Slavery, a Guide

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 11, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
6. God says that the Hebrews can buy slaves from the nations around them, give them to their descendants and beat them without penalty. Sounds like American slavery in the 17th and 18th centuries.

The first part is true, the second part is not (that was covered in one of your other points). The first part does sound like the Atlantic Slave trade. On the other hand, the Colonial slavers pretty much proclaimed that they were Christians (there may have been Jewish owners too, I have no idea). If they were Christian, then clearly there is a higher obligation on them as slave owners as evidenced in the New Testament letters of Paul (you'll know where to look as all atheists know the passages about slaves loving their masters - now just read on and see what masters had to do as well).

cvanwey · Jun 11, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
I could, but to be truthful, repetition bores me and so far it seems to me that you have not heard anything I've said. So, if I ignore you, it means I just haven't gotten around to it or I just don't think it worthwhile repeating myself ad infinitum.

How noble of you

I've heard everything you stated, and have responded appropriately. Here are the facts, for which you have not even begun to dispute.

God has taken the time to author an instruction manual on how one can practice 'slavery'. It's really no different than reading the instruction manual of a board game, like Monopoly or something. Meaning, the instruction manual does not tell you that you must buy and play the game, but if you should decide to play the game, these are the boundaries or rules to abide to play the game appropriately.

Below are additional topics, for which you have either perpetually ignored, or appear not to understand....

1. One can justifiably use the pages of the Bible to support Trans Alt slavery practices
2. Aside from volunteer Hebrew servants, the Bible instructs that you can be a lifetime slave against your will
3. You can bread new lifetime slaves
4. You can beat your slaves with virtual impunity, for no reason, as instructed by the Bible
5. Slave masters can even read NT Verses to their slaves, to assure their slaves work for their masters as hard as they can; and also try not to escape

I'm sure there's more, but this will do, for starters.

Thanks for demonstrating to all of us, that you are a true apologist

cvanwey · Jun 11, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
I found this one quite interesting, not least because I don't really understand what is going on, but also because the closest parallel law that deals with the same scenario in a non-slave woman (Dt 22:28-29) he doesn't die either and has to pay the father some money and marry the woman.

I don't like either law and maybe it is just us misunderstanding the situation. However it should be noted that in all cases of rape there is a punishment that the man has to pay, whether it is a life, a bride price or an offering to God. Not sure how I feel about that given I have strong feelings about rape.

My gut tells me if this passage, or many others, were written in what you would consider a man-made fictional "god inspired" book, you would feel the same as @Clizby WampusCat . --- That these passages are nothing more than the works of man-made cultural norms for this era. But, since you believe these passages include God's direct guidance, you are now forces to rationalize them in some way, shape, form, or manor.

cvanwey · Jun 11, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
This one really made me laugh.

You should have said that all slaves can be beaten and left it at that. Hebrew (and Resident Foreigners) could be beaten to death also, although this might result in a murder charge.

Personally I think that would be applied to all slaves, since there is no reason to suppose from reading the Torah that Judges would rule any kind of murder as acceptable (You shall not commit murder is one of the Ten Commandments).

And while you point out that it was acceptable to beat your slave, the same reasoning would end up concluding that it is ok to hit your neighbour with a stone or fist. Or that it is fine for a slave to beat his master with a stick.

Sure, as long as you ignore context

You refuse to go line by line, to vet it all out. Please continue to remain in your bubble.

cvanwey · Jun 11, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
This one is not true at all. Hebrew and Resident Foreigners can be released. on the year of Jubilee.

At face value that seems to imply everyone, though all the references I looked up suggest that 'Resident Foreigner' is a term that refers to non-Hebrew believers, so most, if not all, 'slaves' would be released on the Sabbath Year.

Only if you ignore Chapter and Verse.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 12, 2021

cvanwey said:
The Bible only instructs what the master can do to the slave without retribution. The Bible fails to express what happens if the slave retaliates and/or acts towards their master. Hence, you are left with mere assumption alone.

The point is that you are not left with any assumptions - you can refer to the laws about fighting neighbours that appear only a few verses earlier.

