Slavery, a Guide

[Tom 1]

[QUOTE="Tom 1, post: 75217371, member: 404020. Your notion that they were aware of its universal wrongness and delighted in it anyway is nothing more than a brain fart.

Oh, and be warned: that was actually rude. I have endless tolerance for confusion and even denial, but very little for bad manners.[/QUOTE]

Say something worth taking seriously and you’ll get a serious response.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Oh, and be warned: that was actually rude. I have endless tolerance for confusion and even denial, but very little for bad manners.

Say something worth taking seriously and you’ll get a serious response.[/QUOTE]
I would hope that you can disagree without being impolite.
Good night.

 

[Tom 1]

That a book that says "it's fine for you to beat your slaves as long as you don't kill them" and "you are permitted to take slaves from the people's around you" and "slaves, it is fit and right for you to obey your masters, even if they treat you cruelly" is obviously in favour of the institution of slavery.

Here’s the distinction:

At a time when every culture known of practised slavery, so did Israel. It was a normal, accepted practice. This can be known - it is an evidence based opinion.

Not so for your notion of being in favour in it, promoting it and so as you have said. That is a lazy-minded leap - an unwillingness to engage in an actual analysis of the available material and a rigorous questioning of your own emotional reactions to it. That’s just plain lazy and immature.

I’m sure you could argue that, but so far you haven’t come close to an argument.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Here’s the distinction:

At a time when every culture known of practised slavery, so did Israel. It was a normal, accepted practice. This can be known - it is an evidence based opinion.

Yes and do you think that practice was moral?

 

[Tom 1]

Yes and do you think that practice was moral?

Uh no. Would you like that in triplicate? Again?

 

[Jok]

You are aware that severe beatings were de rigeur for students, apprentices, actually pretty much anyone in any kind of subordinate position throughout the whole ancient period, the Middle Ages, and up until now to a lesser extent. It’s not all that long since I was in the military, and beatings for dangerous mistakes were not wholly uncommon. Perhaps you have led a sheltered life. There is so much information available that could help you to understand why the ancient world was so fundamentally different to the modern era, but it appears you’d rather spend your time with trivial point-scoring in silly and superficial debates. Good luck with that.

This crossed my mind a lot while reading through all of this. One teacher I had in grade school would comment fairly often how it was a bad move that they took away the right to hit students. I certainly did not agree, who would vote for that AS the student, but I must admit that there were several instances where a classmate was so over the top defiant that you couldn’t help but realize one of its benefits in that moment. I did not have a single grandparent, parent, aunt, uncle, older neighbor, etc who did not have getting hit in school stories. They almost always ended the same way “I didn’t dare tell my parents I got hit by the teacher because they would have just hit me also because I did something wrong!” To me it seems so strange if that type of discipline from superiors would continue on after reaching adulthood, but at the same time it doesn’t take a huge stretch of the imagination to envision societies that have a continuation of the practice regardless of age.

For a society that thinks it’s totally normal that certain behavior gets you slapped as a kid, it’s not a huge stretch of the imagination to think of that society also thinking that that same behavior should get you slapped at any age.

I also question which actions these passages are even referring to when they speak of hitting slaves. There surely were degrees of defiance that varied greatly.

 

[Tom 1]

This crossed my mind a lot while reading through all of this. One teacher I had in grade school would comment fairly often how it was a bad move that they took away the right to hit students. I certainly did not agree, who would vote for that AS the student, but I must admit that there were several instances where a classmate was so over the top defiant that you couldn’t help but realize one of its benefits in that moment. I did not have a single grandparent, parent, aunt, uncle, older neighbor, etc who did not have getting hit in school stories. They almost always ended the same way “I didn’t dare tell my parents I got hit by the teacher because they would have just hit me also because I did something wrong!” To me it seems so strange if that type of discipline from superiors would continue on after reaching adulthood, but at the same time it doesn’t take a huge stretch of the imagination to envision societies that have a continuation of the practice regardless of age.

For a society that thinks it’s totally normal that certain behavior gets you slapped as a kid, it’s not a huge stretch of the imagination to think of that society also thinking that that same behavior should get you slapped at any age.

