Slavery, a Guide

Clizby WampusCat · Jun 8, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Hmm, not difficult really, particularly as I referred to this in my commentary. Imagine for a moment you fall into the water, whether you are pushed or accidentally tripped (Best Goon voice, "He's fallen in the water!"). You have no choice in that, it is true, but from that moment on you have choices about staying in the water - you can just get out, you can swim around, you can ask for help - but everything you do is a choice - even staying in the water forever.

Please show me in scripture where a slave bought from the surrounding people can leave at any time? It says they can be enslaved forever. You are talkin about Hebrew male slaves not non Israelite slaves.

Now that is a very simplistic analogy, which I put in just so I could quote the Goons, let's try another. You have been sold to a Hebrew master. After six months of work, your master starts a conversation with you:

Master: "You know I paid good money for you, but you have the opportunity to gain your freedom"
You: "I do? How?"
Master: "Worship the almighty God of the Israelites, then you will be subject to the laws we have for slavery. That means you go free at the next Sabbath Year, or earlier if you can pay back what I got for you"
You: "I'm an atheist. I don't believe in any gods and nothing you can say will change that mind"
Master: "Not even your freedom."
You: "How can I be free if I am forced to believe in a God I don't believe in."
Master: "Nobody is forcing you to do anything - it is your choice"
You: "I will not do it"

7 years later:

Master: "Well, you missed your last opportunity at freedom, the offer is always there for you to join us and come under our laws."
You: "Never, you are just using Pascal's wager on me!"
Master: "Who?"
You: "It doesn't matter, I'll never convert to something I don't believe is true."
Master: "Probably just as well then"
You: "I've been reading your law and I want to know why you don't beat me."
Master: "Why, do you deserve to be beaten? I see nothing wrong in your service, you are now making me lots of money and you have the opportunity to leave. What possible reason could I have to beat you."
You: "Your laws tell you to beat me."
Master: "No they don't!"
You: "It says, 'if a master beats his slave and..."
Master: "Hold on, it says "If", it is not a command to beat slaves nor is it any kind of encouragement or do you think that if I beat you and you lose a tooth or an eye you will gain your freedom?"
You: "Help, help. I'm being repressed!" [I couldn't resist the Monty Python reference]

Anyway the point is that the ONLY thing you have no choice about is becoming a slave in the first place. After that, under Hebrew law you had a choice ever day about your future, either a) remain a slave forever, or b) become a convert to YHWH and remain a slave until the next Sabbath when not only were you given your freedom, but enough goods to set yourself up to ensure your future.

Which do you choose? slavery for the rest of your life or freedom and abundance. The Lazy and the committed opt for the first, the opportunistic opt for the second.

That is highly immoral to force someone to say they believe something they do not. No one can choose to believe something they are unconvinced of. They may fake it to get out of being a slave but that would mean they would have to lie to do it. Conversion by force is immoral. The moral thing would be to not make slaves of them ion the first place. This is the point you are missing in my opinion.

Clizby WampusCat · Jun 8, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
What you think is irrelevant, clearly God didn't think it immoral to hold slaves, but he did think it immoral to mistreat them and he also ensure that they would be looked after forever in some way or another.

Well then I disagree with your version of God. I think silvery of any kind in immoral. They are "looked after" against their will and can never leave unless according to you unless the convert. And that is only if they are male. If they are female then they can't choose to leave.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 8, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
Please show me in scripture where a slave bought from the surrounding people can leave at any time? It says they can be enslaved forever. You are talkin about Hebrew male slaves not non Israelite slaves.

Leviticus 19:33-34. I did mention this more than once.

Clizby WampusCat · Jun 8, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
No, and neither does God. I've already pointed out the laws about attacking your neighbour. The law is there to provide punishment when you do this sort of thing - to ensure that the victim is not further victimised regardless of economic circumstance.

Yet it allows for a master to beat a slave without consequence. It tells you how to do it properly.

It makes it seem like you would be a terrible master - beating your servants just because you could.

Where did I ever say that? I am the one advocating that slavery is immoral at any time in history, owning people as property is wrong. I would not own another as property.