Your responses show that you see the laws legalistically and not as a means to obtain Justice for victims, which is the whole point of the law and while you do that you see loopholes and gaps. According to your interpretation the slave can attack and kill the master with no penalty. The master on the other hand may have to pay for reciprocating, either with his life or the loss of his slave.

I think this is why you and I will never see eye to eye on this as you are not able to see beyond a legalistic worldview. You need everything spelt out, every circumstance catered for and the fact that it is not ought to be an indication to you that your approach may not be the correct one.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 12, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
So you believe people are sinful at birth but would not abuse this regulation?

Not at all. If that were the case there would be no need for references to punishments for failure to adhere to the laws.

The difference, however, is that these were people steeped in the culture of their time. They went to the temple every sabbath, they met with their neighbours and discussed the law, they were expected to contribute to discussions and every day they would be reminded that God had bought them out of slavery into something better.

Looking for loopholes is a sure sign that you don't think that God is watching. It is possible you might do something wrong subconsciously, but the law provides for that in two ways - a sacrifice for unknown sins (the scapegoat if memory serves) and Judges who would be impartial and would want to have a darn good reason why they might be breaking up a marriage and 'because I said so' is not a darn good reason. Bear in mind that a Judge HAD to be brought in to witness this event and the purpose of the judge is to ensure that justice prevails. They would not be a very good judge if they did not actually investigate the matter fully before ruling on the subject.

So do I think the regulations were abused? Yes I do.

Do I think the the regulations were regularly abused? No I don't, they would definitely have been the exception and once it was found out, the master's reputation would have been completely ruined and the servant and his wife and children could walk away free (and probably gain compensation if the judge so rules it).

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 12, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
I have answered this before a couple of times.

Which is why I think we are going around in circles with responses. Anyone can justify what they want from the Bible, if they are willing to ignore any verses that disagree with their way of thinking or which render their reading of a verse as illogical.

If you truly want to ensure that Christians don't suddenly rise up and persuade the governments of the world to reinstate slavery, you should probably work on a logical framework that shows how they are misusing scripture, not encourage them their bad theology.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 12, 2021

Clizby WampusCat said:
“‘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.

I don't know how you define reside. But If I reside in someone else's house, I am not resident in my own house - I can't be two places at once. It doesn't matter how I got there, even if it was not voluntary - I am living in someone else's how's.

And unfortunately Torah agrees with my assessment: "You must not wrong a resident foreigner nor oppress him, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt." (Ex 22:21, 23:9, cf Lev 19:33,34). If you don't like the term 'resident foreigner' go with what other versions use: 'like a native-born' (NLT); 'alien who resides with you' (NRSV); 'foreigner residing among you' (NIV); 'stranger who resides with you (NASB); 'stranger that dwelleth with you ' (KJV); 'the stranger who sojourns with you' (ESV); 'alien who resides with you' (CSB).

it is quite clear that this refers to someone who is living with/among you (reside/sojourn/dwell) and that they are from some other country/place (foreigner/stranger/alien).

It is difficult to see how they could be foreign and live among the Hebrews and somehow not be a foreigner living among the Hebrews...

Although, as I've said before the term apparently (and this is not obvious from a plain reading of the term) only refers to those who believe in God.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 12, 2021

cvanwey said:
1. One can justifiably use the pages of the Bible to support Trans Alt slavery practices

Covered in 538 in detail. Some aspects of the Atlantic Slave Trade can be justified by using the Law, most cannot.

cvanwey said:
2. Aside from volunteer Hebrew servants, the Bible instructs that you can be a lifetime slave against your will

Covered in 565, 617, 631. Resident Foreigners were to be treated in the same way as Hebrew slaves (and it specifically makes the point that the Hebrews were once slaves in a foreign land).

cvanwey said:
3. You can bread new lifetime slaves

Covered in 535. Once they become Resident Foreigners they are treated as such, so you can only breed a slave race as long as they don't believe in YHWH.

cvanwey said:
4. You can beat your slaves with virtual impunity, for no reason, as instructed by the Bible

Covered in 473, 503, 535, 539, 573, 541, 618. There is no instruction to beat your slaves with impunity, there is only laws to encourage you not to do so.

cvanwey said:
5. Slave masters can even read NT Verses to their slaves, to assure their slaves work for their masters as hard as they can; and also try not to escape

Also covered by 538. Since the slaves could read back verses that allowed them to escape, encouraged their masters to look after them and free them in the seventh year, slavers created a cut down Bible to ensure that such readings didn't happen. Your approach to the Bible is the same as that of those masters - just read the bits that support your peculiar practices and ignore anything to the contrary.

