Does the Bible condone slavery?

[Tone]

The 'tree' for which you choose to 'eat' from, condones slavery practices. I don't. And likely, neither do you.

Yahshua ha Mashiach is my sustenance.

My prayer has always been that I be His man...a master servant to the Master. Amen.

 

[muichimotsu]

And there is embodied the authoritarian ideals, that subservience is preferable to freedom because the idea of punishment isn't the motivation (because that'd be fear of the law), but purely wanting to do the will of someone else.

So subversion of your own will, enslaving yourself to someone else, is seen as a virtue, on the level of totalitarian regimes that, ironically, use similar tactics to repress rebellion by propaganda that it's for your own good, playing into people's selfishness and turning them into obedient slaves without any real agency.

I'm reminded in part with God Is Not Great where Hitchens, I believe, not only said religion is authoritarian at its core, but totalitarian with Christianity in particular (or even Abrahamic faiths with the emphasis on both a sense of lineage, but also the divine command that obliges one to follow in line or suffer)

 

[Tone]

And there is embodied the authoritarian ideals, that subservience is preferable to freedom because the idea of punishment isn't the motivation (because that'd be fear of the law), but purely wanting to do the will of someone else.

So subversion of your own will, enslaving yourself to someone else, is seen as a virtue, on the level of totalitarian regimes that, ironically, use similar tactics to repress rebellion by propaganda that it's for your own good, playing into people's selfishness and turning them into obedient slaves without any real agency.

I'm reminded in part with God Is Not Great where Hitchens, I believe, not only said religion is authoritarian at its core, but totalitarian with Christianity in particular (or even Abrahamic faiths with the emphasis on both a sense of lineage, but also the divine command that obliges one to follow in line or suffer)

Yes, subservience is preferable, but only to a good heart that yearns for life--as opposed to a hard heart that lusts for the "freedom" to die.

As created beings it is right and good to desire to do the will of a good Creator. It would only be wrong if the Creator was bad.

If the desire is not there to serve the Author of life, wouldn't this be indicative that something went terribly wrong?

Slavery is the check on utter death and destruction. Because this is what the usurper wants to do to you. If the enemy could, he would have you destroy yourself in the name of self sovereignty.

What is the end of the totalitarian regimes you speak of? Any examples? I think you will find that the end to these things is theft, death, and destruction.

The difference is, when I speak of being a master servant to the Master, this is me getting...wanting... rejoicing in the fact that I am serving Life Himself!


I believe the answer lies within the state of the heart.

Take a man in love with a woman, for instance.

Some may consider this sort of love a kind of bondage. And they could also consider such devotion an obsession.

But, really, the answer to this puzzle is found in whether or not he believes she is good.

If he believes she is bad, then we can definitely question his desire to acquiesce.

But, if he believes she is good, why wouldn't he desire to serve her?

 

[cvanwey]

Yes, subservience is preferable, but only to a good heart that yearns for life--as opposed to a hard heart that lusts for the "freedom" to die.

As created beings it is right and good to desire to do the will of a good Creator. It would only be wrong if the Creator was bad.

If the desire is not there to serve the Author of life, wouldn't this be indicative that something went terribly wrong?

Slavery is the check on utter death and destruction. Because this is what the usurper wants to do to you. If the enemy could, he would have you destroy yourself in the name of self sovereignty.

What is the end of the totalitarian regimes you speak of? Any examples? I think you will find that the end to these things is theft, death, and destruction.

The difference is, when I speak of being a master servant to the Master, this is me getting...wanting... rejoicing in the fact that I am serving Life Himself!


I believe the answer lies within the state of the heart.

Take a man in love with a woman, for instance.

Some may consider this sort of love a kind of bondage. And they could also consider such devotion an obsession.

But, really, the answer to this puzzle is found in whether or not he believes she is good.

If he believes she is bad, then we can definitely question his desire to acquiesce.

But, if he believes she is good, why wouldn't he desire to serve her?

