Slavery IS Regulated in the Bible!

Status
Not open for further replies.

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
1. It sounds like you're getting a bit annoyed that we are free to say what we want, and that the Bible is no longer legally protected from criticism. That is a pity.
No, what is annoying are your debate tactics ...

2. You haven't addressed the cases of people within the Bible committing appalling acts, including taking slaves.
...since this thread, AS YOU'VE REPEATEDLY POINTED OUT, is supposedly for the sole purpose of honing in on ONLY the existence of slavery in the Bible and God's apparent approval of the particularly ancient version of slavery we find instituted in ancient Israel, I'm not seeing why I would suddenly need to address any other thing you just happen to stumble over in the Bible and feel appalled by.

3. The question on this thread is "Does the Bible endorse slavery and say that it is right to take, keep and punish slaves". That question was answered many, many pages ago - indeed, almost from the start. Since then, you and Halbhh have been trying to, well, basically, distract us from the main issue, with discussions about Czech politicians, Israelite judges and the Golden Rule - any of which may have made fascinating discussions, but none of which address the real issue.
I suppose asserting that you have the "moral high ground"----a position that you, yourself, did say you need not get diverted into defending because it would take us away from the primary focus here------isn't a distraction?

Your own particular defence (which seems to be "Despite what it says in the Old Testament, it wouldn't have worked out like that in practice, because of various other factors") doesn't hold water. First, the Bible quite clearly shows people taking, keeping and punishing slaves, at the command of God and His chosen prophets. Second, the question is not "Were the Israelites a slave state comparable to, say, antebellum USA?" but rather, "Does the Bible support slavery?"
Of course they took slaves, as did just about everyone in those days! And when the Israelites refused to repent of their oppressive attitudes toward WELL-INTENDED FOREIGNERS which God warned the Israelites against.... God punished and displaced the Israelites at various times, in various ways... and oh, how they've suffered for it!

That question has now been answered; and, by your failure to even address it, you are effectively conceding the debate.
I don't consider Christian Apologetics to be a 'debate.' My only job is to attempt to answer questions that are posed to me ... that's it! I'm not here thinking I can convince anyone to accept Christianity or the Bible. My epistemological conceptualization about how Christian faith works doesn't entertain that notion ...

God has shown that He is happy for people to enslave others.
The Bible is pro-slavery.
... right. God is 'happy' to punish unrepentant sinners, whether they be you or me, or even the careless, stiff-necked Israelite of Old. And He may allow slavery to fit the bill of punishment ...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
...you would be disagreeing with the Bible. Yes, I know. Come on, Philo - you were almost there.

What happens if and when I disagree to some extent with any politically charged, hegemonic and institutionalized code of ethics, even that of, say, Communist China, Russia, various Islamic states, or even that of the United Nations?
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
What happens if and when I disagree to some extent with any politically charged, hegemonic and institutionalized code of ethics, even that of, say, Communist China, Russia, various Islamic states, or even that of the United Nations?
I don't know. Nothing much?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don't know. Nothing much?

