Could anyone tell me if this is true?

[DrBubbaLove]

Please show me this teaching then, because I'm 100% sure that you have no idea what you are talking about.

To intercede and pardon me, but we all have at least some responsibility for educating ourselves. Servitude comes in many forms, and the Bible expresses/references them all because they are all part of human reality and also our collective human history. For example many of the people settling this country were immigrants that entered into various forms of servitude in exchange for being allowed/enabled (passage for example) to come here. Believe it or not they did not all just buy a ticket to get on a boat, nor would most of them be able to afford such expense. Similarly many conquering nations throughout human history have made the conquered enter into some form of servitude. Typically the level of civility/treatment of such national servitude is directly proportional to the their success in maintaining control. So it is not like all such examples of that common form of servitude of the vanquished represented a horrible existence - as that would generally result in those serving revolting over the "masters".

In many periods of history people freely chose to indenture themselves for many reasons, including attempting to better themselves or the lives of those they loved. And I would think in those cases, it would have been clearly wise to carefully consider to whom one is planning to indenture oneself to. So, no not all forms of servitude are as ugly as others and forced servitude can be (not always) very ugly. Even within a particular period of history, and one particular form of servitude, we can see great variation in the treatment of "slaves". Today we have similar forms of servitude, most of us just don't consider it as such. Our employment is a form of servitude unless we are self-employed. We can be perfectly happy doing it, but if honest many of us would rather be doing something else but recognize at the same time we need to do something to sustain ourselves. So furthering our own dreams/goals can and often does involve some form of servitude, whether we wish to acknowledge that or not, and it does not have to be seen as good or evil - just a human reality.

 

[juvenissun]

Please show me this teaching then, because I'm 100% sure that you have no idea what you are talking about.

You are 100% sure, Huh? Let's see:

There are many verses in the Pentateuch talk about buying slaves. However, there is not a single verse refers to human trafficking or slave market. For example, in Lev 25:25-55, one could sell himself to people (the money goes to the slave or to the family of the slave). But it does not mention that one could buy a slave like buying an animal. This is the first point of view.

Second, all the verses in the Pentateuch that address slaves emphasize how should the master treat the slave. If you like, you may read them on yourself (so you know what the Biblical slave system is about). The key point is very clear. Slaves work for you, but you should treat them like a human. All verses in the Bible indicate that the master owns the labor value of the slave, but not the humanity of the slave.

I really don't see what is wrong with this system. If well executed, this system should work much much better than today's labor market.

In addition, whatever said in the Pentateuch are shadows (images) of what really is in God's Kingdom. The idealized slave system as God tells Jews on earth does bear important spiritual meaning on the hierarchical structure in the Heaven.

If you are still 100% sure that I don't know what I am talking about, then tell me why.

 

[Armoured]

I really don't see what is wrong with this system. If well executed, this system should work much much better than today's labor market.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

There are many verses in the Pentateuch talk about buying slaves. However, there is not a single verse refers to human trafficking or slave market. For example, in Lev 25:25-55, one could sell himself to people (the money goes to the slave or to the family of the slave). But it does not mention that one could buy a slave like buying an animal. This is the first point of view.

Some of Lev. 25 refers to Hebrew slaves, and other parts do not. You do realize that there were different rules for Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves in the Bible don't you? All you need to do is keep reading Lev. 25 until you get to verse 44:

44 Your male and female slaves are to be from the nations around you; you may purchase male and female slaves. 45 You may also purchase them from the foreigners staying with you, or from their families living among you—those born in your land. These may become your property. 46 You may leave them to your sons after you to inherit as property; you can make them slaves for life. ​

Foreign slaves, and their children, were the property of their owner. Animals are property - not people. You are wrong.

Second, all the verses in the Pentateuch that address slaves emphasize how should the master treat the slave. If you like, you may read them on yourself (so you know what the Biblical slave system is about).

I have. Here is one:

Exodus 21:20-21 – “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”
​

The text says that a master may beat a slave with a rod as long as he doesn't die. Here's and example of a slave that was beaten but who did not die:

​

Does this look like something we would want to see happen?

That being said, even if your point was valid - which it obviously is not - that would not matter since owning another person as property is in and of itself morally wrong.

