Is slavery wrong?

[biggles53]

44 "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. 45 You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, 46 passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." 47 "If a resident foreigner becomes rich, and if some of your Israelite relatives go bankrupt and sell themselves to such a foreigner, 48 they still retain the right of redemption. They may be bought back by a close relative -- 49 an uncle, a nephew, or anyone else who is closely related. They may also redeem themselves if they can get the money. 50 The price of their freedom will be based on the number of years left until the next Year of Jubilee -- whatever it would cost to hire a servant for that number of years. 51 If many years still remain, they will repay most of what they received when they sold themselves. 52 If only a few years remain until the Year of Jubilee, then they will repay a relatively small amount for their redemption. 53 The foreigner must treat them as servants hired on a yearly basis. You must not allow a resident foreigner to treat any of your Israelite relatives ruthlessly. 54 If any Israelites have not been redeemed by the time the Year of Jubilee arrives, then they and their children must be set free at that time.
<< Leviticus 25:43Leviticus 25:44-54Leviticus 25:55 >>

 

[Robban]

These mealy-mouthed justifications merely highlight the discomfort that many Christians feel about the slavery that is condoned, and often commanded, in the Bible.

Like you, they are very keen to shift the conversation to the "paying off a debt" slavery, but avoid at all costs the references to the taking and keeping of slaves of a non-Jewish origin...

Pretty predictable....

Well, I am not a legalist,

meaning, I don,t entertain the the idea of, "How far can I go, and still be within the Law"

The letter of the Law.

David made that mistake, and though forgiven, it haunted him the rest of his Life.

But that maybe for Another time.

To go above and beyond the letter should be the goal.

To go the extra yard.

We should not speak that which is not in our heart, it would better to shut up.

 

[South Bound]

I've been told that in Biblical days people who were poor would sell themselves and their children into slavery. Is that kind of slavery wrong?

I don't see how indenture is wrong, when it's a contract entered into by two willing and consenting participants.

 

[Lollerskates]

44 "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. 45 You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, 46 passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." 47 "If a resident foreigner becomes rich, and if some of your Israelite relatives go bankrupt and sell themselves to such a foreigner, 48 they still retain the right of redemption. They may be bought back by a close relative -- 49 an uncle, a nephew, or anyone else who is closely related. They may also redeem themselves if they can get the money. 50 The price of their freedom will be based on the number of years left until the next Year of Jubilee -- whatever it would cost to hire a servant for that number of years. 51 If many years still remain, they will repay most of what they received when they sold themselves. 52 If only a few years remain until the Year of Jubilee, then they will repay a relatively small amount for their redemption. 53 The foreigner must treat them as servants hired on a yearly basis. You must not allow a resident foreigner to treat any of your Israelite relatives ruthlessly. 54 If any Israelites have not been redeemed by the time the Year of Jubilee arrives, then they and their children must be set free at that time.
<< Leviticus 25:43Leviticus 25:44-54Leviticus 25:55 >>

Most all employers treat their employees worse than this...much worse. And, let's not talk about governments, taxes, loans and usury.

At least after seven years the debts were forgiven. A lot of debt is forever today, which means you are a slave (i.e. you will have to work to pay off your debt.)

 

[Oafman]

I don't see how indenture is wrong, when it's a contract entered into by two willing and consenting participants.

Indentured servitude was almost never entered into by two willing and consenting participants.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't see how indenture is wrong, when it's a contract entered into by two willing and consenting participants.

Really, now?

A few years ago, a german dude had a fantasy to kill and eat a human. On the internet, he encountered someone who's fantasy was to be eaten.

The latter offered himself to the german to be eaten.
He went to his house and the german dude killed him and ate him.

This was a "verbal contract" entered into by two willing and consenting participants. So, using your logic, this killing and cannibalistic act is okay?

 

[South Bound]

Really, now?

A few years ago, a german dude had a fantasy to kill and eat a human. On the internet, he encountered someone who's fantasy was to be eaten.

The latter offered himself to the german to be eaten.
He went to his house and the german dude killed him and ate him.

This was a "verbal contract" entered into by two willing and consenting participants. So, using your logic, this killing and cannibalistic act is okay?

No. For obvious reasons, the two are not analogous.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No. For obvious reasons, the two are not analogous.

Why not?
You clearly gave special status to mutual consent.

Why does your logic apply to one situation but not to another?

 

[South Bound]

Why not?
You clearly gave special status to mutual consent.

Why does your logic apply to one situation but not to another?

First, because one doesn't involve murdering someone.

Second, because there are rules in place to protect the slave and regulate the practice of indenture.

 

[DogmaHunter]

First, because one doesn't involve murdering someone.

Would it make a difference if the one being eaten would commit suicide instead?

Second, because there are rules in place to protect the slave and regulate the practice of indenture.

Yes. Like "you can beat them as long as they don't die within 2 days as a result of the beating" - on the 3rd day is fine though.

fyi: there were rules in place not that long ago in the US as well.

 

[South Bound]

Yes. Like "you can beat them as long as they don't die within 2 days as a result of the beating" - on the 3rd day is fine though.

No, I was thinking more along the lines of the rules listed in the Bible.

 

[keith99]

Indentured servitude was almost never entered into by two willing and consenting participants.

That depends on what you mean by willing and consenting.

My understanding is that the vast majority were in no way coerced by the party they were indentured to.

Now if you mean those who sought indenture did so because it presented their best chance for escape from a bad situation makes them not willing and consenting, sure. But one could include a lot of debt there or for that matter any choice made where someone would have chosen differently if they had more resources.

 

[keith99]

No, I was thinking more along the lines of the rules listed in the Bible.