Try criticizing the ethics, social mores, and legal philosophy of ... the very nation in which you reside? I'd imagine that the simplicity and success in pulling off that stunt and escaping backlash would depend upon which nation one resides. And if there is a God in Heaven (...and I think there is)...and the whole world is His, then, likewise, I'm going to tread carefully in how I 'critique' His Law of the Land. (Leviticus 18; Psalm 2)
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Try criticizing the ethics, social mores, and legal philosophy of ... the very nation in which you reside? I'd imagine that the simplicity and success in pulling off that stunt and escaping backlash would depend upon which nation one resides. And if there is a God in Heaven (...and I think there is)...and the whole world is His, then, likewise, I'm going to tread carefully in how I 'critique' His Law of the Land. (Leviticus 18; Psalm 2)
Okay. Yes, you're right - if you were to criticise the Chinese government while living in China you might find yourself in trouble.
On the other hand, if what you're saying is you might get into trouble with God for agreeing with criticisms against Him - well, I see your point, but that sounds to me very much like you're conceding that your arguments are invalid.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
...what then are you "motivated" for here, gaara? If you're not here to 'try' to discuss and learn, then you're leaving me little by which to, in turn, be motivated in having any interlocution with you over the Bible and/or Christian faith. Maybe you're just here to talk about the weather? Sports? What? IDK.
In this thread? I’m here to see if modern and biblical sensibilities re: slavery can be reconciled. I spelled out my own personal reasons why I believe slavery ought not be allowed, and I think you agreed, but we seem at best to find conflicting, wishy-washy attitudes towards slavery at different places in the Bible. I have my own suspicions as to why that is, and it involves the Bible not being inspired by a divine moral arbiter, but I’m interested to see answers from people who are committed to biblical inerrancy. I’m not here to draw up an argument for them, and in fact I don’t think it can be done.
 
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
Not sure if this has been mentioned before.

I don't believe it has been mentioned yet in this thread...

When examining slavery in the Bible, Exodus 21:20-21 gets pointed out a lot and a conclusion is drawn. God allows slaves to be beat just short of death, 'carte blanche' as an analogy. But if a person would just continue reading they would find this, "When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth." in verses 26 and 27.

Correct. This is why most chattle slave masters merely resorted to beating by whip. Beating them about the back does not hinder their needed labor. (i.e) The using of their eyes to see, and their hands to work. A dead slave is also not a useful slave. A blind slave is not a very useful slave either.

What you are confirming, in verses 26-27, is that you acknowledge that the Bible does seem to deliver sanctioned messages, as to the lifetime ownership of slaves, in which they can beat, as property. So as I concede that the Bible may state that removing the slave's eye awards them their freedom, YOU must now also concede pretty much all of the rest. Which is, they can be beaten, in many differing ways, just short of death, for life, as a possession or property.


I.E. I acknowledge verses 26-27, as long as you ALSO acknowledge verse Exodus 21:21, and verses Leviticus 25:44-46 :)


So no it wasn't carte blanche, nor could it be described as possible racism Leviticus 19:33-34.

I'm speaking about the classification of 'slaves'. Once they are considered 'slaves,' their rights, as free individuals, appear to go away.

When you explore the mentioned verses, it is not speaking about the enslaved, but merely foreigners.

Leviticus 19:31-36 New International Version (NIV)

31 “‘Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God.


32 “‘Stand up in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord.


33 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

35 “‘Do not use dishonest standards when measuring length, weight or quantity. 36 Use honest scales and honest weights, an honest ephaha]">[a] and an honest hin.b]">[b] I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No, what is annoying are your debate tactics ...
My debate tactics are simple. I consider the question "Does the Bible endorse slavery?" and then look to the Bible to find out what it says. What it says is "Yes, it's fine to capture, own and punish slaves".
If you find simply seeking and stating a truthful answer to an obvious question annoying, then I'm sorry.

...since this thread, AS YOU'VE REPEATEDLY POINTED OUT, is supposedly for the sole purpose of honing in on ONLY the existence of slavery in the Bible and God's apparent approval of the particularly ancient version of slavery we find instituted in ancient Israel, I'm not seeing why I would suddenly need to address any other thing you just happen to stumble over in the Bible and feel appalled by.
The reason we are addressing this is because "the thing I just happened to stumble over in the Bible" is God and Moses telling people to take slaves.

I suppose asserting that you have the "moral high ground"----a position that you, yourself, did say you need not get diverted into defending because it would take us away from the primary focus here------isn't a distraction?
Actually, it was a Star Wars joke. Have you seen Revenge of the Sith? It's one of Obi-Wan's most famous lines.

