Slavery IS Regulated in the Bible!

Status
Not open for further replies.

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Leviticus 19:18 you mention just now is a list of commands to Israel as a people--

18 Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people; but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am Jehovah."

But Mathew 7:12 applies to all others around us, not only some certain people thought to be qualified as being neighbors as was believed previous to Christ, as He makes clear in Matthew 5:

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies...

This big step becomes abundantly clear in the world changing teachings of Christ.

Anyone reading the gospels with listening will get this, and that's another if many reasons to read through fully with true listening.

There's a reason the Jewish leaders felt very threatened -- it's an end to abusive power over others.

No.

Again, slaves are lesser citizens. Your repeated verse Matthew 7:12, or even Mark 12:31, speak about free men's rights. Slaves are considered lesser, as Christ also decided to weigh in upon this continued conclusion. Slaves are given their own special set of 'rules'. Which is, work for your masters. And work even harder for the masters whom are believers. The Bible tells slaves they too can worship Yahweh, yes. However, the slaves 'reward' will only be granted (after) natural death.

(Rinse /repeat: My contention is the authors of these verses wrote as such, so the slave owners could read such verses to their slaves. This way, the slaves would 'work harder.' Most were/are God believers. Having masters repeatedly read scripture, 'commanded by God', condoning slave practices, is a great way to keep your slaves in line.

And yes, many were illiterate, including slave masters. However, the owners whom could not read, would speak such passages, as oral tradition was the way of the land back then.

As I stated from the get-go.... Even if there exists some divine agent(s), it would appear the verses referencing slavery were written by mere mortals, with mere mortal desires. And in the case for the topic of slavery, it appears highly more likely that either the authors of such verses were slave owners, or were told to write of such verses by slave owners.)


Otherwise, God Himself would have made His message at least kind of clear, and not leave such conclusions in the hands of apologists, like you, whom attempt to 'hornswoggle' and manipulate verses to read what you instead want them to say ;)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Christ ended any excuse or cover or exception for any and every abuse, including slavery and all other other wrongs also, and any and all future ones of any and every kind also.


Again, no.

'The Christ' appeared to weigh in on the topic specifically. Which means slaves have their own 'special set of rules'.

- Work for your slave masters
- Work harder if they are believers
- You are still allowed to worship Yahweh, and your reward will come AFTER death.

And yet, what we DON'T SEE?.?.?. Curious...


- Slave masters are only to enslave voluntary slaves <-- If it said anything remotely close to this in the Bible, case closed.

Your "Matthew" verse is not applicable, as 'slaves' are less than equal. They are property. They are possessions. This is clarified by the Bible, not ME. And as such, since they are possessions and property, God must issue special rules for them, as the 'golden rule' only applies to free people.

*****************

God never once tells the slaves to try and gain freedom. Why? Because there is no intention for such....

You need to clearly understand something...

The Bible is clear about most topics: Murder, theft, trespassing, lying, adultery, homosexuality, etc... It is also equally clear what God's view is on 'slavery'. In that He does not consider it sin. So could you please now finally answer my six questions, as this is request 13 and counting:


1. If you are a Jew, you are not to be enslaved for life. But if you are not a Jew, you can be enslaved for life. If we are 'all one in' with Christ, why the Jewish favoritism? Seems as though Jesus is fond of the flesh, Jewish flesh specifically.

2. God allows slavery then, now, and forever. Any form of slavery is permissible, as slavery is not well defined. God does not consider slavery a sin.

3. Your notion of progressive revelation seems odd. God allows slavery, and does not consider it sin. So why then is there a need for it to later be changed or abolished?

4. God would know people use all forms of slavery. And yet, God never clarifies that any of such slavery is 'wrong.' If God knows humans are either dumb, or self serving, why would God not clarify what type of slavery is not permissible?

5. In affect, what (you) are saying, is that it is the Christians which don't like slavery... Why does Jesus not agree wholeheartedly? Why is it a 'feather in your cap' moment that America abolished slavery, when Jesus could care less if it's abolished? Jesus allows for it.