I also question which actions these passages are even referring to when they speak of hitting slaves. There surely were degrees of defiance that varied greatly.

It's not something anyone can get a clear picture just from reading through the Torah. That's why I recommend reading Maimonides to people, not something that can easily be summarised or just quoted, unless to a person who has learned how to think about complex issues. The basic principle of Torah law that no-one can actually own anything makes the comparison with modern slavery in the US fundamentally different to begin with, but in terms of practice in the context of the ancient world, well people tend to put their own filter on based on some random set of impressions that clouds the whole picture and makes any sort of understanding impossible. The current trend to value virtue signalling over actual ethical behaviour is another smoke bomb, setting up judgements with have no real value, which further removes the whole discussion from reality. Oh well.

It's interesting how different cultures are in that regard to, when it comes to corporal punishment. When I was a student and the later living in London I shared a flat with 2 guys from Uganda and later a bigger place with a few of us, including 2 guys from the Caribbean - all of those guys used to laugh their heads off telling stories about how their mums used to beat the crap out of them with anything that came to hand, usually kitchen implements or mop handles, whenever they showed any disrespect. All of them had much closer relationships with their parents than the English people I knew. I think things like just the kind of life you lead make a huge difference to perception, working 16 hr days and getting used to physical hardship changes a person's perspective entirely, and yet people tend to think they can understand all there is to be understood from a desk chair. The world is a strange place.

 

[Jok]

It's interesting how different cultures are in that regard to, when it comes to corporal punishment. When I was a student and the later living in London I shared a flat with 2 guys from Uganda and later a bigger place with a few of us, including 2 guys from the Caribbean - all of those guys used to laugh their heads off telling stories about how their mums used to beat the crap out of them with anything that came to hand, usually kitchen implements or mop handles, whenever they showed any disrespect. All of them had much closer relationships with their parents than the English people I knew. I think things like just the kind of life you lead make a huge difference to perception, working 16 hr days and getting used to physical hardship changes a person's perspective entirely, and yet people tend to think they can understand all there is to be understood from a desk chair. The world is a strange place.

And this doesn’t at all mean that distinguishable “Child abuse” situations didn’t occur. For how normal it was for my parents and aunts/uncles to also joke about those things in the same way at family parties, there was also certain people that they would talk about in contempt for “Beating” their kids. There was definitely a difference between discipline and abuse.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Uh no. Would you like that in triplicate? Again?

Ok, then the bible permits/allows for immoral behavior in the form of slavery. It says the Hebrews can have slaves and never condemns it, oh sorry, it does condemn it but only for the right people.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Yes and do you think that practice was moral?

Uh no. Would you like that in triplicate? Again?

Do you realise this is the first time - after a considerable number of times being asked - that you've actually answered that question, rather than just going off on your "I may think it's immoral because I'm a product of the twentieth century culture, and they thought differently because they were from a culture long ago, so who knows?" shtick.
Strange, really, as it's a really easy question. You agree that slavery, as practised in Biblical times was immoral. Thank you for your admission.

Ok, then the bible permits/allows for immoral behavior in the form of slavery. It says the Hebrews can have slaves and never condemns it, oh sorry, it does condemn it but only for the right people.

Clizby is perfectly correct, of course. Since we have Tom 1's admission that Biblical slavery was immoral (after a mere sixteen pages, hooray) we can now conclude that the Bible permits and allows immoral behaviour. Despite Tom's trying to say that
“Thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you: of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land. And they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bond-man forever.”
—Leviticus 25:44-46
means "slave trading is something that people do, but of course we're not saying you should, just describing what happens."
Ridiculous. The verse means what it says: slavery is fine, and you're allowed to take humans and keep them as possessions.

Therefore (for the umpteenth time) the Bible is pro-slavery - that is, in favour of it, thinking it's a good thing. It's tedious repeating this, but maybe if the truth is spoken enough Tom will be able to hear it.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Oh, and look at these (again):
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.”
—Exodus 21:20-21 (RSV)
The Bible is not just saying "this is how things are done, isn't it a shame?" It's actively telling you that this is what you're supposed to do, that this is the right way to do things.