Of course they took slaves, as did just about everyone in those days! And when the Israelites refused to repent of their oppressive attitudes toward WELL-INTENDED FOREIGNERS which God warned the Israelites against.... God punished and displaced the Israelites at various times, in various ways... and oh, how they've suffered for it!
We have God telling people it's okay to take, keep and punish slaves. But it's not at all out of character for God to have sudden mood reversals and strike out in jealous rages.

I don't consider Christian Apologetics to be a 'debate.' My only job is to attempt to answer questions that are posed to me ... that's it! I'm not here thinking I can convince anyone to accept Christianity or the Bible. My epistemological conceptualization about how Christian faith works doesn't entertain that notion ...
You may not have noticed that you've been debating for the past twenty pages or so, but that's exactly what you've been doing.

... right. God is 'happy' to punish unrepentant sinners, whether they be you or me, or even the careless, stiff-necked Israelite of Old. And He may allow slavery to fit the bill of punishment ...
Good. So we agree that God is comfortable with slavery.
 
Upvote 0

Norbert L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 1, 2009
2,856
1,064
✟560,360.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I acknowledge verses 26-27, as long as you ALSO acknowledge verse Exodus 21:21, and verses Leviticus 25:44-46
I would acknowledge those verses, however I'm not convinced you understand the implications of verses 26-27. See my comment to the next quote.

YOU must now also concede pretty much all of the rest. Which is, they can be beaten, in many differing ways, just short of death, for life, as a possession or property
The Bible gives no command to beat your slave just short of death. Would you like to also concede that? Remember what can not be disputed is that there was no punishment for the mistreatment of slaves in the Bible. Slaves had rights and everything else should be suspect to injecting ideas into the text that aren't there.

When you explore the mentioned verses, it is not speaking about the enslaved, but merely foreigners.
It is not disputed that the Israelis who left Egypt were also slaves, so no, they were not merely foreigners.

Apart from the above replies, what I find very curious is why does a nation of slaves who are set free, turn around and likewise decide to keep the institution of slavery? The easy answer is to blame God, but I believe it's largely due to mankind trying to keep civilization alive with all it's warts. After all they didn't have pension plans, social health care and welfare benefits. Never mind mass transit, computers and space stations.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
My debate tactics are simple. I consider the question "Does the Bible endorse slavery?" and then look to the Bible to find out what it says. What it says is "Yes, it's fine to capture, own and punish slaves".
I "may" have a problem with the way you sport your semantics in this case, since it's one thing to say "You SHALL take slaves...[however you see fit to do]" versus "You MAY take slaves under certain conditions..." So, let's keep it clear for our audience, IA.

If you find simply seeking and stating a truthful answer to an obvious question annoying, then I'm sorry.
No, I just find obfuscation on the part of atheists and skeptics annoying. If they don't want to believe, well then fine, but it becomes rather pesky to me to deal with people who don't want to do some bona-fide research, the one thing which to me is requisite for thinking one should open one's mouth on a subject, and in saying this, I rather side with Kierkegaard ...

The reason we are addressing this is because "the thing I just happened to stumble over in the Bible" is God and Moses telling people to take slaves.
Again, you should be quite clear in your articulation so as not to give the pretense that O.T. slavery was anything near being the same thing as the depraved slavery of the Atlantic Slave Trade.

Actually, it was a Star Wars joke. Have you seen Revenge of the Sith? It's one of Obi-Wan's most famous lines.
...yes, I got the joke. And yes, I've seen all of the Star Wars films and have been a fan since the release of Ep. 4 back in 1977. In fact, I still have my whole run of Star Wars cards from the 70s and 80s, along with a few other things. :cool:

We have God telling people it's okay to take, keep and punish slaves. But it's not at all out of character for God to have sudden mood reversals and strike out in jealous rages.
No.....as I've been saying, it's not "okay," and then to bring in this statement about how God strikes out in jealous rages and place it into the pot seems to be to be an extra, unneeded bit at the moment. "Stay on Target"!