You mean rules like Exodus 20:20-21?

“If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies [q]at his hand, he shall [r]be punished. 21 If, however, he [s]survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his [t]property.

 

[South Bound]

You mean rules like Exodus 20:20-21?

Is punishing a slave owner who kills his slave a bad thing?

And is it a bad thing that, just a few verses down, in Exodus 21:26-27, we're told that if a slave is injured by his master, that he is to be set free as restitution?

 

[KarateCowboy]

Yes, slavery is wrong because it takes away a person's fundamental right to choose the path for their own life.

That's also true of abortion. Interestingly, several of the most common pretenses for abortion also can be used for slavery:

"My body, my choice. I can sell myself into slavery if I want to".

Or, "Don't like slaves? DON'T BUY ONE"

 

[biggles53]

Most all employers treat their employees worse than this...much worse. And, let's not talk about governments, taxes, loans and usury.

At least after seven years the debts were forgiven. A lot of debt is forever today, which means you are a slave (i.e. you will have to work to pay off your debt.)

And again we glide right past the elephant in the room, without giving it a glance...!

You are only referring to the practice of Jews making slaves of other Jews....!

What about the opening lines of those passages which refer to the purchasing of foreign slaves and the manner in which they can be owned...!?

According to your supposed god, you can buy such people and they become your property for life... You can beat the crap out of them at your pleasure, as long as they survive the beating for a couple of days.... When you die, you can pass on your slaves as property to your children... And finally, any children that these slaves bear become your property as well...!

Why do you avoid facing up to these pronouncements...?

 

[biggles53]

No, I was thinking more along the lines of the rules listed in the Bible.

Ummmm......that is one of the rules listed in the Bible....!

Flipped over the nasty bits, did we....?

 

[biggles53]

Is punishing a slave owner who kills his slave a bad thing?

And is it a bad thing that, just a few verses down, in Exodus 21:26-27, we're told that if a slave is injured by his master, that he is to be set free as restitution?

Is being told that you can beat the crap out of someone you own a bad thing...!?

 

[South Bound]

Is being told that you can beat the crap out of someone you own a bad thing...!?

Yes. That would be a bad thing. That's why the Bible forbids it.

Is there a reason you refuse to answer my question?

And again we glide right past the elephant in the room, without giving it a glance...!

You are only referring to the practice of Jews making slaves of other Jews....!

He may be, as I'm not sure which passage he's referring to, but the fact remains that Leviticus 25:10 is not limited to Jews, and states that all slaves must be freed and all debts forgiven.

Perhaps you're thinking of the Jubilee spoken of in Exodus 21:2, which refers specifically to Jews.

According to your supposed god, you can buy such people and they become your property for life... You can beat the crap out of them at your pleasure, as long as they survive the beating for a couple of days....

Verse, please? And how do you reconcile your belief that "the Bible tells you can beat the...out of slaves" with Exodus 21:26-27?

Ummmm......that is one of the rules listed in the Bible....!

Then you should have no trouble showing us where that is in the Bible.

Flipped over the nasty bits, did we....?

You mean the "nasty bits" you insist are in the Bible, but never seem to be able to give examples of?

Mate....are you blind...!?

Exodus clearly states that, if you beat your slave so badly that he dies "at your hand", then you should be punished. However, it then goes on to say that, if the slave manages to survive the beating for a day or two and then dies, you are quite within your rights because, after all he was your property....!

Why do you fail to see this...!?

Because I get my understanding of the text from reading the text and not from going to some atheist "gotcha" site and depending on people who haven't read the text to tell me what the text says.

The point of the verse is not that it's OK to beat slaves, but that there should be no murder charge where there is no murder.

Why do you keep ignoring the verses that forbid beating slaves?

No it does not...! Again, that is referring to the treatment of "your brethren", of fellow Jews...!

Except that nowhere in that verse do we see anything about "brethren" or "fellow Jews". It specifically says "all inhabitants", not just Jews.

Read on to verse 39 and you'll see, once again, the separate arrangements for FOREIGN slaves...!

Actually, v 39 is in another passage and is dealing with another topic.

Now, as I asked you before, why are you ignoring my question?

Please show them now....

I did.

Oh, before you do, you might like to be reminded of Jesus' supposed words about beating slaves.....

From Luke...

But if that servant says in his heart, &#8216;My master is delaying his coming,&#8217; and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, 46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47 And that servant who knew his master&#8217;s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

Actually, v 41 tells us that Jesus is presenting a parable about his return, not giving instructions about slavery.

Ummmm......no I didn't....it's right there in that passage...!

So, Jesus says that if a slave beats others slaves and/or gets drunk and generally behaves badly while his master is away, then his master should "cut him in two" without warning some time after his return....

Now, separately to that, if a slave fails to do all the things in preparation for his master's return, knowing that his master is returning, and knowing what his master expects of him, shall be beaten with many stripes....!

It's all there......your desperation is a bit pathetic.....

Again, that's a parable about Jesus' return, not instructions on slave keeping.

Not that I can find in this thread.

Since you posted this giving the post number shouldn't be too much to ask.

See post #34.

Forbids? That's a verse straight out of the Bible itself!

The verse he quoted is in the Bible. The liberty he took with it is not. Nowhere in that verse does it say that a slave owner is permitted to beat a slave, only that a slave owner who does will not be charged with murder if the slave doesn't die. We have similar laws today.

What's more, I've already posted verses that say that beating a slave is forbidden.

 

[selfinflikted]

Yes. That would be a bad thing. That's why the Bible forbids it.

Is there a reason you refuse to answer my question?

Forbids? That's a verse straight out of the Bible itself!