Slavery IS Regulated in the Bible!

[Quid est Veritas?]

The decision to abolish slavery, and the 'command' to allow slavery are NOT one in the same

Well, there is no explicit command to hold slaves as such, as you yourself noted. There is however a command to Love thy neighbour as thyself. Would you like being a slave? So this entire topic is frankly silly, and shows that the Moral Law of the Bible would be opposed to it - as Jesus said the entire Law is encompassed in the two great commandments.

So in like manner that the Bible describes having loyalty to your authorities, or paying fines or punishing wrong doing, such was Slavery. It was an universal human institution - That Christianity is responsible for doing away with, on the strength of the Bible and Church Tradition (in fact, the British effort was often from Non-Conformist and highly Bible-based Churches).

So let us do an experiment: Take a population that engages in Slavery. Add the Bible and Christian preaching. Result? Time and again, from the Late Roman Empire, to Germanic and Slavic peoples in Europe, Slavery was abolished. Slavery then reappears for strong economic interest in the Age of Discovery, in the teeth of eccliastical opposition; but again, dissipates on the strength of opposition by Christian groups, who ultimately held the field.
Now take that same population and subtract the Christianity - Each time we see Slavery suddenly re-emerge, from the Marxist states, to the Nazis, to even the reinstitution of Slavery by the Directorate in the French Revolution (where abolishing slavery actually followed Slave revolts that did so in practice prior to this, with even Corvee being brought back).

So sorry, I see no historic reason to think Christianity amenable to Slavery, nor is the Bible really as its foundational document - as the institution has never been able to survive the deep incongruities that underlie enslaving your neighbour and fellow creature of God. The proof is self-evident when looking at history - though certainly verses can be used to argue for slavery, but that merely amounts to taking out of context of the whole religious belief and how it has historically acted in practice.

Christianity is responsible for ending Slavery, which is in all other cases a universal human institution.

 

[durangodawood]

....to even the reinstitution of Slavery by the Directorate in the French Revolution.....

I was just looking into this and it looks like slavery was abolished under the revolution, and reinstituted by Napoleon after drastic production losses from the colonies.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hmm, maybe. My main issue was that you seemed to be deflecting the question of why Christians abhor slavery when God allows it by asking why atheists abhor slavery, as though pragmatic reasons aren’t enough.

...pragmatic reasons aren't enough, basically because some aspects of pragmatism can become a wax-nose, only relevant to those who are socially sensitive enough or emotionally intelligence enough to see that how we treat one another should matter.

But, what I was referring to earlier is the attempt by some to separate the fact that an institution of slavery (of one form) is apparently (or was) sanctioned by God from the other fact that it can only be a non-neutral social issue, ever and always with inherent ethical issues to contend with.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I would just like a straight answer. What does the verse mean to [you], in context?

I again, state that the term 'slave' is not well defined. However, what seems to be fairly defined is the specific allowances applicable to such said human property. What is your take? (Without providing a round-about novel)?

p.s. ... in the final wash, I think that when we read the Bible in an ongoing manner, in its fullest set of contexts, and if we keep going round and round in the Hermeneutic Circle like we should, then what comes out in the final analysis will resemble the Spirit presented in the following song by TobyMac (and if some white people don't like it, well ... haters will hate):

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I was just looking into this and it looks like slavery was abolished under the revolution, and reinstituted by Napoleon after drastic production losses from the colonies.

Exactly. It was too hard to procure labour or season workers in the Caribbean. If Haiti hadn't forced their hand, it is unlikely they would have abolished slavery at all, for this reason. They were reticent to do so anyway. For Napoleon, he had to bring Haiti to heel and Josephine was a sugar planter's daughter to boot.

 

[cvanwey]

In context? What constitutes 'context' in your estimation, because I've got over 20 books on biblical Hermeneutics and Exegesis alone, and as I've said before, I'm concerned that we might not even be able to get to the text in Leviticus itself because we actually disagree about what the meaning and application of 'interpretation' is in this instance; and now I'm concerned about what you think makes for contexts (plural).

