Slavery IS Regulated in the Bible!

[2PhiloVoid]

Since you made an effort to mention my name specifically.... Let's (again) preemptively start by giving your response some credence; to give you a head start. At any point, I don't recall you really addressing as such... (i.e.) And again, it's not like I'm defining 'slavery' as only the American slave trade in the South but instead just plain vanilla 'chattle slavery', or any slavery in general, as it is not defined.

Why shy away from a comparison with the U.S. Antebellum form of slavery which everyone is so presently concerned with and by which many folks make their present evaluations regarding this sad institution? Do you feel you have something to lose in doing so? I'm mean, as far as I know the only forms of slavery anyone is really hacked about these days are either the Antebellum slavery of the pre-Civil War days, OR the ungodly sex trafficking type run by various crime lords and/or other organized criminals. If biblical slavery never was exactly either of these kinds of ungodly institutions, however many misgivings we may still have about it, then simply popping up on a Christian Forum and repeatedly saying, "Look here everyone at the Exodus 21:20-21 and Leviticus 25:44-46 combo I found ........" just isn't going to cut the mustard once folks find out the fuller contexts of what we actually find on the whole in the Bible.

Moreover, you keep skipping over anything anyone else says here, but no more. NO, we're going to address each other's points, and if that doesn't seem to fly with you, then you get to reveal your little secret to everyone here or you can leave CF. It's your choice.

You and your 'peanut gallery' are the ones whom are quick to bring up such a case. Where I responded, time and time again, if such slavery was again legalized, you would be hard pressed to state God thinks it's a sin.

This old hypothetical canard that you keep bringing up is just a wild boogey-man; it holds no relevance if it's not a possibility in the overall scheme of politics in the real world, and it ain't! So, DROP IT! [Or, just repeat yourself for all to see and claim that it is relevant and that it actually means something, something that it won't become, especially not by way of political references to the Bible by any U.S. politicians or substantive lobbying groups. It's time to get real, cvanwey!]

So again, starting anew, let's start from the top:

General definition:

'A chattel slave is an enslaved person who is owned for ever and whose children and children's children are automatically enslaved. Chattel slaves are individuals treated as complete property, to be bought and sold. Chattel slavery was supported and made legal by European governments and monarchs.'

And again, an apparent God directed sanctioned allowance:

'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.'

The same ol' stuff, I see. Is this all you have---5 verses from the O.T. that feed your little argument here about how O.T. slavery must have been so very, very bad, and all the while you go on with this, ignoring the many verses I haven't even gotten into yet, nor the various scholars we could bring to the for in the midst of our discussion to help clarfy what's what?

Fast forwarding through another possible 50 exchanges

, this is the main point of my post... Which is...

I'm stating if you read the Bible verses, through the lens of someone whom wants to justify slavery practices, it's crazy how all such verses, which mention slavery appear to fall quickly into line.

Not really. Only an ignoramous who doesn't want to appropriate fuller, contextualized reading and understanding of the many biblical texts would even attempt to assert that it seems to "fall quickly in line," especially when all you have are ...................................two small passages to work with. Would you care to dredge out more specific laws in the O.T. that seem to support your position?

Meaning, the authors of such verses were either pro-slavers themselves, or were directed to write as such. Writing such verses, and claiming divine direction, makes them 'Word'. Would you at least concede the position or stance in which I'm coming from, even if you do not agree?

Define the prefix 'pro' in this instance rather than just tagging in into the general flow of your chutzpah, please.

If you acknowledge how it is quite easy to do as such, I have no more beef with you, regarding this specific topic. I'm not trying to say God does not exist. I'm saying such verses do not appear God inspired. But I know many here cannot own up to that, because once they do, they would then have quite a lot to answer to, in regards to WHAT OTHER verses are also not from God.

If you don't want to believe that the Bible is God inspired, them maybe realize that no one here is forcing you to believe that it is, and if that is your only 'real' concern, then we don't really need to discuss this further, do we?

Again, I'm simply trying not to start another barrage of 'Chinese water torture.'

Oh don't worry. It's not like I'd let you do all of that again anyway.

If you agree, which means you really do not need to concede much, other than the ones whom view such verses as strictly man made, can present a justified and valid case - (whether they/we are right or not). Because again, I'm not addressing the moral aspect. But the fact that you guys are on here, to 'justify' it, leads me to think that your 'peanut gallery' agree, that if such verses are as instructed, you do not agree with them either

You mean, you want to address and explain how Leviticus 25:35, along with Leviticus 24:17-23, a very nearby text, both play into the overall context of our considerations here?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

That's fine by me. Feel free to do so since I feel free to do so as well.