Both Christian and Israelite would be looking at their servants as human beings with potential. Beatings would only occur if so justified as a deterrent from further transgressions or in self-defence.

So you can beat another human being that has no power or recourse to stop it if you think it is warranted because if they fight back that can be considered self defense and the beating can continue.

I think you need to take a step back and realize what you are defending. You don't have to believe all of the bible to be a Christian. Many Christians don't believe these verses describe who God actually is and were written by men and reject them.

Clizby WampusCat · Jun 8, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
I have dealt with it. Numerous times - it is not the ONLY verse in the Torah, or even the Old Testament, on the subject. You could start by extending your reading one verse earlier in Lev 25:43 "You must not rule over them harshly, but you must fear your God."

Ok, go back one verse further:

Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 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. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

So this says do not rule over the Israelites ruthlessly, says nothing about the non Israelites that were bought as slaves.

Imagine dealing with the US laws on one subject by refusing to accept the whole law, just the bit that suits your need. You'd be laughed out of court! So why do it here? Why assume that Lev 25:44-46 defines everything you need to know about foreign slaves and ignore everything else that suggests otherwise?

This seems like confirmation bias at work.

Nope, you yourself said people can be bought as property. That is immoral even if they are treated with the utmost respect, which they were not.

Clizby WampusCat · Jun 8, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Leviticus 19:33-34. I did mention this more than once.

“‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

Slaves bought from surrounding nations are not residing among them. They are not residents by choice.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 8, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
That is highly immoral to force someone to say they believe something they do not. No one can choose to believe something they are unconvinced of. They may fake it to get out of being a slave but that would mean they would have to lie to do it. Conversion by force is immoral. The moral thing would be to not make slaves of them ion the first place. This is the point you are missing in my opinion.

I agree, but in truth they are not being told to believe in something they do not. They are being told to worship YHWH. Unlike you it seems that most cultures of the time were happy to believe in anything, even the Israelites. I doubt whether they could fake it that easily - it would still be subject to judgement and they were still bound to the sabbath year freedom.

I agree that Conversion by force is immoral, it also doesn't actually work (Islam grows because of force... but declines where not forced). On the other hand what is being proposed is not any form of coercion, it is a choice and I suspect YHWH knows who is being genuine and who is not.

While I agree it would better to not make slaves of them, the practicalities of the time dictate that slavery was probably a better option.

If you are at war with someone, just letting them go is going to be tantamount to suicide (and if you read Joshua/Judges and the other historical books you see the effects of letting enemies go and it isn't pleasant).

There are stark choices to be made - the Torah actually says death or slavery. You would prefer to allow your opponents to survive and come back and kill you. I think most people would be more pragmatic in those circumstances, and they did at least give the option. And bear in mind that this circumstance occurred only if another nation declared war on them (and it did happen).

So the intent here is to prevent it happening again - either kill everyone so they won't do it again (quite drastic, I think you'll agree) or end the battle peacefully, enslave them and then gradually integrate them into Hebrew society. Your option just sends refugees and guerrillas into the surrounding area to make life more difficult to the Hebrews.

The second reason for having foreign slaves, was to buy them from foreigners.

Now think about this for a moment: As a slave you could stay where you were in a culture which really had cruel rules about slaves added as an afterthought to their laws, or transfer to a country where the rules about slaves were front and centre and at least provided them with rights, even if not out-and-out freedom. I think the slaves of foreign nations would be lining up to be picked by Israel. As it is, we have little indication that this happened very often (or capture in battle for that matter, the only real indication from memory is the fact that it is enshrined in law).

It seems you are working from a position of entitlement - everyone is entitled to certain things, even though that is a very recent idea in Western society and one that so far is not generating good social practices. Everywhere else you were and are expected to work for a living wherever that work might find you.

Note that I am not saying these laws ARE good, but that they WERE good and the whole point of morality is find a way through life with the least upsets. It is clear from the law that enslaving other people is not the ideal, but it is just a means to solve the various problems arising in society.

Clizby WampusCat · Jun 8, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
I agree, but in truth they are not being told to believe in something they do not. They are being told to worship YHWH. Unlike you it seems that most cultures of the time were happy to believe in anything, even the Israelites. I doubt whether they could fake it that easily - it would still be subject to judgement and they were still bound to the sabbath year freedom.