It's not like we are trying to unlock the 'inner most secrets' here. Exodus 21:21 is pretty dang clear. You may beat your slaves, just short of death, for life. The Bible states this. Therefore, it is not considered 'sin' in God's eyes. Unless you admit God had no hand in writing/aiding in such a verse? Which would then open up an entirely new 'can of worms'. Meaning, you would then have to distinguish (which) passages were merely 'man made', and which ones were genuinely 'God inspired'.

So which one is it sir? The Bible states it is not sin to beat your slaves at will, as long as they don't die from it? Or, man wrote it to 'justify' their own wanting practices without reprimand?

Quite a little 'pickle' we have here, don't we?

You're usually claiming that you've "studied a whole lot" and have gleaned the best insights from various scholars. Ok. If so, it's time to back that assertion up, cvanwey; free passes aren't available in the Christian Apologetics section, or didn't you know?

I'm not falling for the red herring. Please answer the question above. Which conclusion is it? God allows beatings for life, or, man wrote it to 'justify' their own wanting actions?

Furthermore, I backed up my assertion, by simply providing the verse that 'God' inspired. And now I get to watch, as you 'weave and bob' all around it

... What is my take? My 'take' is that the Leviticus 25 passage refers to people ("STRANGERS" or "SOJOURNERS") who are down on their luck financially and sell themselves to the Israelites in order to 'get by,' the SAME kinds of foreign people who, God says through Moses, should be allowed to the Passover feast if they abide by God's Law (and therefore are to be treated as those who are, by spiritual semblance, as "brethren"). That's generally how I interpret it.

Okay. So apparently, God considers it acceptable to beat such individuals, just short of death, for life. Unless you admit such verses were man inspired alone?

 

[cvanwey]

Forgive my dependency on more capable expositor's, here are a couple of different and short expositions of verse 45:

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
25:39-55 A native Israelite, if sold for debt, or for a crime, was to serve but six years, and to go out the seventh. If he sold himself, through poverty, both his work and his usage must be such as were fitting for a son of Abraham. Masters are required to give to their servants that which is just and equal, Col 4:1. At the year of jubilee the servant should go out free, he and his children, and should return to his own family. This typified redemption from the service of sin and Satan, by the grace of God in Christ, whose truth makes us free, Joh 8:32. We cannot ransom our fellow-sinners, but we may point out Christ to them; while by his grace our lives may adorn his gospel, express our love, show our gratitude, and glorify his holy name.

Um, what about the non-Hebrew? As the beginning of my OP even demonstrates, 'Slavery is 'regulated', as long as you are Hebrew'.

How does the above pertain to anything I wrote in my post, when referring the verses below (i.e.)?:

44 “‘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.

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/leviticus/25.htm

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Property in foreign slaves is here distinctly permitted. It was a patriarchal custom Genesis 17:12. Such slaves might be captives taken in war (Numbers 31:6 following; Deuteronomy 20:14), or those consigned to slavery for their crimes, or those purchased of foreign slave-dealers. The price of a slave is supposed to have varied from thirty to fifty shekels. See Leviticus 27:3-4, note; Exodus 21:32, note; Zechariah 11:12-13, note; Matthew 26:15, note. It was the object of Moses, not at once to do away with slavery, but to discourage and to mitigate it. The Law would not suffer it to be forgotten that the slave was a man, and protected him in every way that was possible at the time against the injustice or cruelty of his master. See the notes at Exodus 21.

Both of these together consider a broader context for v.45 and I think they provide helpful insight. Today we would call some slaves POW's, other slave situations might be comparable to worker arrangements in China.

Um, please try again sir. My point is very simple. God condones the beating of slaves for life. God condones the owning of slaves for life. Meaning, He does not 'require' it be performed. But if one chooses to take a lifetime slave/slaves, it is NOT considered 'against God'. Otherwise, God would never have allowed for it, since God is an all perfect and never changing absolute moral force, right?