Lol! I was going to say.... "then too bad!" But I suppose you're take on my responses could be a valid conclusion as well, one that sadly seems to be the chosen course of action around here.

Well, that's fine then. I can see we're in agreement.

And I'm presenting facts, facts which seem to be continuously passed over without real debate but rather with just persnickety comments on the part of the atheist's Peanut Gallery, which at the present time seems to be made up officially by you and @cvanwey.

It's more like exasperation at this point. @cvanwey and I are probably getting tired of our points getting ignored, but I can't blame you for not wanting to talk about the facts, since they are so very much not in your favour.

...and I think I've already answered the question. The answer is: YES, most assuredly yes, but yes with qualifications and distinctions that louse headed Southern U.S. slave owners did not apparently make or hold to as they should have ...

Was that a typo, or did you actually call them "louse-headed"?
Anyway, an interesting concession to make. There are of course plenty of differences between Biblical slavery and the slavery of the antebellum USA. If you have any meaningful ones to point out, please do so.

If you've got the frosting, I've got the cake topper.

I'm sure you know you WON'T win this debate. NO, your arguments are going down, and I will take them there, even if it takes weeks to do so in the midst of a busy schedule!

Look, please don't put yourself to trouble on my account. If you have a busy schedule - as I do myself, sometimes - please take care of your work first. I don't mind waiting.
My arguments are perfectly simple: there are a number of instances in the Bible where slavery is spoken of. These are almost always with approval. If you haven't yet found the writings from the Bible which show it to be against slavery, you're probably not going to find them now.

Of course there's a lot to disagree with, because like a lot of Southern U.S. racist types who have been around since who knows when, Ebenezar W. Warren was a bone-headed punk. Simple as that! And I've got to love that name: Ebenezar! So Christmasy!

Rarely a good idea to underestimate your opponents. And do bear in mind, I'm quite in agreement with you about many of Warren's ideas being both wrong and wrong-headed. But when he comes to saying the Bible agrees with him, he's on solid ground.

And the mistake you're making is to think I haven't been studying much of this, even if not as comprehensively as I'd like, for a number of years.

Wrong won't become right, no matter how long you spend massaging the facts.

No, to ignore the truth in this case would make me an atheist.

Funnily enough, most Christians-turned-atheists say that they did so because they finally stopped ignoring the truth. Do you think they were just lying? Or that I am?

 

[Halbhh]

Hey 2PhiloVoid, when we see stuff like these --

"I find your response rather comical..."

"You and your 'peanut gallery'..."

Whatever form of ad-hominem stuff, that never works out that the person is worth talking with. They begin with person attacks early on because their arguments and understanding are so weak, and their determination to 'win' so desperate that they rely on personal attacks to derail any in-depth and serious discussion.

Over years of discussion in all sorts of topics, like economics, physics, etc., it's been everytime I tried to discuss with a person that uses personal put downs, that once you explore all their ideas and information and sources, it's all weak, badly thought out stuff.

Useless stuff, and a waste of time.

So...

Logically if we want to have a good discussion about such an interesting topic, we need to ignore those kinds of people that haven't the capacity to provide any insight, and instead create a discussion among people that do have the capacity to provide insight.

Yes?

..

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hey 2PhiloVoid, when we see stuff like these --

"I find your response rather comical..."

"You and your 'peanut gallery'..."

Whatever form of ad-hominem stuff, that never works out that the person is worth talking with. They begin with person attacks early on because their arguments and understanding are so weak, and their determination to 'win' so desperate that they rely on personal attacks to derail any in-depth and serious discussion.

So...

Logically if we want to have a good discussion, we need to ignore those kinds of people that haven't the capacity to provide any insight, and instead create a discussion among people that do have the capacity to provide insight.

Yes?

You're probably right, brother Halbhh. I suppose I should reconsider having extended dialogue with interlocutors who have a scratch on their vinyl track ...

 

[cvanwey]

Hey 2PhiloVoid, when we see stuff like these --

"I find your response rather comical..."

"You and your 'peanut gallery'..."

Whatever form of ad-hominem stuff, that never works out that the person is worth talking with. They begin with person attacks early on because their arguments and understanding are so weak, and their determination to 'win' so desperate that they rely on personal attacks to derail any in-depth and serious discussion.

Um...

