Slavery, a Guide

cvanwey said:

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?

Click to expand...

Yes I do. But I'm not sure why you make this comment, given that I was talking about a trait that we can control.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

Yes I do. But I'm not sure why you make this comment, given that I was talking about a trait that we can control.

Click to expand...

You, yourself stated: "he favoured the descendants of Abraham"

Being a descendant is not under any human's control. Whether I am blood related to a serial rapist, or a monk, has no relevancy to what I later choose. The creator of everything, and whom is also labelled 'all good' deems favor of some humans; based upon their bloodline? So if you agree with me, that this sounds a little suspicious, then isn't it just quite possible that all passages related to 'slavery' are nothing more than human concoction alone?

cvanwey said:

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?.?.?

Click to expand...

No, you are not reading enough of the OT (not even enough of the Torah, from the looks of it).

If yo were any Israelite servant you have the option to go free (Ex 21:2-3, Dt 16:12). Once you had completed your term of sabbath service you were free to go... it you wanted to.

Where there are discrepancies it would be the task of a judge to ensure fairness and safety of all (Ex 21:5-6, Dt 16:18-19).

I can only demonstrate that all people should go free at a Sabbath year since that is the plain reading of the text (Lev 19:34 says "The resident foreigner who lives with you must be to you as a native citizen among you." I would have thought initially that refers to any non-Hebrew but the translation notes suggests that it refers to foreign believers). So if you are non-Hebrew but believe in YHWH, then you are to be treated in every way like you are native born. The only exception would be Jubilee land resettlement as your ancestors had no land entitlement in the Promised Land).

Why wouldn't an all loving God deem it fit for unbelievers to remain enslaved - they have the opportunity to change their ways (the equivalent of the Christian's call to repentance). Should they not turn to God then their freedom is in the hands of their masters, so some might be set free, some might not. Loyalty to YHWH ensures no further attacks on his people (the Israelites). Which is what a deity who loves his people would do.

cvanwey said:

You, yourself stated: "he favoured the descendants of Abraham"

Being a descendant is not under any human's control. Whether I am blood related to a serial rapist, or a monk, has no relevancy to what I later choose. The creator of everything, and whom is also labelled 'all good' deems favor of some humans; based upon their bloodline? So if you agree with me, that this sounds a little suspicious, then isn't it just quite possible that all passages related to 'slavery' are nothing more than human concoction alone?

Click to expand...

Well for starters, what is wrong with favouring someone? If you have children wouldn't you favour them when it came to certain things such as inheritance?

Secondly, it wasn't some kind of exclusive favouritism. Even in Ancient Near East people could opt in to the Jewish covenant and thereby partake of that favour.

And as I already pointed out Christians do become children of Abraham (Galatians 3:7). The only ones who have no choice are those that are born as descendants of Abraham, though they can reject God too.

1. I'm going to lay down an assertion here... Based upon my research of the Bible, I assert that all passages, related to the topic of 'human slavery', were human invented alone. I assert no such claimed 'all loving' God would weigh in on the topic of slavery, other than to address His direct detest or for it's direct abolition; just like He would command with the topic(s) of murder, lying, trespassing, theft, etc... Okay, now to your response...

2. I also assert that you are doing nothing more than to keep doubling down on a topic for which, you know seems a little suspect, when compared to your own moral compass I say, or assert, that you and I agree more than you might want to admit here in this thread exchange. And now, are providing apologetics.

Okay, now to keep playing along with your responses

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

No, you are not reading enough of the OT (not even enough of the Torah, from the looks of it).

Click to expand...

Kool! Let's see how this goes...

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

If yo were any Israelite servant you have the option to go free (Ex 21:2-3, Dt 16:12). Once you had completed your term of sabbath service you were free to go... it you wanted to.

Click to expand...

Again, why should it even matter whether I am an Israelite, Chinese, 20% Navajo, or other other other? The 'all good' creator of everything bases His moral decisions upon your bloodline? Interesting...

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

Where there are discrepancies it would be the task of a judge to ensure fairness and safety of all (Ex 21:5-6, Dt 16:18-19).

Click to expand...

Again, God's rule is all that matters, not humans. Apparently, if you are an Israelite, you are automatically awarded special circumstances. This sounds like something a human would invent, not an omnibenevolent God?

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

I can only demonstrate that all people should go free at a Sabbath year since that is the plain reading of the text (Lev 19:34 says "The resident foreigner who lives with you must be to you as a native citizen among you." I would have thought initially that refers to any non-Hebrew but the translation notes suggests that it refers to foreign believers). So if you are non-Hebrew but believe in YHWH, then you are to be treated in every way like you are native born. The only exception would be Jubilee land resettlement as your ancestors had no land entitlement in the Promised Land).

Click to expand...