6. Slaves are considered property (less-than-human). Slave owners are to do with their slaves what they will, as instructed by the NT.


 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Ah, you think it means "rape" as you wrote into the text yourself...

Your idea, or how you see it.

Interesting assertion....

Let's try to see if that makes sense in the text. We need more translations. Here are many of the top, mostly widely respected translations.

New International Version
and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

English Standard Version
And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.

New American Standard Bible
"She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

Young's Literal Translation (direct word for word)
and turned aside the raiment of her captivity from off her, and hath dwelt in thy house, and bewailed her father and her mother a month of days, and afterwards thou dost go in unto her and hast married her, and she hath been to thee for a wife:

----------

I'm seeing the words "marry" and "husband" and "wife"....and I know that those words have legal significance inside Israel....

Do you think a person would rape the person he is marrying? I'm sure it happens at times, but you suggested it was more one of the norms -- not an uncommon thing, but instead a commonplace...

That's an added assumption, which seems to go against the meaning of "husband" and "wife". So that you are adding in an external assumption then. Of you own.

Or of the website you rely on to tell you want to think of it.

Just trying to help you get past your assumptions, and see more of what is there.

It's not easy to see what contradicts the theory you prefer, for anyone.

Instead of painting on our own extra assumptions, what can we learn from the text itself about rape?

The answer is in the immediate next chapter.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

------
So, we see rape isn't trivial generally... from the source we are trying to discuss. not even if the woman is not a wife we learn elsewhere.... Even for the lesser position of a concubine, raping could lead to the death of the rapist.
Halbhh, it's morning where I am, and I'm just going out on some business for a few hours. In the meantime, can I invite you to reread your post to see if you can find any problems in it?
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
And where does the O.T. command the Israelites to actually go out into the world and make slaves in a proactive, even aggressive fashion as the white Southern slave traders and owners of yesteryear in America did?

Why do so many of you guys always want to specifically bring up trans Alt. slavery? Curious....

The fact of the mater is insanely simple. If such parties should decide to perform as such again, (i.e.) 'trans Alt. style', God apparently does not consider such acts a sin. Period. And please remember this... Anything short of abolishing any said act, performed by humans, means that God is either indifferent, allows, condones, endorses, or likes it. Because again, God has NO problem telling others, what NOT to do, all over the place, in the Bible. And 'slavery' in any form, is NOT one of them in which He states is 'no bueno'.

So pick your flavor. Meaning, is God indifferent, or allow, or condone, or endorse, or like slavery; in all of it's undefined forms?


Frankly, I'm not seeing any, BUT I do see a host of commands where the Israelites are told by Moses (and by God) to be caring, even loving, of well-intended FOREIGNERS/STRANGERS/SOJOURNERS, the very "class" of people who would supposedly end up becoming slaves to the Israelites for life with ZERO possibility of manumission, according to you and @cvanwey.

Even IF such verses were provided, WHY are THESE verses to be taken literally, and the aforementioned verses provided, which seem to demonstrate the antithesis (in Exodus and Leviticus particularly), are not to be taken literally? But to instead be diverted, ignored, passed over, etc... ? Is it maybe because you don't want them to be direct God instructions? Hmm? Maybe?

But of course, as you and @cvanwey read in that article I previously posted, it seems unlikely that history utterly bears out that there was any consistent tradition among the Israelites or the later Jews wherein even foreign slaves were not manumitted. Sometimes they were kept for life;...............sometimes they were let go. And even if they were 'kept' for life, the Israelites were commanded to treat their slaves with compassion.

Again, even IF you were able to demonstrate such a clear passage(s), this does not 'square' with it's direct counterpart, (i.e.) Exodus 21:21, etc....