An ad hom. attacks the person, and not the argument. Stating your 'response' is comical, immediately followed up by why I feel it's comical, is not fallacious. You may not agree, but I'm NOT attacking YOU personally.

Secondly, 'peanut gallery' was @2PhiloVoid 's response. I merely played off of it. So go complain to him Oh wait a minute, you already did.

Over years of discussion in all sorts of topics, like economics, physics, etc., it's been everytime I tried to discuss with a person that uses personal put downs, that once you explore all their ideas and information and sources, it's all weak, badly thought out stuff.

Useless stuff, and a waste of time.

So...

Logically if we want to have a good discussion about such an interesting topic, we need to ignore those kinds of people that haven't the capacity to provide any insight, and instead create a discussion among people that do have the capacity to provide insight.

Yes?

Maybe start by actually addressing my points, brought up in both post #428, and the last response you completely avoided

Hey, there's a start

 

[cvanwey]

Why shy away from a comparison with the U.S. Antebellum form of slavery which everyone is so presently concerned with and by which many folks make their present evaluations regarding this sad institution? Do you feel you have something to lose in doing so? I'm mean, as far as I know the only forms of slavery anyone is really hacked about these days are either the Antebellum slavery of the pre-Civil War days, OR the ungodly sex trafficking type run by various crime lords and/or other organized criminals. If biblical slavery never was exactly either of these kinds of ungodly institutions, however many misgivings we may still have about it, then simply popping up on a Christian Forum and repeatedly saying, "Look here everyone at the Exodus 21:20-21 and Leviticus 25:44-46 combo I found ........" just isn't going to cut the mustard once folks find out the fuller contexts of what we actually find on the whole in the Bible.

Moreover, you keep skipping over anything anyone else says here, but no more. NO, we're going to address each other's points, and if that doesn't seem to fly with you, then you get to reveal your little secret to everyone here or you can leave CF. It's your choice.

Great, start with post #428

I would list more verses. But you two have yet to justify these two. So why even bother?

Furthermore, I've stated, ad nauseam, that slavery is not well defined. Practically any form of slavery practiced in the past, present, or future, is deemed warranted by God. And though I conquer trans Alt and sex trafficking may be 'hot bottom' topics in this category, MY POINT is that whether one wanted to justify these two, or any others, you'd be hard pressed to state God finds sin in such actions.

Hence, God deems slavery, undefined, acceptable.

This old hypothetical canard that you keep bringing up is just a wild boogey-man; it holds no relevance if it's not a possibility in the overall scheme of politics in the real world, and it ain't! So, DROP IT! [Or, just repeat yourself for all to see and claim that it is relevant and that it actually means something, something that it won't become, especially not by way of political references to the Bible by any U.S. politicians or substantive lobbying groups. It's time to get real, cvanwey!]

Nope, it's a 'fact', stated from your believed Bible. God does not think slavery is a sin. Not gonna 'drop it', 'cuz it's a 'fact'. 'IF' the Bible is commanded by God, He condones slavery. It's there in black and white.

Your rantings ain't gonna change that.

The same ol' stuff, I see. Is this all you have---5 verses from the O.T. that feed your little argument here about how O.T. slavery must have been so very, very bad, and all the while you go on with this, ignoring the many verses I haven't even gotten into yet, nor the various scholars we could bring to the for in the midst of our discussion to help clarfy what's what?

Nope, there's others.

But God makes it crystal clear in such passages. No need to elaborate. And heck, you have yet to explain away the ones mentioned. So why bother?

So are you actually going to 'explain away' the vast similarities between the classical definition of a chattle slave, to that of the cited Bible verses. Or, are you again going to just 'hand waive' it away?

Not really. Only an ignoramous who doesn't want to appropriate fuller, contextualized reading and understanding of the many biblical texts would even attempt to assert that it seems to "fall quickly in line," especially when all you have are ...................................two small passages to work with. Would you care to dredge out more specific laws in the O.T. that seem to support your position?

You see @Halbhh , that's another partial ad hominem, using your loose definition

But as for us, on the other end of the spectrum eluded to, all verses, in regards to slavery, appear to fall well in line with someone whom is a slave master, or someone whom was told to write as such, from the 'wantings' of a slave owner.

Care to test this by reading such verses, written about slavery, and test this theory. I 'triple dog dare' ya Find a verse which you would not appear to agree with on the surface, without rationalization. Then place yourself in the setting of a pro-slaver. You might see how the verse instantly makes sense. I'll start:

'Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.'