So I ask you, in all honesty, is it more likely that God had a hand in contributing in such verses, which appears to directly violate the said ultimate commandments (i.e) 'love your God and love your neighbor as yourself?' Or, God allows contradictory caveats?

I'll pass on commentary here and simply note that that verse 20 is clear about protecting slaves, the threat of punishment to the master/lord of the servant helped serve as deterrent to beating a slave, which indicates to me a difference between slavery in Hebrew society and slavery in other nations/countries. Verse 21 does seem to give allowance for a severe punishment to a disobedient slave, though I do not know what would warrant (in ancient Hebrew society) such a behind the woodshed punishment. Spare the rod spoil the slave? Seems the punishment would have to fit the offense to be just, but the text does not or at least the quoted text does not go into details about offenses.

Lets settle this by raising a simple scenario.

The president decides to abolish the 13th amendment. The president then passes law for legalized slavery. People start to buy slaves, and beat them for life. When the slave owner is questioned, the slave owner merely opens up the Bible, and points to verse Ex. 21:21.

Is this slave owner 'sinning'? I'll take the liberty in answering for you. 'No.' Please tell me how this sets, when comparing to Mark 12:30-31?

I have an issue with that line of thinking though, America was not founded on Judaism, and Christianity recognizes the progressive nature of the covenants and indeed revelation from God. So however one wishes to spin it, equivocating Judaism with Christianity would be a fallacy.

I'm not even really going to go here. As it is not necessary, at least for now...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's not like we are trying to unlock the 'inner most secrets' here.

We're not?

Exodus 21:21 is pretty dang clear. You may beat your slaves, just short of death, for life. The Bible states this.

... I would agree with you if this is ALL that the Torah, or the rest of the Bible, has to say on the matter of how one who lived in ancient Israel could ultimately "treat" a foreigner (i.e. a "stranger" or "sojourner") servant or maidservant. Unfortunately for your singularly, seemingly myopic reading of Exodus 21:21, this isn't how it would have been read and applied back then. As to why white-American slavers did, we can know why? It's because they chose to read the Bible in arbitrarily chosen bits and pieces as they saw fit; to bad for them that this kind of reading is precluded by the overall legal nature of the Torah.

Therefore, it is not considered 'sin' in God's eyes.

On the contrary, those Israelite slave-holders who were thought they could just 'beat' a servant to death on a whim were subject to the full extent of the Law of God; or can't you take verses 26 and 27 just as literally as you do verse 21, along with all of the other verses in the Torah that prescribe protocols for the treatment of "strangers" or "sojourner"?

Unless you admit God had no hand in writing/aiding in such a verse?

I don't have to admit anything. All I'd have to admit here is that, my friend, you don't know how to read the Bible. It's kind of time to learn, isn't it? I mean, for instance, I've had to learn over the past few decades 'how' to be willing, and to be able, to read African-American Literature, like that of Frederick Douglas and onward. In fact, I'm still learning ... Fortunately, I've got Henry Louis Gates, Jr's book "Loose Canons: Notes on the Culture Wars," to help me out with this kind thing, among a few others.

Which would then open up an entirely new 'can of worms'. Meaning, you would then have to distinguish (which) passages were merely 'man made', and which ones were genuinely 'God inspired'.

A new can of worms? I seeing the same worms, along with the same fishing poles, that I've seen for quite some time, cvanwey. As far as distinguishing between verses; I hold the whole Bible suspect as I do all other human literature. By suspect, I mean that a sentence never fully captures or reflects the full reality to which it refers---sorry to have to inform you about that little caveat, but it's a big one in my overall praxis.

So which one is it sir? The Bible states it is not sin to beat your slaves at will, as long as they don't die from it? Or, man wrote it to 'justify' their own wanting practices without reprimand?