Of course, as we all keep bouncing along on this same old road which you and @cvanwey refuse to pave any further with hermenetical suffieciency, making it difficult for anyone else here to actually study the broader social implications inherent within the Torah, I guess we'll just keep ignoring with you the ways in which Ancient Israelite Jurisprudence more than likely handled the issues pertaining to foreign slaves in ancient Israel. Somehow, I get the feeling that you and @cvanwey think all of that should be my job ... but in my hermeneutical view, it's 'everyone's' job to do; i.e. everyone who dares to pick up ANY book that exists in the world. And if you guys don't like that principle, well then....TOUGH! Don't claim you've actually read and understood the Bible when you haven't. (If anything, you and @cvanwey are just showing that you both don't have any more hermeneutical insight than did white American southern slavers, and that really is too bad.)

No. What it is that 'you guys' are ignoring, is that if slavery was again legalized, God would deem it 'a-okay.' Even your guy's favorite one to use, as a reference, 'trans Alt' slavery.

Do you at least acknowledge this much?


If you guys can't up your 'game' on the hermeneutical frontier, I'll just have to decidely bow out of this discussion since I won't be able to take you all seriously ... and yes, that's how it's going to work, despite how you think 1 Peter 3:15 is supposed to bear out or not bear out.

And here we might of thought all along, that since practically no one is responding, it is because the provided axiomatic verses look to be indefensible. But go ahead, be our guest, please demonstrate why the cited verses in the Bible, which seem to clearly demonstrate what slave owners can do to their slaves for life, is 'taken out of context.' We are anxious for this 'correction' and for 'remedial education'.

Yes, that I already know. And I'm sure you all are sincere in thinking you're doing the world a favor, which all in all, seems to me to be a social propensity that fits well with what I find in Scripture and, ironically, has likely been instigated by God Himself as a part of the whole process of judgement upon the world, as strange as that may seem to sound.

My objective for this posting is clear and simple... My points are that even if there exists a God(s), it appears that verses written about 'slavery' were written by men, with an agenda. Period.

Do you agree? I doubt most here will. Because in doing so, one would then have to ALSO admit that the Bible could then very easily be questioned in many other parts. Which then unravels the entire fabric of it's 'truth' claim :)
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Do you agree? I doubt most here will. Because in doing so, one would then have to ALSO admit that the Bible could then very easily be questioned in many other parts. Which then unravels the entire fabric of it's 'truth' claim :)
Or they could believe, as many once did, that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and that God wants people to own slaves.
So: either give up your faith, or decide to be pro-slavery.
I think I can see why facing the facts could be uncomfortable.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Of course here "may buy" isn't a command.
No, but it is permission, isn't it? And while I appreciate that saying "You have to go and do evil things" is significantly worse than "It's fine to go and do evil things, and here is how you do them" I can't see the latter as a moral action, and I'm very surprised that you can.

Generally the main source of slaves for Israel we know most famously is from the same time period and also the aftermath of the commanded destruction/erasure of the cities that sacrificed children to B'aal, Moloch, etc.
...
The peoples that had been sacrificing children in fire as their permanent ongoing culture (something so awful we can hardly even comprehend it) --
And how do you know they were doing that? Because it says so in the Bible? You should be careful about taking a primary source's word about its enemies.

A) Total Destruction/Erasure of the city and all traces of its culture --
(Sending everyone to be sorted in the afterlife Day of Judgement all will face -- judged by their deeds (Psl 62:12, Rom 2:6), the innocent and forgiven going to eternal Life, the rest to eternal death. )
OR
B) Allowing Some Survivors to remain alive, so that many are given a place as slaves instead of being left to starve
Think about this. Just think about it.
You come to my home, you destroy my city, you kill my family - and then you expect me to be grateful for you sparing my life to live as a slave?
I think the problem you have here, Halbhh, is confusing "not as horrible as it might be" with "not being horrible".

Are these destroyed cities in those wars the instances of taking slaves from the survivors you are thinking of as being a commanding the taking of slaves?
I'm willing to admit that when I said "God told people to take slaves" I may have misspoken. The Bible verses obviously show "God telling people they could take slaves".

Or was it the more general regulation of being allowed to buy slaves later from the remnants and peoples around after the destruction of the child-sacrificing cities?
Does it matter? For antebellum slavery, would it matter if you owned a slave straight off the ships from Africa, or one who had been born a slave in the USA?