You seem to have no problem producing long responses, but when it comes to pressed observations, warranted and condones by the Bible, all of a sudden, crickets...

The Bible directly condones beatings; as well as entitled ownership, (as property rights), of servant offspring. All for life under certain conditions. Which seems to only exclude a few...

Call it what you will, servant/slavery/property/money/other... The Bible expresses it's approval and allowance of such actions. Seems ironic, IF one wishes to also assert that God is 'loving' and 'loves' His creation?

 

[Tone]

The Bible expresses it's approval and allowance of such actions. Seems ironic, IF one wishes to also assert that God is 'loving' and 'loves' His creation?

If, and this is a big 'IF" it is as you say, then these allowances are surely unto the ultimate goal of the prolification (that a word?) of life.

Do you believe this? Why/why not?

*Proliferation

 

[muichimotsu]

Yes, subservience is preferable, but only to a good heart that yearns for life--as opposed to a hard heart that lusts for the "freedom" to die.

False dichotomy: yearning for life doesn't mean you must submit, sometimes you fight for life. And it isn't about a freedom to die in all situations, only with euthanasia and such, where it is dying with dignity. I may not agree with my grandmother not donating her organs (though she's also 88~ and most of her organs probably wouldn't be suitable anyway unless it's for specific research, not helping dying people), but I support her DNR order in her will, especially with the qualifications that it would be impossible to resuscitate, but merely stave off the inevitable

As created beings it is right and good to desire to do the will of a good Creator. It would only be wrong if the Creator was bad.

If the desire is not there to serve the Author of life, wouldn't this be indicative that something went terribly wrong?

A creator doesn't put responsibilities on us by creating us anymore than we put responsibilities on what we create, because either way, the implication is a fixed purpose and not real freedom or versatility.

Only if you assume obedience is the measuring stick by which we determine anything, which is antithetical to any meaningful freedom versus following orders like an automaton.

Slavery is the check on utter death and destruction. Because this is what the usurper wants to do to you. If the enemy could, he would have you destroy yourself in the name of self sovereignty.

It is not the only check, it was considered necessary in a time where people didn't understand much about morality in any sense beyond authoritarian schema.

I don't destroy myself in the same of sovereignty, I make mistakes with a skewed idea of excessive freedom, which is distinct from freedom in moderation through discretion.

What is the end of the totalitarian regimes you speak of? Any examples? I think you will find that the end to these things is theft, death, and destruction.

The difference is, when I speak of being a master servant to the Master, this is me getting...wanting... rejoicing in the fact that I am serving Life Himself!

The end of the totalitarian regime is essentially any freewill being eliminated because there is only sin with freewill, thus logically there can be no freewill or even really will in heaven, because you're essentially submitted utterly, dominated by God's will that you've moved already towards surrendering freedom because it's seen as too risky

More presuppositions without basis beyond a desire for perfection and an attachment to that to your rational detriment. Why must it be so absolute instead of seeking an ideal that can be consistent but shift in nature without undermining the principle's benefit and application overall? I desire freedom AND wellbeing, I don't merely desire one or the other, they're balanced in that freedom is constrained reasonably for better wellbeing, but that in governance, there is more to potentially constrain because of that interrelated community versus societal expectations that can fail the same as legislation intended for a good end

I believe the answer lies within the state of the heart.

Take a man in love with a woman, for instance.

Some may consider this sort of love a kind of bondage. And they could also consider such devotion an obsession.

It can be bondage or an obsession depending on the quality of the feeling itself, love is not a singular static thing, there are variations, C.S. Lewis having an interesting treatise on it I still own in my library, the Four Loves

But, really, the answer to this puzzle is found in whether or not he believes she is good.

If he believes she is bad, then we can definitely question his desire to acquiesce.

But, if he believes she is good, why wouldn't he desire to serve her?

A person is not good, their actions are good, humans are valuable in themselves, which is distinct from being good, much as they can be conflated as qualities.

