Slavery IS Regulated in the Bible!

[cvanwey]

The bible isn't a text book for a high school class.

When did I say it was? The Bible is considered a 'big book of truth', with a sprinkling of verses on slavery with no rhyme or reason. None of which clearly define it's limitations. As stated prior, it's not like there exists large sections or chapters devoted directly to slavery practices, and how to 'handle' them. What the Bible does speak about slavery, demonstrates that if God has a hand in such, does not consider such undefined practices sin. Stay tuned...

Lucky.

I asked 'what you consider virgins in the cited case? What could possibly be the motive for sparing only virgins? Again, as the virgins watched the rest of their families get slaughtered, I'm sure it was not 'forced labor' to have sex with their captors. Sure, that's it. Maybe it was God's will for all such 'slaves', I mean spared individuals, to all develop Stockholm's Syndrome

Just taken? No, forced labor is a necessary component. Having Hebrew babies counts.

You and @2PhiloVoid , being you both claim to have such a wealth of Biblical knowledge, especially compared to us 'knuckleheads', I have one simple question to ask, because I am such a 'simpleton.'

You don't think such acts, in which only the virgins were taken, were not subjected to 'forced labor' (i.e.) rape, and/or unwanted sexual advances, and/or sex for pleasure as the spoils of war?

Because quite frankly, I really doubt such captor's primary concern was whether or not such women were even able to bare children? Furthermore, how would such captor's 'know' which ones were virgins, fertile, or even had the right equipment? If they did not ask them and awaited some of their possible lies, to be spared of slaughter, the first logical conclusion would be to assume only the very young women were kept; because their captors would highly doubt prepubescent girls were sexually active Which stirs up more questions than answers really. But hey, I'm just a 'podunk' with no 'edumacation' and all.... Again, please also see above.

Nah, I think God wanted them to do that too. Building up the faith founded on Divine Revelation. Taking those virgins at that time....it was worth it.

Yea, I guess God only wanted the virgins to learn about the 'true God', in more ways than one

Our faith is developmental, for example; eye for an eye developed into do unto others and Jesus capped it off with love your enemies.
I belong to a community that has surrounded Jesus since He was here. That's the Church and the bible isn't it's source. The bible comes from that community not visa versa. So, when you speak about what God calls a sin you can't decide for yourself you have to get with them to know. What do you think? God shouts down to earth with a megaphone?

Humans later deciding?? You sound like you believe in Divine Revelation telling people what God considers sin and all.

No, just...., no...

Your 'developmental faith' strays away from Biblical conclusions, when speaking about slavery. As stated prior, if Christians boast of being on the forefront of eradicating some form of slavery, God appears indifferent. And again, if the eradication was later overturned, and again legalized; God is still indifferent. Which begs the question... If God is indifferent to slavery, as defined in Leviticus 25:44-46 - (also almost verbatim to the definition of chattle slavery); as there exists little else mentioned about what is and is not slavery when compared to the rest of the Bible, why would you oppose it now? God sure doesn't oppose it....

 

[cvanwey]

Oh, you won? Really? Ok. Since you think that this is the case, then I guess we're done! Hooray! (...and I'll just save all of my additional sources, resources, and other pearls of wisdom, for discussion with those who, unlike both you and @cvanwey, want to take this whole subject seriously and academically.)

Does this ring a bell, from post #552? Accept, in this case, replace #546 with #548:
'In post #548, was there supposed to be a response from you there? I'm not seeing one.

Since there isn't, I'm guessing I must have hit pretty close to home, ay?'

For as long as CF is alive, and I hope it's a long while, many folks will be able to enjoy your 'contributions' to this thread; Many pages of you actually agreeing the Bible condones slavery. But wait, we are only speaking about a 'special kind of slavery.' @InterestedAtheist and myself are just too ignorant to know the truth 'God sure does/did NOT approve of the slavery practices of the American South.' And yet, provide nothing forthcoming to substantiate such a claim....?

All we can do, is use the vastly limited and scattered Bible verses, pertaining to slavery itself. Since then, we've watched/read, as you 'huff and puff', and provide empty/baseless responses. Nothing of which, has refuted the certainty, based upon the limited verses in the Bible, that if chattle slavery was again legalized, God would not find sin in such practices. Why can I say this with extreme confidence, because I have now awaited many of your responses, and counting, without you even beginning to attempt to clarify/justify/rectify my seemingly axiomatic observation, between Leviticus 25:44-46 and the basic definition of a 'chattle slave'.

And now, in post #548, I have further demonstrated that 'I am not just plucking a couple of verses out of the Bible willy nilly.' The truth being, that really this is all there is, on the direct subject of undefined slavery. We then watch, as you interject your own 'rationalization'. Hence, the reason there exists no substance behind your many baseless rebuttal/assertions. Why? Because you know there really is none. Otherwise, you would have provided as such by now.

Thus, I now place you in the very same camp as previous participants... Which is, until you acknowledge post #548, tailored specifically for (you), based upon your 'contributions' thus far, I will use such a post as the benchmark to address, as to engage in a useful discussion. Otherwise, we will all read, as you issue fallacious banter and state you are 'done.'