So, what have we seen? You're trying to make excuses for Biblical slavery by saying, if I read you correctly, that the people who were enslaved deserved it. But did they? First of all, I can kind of agree with punishing criminals with slavery. Not unlike community service, perhaps? If slavery for condemned criminals were ever re-introduced, well, I could see a case possibly being made for it. But in this case, the logic doesn't apply. Were these cities really that depraved? All we have is the Bible's word to go on. Even if they were, was every person in the city an evil criminal? Ridiculous. Not all of them, not most of them, not many of them. No, all that happened was the Israelites went to war against them, and then decided to take slaves.

So, in short, any defence of the Biblical verses must fail. I'm sure you'd have much the same reaction to antebellum slaveowners talking about how they rescued the black people from their lives of savagery and misery in Africa, and brought them to work in civilisation. You're making much the same argument here.

Ah, you think it means "rape" as you wrote into the text yourself...
Your idea, or how you see it.
Interesting assertion....
Let's try to see if that makes sense in the text. We need more translations. Here are many of the top, mostly widely respected translations.
New International Version
and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
I'd say all of the translations you quoted say much the same, and all have the same problem. Let's explore them, by all means.

I'm seeing the words "marry" and "husband" and "wife"....and I know that those words have legal significance inside Israel....
Do you think a person would rape the person he is marrying? I'm sure it happens at times, but you suggested it was more one of the norms -- not an uncommon thing, but instead a commonplace...
So. Imagine you are a young woman - a teenager, say - living in a city. A foreign army comes and destroys your family and friends and fellow citizens, but you, being young and pretty, catch the eye of a soldier. He takes you back to his city, imprisons you in his house, and tells you you will be his wife.
This is obviously a shocking moral travesty. And it seems very much like a violation of the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you? Are you saying the young slaves wanted their families killed, their homes destroyed, and to be carried away to be forcibly married?

Instead of painting on our own extra assumptions, what can we learn from the text itself about rape?
...
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
Sorry, what? Is this your idea of moral behaviour?
If that happened today - if a man raped a woman and then, when she reported it to the police, he said "It's okay, I'm going to pay her father and marry her," - what would you think of that?
Also, these verses don't even apply, because we're talking about war booty above.

Halbhh, the more you try to defend the Bible, the more you lay it's appalling immorality bare. Let's recap:
* It's okay to attack foreign cities, destroy them, and kill the inhabitants, except for those you wish to take as slaves.
* It's okay to forcibly take girls with you, just so long as you marry them (without their consent - and to forestall your possible answer, consent cannot be valid if given under duress).
* It's okay to rape girls as long as you promise to marry them.

Your defences of the Bible rely on a whole lot of tenuous assumptions (the inhabitants of the cities were so shockingly evil they deserved to be slaughtered? Women are happy to "marry" their captors?) and, even if you take these assumptions for granted, it's still appalling behaviour.

Where was I? Oh yes. So, we can now see that the Bible is pro-barbaric forms of slavery.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Seriously, @Halbhh, think about it. Don't see it as a story in a book you have been told is the word of a loving father. Imagine this happening today. Imagine one country attacking another country, killing most of the inhabitants, and carrying the young, pretty girls back to their own country where they would be locked up for a month and then married to their captors.

Imagine houses and homes in which people lived today, and where other people worked for them without pay, and where they could be whipped bloody, at whim (making wounds that would more or less recover in a couple of days). Imagine that was happening today.

Would you think that was morally justifiable? No? So why was it okay in Biblical times?

Because God said it was. And you're okay with that.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0