My take...

Such verses might have been written to read to their illiterate slaves. This verse, and many other verses, were intended to remind them that God is perfectly fine with slavery. Reading such verses, over and over again, while also preaching the Gospel, gives the slave master extra control. Furthermore, there would be less likelihood for the slave to attempt escape. Repetitive brainwashing, I'm sure was a common tactic to keep such slaves in line. Get them where they may be able to get them the most, within their beliefs in a higher power. If they are doing 'God's will', (or) what 'God condones', they might feel God is actually on their side, and consume the rest of their natural lives with such belief. A great way to control a populous....

Okay, your turn..

Define the prefix 'pro' in this instance rather than just tagging in into the general flow of your chutzpah, please.

In regards to slavery, God does not deem it a sin.

If you don't want to believe that the Bible is God inspired, them maybe realize that no one here is forcing you to believe that it is, and if that is your only 'real' concern, then we don't really need to discuss this further, do we?

I'm asking you a simple question. Can you see your opponent's view, at least? That whether or not the God you believe in exists, it appears unlikely that such a claimed God had any hand in such verses. When you read such passages, it more-so aligns with human needs and wants, not of any claimed God. But the fact you cannot at least see my point of view, is curious indeed.

As stated prior, I'm not asking to admit anything other than, there's a great case to be made, that the Bible verses, in relation to 'slavery', appear man invented. That's it! If you read the OP, that is the intent

Oh don't worry. It's not like I'd let you do all of that again anyway.

You mean, you want to address and explain how Leviticus 25:35, along with Leviticus 24:17-23, a very nearby text, both play into the overall context of our considerations here?

First begin to explain why the basic definition of a chattle slave does not appear to be the mirror image of verse Leviticus 25:44-46, and I will be happy to address your later concerns. But until then, please first fulfill your repeated unanswered request. Or, instead concede that you really have no viable response.

But here's a precursor... 'Slaves' have their own rules, dictated by God, as they are property, and not free men....

I'll give you another off topic example, to demonstrate how it might work...

Say a woman read's Matthew 7:12. Okay, she is equal. Except, there's verses which state the man is ahead of the woman. So again, If God did not chime in on it, and simply belted out the golden rule, tada, you are correct. However, once God starts making special concessions, you must then reconcile accordingly.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Great, start with post #428

I would list more verses. But you two have yet to justify these two. So why even bother?

Furthermore, I've stated, ad nauseam, that slavery is not well defined. Practically any form of slavery practiced in the past, present, or future, is deemed warranted by God. And though I conquer trans Alt and sex trafficking may be 'hot bottom' topics in this category, MY POINT is that whether one wanted to justify these two, or any others, you'd be hard pressed to state God finds sin in such actions.

Hence, God deems slavery, undefined, acceptable.



Nope, it's a 'fact', stated from your believed Bible. God does not think slavery is a sin. Not gonna 'drop it', 'cuz it's a 'fact'. 'IF' the Bible is commanded by God, He condones slavery. It's there in black and white.

Your rantings ain't gonna change that.



Nope, there's others.

But God makes it crystal clear in such passages. No need to elaborate. And heck, you have yet to explain away the ones mentioned. So why bother?

So are you actually going to 'explain away' the vast similarities between the classical definition of a chattle slave, to that of the cited Bible verses. Or, are you again going to just 'hand waive' it away?



You see @Halbhh , that's another partial ad hominem, using your loose definition

But as for us, on the other end of the spectrum eluded to, all verses, in regards to slavery, appear to fall well in line with someone whom is a slave master, or someone whom was told to write as such, from the 'wantings' of a slave owner.

Care to test this by reading such verses, written about slavery, and test this theory. I 'triple dog dare' ya Find a verse which you would not appear to agree with on the surface, without rationalization. Then place yourself in the setting of a pro-slaver. You might see how the verse instantly makes sense. I'll start:

'Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.'

My take...

Such verses might have been written to read to their illiterate slaves. This verse, and many other verses, were intended to remind them that God is perfectly fine with slavery. Reading such verses, over and over again, while also preaching the Gospel, gives the slave master extra control. Furthermore, there would be less likelihood for the slave to attempt escape. Repetitive brainwashing, I'm sure was a common tactic to keep such slaves in line. Get them where they may be able to get them the most, within their beliefs in a higher power. If they are doing 'God's will', (or) what 'God condones', they might feel God is actually on their side, and consume the rest of their natural lives with such belief. A great way to control a populous....