And speaking of actively being in favour of slavery:

“Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit.”
—1 Timothy 6:1-2
Oh, look. There;s the New Testament saying that slavery is quite alright. Slaves are to honour their masters, and masters to treat their slaves well. The system of slavery is a good one, in other words. Underground Railroad? Shame on them! The slaves are dishonouring God if they attempt to escape slavery. A slave's duty - says the Bible - is to honour his or her master.

While the Bible doesn't say a very great deal about slavery it says quite enough to show, beyond dispute, that God thinks slavery is a good thing.

 

[Tom 1]

Oh, and look at these (again):
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.”
—Exodus 21:20-21 (RSV)
The Bible is not just saying "this is how things are done, isn't it a shame?" It's actively telling you that this is what you're supposed to do, that this is the right way to do things.

And speaking of actively being in favour of slavery:

“Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit.”
—1 Timothy 6:1-2
Oh, look. There;s the New Testament saying that slavery is quite alright. Slaves are to honour their masters, and masters to treat their slaves well. The system of slavery is a good one, in other words. Underground Railroad? Shame on them! The slaves are dishonouring God if they attempt to escape slavery. A slave's duty - says the Bible - is to honour his or her master.

While the Bible doesn't say a very great deal about slavery it says quite enough to show, beyond dispute, that God thinks slavery is a good thing.

Once again demonstrating you don’t have the faintest idea what you are talking about, and lack the ability or willingness to think beyond puerile and basic ideas about the world. The issue of slavery and servitude and the laws applying to it (hint - you have zero understanding of those laws or the application of them in Hebrew society at any point in history) was and continues to be discussed at great length. You don’t even have to read the whole of Maimonides, you can just read through the laws of indentured servitude, they aren’t all that long. Then you will have some actual knowledge, which can enable you to form coherent thoughts, at least potentially leading to an understanding of the superficiality of your own thinking. You may find yourself on a precipice, between the safe but illusory worldview you cling to on the one hand, and the frightening leap to reality on the other. Having actual knowledge may break down your resistance to giving up the illusions.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Once again demonstrating you don’t have the faintest idea what you are talking about, and lack the ability or willingness to think beyond puerile and basic ideas about the world. The issue of slavery and servitude and the laws applying to it (hint - you have zero understanding of those laws or the application of them in Hebrew society at any point in history) was and continues to be discussed at great length. You don’t even have to read the whole of Maimonides, you can just read through the laws of indentured servitude, they aren’t all that long. Then you will have some actual knowledge, which can enable you to form coherent thoughts, at least potentially leading to an understanding of the superficiality of your own thinking. You may find yourself on a precipice, between the safe but illusory worldview you cling to on the one hand, and the frightening leap to reality on the other. Having actual knowledge may break down your resistance to giving up the illusions.

Well, this is exactly what I mean. The history of slavery in the various societies we have touched on is no doubt interesting, relevant and important. But not here, because we are addressing a very simple question: is the Bible pro-slavery or not? And the answer, obviously, is that it is. Confronted with the evidence of this, you've failed to contradict any of it, despite trying to (your ideas about the word "may" are a good example of this) and so are now trying to change the subject. I'll pass over your bad manners for now, as they're more amusing than not.

Oh, look...

Colossians, chapter 3, verse 22:
Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily...

Hmmm. Yes, that certainly looks like a sentiment in favour of slavery.

And look here - 1 Timothy 6:1-2
All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved.

Slaves, it is your duty to obey your masters. Masters, it is your duty to treat your slaves well. That sounds in favour of slavery as well.

 

[Tom 1]

But not here, because we are addressing a very simple question: is the Bible pro-slavery or not?

You really don't get this concept: If you know what something is you can form an opinion about it.