And ironically, you're talking as if patriarchy isn't inherent in the Bible's system, even in the NT, let alone the OT's horribly misogynist ideas, Deuteronomy 21: 10-14 an especially good example, where a woman can be raped, but the buck stops at enslaving her, even though I'm pretty sure there are verses that would border on justifying prisoners of war being made as slaves and there's one I recall that is about sentencing enemies that surrender peacefully to hard labor, as if that's a rational or proportionate response

The idea that a man should desire to serve a woman is a modern concoction, not based in much, if any, of the Bible, which sees Eve as submissive to Adam from the beginning and he more her caretaker, not her equal in any sense because she was made from his rib. Or did you forget that, among other major misogyny in the bible to seem more modern and feminist?[/QUOTE]

 

[cvanwey]

If, and this is a big 'IF" it is as you say, then these allowances are surely unto the ultimate goal of the prolification (that a word?) of life.

Do you believe this? Why/why not?

*Proliferation

I thought I already did?

I do not believe this... I think humans wrote the entire Book, and nothing more... All makes complete sense then... This is how many people thought, back then...

If God exists, and He is 'love', I doubt He would instruct His readers it is okay to own and beat other humans for life. Do you?

At BEST, if such a God does exist, looks more plausible that such Verses were not instructed and endorsed by such a claimed God, unless you wish to completely contort the word 'love'. It would instead look as if these Verses were injected by men, and passed off as 'god pronouncements.'

 

[Tone]

False dichotomy: yearning for life doesn't mean you must submit, sometimes you fight for life. And it isn't about a freedom to die

It does if submission is inherent in the process of life itself.

The best fighting techniques involve submission.

It's all about timing.

creator doesn't put responsibilities on us by creating us anymore than we put responsibilities on what we create, because either way, the implication is a fixed purpose and not real freedom or versatility.

Wickedness is defined as something not operating according to its purpose.

Only if you assume obedience is the measuring stick by which we determine anything, which is antithetical to any meaningful freedom versus following orders like an automaton.

You can't obey unless your will is free.

you're essentially submitted utterly, dominated by God's will that you've moved already towards surrendering freedom because it's seen as too risky

True freedom is the ability to surrender to death in order to bring about more life. Because, freedom is a function of life.

John 10:17
Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

John 12:24
Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.

A person is not good, their actions are good, humans are valuable in themselves, which is distinct from being good, much as they can be conflated as qualities.

I didn't say whether or not the woman in the illustration was good, that's beside the point. It's a matter of belief.

The idea that a man should desire to serve a woman is a modern concoction, not based in much, if any, of the Bible, which sees Eve as submissive to Adam from the beginning and he more her caretaker, not her equal in any sense because she was made from his rib. Or did you forget that, among other major misogyny in the bible to seem more modern and feminist?

Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,

Matthew 20:25
"But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”


A husband and wife are to serve each other. Not just any man and any woman.

Your view of servanthood is fundamentally skewed, which is why you don't see that it is part of the process of life itself.

Die to self and you will live. Live for self and you will die.

Matthew 16:25
For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

 

[Tone]

I thought I already did?

I do not believe this... I think humans wrote the entire Book, and nothing more... All makes complete sense then... This is how many people thought, back then...

If God exists, and He is 'love', I doubt He would instruct His readers it is okay to own and beat other humans for life. Do you?

At BEST, if such a God does exist, looks more plausible that such Verses were not instructed and endorsed by such a claimed God, unless you wish to completely contort the word 'love'. It would instead look as if these Verses were injected by men, and passed off as 'god pronouncements.'

So you believe that all of those rules and regulations were set down in order to destroy that society?

I think you can trace that lineage all the way back from people alive today.

And those slaves you are so concerned about are among the heirs.

In fact, I believe you can trace the Messiah back to some of those slaves.

 

[muichimotsu]

It does if submission is inherent in the process of life itself.

The best fighting techniques involve submission.

It's all about timing.

I think you're conflating submission in a purely passive sense with soft martial arts that redirects energy rather than just getting beaten bloody. Also, that's not really submission, unless we're talking grappling, which I think has a use of submission in competition.