Okay, your turn..



In regards to slavery, God does not deem it a sin.



I'm asking you a simple question. Can you see your opponent's view, at least? That whether or not the God you believe in exists, it appears unlikely that such a claimed God had any hand in such verses. When you read such passages, it more-so aligns with human needs and wants, not of any claimed God. But the fact you cannot at least see my point of view, is curious indeed.

As stated prior, I'm not asking to admit anything other than, there's a great case to be made, that the Bible verses, in relation to 'slavery', appear man invented. That's it! If you read the OP, that is the intent



First begin to explain why the basic definition of a chattle slave does not appear to be the mirror image of verse Leviticus 25:44-46, and I will be happy to address your later concerns. But until then, please first fulfill your repeated unanswered request. Or, instead concede that you really have no viable response.

But here's a precursor... 'Slaves' have their own rules, dictated by God, as they are property, and not free men....

I'll give you another off topic example, to demonstrate how it might work...

Say a woman read's Matthew 7:12. Okay, she is equal. Except, there's verses which state the man is ahead of the woman. So again, If God did not chime in on it, and simply belted out the golden rule, tada, you are correct. However, once God starts making special concessions, you must then reconcile accordingly.

You do realize that the identification and application of supposed Ad Homs, such as what you think I've identified and applied to you, are subject to various social factors present in the interlocution?

Sometimes, personal criticism of another person is relevant, applicable and appropriate.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Example... 'Slavery is again legalized in the U.S'.. Sure, God does not command that the U.S. 'make slavery legal.' But, God also does not think it's a sin. Thus, if such authority decided on their own behalf, to again legalize slavery, you could not turn to your God to claim it was 'wrong'.

This same argument can be made for polygamy. Same reasons for it being prohibited.

'God does not define what a slave is and is not. All forms of slavery appear acceptable. And again, God never places a ban on slavery, even in the NT.'

The ban wasn't on slavery true that. The ban was a command to slaughter the enemy women and children included.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Poor God. He really is incredibly limited. In the good old days, he would flood worlds, burn cities, kill every first born son whenever peoples did things that offended Him. Now, he's just incapable.
I think this article makes the point quite well:

We aren't discussing the same concept of God. That makes a sincere exchange of ideas difficult or impossible. A good starting point is the concept of God as creator of all that is.

 

[cvanwey]

This same argument can be made for polygamy. Same reasons for it being prohibited.

You have completely hand waived away my point. If you care to speak about this other topic, please post a new topic.

Getting back on track...

If slavery was again legalized, would God think it was a sin? This may almost be a rhetorical question at this point, but I would at least like to receive your acknowledgement, that God does not deem slavery a sin. Also, if it's not a sin, then God does not think it's 'bad'. Which begs the question, if God does not think slavery is 'bad', then why do you 'presumably'?

The ban wasn't on slavery true that.

Correct, because God only puts His foot down, when He does not like something. Because I hope you realize, at least around these waters, that Christians consider 'sin' to be whatever does not agree with God's moral nature. If God does not like something, He will express it. Or, not mention it at all, as it may be an implied rule of knowledge of good/bad. But He mentioned slavery plenty, and does not express the abolition of it.

The ban was a command to slaughter the enemy women and children included.

This does not align with my last response. I stated slavery is not well defined. Jesus never distinguishes what forms of slavery are acceptable, and what forms are not. We are instead left to only go by God's Word. And in the case for slavery, it would appear slavery is acceptable, in virtually all forms.

 

[Eloy Craft]

This does not align with my last response. I stated slavery is not well defined. Jesus never distinguishes what forms of slavery are acceptable, and what forms are not. We are instead left to only go by God's Word. And in the case for slavery, it would appear slavery is acceptable, in virtually all forms.

Jesus tends to let His disciples figure a few things out for themselves.Like the Incarnation and the Trinity for example.They weren't defined by Jesus either yet they are necessary beliefs now. Not defined doesn't carry the weight you give to it. So, it
addresses the only kind of slavery that didn't resolve a matter of economics or justice. Until society developed better solutions concerning labor and debt there is no culpable sin.

Would you address the ban (slaughter of the enemy) as a preventative measure against chattel slavery?

 

[cvanwey]

You have completely skipped over one of my main points.

'If slavery was again legalized, would God think it was a sin? This may almost be a rhetorical question at this point, but I would at least like to receive your acknowledgement, that God does not deem slavery a sin. Also, if it's not a sin, then God does not think it's 'bad'. Which begs the question, if God does not think slavery is 'bad', then why do you 'presumably'?'