The key point is very clear. Slaves work for you, but you should treat them like a human. All verses in the Bible indicate that the master owns the labor value of the slave, but not the humanity of the slave.

The verses quoted above explicitly refer to slaves as property, not people. I have a hard time taking you seriously when you say that you approve of this system. Would you approve of having your daughter taken away from you and given to another slave to be married so that your master could enslave their children? Would you approve of your wife being beaten in front of you with a rod? Would you want your children treated as property?

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

To intercede and pardon me, but we all have at least some responsibility for educating ourselves. Servitude comes in many forms. . .

I can make this very simple. Is owning another person as property moral?

 

[juvenissun]

I have. Here is one:

Exodus 21:20-21 – “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”
​

The text says that a master may beat a slave with a rod as long as he doesn't die. Here's and example of a slave that was beaten but who did not die:

The verses quoted above explicitly refer to slaves as property, not people. I have a hard time taking you seriously when you say that you approve of this system. Would you approve of having your daughter taken away from you and given to another slave to be married so that your master could enslave their children? Would you approve of your wife being beaten in front of you with a rod? Would you want your children treated as property?

The verses in Exodus as you quoted are the only two verses puzzled me so far. But your argument made a basic mistake: You treat human error as the error of God's intention. God's people make mistakes all the time. I think that two verses describe a remedy for a type of error on the side of the master. A master beats his slave to death, then he should be put to death. Don't you omit this one and emphasize the evil acts of human.

To answer your question. If I were a slave to a good master, then if I have to, I won't hesitate to let my family members to be his/her slaves too. If be a slave is the best way to earn my living, under that condition, why not? Am I his "property" like other things he owned? It depends what do you mean by property. If I love my master, this "property" may save his life under some circumstances.

 

[mickiio]

I can make this very simple. Is owning another person as property moral?

It was cultural. Not owning slaves has only been around for a few hundred years or so. Some would equate that with the employee/employer situation now. In fact some of the American slaves liked being a slave better then being an employee because they were treated better. The bible was clear about not abusing slaves. Personally I do not approve of slaves nor abortions.

Don't forget about the disagreement about a fetus being a "person". Is that moral to sell body parts? Moral dilemma. Which poses the question, what is your moral standard based upon?

 

[juvenissun]

I can make this very simple. Is owning another person as property moral?

If you treat the person well, it is absolutely moral.

 

[juvenissun]

It was cultural. Not owning slaves has only been around for a few hundred years or so. Some would equate that with the employee/employer situation now. In fact some of the American slaves liked being a slave better then being an employee because they were treated better. The bible was clear about not abusing slaves. Personally I do not approve of slaves nor abortions.

This comment is to you, a brother in the Lord.

Slavey is a social system allowed and regulated by God in a poor economic environment. It went sour due to the evil human nature. But, most importantly, this system teaches us the relationship between us and God. I love and am always very moved by countless examples of loyalty/love relationship developed between slave and master in history. This social system explained in the Bible actually imaged and described our relationship with God.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

If you treat the person well, it is absolutely moral.

Does "well" include beating them?

 

[juvenissun]

Does "well" include beating them?

If I made mistake, I will (should) take the punishment, include beating. And I will thank him for teaching me.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

It was cultural. Not owning slaves has only been around for a few hundred years or so. Some would equate that with the employee/employer situation now. In fact some of the American slaves liked being a slave better then being an employee because they were treated better. The bible was clear about not abusing slaves. Personally I do not approve of slaves nor abortions.

It is either immoral to own another person as property or it is not.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

The verses in Exodus as you quoted are the only two verses puzzled me so far. But your argument made a basic mistake: You treat human error as the error of God's intention. God's people make mistakes all the time. I think that two verses describe a remedy for a type of error on the side of the master. A master beats his slave to death, then he should be put to death. Don't you omit this one and emphasize the evil acts of human.

You are asking me to believe that the bible must mean something other than what it clearly states. It clearly states that a master could beat their slaves with a rod. It clearly states that a master owned the children of slaves as property.