Anyone who would just read Exodus 21:21 and interpret it the way you do isn't interpreting it in a coherent manner. In fact, to do it the way you're doing it isn't so much Willy-Nilly as it is Milli-Vanilli.

Quite a little 'pickle' we have here, don't we?

Not really.

I'm not falling for the red herring. Please answer the question above. Which conclusion is it? God allows beatings for life, or, man wrote it to 'justify' their own wanting actions?

No, God does not allow beatings for life, although He may have, back in ancient times, permitted the Israelites to 'own' and make part of their families some financially hard up foreigner.

Furthermore, I backed up my assertion, by simply providing the verse that 'God' inspired. And now I get to watch, as you 'weave and bob' all around it

There's no weaving and bobbing; there's only going round and round in the Hermeneutical circle. You might try it some time. It's rather fun, really.

Okay. So apparently, God considers it acceptable to beat such individuals, just short of death, for life. Unless you admit such verses were man inspired alone?

There is no dichotomy here, so you can lay that little repeated "decoy" of yours to rest.

 

[cvanwey]

You are viewing the Biblical narrative from a POV of "perfect state" as opposed to from a POV of directional nudging of humanity to a more perfect state.

As such, there are only two means when it comes to cultural context of human existence, especially in days where there were no centralized media and legal structure. You could either wipe entire population, and re-educating the next one. Or you could gradually introduce new concepts that direct the successive generations towards certain end.

I'm not sure if you are making an attempt at 'progressive revelation', or some other facsimile?

God has no problem 'laying down the law', with many commands, regardless if it was already known to humans at the time, or not.

It sounds to me like you are saying that maybe God, for whatever reason, did not want to simply state, ''do not own other humans', and to instead let humans figure it out on our own? If so, I find this absurd, in light of all the other laws God told humans NOT to do, from the get-go.

Are you then going to bring up how, at the time, humans needed slavery to sustain economics?

I'm not trying to place words into your mouth. Maybe you are coming at this at an entirely different direction?

Please advise?

 

[cvanwey]

Unfortunately for your singularly, seemingly myopic reading of Exodus 21:21, this isn't how it would have been read and applied back then.

One of my points is that it should not matter about 'back then' or 'next year'. Objective/absolute truth is never changing. As stated elsewhere, if the government again legalized slavery, it would not be considered 'sin' (i.e. against God), to own a slave, and beat them for life. Seems to contradict Mark 12:30-31.

On the contrary, those Israelite slave-holders who were thought they could just 'beat' a servant to death on a whim were subject to the full extent of the Law of God; or can't you take verses 26 and 27 just as literally as you do verse 21, along with all of the other verses in the Torah that prescribe protocols for the treatment of "strangers" or "sojourner"?

I never said 'to death' But it permits beating. Maybe we could spend a little time trying to figure out how much beating is considered 'okay', since it is God whom is allowing for such.

I don't have to admit anything. All I'd have to admit here is that, my friend, you don't know how to read the Bible.

So when I assert, from reading the Bible, that God makes allowances for the beating of slaves, and therefore, God does not consider the 'beating of slave' as 'sin', I'm somehow not reading something right? Please 'edumacate' me otherwise

A new can of worms? I seeing the same worms, along with the same fishing poles, that I've seen for quite some time, cvanwey. As far as distinguishing between verses; I hold the whole Bible suspect as I do all other human literature.

And as I've stated long ago, you continue to remain an 'enigma'

 

[Halbhh]

Hmm, maybe. My main issue was that you seemed to be deflecting the question of why Christians abhor slavery when God allows it by asking why atheists abhor slavery, as though pragmatic reasons aren’t enough.

God doesn't allow slavery anymore (not even in very regulated forms).

But, long in the past, in order to actually end it ( and pay attention/notice how slavery still continues today in 2019 in the shadows in most all nations -- human nature is still the same....), to truly end slavery God has to change our hearts, our attitudes.

That's not easy.

It takes a lot more than just stating a law.