So if you are truly 'done', okay... But remember, your responses are already there for many future onlookers to read As they say... 'The damage is done.'

 

[cvanwey]

Don't waste any more time with these punks, Eloy. Seriously! They're not actually here as 'studied' individuals on the subject. If you want to continue with them, be my guest, bro! But I no longer take them seriously; they're immovable in their positions and show no clear signs of having studied that over which they're attempting to speak.

As they say, you can lead a horse to water, but sometimes the horse isn't a horse, it's a mule ...

Please see the post directly above.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Does this ring a bell, from post #552? Accept, in this case, replace #546 with #548:
'In post #548, was there supposed to be a response from you there? I'm not seeing one.

Since there isn't, I'm guessing I must have hit pretty close to home, ay?'

For as long as CF is alive, and I hope it's a long while, many folks will be able to enjoy your 'contributions' to this thread; Many pages of you actually agreeing the Bible condones slavery. But wait, we are only speaking about a 'special kind of slavery.' @InterestedAtheist and myself are just too ignorant to know the truth 'God sure does/did NOT approve of the slavery practices of the American South.' And yet, provide nothing forthcoming to substantiate such a claim....?

All we can do, is use the vastly limited and scattered Bible verses, pertaining to slavery itself. Since then, we've watched/read, as you 'huff and puff', and provide empty/baseless responses. Nothing of which, has refuted the certainty, based upon the limited verses in the Bible, that if chattle slavery was again legalized, God would not find sin in such practices. Why can I say this with extreme confidence, because I have now awaited many of your responses, and counting, without you even beginning to attempt to clarify/justify/rectify my seemingly axiomatic observation, between Leviticus 25:44-46 and the basic definition of a 'chattle slave'.

And now, in post #548, I have further demonstrated that 'I am not just plucking a couple of verses out of the Bible willy nilly.' The truth being, that really this is all there is, on the direct subject of undefined slavery. We then watch, as you interject your own 'rationalization'. Hence, the reason there exists no substance behind your many baseless rebuttal/assertions. Why? Because you know there really is none. Otherwise, you would have provided as such by now.

Thus, I now place you in the very same camp as previous participants... Which is, until you acknowledge post #548, tailored specifically for (you), based upon your 'contributions' thus far, I will use such a post as the benchmark to address, as to engage in a useful discussion. Otherwise, we will all read, as you issue fallacious banter and state you are 'done.'

So if you are truly 'done', okay... But remember, your responses are already there for many future onlookers to read As they say... 'The damage is done.'

IN FINE... I certainly hope the damage is done, especially when future passersby ask me personally for a follow up to the readings and sources I've linked for you over the past.....what is it now....nearly year that you've been here? And if they haven't read that classic Frederick Douglass piece I linked a few posts prior, I'm sure they'll find that they're in for a treat ...

 

[cvanwey]

IN FINE... I certainly hope the damage is done, especially when future passersby ask me personally for a follow up to the readings and sources I've linked for you over the past.....what is it now....nearly year that you've been here? And if they haven't read that classic Frederick Douglass piece I linked a few posts prior, I'm sure they'll find that they're in for a treat ...

Mmm, I doubt it. It's more likely, when people first learn or are made aware that the Bible indeed supports slavery, they may 'google' it, or, 'verify' this conclusion upon their favorite Christian based forum groups. In which case, maybe stumble across this thread. And then.... Read it, and find that, 'hey, it seems that 'apologists' really cannot refute the axiomatic conclusion, that the Bible condones practically all forms of undefined slavery.'

Peace

 

[Eloy Craft]

Don't waste any more time with these punks, Eloy. Seriously! They're not actually here as 'studied' individuals on the subject. If you want to continue with them, be my guest, bro! But I no longer take them seriously; they're immovable in their positions and show no clear signs of having studied that over which they're attempting to speak.

As they say, you can lead a horse to water, but sometimes the horse isn't a horse, it's a mule ...

It's obvious there is a sacred cow you stepped on.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Well, this has been fun.

If you're a Christian, you can't say God is pro-slavery, because today, that is tantamount to saying that God is evil. The problem is, of course, that the character, the God of the Bible - which Christians believe to be God - is in fact pro-slavery. This is patently obvious, by all the things the Bible says about slavery.

This, of course, puts you in a dilemma if you are a Christian. There are a number of ways that Christians try to resolve it, and we've seen many of them in this thread, none of them particularly effective.

You can try to claim that Biblical slavery was not as evil as other forms - for example, the antebellum USA slavery, which is the form that most of us are most familiar with. This, however, puts you in the uncomfortable position of being an apologist for slavery, not too dissimilar to some of those Christian preachers in the nineteenth century who also believed that slavery was God's will, and that it was really not so bad, if practised properly.

Or, you can try to say that God was against slavery, and is, but that he had a long-term plan to do away with it. This, of course, runs into the problem that the things God and His representatives said do not in the slightest support this scenario. You must therefore assume that God is both weak and stupid.

