Slavery in the OT

[lawtonfogle]

Slavery in biblical time, according to God and the Hebrews, was being in debt. That is it. So when God speaks about rules for Masters and Slaves, he is talking about people to whom a debt is owed and people that have a debt, and their relationship.

This is clearly false. Please read the Bible where children can be sold by their parents (if there was a debt, it is the parents debt that the child is being forced to pay for, much like modern day middle east where parents will force a 9 year old into a child marriage to pay off a debt), and where slaves came as a result of war.

The Egyptians et. al up to the colonizers of the U.S.A. chose to abuse slavery and make it into a forced violent labor. There was no "Seventh-Year Freedom" like God mandates, no justice, no feasting etc.

The being released after seven years did not apply to all slaves.

The Laws in the Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy were given because of how wicked Egypt was. The Egyptians demeaned and beat the Hebrews in hard labor slavery including building the city of Cairo; this wicked type of slavery is exactly what God is against.

So breaking up a family is no wicked?

So God easily overcame the god-king Pharaoh and led the Hebrews out of Egypt and brought them to a safe place in the wilderness.

This is relevant how?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Can you quote passages for this please?


Same here.


Before I can answer that I want you to define slavery, as it seems many people here are talking from crossed purposes.

You really need to read through what the Bible says about slavery and stop believing in the lies so many apologist tell concerning this. I understand opening your mind is a painful experience, but until you do so, you are going to exist only with your conditioned morality. You will not be able to see true right and wrong.

 

[Digit]

check out this informative video.

No. Either you make your argument in your own words as I said before, or I have no time for you. I'm not about to spend my time, which is quite precious to me, debunking every internet video out there.

Setting rules for something is more than merely describing it happening. It is condoning it.

I've already show this to be false, so I see no further point in discussing this. You are simply saying, "Nuh-uh!" without presenting any more information. If you cannot see how something can be regulated, without condoning it I'm not sure where else to go. Whilst I agree that it was accepted and regulated, this is not what you are trying to say, which is that God has set forth this as a commandment of which he approves. If He did so, then it seems weird for Him to release the Israelites from their slavery, it also seems weird that later on He would specifically condone it.

1 Timothy 1 9->11:
9 We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

This is taken from a passage about false teachers of the law, it was written by Paul to Timothy to instruct him on how to fight the good fight as it were and undo Paul's work, since Paul had done so much damage prior.

This issue is pretty large however, it's not possible to take a couple of passages as absolute in this instance. Even scholars themselves have trouble deciding on a definition for slavery, due to how it varied from culture to culture, however they do agree that modern, new world slavery, is unique and has a unique collection of features. There is a book that talks about this a lot called Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology by David Levinson and Melvin Ember. It's not a small subject, which is why I am perplexed at your desire to make it small, and also make it out to be something it's not. Actually I'm not that perplexed by it, as I've seen this happen a lot, I'm more fascinated at how people cling to sinking ships no matter what.

In another book (A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law by Raymond Westbrook) it goes on to say that freedom is pretty relative in the eastern culture, it's diverse and the use of the term slave supports this. A slave could be describe a free citizen who is simply a social subordinate. It was used to describe a subject to a king, and it was also used to describe the king himself (if he was a vassal) as a slave to his emperor.

Exodus 21: 4, 7-11

It's strange to me how you keep going on about Exodus, which is agreed upon almost universally by scholars as the first and most rigorous defense of the freedoms and rights and general humanitarianism of slaves, unparalleled in ancient history. But ok, let's talk about Exodus and pretend none of that other pesky stuff has happened. Exodus 21 talks about a daughter being sold for a dowry-less marriage. This was not seen as a harshness, but it was seen as a father providing for his daughter, often he would prefer and find it superior to arrange for her indenture to a well founded, or well supported neighbor than it would be to marry someone who did not fit that bill of their own social class or standing. This ensured her future security. These were actions taken because of debt or poverty that actually threatened the stability and future of the household. You may ask how I know this since it's not mentioned in the Bible, well behold a book full of context for all of these things, here it is.

There are a huge number of verses that cast any and all laws and commandments about the treatment of slaves, in context to how the Israelites were treated by the Egyptians, which actually was analogous to modern day slavery ideas. I mean, look at Deuteronomy
it's full of this constant reminder, to remember their own harsh treatment. I don't really see the point in this if anything goes and slavery was just as it was in respects to modern day slavery ( Deuteronomy 5:6; 6:12, 21; 7:8; 15:15; 16:12; 24:18, 19 and there are more in other books too).

It doesn't require consent. So in many cases she probably did consent, but in some of these cases, she wouldn't be mature enough to consent (at least by our modern day standards), and it never requires her to consent.

Exodus 21, where is never once mentions she must consent.

