenty pages trying to avoid that answer.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Discussions over time naturally tend to get more and more open issues, resulting in a Tower of Babel effect.

We obviously don't want that outcome.

(We all know a politician who makes a barrage of many claims every day. It works for a while...
But -- We learn over time to totally distrust that politician.)

We should pick fewer questions -- 1 or 2 questions -- and investigate those more.

So, picking a good one to begin with --

...[to say] that God actually didn't want people to enslave others, buy them, sell them....[is]...ignoring the fact that He told people to do this.

This seems 2 things which seem different:
A) buying, and B) some commanded action. -- So let's look more closely at some instances.

Buying --
Leviticus 25:44-46
"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property."

Of course here "may buy" isn't a command.

But we know that taking by force isn't a general option:
Exodus 21:16 Whoever kidnaps another man must be put to death, whether he sells him or the man is found in his possession.

So...trying to guess what you mean by "told to" [commanded?], from recently reading through many of the books, I wonder if you mean:

Generally the main source of slaves for Israel we know most famously is from the same time period and also the aftermath of the commanded destruction/erasure of the cities that sacrificed children to B'aal, Moloch, etc.

The peoples that had been sacrificing children in fire as their permanent ongoing culture (something so awful we can hardly even comprehend it) --

29 “When the LORD your God cuts off [destroys] before you the nations whom you go in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, 30 take care that you be not ensnared to follow them, after they have been destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire about their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods?—that I also may do the same.’ 31 You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the LORD hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods."

And for those cities, with their varying degrees of evil, He commanded at times either of 2 broad outcomes:

A) Total Destruction/Erasure of the city and all traces of its culture --
(Sending everyone to be sorted in the afterlife Day of Judgement all will face -- judged by their deeds (Psl 62:12, Rom 2:6), the innocent and forgiven going to eternal Life, the rest to eternal death. )

OR

B) Allowing Some Survivors to remain alive, so that many are given a place as slaves instead of being left to starve -- these having time to possibly and many to gain the good outcome on the Day of Judgement. For many: life here and now, and then even for many we'd think also Life eternal, (as we know foreigners were allowed to convert and become part of Israel and its covenant.)

Are these destroyed cities in those wars the instances of taking slaves from the survivors you are thinking of as being a commanding the taking of slaves?

Or was it the more general regulation of being allowed to buy slaves later from the remnants and peoples around after the destruction of the child-sacrificing cities?

Tell us what verses where, and we can better track down the overall situation.

And where does the O.T. command the Israelites to actually go out into the world and make slaves in a proactive, even aggressive fashion as the white Southern slave traders and owners of yesteryear in America did?

Frankly, I'm not seeing any, BUT I do see a host of commands where the Israelites are told by Moses (and by God) to be caring, even loving, of well-intended FOREIGNERS/STRANGERS/SOJOURNERS, the very "class" of people who would supposedly end up becoming slaves to the Israelites for life with ZERO possibility of manumission, according to you and @cvanwey.

But of course, as you and @cvanwey read in that article I previously posted, it seems unlikely that history utterly bears out that there was any consistent tradition among the Israelites or the later Jews wherein even foreign slaves were not manumitted. Sometimes they were kept for life;...............sometimes they were let go. And even if they were 'kept' for life, the Israelites were commanded to treat their slaves with compassion.

Of course, as we all keep bouncing along on this same old road which you and @cvanwey refuse to pave any further with hermenetical suffieciency, making it difficult for anyone else here to actually study the broader social implications inherent within the Torah, I guess we'll just keep ignoring with you the ways in which Ancient Israelite Jurisprudence more than likely handled the issues pertaining to foreign slaves in ancient Israel. Somehow, I get the feeling that you and @cvanwey think all of that should be my job ... but in my hermeneutical view, it's 'everyone's' job to do; i.e. everyone who dares to pick up ANY book that exists in the world. And if you guys don't like that principle, well then....TOUGH! Don't claim you've actually read and understood the Bible when you haven't. (If anything, you and @cvanwey are just showing that you both don't have any more hermeneutical insight than did white American southern slavers, and that really is too bad.)

If you guys can't up your 'game' on the hermeneutical frontier, I'll just have to decidely bow out of this discussion since I won't be able to take you all seriously ... and yes, that's how it's going to work, despite how you think 1 Peter 3:15 is supposed to bear out or not bear out.

Yes, that I already know. And I'm sure you all are sincere in thinking you're doing the world a favor, which all in all, seems to me to be a social propensity that fits well with what I find in Scripture and, ironically, has likely been instigated by God Himself as a part of the whole process of judgement upon the world, as strange as that may seem to sound.
 
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

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In a foreign war, an Israelite can take any woman he wishes, against her will, as a slave.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14: "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her [i.e. rape her or engage in consensual sex], and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."

Ah, you think it means "rape" as you wrote into the text yourself...

Your idea, or how you see it.

Interesting assertion....

Let's try to see if that makes sense in the text. We need more translations. Here are many of the top, mostly widely respected translations.

New International Version
and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

English Standard Version
And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.

New American Standard Bible
"She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

Young's Literal Translation (direct word for word)
and turned aside the raiment of her captivity from off her, and hath dwelt in thy house, and bewailed her father and her mother a month of days, and afterwards thou dost go in unto her and hast married her, and she hath been to thee for a wife:

----------

I'm seeing the words "marry" and "husband" and "wife"....and I know that those words have legal significance inside Israel....

Do you think a person would rape the person he is marrying? I'm sure it happens at times, but you suggested it was more one of the norms -- not an uncommon thing, but instead a commonplace...

That's an added assumption, which seems to go against the meaning of "husband" and "wife". So that you are adding in an external assumption then. Of you own.

Or of the website you rely on to tell you want to think of it.

Just trying to help you get past your assumptions, and see more of what is there.

It's not easy to see what contradicts the theory you prefer, for anyone.

Instead of painting on our own extra assumptions, what can we learn from the text itself about rape?

The answer is in the immediate next chapter.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

------
So, we see rape isn't trivial generally... from the source we are trying to discuss. not even if the woman is not a wife we learn elsewhere.... Even for the lesser position of a concubine, raping could lead to the death of the rapist.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.