SoldierOfTheKing

Christian Spenglerian
Jan 6, 2006
9,223
3,039
Kenmore, WA
✟276,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
The Bible nowhere condemns slavery. What of it? In the ancient world, slavery was a necessary means of dividing labor. The muscle work had be tasked to somebody so that societies' elites would have sufficient time to use their minds for their important managerial work. It was a simple fact of life. An unpleasant one, to be sure, if you were the slave. Yet there was no way that civilization could have ever arisen without it.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The Bible nowhere condemns slavery. What of it? In the ancient world, slavery was a necessary means of dividing labor. The muscle work had be tasked to somebody so that societies' elites would have sufficient time to use their minds for their important managerial work. It was a simple fact of life. An unpleasant one, to be sure, if you were the slave. Yet there was no way that civilization could have ever arisen without it.
Hello, Soldier.
So I take it you think that Jesus and Paul were okay with slavery as well? When Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", he was not saying that slavery should be ended?
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
The Bible nowhere condemns slavery. What of it? In the ancient world, slavery was a necessary means of dividing labor. The muscle work had be tasked to somebody so that societies' elites would have sufficient time to use their minds for their important managerial work. It was a simple fact of life. An unpleasant one, to be sure, if you were the slave. Yet there was no way that civilization could have ever arisen without it.

If you have been tediously and painfully following along, as I've had to repeat myself over and over and over again, I hope you would have received one of my main points? Which is...

The Bible does not consider slavery a sin. Thus, if chattle slavery was (again) legalized today, under any circumstances, it is not sin.


***********

Assuming you do actually acknowledge the above, care to explore a bit further? I'll take the liberty in you saying 'yes' :) You are welcome.

Okay... Here's the main question to start with. Say America again became in ruins, and forced labor was 'required' to again regain free/cheap labor to develop our society once again. Okay, great!

Now HERE IS/ARE THE MAIN QUESTION(S)....

Where in the Bible does it state what a slave IS AND ISN'T, and WHY DOESN'T THE BIBLE SPECIFY WHEN TO ENSLAVE AND WHEN TO NOT?

I'll again take the liberty in answering, on your behalf, at least for now :)

(answer)

The Bible does not provide the 'parameters' for slavery. Well, it kind of does, but nothing to bolster your position any further. The Bible also does not clearly define slavery. Practically any form of slavery is permissible by God, without sin. You might think God would know that humans are both dumb AND self-serving. Meaning, we humans would read such verses about slavery, and possibly attempt to use them for our own devices. Meaning, read Leviticus 25:44-46 and Exodus 20:21 and state, 'hey, my desire to take slaves and use them how I see fit is justified.' You would also think God might know that humans will attempt to justify their own actions, whether it is moral in God's eye's or not. God does not lay out the caveats for 'acceptable slavery.' God does not issue any commands to boycott or abolish any types of slavery.

Hence, humans are left to read such passages, and decide when to use them. Well, since slavery is not well defined. Since the Bible does not tell us what a slave is and is not. We are all left to justify it's uses ourselves. We are only told that the term 'slave' is considered 'property', which means a possession or the master's 'money'. Property/possessions or money are not issued equal rights as free people, especially when specified by God.

And when Jesus comes along, He adds nothing more to overthrow or clarify prior commands/allowances. He does state that slaves can worship Him. Okay, great. But He provides nothing to distinguish what constitutes one type of slavery, verse another. The prior command of Jews receiving special treatment, under specific conditions, still stands. Hence, as the OP indicates, slavery is regulated, as long as you are Jew.

My point being, you are attempting to justify that without slavery, societies may not have been able to develop. Okay. This is a rational conclusion to draw for it's 'requirement' at that time.

But what about if a land was later overthrown by some dictatorship? This dictatorship was headed by Orthodox Jewish council, and decided to take YOU as a slave. Simply find me a verse in the Bible, which would state what this 'new form of government', whom claims to be under the 'new theocracy' is NOT justified in their actions? Meaning, they are actually doing so in sin.

Here's a hint... You won't. All you will find are ambiguous verses, which you could attempt to 'spin'. All-the-while, your opinion won't matter. Because the second you are overthrown by a government, whom claims they are receiving orders from God, and stakes their claim upon you, you are no longer considered equal. You are considered property. But rest assure, you can feel secure knowing that for the rest of your days, you are allowed to continue worshiping Yahweh, 'thank you NT Jesus'. Maybe this will be enough to get you through the rest of your 'unfree' time, working for someone else, again as property.

It might then only occur to you, that the ones whom claimed they were receiving their orders directly from God, just may be full of doo doo.