You should really give consideration to your approach to this subject (and others from past dealings with you). You've already made it clear that you think your way of reading the Torah is the way that everyone reads it (even if secretly) and, despite the fact that your way doesn't actually make much sense, you persist in it.

The failure to see any other viewpoint than your own is why a) you will never change; b) you will never convince others that they are wrong; and c) you will continue to be convinced that you have won an argument because everyone agrees with you (even if they say they don't).

cvanwey · Jun 12, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
The point is that you are not left with any assumptions - you can refer to the laws about fighting neighbours that appear only a few verses earlier.

You see, rather than making a claim that you are perpetually repeating yourself, the reality is that I am merely remaining quite patient with you; in the hopes that in one of these posts, my repeated responses, using differing tactics to convey the same information, will finally 'click' with you.

Differing laws exist between the free and the enslaved. All you need to do is read Ex. 21, Lev 25, and Deut. 15 entirely, (and in complete context), to discover this reality.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Your responses show that you see the laws legalistically and not as a means to obtain Justice for victims, which is the whole point of the law and while you do that you see loopholes and gaps. According to your interpretation the slave can attack and kill the master with no penalty.

Okay, this is me, yet again, remaining quite patient with you...

An 'eye for an eye', does not pertain to the slave. I will ask you a very simple question...

Is the slave master's eye instructed to be removed, if he should remove the slave's eyes? The answer is likely [no]. Why can I say this? Because 'slavery' is a unique situation, where there is an exchange between both the free and the slave. The law states the master is to set the slave free. That's it. And yet, when you get back to another unique situation, immediately after the one between the slave and the free, between all free people, the Bible states an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc (i.e. Ex. 21:22-25), etc...

This is likely why slave masters whipped their slaves on the back side. You keep wanting to exclude unique situations. It is common knowledge that the free cannot beat the free, unless another unique situation rolls along - (like whipping your own child with a rod). Please attempt to actually follow along.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
The master on the other hand may have to pay for reciprocating, either with his life or the loss of his slave.

I already covered this in post 589. Your only example was Deut. 15:13-15. But you likely deliberately left out Verse 12

Tisk tisk. These instructions only pertains to volunteer Hebrew servants. So again, I remain patient with you...

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
I think this is why you and I will never see eye to eye on this as you are not able to see beyond a legalistic worldview. You need everything spelt out, every circumstance catered for and the fact that it is not ought to be an indication to you that your approach may not be the correct one.

No. The reason you and I do not see eye to eye, is because you believe these passages have God's direct guidance. Hence, you are left to somehow rationalize them in a way which you can swallow "morally".

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 12, 2021

cvanwey said:
Differing laws exist between the free and the enslaved. All you need to do is read Ex. 21, Lev 25, and Deut. 15 entirely, (and in complete context), to discover this reality.

The same laws exist for all people, they are just not always relevant to all people. So laws for slaves are not relevant to free people, but all the other laws are applicable to ALL people, slave or free. For example Ex 21:18-19 is applicable to all people, but the punishment doesn't make much sense in the context of slavery (since the master pays the slave... who then pays it back to the master to pay off his debt... but the master could then legalistically demand extra payment from the slave for the missed work days. So Ex 21:20-21 ensures that the slave is not out of pocket in any way for the injury caused by the master).

I am not sure what you mean by 'emtrirely'. I spent last week going through all of the passages of the law noting both those that mention slavery, plus others that provided context or clarification (such as the passage that tells you to treat resident aliens in the same way as you treat Hebrews). These are (if you are interested): Ex 21, 22, 23; Lev 19, 24,25, Num 5, 15, Dt 6, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, 24.