This seems like an argument from silence, which is a logical fallacy - in that if it doesn't mention it, you feel it's positive affirmation of it's lack. Whilst I would probably agree after researching some things that consent was not required this seems likely to be a provision for parents or guardians, rather than an arbitrary commandment to strip away freedom.

If you set rules allowing something, you condone it, even if you don't agree with it.

Addressed above.

A. it isn't programmed in.
B. that is no way makes it absolute.

This is just you nay-saying again.

Please read the Bible where children can be sold by their parents (if there was a debt, it is the parents debt that the child is being forced to pay for, much like modern day middle east where parents will force a 9 year old into a child marriage to pay off a debt), and where slaves came as a result of war.

It seems audacious to me, being one of the 'haves' to arbitrarily overlook the situation of a 'have-not'. In many instances, according to historical record these families had no choice. You seem to think about this very idealistically and naively in that from your perspective, this is so morally wrong. But you live in a house, have electricity, water, food, a job, security and so forth (yes, I'm assuming this since you are posting on an internet forum it seems fairly well substantiated) these families had no choice, nowhere else to go, and no ability to do anything other to repay their debts. In our world, we cast people out onto the street. We don't have any provisions for them, in fact the number of homeless is growing. Some die on the streets in countries with cold climates. Some are abused, robbed, mugged of what little they do have, some are subject to the most heinous of theft where their bodily organs are taken. When faced with such a choice as this, I cannot fault a family for indenturing their daughter, or themselves to another if it would secure their future in light of what the alternative would be, which is likely death. Especially if A) They would be released from this after 6 years if they desired it, and B) Their daughters may find a husband and have a secured future.

The being released after seven years did not apply to all slaves.

Only in respects to keeping the marriage bond sacred, else it did apply to all slaves.

So breaking up a family is no wicked?

You seem to feel this power was wielded arbitrarily and you also forget this servitude was entered into freely, unless the parent or guardian took over the decision, and in many cases this was done because it was a life or death situation, not because they just felt like making an extra buck and had an argument with their daughter...

======

Lastly, I am somewhat appalled at your desire to make this something it's not. Do you desperately need to believe this for some reason? Dismissing the context, dismissing the history, the culture, the circumstance and alternatives and all substantiating and refuting passages you still want so desperately for this to be God or the Bible caught up in wickedness. Despite the fact that many, many Christian movements have fought so hard to abolish slavery and slave practices in our recent history, and them being told to 'leave religion out of this' (sounds familiar doesn't it?) you still feel that your tiny out of context passage holds an absolute view. In a world where we arbitrarily kill unborn children on a whim, you feel that the strictest regulation of slaves, the absolute governing of their treatment, and constant reminder to the Israelites of their own slavery, much harsher, much more in line with our modern day equivalent is so abhorred as to color the entire Bible.

I guess I have a theoretical question now, which is let's for a moment assume that God was condoning and positively approving of all our worst nightmares in regards to slavery - what does this mean to you and where do you wish to go with that thought.

(Also you didn't answer my question about your grounds for finding something morally wrong)

 

[Milk]

No. Either you make your argument in your own words as I said before, or I have no time for you.

I'll let the Bible make my argument. Here's what Yahweh says:

Ex 21:20 Because slaves are property, they, both male and female, can be beaten as long as 1) they don’t die within a couple days or 2) their eye or tooth isn’t knocked out (in this case the master must set them free. Why would a slave want to be free? Biblical slavery is great!)

Lev 25:44-46 You may acquire foreigners as property. They can serve for life. You can pass them down to your kids as inheritance. “These you may treat as slaves,” but don’t rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Ex 21:4 if a slave has kids while in servitude, the progeny belongs to master.

Deut 20:10-14 You can take women into your possession after battle as war "booty" and "spoil." "Enjoy" it! Please don't bother trying to say this was done out of humanitarian love. Stick with the text.

 

[Digit]

Ex 21:20 Because slaves are property, they, both male and female, can be beaten as long as 1) they don’t die within a couple days or 2) their eye or tooth isn’t knocked out (in this case the master must set them free.

You should quote properly:

20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Why would a slave want to be free? Biblical slavery is great!)

If the master is abusive then the slave may rid himself of them, despite the debt or indentured servitude. Again, you need to start putting things in context if you wish to keep flogging this.

Lev 25:44-46 You may acquire foreigners as property. They can serve for life. You can pass them down to your kids as inheritance. “These you may treat as slaves,” but don’t rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Considering God just freed His people from slavery that is far more cruel than that spoken about here at the hands of the Egyptians, I can understand how He would want His people to remain free from that. In addition who better to put at the head of the heathen slaves, since these people around the Israelites did not believe in the God, and were not saved, I can well imagine that during their service they would come to believe in God, especially given that He had proclaimed laws specifically reprimanding the slavery of the Egyptians and creating a new hierarchy and law of much better and fairer treatment. Remember that the slaves alternative, in nearly all cases, was death. Either at the hands of the conquerer of the nation, or through homelessness and abandonment.