I agree that Conversion by force is immoral, it also doesn't actually work (Islam grows because of force... but declines where not forced). On the other hand what is being proposed is not any form of coercion, it is a choice and I suspect YHWH knows who is being genuine and who is not.

While I agree it would better to not make slaves of them, the practicalities of the time dictate that slavery was probably a better option.

If you are at war with someone, just letting them go is going to be tantamount to suicide (and if you read Joshua/Judges and the other historical books you see the effects of letting enemies go and it isn't pleasant).

There are stark choices to be made - the Torah actually says death or slavery. You would prefer to allow your opponents to survive and come back and kill you. I think most people would be more pragmatic in those circumstances, and they did at least give the option. And bear in mind that this circumstance occurred only if another nation declared war on them (and it did happen).

So the intent here is to prevent it happening again - either kill everyone so they won't do it again (quite drastic, I think you'll agree) or end the battle peacefully, enslave them and then gradually integrate them into Hebrew society. Your option just sends refugees and guerrillas into the surrounding area to make life more difficult to the Hebrews.

The second reason for having foreign slaves, was to buy them from foreigners.

Now think about this for a moment: As a slave you could stay where you were in a culture which really had cruel rules about slaves added as an afterthought to their laws, or transfer to a country where the rules about slaves were front and centre and at least provided them with rights, even if not out-and-out freedom. I think the slaves of foreign nations would be lining up to be picked by Israel. As it is, we have little indication that this happened very often (or capture in battle for that matter, the only real indication from memory is the fact that it is enshrined in law).

It seems you are working from a position of entitlement - everyone is entitled to certain things, even though that is a very recent idea in Western society and one that so far is not generating good social practices. Everywhere else you were and are expected to work for a living wherever that work might find you.

Note that I am not saying these laws ARE good, but that they WERE good and the whole point of morality is find a way through life with the least upsets. It is clear from the law that enslaving other people is not the ideal, but it is just a means to solve the various problems arising in society.

In the end these people did not have a choice to be slaves. You can solve the same issues by allowing them to work for you without them being your property or not having a choice in the matter. Let people make their own choice as to how they want to live.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 8, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
In the end these people did not have a choice to be slaves. You can solve the same issues by allowing them to work for you without them being your property or not having a choice in the matter. Let people make their own choice as to how they want to live.

I think you are being incredibly naive.

A nation declares war on you and you go off, capture one of their cities and then let everyone go.

Outcome - you are attacked on your way home, great loss of life.

Or you take them home as prisoners of war, having to feed them, clothe them and shelter them and then you let them go... so they are now in your land, killing your people, raping your women and returning to their land with your riches.

So far, so not good.

Or there is the case of buying foreign slaves. You fork out a fortune for someone to come and work for you, someone without your ethics and then you let them go free - they don't care about YHWH's laws, they just scarper. Not a very good investment is it?

I get the impression that you are so fixated on hating the idea of any kind of slavery that you are not thinking through the alternatives in any way.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 8, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
Well then I disagree with your version of God. I think silvery of any kind in immoral. They are "looked after" against their will and can never leave unless according to you unless the convert. And that is only if they are male. If they are female then they can't choose to leave.

Females can leave too under the same circumstances - Deuteronomy 15:12-15. Most of the laws relating to women in the Torah are to protect them from misuse, the ones here are similar. So for example a woman wouldn't be compelled to go with her husband, though it clearly would be encouraged most of the time.

Clizby WampusCat · Jun 8, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
I think you are being incredibly naive.

A nation declares war on you and you go off, capture one of their cities and then let everyone go.

Outcome - you are attacked on your way home, great loss of life.

Or you take them home as prisoners of war, having to feed them, clothe them and shelter them and then you let them go... so they are now in your land, killing your people, raping your women and returning to their land with your riches.

So far, so not good.

Or there is the case of buying foreign slaves. You fork out a fortune for someone to come and work for you, someone without your ethics and then you let them go free - they don't care about YHWH's laws, they just scarper. Not a very good investment is it?