Your argument that this was some kind of remedy falls apart the moment we stop trying to make excuses for a hypothetically all powerful God. Clearly, this "remedy" didn't work very well whereas we know precisely what does actually work: outlawing slavery.

I could make the Bible more moral in ten seconds: Thou shall not own another human as property. That is an actual remedy.

To answer your question. If I were a slave to a good master, then if I have to, I won't hesitate to let my family members to be his/her slaves too. If be a slave is the best way to earn my living, under that condition, why not? Am I his "property" like other things he owned? It depends what do you mean by property. If I love my master, this "property" may save his life under some circumstances.

The bible clearly lays out that a good master is within his rights to beat slaves with a rod, to sell their children, and to own them and their descendants in perpetuity. I simply do not believe that you are being morally honest with yourself here.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

If I made mistake, I will (should) take the punishment, include beating. And I will thank him for teaching me.

If this is your honest view then I would say that our conversation is at a functional end. You believe that owning men, women, and children against their will as property and beating them as long as you don't kill them is moral. There is simply no way that you could convince me of this even if you proved that a God existed and that this was his direct command.

Some things are simply not worth paradise.

 

[juvenissun]

You are asking me to believe that the bible must mean something other than what it clearly states. It clearly states that a master could beat their slaves with a rod. It clearly states that a master owned the children of slaves as property.

You do not read it honestly. It does not say the master "could". It only says the master "did".

 

[juvenissun]

If this is your honest view then I would say that our conversation is at a functional end. You believe that owning men, women, and children against their will as property and beating them as long as you don't kill them is moral. There is simply no way that you could convince me of this even if you proved that a God existed and that this was his direct command.

Some things are simply not worth paradise.

I did not say against their will.
I think it should end. You continuous misinterpreted me. You are very biased. I am tired of it.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I can make this very simple. Is owning another person as property moral?

I would say the treatment of another person is what could be immoral or immoral, which I recall was the other posters point as well and is clearly a point made repeatedly in the Bible. The particular contract itself is just a contract. While we have laws to protect employees today, their treatment could still be either immoral or moral and that independent of the employee contract.

The abuses of slavery can be horrific and clearly immoral. No one here is attempting to justify immorality. Just point out that slavery has been around since the beginning of men coming together in larger communities and still exists today. We have a huge issue with sex slavery in this country right now and globally. And that is just one form of slavery existing today, as I said before - though obviously the sex slavery is far worst, clearly immoral both at the core and in the treatment of the slaves. That form of slavery today is clearly more abusive than probably most of our work environments. But that does not mean that all of us are being treated with the dignity a human deserves at work (morally). So, again the other poster makes a point that not all forms of slavery are necessarily immoral activities for the "owner" even if the owner is a corporation (unless it is Monsanto, then it is immoral - :0 )

Human relations are never as simple as we might like to think - which is why even today many people consider both employment contracts and welfare to be forms of slavery, with the later in these days typically abusive for those so enslaved. And do not think it necessarily wrong to view those things as forms of slavery.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

You do not read it honestly. It does not say the master "could". It only says the master "did".

No, it doesn't. The text clearly says that if a master beat his slave with a rod and that slave did not die within two days then the master was not to be punished because that slave was his property. The text is not merely describing what happened, as you are trying to claim, it is God saying that a master could do this.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

I did not say against their will.

Well, where in the text does it say that non-Hebrew slaves could voluntarily leave the service of their masters? I don't think you're honestly thinking through what the whole "property" thing actually means. Someone's property does not get to decide that it is not property. You are reading the morality you want to see into the text where it is clearly absent.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

I would say the treatment of another person is what could be immoral or immoral, which I recall was the other posters point as well and is clearly a point made repeatedly in the Bible. The particular contract itself is just a contract. While we have laws to protect employees today, their treatment could still be either immoral or moral and that independent of the employee contract.

You are failing to recognize that there are different types of slavery discussed in the bible. Male, Hebrew debt slavery is only one type. I am talking about non-Hebrew perpetual slavery in which slaves and their children are considered the property of their masters in perpetuity. Again, read the text of Lev. 25:44- it is right there.

Is it moral to own a human being and their children in perpetuity as property? I feel like if you didn't feel obligated to defend the OT this would be a much easier question for you to answer.