Ex 21:4 if a slave has kids while in servitude, the progeny belongs to master.

If they were born and raised in the lands of the master, yes. Especially if the master ends up housing, feeding and keeping them. Remember that most female slaves would end up marrying their master anyhow, and enter into a marital relationship.

Deut 20:10-14 You can take women into your possession after battle as war "booty" and "spoil." "Enjoy" it! Please don't bother trying to say this was done out of humanitarian love. Stick with the text.

So really, you've just ignored everything I've said and posted the same things again. You've not addressed any of the points I've raised and have refused to answered either of the questions (two now), that I've posed you. So it seems a bit futile to invest more time into this, when you've shown a desire to keep beating your dead horse and ignore anything any may raise. My time is precious to me, and you are making a poor case for it at the moment.

Is there something about my two questions which posts an issue for you? Or do you not like to think about anything negative in our modern day society, whilst living in luxury and comfort.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I've already show this to be false, so I see no further point in discussing this. You are simply saying, "Nuh-uh!" without presenting any more information. If you cannot see how something can be regulated, without condoning it I'm not sure where else to go. Whilst I agree that it was accepted and regulated, this is not what you are trying to say, which is that God has set forth this as a commandment of which he approves. If He did so, then it seems weird for Him to release the Israelites from their slavery, it also seems weird that later on He would specifically condone it.

1 Timothy 1 9->11:
9 We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Slave trader is a loose translations. Kidnapper might be a better word, though it is more like a slaver trader who kidnaps, though there isn't one word for that.

Andrapodistes - Greek Lexicon

Seems the better fitting word is someone who unjustly make people slaves, the OT gives the just forms of making someone a slave.

Under your interpretation, it is weird, that God says it is ok to sell your daughter into slavery, and then list them with the same people who break the 10 commandments.

This is taken from a passage about false teachers of the law, it was written by Paul to Timothy to instruct him on how to fight the good fight as it were and undo Paul's work, since Paul had done so much damage prior.

This issue is pretty large however, it's not possible to take a couple of passages as absolute in this instance. Even scholars themselves have trouble deciding on a definition for slavery, due to how it varied from culture to culture, however they do agree that modern, new world slavery, is unique and has a unique collection of features. There is a book that talks about this a lot called Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology by David Levinson and Melvin Ember. It's not a small subject, which is why I am perplexed at your desire to make it small, and also make it out to be something it's not. Actually I'm not that perplexed by it, as I've seen this happen a lot, I'm more fascinated at how people cling to sinking ships no matter what.

In another book (A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law by Raymond Westbrook) it goes on to say that freedom is pretty relative in the eastern culture, it's diverse and the use of the term slave supports this. A slave could be describe a free citizen who is simply a social subordinate. It was used to describe a subject to a king, and it was also used to describe the king himself (if he was a vassal) as a slave to his emperor.

The usage of the word itself is not of much interest, because it obviously can have other meanings. This is why I focus on the behavior allowed in the Bible, both what slaves can do, and what others can do to slaves. When something is left unclear here, then one can go look at outside sources to fill it in, but unless an outside source is claiming the very translation is wrong, then what is allowed is allowed.

It's strange to me how you keep going on about Exodus, which is agreed upon almost universally by scholars as the first and most rigorous defense of the freedoms and rights and general humanitarianism of slaves, unparalleled in ancient history.

So it may be... doesn't counter my criticism of what is does allow.

But ok, let's talk about Exodus and pretend none of that other pesky stuff has happened. Exodus 21 talks about a daughter being sold for a dowry-less marriage.

She was not being sold for a marriage. A marriage might have been one reason for her to be sold, but the marriage is decided later on by the master. The master would not be allowed to decide who she marries if that was decided as part of the sell.

This was not seen as a harshness, but it was seen as a father providing for his daughter, often he would prefer and find it superior to arrange for her indenture to a well founded, or well supported neighbor than it would be to marry someone who did not fit that bill of their own social class or standing. This ensured her future security. These were actions taken because of debt or poverty that actually threatened the stability and future of the household. You may ask how I know this since it's not mentioned in the Bible, well behold a book full of context for all of these things, here it is.

I was already aware that a common reason for selling ones daughter is due to poverty and that it would provide her the basic needs. But then, a modern day child marriage is not justified merely because the husband will provide what the parents could not, or at least that is a common moral stance.

There are a huge number of verses that cast any and all laws and commandments about the treatment of slaves, in context to how the Israelites were treated by the Egyptians, which actually was analogous to modern day slavery ideas.

I will freely admit that a slave to the Hebrews was far better off than almost any, if not any other culture back then. And if you are into cultural relativism, this is great. Only if you hold them up to an absolute standard do the issues appear. If one honestly accepts cultural relativism, then there isn't any point in discussing this issue with them. It is like a two people trying to do the same physics problems where one things distance = 100 is talking feet and the other meters.