Wickedness is defined as something not operating according to its purpose.

No it isn't, at least not by most people who regard us as more than objects or means to an end, which is what your definition sounds a lot like

You can't obey unless your will is free.

Which is a whole other discussion of whether we can really have any freedom at all with an all knowing all powerful entity

True freedom is the ability to surrender to death in order to bring about more life. Because, freedom is a function of life.

Yeah, Leo Tolstoy would love that, but I'm not a passive pacifist, sometimes force must be used to protect life, even if it means someone might get injured or even die if the situation comes to it.

Collectivism is only a nice sentiment if balanced against individualism, because autonomy is not merely a function of the whole, but the parts


I didn't say whether or not the woman in the illustration was good, that's beside the point. It's a matter of belief.

A husband and wife are to serve each other. Not just any man and any woman.

Your view of servanthood is fundamentally skewed, which is why you don't see that it is part of the process of life itself.

Die to self and you will live. Live for self and you will die.

Yeah, that's technically in the text, but it's practically contradicted by more verses suggesting that the husband is the head of the household, emphasized by plenty of groups who can likely quote it from memory

Servanthood in the sense of it being voluntary out of altruism is not the same as the slavery in the OT or even NT, because it was not based on that, it was a desperation move in an atrocious culture that treated people like expendable resources and the Christians did nothing to advance it until they actually got power, which is like waiting for more people to not be homophobic to get marriage equality for gay couples rather than having a judicial fiat based in sound reasoning that discrimination based on sexual orientation for marriage is unconstitutional

It isn't an either/or, the self is a necessary function for surviving and functioning at all in society, the distinction is an attachment and clinging to that concept for purpose, which is done by Christians in the idea of a soul and persisting past your death. You can make it about slavery and such, but you still care about your survival subconsciously and don't really die to self, only to selfishness at best, your self is still something rooted in mistaken thinking as something permanent

 

[InterestedAtheist]

You're avoiding and filling your responses with rhetoric and strawmen. You know the points but refuse to engage them and I'm just not interested in that sort of conversation.

Prove it. Show me where I'm avoiding the point and using rhetoric and strawmen.
As far as I'm concerned, all I'm doing is pointing out the mistakes in your arguments. First, you've already conceded the subject of the debate: slavery is morally wrong, and the Bible endorses it. You're now trying to claim that this doesn't matter, because this was a different time, in which people thought differently. So do you mean that slave owners were not acting immorally when they bought humans, owned them, beat them at a whim and denied them their freedom? Are you saying that if you were to go back in time to this period, you would be happy to act in the same ways? Of course you wouldn't.

And so we see, your argument is invalid: they may not have known that slavery was wrong and that they were doing wrong; but we do, and they were. And the same religious writings that supported the use of slavery in Biblical times were used, centuries later, to justify American slavery. As I've said before, the slavers were morally in the wrong; but biblically speaking, they were 100% in the right.

 

[cvanwey]

So you believe that all of those rules and regulations were set down in order to destroy that society?

No. I believe humans wrote the Bible, period. The parts, which promote slavery, were likely written from a person(s), or instructed to be written by person(s) whom were slave owners or approved of slavery practices themselves. And since they may have even thought slavery was okay, maybe they even thought 'God told them' it is okay?

Because, you know, many claim God speaks to them directly. Many believe their thoughts are navigated by the Holy Spirit, or some other god(s).

EVEN if YHWH exists, which I doubt, it's likely He did not author or instruct of such Verses? Why? Because it deliberately contradicts in the 'golden rule'. You know, Matthew 7:12, just for starters. Unless you wish to argue God teaches contradiction?

Which begs the question, was any of the Bible 'instructed from' God? Or, is it just a 100% man made book, like all the others?

I hope this answers your question. Now can you finally start answering mine? You can start here.... (from post # 627)...

If God exists, and He is 'love', I doubt He would instruct His readers it is okay to own and beat other humans for life. Do you?