Peace

 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Ah, you think it means "rape" as you wrote into the text yourself...

Your idea, or how you see it.

Interesting assertion....

Let's try to see if that makes sense in the text. We need more translations. Here are many of the top, mostly widely respected translations.

New International Version
and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

English Standard Version
And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.

New American Standard Bible
"She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

Young's Literal Translation (direct word for word)
and turned aside the raiment of her captivity from off her, and hath dwelt in thy house, and bewailed her father and her mother a month of days, and afterwards thou dost go in unto her and hast married her, and she hath been to thee for a wife:

----------

I'm seeing the words "marry" and "husband" and "wife"....and I know that those words have legal significance inside Israel....

Do you think a person would rape the person he is marrying? I'm sure it happens at times, but you suggested it was more one of the norms -- not an uncommon thing, but instead a commonplace...

That's an added assumption, which seems to go against the meaning of "husband" and "wife". So that you are adding in an external assumption then. Of you own.

Or of the website you rely on to tell you want to think of it.

Just trying to help you get past your assumptions, and see more of what is there.

It's not easy to see what contradicts the theory you prefer, for anyone.

Instead of painting on our own extra assumptions, what can we learn from the text itself about rape?

The answer is in the immediate next chapter.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

------
So, we see rape isn't trivial generally... from the source we are trying to discuss. not even if the woman is not a wife we learn elsewhere.... Even for the lesser position of a concubine, raping could lead to the death of the rapist.

"... Run, Luke, Run !!!"
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"... Run, Luke, Run !!!"

It is true that I've given up discussing with Young Earth and Flat Earth types a lot quicker, but I have more sympathy for atheists than Flat Earthers, since I was an atheist once, before I began to test things Jesus said. I remember how powerful the ideology and mindset effects are -- to filter out all information except bits that can be made to fit the theory.

That makes me sympathetic more than an average believer I think. I wonder if I can help someone that is like I was break through into a new insight. But I was always very much wanting to have new insights.

I didn't make the error of imagining others knew nothing more than I did. I expected they knew something I could gain from. And I expected to cooperate with them to try to get deeper and everyone would gain something.

Was I lucky to think that way? Unusual? I don't think that rare.

It's entirely up to the individual person to choose to apprehend a new idea. Somehow, in some way, they have to actually care to learn more than they care to reinforce an favorite or comfortable idea they've built up. But a lot do want to gain new insights. So, I don't worry if someone for now refuses to learn anything new, because I trust in the long run. They will or they won't, on their own, in their own time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And how do you know they were doing that?
Archaeology news, but today you could search it up quickly. I offered a couple of links in this thread for anyone wanting to learn, but just search up 'human sacrifice' or similar.

Below in the wiki, see the history by Region -- highly informative about this world wide primary evil. Helping you confirm Deuteronomy 12:31.
Human sacrifice - Wikipedia
Notice all the regions!

World wide. Everywhere.

It took a lot of work to end it. It's a primary part of the entire Old Testament, that process of ending it.

Israel eventually ignored all the lessons and repeated commands and warnings from God, and ended up doing it also, leading to the destruction of Israel as a nation at that time.

And also the deaths and enslavement of much of Israel, in consequence.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Halbhh, it's morning where I am, and I'm just going out on some business for a few hours. In the meantime, can I invite you to reread your post to see if you can find any problems in it?
Ah, perhaps I should have pointed out the significance of must-marry-and-can-never-divorce in the case of the crime of rape. Inside Israel the norm was a non virgin would, among Jews, not usually be considered for to marry by Jews. Part of the consequence of the crime of rape was the man was totally forced to: a) marry her, b) give her all rights as a wife, all -- food, house, all else. And c) for life. And d) could never divorce her. Normal Jews could divorce. Not the one who did this crime. So instead of only 50 shekels...it's ...his entire life, pretty much.

A foreigner could convert to become Israelite by their own choice and become a full fledged citizen, with all legal rights of any other Israelite. That path to instant citizenship was law from God, and no one could block them. For example, all enemy citizens not killed in war could potentially simply become resident under Protection of Law from God protecting foreigners and then claim Israelite citizenship, should they choose. In fact one famous ancestor of the line of Christ was such.
 