I mean, look at Deuteronomy
it's full of this constant reminder, to remember their own harsh treatment. I don't really see the point in this if anything goes and slavery was just as it was in respects to modern day slavery ( Deuteronomy 5:6; 6:12, 21; 7:8; 15:15; 16:12; 24:18, 19 and there are more in other books too).


This seems like an argument from silence, which is a logical fallacy - in that if it doesn't mention it, you feel it's positive affirmation of it's lack. Whilst I would probably agree after researching some things that consent was not required this seems likely to be a provision for parents or guardians, rather than an arbitrary commandment to strip away freedom.

Argument from silence is not a fallacy if one takes a sola scriptura approach. If one does not, then the culture must be considered, and while it might make it not as bad, considering culture, it is still bad by modern day standards. Of course, many would even considered arranged marriages bad by modern day standards of freedom, and perhaps the modern day standards are wrong, but there is a difference in the conclusion when judging by modern day standards and the conclusion of it to judge by modern day standards.

Addressed above.


This is just you nay-saying again.


It seems audacious to me, being one of the 'haves' to arbitrarily overlook the situation of a 'have-not'. In many instances, according to historical record these families had no choice. You seem to think about this very idealistically and naively in that from your perspective, this is so morally wrong. But you live in a house, have electricity, water, food, a job, security and so forth (yes, I'm assuming this since you are posting on an internet forum it seems fairly well substantiated) these families had no choice, nowhere else to go, and no ability to do anything other to repay their debts. In our world, we cast people out onto the street. We don't have any provisions for them, in fact the number of homeless is growing. Some die on the streets in countries with cold climates. Some are abused, robbed, mugged of what little they do have, some are subject to the most heinous of theft where their bodily organs are taken. When faced with such a choice as this, I cannot fault a family for indenturing their daughter, or themselves to another if it would secure their future in light of what the alternative would be, which is likely death. Especially if A) They would be released from this after 6 years if they desired it, and B) Their daughters may find a husband and have a secured future.

As already pointed out, only a son would be released after 6 years. And yes, the daughter may find a husband. But I find it a bit hard to justify even a homeless family selling a female child to be a child bride, even if the entire families needs will be met. I will grant this is in part because I come from a culture where arranged marriages sound like an assault on freedom, but I think the bigger part is that I have a closer understanding of a family being in such a situation than you know of. My little sister comes from a family that was at one point homeless.

Only in respects to keeping the marriage bond sacred, else it did apply to all slaves.

Unless there is another verse, it is clearly stated to only apply to males.

You seem to feel this power was wielded arbitrarily and you also forget this servitude was entered into freely, unless the parent or guardian took over the decision, and in many cases this was done because it was a life or death situation, not because they just felt like making an extra buck and had an argument with their daughter...

You are missing the entire point still. This point wasn't about the daughter being sold into marriage, this was about a man being freed after his time when he was given a wife during his time of slavery.

======

Lastly, I am somewhat appalled at your desire to make this something it's not.

My desire is to show it for what it is, not what others wish it to be. My reasons for doing so are numerous, but I would not say any of them are appalling if all things are considered.

Do you desperately need to believe this for some reason?

I have no need to. But many have a really big reason to believe it was better than it was.

Dismissing the context,

Which you have done (recent issue of you ignoring the context of the manslave leaving and going for the context of the daughter being sold instead.

dismissing the history,

Which has been done by other than myself by suggesting the woman always had a say.

the culture,

Ditto.

the circumstance

I don't see where I disregarded the circumstances, only disregarded that the circumstances were justification.

and alternatives

You seem to forget this is God we are talking about. He could have set up any alternatives what so ever. And God clearly set down rules that the people just would not follow, so the reason they would not follow them clearly does not justify the absence of the rules, thus some other reason must be turned to.

and all substantiating and refuting passages

You have clearly ignored passages, such as that the passage granting freedom clearly only applies to menslaves.

you still want so desperately for this to be God or the Bible caught up in wickedness.

I have never stated this is my goal. Perhaps this is the only motive you can imagine me having, but that is fault of your imagination.

Despite the fact that many, many Christian movements have fought so hard to abolish slavery and slave practices in our recent history,

And this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Many other Christians, especially in centuries past, fought for slavery in different forms. I don't see how either is relevant to what the Bible says in the OT concerning the issue.

and them being told to 'leave religion out of this' (sounds familiar doesn't it?) you still feel that your tiny out of context passage holds an absolute view.

Yet you fail to show how my passage is out of context, and as far as being tiny, I'm not doing anything ground breaking by forming ideas based on less than a hundred verses. How many verses strictly ban homosexuality, as a comparison?