The reality is that these laws are reasonably consistent in their approach, though there are few oddities. It would be up to Judges to apply this law.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 12, 2021

cvanwey said:
Okay, this is me, yet again, remaining quite patient with you...

An 'eye for an eye', does not pertain to the slave. I will ask you a very simple question...

Is the slave master's eye instructed to be removed, if he should remove the slave's eyes? The answer is likely [no]. Why can I say this? Because 'slavery' is a unique situation, where there is an exchange between both the free and the slave. The law states the master is to set the slave free. That's it. And yet, when you get back to another unique situation, immediately after the one between the slave and the free, between all free people, the Bible states an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc (i.e. Ex. 21:22-25), etc...

This is likely why slave masters whipped their slaves on the back side. You keep wanting to exclude unique situations. It is common knowledge that the free cannot beat the free, unless another unique situation rolls along - (like whipping your own child with a rod). Please attempt to actually follow along.

I certainly agree that there is something different going on here but the context of Ex 21:22-25 is the wounding of of a pregnant woman during a fight. Not generically. The principle you refer to can be found in Leviticus 24: 19-20 where fellow citizen is referred to (usually translated neighbour or 'another person'). In that instance the law demands a reciprocal injury. If one were to be strictly legalistic, the master would lose an eye (or whatever) AND the slave would go free... but then the loss is no longer balanced since the master has lost both an eye and a slave. The next option would be to apply one or other of the laws, If the the eye is lost then the slave is still a slave and now has a resentful master who may also require extra work to make up for loss of time. I suspect that both slave and master would opt for the freedom - the debt is cleared and the slave has to be provided with sufficient start up for themselves, while the master gets to keep their eye.

Where does it say that slave masters whipped their slaves on the back side? I don't recall seeing that anywhere in the Torah.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 12, 2021

cvanwey said:
I already covered this in post 589. Your only example was Deut. 15:13-15. But you likely deliberately left out Verse 12 Tisk tisk. These instructions only pertains to volunteer Hebrew servants. So again, I remain patient with you...

Yes, I left it out. I didn't think it was relevant. I'm still not sure that it is.

If these laws did not apply to non-resident foreigners then what laws did? The way you say it makes it seem that it is perfectly legal for a foreigner to arrive in another land and ignore their laws. In other words, since there are no laws that apply to the foreign slave once they end up in Israel, they can just walk free or attack their master. No law applies to them because there is nothing that specifically states how they are to be treated. They can do absolutely anything they like....

or they are subject in some way to the laws of the land at the very least to those that deal with their treatment of their neighbour for example... but if they are subject to those laws then you are back to how to deal with specific instances where slaves misbehave and so on (cf, 'Resident Foreigner' status)

In this instance the slave law might take precedence if the slave has a means to work towards freedom (i.e. they are allowed to gain freedom according to the sabbath laws.

So which is it to be? No laws at all, or the application of the existing common laws?

cvanwey · Jun 13, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
The same laws exist for all people, they are just not always relevant to all people.

This is a false statement. If you are classified as a 'slave', which-is-to-mean; not a Hebrew volunteer servant, you may be kept and beaten with impunity, for life.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
So laws for slaves are not relevant to free people,

For example Ex 21:18-19 is applicable to all people, but the punishment doesn't make much sense in the context of slavery (since the master pays the slave... who then pays it back to the master to pay off his debt... but the master could then legalistically demand extra payment from the slave for the missed work days. So Ex 21:20-21 ensures that the slave is not out of pocket in any way for the injury caused by the master).

Correct. God goes out of His way to sanction the allowance of beating your slaves for life, with impunity. Which means absolutely no consequence is assigned to the slave master. If free people beat one another, differing instructions apply.

The only defense you seem to have, is that if the master beats His slave enough where (s)he becomes very injured, he is out of a worker until (s)he heals. However, I'm sure there are plenty of cases where the slaves were beaten and could still perform their instructed tasks. If the slave was beaten enough to hinder their assigned duties, it's likely because maybe they are already not doing their assigned duties. Hence, there is still no loss from injury, via beating.