Upvote 0

SoldierOfTheKing

Christian Spenglerian
Jan 6, 2006
9,223
3,039
Kenmore, WA
✟276,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Hello, Soldier.
So I take it you think that Jesus and Paul were okay with slavery as well?

Sure. I think Eph. 6:5-9 is the Bible's most comprehensive statement on slavery. It outlines what God what expects of both slave master.

When Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", he was not saying that slavery should be ended?

The Golden Rule is a principle by which a Christian guides his life, not a political policy statement. Suppose we were to change the question to "was he saying that we should free any slaves we might own?" Well, ideally yes. Manumission is favored, not as an obligation, but as a selfless and magnanimous act. It usually involved considerable personal sacrifice, and wasn't feasible in every circumstance, so it was left to private judgement. There was only the admonition that if a Christian does keep his slaves that he keep in mind that his authority over them comes with a responsibility for their care.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have the moral high ground.

Let's hope you've brought a lot of extra 'wax' for that claim ...

icarus_deception.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
...
The Golden Rule is a principle by which a Christian guides his life, not a political policy statement. Suppose we were to change the question to "was he saying that we should free any slaves we might own?" Well, ideally yes. Manumission is favored, not as an obligation, but as a selfless and magnanimous act. It usually involved considerable personal sacrifice, and wasn't feasible in every circumstance, so it was left to private judgement. There was only the admonition that if a Christian does keep his slaves that he keep in mind that his authority over them comes with a responsibility for their care.

In view of Matthew 7:12: '"was he saying that we should free any slaves we might own?" Well, ideally yes.'

Ideally yes -- that's right. And, for those understanding more, more advanced in their new life -- for them it becomes definitely yes to the extent the converted slave owner (and/or indentured servant master too) understood, or was aware of, the essential instruction from Christ in any form with enough awareness that we are all one in Christ -- that is once becoming aware:

Once awareness arose of such instruction/revelation as this:
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

And knowing/awareness of this:
Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets.
which would have had to have been by oral learning possibly for such as Philemon, to whom Paul nearly commanded he free his escaped slave --

"Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever—16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord."
Philemon 1 NIV


In which you and I can see the Galatians 3 and Matthew 7 verses quoted above put together and put into action.

To the extent the slave owner becomes aware of the commands of Christ, then to that extent he is responsible to do them, of course. They did not yet have written collections of scripture, so that would be by letters and oral learning, and by their conscience as formed by their new life in Christ.

An interesting question put to me up thread on this:

Question: "Had Philemon died before Paul's letter arrived, would he have gone to hell?" [for not yet fully releasing his slave that clearly did not want to remain a slave, the escaped Onesimus; also, on the speculative guess that he might have had any other slave]

My answer for 2 hypothetical scenarios (not the actual outcome, but imagined other possibilities) --

First another important scenario:
If
Philemon having received Paul's letter didn't do as Paul wrote asking him to treat Onesimus as free and more, as a full equal and as he would Paul...if that had happened that Philemon refused...then it would have become clear Philemon didn't fully believe or was willing to remain in the wrong/sin, in that hypothetical scenario.

For the asked scenario:
What if Philemon died early -- thus before more fully carrying out Matthew 7:12 (which we know in text, but he would not necessarily even have heard) in his own life, but only progressing a certain extent, and not yet a more advanced extent?

In this 2nd hypothetical scenario, a common type, he would be judged fairly on the basis of what He understood up to that point in time, and what he was doing, whether he was following Christ as best he could up to that point in time.

In other words, we are responsible to what we understand, and to our consciences as formed through our faith with the new life we are given.

-----------------------------------

There are very many more passages we could bring in also, but one at the moment coming to mind, to help fill out what we are responsible for without total knowledge:

6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares."
Romans 2 NIV
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I was an atheist once, before I began to test things Jesus said.
I think we've touched on this in another thread. Your "testing the things Jesus said" does not actually establish that God is real, if by that you mean you found Jesus's advice produced a better and more rewarding way of life. The fact that you found that being kind to others made you a better and happier person does not necessarily mean that God exists.