 

[Tone]

No. I believe humans wrote the Bible, period. The parts, which promote slavery, were likely written from a person(s), or instructed to be written by person(s) whom were slave owners or approved of slavery practices themselves. And since they may have even thought slavery was okay, maybe they even thought 'God told them' it is okay?

Because, you know, many claim God speaks to them directly. Many believe their thoughts are navigated by the Holy Spirit, or some other god(s).

EVEN if YHWH exists, which I doubt, it's likely He did not author or instruct of such Verses? Why? Because it deliberately contradicts in the 'golden rule'. You know, Matthew 7:12, just for starters. Unless you wish to argue God teaches contradiction?

Which begs the question, was any of the Bible 'instructed from' God? Or, is it just a 100% man made book, like all the others?

I hope this answers your question. Now can you finally start answering mine? You can start here.... (from post # 627)...

If God exists, and He is 'love', I doubt He would instruct His readers it is okay to own and beat other humans for life. Do you?

So, your whole point is to use the Bible...to undermine...the Bible...?

O...k...

 

[Tone]

I think you're conflating submission in a purely passive sense with soft martial arts that redirects energy rather than just getting beaten bloody. Also, that's not really submission, unless we're talking grappling, which I think has a use of submission in competition.

Proverbs 16:23
"He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that rules his spirit than he that takes a city."

How much better is it to have the wits and strength to not even put yourself in that position?

No it isn't, at least not by most people who regard us as more than objects or means to an end, which is what your definition sounds a lot like

Take it back to the Hebrew.

"Wickedness = "Ra" (רע) in Hebrew. According to the Genesis Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, רע (Resh-Ayin) means "to break" (pg.772)."

A quick read of this will give some insight:

Wickedness, Hebrew - In Search of Truth!

Which is a whole other discussion of whether we can really have any freedom at all with an all knowing all powerful entity

Freedom would be being in harmony with such an entity...if you add "all loving".

Yeah, Leo Tolstoy would love that, but I'm not a passive pacifist, sometimes force must be used to protect life, even if it means someone might get injured or even die if the situation comes to it.

Collectivism is only a nice sentiment if balanced against individualism, because autonomy is not merely a function of the whole, but the parts

Well, I tend to pacifism...

I pass my fists and go straight to the heavy artillery...ha ha ha, just one of my originals that I've shared before...ha...

the husband is the head of the household, emphasized by plenty of groups who can likely quote it from memory

Remember the verse I shared, which illustrates true leadership and greatness? And the greatest is the servant of all.

Matthew 23:11
"But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant."

It isn't an either/or, the self is a necessary function for surviving and functioning at all in society, the distinction is an attachment and clinging to that concept for purpose, which is done by Christians in the idea of a soul and persisting past your death. You can make it about slavery and such, but you still care about your survival subconsciously and don't really die to self, only to selfishness at best, your self is still something rooted in mistaken thinking as something permanent

I think I'll borrow a term here from @cvanwey , "Deepities".

 

[cvanwey]

So, your whole point is to use the Bible...to undermine...the Bible...?

O...k...

Do you forget what this forum arena is even here for??? It is for people like me to challenge your faith

You have again COMPLETELY AVOIDED MY STRAIGHT FORWARD QUESTION.

If God exists, and He is 'love', I doubt He would instruct His readers it is okay to own and beat other humans for life. Do you?

 

[Tone]

If God exists, and He is 'love', I doubt He would instruct His readers it is okay to own and beat other humans for life. Do you?

If God is Love, then whatever He says to do is good for us...yes?

Okay, so if we refuse to do what is good for us, what should love then do?

Is it an attribute of love to simply allow destruction to occur?

What does even human society do to keep people from destroying themselves/others?

That's correct, they make them slaves. They will even use force, if necessary, to stop them.

But, what if we agree that what God (Love) says to do is for our benefit?

Then we serve Love with noble and willing hearts. And there is no need for control.

Therefore, it is a matter of the condition of the heart.

Servant or slave...two sides of the same coin.

Does the Bible say to go and take control of a God honoring society and punish them?