In a world where we arbitrarily kill unborn children on a whim,

Fail to see relevance. If you want to start a discussion on abortion, I will point out my view which is alternatives are needed to allow for a timely termination of pregnancy while keeping the child alive, which respects the rights of all involved.

you feel that the strictest regulation of slaves, the absolute governing of their treatment, and constant reminder to the Israelites of their own slavery, much harsher, much more in line with our modern day equivalent is so abhorred as to color the entire Bible.

Once again, you are guessing things about me which you do not know, and which are false.

I guess I have a theoretical question now, which is let's for a moment assume that God was condoning and positively approving of all our worst nightmares in regards to slavery - what does this mean to you and where do you wish to go with that thought.

It means I would have even more questions for God one day. I already got a list, and honestly, even in such a case, I got some bigger more important questions to ask already.

(Also you didn't answer my question about your grounds for finding something morally wrong)

Are you wanting the actual moral theory I use, or are you asking for a proof of something being wrong starting from no assumptions?

 

[Digit]

Slave trader is a loose translations. Kidnapper might be a better word, though it is more like a slaver trader who kidnaps, though there isn't one word for that.

Fair enough, I see no issue with this either way though.

The usage of the word itself is not of much interest, because it obviously can have other meanings.

Then you limit your interpretation and expose a weakness. Historical method doesn't work like that, everything is taken into account, not just one thing that you subjectively feel is more accurate.

So it may be... doesn't counter my criticism of what is does allow.

Your criticism of it has a specific agenda to undermine what it is saying however, you can criticize it all you like but it won't change what it says and how people view it - specifically as an undocumented order of humanitarianism and specifically targeted at slaves as you and I know them.

She was not being sold for a marriage. A marriage might have been one reason for her to be sold, but the marriage is decided later on by the master. The master would not be allowed to decide who she marries if that was decided as part of the sell.

You are ignoring context again, the female maid-servants were not allowed to go free after the period of time is up as they often enter into a marital relationship. So they were either sold into marriage, or sold into indentured servitude, both had the same outcome.

I was already aware that a common reason for selling ones daughter is due to poverty and that it would provide her the basic needs. But then, a modern day child marriage is not justified merely because the husband will provide what the parents could not, or at least that is a common moral stance.

Once again you are super-imposing ancient culture and traditions over modern day culture and traditions. It doesn't work like that. You also omit that the most common reason for this was complete and inability for the family to continue on under their own provisions. The choices they faced were indentured servitude, or most likely death and abandonment. Recalling that the sense of family in those times was much, much greater that it is in our times.

I will freely admit that a slave to the Hebrews was far better off than almost any, if not any other culture back then. And if you are into cultural relativism, this is great. Only if you hold them up to an absolute standard do the issues appear. If one honestly accepts cultural relativism, then there isn't any point in discussing this issue with them. It is like a two people trying to do the same physics problems where one things distance = 100 is talking feet and the other meters.

It's nothing like that at all, it's simple contextual appreciation for the environment and life of these people.

Argument from silence is not a fallacy if one takes a sola scriptura approach.

Well if you are taking a sola scriptura approach then this discussion is pointless since we are not beholden to the OT laws. God freed the Israelites from slavery, implemented laws for fair treatment of slaves and provided an institution and option for those who had no choice and were very likely facing death or potentially worse.

If one does not, then the culture must be considered, and while it might make it not as bad, considering culture, it is still bad by modern day standards.

Well above you were saying that culture is irrelevant, so now you seem to be changing your tune a bit when it suits you to make a point but unfortunately you are drawing parallels to modern day times again which is irrelevant when these passages were talking about a specific time period whereby this was deemed a necessity by God.

As already pointed out, only a son would be released after 6 years. And yes, the daughter may find a husband. But I find it a bit hard to justify even a homeless family selling a female child to be a child bride, even if the entire families needs will be met.

Well luckily we don't live under a dictatorship and people can make their own choices, so they don't need to have you rob them of a secure family, warm bed, and plentiful food. I mean really, look what you are doing - you are saying that even if this was the case, you find it hard to accept it even if they were homeless - says the man sitting in his warm home with all his needs met. Aren't you doing the exact opposite of what God did, which is to meet their needs in a hopeless time, and we were talking about them avoiding death, not just being destitute. This is a pretty major point in this discussion.

I will grant this is in part because I come from a culture where arranged marriages sound like an assault on freedom, but I think the bigger part is that I have a closer understanding of a family being in such a situation than you know of. My little sister comes from a family that was at one point homeless.

Well I'm not sure I can comment on that since it's very personal. But I guess one theoretical question you could ask yourself, is would you rather your sister find a husband who she lived with and enjoyed a rich life with him, or perish on the streets?

Unless there is another verse, it is clearly stated to only apply to males.

No, it doesn't clearly state that. It says it applies to males irrespective of any commitments, it remains silent on females and provides provisions for them should they enter into a marital relationship. You cannot make a positive assumption from silence.