You may not have noticed that you've been debating for the past twenty pages or so, but that's exactly what you've been doing.
Oh, most definitely yes, I have noticed! But what I'm saying is that since I'm not the typical apologist here in that I don't subscribe to the usual Epistemological pathways that are taken by a number of apologists, like Norman Geisler and partners, I don't see the need to debate/argue ad infinitum. However, I have run into some atheists who seem to express the idea that it's supposedly my job to do so; but I beg to disagree with them as well. And like Kierkegaard (and Paul the Apostle....and even Jesus), I 'm under no illusions that faith comes by complete and utter logical deduction or through the completed amassing of data.

Good. So we agree that God is comfortable with slavery.
No, it's more like He'll work with it on a provisional basis, as either a form of welfare for ALIENS in need, OR as a form of punitive measures for those who wish to remain enemies of God.
 
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

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In this thread? I’m here to see if modern and biblical sensibilities re: slavery can be reconciled. I spelled out my own personal reasons why I believe slavery ought not be allowed, and I think you agreed, but we seem at best to find conflicting, wishy-washy attitudes towards slavery at different places in the Bible. I have my own suspicions as to why that is, and it involves the Bible not being inspired by a divine moral arbiter, but I’m interested to see answers from people who are committed to biblical inerrancy. I’m not here to draw up an argument for them, and in fact I don’t think it can be done.

...well then, I guess your qualifications kind of knock me out of the loop in this discussion with you ... since I think biblical inerrancy is an over-rated, even unneeded concept. So, if you're just wanting to "see" what biblical inerrantists have to say about biblical slavery, then I guess we're done here, gaara! ;) Enjoy your day!
 
  • Like
Reactions: gaara4158
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I "may" have a problem with the way you sport your semantics in this case, since it's one thing to say "You SHALL take slaves...[however you see fit to do]" versus "You MAY take slaves under certain conditions..." So, let's keep it clear for our audience, IA.
As we've seen, there are times when the Bible says "you MAY take slaves under certain conditions," and times when it says "You "SHALL take slaves".
And while you're bothering about the difference, you're missing the big picture, which is that the Bible is pro-slavery.

No, I just find obfuscation on the part of atheists and skeptics annoying. If they don't want to believe, well then fine, but it becomes rather pesky to me to deal with people who don't want to do some bona-fide research, the one thing which to me is requisite for thinking one should open one's mouth on a subject, and in saying this, I rather side with Kierkegaard ...
I find obfuscation on the part of Christians annoying. For example, when you say to them "What evidence do you have?" and, rather than them saying "I believe X because of Y," they say, "Evidence? What do you mean by evidence?"
As I've pointed out, a number of times in this thread: the only problem is people who want to take a simple question and over-complicate it.
"Is the Bible pro-slavery? Yes."
The problem is, you seem totally incapable of recognising this simple fact.

Again, you should be quite clear in your articulation so as not to give the pretense that O.T. slavery was anything near being the same thing as the depraved slavery of the Atlantic Slave Trade.
The question is "Is the Bible pro-slavery"?
The answer is: yes.

...yes, I got the joke. And yes, I've seen all of the Star Wars films and have been a fan since the release of Ep. 4 back in 1977. In fact, I still have my whole run of Star Wars cards from the 70s and 80s, along with a few other things. :cool:
Good. Well, that's why I said "It's over, Philo. I have the moral high ground!"

No.....as I've been saying, it's not "okay," and then to bring in this statement about how God strikes out in jealous rages and place it into the pot seems to be to be an extra, unneeded bit at the moment. "Stay on Target"!
I wouldn't have had to say it if you hadn't brought in complicating factors for me to address.

Oh, most definitely yes, I have noticed! But what I'm saying is that since I'm not the typical apologist here in that I don't subscribe to the usual Epistemological pathways that are taken by a number of apologists, like Norman Geisler and partners, I don't see the need to debate/argue ad infinitum.
that's rather strange, considering you've been debating me steadily for over twenty pages. You know, all you have to do is stop talking to me, whenever you wish. You don't even have to admit that you're wrong.

