Did God condone slavery?

Author: Castin

Posts

Total: 73
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,339
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
Longer post, took me a while to get to it.

I think attempting to say whether God condoned or didn't condone salvery is a very simplistic question on a very complex idea. 

It's well and good to say that God could have simply put into the Bible - "don't own slaves."  He didn't, therefore, he condones slavery. I think that is a very weak argument. 
I'm arguing he condoned slavery because he says so in Lev 25:44-46, as per the OP.

The number one problem that people have with slavery is stealing people, kidnapping free people against their will and making them slaves.  God ABSOLUTELY condemns kidnapping people - whether they be Jew or Alien.   So I think it is right to say that God does not condone slavery in the way that slavery is conducted in our world today. 
  1. The Hebrew word in Exo 21:16 is ish, I believe, which usually referred to an adult male Israelite in the Covenant Code. Almost certainly did not apply to aliens -- you can read this more clearly in Deut 24:7.
  2. The number one problem I have with slavery is that I think owning another human being is wrong. Whether they were kidnapped, indentured, what have you.
  3. Seems to assume most slaves were sourced via kidnapping. That isn't true. Slaves could be bought from surrounding nations, captured via conquest, or even pressed into involuntary debt slavery (see 2 Kings 4, where the creditors are coming to take the woman's children as slaves). Girls could be sold into sexual slavery by their fathers. There were many tragic ways people could become slaves without being stolen off an Israelite street. And of course Israel had no way to regulate how slaves were sourced in the nations they purchased from.
Another part of the complexity is that in the time that Leviticus was written, EVERY nation on the face of the earth supported slavery. And in every nation apart from Israel, this slavery could arise from kidnapping. So there was already a clear distinction between Israel and other nations.
No, other nations were against kidnapping their citizens as well. See Babylonian law.

But I'm not really interested in whether or not Israel had a milder flavor of slavery than other nations. I'm interested in whether God condoned slavery.

 Also, back in those days, and interestingly, even in the world in some places today, people would sell themselves to others for a time, known as an indenture. Even the Jews could do this for 7 years. This is a type of slavery. The idea is based on the notion that "we own ourselves". And an important part of those ownership rights of our body, was the right to sell it to someone else.  Today - people don't own their own bodies. (not that the abortion movement cares) The State owns our bodies - and it has done so - since it legislated the idea that no property rights can exist in a human body.  Removing the ownership of property in body, removed the ability to privately sell your body to someone else - but it also effectively proved the point that we are slaves to the State. It owns our body and it tells us what rights we have. 

In those times - people from other cultures could sell their bodies to another person - even to a Jew. In a sense it was a form of welfare. Or perhaps a bank mortgage. 
This is only addressing debt slavery. God condones chattel slavery as well.

But make no mistake: debt slavery, much like debtor's prison, is still wrong. I have already showed that it was not always voluntary in the Bible. Poverty is not an excuse to imprison or enslave anyone, and there are many better social methods of relieving financial desperation than slavery.

The Israelites, however could not go looking for people in other cultures to buy slaves. And the reason for that is because the predominant manner in which people became slaves was by kidnapping. 
I'd like you to explain this more. I don't want to misunderstand/misrepresent your argument.

The other time when Israel needed to consider slavery was in times of war.  What were they to do with the foreigners they captured? If they released them - then they would form part of a group to try and get rid of them. Or they would go back and join the families they came from and start fighting again. The Jews were disliked then probably in the same way they are now. didn't have welfare in those times, so people had to make money somehow to get food.  So they had to do something with them. I suppose they could kill them. But they were captured in war - and unless God said to destroy them - then they couldn't. 
Lev 25:44-46 is not about preventing the enemies' survivors from mustering a rebellion. It's just basic chattel slavery. "It is okay to enslave foreigners."

Overall, I think the matter is far too a complex matter to come up with a simplistic answer. 
I disagree. While God's position on slavery is nuanced, I think the question of whether he condoned slavery is a simple one, with a simple answer.
yachilviveyachali
yachilviveyachali's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 156
0
2
3
yachilviveyachali's avatar
yachilviveyachali
0
2
3
-->
@Castin
Do you have free will or not? A God who wants slaves would have never allowed us to know evil and become sinners. 

Does God condone slavery? “Condone”, if you consider the origin of the word and its Latin translation (it has the same meaning in Italian), strictly means to forgive or absolve. God may forgive slavery among His people. However, he does not wish for there to be slaves. God allows sin, although he wants us to not sin. Allowing sin does not mean he accepts it. Yet, he may allow or forgive it. Hebrews were permitted to be servants if they were impoverished, and permitted to own Hebrew slaves to punish. The foreign slaves were treated with mercy, and could sometimes better themselves. Slavery was a common practice by the time Moses received the Torah. What was God to do? 

Mankind is very flawed because God chose for us to have free will, and to not be enslaved. In having free will, we have enslaved others. God wants us to be absolved of all of our sins. God himself is a very complex character. What is for certain is that he wants us to pick the right path, but that not everyone is destined for the right path. The others are on the path, or they are lukewarm. 

Slavery is an issue among men. When Adam and Eve were created, did God grant them a slave? He did not. They were supposed to do their own work. The idea of sexual slavery was foreign, as Adam was only given one woman, and she was to be his wife. What happened? Satan, who too had been given free will as an angel, tempted Eve who tempted Adam. God told them to not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, alas, they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Our descent into hell begins here. 

What kind of God would He be if he did not give us a choice? We would be slaves.
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 963
3
3
7
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
3
7
-->
@Castin
It comes down to the Emperor's character, the way the Empire rubs and thus how the peasants are treated and rewarded.

I do not think democracy is short of masked feudalism. The masking has led to nihilism, hedonism and needing a lot of pills to stay sane and happy.

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,479
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Based upon your asteroid principle, we did sort of concluded that MANGOD is responsible for everything...Including therefore, hedonism, nihilism, happy pills and slavery.

Or are you saying that MANGOD is only responsible for asteroids and Catholicism...Oh, and flat planets.

Though I'm interested to know how thick is flat Earth, and at what point does a flat planet become cylindrical.
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 963
3
3
7
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
3
7
-->
@zedvictor4
We don't know the thickness. Above the firmament is water, below us is water.

To be clear, most Catholics hard disagree on this. Catholics have been far more open to science especially since Thomas Aquinas, than the Protestants that arose later than them ironically.

I am not against science. I just see how, regarding globe earth theory it all can be faked by NASA that I think does not accidentally take 4 letters of SAtAN in its name.

I would not call it a cylinder but it is probably a wide cylinder. We do not know for sure what is under Earth. The Bible clarifies the following:

  • Earth never shakes/moves in any true sense. Eartquakes are internal not the Earth entirely shaking. There are 4 different verses explicitly saying this, if you want I can show you a source that clarfies.
  • Earth is a circle. Modern Catholics and many other sects say circle and round meant spherical, I say that is impossible. Hewbrew had a different word for ball-shape than circle. Multiple verses talk of the circle.
  • There are verses clarifying Earth has edges. The verse about corners is probably metaphorical but the edges around Earth cannot be metaphorical given how the verses went.
There is more than that such as a firmament outside the space between our sky and the sun+moon. That firmament means there cannot be true outer space.

I am being closer to a modern Southern Baptist than a modern Catholic in saying these things but I do not frankly care as I see Bible as inerrant and felt Round Earth was a lie before my conversion.

AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 963
3
3
7
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
3
7
-->
@Castin
Empire rubs
Meant rules...
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 434
Posts: 2,383
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Castin
"So because we are slaves to Christ, it is okay for one human being to own another? Does this mean you believe spiritual slavery and chattel slavery are morally equivalent?"

I don't know about "we" but those who are are. So according to biblical order, it is not okay to have another master aside from Christ.

I don't know what spiritual and chattel slavery is by you saying it.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,479
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Nasa, 1958.

Pythagoras. 570 BC.


We don't know the thickness.
Some theory.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,994
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@AdaptableRatman
NASA... not accidentally take 4 letters of SAtAN in its name.
Sure, and in Jesus are 2 letters of JEW and 2 letters of the Nazi S.S. Correlation? In the first, absolutely. In the last, not at all. So what? None of that is truth of consequence.
There are at least six truths of which I am aware that flat-earthers are just that. If the Earth's total landmass area [510M km squared] were spread in a flat rectangular plane, as on a paper map, we would still see the same exact sky from each of four corners.  Or, if a circle, from each 90-degree location around its circumference. Even if that surface area we're expanded by 1300x [as if Earth were the size of Jupiter, which is obviously also a spheroid], we would see the same sky. But, on the spherical Earth [it's actually an oblate spheroid, slightly larger at the equator than from pole to pole] from a distance of NYC to Cairo [about 6,900 miles along a diagonal because the two cities are not on the same latitude] a different sky of constellations is seen simultaneously. In winter, both cities are engulfed in night, simultaneously. From 35,000 feet and higher elevation in a jetliner, the curvature of Earth is obvious. I've personally seen it  dozens of times on flights to Asia and Europe, and it is not due to warped porthole windows because on the ground, straight things are still straight. No NASA, is not needed to obfuscate the truth with these two examples, and there are several others. To date, we have cataloged over 5,800 planets just in our galaxy. Every single one is a spheroid. It is what physical mass set in rotational attitude does - obeying ordinary astrophysical law. Oh, yeah, Earth rotates, and a flat-earth theory test intended to prove our non-rotation by measurement equipment measured, instead, a 15-degree movement over a 1-hour period. Coincidentally, 15 x 24 = 360; the circumference, in degrees, of Earth.  Those flat-earth  "scientists" claimed their equipment was faulty. Sure it was. That's why they used the equipment chosen to prove the "obvious," right? Oops. 

AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 963
3
3
7
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
Flat earth map is circular not rectangular. North pole is our center, South 'pole' is a fake pole and marks an ice wall that leads into the camouflaged barrier all around us.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,994
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Flat earth map is circular not rectangular. 
Yes, but I was giving you benefit of the doubt by offering a slightly larger distortion of landmass created by a rectangular map, and also why I offered a circular rendition of four quadrants at 90-degree separation, as well as super-sizing Earth's landmass to Jupiter scale. But none of those benefits offered are advantageous to the flat-earth theory and it's limitation of preventing seeing alternate night skies in different locations, even on a North pole-centered disc, as if one actually existed. By the way, I have traversed, at various times collectively, the entire  circumnavigation of Earth, and have never witnessed either an ice wall, which you do not mention is camouflaged, nor a "camouflaged barrier" around all. What camouflage, anyway? Is it hidden by A.I?
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 963
3
3
7
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw
You are wrong on Jupiter even existing as you think it does.

Elon Musk is with the devil. Those sent to Mars to populate it may be mass murdered in a chamber or given plastic surgery coerced to lie to the grave.

Never ever invest a cent to space stuff, it is of the devil. Maybe satellites exist between the firmament and our inner atmosphere, the rest is faked.

The reason you see different skies at different places far apart is because we have different view ranges. God has painted it as a holy tapestry. It is some sort of destiny map. I have an inclination to believe some of astrology may be valid but not specifically star signs and horoscopes.

The Catholic Church rejects astrology because it assumes the only way to believe it is to reject God as sovereign. What if God painted/sculpted a significant thing up there for us to study as a map or encrypted message?

Do we be arrogant and assume no? Then why accept science at all?
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 78
Posts: 3,994
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Why am I wrong vis-a-vis  thee existence of Jupiter?
Those going to Mars, shout;d we even go with the express aim to populate it, which may not be the case for longer than Musk is alive, may have a variety of outcomes, but if they're all murdered, who is the agent of murder?
Why is outer space of the devil. Here is his present, but temporary domain: Earth
Yes, we have different view ranges on Earth, but not because it is flat, and I've already explained why flatness is not its proper condition.
And astrology does not distinguish a difference of star charts depending on whether we are born in Chicago or London, or Bejing. Further, our star charts repeat every 122 years, in spite of our being celestially in a different location in space over that period of time. That is faulty understanding of the seven "wandering stars, Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, let alone the change of star locations as observed from Earth over a 10,000 year cycle. I've seen the night sky in that 10,000 years onto the future  by manipulation of a planetarium demonstration I was shown when obtaining my Astronomy merit badge as a Boy Scout. I  could not identify a single constellation  of 40 I just identified to qualify for the merit badge a few minutes before.  So, I've known since them that Astrology is as bogus as flat-earth theory.