You are missing the entire point still. This point wasn't about the daughter being sold into marriage, this was about a man being freed after his time when he was given a wife during his time of slavery.

In that case it says the wife was to go with him. I don't really feel I'm missing anything here.

My desire is to show it for what it is, not what others wish it to be. My reasons for doing so are numerous, but I would not say any of them are appalling if all things are considered.

I don't think you understand that salvation or anyone's faith hinges on this even one iota. Only the lost are so consumed with these details, as to completely miss the entire message of the Bible.

I have no need to. But many have a really big reason to believe it was better than it was.

As I said, in a theoretical world where this is as you desire it to be, it would change nothing.

Which you have done (recent issue of you ignoring the context of the manslave leaving and going for the context of the daughter being sold instead.

Unless we are talking at crossed purposes I don't believe I did this. I made a specific point of it being either neutral, OR, saying the man and his wife can go, OR, saying that that female slave must remain due to her relationship with the master.

Which has been done by other than myself by suggesting the woman always had a say.

She may not have always had a say, but I imagine these people being Godly, she would, and even if I cannot prove that we are once again at best left on neutral grounds.

I don't see where I disregarded the circumstances, only disregarded that the circumstances were justification.

Well you have shown that you find this idea so repulsive that you would rather people die or become destitute that be able to choose to enter into indentured service of another. I am talking about family leaders making a choice for their family, this is the right that they are given via law, even in todays world where we have guardians of minors.

You seem to forget this is God we are talking about. He could have set up any alternatives what so ever.

Nope. Sorry, I'm not willing to indulge a speculative path of "God could have done this thing..." or "God could have done that thing..." A) God just rescued His people from slavery, and B) Ensured a safe and reliable system of government for servitude. I mean really, out of all the people, who are going to be the most compassionate and considerate masters? The people who have just been released from their own personal hell at the hands of the Egyptians would be my guess.

And God clearly set down rules that the people just would not follow, so the reason they would not follow them clearly does not justify the absence of the rules, thus some other reason must be turned to.

I'm not sure what rules you are talking about, but I know one thing which is that I am accountable for my actions alone, not those of others. If someone doesn't follow them, then there are systems and processes in place to handle that.

And this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Many other Christians, especially in centuries past, fought for slavery in different forms. I don't see how either is relevant to what the Bible says in the OT concerning the issue.

I don't think you can back that up. First of all, simply someone saying they are Christian doesn't grant them immunity from scrutiny to see if they walk what they talk, and secondly it's relevant because if God clearly instituted slavery as you believe He did, then I don't see why they would go against His will.

Yet you fail to show how my passage is out of context, and as far as being tiny, I'm not doing anything ground breaking by forming ideas based on less than a hundred verses. How many verses strictly ban homosexuality, as a comparison?

Well I can't help that your opinion is that I fail to show it out of context. I mean it's at this point it's pretty clear we aren't going to see eye to eye, and ultimately as I said earlier, even if you were to see my point, or I was to see your point, nothing would come of it. So it's purely academic.

Fail to see relevance. If you want to start a discussion on abortion, I will point out my view which is alternatives are needed to allow for a timely termination of pregnancy while keeping the child alive, which respects the rights of all involved.

That isn't good enough. It's all too easy to say, "We need something different." and then take precisely no action to bring that about or even in fact oppose others who are trying to accord that very thing. There is no perfect middle-ground like you suppose. One way or another someone is going to get their rights trampled on, and there is no way around that, however the only solace in this is that God provided a very clear insight into how we are to treat life, and that is with all respect and honor accorded it, because it is precious and sacred. At some time, that will mean parents needing to face u to their responsibilities.

Are you wanting the actual moral theory I use, or are you asking for a proof of something being wrong starting from no assumptions?

I'm asking, sans God, how do you define your moral code and on what grounds.

 

[Milk]

In addition who better to put at the head of the heathen slaves, since these people around the Israelites did not believe in the God, and were not saved, I can well imagine that during their service they would come to believe in God, especially given that He had proclaimed laws specifically reprimanding the slavery of the Egyptians and creating a new hierarchy and law of much better and fairer treatment.

You would have fit in well in the 19th century South. This is the exact same rationalization they used. They urged fellow masters to use Christian compassion with their slaves. Though slavery was a tough road, it was better for everybody in the end. They were civilizing and Christianizing the slaves. These heathen Africans were all headed for eternal punishment if it were not for the institution of slavery.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I'm asking, sans God, how do you define your moral code and on what grounds.

I think we need to get something cleared up here. Are you asking how I do define it sans God, or how I would define it sans God? I'm sure you can tell the difference in the underlying assumptions, but I would like to know which one you are saying and what is the reasoning for you picking that one.

 

[razeontherock]

You would have fit in well in the 19th century South. This is the exact same rationalization they used. They urged fellow masters to use Christian compassion with their slaves. Though slavery was a tough road, it was better for everybody in the end. They were civilizing and Christianizing the slaves. These heathen Africans were all headed for eternal punishment if it were not for the institution of slavery.