No, it's more like He'll work with it on a provisional basis, as either a form of welfare for ALIENS in need, OR as a form of punitive measures for those who wish to remain enemies of God.
Good. So, we've established that God sees slavery as a useful tool. That certainly sounds like he's pro-slavery. Enemies of God, for example, like "all the girls who have not known men", after the defeat of an enemy army.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
...well then, I guess your qualifications kind of knock me out of the loop in this discussion with you ... since I think biblical inerrancy is an over-rated, even unneeded concept. So, if you're just wanting to "see" what biblical inerrantists have to say about biblical slavery, then I guess we're done here, gaara! ;) Enjoy your day!
Cheers! I didn’t know you weren’t an inerrantist, that’s interesting considering the emphasis you put on a hermeneutical understanding of each verse and concept that comes up. I guess I assumed that meant all of it must be inspired in your view, but I suppose it could also be your tool for weeding out the errors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
As we've seen, there are times when the Bible says "you MAY take slaves under certain conditions," and times when it says "You "SHALL take slaves".
And while you're bothering about the difference, you're missing the big picture, which is that the Bible is pro-slavery.
I think you know as well as I do that when our audience here thinks about the term "pro-slavery," they most often do so within the context of referring to the suffering(s) undergone by African people(s) under the hands of white, supposedly Christian, slavers of both European and American (and Near Eastern, by the way) descent.

What we DON'T want to do is to leave the impression that if we feel inclined to apply a fairly loose term like 'pro-slavery' to what we think we see in the texts of the O.T. that the use of this same term has much in the way of any real similarity to how we usually apply it to what we know transpired in the Antebellum South of the U.S.

Kapeesh?! ;)

As I've pointed out, a number of times in this thread: the only problem is people who want to take a simple question and over-complicate it.
Or maybe you just have a problem with focusing too much on singular details at the expense of all other necessary details?

"Is the Bible pro-slavery? Yes."
The problem is, you seem totally incapable of recognising this simple fact.
Yes, I am incapable of that error. Thank God!

The question is "Is the Bible pro-slavery"?
The answer is: yes.
I'll just refer back to what I've said above in this post.


Good. Well, that's why I said "It's over, Philo. I have the moral high ground!"
It's over? I thought we were waiting for it to begin?

I wouldn't have had to say it if you hadn't brought in complicating factors for me to address.
Well, boo hoo for the fact of complicating details! Whatever will we do with the reality that weighs in on us here in regard to 'biblical slavery'?

You know, all you have to do is stop talking to me, whenever you wish. You don't even have to admit that you're wrong.
[edit] Ok. I won't admit that I'm wrong.

Good. So, we've established that God sees slavery as a useful tool. That certainly sounds like he's pro-slavery. Enemies of God, for example, like "all the girls who have not known men".
We can also establish that the overall context is that ..............if the people of the world weren't utterly sinful, God wouldn't allow them to be prone to being vulnerable to slavery. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Cheers! I didn’t know you weren’t an inerrantist, that’s interesting considering the emphasis you put on a hermeneutical understanding of each verse and concept that comes up. I guess I assumed that meant all of it must be inspired in your view, but I suppose it could also be your tool for weeding out the errors.

My emphasis, if you've paid careful attention, has been upon my reliance upon Existentialism and Philosophical Hermeneutics, the latter of which is a different "thang" than biblical hermeneutics even if it overlaps in some respects. Moreover, simply saying "hermeneutics" does not in and of itself imply any reliance upon the concept of inerrancy.

So, when I say I'm a Critical Realist and Existentialist who is interested in running around the track of the Hermeneutic Circle for my own sense of biblical fitness, I'm not talking about the typical epistemological playground of the typical Christian evangelical. :cool: You might also keep in mind that you said you're interested in "modern sensibilities"---------------and like various forms of Pragmatism, Critical Realism is also one of those "modern sensibilities."
 