Jesus tends to let His disciples figure a few things out for themselves.Like the Incarnation and the Trinity for example.They weren't defined by Jesus either yet they are necessary beliefs now.

Even if everything you just stated were true, Jesus revealed it later. Meaning, at some point, Jesus revealed His intent and full message regarding revelation and resurrection. However, He left 'slavery' how it was, with no clear guidelines to come... As far as we know, 'slavery', in basically any forms, is not considered wrong by God. Hence, it would seem God is a-okay with chattle slavery, as defined by the basic definition given a multitude of times now.

Would you address the ban (slaughter of the enemy) as a preventative measure against chattel slavery?

I feel this was already addressed in post #494:

'Slaves are considered property. Hence, Jesus tells folks what special rules they can be allotted, as they are not free humans. Otherwise, they are just property alone. So thank you Jesus for at least telling masters they can't kill them. But again, as I've also stated, a dead slave, or a blind slave, is no good for their master.'

 

[InterestedAtheist]

We aren't discussing the same concept of God. That makes a sincere exchange of ideas difficult or impossible. A good starting point is the concept of God as creator of all that is.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a generally-agreed-upon idea of what "the Christian God" is, and that definition includes "being all-powerful and working miracles".

I understand, of course, that there is a wide variation within that, with some Christians believing that God created the universe in six days some six thousand years ago, and some that He created the universe over billions of years, beginning with the Big Bang.

Still, all Christians agree that God is all-powerful, don't they? And that He can and does perform miracles? And if we agree on that, then that's all we need to know to say that if God had thought slavery to be wrong, He would, and could, have told people so.

 

[Eloy Craft]

If slavery was again legalized, would God think it was a sin? This may almost be a rhetorical question at this point, but I would at least like to receive your acknowledgement, that God does not deem slavery a sin. Also, if it's not a sin, then God does not think it's 'bad'. Which begs the question, if God does not think slavery is 'bad', then why do you 'presumably'?'

Since we have better solutions to the problem of labor and debt, yes it would be a sin. If your family is starving and you have nothing to offer but yourself, is it a sin to submit to being the property of your creditor so that your family won't starve?

Even if everything you just stated were true, Jesus revealed it later. Meaning, at some point, Jesus revealed His intent and full message regarding revelation and resurrection. However, He left 'slavery' how it was, with no clear guidelines to come... As far as we know, 'slavery', in basically any forms, is not considered wrong by God. Hence, it would seem God is a-okay with chattle slavery, as defined by the basic definition given a multitude of times now.

I asked: Would you address the ban (slaughter of the enemy) as a preventative measure against chattel slavery?

You responded:

I feel this was already addressed in post #494:

'Slaves are considered property. Hence, Jesus tells folks what special rules they can be allotted, as they are not free humans. Otherwise, they are just property alone. So thank you Jesus for at least telling masters they can't kill them. But again, as I've also stated, a dead slave, or a blind slave, is no good for their master.'

This doesn't address my point in the slightest. God commanded the Hebrews to slaughter every man woman and child of the cities and towns they attacked.

The command of the Lord is executed by Joshua.

Joshua 10

40 So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left no one remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded.

The following passages describes a part of what God wanted to avoid by imposing the ban. God didn't want the conquered peoples to become slaves.


Judges 1

27 Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shean and its villages, or Taanach and its villages, or the inhabitants of Dor and its villages, or the inhabitants of Ibleam and its villages, or the inhabitants of Megiddo and its villages; but the Canaanites continued to live in that land. 28 When Israel grew strong, they put the Canaanites to forced labor, but did not in fact drive them out.


30 Zebulun did not drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, or the inhabitants of Nahalol; but the Canaanites lived among them, and became subject to forced labor.



33 Naphtali did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh, or the inhabitants of Beth-anath, but lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land; nevertheless the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath became subject to forced labor for them.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a generally-agreed-upon idea of what "the Christian God" is, and that definition includes "being all-powerful and working miracles".

well, it follows that omnipotence, and all the omni's are attributes of the creator of all that is. Aristotle with natural reason was able to understand monotheism deeply. I think it was because God had revealed it to Moses long before. He understood the attributes of the one God from studying what a being who created all that is would be like..

Still, all Christians agree that God is all-powerful, don't they? And that He can and does perform miracles? And if we agree on that, then that's all we need to know to say that if God had thought slavery to be wrong, He would, and could, have told people so.