In reality if the law is too advanced, few or no people will do it, and it will become generally disregarded as the norm in the culture then, and the attitude towards such laws would even get to the ugly situation of ignore-them-all-they-are-too-idealistic.

Instead of what would not work, cannot work, would never have worked -- instead of failure to end slavery -- instead of that, God intended (and intends now!) something far better: a true end to all slavery.

Including subtle forms even! (Yes, even to such a high, total level to even end subtle forms of slavery like for example exploiting immigrant labor or mistreating one's spouse)

Which requires real change in the heart (perhaps you'd already agree with this I'm thinking), as I was suggesting to you to read more about (and you still could) in post #61, to see more of how God outlawed slavery.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

One of my points is that it should not matter about 'back then' or 'next year'. Objective/absolute truth is never changing. As stated elsewhere, if the government again legalized slavery, it would not be considered 'sin' (i.e. against God), to own a slave, and beat them for life. Seems to contradict Mark 12:30-31.

Well, unfortunately, it DOES matter about whether what we are reading applies to people and events 'back then' or to other people groups who will interact with each other 'next year.'

Furthermore, where are you getting your notions about Objective truth and Absolute truth, and why are you equivocating them as if they're one and the same concepts? What philosopher are you taking this stilted use of language from?

And if a modern Western government again legalized slavery, it might be pressing the limits of not only the Bible but also of Western Human Rights ethics to assume that this could or should be done, especially if we take what Orlando Patterson has to say about how we got to this point in history where we think we value above all else the notion of "Freedom." His take on it might surprise you; and my take on his take basically infers that on THIS SIDE OF JESUS, it might be a 'sin' to institute some kind of system of slavery ............unless it looked like something along the lines of getting a job at the local fast food joint [and even some of that may well be ethically questionable].

I never said 'to death' But it permits beating. Maybe we could spend a little time trying to figure out how much beating is considered 'okay', since it is God whom is allowing for such.

We might take some time on figuring out 'who' it is we're beating and 'why' we'd be doing that in the first place IF we were using the Biblical, Legal frame of slavery VERSUS the utterly vicious crap the many, if not most, white American slave holders used to implement upon the backs of African-American slaves.

So when I assert, from reading the Bible, that God makes allowances for the beating of slaves, and therefore, God does not consider the 'beating of slave' as 'sin', I'm somehow not reading something right? Please 'edumacate' me otherwise

Correct. If you read it like this, you're doing a Milli-Vanilli.

And as I've stated long ago, you continue to remain an 'enigma'

I feel honored that I've remained a mystery for you. Now, here's another mystery: How literally should I take the following verse at Leviticus 24:17?

"Whoever kills any man shall surely be put to death."​

I mean, heck! I don't know about you, but if I knew this law applied to me [and it really does, even as a Christian, even if in a more ethereal, post-mortem sense], and let's pretend for a moment that I was the equivalent of some red-necked, pompous white wind-bag living in the early 1800's Southern States (say Georgia), if the judges who would be deciding a case in which where I beat a slave were fully implementing the WHOLE LAW as they should, along with verses in Exodus 21:26-27, I might be thinking four times before laying a rod to the back of my slave. ... 'cuz there is a chance these additional laws---along with the dozens I haven't mentioned here that could also apply----will win out over the other "if he lives a couple of days" caveat that seems to be throwing you for a loop when a Hebrew master beats a non-hebrew servant.

How about you? What do you think?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If God outlawed slavery, he's an incompetent communicator. It's simple to do this: "Don't own people." Done.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If God outlawed slavery, he's an incompetent communicator. It's simple to do this: "Don't own people." Done.

It's not that easy; some of this depends on the 'economy' that exists. You need to really do your homework before opening your mouth and before worrying about whether 'slavery' as it was conceived of in the Bible was helpful or not to the people groups involved at that ancient time.

