Slavery in the bible.

[Par5]

That is not what I meant. I apologize if I was not clear. God does not lower His standard. But God does use means to glorify Himself. God uses evil by His sovereign decree, but that does not make Him less than perfect or the author of evil. God allowed Pharoah to enslave Israel for a time, so that God could set the Israelites free to show His mercy and grace on the people of Israel, and to show His judgment on the false gods of Egypt and the Egyptians for following after false gods. God decree that Joseph was to be sold into slavery so that God would later use Joseph to preserve His people, even though Joseph's brothers intended it for evil.

So what if God was using the general practice of slavery in some manner to demonstrate His glory? Apart from the grace of God, we are all enslaved. We are slaves to sin. But by the work of grace by God, we become slaves to righteousness.


My primary point I was attempting to make, although I know I was not completely clear, is that when we look at the practice of slavery and the laws that God gave to the ancient Israelites concerning slavery, we far too often look at it from the modern lens and completely ignore what is going on at that time, in that place, with those particular people. We think we have the right to judge God's actions and laws, when we don't have that right at all.

I seek to defend the truth of God, although God does not need me to do this, I believe as a Christian, we have a responsibility to stand up when someone takes scripture completely out of context, has no concept of what was happening in history, has no love of truth or God, and attempts to call God evil, when they themselves are the evil ones, because of their hatred of God and attempting to make themselves God.

So people who speak out against something they see as being wrong and immoral are attempting to make themselves become a god? What a ridiculously inane statement to make. Enough said on that.
You can talk about context all you wish. Slavery is slavery. The bible clearly states the regulations regarding the purchase and the keeping of slaves. Regulations supposedly put in place by the biblical god. If a slave survived a beating for a few days before dying, there would be no punishment for the one who inflicted the beating. That cannot be taken as a metaphor. Taking a mans wife and children away from him and placing them in permanent slavery cannot be taken as a metaphor. Putting an awl in someone's ear to show he is your property for the rest of his life, cannot be taken as a metaphor. The biblical god saying that a slave is the property of another human being cannot be taken as a metaphor.
All these regulations and more, supposedly put in place by the biblical god for a practice that any decent person finds totally repugnant and immoral, yet you choose to defend such things and accuse people who say it is repugnant and immoral of being evil and taking things out of context.
What sort of god is it that you worship that you say uses the misery of human slavery to "demonstrate his glory"?
If accusing people of taking things out of context is the best you can do, I suggest you sit down and have a real good rethink about your own position. People who say the slavery as recorded in the bible was wrong, are not evil. Slavery was and is wrong and immoral. Wrong and immoral no matter in what age it occurs.

 

[elliott95]

God only seems concerned with his own people being enslaved and rather tolerant of his people enslaving others.

Who are God's people?
Who is thy neighbor?

 

[elliott95]

I don't think you are really following the discussion. No one on either side is making a pro-slavery argument. The point is that we all universally accept that slavery is immoral. ..

That's right. It was a nineteenth century argument that was basically won two hundred years ago.
People who still have to ask the question whether it is immoral or not must have missed the fact that the issue has been settled long ago.

Everybodyknows it is immoral. It is a pointless question as a result.

 

[Everybodyknows]

That's right. It was a nineteenth century argument that was basically won two hundred years ago.
People who still have to ask the question whether it is immoral or not must have missed the fact that the issue has been settled long ago.

Everybodyknows it is immoral. It is a pointless question as a result.

Um... you just confirmed that you aren't following by restating you answer again to what was not the question. You entirely missed the actual question in my post.

The question is why is it considered immoral in our times when it wasn't considered immoral in Bible times? What changed? How did we determine that slavery is immoral?

If that question makes you too uncomfortable then you may keep restating you answer to a question that wasn't asked.

 

[tansy]

.

If you equate paid labour with slavery then no, God hasn't set up an economy without slavery. If you equate slavery with owning people as property then economies exist without slavery. You seem to be saying that having to work is slavery, which seems like a rather unfair comparison.

Of course I'm not saying that having to work is slavery. I was merely saying that whether the economy is based on slavery or not, it functions (until something stops it functioning at all). And I would suggest that not one economy functions perfectly.





(QUOTE) How did we work out that slavery was wrong? What guided human morality to eventually come to that conclusion after a few thousand years?[/QUOTE

Well, who's 'we'? For all I know there have always been people who have believed slavery is wrong...but that doesn't mean that they were necessarily in a position to do anything about it. I would guess that many people simply accepted the status quo.
When people are brought up in a particular culture and mind-set and are taught a certain way, then I think it can perhaps be very difficult for things to change. For example, take apartheid in S Africa. I watched a documentary years ago, where young children, maybe 5 or 6year old, took it for granted that their black servants could perhaps be more or less treated like dirt. This is what they were brought up with.
Also, look at segregation in the USA. There were people who disagreed with it, but they could get into trouble with the law if they for example had black people coming into white churches etc. Fortunately, it took Rosa (can't remember her surname) and that amazing figure Martin Luther-King, to bring an end to it (even though there would still appear to be plenty of prejudice, not only in America but other countries).
.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Who are God's people?
Who is thy neighbor?