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

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
My emphasis, if you've paid careful attention, has been upon my reliance upon Existentialism and Philosophical Hermeneutics, the latter of which is a different "thang" than biblical hermeneutics even if it overlaps in some respects. Moreover, simply saying "hermeneutics" does not in and of itself imply any reliance upon the concept of inerrancy.

So, when I say I'm a Critical Realist and Existentialist who is interested in running around the track of the Hermeneutic Circle for my own sense of biblical fitness, I'm not talking about the typical epistemological playground of the typical Christian evangelical. :cool: You might also keep in mind that you said you're interested in "modern sensibilities"---------------and like various forms of Pragmatism, Critical Realism is also one of those "modern sensibilities."
I’ll say that makes you very interesting, and very hard to understand :p
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I’ll say that makes you very interesting, and very hard to understand :p

...as intelligent as you are, Gaara, I'm sure you could understand my position if you just apply yourself to do so. :cool:
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: gaara4158
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.
That's right.

To find out, you'd have to find out for yourself.

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?

ah, you would like, just like me, or anyone, like to think that average people would not be willing to sacrifice their children in fire 3000 and 4000 years ago.

Average people.

We'd like to think average people are ok people -- not too bad.

Say, even just neutral, morally.

That's a lot more comfortable to imagine to ourselves.

And, that's a hypothesis worth addressing. It's a meaningful thing to consider in depth.

(Note I'm not trying to respond to most things anyone says that is speculation or just incorrect in this thread -- I've not responded to many errors people have written in this thread.
Instead I'm trying to respond to only some of the most meaningful issues. It's not helpful to argue with someone about 5 or 7 errors in one post I've found.
So at times when anyone responds to me with 4 or 6 mistakes and 2 or 3 speculative guesses in a post, it's not always helpful to even respond at all. But at times a more useful issue is raised, something more substantive that I think is worthwhile to address.)

This example from Phoenicia... ancient Semitic-speaking Mediterranean civilization that originated in the Levant, specifically Lebanon...

Plutarch (c. 46–120 CE) mentions the practice, as do Tertullian, Orosius, Diodorus Siculus and Philo. Livy and Polybius do not. The Bible asserts that children were sacrificed at a place called the tophet ("roasting place") to the god Moloch. According to Diodorus Siculus' Bibliotheca historica, "There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire."[19]

Plutarch, however claims that the children were already dead at the time, having been killed by their parents, whose consent—as well as that of the children—was required; Tertullian explains the acquiescence of the children as a product of their youthful trustfulness.[19]

Human sacrifice - Wikipedia


Parents choice (!). ouch.

In this instance where we have Greek historians to help pinpoint information, we learn the parents chose to sacrifice their own children.

...

Here's what's hard to do I bet -- I bet it is hard for anyone to read through this series of reports from around the world.

Human sacrifice - Wikipedia

Who wants to know these facts? We'd rather not.

We would rather very much it had not been as it was.

But, in reality, human sacrifice happened around the world 3000 and 4000 years ago, and not only a few infamous examples Americans may know.

By now, some portions of Americans know that the Mayans and also the Aztecs cut out the hearts of their victims as the victims were still alive.

Because it was on some video, perhaps from PBS.

...hmmm...I wonder how many sorta heard that, and then...their minds reacted, and now they don't know it very much, but vaguely?

Can you yourself tolerate more information like this?

Most people would probably not be strong enough to read more information about how humanity routinely sacrificed children around the world in most all cultures.

It goes on for paragraph after paragraph.

After all while, the pattern is just hard to deny.

We would rather think people are just fine, good even, by nature.

If throughout time, cultures widely disconnected from around the world did horrific evil, then it's very hard to imagine people are good.

We lose a pleasant and comfortable viewpoint about humanity we'd have preferred.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If I were an ancient Israelite pro-slavery selfish lawyer, I’d just find ways to make it so my target aliens didn’t properly qualify as “sojourners.”