Another thing about a creator of all that is, He has info we aren't privy to. Paradox surrounds the works of God because they are something completely new. Like the Prophet Simeon said to Jesus' mother, He will be a sign of contradiction. Christian teaching has been developing and raising the dignity of man for a long time. To think God is not against lowering human life to a state of property is to not know Christ's teaching.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

well, it follows that omnipotence, and all the omni's are attributes of the creator of all that is. Aristotle with natural reason was able to understand monotheism deeply. I think it was because God had revealed it to Moses long before. He understood the attributes of the one God from studying what a being who created all that is would be like..

Another thing about a creator of all that is, He has info we aren't privy to. Paradox surrounds the works of God because they are something completely new. Like the Prophet Simeon said to Jesus' mother, He will be a sign of contradiction. Christian teaching has been developing and raising the dignity of man for a long time. To think God is not against lowering human life to a state of property is to not know Christ's teaching.

Just because you think that slavery is a bad thing, it doesn't mean that God, Jesus or Paul did. And if you read the Bible, it's clear that they didn't. Please don't project your own morality on to the Bible. Let it speak for itself.

It's not a paradox. It's simply that the Bible is pro-slavery. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but there it is.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Another thing about a creator of all that is, He has info we aren't privy to. Paradox surrounds the works of God because they are something completely new. Like the Prophet Simeon said to Jesus' mother, He will be a sign of contradiction. Christian teaching has been developing and raising the dignity of man for a long time. To think God is not against lowering human life to a state of property is to not know Christ's teaching.

If someone says they want you to do something, then how can you say they are against it? Quite simply, it’s not reasonable. Just look at what the Bible says about slavery. Take this, for example:

“Thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you: of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land. And they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bond-man forever.”

—Leviticus 25:44-46

Read that closely. What does its attitude seem to be towards slavery? IS there any way to spin this as being against slavery? And why should you try to spin it, anyway? Just take it for what it says: God approves of slavery. As you can see above, He is completely comfortable with the topic. And Christians believe that Jesus is the same person as God; therefore, it was Jesus who was saying these words to Moses.

Don't pretend that just because you know slavery was bad, God must also know it. Slavery, as presented in the Bible, is not just okay, it’s good, and completely normal.

If God did think that slavery was bad, He wouldn’t have been shy about saying so. He would have condemned it. God, Jesus and Paul had many opportunities to speak out against slavery; they mentioned it quite a number of times in the Old and New Testaments. Their message is clear: slavery is okay.

 

[Eloy Craft]

If someone says they want you to do something, then how can you say they are against it? Quite simply, it’s not reasonable. Just look at what the Bible says about slavery. Take this, for example:

“Thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you: of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land. And they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bond-man forever.”

—Leviticus 25:44-46

Read that closely. What does its attitude seem to be towards slavery? IS there any way to spin this as being against slavery? And why should you try to spin it, anyway? Just take it for what it says: God approves of slavery. As you can see above, He is completely comfortable with the topic. And Christians believe that Jesus is the same person as God; therefore, it was Jesus who was saying these words to Moses.

Don't pretend that just because you know slavery was bad, God must also know it. Slavery, as presented in the Bible, is not just okay, it’s good, and completely normal.

If God did think that slavery was bad, He wouldn’t have been shy about saying so. He would have condemned it. God, Jesus and Paul had many opportunities to speak out against slavery; they mentioned it quite a number of times in the Old and New Testaments. Their message is clear: slavery is okay.

if they had obeyed God's command there would be no need to regulate slaves.
The command of the Lord is executed by Joshua.

Joshua 10

40 So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left no one remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded.

The following passages describes a part of what God wanted to avoid by imposing the ban. God didn't want the conquered peoples to become slaves.


Judges 1

27 Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shean and its villages, or Taanach and its villages, or the inhabitants of Dor and its villages, or the inhabitants of Ibleam and its villages, or the inhabitants of Megiddo and its villages; but the Canaanites continued to live in that land. 28 When Israel grew strong, they put the Canaanites to forced labor, but did not in fact drive them out.


30 Zebulun did not drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, or the inhabitants of Nahalol; but the Canaanites lived among them, and became subject to forced labor.



33 Naphtali did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh, or the inhabitants of Beth-anath, but lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land; nevertheless the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath became subject to forced labor for them.