Please AGAIN observe what I have already been stating. The Bible flip-fops between the 'free' and the 'ensaved'. You assume that this Verse is speaking about the 'enslaved'. When reading Lev. 19, you will clearly see it is speaking about human relations, in general. You will also see that that the 'laws' for the 'free' do not equal the laws of the 'slaves'. Your provided Verse is not speaking about 'slaves'. When the Bible wants to reference a "slave's" rights, it then does so... I'm not sure why you keep ignoring this obvious concept? Please do not add what is not there. When the Bible does decide to speak about slavery, there exists passages where they are kept for life. Please reference them yourself, as I have already given them to you.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

Why wouldn't an all loving God deem it fit for unbelievers to remain enslaved - they have the opportunity to change their ways (the equivalent of the Christian's call to repentance).

Click to expand...

Again, I have provided Verses which state that if you are a female, and/or inherited, and/or not an Israelite, you are a slave for life. Please deal with these direct Verses; rather than to try and side step them.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

Well for starters, what is wrong with favouring someone? If you have children wouldn't you favour them when it came to certain things such as inheritance?

Click to expand...

You are again comparing fallible humans to a claimed 'all perfect' God. Tisk tisk Would a God grant special privileges of freedom, based upon race and/or gender? I say no. How about you?

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

Secondly, it wasn't some kind of exclusive favouritism.

Click to expand...

Yes it is. I already demonstrated why. Just for starters, the Bible tells it's readers not to rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

And as I already pointed out Christians do become children of Abraham (Galatians 3:7). The only ones who have no choice are those that are born as descendants of Abraham, though they can reject God too.

Click to expand...

Please stop. This has nothing to do with 'slavery'. Again, the laws differ between the 'free' and the 'slaves'. The Bible tells it's readers that if you are enslaved, to serve your masters harder. I already provided the direct Verses. You can be a 'child of Abraham', metaphorically speaking, while serving your slave master.

cvanwey said:

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?

Click to expand...

No you are being cynical. It IS axiomatic that God accepts service, but not the way you are implying. Nowhere, and I mean NOWHERE, does god render anyone sub-human. That is your view, not God's nor the Bible's nor even the Israelite view.

The only thing that can be gleaned from the laws on 'slavery' in the Torah is that not everyone is treated the same, but that does not render any of them sub-human in any way whatsoever. In regards to the Hebrew servants, the rules are to ensure that they do not lose out. Likewise the resident foreigners.

I'll refer you again to Deuteronomy where females were included, and children could only be 'inherited' with one of their parents and as soon as they came of age, they would be counted as adults (unless of course you think that Israelite children never grew up?) and as adults they could obtain their freedom at any time as they had not been purchased, had not been sold for debt and therefore had the rights of freedom as per any Hebrew adult.

The only group for whom there are no specific rules as slaves are the non-resident foreigners (i.e. those who are slaves but do not follow YHWH). And even there, the implications are that they were to be treated the same for most things and if they obtained Resident Foreigner status they would automatically be under the same laws as everyone else.

Now compare that to some of the Ancient Near Eastern cultures and even to Antebellum Slavery and you will see that in a lot of cases none of the slaves had ANY rights, regardless of where they came from. Some (e.g. Rome) allowed their slaves to earn money in their own right and therefore to eventually buy their own freedom, so on the whole being a slave or servant in Israel would have been so much better (in theory at least).

Torah does not produce laws for slavery or enslavement, but debt-service or indentured servitude (possibly with the exception of foreigners).

I say again, you are cynical in your approach to the Torah. It is clear that it has laws on the subject, but you choose to interpret them in the worst possible light, in spite of the fact that there are plenty of indications that this is not the light to interpret them by (e.g. 'Love your neighbour').

cvanwey said:

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.

Click to expand...

And as I've pointed out you seem to be cherry picking verses to support your views, rather than applying the whole law.

So the verses above are there, but the full passage of which you have only read part reads as follows (NET):

If men fight, and one strikes his neighbour with a stone or with his fist and he does not die, but must remain in bed, and then if he gets up and walks about outside on his staff, then the one who struck him is innocent, except he must pay for the injured person’s loss of time and see to it that he is fully healed.

If a man strikes his male servant or his female servant with a staff so that he or she dies as a result of the blow, he will surely be punished. However, if the injured servant survives one or two days, the owner will not be punished, for he has suffered the loss.

So the first rule shows the circumstances of a fight, with no indication of who started the fight, only what the outcome is.

The second rule also show the circumstances of a fight, also with no indication of who started the fight, only what the outcome is.

In both cases a person is injured to the point where they might die and if they die the killer dies also (definitely nothing sub-human about the rule for slaves here). And if the person injured gets up after a few days, the 'winner' of the fight has to pay in some way [right now I am getting a sense of deja-vu - I think I pointed this out to you a few days ago, so clearly you haven't been paying attention to what is being said]. There is no distinction here: In both cases someone has to pay.