This is a relatively straightforward principle, that can be applied to pretty much anything. An alternative is to simply imagine that you know. Then you have an argument with your own imagination. This is not something you should expect to be taken seriously. You lack even the most basic understanding of what you are talking about; there isn't any need for that to be the case. As pointed out, the Torah is a Jewish book. Well-known Jewish philosophers, people who lived in Jewish society and who are well versed with all the things you don't know anything about, have done all of the hard work. All you need to do is read it, or only the relevant parts, if you like. This provides a potential opportunity for you to develop an awareness of the world beyond your imagination - a world of actual things that actually happened, and the thoughts of people involved in those events about them. Actual things, you could call them. Once you have absorbed that information, you, possibly, will find yourself in a position to have an opinion about the related events that may be worth listening to, and may even lead to you gaining some actual knowledge. A remarkable opportunity, I would say.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

You really don't get this concept: If you know what something is you can form an opinion about it.

This is a relatively straightforward principle, that can be applied to pretty much anything. An alternative is to simply imagine that you know. Then you have an argument with your own imagination. This is not something you should expect to be taken seriously. You lack even the most basic understanding of what you are talking about; there isn't any need for that to be the case. As pointed out, the Torah is a Jewish book. Well-known Jewish philosophers, people who lived in Jewish society and who are well versed with all the things you don't know anything about, have done all of the hard work. All you need to do is read it, or only the relevant parts, if you like. This provides a potential opportunity for you to develop an awareness of the world beyond your imagination - a world of actual things that actually happened, and the thoughts of people involved in those events about them. Actual things, you could call them. Once you have absorbed that information, you, possibly, will find yourself in a position to have an opinion about the related events that may be worth listening to, and may even lead to you gaining some actual knowledge. A remarkable opportunity, I would say.

Remarkable indeed, but not relevant at the moment. Do you still deny that the Bible is pro-slavery? That it speaks favourably of slavery, and sees it as a good thing?

 

[Tom 1]

Remarkable indeed, but not relevant at the moment. Do you still deny that the Bible is pro-slavery? That it speaks favourably of slavery, and sees it as a good thing?

Here’s what will happen next; I will introduce you to some principles of Torah law, followed by discussions of that law and other related aspects of Jewish law by Maimonides and others. This will be a starting point for understanding the practice of what we have been referring to as slavery in this thread.

Although this actually presents an opportunity to develop some understanding of what is meant by slavery in the old and New Testaments, what you actually will do is resist any opportunity to develop any understanding of it, and you will continue to return to your own superficial and undeveloped notions. Nevertheless, here is question one:

What defines the principle of ownership in Hebrew law?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Here’s what will happen next; I will introduce you to some principles of Torah law, followed by discussions of that law and other related aspects of Jewish law by Maimonides and others. This will be a starting point for understanding the practice of what we have been referring to as slavery in this thread.

Although this actually presents an opportunity to develop some understanding of what is meant by slavery in the old and New Testaments, what you actually will do is resist any opportunity to develop any understanding of it, and you will continue to return to your own superficial and undeveloped notions. Nevertheless, here is question one:

What defines the principle of ownership in Hebrew law?

If you have a new argument to present, I will of course be happy to listen to it.
To answer your questions, if the answer isn't that ownership means belonging to a person, then please enlighten me.

 

[Tom 1]

If you have a new argument to present, I will of course be happy to listen to it.
To answer your questions, if the answer isn't that ownership means belonging to a person, then please enlighten me.

What defines the principle of ownership in Hebrew law?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

What defines the principle of ownership in Hebrew law?

Are you having difficulty understanding what I said?

If the answer isn't that ownership means belonging to a person, then please enlighten me.

I have to say, you're not off to a great start.

 

[Tom 1]

Do you still deny that the Bible is pro-slavery? That it speaks favourably of slavery, and sees it as a good thing?

If you insist on arguments based on imagination, then, as I have already answered this same question numerous times I will answer it again in a slightly different way. You are more than happy to fund modern slavery as it provides you with some useful conveniences. Based on this piece of information, I quite naturally imagine that you are pro-slavery. Your response has been that you ‘feel bad about slavery’ and that this feeling trumps your willingness to support it financially. In a similar way, you have formed an opinion basic on a superficial skim of one small part of the available data. Unlike the contents of your mind, however, we can actually know a good deal about how what we have been calling slavery was practised in ancient Jewish society, due to the fact that a great deal was written about it, by Jewish people.