Routinely, in reality, many in Israel did break the Laws from God.

I've attempted to highlight this several times in this thread, but did not want to become too repetitive about it. Perhaps it needs to be brought up about every 20 or 30 posts?

It's an essential fact to know. It's also a very large part of the entire content of the Old Testament -- endless accounts of the people breaking all manners of laws God gave.
 
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

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I would acknowledge those verses,

Okay. Do you then at least admit, that if God is the inspiring author of such verses, then God has no problem with slavery then, now, and forever? Stay tuned.


however I'm not convinced you understand the implications of verses 26-27. See my comment to the next quote.

Prepare to be convinced. Also prepare to answer some vexing quandaries.

The Bible gives no command to beat your slave just short of death. Would you like to also concede that?

It depends upon how you are issuing the challenge? I don't recall ever stating God 'commands' that slave masters are to beat, must beat, or are told to beat their slaves. What I instead have eluded to, is that God is indifferent to such beating, allows for it, condones it, and/or likes as such. Meaning, slavery, in all it's forms, is not considered sin. Otherwise, God would have abolished such said practices.

In conclusion, if by 'command', you mean that God orders slave masters to beat them, then yes, I gladly concede. Why? Because I never stated as such from the beginning. But if by 'command', you mean God issues 'commands', allowing complete provisions for practically any type of slavery, including chattel slavery, without sinning, then no. Because remember, as I've stated all along, God does not define what a slave is and is not.


Slaves had rights and everything else should be suspect to injecting ideas into the text that aren't there.

Slaves had 'special rights'. They were allowed to worship God. They are also told to work harder for the believing slave masters. They did not have the right to be set free, in their life time, unless they were Jews. Once deemed a slave, freedom was permanently relinquished as a 'right'. Baring special circumstances... See below... All according to God.


It is not disputed that the Israelis who left Egypt were also slaves, so no, they were not merely foreigners.

I'm honestly not sure where (you) are trying to go with this? Leviticus 19 is speaking about various God commanded laws. When you get to such verses, it states:


'33 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt.'

When I spoke about exclusive rights towards the Jews, (I) was speaking about Leviticus 25:44-46 ;) Meaning, God appears to make special rules for the Israelites, based upon the flesh; something none can help and also seems to demonstrate that God does favor the flesh - certain flesh. Thus concluding, would appear that when such an Israelite was writing such a verse, commanded by 'God', it appears more probable such verses were not inspired by a divine agent, but instead the Jew(s) whom wrote it. Or, the ones telling the author to write it, whom favored the Jews. Otherwise, you would need to reconcile that God is bias in the flesh ;)

Your provided response does not appear to demonstrate the same message as what I'm trying to convey? Yes, it appears to be a variation of the 'Golden Rule', but nothing of my point...


Apart from the above replies, what I find very curious is why does a nation of slaves who are set free, turn around and likewise decide to keep the institution of slavery? The easy answer is to blame God, but I believe it's largely due to mankind trying to keep civilization alive with all it's warts. After all they didn't have pension plans, social health care and welfare benefits. Never mind mass transit, computers and space stations.

To me, it appears way more simple than this. As I stated long ago, in this thread, it would appear more likely that all such verses, pertaining to the topic of slavery, were invented and created by man. Would you agree? Because if not, you still must answer for Exodus 21:20-21 and Leviticus 25:44-46 for starters.

And going back to one of your first comments 'however I'm not convinced you understand the implications of verses 26-27', I reply:


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.


22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurelya]">[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.


26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.

Verse 21 states you may beat your slave with a rod, just short of death. Quite honestly, that would have to be one sturdy rod, to even have to mention as such, don't you think? It appears the beating of your deemed property, is a-okay, with a rod, for life.

Verses 26-27 state if you take their eye out or remove their teeth, they are then allowed to go free. No wonder slave owners seemed to beat their slaves from the back, and not the front ;)

You have anything 'better' to contest as such?

 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.