I get the impression that you are so fixated on hating the idea of any kind of slavery that you are not thinking through the alternatives in any way.

Yep, any of these issues could have been solved by a different method other than owning people as property against heir will. Could God not have God come up with a different and moral solution?

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 8, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
Yep, any of these issues could have been solved by a different method other than owning people as property against heir will. Could God not have God come up with a different and moral solution?

What different methods? You talk about it but so far I've not seen anything to indicate that you have the slightest idea of how to deal with the situation better than God did.

Clizby WampusCat · Jun 8, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Females can leave too under the same circumstances - Deuteronomy 15:12-15. Most of the laws relating to women in the Torah are to protect them from misuse, the ones here are similar. So for example a woman wouldn't be compelled to go with her husband, though it clearly would be encouraged most of the time.

So this is interesting. This is in conflict with the exodus 21 verses where it says only the man can leave unless he is married at the time of his enslavement, then they both can leave. This does not solve the problem of owning people as property against their will whether they get to leave after 6 years or not when God could have done it a different way.

Clizby WampusCat · Jun 8, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
What different methods? You talk about it but so far I've not seen anything to indicate that you have the slightest idea of how to deal with the situation better than God did.

No, but an omnipotent God could have come up with something right? The fact that God thought this was a good solution shows that God endorses owning people as property.

If I were God I would have told them to help each other and used my powers to keep people from hurting each other in terrible ways. I would not have wrote rules on how to properly own people as property.

cvanwey · Jun 8, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Very true, he favoured the descendants of Abraham and put them under a covenant and encouraged them to be an example to the other nations - something they weren't very good at.

Nowadays all can become descendants of Abraham via adoption as defined by Christianity. So it is now a trait that humans have control over.

You don't find it a bit odd <and/or> fishy that a claimed all powerful, all knowing, and all loving God places favor upon a trait no human can control?

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
I assume that 'bread' is some kind of typo, else this doesn't make much sense.

The owner gets to keep all children of slaves until they come of age by choice until their parents are freed at the Sabbath. if their parents are not freed at the Sabbath, it is because they are foreign slaves who do not believe in YHWH. The moment they validly profess belief in YHWH they become subject to sabbath rules (which includes children).

Please read carefully below...

You seem to be reading more into the OT than what the Book instructs. Please remember there exists differing classes of humans. Predominantly, for starters, the "free" and the "slave".

If you were a volunteer Israelite servant, you have the option to go free. (Ex 21:2-3)

If you are a female and are sold into slavery, you are not to go free; unless the slave master changes his mind. (Ex 21:7-8).

If you are born into slavery, (male or female), you remain with the slave owner for life (Ex 21:4)

You are going to need to demonstrate that the Bible instructs that if you are a believer in YHWH, regardless of your race and/or gender, you are to go free?

And even if you were able to do so, WHY would a claimed all loving God deem fit for all unbelievers to remain enslaved for life?.?.?

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
I think that is a somewhat cynical reading of the situation. God is OK with 'slavery' in Israel where rules are in place to ensure freedom. It is clear that he is not OK with slavery in other nations, as he compels Israelites to buy back Hebrew slaves from other nations.

As for writing laws that other humans are already doing, it is true - but then you look at the laws being written and what they are saying and you can see that he is doing something radically different. The laws of Israel are about repairing of relationships and property. The intent is clearly to ensure that no Israelite is permanently landless, and no believer (Hebrew or otherwise) is permanently enslaved. The laws cover various definitive 'do not do' something as well as laws that are of the form, 'if you do, then you will be punished'

No, it is not a "cynical" view, it is an axiomatic view. As I told you prior, if God did not like or favor slavery, He would either:

1). Not mention the topic of slavery at all, or...
2). Would mention His direct abolition for this topic; like He does with many other topics.

But instead, as @Clizby WampusCat has eloquently pointed out, He inspires a "how-to" (ala) "Slavery, a Guide."

God weighs in on this topic, and tells humans how they may enslave other humans as lifetime property; which then now render such as sub-humans - (lesser rights than their fellow free humans). Again, would a claimed all loving God categorize some humans to instead be considered 'sub-human'? Namely, if you are inherited, female, or not a Jew?