No, the Bible addresses what to do with societies that have hard hearts towards Love and are on their way to total destruction.

Take them as slaves, exercise control over their destructive ways, but remember that you were once slaves and if they have a change of heart...bring them in to the household where they will have an everlasting inheritance.

Proverbs 19:29
"Judgments are prepared for scorners, and stripes for the back of fools."

Luke 12:47
"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes."

Hebrews 12:6
"For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth."

 

[cvanwey]

If God is Love, then whatever He says to do is good for us...yes?

Okay, so if we refuse to do what is good for us, what should love then do?

Is it an attribute of love to simply allow destruction to occur?

What does even human society do to keep people from destroying themselves/others?

That's correct, they make them slaves. They will even use force, if necessary, to stop them.

But, what if we agree that what God (Love) says to do is for our benefit?

Then we serve Love with noble and willing hearts. And there is no need for control.

Therefore, it is a matter of the condition of the heart.

Servant or slave...two sides of the same coin.

Does the Bible say to go and take control of a God honoring society and punish them?

No, the Bible addresses what to do with societies that have hard hearts towards Love and are on their way to total destruction.

Take them as slaves, exercise control over their destructive ways, but remember that you were once slaves and if they have a change of heart...bring them in to the household where they will have an everlasting inheritance.

Proverbs 19:29
"Judgments are prepared for scorners, and stripes for the back of fools."

Luke 12:47
"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes."

Hebrews 12:6
"For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth."

Looks like you did everything but answer the simple question. I'll ask it yet again:

If God exists, and He is 'love', I doubt He would instruct His readers it is okay to own and beat other humans for life. Do you?

And please remember:

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.

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.

 

[muichimotsu]

How much better is it to have the wits and strength to not even put yourself in that position?

And that's not a wisdom unique to the Bible, Buddhism and martial arts taking inspiration in part, or even Chinese philosophy, have a similar idea that sometimes the best solution is not fighting, even if you could kick someone's butt, because it's about self defense and improvement

Take it back to the Hebrew.

"Wickedness = "Ra" (רע) in Hebrew. According to the Genesis Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, רע (Resh-Ayin) means "to break" (pg.772)."

A quick read of this will give some insight:

Wickedness, Hebrew - In Search of Truth!

You're oversimplifying meaning by simple etymology again, breaking doesn't have to mean we are regarded as objects, merely that we break in terms of being, I imagine, a vessel for God (not that that isn't still looking at us in terms of object traits instead of abstract ones)

Freedom would be being in harmony with such an entity...if you add "all loving".

But God cannot be all loving and all just at the same time or a contradiction emerges of perfections being executed in a way that comes into direct conflict

Remember the verse I shared, which illustrates true leadership and greatness? And the greatest is the servant of all.

Matthew 23:11
"But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant."

The sentiment can be nice, but making it absolute is the problem with anything, because it shows inflexible thinking. The idea of sometimes swallowing your pride doesn't require the Bible as the source of that, again very likely emerging in Eastern thought far removed from Christianity and Abrahamic traditions

I think I'll borrow a term here from @cvanwey , "Deepities".

Perhaps a simplification is in order: self as a permanent thing versus a functional experience for making sense of individuality. The former is clinging to a soul, to persistence beyond bodily death, the latter fully accepts the body's death and how our self changes over time, like the river in Heraclitus' quote never being the same one at any given time, except in essence versus accident (it's the same river in location, not in its presentation of flow, etc.

 

[Par5]

So, your whole point is to use the Bible...to undermine...the Bible...?

O...k...

If CVANWEY discusses or is critical of the bible's contents, what do you suggest he uses, the London street directory perhaps?
It always amuses me when Christians get uppity if the bible is criticized when the best they can do to defend it is to say because it's in the bible it must be true.
I would call that using the bible...to prove...the bible.

 

[Tone]

Here's a great video I found on the subject. Many good points are brought up:

*I think it may all be summed up in this:


"Whenever Thou humblest me, Thou makest me great."