The ONLY difference in application between the two is how the payment is made. In the first instance, the victor pays the victim. In the second instance - the net effect is the same. The victor pays the victim, but in this instance, the victim is in debt to the victor so money goes back to the victor immediately, but the victim has had time off work and that cannot be held against him in any way.

The parallelism ought to be obvious and also that the servant is not mere 'property' because if he were the master would be entitled to extend the debt for loss of work...

And on top of that a few verses later the servant can be given their freedom if they were maimed in any such fight.

By using your logic, You can beat your neighbour with impunity, as long as the neighbour lives.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

No you are being cynical.

Click to expand...

If laws are written differently and exclusively, based upon your bloodline and/or gender, then they are not equal for all. This is axiomatic, not "cynical"

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

It IS axiomatic that God accepts service, but not the way you are implying. Nowhere, and I mean NOWHERE, does god render anyone sub-human.

Click to expand...

Yes He does. I have provided many Verses to demonstrate. You just care to instead hand wave them away

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

That is your view, not God's nor the Bible's nor even the Israelite view.

Click to expand...

God sanctions/allows/instructs that it is perfectly fine to beat your property, if one should so choose to do so. Now, you need to deal with it. The fact that you wish to continue rationalizing these facts are your concern, not mine.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

The only thing that can be gleaned from the laws on 'slavery' in the Torah is that not everyone is treated the same,

Click to expand...

Bingo!

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

but that does not render any of them sub-human in any way whatsoever.

Click to expand...

So being beaten with relative impunity, being kept for life, and being considered someone else's property, does not qualify as sub-human?

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

In regards to the Hebrew servants, the rules are to ensure that they do not lose out. Likewise the resident foreigners.

Click to expand...

Sure, and if you are not an Israelite, then what? This is my point here... You can then be kept for life as a slave.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

I'll refer you again to Deuteronomy where females were included, and children could only be 'inherited' with one of their parents and as soon as they came of age, they would be counted as adults (unless of course you think that Israelite children never grew up?) and as adults they could obtain their freedom at any time as they had not been purchased, had not been sold for debt and therefore had the rights of freedom as per any Hebrew adult.

Click to expand...

But what about the ones whom were not the correct bloodline? You keep skipping around this...

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

The only group for whom there are no specific rules as slaves are the non-resident foreigners (i.e. those who are slaves but do not follow YHWH). And even there, the implications are that they were to be treated the same for most things and if they obtained Resident Foreigner status they would automatically be under the same laws as everyone else.

Now compare that to some of the Ancient Near Eastern cultures and even to Antebellum Slavery and you will see that in a lot of cases none of the slaves had ANY rights, regardless of where they came from. Some (e.g. Rome) allowed their slaves to earn money in their own right and therefore to eventually buy their own freedom, so on the whole being a slave or servant in Israel would have been so much better (in theory at least).

Click to expand...

You already admitted that the Bible is vague about 'slavery'. This means one could use Lev. 25 to justify Trans Alt slavery And please continue to remember, for which you have yet to acknowledge, Lev. 25, or any other Chapter, speaks differently about the free verses the slave.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

Torah does not produce laws for slavery or enslavement, but debt-service or indentured servitude (possibly with the exception of foreigners).

Click to expand...

The Bible does not prohibit such activities. If the Bible did not speak about slavery at all, then you might feel justified in stating that the Bible frowns upon slavery entire. But instead, you must now deconstruct what the Bible says about slavery. And it states you can buy slaves, own them, beat them, and consider them your property for life; which you may also pass down to your next of kin.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

I say again, you are cynical in your approach to the Torah.

Click to expand...

I am merely regurgitating what the Bible says. I am not sugar coating it.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

And as I've pointed out you seem to be cherry picking verses to support your views, rather than applying the whole law.

Click to expand...

This is a false statement. I have vetted out the entire Chapter of Exodus 21. Don't you remember?

Please remember that Verses 12-19 do not speak about the topic of slavery. You keep ignoring this...

All Chapters flop in and out of the topic of what slavery practices entail specifically. Yet again, the rules differ between the free and the enslaved.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

So the verses above are there, but the full passage of which you have only read part reads as follows (NET):

If men fight, and one strikes his neighbour with a stone or with his fist and he does not die, but must remain in bed, and then if he gets up and walks about outside on his staff, then the one who struck him is innocent, except he must pay for the injured person’s loss of time and see to it that he is fully healed.

If a man strikes his male servant or his female servant with a staff so that he or she dies as a result of the blow, he will surely be punished. However, if the injured servant survives one or two days, the owner will not be punished, for he has suffered the loss.

So the first rule shows the circumstances of a fight, with no indication of who started the fight, only what the outcome is.

The second rule also show the circumstances of a fight, also with no indication of who started the fight, only what the outcome is.