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Yes, but I don't know if you have spotted this yet, but men and women are different, even today. In a culture where the differences extended to what was expected of them, then it is likely that the laws will be different for them.

The best God could come up with, is to instruct Bible readers that the females are to remain lifetime slaves?

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
If you mean accept that it happens, then yes. If you mean approve or sanction it happening, then definitely not.

Blank counter assertions will not work on this chap

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

As read above, God weighed in on the topic of slavery; and also instructed His readers what a slave master can and cannot do with their deemed slaves.

You can beat your slave with impunity, as long as the slave lives.

Your subsequent response below reveals nothing more than mere 'apologetics'. I will demonstrate below...

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
You are selectively looking at the laws and seeing only what they say, not what they imply. So if you stick to just the laws about masters beating slaves, then you can justify slaves beating masters with no comeback. I.e. It is perfectly acceptable for slaves to attack, maim or kill their masters because there is no law forbidding it, or suggesting punishment.

If you, however extend your investigation of the laws, you will see that there are laws about hurting your neighbour and they appear almost in the same place as the laws relating to slaves/servants.

Since these laws relating to slaves are referring to Hebrew or God-fearing foreigners, they all come under the term 'neighbour' in Hebrew law (and that would be extended to everyone in Christian thinking, since everyone is our neighbour). In other words, it doesn't matter whether the slave attacks the master or the master attacks the slave, there is punishment to be meted out. Death in the case of murder, regardless of the status of the murderer. The difference comes in the outcome of loss of work - if the person unable to work is another person elsewhere, the attacker needs to pay for the loss of livelihood. If it is the slave, then the master is the one who is losing out on a worker and therefore has already suffered the loss. If it is the master, then the slave has to pay compensation to his master... meaning he is likely to have to remain a slave for longer than anticipated in order to pay off the debt... but he cannot stay longer than the sabbath when debts are cleared anyway so in other words, the master is the one who loses out in this circumstance.

We have already been over this... Ex. 21 and Lev. 25 does not only speak about 'correct slavery practices'. It also speaks about the 'free'. Just for starters, Ex. 21:12-19....

Furthermore, I already addressed what you have stated above. If you harm someone whom is labelled 'free', certain consequences apply. If you harm a 'slave', the same consequences do not apply for the labelled 'slave' as they would for the 'free'. If you simply start by reading Ex. 21 and Lev. 25 entire, in context, you will clearly see this...

And like I've also already told you, the slave is there to serve the master. I doubt the slave master would want to hinder their slave's ability to continue serving. Hence, the laws to protect their eyes - (for seeing), or their teeth - (for eating to keep up their strength so they may continue serving). Unless of course such slaves are no longer deemed useful. For which maybe the slave master can then simply knock out that slave's eye or teeth; so they may go 'free' without true punishment to the slave master.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
I think you are right, but if you actually read the laws a lot of them are quite vague. They are not intended to be definitive, but rather examples and they had impartial Judges who were to put the laws into practice. You wouldn't need laws at all if everyone actually tried to get on with each other.

Does this mean you are now going to retract your prior statement, that "the Bible cannot justifiably be used to support the "Trans Atlantic slave trade"????

cvanwey · Jun 8, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
As I look through your post 506 for the umpteenth time, I still get the impression that you missed the point I was trying to make with my list.

To put it another way, justification FOR slavery is and always was a minority view in Christianity, historically.

As I told you prior, I can care less how many Christians frown upon 'slavery practices'. I would imagine you and I agree about this topic. This should raise pause for you... Why? God disagrees with you

I doubt granting impunity for beating your slaves sets well with you either. Does it?

What might also concern you, is what God thinks about slavery as a whole. God chimes in on the topic of slavery, and leaves it fairly wide open. Enough so, in that virtually all 'slavery' practices can be 'supported' using the Bible.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
The fact that someone tried to use Leviticus 25 alone to justify it should make the problem obvious, because the Bible is not made up of Leviticus 25 ALONE and you can only justify it by ignoring pretty much everything else. it is why the Slave Bible is missing 2/3rds of everybody else's Bible.