We are talking about the permission for slavery under Old Testament law, so in this context God's people are the Israelites. Compare these two passages.
Exodus 21:1-6
Leviticus 25:44-46
God clearly has different standards for Hebrews and Gentiles. This is why I say God is concerned with his own people being enslaved and rather tolerant of his people enslaving others. There isn't one moral standard for all mankind.

 

[Cearbhall]

ABSOLUTLY CORRECT! Had it NOT been for Christianity, slavery more than likely would still be in effect for western civilization.

Virtually everyone in Western civilization was Christian. There were simply people who supported slavery, and there were people against slavery, and both groups of course used their religion to prop up their views. You can't give Christianity credit without also giving it blame. I'm inclined to give it neither credit nor blame.

 

[elliott95]

We are talking about the permission for slavery under Old Testament law, ..

I have already answered your question on where in the Bible God speaks out against forcibly owning people. Rather than acknowledge that in Exodus, which is the whole theme of the book, you dismissed it as God being only interested in freedom for his own people.
Therefore, it becomes relevant to contemplate the question of who God's people are. (Hint: Jesus answers that question in his discussion of who is his neighbor, and who is his mom and bro and sis). Indeed, the book of Jonah gives a pretty good answer to any nationalist sentiment of the Jews alone as being special. Indeed, God telling the Hebrews to remember that they were slaves once in Egypt give a good answer to teachings on how Hebrews are to run their own society with a 'do unto others as you would have they do unto you' theme.
These are very important themes to consider in any reading of any singular passage in the Bible. Understand all that and you understand how it was Christians reading their Bibles with wisdom who were able to destroy not just the sex trade of the nineteenth century but to destroy belief in slavery globally to where asking people if they believe in slavery takes on a 'when did you stop beating your wife' tone to it.

I understand though how the forest is getting in the way of your quote-mining the trees.

 

[elliott95]

Um... you just confirmed that you aren't following by restating you answer again to what was not the question. You entirely missed the actual question in my post.

What does the insert in of Um.. in your response entail?

I missed nothing.

If that question makes you too uncomfortable then you may keep restating you answer to a question that wasn't asked.

I am very comfortable in my responses. It is you who recognize what the Bible says about who God's people are, and therefore realize you cannot answer the questions without admitting your goose is cooked.

 

[Everybodyknows]

I have already answered your question on where in the Bible God speaks out against forcibly owning people. Rather than acknowledge that in Exodus, which is the whole theme of the book, you dismissed it as God being only interested in freedom for his own people.
Therefore, it becomes relevant to contemplate the question of who God's people are. (Hint: Jesus answers that question in his discussion of who is his neighbor, and who is his mom and bro and sis).

The theme of exodus is God delivering his people from slavery. Also in exodus and Leviticus God gives Israel instruction on how to keep slaves. There is no prohibition in the law against forcibly owning people. There is only a time limit on how long one can own a fellow Hebrew. No rule at all against forcibly owning slaves from other nations.

I understand though how the forest is getting in the way of your quote-mining the trees.

I don't think you see the forest or the trees

 

[Everybodyknows]

I missed nothing.

You missed the half of my post with the question in it.

I am very comfortable in my responses.

No doubt, as you seem to ignore the questions that make you uncomfortable.

 

[elliott95]

The theme of exodus is God delivering his people from slavery. Also in exodus and Leviticus God gives Israel instruction on how to keep slaves. There is no prohibition in the law against forcibly owning people. There is only a time limit on how long one can own a fellow Hebrew. No rule at all against forcibly owning slaves from other nations.


I don't think you see the forest or the trees

ah the rubber and glue argument...

I do see the forest for the trees, and so did the reverend Martin Luther King Jr.
The Bible is more than just a rule book, or a book of instructions. Your focus on the specifics of this or that passage to the exclusion of the hugeness of the overlying themes is to miss what Reverend Martin Luther King saw that as he led the civil rights movement in America.
I see the trees too, and have even given an explanation on how Jewish rabbis have explained certain of these rules on "slavery" have worked in establishing a means of upward social mobility. That post has been so far ignored completely.

But without you being able to recognize the overlying theme of the Bible being freedom and that all from carpenters son to Emperor being created in the image of God and therefore of infinite worth, giving any explanation of this or that tree would be an exercise in futility at this point.

It was through Christians reading the Bible with wisdom that slavery is now universally seen as evil. That is the forest.

 

[elliott95]

You missed the half of my post with the question in it.
.

I already answered one of your questions.
It is your turn to answer the question I asked of you.