This is a ridiculous statement, called a strawman. Productive conversations do not involve putting words in someone else's mouth, especially such heinous ones.

It also shows you're oblivious to the differences between the two times, and the two cultures - and everything else involved.

 

[Milk]

This is a ridiculous statement, called a strawman. Productive conversations do not involve putting words in someone else's mouth, especially such heinous ones.

What part do you take issue with? You made the point that the foreign slaves (who could be kept for life, bought, sold, beaten, and inherited) would get the chance to be saved. Do you not believe that the pagan Africans were destined for eternal punishment? Do you doubt that this rationalization was used by slaveholders? Think about it, some finite slavery is nothing compared to an eternity in hell. Or do you deny that southern preachers urged paternalistic care of their slaves? What are you saying?

 

[this_is_new]

What part do you take issue with? You made the point that the foreign slaves (who could be kept for life, bought, sold, beaten, and inherited) would get the chance to be saved. Do you not believe that the pagan Africans were destined for eternal punishment? Do you doubt that this rationalization was used by slaveholders? Think about it, some finite slavery is nothing compared to an eternity in hell. Or do you deny that southern preachers urged paternalistic care of their slaves? What are you saying?

Interesting no one responded to the difficult issues here. Some things can't be defended it seems.

 

[razeontherock]

Or some are just too inane to fool with

 

[wsgqapu_ap]

Looks like this is quite the long discussion, but since this topic something that really troubles me, I feel like I should write something.

What I don't understand is how God could tolerate something that is so inherently sinful. I've heard many explanations why God tolerated slavery in the OT, but none of them make sense. If it was just God taking into account the culture of the time, then that's blatant moral relativism.

If slavery wasn't that bad then, why is there a command saying it's okay for a slave to be beaten if they get up after a few days?

It just doesn't make sense. If God's can't tolerate any sin due to his absolute holiness, then why does he tolerate slavery in the OT? Why would he bend his perfect morality to meet imperfect human cultural conventions which are clearly evil?

 

[Dragons87]

Looks like this is quite the long discussion, but since this topic something that really troubles me, I feel like I should write something.

What I don't understand is how God could tolerate something that is so inherently sinful. I've heard many explanations why God tolerated slavery in the OT, but none of them make sense. If it was just God taking into account the culture of the time, then that's blatant moral relativism.

If slavery wasn't that bad then, why is there a command saying it's okay for a slave to be beaten if they get up after a few days?

It just doesn't make sense. If God's can't tolerate any sin due to his absolute holiness, then why does he tolerate slavery in the OT? Why would he bend his perfect morality to meet imperfect human cultural conventions which are clearly evil?

Well, God is rather patient, even if we aren't. Slavery isn't the only thing God tolerated. Think about divorce. He frowns upon divorce, but still tolerates it; he still tolerates it today! Or think about when the Israelites wanted a king. God frowned upon it, but he still gave them what they wanted. God tolerates a lot of things when we think he's given up tolerating, or when we think he should give up tolerating. You can't think he's too tolerant of sins when he's still tolerant of your sins against him!

Among the multitude of unloving and cruel acts humans do to each other, why should slavery be singled out to be "untolerated"? God tolerates every single cruel act we do to each other. Not that he doesn't frown upon them, but he tolerates their occurrence. The reason is that he doesn't want to just stamp out sin (if he wanted to he could just end the world with one word, couldn't he?), but he wants to save our souls. To play the long game you've got to be tolerant.

But turning to slavery anyhow, it is quite clear God is against slavery; he sent his son to set us free from slavery, not from bodily oppression, but from spiritual oppression. That's the oppression that matters. Jesus said: "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28)

Now, I'm not saying that therefore slavery is okay. Once God's love affects your life, do you think you can still treat a slave cruelly? I hardly think so. Think about it. In the modern world everyone is legally equal, but not every legally equal human being treats each other with love and respect. Yet in the ancient world, even where persons are not legally equal, a Christian master can treat slaves with a godly compassion and a Christian slave can serve masters with a godly obedience. Surely, before God's eyes, it is not the status of a person before a human law court that counts, but the status of the person inside, be they rich, poor, slave or free.

Now, if it turns out that general godly compassion reaches a critical point that a cruel practice is outlawed even by humans, all the better! God frowned upon slavery long before humans did, and I'm sure God was quite pleased that we finally saw the light and outlawed that behaviour ourselves.

 

[david_x]

Looks like this is quite the long discussion, but since this topic something that really troubles me, I feel like I should write something.

What I don't understand is how God could tolerate something that is so inherently sinful. I've heard many explanations why God tolerated slavery in the OT, but none of them make sense. If it was just God taking into account the culture of the time, then that's blatant moral relativism.