Essentially you can justify anything you want if you are willing to ignore anything that disagrees with you. Imagine trying to do science that way: 'I can prove there is only one planet in the solar system!' 'What about Mars, Uranus, etc.?' 'I'm not including them because they are irrelevant.'

it just doesn't work. You, as the minority view holder (and the American slave holders) need to be justifying your theology by using the WHOLE Bible, not just the bits that seem to support your viewpoint. I think that anyone who has half a brain could see that.

As an example of this, the verses you quote about the behaviour of slaves is completely missing the counterpoint verses that tell masters how to treat their slaves. Most definitely a case of cherry-picking I think.

However your original post (500?) wanted to see why Christians cannot justify the treatment of Black African slaves and that is where I am going next.

Again, God looks to provide a 'how-to' guide. You are allowed to purchase 'slaves', keep them for life, beat them, and pass them along to your children. I can say this with confidence, and you know I can back it up with Chapter and Verse.

The Bible, though somewhat vague, does distinguish between differing laws of the free and the enslaved. Again, both Ex. 21 and Lev. 25 go into this...

cvanwey · Jun 8, 2021

I have already sufficiently addressed all your responses. The Bible condones slavery in a way which likely 'irks' you to your core. Hence, the apologetics below; to try and 'defend' it...

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
At the heart of the covenant between the nation of Israel and YHWH is the Ten Commandments. Not wanting to go through all of those, lets start with the summary of these that was commonly known during the first century: "Love the Lord your god with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength and with all your mind, and love your neighbour as yourself" (Luke 10:27, Matthew 22:37-39 from Deuteronomy 6:5 & Leviticus 19:18).

You forgot what I provided prior: Eph. 6:5-8 and 1 Tim 6:1-2.

I'd imagine the slave masters would read these Verses to their slaves to keep them in check, or in line. This way, they would serve as hard as they could.

... Get your slave to believe in the same God as you, and then tell them to serve their slave masters as much as they can. Seems quite logical, if you ask me.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
1) Capture/Kidnap of Africans to be sold as slaves: Mostly this was conducted by Africans against Africans, though apparently Europeans also engaged in such practices, such was the lucrative nature of the slave trade.

Many slaves were born into slavery. Hence, your argument above is of little value. "Slaves" were allowed to be bought, sold, and/or inherited.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Where Africans were capturing and kidnapping other Africans, they were probably not Christian as Christianity had been big on the east Coast (e.g. Ethiopia), but it is not certain how far it spread across Africa at this time.

Please continue to remember the Bible flip-flops between the 'free' and the 'enslaved'

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Conclusion: There can be no justification for the way that the slaves were treated on their journey across The Atlantic. There is no Biblical precedent in either New or Old Testament and had the slaves and slavers been Hebrews there would be grounds for multiple executions of traders (Ex 21:20, Lev 19:20, Lev 24:17; Lev 25:43)

The Bible mentions you can beat your slaves. The Bible does not furnish suitable or unsuitable reasons. The Bible also instructs doing so, with impunity. --- As long as they stay alive. This is God's Words apparently.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
4) Slavery on the Plantations: A large proportion of those who had ended up as slaves on the plantations became Christians. There are clear instances of plantation owners treating their slaves well and educating them and treating them like other workers. But there are plenty of instances where they were treated terribly, whether they were Christian or not.

Yes, because the Christian slave masters would read the Bible to them, justifying slavery practices, via 'God's Word'. If a Christian slave owner decided not to beat their slave, this was not against God's law. But if they should decide to beat their slaves, this was also NOT against God's law

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Whippings and beatings appear to be routine. There may have been cases where some kind of punishment was justified, but the problem appears to be that such beatings occurred at the whim of the owner and with no kind of restitution for the victims as per the Torah (Ex 21:26, Dt 15:13). The New Testament expressly says that Masters should not threaten their slaves with no indication that this only applies to some elite group (Ephesians 6:9, also Colossians 4:1).