 

[cvanwey]

Since we have better solutions to the problem of labor and debt, yes it would be a sin. If your family is starving and you have nothing to offer but yourself, is it a sin to submit to being the property of your creditor so that your family won't starve?

It sounds to me like you are rationalizing 'justified' uses for slavery. However, there exists no list, in the Bible, as to what uses are acceptable, verses what are not acceptable. Because, as I've stated many many many times now, 'slavery' is not well defined in the Bible.

I'm afraid I can very well go back to one of my questions, where I have yet to see much of an answer to... (i.e.)

If chattle slavery was again legalized, would God consider it sin?

It would appear you might answer that God would not consider it sin, only if chattle slavery was required for survival, i.e. in an economic down turn, collapse, or other...? Yet, no such conditions or rules are specified/clarified within the Bible. Thus, if a theocracy was to again rule a nation, and wished to discard prior established rules, and to re-institute chattle slavery, it would not appear that God considers such acts a sin.

Do you simply agree or disagree? If you agree, then we have established that God does not consider slavery wrong. If you disagree, you are going to have to point me to such verses which negate my prior observations, also laid out in response #494 - (to another poster) (i.e.):

'1. God allows slavery then, now, and always. Your only response is Matthew 7:12. But as I've pointed out repeatedly, this fails for (2) reasons:

a. You have a direct contradiction with the many explicit verses which deliberately dictate the rules of engagement for undefined slavery.

b. Slaves are considered property. Hence, Jesus tells folks what special rules they can be allotted, as they are not free humans. Otherwise, they are just property alone. So thank you Jesus for at least telling masters they can't kill them. But again, as I've also stated, a dead slave, or a blind slave, is no good for their master. And if you read at 'the bottom', the reasons will be demonstrated as to why...'

I asked: Would you address the ban (slaughter of the enemy) as a preventative measure against chattel slavery?

You responded:

This doesn't address my point in the slightest. God commanded the Hebrews to slaughter every man woman and child of the cities and towns they attacked.

The command of the Lord is executed by Joshua.

Joshua 10

40 So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left no one remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded.

The following passages describes a part of what God wanted to avoid by imposing the ban. God didn't want the conquered peoples to become slaves.


Judges 1

27 Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shean and its villages, or Taanach and its villages, or the inhabitants of Dor and its villages, or the inhabitants of Ibleam and its villages, or the inhabitants of Megiddo and its villages; but the Canaanites continued to live in that land. 28 When Israel grew strong, they put the Canaanites to forced labor, but did not in fact drive them out.


30 Zebulun did not drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, or the inhabitants of Nahalol; but the Canaanites lived among them, and became subject to forced labor.



33 Naphtali did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh, or the inhabitants of Beth-anath, but lived among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land; nevertheless the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and of Beth-anath became subject to forced labor for them.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to prove here? God sometimes instead orders genocite to avoid enslavement? Can you please clarify, so I know we are on the same page?

 

[Eloy Craft]

If chattle slavery was again legalized, would God consider it sin?

If you can accept that God teaches by means of the community that surrounds His Son then the answer is yes.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to prove here? God sometimes instead orders genocite to avoid enslavement? Can you please clarify, so I know we are on the same page?

When God freed the Hebrews from slavery He was initiating a culture that was intended to lead the nations of the world. It is doing that since the accomplishments of the west rest for the most part on gifts of the Judeo/Christian nations. Slaughtering the enemy was mainly to wipe out idolatry and prevent the possibility of being led back into it. As any war historian knows the conquering army either wipes out the enemy to the last man or makes them slaves. God ordered Moses to wipe them out to the last man and he passed that down to Joshua. Joshua did just that but not so after him. They disobeyed the divine command and took slaves instead. The word slave is a modern term that has modern meaning that can't be attached to all forms of servitude in the past. War slaves were actually considered just servitude as were indentured servants. Unjust servitude is taking hostage free people and making them slaves for no other reason that it can be done. Might over right. The slave trade of black people from Africa was unjust servitude. There are many instances in various historical situations where the Church prevented such unjust servitude with imposing excommunication on those who did it. They had fifteen days to free their hostages. There was a Bull to that effect written by a Pope, I can't remember the name, he wasn't even considered a good pope but it was during the age of discovery and it concerned the Canary islands. Also, another Pope lamented the brutish treatment of the native Americans and condemned subjecting them to unjust servitude. Doesn't it make sense that all this would have been prevented if the seed of the west had not subjected the Canaanites to forced Labor and made that normal? If they had done what God commanded to Moses?