 

[Par5]

That's right. It was a nineteenth century argument that was basically won two hundred years ago.
People who still have to ask the question whether it is immoral or not must have missed the fact that the issue has been settled long ago.

Everybodyknows it is immoral. It is a pointless question as a result.

That's right. It was a nineteenth century argument that was basically won two hundred years ago.
People who still have to ask the question whether it is immoral or not must have missed the fact that the issue has been settled long ago.

Everybodyknows it is immoral. It is a pointless question as a result.

Yes, people eventually came to recognize slavery as being immoral, but it still hasn't stopped it happening today.
What is not a pointless question is, how is it that a supposedly all-powerful omniscient being didn't appear to recognize the immorality of slavery? The bible records this being punishing people, often by having them killed, if they committed acts it considered offensive to its being, but not for being involved in slavery. Instead, this being produces the slave owners guide to good slave keeping, which can only be interpreted as condoning the practice. What do you think?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

It seems the argument for slavery is when it is to the betterment of the slave. That is, if a person is unable to live on their own they may become a slave for their own survival. And it seems God gives instructions in favour of this kind of slavery.

It also seems everyone agrees that the ideal world does not include slavery unless it was to the benefit of the slave.

So where is the contention? What is the argument to be had? Seems pretty straight forward to me... I must be missing something... didn't get much sleep last night

 

[Allandavid]

Good grief...how depressing.

Every now and then, I speak with a Christian who is refreshingly honest about biblical slavery. They will tell me that, whilst their faith remains strong and intact, they nevertheless admit that the issue of slavery troubles them and that they cannot reconcile what the Bible has to say about it.

They concede that they don’t have answers for all of the more difficult parts of those texts.

And then there are those who desperately have to whitewash it all....

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Every now and then, I speak with a Christian who is refreshingly honest about biblical slavery. They will tell me that, whilst their faith remains strong and intact, they nevertheless admit that the issue of slavery troubles them and that they cannot reconcile what the Bible has to say about it.

It is also possible, that answers do exist reconciling the apparent tension between slavery and the Bible. And while your christian friend is honest regarding their own knowledge, and this is highly commendable, it in no way refutes the possibility that a truthful explanation can preserve the love and ethical perfection of God. One doesn't have to concede "I don't know" to behave honestly.

For me, I have not thought about slavery much at all. After reading through this thread, it seems there are some cultural reasons that make some sense to incorporate slavery into specific cultures under specific conditions -- for example, if a person needed protection, safety, food etc. as in, to the benefit of the slave themselves. From a purely logical position this makes sense. As for the Hebrews using slavery for the benefit of the slave, it seems there are some reasonable arguments to be made for that case.

 

[Allandavid]

It is also possible, that answers do exist reconciling the apparent tension between slavery and the Bible. And while your christian friend is honest regarding their own knowledge, and this is highly commendable, it in no way refutes the possibility that a truthful explanation can preserve the love and ethical perfection of God. One doesn't have to concede "I don't know" to behave honestly.

For me, I have not thought about slavery much at all. After reading through this thread, it seems there are some cultural reasons that make some sense to incorporate slavery into specific cultures under specific conditions -- for example, if a person needed protection, safety, food etc. as in, to the benefit of the slave themselves. From a purely logical position this makes sense. As for the Hebrews using slavery for the benefit of the slave, it seems there are some reasonable arguments to be made for that case.

Logic?

The only logic evident here is that it makes sense for the people writing the stories to have the plot benefit themselves. The passages concerning slavery are clearly written by Hebrews for Hebrews. They are entirely self-serving.

 

[Everybodyknows]

It seems the argument for slavery is when it is to the betterment of the slave. That is, if a person is unable to live on their own they may become a slave for their own survival. And it seems God gives instructions in favour of this kind of slavery.

It also seems everyone agrees that the ideal world does not include slavery unless it was to the benefit of the slave.

The ideal world doesn't include slavery at all. Are you advocating that it's ok to have slaves as long as it's in their benefit? Slavery benefits slave owners far more than the slaves. I guess you could say slavery is better than death and in that sense the slaves are getting a benefit. But at the same time they have no means by which to accumulate wealth in return for their labor in order to improved their life situation for themselves or their offspring. Entering into an agreement which is equally mutually beneficial to both parties is called paid labour.

So where is the contention? What is the argument to be had? Seems pretty straight forward to me... I must be missing something... didn't get much sleep last night

Slavery by definition is when one person owns another as property. That is the contention. We find ownership of people morally objectionable in our society, whatever the reason. This wasn't always the case, and the Bible reflects that. It's essentially an argument of objective morality, we all agree that slavery it's morally abhorrent yet the Bible doesn't seem to think so. So then how can one claim the Bible to be a source of objective morality?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Logic?

The only logic evident here is that it makes sense for the people writing the stories to have the plot benefit themselves. The passages concerning slavery are clearly written by Hebrews for Hebrews. They are entirely self-serving.

I don't follow sorry.