Is slavery wrong?

[RDKirk]

Well, maybe Christianity followed the rest of the world into thinking slavery was wrong when it really wasn't. You have to remember that slavery was part of a payment system for people to sell themselves into as a means of payment (as a last option). It wasn't something based on skin color as we know as slavery in American history.

There was noplace else on earth that had developed a religious or even a secular non-slavery philosophy by 100 AD, which the Church had done, nor even the anti-slavery philosophy that the Church had begun to develop by the mid 1600s and perfected by the early 1800s.

So there was no "following the rest of the world into thinking slavery was wrong" by any sense.

 

[loveofourlord]

Biblical slavery meant being an employee of someone to pay a debt, or gain a wage to live. Anyone that did not have masses of gold, silver, cattle, or resources had little to no means to provide for themselves, which means they had to work for wages. That was biblical slavery; this is why Hebrews were forbidden to have Hebrews as slaves. Would you make your brother or sister work for a wage under you, or would you be hospitable, and provide until they get on their feet?

With that in mind, contextually, most everyone in the world is a biblical slave. So, you would have to ask, "is being an employee wrong?" Not everyone is born into money; not everyone has 12,000 oxen (today, 1 ox sells anywhere from $1000 to $10,000, so Job was RICH, and so were his children inherently, which is why they partied every other night.)

Now, American, British, Egyptian, Assyrian, Chinese,... slavery is absolutely, abhorrently wrong. God does not condone raping men, women and children, usury, working "slaves" to bones, killing "slaves," beating them, and so on.

It does no good to lie about the faith, or least not look up the actual facts.

Nothing you said about slavery is correct, of course jews could have slaves, they just coudn't be more then 7 years one, unless you tricked them in which case they could become slaves for life, then add in that none hebrew slaves were slaves for life, and could be inheirted.

Spreading apologetic lies, knowingly or not when you can do a quick bible seearch does the gospel no good.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did show how. Your quote started at v 46, when the passage begins at v 35.

Pointing out that there is more text does not show that I quoted out of context. To do that you would have to show where the rest of the text disagreed with the way that I used that quote. You did not do so. You failed

Actually, by ignoring the context of a passage and only carving out those words you believe supports your opinion, quote mining is exactly what you're doing.

No, not until you show how my use of that quote was wrong. I acknowledged that there were other verses. I would have linked them, but it is so easy to look them up yourself that I thought it might be insulting to do so. Quote mining usually involves a text that cannot be easily found on the internet meaning that one would have to trust the poster. There are many many different Bible sources on the internet and all you have to do to search for them is to enter the book, chapter and sometimes the verse. But if you wanted to read the whole book or even the whole Bible it would not be a problem.

So show me how I am wrong. Show the parts of the verse that disagree with my conclusion.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Which provides strong evidence that it was written by men, not gods, of course....men who were reflecting their own understandings and self-interests, not taking dictation from a god laying down a universal moral code....

Both Christianity and Judiasm acknowledge that some parts of the Mosaic law were not intended to be universal moral code, so problem there.

Basically we have an argument that runs thus...

Premise 1: The Bible permits slavery
Premise 2: Slavery is morally wrong

Therefore, the Bible allows something that is morally wrong.

Conclusion: The Bible cannot be a legitimate source of authority in moral arguments.

So far, this thread has focused on Premise 1, and that mostly limited with alot of quibbling about the customs of a pastoral Bronze Age people three thousand years ago. Even the New Testament's teaching on slavery has barely been addressed. I really think this thread deserves better.

Now, the Bible does permit slavery under some circumstances. There's far more to the Bible's teaching on slavery that that, but Premise 1 is true as far as it goes. So, Having conceded Premise 1, can we discuss Premise 2? That is, after all, the title of the thread.

Why is slavery wrong?

More specifically, why is any form of bonded labor, under any cirumstances, wrong?

 

[Lollerskates]

It does no good to lie about the faith, or least not look up the actual facts.

Nothing you said about slavery is correct, of course jews could have slaves, they just coudn't be more then 7 years one, unless you tricked them in which case they could become slaves for life, then add in that none hebrew slaves were slaves for life, and could be inheirted.

Spreading apologetic lies, knowingly or not when you can do a quick bible seearch does the gospel no good.

So you call me a liar, because you disagree? I could be wrong, but lying would mean intent to deceive. You just honed in on something without clarification, then judged. You can be right by yourself; no nee ed for any more response.

And, I wasn't lying.

 

[South Bound]

It does no good to lie about the faith, or least not look up the actual facts.

Nothing you said about slavery is correct, of course jews could have slaves, they just coudn't be more then 7 years one, unless you tricked them in which case they could become slaves for life, then add in that none hebrew slaves were slaves for life, and could be inheirted.

Spreading apologetic lies, knowingly or not when you can do a quick bible seearch does the gospel no good.

So, do you have any response other than just to call him a liar? Or is name calling all you've got?

Any verses or historical evidence you'd like to offer? Or are you just going to call him names again?

 

[biggles53]

This is something you've been told but refuse to accept, something you've read, but refuse to believe:

But the Counselor, the Ruach HaKodesh, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I said to you. -- John 14

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. -- John 21

Now, this is all mystical woo-woo to you, but it is a constant to a Christian who is filled with the Ruach HaKodesh. It is why Christianity--the Body of Christ as a whole--did indeed abandon slavery in the first two centuries and re-arrive at a non-slavery theology after going astray with government entanglement.

Again.......you have demonstrated NOTHING within the scriptures that either forbids the practice of slavery OR forbids the beating of slaves...!

Oblique references to the work of those that may follow the era in which the scriptures were written doesn't make muster I'm afraid....as has been demonstrated many times, various peoples have claimed to rely on the scriptures to both support and combat the slavery that has occurred since...

But, you are unable to show me a specific command to halt its practice, in the same way that many other things were purported to be commanded... After all, if it is claimed that your god was so meticulous as to demand the way someone dresses, or who they can love, or in which day they can work, then SURELY it would have had something to say about ending slavery, if indeed it objected to the practice....!

 

[biggles53]

Both Christianity and Judiasm acknowledge that some parts of the Mosaic law were not intended to be universal moral code, so problem there.

Basically we have an argument that runs thus...

Premise 1: The Bible permits slavery
Premise 2: Slavery is morally wrong

Therefore, the Bible allows something that is morally wrong.

Conclusion: The Bible cannot be a legitimate source of authority in moral arguments.

So far, this thread has focused on Premise 1, and that mostly limited with alot of quibbling about the customs of a pastoral Bronze Age people three thousand years ago. Even the New Testament's teaching on slavery has barely been addressed. I really think this thread deserves better.

Now, the Bible does permit slavery under some circumstances. There's far more to the Bible's teaching on slavery that that, but Premise 1 is true as far as it goes. So, Having conceded Premise 1, can we discuss Premise 2? That is, after all, the title of the thread.

Why is slavery wrong?

More specifically, why is any form of bonded labor, under any cirumstances, wrong?

Your question has to go deeper than that...

To baldly ask "is it wrong" is to neglect that moral codes flex over time. I would be the first to concede that, for many aspects of human behaviour, what us considered appropriate in one era will not be so held in another. It is difficult to conceive of circumstances wherein the ownership of another human being for the course of their life could ever be considered acceptable, but let's concede that the ethics of those times condoned it...

HOWEVER, we are not making a judgement of the ethics and the morals of those people at that time...! No, we are told that these writings are the words of a god....that they are timeless and universal....that they apply to all men, in all times... And this must be the case, otherwise they cease to be anything more than interesting stories reflecting the living and social conditions of that age, just like any other historical fiction...

So they must be judged against a much higher standard....and they fail.....

 

[RDKirk]

Again.......you have demonstrated NOTHING within the scriptures that either forbids the practice of slavery OR forbids the beating of slaves...!

Oblique references to the work of those that may follow the era in which the scriptures were written doesn't make muster I'm afraid....as has been demonstrated many times, various peoples have claimed to rely on the scriptures to both support and combat the slavery that has occurred since...

But, you are unable to show me a specific command to halt its practice, in the same way that many other things were purported to be commanded... After all, if it is claimed that your god was so meticulous as to demand the way someone dresses, or who they can love, or in which day they can work, then SURELY it would have had something to say about ending slavery, if indeed it objected to the practice....!

Wow, a Fundamentalist atheist is really a trip.

What I told you is that the Church does not live on scripture alone, and even scripture itself tells us that.

 

[RDKirk]

HOWEVER, we are not making a judgement of the ethics and the morals of those people at that time...! No, we are told that these writings are the words of a god....that they are timeless and universal....that they apply to all men, in all times... And this must be the case, otherwise they cease to be anything more than interesting stories reflecting the living and social conditions of that age, just like any other historical fiction...

So they must be judged against a much higher standard....and they fail.....

Who told you that in exactly those words?

 

[BL2KTN]

What I told you is that the Church does not live on scripture alone, and even scripture itself tells us that.

Not true for all those sola scriptura churches out there... which you probably don't think "count", but nonetheless are real.

 

[South Bound]

Not true for all those sola scriptura churches out there... which you probably don't think "count", but nonetheless are real.

You don't know what sola scriptura means, do you?

 

[RDKirk]

You don't know what sola scriptura means, do you?

Well, to be honest, a lot of the Christians who use the term don't understand it either. It'd doesn't mean what even they think it means.

 

[RDKirk]

Not true for all those sola scriptura churches out there... which you probably don't think "count", but nonetheless are real.

The vast majority of Christians accept the continued and additional guidance of the Holy Spirit (either through the Church, as with Catholics, or iindividually as with most Protestants).

There is no valid logic in taking an extreme or statistically small sample and generalizing that across the whole as a general premise.

In this case, very few Christians are that rigidly stuck in the word of the OT that they have not seen into it more than it specifically says. Otherwise, they would have to agree that it is inapplicable today.

But even Paul pointed out that some scriptures that seemed "literal" in the OT were never to be taken literally at all. The specific example he gave was "Do not bind the mouths of the oxen that tread the wheat," which Paul points out was never actually about oxen at all.

If it can be readily demonstrated that few cats are hairless, one can't start a syllogism with:

"A. All cats are hairless."

 

[BL2KTN]

You don't know what sola scriptura means, do you?

It's latin; it means verbatim "only scripture." Seriously, that's high school religion class level.

The vast majority of Christians accept the continued and additional guidance of the Holy Spirit (either through the Church, as with Catholics, or iindividually as with most Protestants).

And yet there are hundreds of millions of Christians who do not accept anything from the "holy spirit" if it contradicts their scripture.

There is no valid logic in taking an extreme or statistically small sample and generalizing that across the whole as a general premise.

As an example, all baptist churches I know of are sola scriptura. They alone have 43,000,000 baptized members.

In this case, very few Christians are that rigidly stuck in the word of the OT that they have not seen into it more than it specifically says. Otherwise, they would have to agree that it is inapplicable today.

The majority of humanity would say that the OT is not applicable to today.

But even Paul pointed out that some scriptures that seemed "literal" in the OT were never to be taken literally at all. The specific example he gave was "Do not bind the mouths of the oxen that tread the wheat," which Paul points out was never actually about oxen at all.

Paul purposefully misquotes the Torah on multiple occasions (removing sentences and phrases that don't help his argument). Not sure I'd use that guy as a stalwart of Old Testament teaching.

If it can be readily demonstrated that few cats are hairless, one can't start a syllogism with:

"A. All cats are hairless."

And how does that apply to our discussion?

 

[RDKirk]

It's latin; it means verbatim "only scripture." Seriously, that's high school religion class level.

Yeah, right.

At least read the Wikipedia entry.

And yet there are hundreds of millions of Christians who do not accept anything from the "holy spirit" if it contradicts their scripture.

As an example, all baptist churches I know of are sola scriptura. They alone have 43,000,000 baptized members.

Well, "baptist" theology is all over the map. The only consistent thing you can say about all baptists is that they all practice baptism by immersion. Maybe. I suspect there are some "bapists" out there somewhere who sprinkle.

But I've certainly never found a baptist anywhere who denies the Holy Spirit. Try posting that assertion in the Baptist forum area and see what they say.

The majority of humanity would say that the OT is not applicable to today.

Paul purposefully misquotes the Torah on multiple occasions (removing sentences and phrases that don't help his argument). Not sure I'd use that guy as a stalwart of Old Testament teaching.

Mainstream Christians consider Pauline scripture to be as authoritative as Mosaic scripture. And those make up the majority of Christians, so you just contradicted your own original point. Why are OT commands being brought up in this thread?

And how does that apply to our discussion?

Because you and Biggle are trying to generalize the characteristics of statistical outliers as general syllogistic premises.

 

[Queller]

Once again, Exodus 21:26-27.

And once again, you'll ignore it.

Neither of those verses forbids the beating of slaves.

If you are not going respond to this post in a new post, don't bother replying. I'm not going to go back and review all of your posts on this thread to find out if you have dishonestly changed an old post to respond to my new post.

 

[Queller]

Once again:

3. Slaves harmed over so much as loss of a tooth were to be freed. (Exodus 21:27)

Wrong. Slaves who specifically lost a tooth or whose eye was damaged as a result of a beating were to be freed. Nothing else.

4. All slaves/indentured servants were to be freed every 50 years and all debts pardoned. (Leviticus 25:10) Nor was this just for Israelites, as their Jubile was every 7 years. (Exodus 21:2)

This claim is in direct opposition to Leviticus 25:45-46 which states that foreigners taken as slaves are their master's property forever.

5. Paul wrote the whole book of Philemon urging a slaveowner to free his slave and treat him as a Christian brother, offering to pay anything that was owed by the slave.

Yes, a letter to one specific slaveowner regarding on particular slave that Paul regarded as a son. There is no Scriptural justification to claim that the attitudes in this letter should be extrapolated to all slaves.

6. Dark skin was specifically stated Biblically to be caused by the sun, and the Bible urges not to discriminate based on it. (Song of Solomon 1:5-6)

No, Solomon's wife pled for her dark skin no to be used against her. Again, there is no justification to extend her plea regarding herself to all "dark-skinned people". That wouldn't make sense anyway as it wasn't only dark-skinned people that were bought and sold as slaves in the US.

Now, this is the part where you repeat Exodus 21:20 again and keep claiming it says you can beat slaves, even though you have been shown several times now that it doesn't condone slavery or beating slaves, but merely states that a man should not be charged with murder where no murder occurs.

Then please explain Exodus 21:21 that states if you beat a slave and he survives more than a couple of days and then dies, there is to be no punishment.

Again, don't waste my time or yours responding if you are going to go back and edit an old post.

 

[BL2KTN]

Yeah, right.

At least read the Wikipedia entry.

I really, really get tired of talking with people who are smuggly uneducated.

The wikipedia article translates it "scripture alone" which is the same as "only scripture." We could also translate it "scripture by itself." These are all phrases that mean the same exact thing.

Well, "baptist" theology is all over the map. The only consistent thing you can say about all baptists is that they all practice baptism by immersion. Maybe. I suspect there are some "bapists" out there somewhere who sprinkle.

But I've certainly never found a baptist anywhere who denies the Holy Spirit. Try posting that assertion in the Baptist forum area and see what they say.

Baptists are sola scriptura. I was a baptist for decades, so I know.

Mainstream Christians consider Pauline scripture to be as authoritative as Mosaic scripture. And those make up the majority of Christians, so you just contradicted your own original point. Why are OT commands being brought up in this thread?

You're in a thread debating slavery... the OT supports slavery.

Because you and Biggle are trying to generalize the characteristics of statistical outliers as general syllogistic premises.

Feel free to quote where I have done so.

 

[Queller]

And I've already shown you verses that say that non-Jewish slaves were to be released every fifty years and their debts forgiven.



...the penalty for which is that the slave goes free and his debt is forgiven.

Please quote the verse that says this.