If slavery wasn't that bad then, why is there a command saying it's okay for a slave to be beaten if they get up after a few days?

It just doesn't make sense. If God's can't tolerate any sin due to his absolute holiness, then why does he tolerate slavery in the OT? Why would he bend his perfect morality to meet imperfect human cultural conventions which are clearly evil?

You might also expect people from that time period to understand Nuclear fusion and integrals. Society and morality must be discovered and engineered in the same way the the sciences and the mathematics are.

 

[razeontherock]

You also have the fact of modern conveniences not being available, but requiring manual labor instead. Basically all of us with enough free time to chat online would be in the class of "masters." Our servants are electricity, running water, (hot and cold no less) washing machines, etc.

 

[wsgqapu_ap]

Well, God is rather patient, even if we aren't. Slavery isn't the only thing God tolerated. Think about divorce. He frowns upon divorce, but still tolerates it; he still tolerates it today! Or think about when the Israelites wanted a king. God frowned upon it, but he still gave them what they wanted. God tolerates a lot of things when we think he's given up tolerating, or when we think he should give up tolerating. You can't think he's too tolerant of sins when he's still tolerant of your sins against him!

Now, I'm not saying that therefore slavery is okay. Once God's love affects your life, do you think you can still treat a slave cruelly? I hardly think so. Think about it. In the modern world everyone is legally equal, but not every legally equal human being treats each other with love and respect. Yet in the ancient world, even where persons are not legally equal, a Christian master can treat slaves with a godly compassion and a Christian slave can serve masters with a godly obedience. Surely, before God's eyes, it is not the status of a person before a human law court that counts, but the status of the person inside, be they rich, poor, slave or free.

Now, if it turns out that general godly compassion reaches a critical point that a cruel practice is outlawed even by humans, all the better! God frowned upon slavery long before humans did, and I'm sure God was quite pleased that we finally saw the light and outlawed that behaviour ourselves.

The question I'd ask then is if God didn't like slavery from the beginning, why didn't he tell them that He would allow them to have slaves, but that it was still wrong? Instead, you see the law where God tells them not to beat their slaves to the point that they can't get up after more than a few days, and then stating that the slave is the property of the owner.

"20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." Exodus 21:20-21

I just can't wrap my mind around that being okay, or God being okay with that. It really seems to contradict Leviticus 19:18:

"You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD."

How can you beat a slave, yet love him or her as yourself?

I guess you could say God is just being patient with people, but he also seems pretty impatient and intolerant towards people sinning sometimes, often wiping out entire nations for being bad, so that seems a bit incongruous. And if he was being patient for people to change, why didn't he tell them they needed to change and that slavery was something they really shouldn't be doing, even though he permitted it?

You might also expect people from that time period to understand Nuclear fusion and integrals. Society and morality must be discovered and engineered in the same way the the sciences and the mathematics are.

I'm not sure I can agree fully with this, for a couple reasons. For one, Paul talks about people who haven't heard of God doing good because the law was written on their hearts (see Romans 2:15), so people should know what's right and what's wrong on our own. C.S. Lewis talks a lot about the moral law and makes an argument from God from it in his book Mere Christianity, which was something which I held to for a long time as a good argument for the existence of God.

To me, it just doesn't seem like nuclear science for someone to ask, "Is it loving for me to own someone else and take away their free will? How about beating them?" and say, "No, it isn't."

You also have the fact of modern conveniences not being available, but requiring manual labor instead. Basically all of us with enough free time to chat online would be in the class of "masters." Our servants are electricity, running water, (hot and cold no less) washing machines, etc.

I definitely understand why they'd hold slaves back them, considering how laborious life was back then. But that doesn't make it right (and I'm sure you weren't arguing that and you'd agree with me), since it's unfairly piling up the necessary work to be done on a select group of people so things are easier on the rest. It definitely doesn't cohere with a loving your neighbor approach. Add for God allowing people to beat their slaves (just not too severely), and it makes my head spin.

To be honest, I think I've come to believe that the Old Testament has major contradictions and that a lot of what was said was the author's bias. There's no other way it makes sense to me.

 

[wsgqapu_ap]

I was just looking online and found this verse which really makes me think that God actually says he won't tolerate injustice.

“Now let the fear of the LORD be upon you. Judge carefully, for with the LORD our God there is no injustice or partiality or bribery.” 2 Chronicles 19:7

I realize I'm probably sounding like one of those argumental atheists who come on and go round and round with people, so to be honest, I think I'm going to pop out of this thread and maybe out of Christian Forums. To be honest, I don't think anymore that there are any satisfying answers to the questions I have about God and Christianity.

 

[razeontherock]

I would think you just found one VERY satisfying answer? I'd be surprised if others haven't already plumbed the questions you have. In fact, I'd be surprised if I haven't; but G-d knows, and delights in showing us what we didn't know ...