So, do your homework, Tinker. And maybe start by reading the following book, American Slavery 1619-1877, by Peter Kolchin, so you can then begin to compare what American slavers in the American Slave trade did differently than what is prescribed in the Old Testament/Torah of ancient Hebrew/Israelite law. It ain't the same.................................

 

[gaara4158]

...pragmatic reasons aren't enough, basically because some aspects of pragmatism can become a wax-nose, only relevant to those who are socially sensitive enough or emotionally intelligence enough to see that how we treat one another should matter.

But, what I was referring to earlier is the attempt by some to separate the fact that an institution of slavery (of one form) is apparently (or was) sanctioned by God from the other fact that it can only be a non-neutral social issue, ever and always with inherent ethical issues to contend with.

Well, if pragmatic reasons aren’t enough, what makes moral reasons any better? Surely there are people who aren’t sensitive to moral imperatives just as there are those not sensitive to the social consequences of their actions. So what’s the difference?
I think we do reject slavery for similar reasons, but I think you’re trying to deprive atheists of the ability to say so based on your belief that theism has a monopoly on matters of “ought.”

 

[cvanwey]

Well, unfortunately, it DOES matter about whether what we are reading applies to people and events 'back then' or to other people groups who will interact with each other 'next year.'

Furthermore, where are you getting your notions about Objective truth and Absolute truth, and why are you equivocating them as if they're one and the same concepts? What philosopher are you taking this stilted use of language from?

And if a modern Western government again legalized slavery, it might be pressing the limits of not only the Bible but also of Western Human Rights ethics to assume that this could or should be done, especially if we take what Orlando Patterson has to say about how we got to this point in history where we think we value above all else the notion of "Freedom." His take on it might surprise you; and my take on his take basically infers that on THIS SIDE OF JESUS, it might be a 'sin' to institute some kind of system of slavery ............unless it looked like something along the lines of getting a job at the local fast food joint [and even some of that may well be ethically questionable].

We might take some time on figuring out 'who' it is we're beating and 'why' we'd be doing that in the first place IF we were using the Biblical, Legal frame of slavery VERSUS the utterly vicious crap the many, if not most, white American slave holders used to implement upon the backs of African-American slaves.

Correct. If you read it like this, you're doing a Milli-Vanilli.



I feel honored that I've remained a mystery for you. Now, here's another mystery: How literally should I take the following verse at Leviticus 24:17?

"Whoever kills any man shall surely be put to death."​

I mean, heck! I don't know about you, but if I knew this law applied to me [and it really does, even as a Christian, even if in a more ethereal, post-mortem sense], and let's pretend for a moment that I was the equivalent of some red-necked, pompous white wind-bag living in the early 1800's Southern States (say Georgia), if the judges who would be deciding a case in which where I beat a slave were fully implementing the WHOLE LAW as they should, along with verses in Exodus 21:26-27, I might be thinking four times before laying a rod to the back of my slave. ... 'cuz there is a chance these additional laws---along with the dozens I haven't mentioned here that could also apply----will win out over the other "if he lives a couple of days" caveat that seems to be throwing you for a loop when a Hebrew master beats a non-hebrew servant.

How about you? What do you think?

You know, it really boils down to the following... With the 'beauty' of language, anyone can argue practically 'for' or 'against' anything or position. Meaning, even if the conclusion appears as simple and straight forward as possible, there will always be people out there whom will deny it, decline it, side-step it, etc...

I'm spending far too much time attempting to drive home the following...

- In the Bible, God has no problem telling people what they need to do, and what not to do. But somehow, the topic of slavery is 'really tricky'. I guess I need to read more books, like you, to understand the 'full gravity' or scope of the matter.

- By mentioning slavery specifically, God appears to be demonstrating that certain acts under such a topic, are not considered 'sin'. Including beating the ones you enslave. Which begs the question. Are we sure such verses were God inspired, as they appear to be in direct conflict with Mark 12:31?

And now I leave you with a funny little video, sure to entertain, as it seems to capture the many points seen here, and then some...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, if pragmatic reasons aren’t enough, what makes moral reasons any better? Surely there are people who aren’t sensitive to moral imperatives just as there are those not sensitive to the social consequences of their actions. So what’s the difference?

Actually, pragmatism can very well be a form of ethics, so you're going to have a difficult time differentiating some 'simple' pragmatics from Pragmatic Ethics, gaara. Have you heard of John Dewey?

You're right, there are those who aren't sensitive to moral imperatives, and we usually call those folks sociopaths and, at worst, psychopaths. I'm sure this classification of mine isn't the kind of direction you'd want this discussion to go since it would take us somewhat afield from what we're trying to grapple with in this thread, so let's not pursue that direction. Let's just instead say that I have a hard time seeing how anyone can be "concerned" in any kind of merely pragmatic way about how Christians may respond to the fact that a form of slavery is extant in the bible.

I think we do reject slavery for similar reasons, but I think you’re trying to deprive atheists of the ability to say so based on your belief that theism has a monopoly on matters of “ought.”

No, I'm just countering the OP that seems to imply that this whole issue isn't ensconced in multiple layers of social contexts that in my praxis have to be recognized, differentiated and sorted out. If atheist this that my analysis ends up castrating their position, well.....I can't help that. I don't think it really does castrate their position, but it definitely will make it more difficult for them to simply point the finger and yell, "Evil!"

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You know, it really boils down to the following... With the 'beauty' of language, anyone can argue practically 'for' or 'against' anything or position. Meaning, even if the conclusion appears as simple and straight forward as possible, there will always be people out there whom will deny it, decline it, side-step it, etc...

The real beauty of language is that some people can use it to claim that someone else can argue practically 'for' or 'against' anything or any position, while at the same time, they do so by articulating the very claims they're making in vague, ethereal statements that themselves don't really refer to anything actually in the real world or that deals with the full issue being discussed between them and their interlocutors.

I'm spending far too much time attempting to drive home the following...

That's too bad, 'cuz I'm just warming up!

In the Bible, God has no problem telling people what they need to do, and what not to do. But somehow, the topic of slavery is 'really tricky'. I guess I need to read more books, like you, to understand the 'full gravity' or scope of the matter.

Yes, you may need to be more studious as you attempt to understand the Bible, and having the motivation to do so helps even more. But if one thinks the Bible is already "absurd," I can see how that might dampen one's resolve to see things through.

- By mentioning slavery specifically, God appears to be demonstrating that certain acts under such a topic, are not considered 'sin'. Including beating the ones you enslave. Which begs the question. Are we sure such verses were God inspired, as they appear to be in direct conflict with Mark 12:31?

Of course we're not sure that any of the Bible is inspired. Duh! That's what I've been saying all along to everyone here and in that thread you and I debated back and forth in several months ago; but you seem to have a problem with selective listening, I've noticed. In fact, I'm just about convinced that despite your seemingly 'smiley' demeanor, you're just here for Demolition Services. I would rather hope that I'm wrong about that ...

As for 'beating' one's servant, I can almost be certain that some Israelite masters did have to beat an unruly, ungodly, promiscuous and maybe extremely lazy Canaanite servant or two, maybe three or four. Besides, it's not really as if all or even most of the Canaanites were simple folk, simply trying to make their way through life like everyone else in the world. If you think that, then you definitely need to be more studious.

Also, if the servants and maidservants at some point wanted to 'repent' and conform to the faith of Israel, take part in the various feasts and live and prosper in the life of the land, I think the law implies that at some point, this status has to be recognized by the Israelites if and when said foreigners (i.e Strangers/Sojounors) truly wish to 'convert.' And if they convert, anything could happen .........or don't you know?

And now I leave you with a funny little video, sure to entertain, as it seems to capture the many points seen here, and then some...

ROFL! .....if there's one thing I learned from that video, it's to never trust a board of stick-men. Their logic might tend to be two dimensional. What a riot!

 

[Dirk1540]

Pretty catchy tune!