Below in the wiki, see the history by Region -- highly informative about this world wide primary evil. Helping you confirm Deuteronomy 12:31.
Human sacrifice - Wikipedia
Notice all the regions!
I did notice them. I noticed in particular that in the Middle East, "The Bible's" area of the world, human sacrifice was largely formalised and ritualised. In other words, it was not carried out everywhere by everyone, but as a special part of formal rituals.
So almost all of the people the Israelites killed or enslaved would in fact have been innocent, right?

But even saying this is a mistake, because the real issue is, why was God commanding the Israelites to kill and enslave people? Was this a moral way to behave? Sure, "everyone was doing it" at this time - but that's an extremely poor excuse when your God is apparently the source of all knowledge and perfect goodness.

In discussing this, however, we are getting off track. I'd like to stick to the issue. We all know the verses from the Bible, in which God gives permission to enslave people. Am I correct in saying your defense of those verses is that the peoples being enslaved (and exterminated) were evil?

If so, do two wrongs make a right? You're sounding perilously close to the antebellum slave societies who said, not inaccurately, that the African peoples of the time were savage barbarian tribespeople. This was true, at least in part. But did that therefore follow that they had the right to kidnap them and take them to be slaves on the other side of the world?

Ah, perhaps I should have pointed out the significance of must-marry-and-can-never-divorce in the case of the crime of rape. Inside Israel the norm was a non virgin would, among Jews, not usually be considered for to marry by Jews. Part of the consequence of the crime of rape was the man was totally forced to: a) marry her, b) give her all rights as a wife, all -- food, house, all else. And c) for life. And d) could never divorce her. Normal Jews could divorce. Not the one who did this crime. So instead of only 50 shekels...it's ...his entire life, pretty much.
Oh, the poor man!
And from the woman's point of view - you get raped, and then God's law tells you the man who raped you must pay your father, and then stay married to you forever? Is this your idea of a morally acceptable way of life?

A foreigner could convert to become Israelite by their own choice and become a full fledged citizen, with all legal rights of any other Israelite. That path to instant citizenship was law from God, and no one could block them. For example, all enemy citizens not killed in war could potentially simply become resident under Protection of Law from God protecting foreigners and then claim Israelite citizenship, should they choose. In fact one famous ancestor of the line of Christ was such.
It sounds an awfully civilised and genteel way of life. One could almost forgive the Israelites for going on their murderous rampages:
1The LORD said to Moses,
2"Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people."
5So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel.
8Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba--the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.
9The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder.
10They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps.
11They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals,
14Moses was angry with the officers of the army--the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds--who returned from the battle.
15"Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.
17Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,
18but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

32The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep,
3372,000 cattle,
3461,000 donkeys
35and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.

Is this your idea of a morally acceptable activity? And remember, no matter how barbaric people were at this time, it was God and his chosen spokesperson Moses who ordered it.

Ideally yes -- that's right. And, for those understanding more, more advanced in their new life -- for them it becomes definitely yes to the extent the converted slave owner (and/or indentured servant master too) understood, or was aware of, the essential instruction from Christ in any form with enough awareness that we are all one in Christ -- that is once becoming aware
That's purely your own projection. You think that slavery is wrong, therefore Jesus and Paul must also have thought that slavery was wrong. But the evidence is, they saw nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

Please note that you've been corrected on this, more than once. Read Galatians, and you'll see it has nothing at all to do with freeing slaves. It is about not needing to undergo circumcision. That's all.

To the extent the slave owner becomes aware of the commands of Christ, then to that extent he is responsible to do them, of course. They did not yet have written collections of scripture, so that would be by letters and oral learning, and by their conscience as formed by their new life in Christ
Sadly, they also did not have anything at all in either the Jewish or Christian religions which said: "It is wrong to own slaves. Do not take them and, if you own slaves already, you should free them".

That is because the Bible is clearly - abundantly, overwhelmingly clearly - pro-slavery.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.