And how about if the slave injures themselves while working, and could no longer work? The master, under the law, has carte blanche to beat his slave with impunity. Because, the slave is deemed his property.

Please remember what I also stated about bread slaves. These slaves are not paid for... They are freebies for the slave owner. --- They are a pleasant bonus. --- Free continued 'help'. I would imagine many were born into slavery. God seems perfectly fine with instructing His readers that the off-spring belong to the master, and cannot later go free with the servant/slave. This law might even compel the volunteers to stay for life, since they cannot take their own slave bread family with them.

Please also remember, the 'slave' is considered his PROPERTY. Maybe he wants to beat them. Or maybe the slave is forced to work, while injured anyways. Because remember, the 'slave' is His property. He can virtually do as He pleases, as long as he does not knock out an eye or a tooth.

And how about if the slave master kin inherit all these slaves. These slaves are all free money to the son(s). Under the law, he can beat them with impunity, for the rest of the slave's life. If an all-loving God were to exist, I doubt such instruction would be provided.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
I spent last week going through all of the passages of the law noting both those that mention slavery, plus others that provided context or clarification (such as the passage that tells you to treat resident aliens in the same way as you treat Hebrews). These are (if you are interested): Ex 21, 22, 23; Lev 19, 24,25, Num 5, 15, Dt 6, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, 24.

As I told you prior, I will be happy to go line by line, to vet all these claims out. Please start with what you feel is the most convincing Verse(s) to support your counter-case. Thus far, I have not seen anything remotely compelling.

cvanwey · Jun 13, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Yes, I left it out. I didn't think it was relevant. I'm still not sure that it is.

It is quite relevant. These Verses you provided only and specifically pertain to volunteer Hebrew servants alone.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
If these laws did not apply to non-resident foreigners then what laws did?

This is where you must pay very careful attention. If they were categories as a [non-Hebrew slave], and NOT a free person, (foreign or domestic), it looks to be Lev. 25:44-46.

Tinker Grey · Jun 13, 2021

This whole conversation sounds like this:

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 13, 2021

cvanwey said:
This is a false statement. If you are classified as a 'slave', which-is-to-mean; not a Hebrew volunteer servant, you may be kept and beaten with impunity, for life.

Correct. God goes out of His way to sanction the allowance of beating your slaves for life, with impunity. Which means absolutely no consequence is assigned to the slave master. If free people beat one another, differing instructions apply.

Where does it sanction the beating of slaves with impunity for life. You continually point out that most of the laws apply to Hebrew servants, but the only law that doesn't makes no mention at all of beating slaves with impunity.

Silly Uncle Wayne · Jun 13, 2021

cvanwey said:
The only defense you seem to have, is that if the master beats His slave enough where (s)he becomes very injured, he is out of a worker until (s)he heals. However, I'm sure there are plenty of cases where the slaves were beaten and could still perform their instructed tasks. If the slave was beaten enough to hinder their assigned duties, it's likely because maybe they are already not doing their assigned duties. Hence, there is still no loss from injury, via beating.

This verse, according to you, applies only to Hebrew servants, so it is of no relevance to the argument about non-Hebrew slaves.

cvanwey · Jun 13, 2021

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Where does it sanction the beating of slaves with impunity for life. You continually point out that most of the laws apply to Hebrew servants, but the only law that doesn't makes no mention at all of beating slaves with impunity.

Do you not understand context? When the Bible is speaking about the topic of servants and/or slaves, the Bible seems to do a pretty decent job of distinguishing if it is speaking about your run-o-da-mill 'slave', verses a Hebrew servant. They are not to be treated the same. When the laws are written about slavery allowances, and it does not specify a Hebrew servant, it's implied to be about ALL the other slaves - (which do not go free after 7 years).

Case/point, all such Verses speak about how you are to treat the Israelites; whom are to be your servants: Dt. 15:12-15, Ex 21:2-6, Lv. 25:39-43.

However, if the Bible is not being careful to distinguish that they are an Israelite, then the Bible is speaking about all other 'slaves'. Such as: Ex 21:20-21, and Lv. 25:44-46.

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

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads