Slavery in the Bible

[Percie]

@Dancefortwo , I'd like to discuss this as you keep bringing it up in unrelated threads.

[no one]

Wikipiki:
The babble contains many references to slavery, which was a common practice in antiquity. Babbling texts outline sources and legal status of slaves, economic roles of slavery, types of slavery, and debt slavery, which thoroughly explain the institution of slavery in Israel in antiquity

[Dom]

Wikipiki:
The babble contains many references to slavery, which was a common practice in antiquity. Babbling texts outline sources and legal status of slaves, economic roles of slavery, types of slavery, and debt slavery, which thoroughly explain the institution of slavery in Israel in antiquity

This is the duelling section. Only two participants, no other comments allowed. There is a peanut gallery for comments from others than the two discussion partners.

[Dancefortwo]

Ok, lets get right into Leviticus 25: 45-46.  Here it is again.  

 44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. 

Do you agree or disagree with this statement in the Bible. Yes or no.  It's not complicated.  This isn't rocket science.

ETA: I'm giving a post Covid party this weekend. Everyone attending has been fully vaccinated so I will probably be very busy with this and may not able to respond to Percie for a while. Just so ya know.

[Percie]

ETA:  I'm giving a post Covid party this weekend.  Everyone attending has been fully vaccinated so I will probably be very busy with this and may not able to respond to Percie for a while. Just so ya know.

I was away all weekend and my first post will take some time to compose. Should be able to do it by the end of the week.

[Dancefortwo]

ETA:  I'm giving a post Covid party this weekend.  Everyone attending has been fully vaccinated so I will probably be very busy with this and may not able to respond to Percie for a while. Just so ya know.

I was away all weekend and my first post will take some time to compose. Should be able to do it by the end of the week.

I will await your tome with baited breath.   I enjoy seeing theists justify how an all knowing omniscient god could not foresee that slavery and owning other human beings was/is morally, ethically and socially wrong in a book that is supposedly gods own words.....a god-book of rules and regulations  humans are supposed to follow to the letter.   Leviticus 25; 45-46 cannot be interpreted to mean anything else.  It certainly isn't indentured servitude so fair warning, don't go down that road.  But hey, you won't be the first Christian who has done very fancy dance steps to get around Leviticus 25: 45-46...... and I know a thing or two about fancy dancing.   



Happy composing.

[Percie]

1. The Mosaic Law did not always represent God’s ideals. 

Matt 19
3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no person is to separate.” 7 They said to Him, “Why, then, did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

This passage shows us that the law did not always represent God’s ideals. Some parts of the law contained concessions to accepted cultural practices at the time it was written. In this case, the law permitted a man to divorce a wife merely by writing a certificate of divorce:

Deut 24
 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens, if she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, that he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her away from his house…

But in Matthew 19, Jesus explains that this was a concession, and says that the ideal of marriage is that it lasts for life.

So, do we see such progression in the Bible regarding slavery? Yes, we do.

In the time of the patriarchs there weren’t specific regulations regarding slavery. The law then adds certain rules that benefit slaves, including

Exodus 21
16 “Now one who kidnaps someone, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall certainly be put to death.

Now consider your favorite passage on the topic:

Lev 25
45 You may also acquire them from the sons of the foreign residents who reside among you, and from their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may also pass them on as an inheritance to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves.

While US slave owners may have attempted to use this to justify slavery, the fact is that African slaves were not first obtained from foreign residents who resided among them, etc. They were brought on ships, and it was common knowledge that they had been captured with the express intent of being sold into slavery. If Southerners were really following the law, they would have applied Exodus 21:16 and executed the crew of the ship, and slavery in the US would have never started. 

A big difference in the law compared to other nations is the treatment of slaves who escaped from other nations into Israel:

Deut 23
15 “You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16 He shall live with you in your midst, in the place that he chooses in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him.

So, such escaped slaves were not returned to their masters, and were in fact given a place to live as free people in a place of their choosing. 

The law regulated the treatment of slaves:

Exodus 21
20 “And if someone strikes his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21 If, however, the slave survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for the slave is his property.

The term “vengeance” implies that the slave owner will be killed. 

There were also protections for maiming a slave:

Exodus 21
26 “And if someone strikes the eye of his male or female slave and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free on account of the eye. 27 And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let the slave go free on account of the tooth.

Slaves did not have to work on the Sabbath:

Exodus 20
9 For six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave or your female slave, or your cattle, or your resident who stays with you.

Moving on to the NT, in Galatians Paul tells slave owners to go beyond the OT protections:

Eph 6
5 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6 not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7 With goodwill render service, as to the Lord, and not to people, 8 knowing that whatever good thing each one does, he will receive this back from the Lord, whether slave or free.

9 And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.

Then later in Philemon, Paul tells a slave owner to take back an escaped slave, but no longer as a slave, rather as a brother:

Philemon 1
15 For perhaps it was for this reason that he was separated from you for a while, that you would have him back forever, 16 no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. 17 If then you regard me as a partner, accept him as you would me.

So, we can see that the law’s allowance of slavery is not the Biblical ideal. As in divorce, it was allowed for a time and for a purpose, but Biblically freedom is the ideal state of man, as we were created in the image (albeit now fallen) of God. 

You might ask why the NT uses the example of Philemon, rather than just making a direct commandment that all slaves everywhere should be freed. Consider that God knew that Christians would be persecuted by Rome, and that in Rome slaves made up 30-40% of the population. Such an outright statement by Paul or another would likely have increased the persecution, and also would have made it harder to get slave owners to listen to the Gospel. So, the softer Philemon approach makes more practical sense.

2. God used slavery in judgment

In Deuteronomy God describes blessings that he will bestow on Israel for faithfulness, and curses for disobedience. The curses include being enslaved by another people:

Deut 28
36 The Lord will bring you and your king, whom you appoint over you, to a nation that neither you nor your fathers have known, and there you shall serve other gods, made of wood and stone.

So, we see that God sometimes uses slavery as punishment for sin. This did actually happen with the Babylonian captivity, in which Israel was punished for disobedience.

When the law was given, Israel was about to enter the promised land. They were kept in Egypt waiting for 400 years because:

Gen 15
16 Then in the fourth generation they will return here, for the wrongdoing of the Amorite is not yet complete.

The Amorites were one of the peoples that Israel would drive out. It appears that when Israel went to Egypt the wickedness of the other Canaanites was sufficient to warrant God’s judgment, but not so for the Amorites – he gave them another 400 years to change their ways. They didn’t, and God judged all those peoples. All of these cultures approved of slavery. You find this to be an egregious wickedness, so it shouldn’t surprise or disturb you that God would punish them. The Bible gives another particular sin causing their judgment – they sacrificed their own children to the false god Moloch by burning them. By giving these people and their lands to Israel, God was punishing wickedness and fulfilling promises to Abraham at the same time. 

As you know, in some instances the Canaanites were so wicked that God ordered their complete destruction – take no prisoners. In other cases, some people were left alive and taken as slaves. This isn’t simply a matter of God turning a blind eye to slavery as you seem to think – God was using slavery acquired through warfare as a means of punishment of wicked peoples. 

Note that the Leviticus passage refers to two sources: the pagan nations that are around you, which again are the people being judged by God; and, the sons of the foreign residents who reside among you, likely also from these peoples.

Summary

So, we see that:

- God allowed slavery in the law as a concession to the established practices of the time, and as judgment on wicked peoples
- But, slavery is not God’s ideal, freedom and we see the full expression of that in Philemon

[Dancefortwo]

God allowed slavery in the law as a concession to the established practices of the time, and as judgment on wicked peoples.But, slavery is not God’s ideal....

So your all powerful, perfect god conveniently conceeds to the human immorality of slavery at a time when slavery was very common, yet he murders thousands of Egyptian children to free his favorite tribe out of the slavery they endured.  Formulaic tribal morality written in a tribal book. 

And he does this in a paradoxically riddled book which was written by imperfect, flawed humans beings and which no two people can agree to it's meanings.  This all-knowing god offers up a book which includes botched language translations and is riddled with thousands of different vague interpretations of it's contents.... and this is the very book by which your god will judge wicked people and possibly send them to hell.    

Your answer is not the answer to what you think I asked.  Your answer is ground zero testimony to the abject weakness of the bible.

[Percie]

That reply was underwhelming. Is that your entire response to my post, or should I wait for more?

[Dancefortwo]

That reply was underwhelming. Is that your entire response to my post, or should I wait for more?

Sir Percival, you have it wrong.  It was overwhelming but your critical thinking skills have a blind spot when it comes to your faith.

If an all knowing, loving god actually existed and interviened in human affairs he would immediately stop slavery and condone it .  It should be clear to you that the perfect book of an omnipotant, omniscient god which contains all the instructions for humanity has imperfections and inconsistancies and is certainly written by mortal imperfect humans.   A real god would transcend anthropomorphic tendencies.  Instead what you have is a god who hates the same people who wrote the book.  It's god kills the same enemies that plague those who wrote the book.  The cultural customs permitted over 2000 years ago are exactly the same as those who wrote the book.    

Rape is also not condoned by this god.  Rape of enemy tribal women is permitted and encouraged as the spoils of war.  Here again we have the same attitude and viewpoint as those who wrote the book.  

An invented god would look the same as the Biblical god.

[Percie]

My main points were:

1.a. God allowed slavery in the OT as a concession to norms of the time, AND
1.b. As judgment on the people enslaved.

2. Freedom is God's ideal for people, not slavery, which we see in the NT, particularly Philemon

3. The transatlantic slave trade and hence US slavery was prohibited by the OT law

So your all powerful, perfect god conveniently conceeds to the human immorality of slavery at a time when slavery was very common, yet he murders thousands of Egyptian children to free his favorite tribe out of the slavery they endured.  Formulaic tribal morality written in a tribal book.

Here you merely repeat 1a while ignoring 1b and 2, then add a red herring, which seems to be the favorite dish on this site.

And he does this in a paradoxically riddled book which was written by imperfect, flawed humans beings and which no two people can agree to it's meanings.  This all-knowing god offers up a book which includes botched language translations and is riddled with thousands of different vague interpretations of it's contents....

Here we have another red herring, which is also contradictory to your position on slavery and shows hypocrisy:

You previously said "Yes or no.  It's not complicated.  This isn't rocket science," showing that you think the Bible's position on slavery is very clear. It's only when I write a detailed response that you complain of ambiguity.

and this is the very book by which your god will judge wicked people and possibly send them to hell.

No, that's not the case, but this is yet another red herring so I'm not going to explain it to you here. 

Your answer is not the answer to what you think I asked.

You tried to frame a complex issue as a false dichotomy. Of course I wasn't going to fall for that and answer on your terms.

Your answer is ground zero testimony to the abject weakness of the bible.

Your response didn't directly address any of my main points. You just put out some red herrings and now are proclaiming victory.

[Percie]

If an all knowing, loving god actually existed and interviened in human affairs he would immediately stop slavery and condone it .

First, I presume that you meant "all-loving," as a loving God could love some but not others.

So, does the Bible portray God as loving to the exclusion of all else? No. If you've read to Leviticus, you know that God destroyed all mankind except 8 people in a flood. 
Obviously his righteous judgment of mankind is at odds with his love for mankind. That conflict is resolved at the cross.

It should be clear to you that the perfect book of an omnipotant, omniscient god which contains all the instructions for humanity has imperfections and inconsistancies and is certainly written by mortal imperfect humans.   A real god would transcend anthropomorphic tendencies.  Instead what you have is a god who hates the same people who wrote the book.  It's god kills the same enemies that plague those who wrote the book.  The cultural customs permitted over 2000 years ago are exactly the same as those who wrote the book.

    

So, I give a response explaining the use of slavery as a punishment and the changes in the NT, where a slave owner is told to free his slave (well before cultural customs on slavery had changed), and your response is that your position should be clear to me? 

An invented god would look the same as the Biblical god.

Your opinion is noted. Personally I don't see that an invented god would order that slaves be given a day of rest every seven days, or that escaped slaves from other nations would be given freedom and a place to live, rather than returned for a reward or enslaved again, or would tell Philemon to free Onesimus while slavery was commonplace.

Your post in a nutshell was I know what a god would do, and it should be clear to you that I'm right.

[Dancefortwo]

If you've read to Leviticus, you know that God destroyed all mankind except 8 people in a flood.

Again, you're using a bible myth to prove a bible myth.  The only way you can rationalize your book is to suspend reality and science and instead believe Bronze age stories. 

There was no flood.  Ice core samples taken from both poles go back 40 thousand years show conclusivly there was no world wide flood.   Separate sciencific disciplines, unrelated to one another,  came to the same conclusion. 

The earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 10,000 years old. The universe is over 13.5 billion years old.  There are 2000,000,000,000 galaxies, 200 quintillian planets in the universe, yet you're espousing the only place of importance is earth.    It is absurd.  Somehow, through indoctrination you've concluded that your god waited 4.5 billion years after creating earth before he created humans.  And then he waited 200,000 years after creating modern humans before he made contact with them and even than it was only a few hundred square miles of land space inhabited by ignorant sheep and goat herders. Your god ignores all other civilizations around the planet including the Chinese who were a more advanced culture.   Instead this god settles for a backward desert tribe who just happens to write about their tribal protector god in a way that fits their needs precicely.  

Have you ever asked youself why?  Probably not.  It's too frightening.  Christianity is not a religion of love and acceptance or invites doubt.  It is a religion that pivots around extortion and the threat of eternal hell.  The mafia uses the same tactics.  Pay up to the godfather, love the godfather, accept the godfather as your protector and savior.  If you don't you'll end up in the East River wearing cement boots and swimming with the fishes.  Christianity uses the same fucking tactic.  

 Personally I don't see that an invented god would order that slaves be given a day of rest every seven days,

Any god who condones slavery in any manner  in an old book is a concocted god who reflects the socially acceptable mores of the time the book was written.  A desert deity who supports the rape of women from enemy rivals as the spoils of war is also a god who was fabricated for the prime benefit of it's male tribal desert authors.   If this god actually existed he would have foreseen the evolution of societal customs and known that rape, slavery, stoning adulterous women and disobedient children to death, racism, bigotry and incest.....all promoted and acceptable in the bible btw,  would be seen as barbaric and savage; as morally unacceptable, and good reason to disbelieve it's Bronze Age text

That you rationalize slavery in any way is pathetic.....golly gee, slaves got one day off each week. Wow.   Well, so did African Americans in the South yet good people found it egregeous and immoral and faught a war over slavery.   This is  all I need to know about your blind acceptance of  a god who massacres children and a god you are willing to believe killed a planet full of people and millions of animals because he wanted a do-over and can't forgive people without blood, death and distruction as part of his contract.   

You believe in a god who cannot do what ordinary people do every day around the planet......they forgive others.  And they do it without requriing a human-child sacifice to atone for errors or the slaughter of innocent animals by the millions. You believe in a god who has a torture chamber in the back room, always at the ready......just in case.

Yet, with all your belief and bible quotes you still haven't provided one iota, not one scintilla of evidence this deity of your exists.

[Percie]

Again, you're using a bible myth to prove a bible myth.

You made an incorrect claim about the nature of the God of the Bible. Of course I used the Bible to show you were wrong. You necessarily must use the Bible to discuss the nature of the God of the Bible. This argument shows that you're floundering.

There was no flood.

More red herrings.

Any god who condones slavery in any manner  in an old book is a concocted god who reflects the socially acceptable mores of the time the book was written.