In a nutshell, the people who wrote the Bible were pro-slavery, and if you believe that God inspired them, you must either believe that God Himself is pro-slavery, or resort to desperate and untenable rationalisations for what the Bible plainly says and obviously means.

Can I suggest you take the final alternative? Walk away, and try to forget about it. It's less painful than your only other option, which is to admit the truth: that the Bible is pro-slavery.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Can I suggest you take the final alternative? Walk away, and try to forget about it. It's less painful than your only other option, which is to admit the truth: that the Bible is pro-slavery.

Or you could do the gnostic heresy: Declare the God of the OT is evil and not the same as the God of the NT (The NT pro-slavery verses not withstanding.)

 

[Eloy Craft]

When did I say it was? The Bible is considered a 'big book of truth', with a sprinkling of verses on slavery with no rhyme or reason.

I haven't come across anyone who is using the bible like a textbook ever say that was what they were doing. The 'sprinkling' about slavery you see overlooks the deeper message about the human condition that the bible reveals to Christians. Stay tuned.

What could possibly be the motive for sparing only virgins?

Future mothers for the otherwise doomed tribe of Benjamin.

You don't think such acts, in which only the virgins were taken, were not subjected to 'forced labor' (i.e.) rape, and/or unwanted sexual advances, and/or sex for pleasure as the spoils of war?

Labor was indeed the intention. You project a modern mind about sex onto the ancient Hebrews. Today sexual pleasure and reproduction are divided functions as it concerns the sex act. If they had defiled these virgins it would have defeated the purpose of taking them. The men of the tribe of Benjamin would not have been able to accept them as future mothers.

Your 'developmental faith' strays away from Biblical conclusions, when speaking about slavery.

biblical conclusions? That's an example of using the bible as a textbook. The conclusions you attribute to the bible are your conclusions.

Jesus teaches that our relationship with sin is slavery. As slaves we have lost our freedom. God created us as self determined creatures. We have the freedom to not be what God created us to be. And so we chose not to be as God created us, that being free. Jesus speaks of Truth as a means of freedom. Jesus is Truth and free's us from slavery. The Salvation Christ offers is freedom from slavery. That is an authentic biblical conclusion since it was taught by the Word of God Himself.

It seems to me your unwillingness to accept the various forms of slavery is just a tactic to prevent your wrong conclusions about the bible from being obvious to the casual reader.

 

[cvanwey]

In addition to post #567, I would also like to sum up this entire thread...

My objective was to demonstrate that it appears axiomatic that at least some verses, from the Holy Bible, were human inspired alone. Apologists cannot reconcile this conclusion, as this would raise too many questions about all the rest of the Bible.

And now below, some of the entire thread highlights:

post #6 @Phoebe Ann stated 'things were different back then'. Well, if they were, Jesus never said so. Meaning, Jesus also reinforced the concept of slavery in the NT.

Post #9 @Tree of Life stated 'critics here is to make the issues a little more overblown than they really are.' Well, no. We read them the same way as we might read John 3:16. It states what it states. There's no question about what John 3:16 is proposing, anymore or less than the sparse verses mentioned about the condoned practices of slavery.

Post #24 @Apologetic_Warrior stated 'So 'I have to conclude the reason to start this thread is purely for the purpose of promoting your own view.' I then pressed him for Bible verses which demonstrate the Bible does not say what it says; that non-Hebrews are property for life. He never furnished any. Instead went off tangent to distract the basic and simple conclusion, that the Bible condones practically all forms of slavery.

Post #25 @Halbhh stated 'Mathew 7:24' This began a very long string... But in essence, it stopped at post #428 and #494 - (a long summary of points he failed or avoided addressing).

Post #29 @HTacianas stated 'Most slavery in the bible is what we call today indentured servitude. In that regard, I have a number of ancestors who were slaves.' In a nutshell, indentured servitude or bond servants were only one form of condoned practices. He avoided the 'other' clearly condoned kind.

@2PhiloVoid (paraphrased) 'The Bible condones certain types of slavery, but certainly not the antebellum variety.' Post #548

@Eloy Craft Apparently is still in process. He's attempting to justify, what I state, are the human justifications for taking virgins in war. Stay tuned...

 

[Halbhh]

After repeatedly pointing out flaws in cvawey's posts, I saw he simply dismissed the information and points in a variety of superficial ways, then asserted no one had sufficiently answered his points, and repetitively reposted his points as if they were still unanswered.

But anyone can review the thread to see a variety of valid answers that disproved several key assumptions and wrong ideas, for example the endlessly asserted (was it a dozen or more times? who even knows?) falsehood that God endorsed or approved of beating slaves, which was easily disproved.

Repeatedly. As were several other key wrong assumptions and assertions. On the whole, I gained quite a few insights into how God has brought about the end of legal slavery, and even deeper -- the end of inequality among believers.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread is closed for staff review. ​

 

[Bumble Bee]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has been permanently closed due to an excess of flaming and goading remarks.
MOD HAT OFF​