In both cases a person is injured to the point where they might die and if they die the killer dies also (definitely nothing sub-human about the rule for slaves here). And if the person injured gets up after a few days, the 'winner' of the fight has to pay in some way [right now I am getting a sense of deja-vu - I think I pointed this out to you a few days ago, so clearly you haven't been paying attention to what is being said]. There is no distinction here: In both cases someone has to pay.

The ONLY difference in application between the two is how the payment is made. In the first instance, the victor pays the victim. In the second instance - the net effect is the same. The victor pays the victim, but in this instance, the victim is in debt to the victor so money goes back to the victor immediately, but the victim has had time off work and that cannot be held against him in any way.

The parallelism ought to be obvious and also that the servant is not mere 'property' because if he were the master would be entitled to extend the debt for loss of work...

And on top of that a few verses later the servant can be given their freedom if they were maimed in any such fight.

By using your logic, You can beat your neighbour with impunity, as long as the neighbour lives.

Click to expand...

LOL. Verse 18-19 speaks about a 'quarrel' between two free males. Hence, some reason is furnished as to why the scuffle happened to begin with, which caused an injury... It does not state anything along the lines of... "if a male strikes another male" (alone)....

Verses 20-21 speak about a master beating his slave. That's it. No reason is furnished for the beating. Just as long as the slave does not die apparently.

As you already alluded to prior, what if the slave is no longer deemed useful - (due to old age, being decrepit, or other). The slave master can knock out their eye and send them packing. Please remember what Verse 26 states. "Compensation" is to merely get rid of them:

"An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye."

The whole problem goes away when you view the Bible as a cultural product rather than a revelation from a purely good divinity.

cvanwey said:

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"????

Click to expand...

Are you really that daft?

cvanwey said:

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.

Click to expand...

Actually it is not wide open. That God provides laws for indentured servitude and slavery is highly important, but I don't see those laws being implemented in the Atlantic Slave trade or in Antebellum Slavery, except where it happens coincidentally.

If we can both agree that Christianity on the whole does not support slavery, then it is incumbent on the dissenters to come up with convincing reasons why the majority have got it wrong and you, as their spokesperson, have not managed to do more more than pick specific verses of the law and then apply them with no consideration for the law as a whole to justify this abhorrent practice. You are, in effect, doing exactly the same thing as the publishers of the Slave Bible - trying to justify immoral behaviour by ignoring anything that disagrees with your viewpoint.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

Are you really that daft?

Click to expand...

Do you really believe what you are saying? I doubt it. Deep down, I bet you feel the same as I. The passages about 'slavery' are of pure human concoction; which begs a follow up question... What else in there is of human concoction?

The only thing 'silly' or 'foolish' here is reading your 'justification(s)' for God's apparent "slavery" practices

If you agreed with everything the Bible says, you would just own it. But instead, we are all reading as you attempt to 'spin' what the Bible says.

cvanwey said:

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.

Click to expand...

By your reasoning, God encourages men to dig pits for domestic animals to fall in (Ex 21:33), animals to gore each other (Ex 21:35), steal one another's sheep or oxen (Ex 22:1); allow his livestock to graze on another man's crop (Ex 22:5); set fire to another man's crop (Ex 22:6); seduce virgins (Ex 22:16) and so on.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

Actually it is not wide open. That God provides laws for indentured servitude and slavery is highly important, but I don't see those laws being implemented in the Atlantic Slave trade or in Antebellum Slavery, except where it happens coincidentally.

Click to expand...

Then you must actively choose to omit/ignore the Verses which directly support such practices.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

If we can both agree that Christianity on the whole does not support slavery,

Click to expand...

Well, I would agree both you and I do not support 'slavery' practices. But the Bible disagrees with both you and I, doesn't it?

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

then it is incumbent on the dissenters to come up with convincing reasons why the majority have got it wrong and you, as their spokesperson, have not managed to do more more than pick specific verses of the law and then apply them with no consideration for the law as a whole to justify this abhorrent practice. You are, in effect, doing exactly the same thing as the publishers of the Slave Bible - trying to justify immoral behaviour by ignoring anything that disagrees with your viewpoint.

Click to expand...

I will be more than happy to again go through Ex. 21 (line by line), Lev. 25 (line by line), and Deut. 15 (line by line), and any others for that matter

It's becoming quite entertaining to observe your rationale.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:

By your reasoning, God encourages men to dig pits for domestic animals to fall in (Ex 21:33), animals to gore each other (Ex 21:35), steal one another's sheep or oxen (Ex 22:1); allow his livestock to graze on another man's crop (Ex 22:5); set fire to another man's crop (Ex 22:6); seduce virgins (Ex 22:16) and so on.

Click to expand...

You have again missed my point. God provides a "how-to" guide. IF one should decide to own humans as property for life, here is the "proper" way of doing so...