What do you think about the argument that God used slavery in judgment? Why is that not a valid point?

What do you think of Paul's instruction to Philemon to free Onesimus at a time when slavery was well accepted? That invalidates your point that the Bible simply reflects the mores of its time, but you continue to ignore it.

You're full of pronouncements, bluster, and red herrings, but short on real arguments.

[Dancefortwo]

You're full of pronouncements, bluster, and red herrings, but short on real arguments.

Pointing out errors in the bible with facts is not a red herring.  Scientific facts represent a diversion tactic to you because it shows your book is wrong and you cannot handle facts.  The bible contains a long slippery slope of factual errors. 

DNA alone, not even including the veritable mountain of evolutionary evidence, shows that there was no Adam and Eve.  There was no sin story. There was no tree, no talking snake.  It's another myth. 

So the entire reason for your Jesus and the child sacrifice narrative is based on scientific ignorance from ancient desert dwellers who didn't know where the sun went at night.  To make the story even worse, Jesus didn't really sacrifice anything.  The story has him returning back to life again.  He had a couple of bad days and then "poof", he's back doing a walk-about and a meet and greet. 

What do I think about Paul's instructions?  Paul also instructed women to be silent in church and thought women were chattel to be obedient to men so I don't think much of Paul.  The release of a one slave in no way makes up for all the other savage atrocities in the bible.. 

What world do you live in that you agree with a book that promots rape, child killing,  incest,  bigotry, ethnic cleansing, and ultimately the genocidal slaughter of an entire planet of people by a god who cannot  bring himself to stoop to the common humility of forgiving people without stomping on their life. You cannot square this with a quote from Paul.

By the way, four of the letters attributed to Paul; First and Second Timothy, Titus and Ephesians were not written by him.  They are pseudepigrapha forgeries. 

Go study other ancient religions and cultures. The child sacrifice of an innocent person to appease a god, tamper evil and correct human problems is common among most ancient cultures. The Christian religion is not unique in any way.  

  You're full of pronouncements, bluster, and red herrings, but short on real arguments.

 

LOL! In your dreams, honey.  In your dreams.   
 

 You necessarily must use the Bible to discuss the nature of the God of the Bible. This argument shows that you're floundering.

 

And there's your problem, right there.  The bible is a book of claims.  It CLAIMS a god exists using a storytelling method but it is not evidence a god exists.  Pro tip:  What you need to prove your god exists is to try and find incontrovertible, UNBIASED evidence outside of your book of claims that a god exists. Thus far you have not.   Good luck with that.

[Percie]

Pointing out errors in the bible with facts is not a red herring.  Scientific facts represent a diversion tactic to you because it shows your book is wrong and you cannot handle facts.  The bible contains a long slippery slope of factual errors. 

DNA alone, not even including the veritable mountain of evolutionary evidence, shows that there was no Adam and Eve.  There was no sin story. There was no tree, no talking snake.  It's another myth.

Yes, alleged Biblical errors not related to slavery in a debate entitled Slavery in the Bible are indeed red herrings. The rest of your post is more of the same. You've had ample opportunity to discuss my points on slavery but have elected not to. I'm done.

[Dancefortwo]

Pointing out errors in the bible with facts is not a red herring.  Scientific facts represent a diversion tactic to you because it shows your book is wrong and you cannot handle facts.  The bible contains a long slippery slope of factual errors. 

DNA alone, not even including the veritable mountain of evolutionary evidence, shows that there was no Adam and Eve.  There was no sin story. There was no tree, no talking snake.  It's another myth.

Yes, alleged Biblical errors not related to slavery in a debate entitled Slavery in the Bible are indeed red herrings. The rest of your post is more of the same. You've had ample opportunity to discuss my points on slavery but have elected not to. I'm done.

When there are factual errors in a book your touting is the perfect word of god you've got more problems than just the awfulness of slavery.  You've got a book that conflict with reality and basic facts.  If one item in the bible is in error then it is not the truth.  It is a lie.   

I would quit if I were you too.