At best, you now merely have a contradiction

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Summary: Based on my limited research over the last couple of weeks, I would say that a case can be made for slavery in Christianity, but it would not bear resemblance to anything that we have seen above. Slaves would be captured in defensive wars (which one hopes would not be a common occurrence) or sold by non Christians to Christian Masters. Once they were slaves, the master was expected to look after his slaves and treat them fairly - in other words like they treated anyone else with the simple exception that they had been compelled to work for their master. There is no direct imperative as Christians to free slaves, unless they are applying Torah, in which case they should have a Sabbath year, but without that it wasn't necessary... but although the law wasn't considered binding for non-Jews (see Romans, Galatians), it was indicative and Christian masters should then always be thinking about training their slaves for self-sufficiency and letting them out into the world when they are ready - anything that would help further the kingdom of God. If the slave trade had occurred under Christian terms, it would have been a minor blip in history. Instead greedy profiteers from beginning to end turned something bad into something terrible. There is no justification whatsoever for the horrible actions of slave traders and slave owners.

The only thing that Torah can be used to support is the purchase of slaves from foreign nations, the rest is prohibited or punished or discouraged (which those in the Slave Triangle and Antebellum South seem to have conveniently ignored or removed from the Bibles they used).

Apologetics 101 at work here. Nothing more...

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
So the American slave trade CANNOT be justified from the Bible. You should read it, ALL OF IT, and you would see that what happened in the 300 years of Atlantic slaving bears little or no resemblance to any form of slavery or servitude mentioned in the Bible.

I sense extreme conformation bias at work here...

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 9, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
So this is interesting. This is in conflict with the exodus 21 verses where it says only the man can leave unless he is married at the time of his enslavement, then they both can leave. This does not solve the problem of owning people as property against their will whether they get to leave after 6 years or not when God could have done it a different way.

Well given that Deuteronomy means 'second law' and it is is implied that it is a reiteration and clarification of what has gone before, I think it likely that women were distinctly included in the second law because, in common with most languages, collective nouns for all people are masculine (e.g. mankind generally refers to everyone, but womenkind refers to just half the population).

For whatever reason, ti should be noted that impartial judges were to administer the law, so it would be their job to get the bottom of the issue and determine the right thing to do in each circumstance.

Regarding the last part, there is another way - pay their debt to the master and they are free.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 9, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
No, but an omnipotent God could have come up with something right? The fact that God thought this was a good solution shows that God endorses owning people as property.

God did come up with a way that enabled people to repay their debt to others and leave debt free.

Essentially you are still seeing this as some kind of enforced slavery, which occasionally it was, but more often than not it was just a means for people to get back on their feet and become self-sufficient.

The sabbath year is the guarantee of that - something to work towards.

I doubt whether we will ever see eye-to-eye on this since you seem to be unable to stop seeing this as 'people as property' and start seeing it as 'repayment of debts'.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 9, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
If I were God I would have told them to help each other and used my powers to keep people from hurting each other in terrible ways. I would not have wrote rules on how to properly own people as property.

There are plenty of places that God tells them to help each other. That's what 'love your neighbour' means.

The problem is your use of the term property. As I recall it is actually only used of people foreign slaves and never of Hebrew/God-believing servants. And even then, it is clear that it is just the word that is being used and the context defines its meaning.

No slave was ever meant to be treated as mere property. For example consider a master who has both a cart and a slave as his property.

- He is told to love his slave (Love your neighbour) and not to love his cart (do not covet). First clear difference.

- If he picks up an axe and completely annihilates his cart, everyone would think he is crazy, but he has done nothing wrong. But if he takes an axe and kills his slave, the law means he is a murderer and must die. Second clear difference.

- The cart can never gain its freedom, no matter how hard it works, but the servant can. Third clear difference.

I think that is enough to establish that there are differences between people and other objects regarding ownership, even if the term used is the same (and bear in mind that Hebrew is a language with limited words, so may use the same word to mean different things depending on the context).

Regarding your solution as to God keeping people from hurting each other in terrible ways, we are delving into The Problem of Pain, which is off-topic, however one might ask you why under your version of God it is OK to hurt each other in ANY way? That's a rhetorical question for you to ponder as I don't really want to go off on a tangent.

Slavery, a Guide

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads