Slavery, a Guide

[Clizby WampusCat]

... because from a God's Eye view, and in biblical terms, sinful human beings are property.......................... of the Devil.

Or of God. It all depending upon what a person decides is the truth about 'the Divine Nature,' of course.

You may be right, have a nice day.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Also, from all that I have read Maimonides was describing that they should have treated the slaves better than what the book says. He knows that treating the slaves as described in the Torah is immoral and he is trying to make it better.

Here's an interesting point: Maimonides believed that slaves should be treated better - honourably and fairly, justly and kindly. But what about all those Christian apologists - I've encountered many of them - who insist that Biblical slavery was much, much kinder than the slavery in the antebellum USA (which is what we often think of). Well, if Biblical slaves were treated so well, why did Maimonedes feel the system needed to be improved? Contrariwise, if Biblical slavery was actually as fine a system as I've often been told, then why the objections to saying that the Bible is pro-slavery - since slavery in the Bible is such a good thing?

Anyway since this thread is about if the bible allows slavery this has no bearing. If Maimonides is correct the bible does not agree with him. Maimonides says people cannot be owned by slaves the bible says they are to be your property. They are in contradiction. A long apologetic does not change the words or context of the bible.

To coin a phrase: you've hit the nutshell on the head!

How is this apologetic any different that Christians that try to make the bible say that gay marriage is condoned by the bible?

I've read interpretations of the Bible that claimed it is not against homosexuality or gay marriage that were actually very convincing. Much more convincing than arguments that the Bible is anti-slavery, or that it is not pro-slavery.

This is my thought as well, you just made it more clear than I did. If people were not to be considered property or were not to be treated badly by their masters, then why does the bible say that they are property and that they can treat certain slaves badly?

Thank you very much. This is indeed the key point. If Maimonedes said that slavery was contrary to the will of God, why does God say otherwise?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Here's an interesting point: Maimonides believed that slaves should be treated better - honourably and fairly, justly and kindly. But what about all those Christian apologists - I've encountered many of them - who insist that Biblical slavery was much, much kinder than the slavery in the antebellum USA (which is what we often think of). Well, if Biblical slaves were treated so well, why did Maimonedes feel the system needed to be improved?

Good question.

Contrariwise, if Biblical slavery was actually as fine a system as I've often been told, then why the objections to saying that the Bible is pro-slavery - since slavery in the Bible is such a good thing?

Very good point.

I've read interpretations of the Bible that claimed it is not against homosexuality or gay marriage that were actually very convincing. Much more convincing than arguments that the Bible is anti-slavery, or that it is not pro-slavery.

In the last couple of years when I was a christian I tried to reconcile homosexual/trans etc. issues with the bible. I found it hard to do without much apologetic such as Maimonides has done with slavery. But of course there is no one christian view on anything, there are many christian views on all subjects. To me, this is evidence that the bible is unclear about what is is saying.

Thank you very much. This is indeed the key point. If Maimonedes said that slavery was contrary to the will of God, why does God say otherwise?

I agree. Even for those that do not believe the bible is inspired by God why would god let a book attributed to him be misleading without correcting the error that affect humans in a very negative way?

 

[Tom 1]

@Clizby WampusCat and @InterestedAtheist

This has been interesting in some ways - however I have to concede that you both ascribe to the ‘I can know something without knowing it’ approach that is oddly common among atheists who comment on threads of this sort. The only answer is, no you can’t. The time investment required is not huge, but necessary to gain the relevant knowledge. On the basis of knowledge, you can arrive at an understanding, and, like anyone else you have the choice to pick the information that suits your belief or to let the information guide you.

The underlying principle here is simple, the application varies in complexity. You can take any book, say Crime and Punishment, and read it according to what it says - guy commits a crime, gets punished. That is what the book is about, you could say. It is ‘pro-punishment’, it’s author, you might say, is making this point. Another person who has a better understanding of the novel and it’s context might attempt to explain what the book is actually about, you might look into this, or you might just say ‘uh no it’s about crime and punishment, look, it’s in the title, and it’s what happens in the story’ and so on. Eventually, sooner rather than later, the other person would, if he or she were wise, give up and move on.

This is a relatively simple example. The question of what the bible is pro contra or so on spreads a much wider net. You can understand that context, which is hardly the impossible task you appear to think it is, or you can cling onto your idea. You do not however have any means of knowing if your idea is valid or not, as you simply don’t have anything approaching the understanding of the topic to make that determination. Hence your belief in ‘knowledge without knowledge’ arises as a substitute for understanding. Well, your insistence that this is a valid way to look at the world is entirely yours to do with as you will, I’m going to get off the roundabout at this point.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

@Clizby WampusCat and @InterestedAtheist

This has been interesting in some ways - however I have to concede that you both ascribe to the ‘I can know something without knowing it’ approach that is oddly common among atheists who comment on threads of this sort. The only answer is, no you can’t. The time investment required is not huge, but necessary to gain the relevant knowledge. On the basis of knowledge, you can arrive at an understanding, and, like anyone else you have the choice to pick the information that suits your belief or to let the information guide you.

This is a strawman.

The underlying principle here is simple, the application varies in complexity. You can take any book, say Crime and Punishment, and read it according to what it says - guy commits a crime, gets punished. That is what the book is about, you could say. It is ‘pro-punishment’, it’s author, you might say, is making this point. Another person who has a better understanding of the novel and it’s context might attempt to explain what the book is actually about, you might look into this, or you might just say ‘uh no it’s about crime and punishment, look, it’s in the title, and it’s what happens in the story’ and so on. Eventually, sooner rather than later, the other person would, if he or she were wise, give up and move on.

If we could talk to the author he would clear this up. But we cannot. So how do we know your interpretation is correct?

This is a relatively simple example. The question of what the bible is pro contra or so on spreads a much wider net. You can understand that context, which is hardly the impossible task you appear to think it is, or you can cling onto your idea.

Just stop. Your condescending attitude is not helping. @InterestedAtheist and myself are reading your source and engaging. What more do you want?

You do not however have any means of knowing if your idea is valid or not, as you simply don’t have anything approaching the understanding of the topic to make that determination.

So we are supposed to believe you until we can agree with you? You don't seem to understand how claims and evidence work.

Hence your belief in ‘knowledge without knowledge’ arises as a substitute for understanding.

Another strawman.

Well, your insistence that this is a valid way to look at the world is entirely yours to do with as you will, I’m going to get off the roundabout at this point.

So when we actually start to read your source and engage you as you wanted us to, you bail?

Answering our questions would be helpful now that we spent some time reading your sources. Instead you strawman us and leave. Wow.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

@Clizby WampusCat and @InterestedAtheist

This has been interesting in some ways - however I have to concede that you both ascribe to the ‘I can know something without knowing it’ approach that is oddly common among atheists who comment on threads of this sort. The only answer is, no you can’t. The time investment required is not huge, but necessary to gain the relevant knowledge. On the basis of knowledge, you can arrive at an understanding, and, like anyone else you have the choice to pick the information that suits your belief or to let the information guide you.

The underlying principle here is simple, the application varies in complexity. You can take any book, say Crime and Punishment, and read it according to what it says - guy commits a crime, gets punished. That is what the book is about, you could say. It is ‘pro-punishment’, it’s author, you might say, is making this point. Another person who has a better understanding of the novel and it’s context might attempt to explain what the book is actually about, you might look into this, or you might just say ‘uh no it’s about crime and punishment, look, it’s in the title, and it’s what happens in the story’ and so on. Eventually, sooner rather than later, the other person would, if he or she were wise, give up and move on.

This is a relatively simple example. The question of what the bible is pro contra or so on spreads a much wider net. You can understand that context, which is hardly the impossible task you appear to think it is, or you can cling onto your idea. You do not however have any means of knowing if your idea is valid or not, as you simply don’t have anything approaching the understanding of the topic to make that determination. Hence your belief in ‘knowledge without knowledge’ arises as a substitute for understanding. Well, your insistence that this is a valid way to look at the world is entirely yours to do with as you will, I’m going to get off the roundabout at this point.

Well, it's as I said. You're saying that you're right, and we're wrong; you won't explain why we're wrong, but if we do the research ourselves, we'll find you're right, eh?
That won't do at all in a debating forum, I'm afraid. It may have taken Maimonides to have thought of the answer, but it doesn't take him to explain it. If there is actually a persuasive case for the Bible really being anti-slavery (which, by the way, is in direct contradiction to what you have repeatedly said, that the bible is neither anti- nor pro-slavery) then you can make it to us. Let's have your rational defence of Christianity, which is what the Apologetics forum is for!

For a little while there I was wondering if there was. But now that I've looked into it I've seen that there's really nothing there. Which, honestly, is as I expected.

 

[NBB]

The bible also teaches you must love your neighbour as yourself, that includes everyone, and loving your 'slave' is something like this: you don't beat him, you treat him/her well, and free them if possible, or not 'purchase' people at all.

So yes that what God thinks about slavery and is clear: love your neighbour as yourself.

This are the 2 biggest commandments for people,
Love God and
Love your neighbour as yourself <---------- this is obviously related to slavery too.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The bible also teaches you must love your neighbour as yourself, that includes everyone, and loving your 'slave' is something like this: you don't beat him, you treat him/her well, and free them if possible, or not 'purchase' people at all.

So yes that what God thinks about slavery and is clear: love your neighbour as yourself.

This are the 2 biggest commandments for people,
Love God and
Love your neighbour as yourself <---------- this is obviously related to slavery too.

Yet the Bible says the Hebrews could buy slaves, beat them, pass them down etc. you can pick and choose verses if you like but there are explicit text saying it is ok and none that say do not own others as property.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yet the Bible says the Hebrews could buy slaves, beat them, pass them down etc. you can pick and choose verses if you like but there are explicit text saying it is ok and none that say do not own others as property.

...so if this is the case, then how does one beat a foreign slave nearly to death but avoid breaking the other laws about "not oppressing the stranger ......... " ?

I have to ask because, for me, it's truly one of the biggest hermeneutical mysteries of life ...

... a mystery that skeptics and atheists everywhere have apparently found an answer to.

 

[NBB]

Yet the Bible says the Hebrews could buy slaves, beat them, pass them down etc. you can pick and choose verses if you like but there are explicit text saying it is ok and none that say do not own others as property.

Lets just say in the OT you were allowed to buy people but not to treat them wrong, so that is like a contract, lets say God allowed a 'contract' i don't know if for life or what to buy people but not allowed you to mistreat them, you should love them as yourself.

That sounds wrong, to buy someone if you love them as yourself...
actually i don't think it was like a contract because it would be bad totally loosing your freedom. Probably people who were slaves were not enslaved by force but because of debts etc. i don't know.
But you know what i mean, God does not want you to mistreat anyone, that is in the heart of the bible anyway, you should love God and the others.
Why didn't God abolished slavery? i don't have an idea maybe that was what they did at the time and God didn't see it totally wrong if you treated the slaves well.

Anyway if you knew God you would think too that he is good and love.

 

[NBB]

Here's an interesting point: Maimonides believed that slaves should be treated better - honourably and fairly, justly and kindly. But what about all those Christian apologists - I've encountered many of them - who insist that Biblical slavery was much, much kinder than the slavery in the antebellum USA (which is what we often think of). Well, if Biblical slaves were treated so well, why did Maimonedes feel the system needed to be improved? Contrariwise, if Biblical slavery was actually as fine a system as I've often been told, then why the objections to saying that the Bible is pro-slavery - since slavery in the Bible is such a good thing?

To coin a phrase: you've hit the nutshell on the head!

I've read interpretations of the Bible that claimed it is not against homosexuality or gay marriage that were actually very convincing. Much more convincing than arguments that the Bible is anti-slavery, or that it is not pro-slavery.

Thank you very much. This is indeed the key point. If Maimonedes said that slavery was contrary to the will of God, why does God say otherwise?

I don't think slavery is the will of God, since God is good and wants happiness for people, but maybe he just allowed it because some reason, and he didn't abolished it, why? i don't know.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Lets just say in the OT you were allowed to buy people but not to treat them wrong, so that is like a contract, lets say God allowed a 'contract' i don't know if for life or what to buy people but not allowed you to mistreat them, you should love them as yourself.

Buying people even if you treat them well is still immoral. A contract is not purchasing a person. But this is irrelevant because the bible says you can own people as property and beat them under certain rules.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

...so if this is the case, then how does one beat a foreign slave nearly to death but avoid breaking the other laws about "not oppressing the stranger ......... " ?

I have to ask because, for me, it's truly one of the biggest hermeneutical mysteries of life ...

... a mystery that skeptics and atheists everywhere have apparently found an answer to.

You may be right, have a nice day.

 

[NBB]

Buying people even if you treat them well is still immoral. A contract is not purchasing a person. But this is irrelevant because the bible says you can own people as property and beat them under certain rules.

yeah i don't know, all i do know is God is good and wants peoples well-being and happiness, a lot of christians who have received from God can say he is good. We should just only get close to him.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

yeah i don't know, all i do know is God is good and wants peoples well-being and happiness, a lot of christians who have received from God can say he is good. We should just only get close to him.

Do you think slavery is a good thing, NBB?

 

[NBB]

Do you think slavery is a good thing, NBB?

No its not, but there can be some variables that we don't know, that we can't say God is evil because of what happened, also the people who know God know that he is very good, TOO GOOD, even sweet, kind, anything you want.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No its not, but there can be some variables that we don't know, that we can't say God is evil because of what happened, also the people who know God know that he is very good, TOO GOOD, even sweet, kind, anything you want.

If your god won't explain itself, one is justified in deciding it must be evil.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

No its not, but there can be some variables that we don't know, that we can't say God is evil because of what happened, also the people who know God know that he is very good, TOO GOOD, even sweet, kind, anything you want.

"Anything you want" indeed! So easy, isn't it? It does seem to me that people do look at the Bible and consider that it means anything they want it to.

So. We have a book in which God speaks. In it, He and His chosen representatives say that it's fine to own slaves. But you disagree with Him. Why is that? Is it because you just "know" slavery is bad, and therefore it follows that God cannot be in favour of it - despite His telling you, very clearly, that He is?

If your god won't explain itself, one is justified in deciding it must be evil.

Well, exactly.

 

[NBB]

"Anything you want" indeed! So easy, isn't it? It does seem to me that people do look at the Bible and consider that it means anything they want it to.

So. We have a book in which God speaks. In it, He and His chosen representatives say that it's fine to own slaves. But you disagree with Him. Why is that? Is it because you just "know" slavery is bad, and therefore it follows that God cannot be in favour of it - despite His telling you, very clearly, that He is?

Well, exactly.

Because he IS good, the way he treats people, but you wouldn't understand since christian experiences for you are deluded things or hallucinations.

 

[NBB]

The bad part of slavery is the mistreatment of the slaves, after that i don't say losing your freedom wouldn't be bad but that part is more morally grey really if they treat you well. Also the bible says you just couldn't be a slaver stealing people freedom just like that.