Slavery in the Bible

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 32
To anyone who holds slavery in the Bible was nothing more than temporary indentured servitude, I ask:

Would you be my 'indentured servant' as defined by Leviticus 25:44-46?

Leviticus 25:44-46 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
44 As 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. 45 Then, 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 [a]produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves.

--> @SkepticalOne
Old Testement, what a joke!

Foreginers were evil and oh btw, was it harsh slaverly?
--> @Dr.Franklin
Nah, not too bad - if your master's beatings killed you too quickly, he would be punished and if you were maimed in some way (lost eye, lost tooth, etc.) you'd be set free! Undoubtedly, this is the product of a benevolent mind.

🤣😂😄😃😏😐🤔😮😬


--> @SkepticalOne
this is the product of a benevolent mind.

If you were to evaluate it one way. Another way is that the Bible contains truth and errors. This would make more sense of course, since we are dealing with mankind not just pure objective spirituality as it exists. The Bible is mixed with culture, opinions, tradition and believe it or not BS, as well as really good insights that are meaningful. Welcome to the world of duality where you have a mixture of negative and positive. Apologetics are cute and all, but the truth of the matter is that when you evaluate spiritual texts it's not all perfect. This is why you would want a more wholistic approach to religion, where you can objectively understand what is true and what is baloney. 
--> @SkepticalOne
To anyone who holds slavery in the Bible was nothing more than temporary indentured servitude, I ask:

Would you be my 'indentured servant' as defined by Leviticus 25:44-46?

Leviticus 25:44-46 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
44 As 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. 45 Then, 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 [a]produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves
Yes, I would be your indentured servant as defined by Leviticus 25:44-46. I might be more concerned with eventually being deported than anything else. I would attempt to take advantage of the prospect of becoming a citizen, become wealthy, and, God forbid, acquire an Israelite servant for 7 years if circumstances required it.

Leviticus 19:34 New International Version (NIV)
34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

Exodus 23:9 New International Version (NIV)
“Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.

Exodus 22:21 New International Version (NIV)
21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.

Deuteronomy 10:19 New International Version (NIV)
19 And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.

Exodus 12:49 King James Version (KJV)
49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Can it be any clearer?

--> @SkepticalOne
Nah, not too bad - if your master's beatings killed you too quickly, he would be punished and if you were maimed in some way (lost eye, lost tooth, etc.) you'd be set free! Undoubtedly, this is the product of a benevolent mind.
They would only be set free from the death penalty. At least one of the  penalties involved is that even if the servant lived, he would be without a servant, and probably face financial loss.

The thing is, they had judges like we do today. There was more detail involved with judging matters of any conflict between Israelites, including foreigners. So, it wasn't a situation where an Israelite beat his slave, and the authority looks for a convenient excuse to let the Israelite go free.

--> @SkepticalOne, @RoderickSpode
--> @RoderickSpode
An example would be the foreigners right to leave their master if they were oppressed. And to be housed by whomever they seek help from. And the potential to become a citizen, become wealthy, etc.

It's hard to tell all the social norms surrounding slavery and how 'bad' it was to be a slave.  No dout there were good and bad msaters everywhere.  I note this law in Hamurrabis code:

 176. And if a slave of the palace or a slave of the freeman take the daughter of a man (gentleman); and if, when he takes her, she enter into the house of the slave of the palace or the slave of the freeman with the dowry of her father's house; if from the time that they join hands, they build a house and acquire property; and if later on the slave of the palace or the slave of the freeman die, the daughter of the man shall receive her dowry, and they shall divide into two parts whatever her husband and she had acquired from the time they joined hands; the owner of the slave shall receive one-half and the daughter of the man shall receive one-half for her children.

Cleaely male slaves were permitted to marry the daughters of free men.  That implies that slaves were not dehumanised.  Nor was slavery always permanent: "117. If a man be in debt and sell his wife, son or daughter, or bind them over to service, for three years they shall work in the house of their purchaser of master; in the fourth year they shall be given their freedom."

I don't know if a slave was better of in Babylon or Israel.. it probably depended on the master becuase the rules (even if they ere always followed which is doubtful) aren't substantially different.   In all probability most slaves in the AME were much better off than the planation slaves in the ultra-Christian ante-bellum Southern states of America.

I think it's obvious that the Hebrew's laws are not divine revelations but entirely typical of the norms of the age. How could it be anyhthing else becauase there are no gods!


--> @SkepticalOne
ErtlnView destrouyed you

--> @EtrnlVw
This is why you would want a more wholistic approach to religion, where you can objectively understand what is true and what is baloney. 
The bits that are true are commonsense humanism, the baloney bits are theistic superstition.




--> @EtrnlVw
As I mentioned in another thread, noble sentiment and beauty can be found in the Bible. On the other hand, small-mindedness and barbarity can be found as well. This is not better or worse than the time periods from which the authors came. One needn't accept fantastical claims of spiritual beings to explain it. 
--> @Dr.Franklin
ErtlnView destrouyed you

Easy for you to say! 😜
--> @SkepticalOne
Well,i's true
--> @Dr.Franklin
Well,i's true
Ok, buddy. I guess the thread is over now. 😭

--> @SkepticalOne
No, you can respond to him and see, I just agree with everything Etrnlview said
--> @keithprosser
The bits that are true are commonsense humanism, the baloney bits are theistic superstition.
Not at all, the bits that are humanism is stupidity, the bits that deal with the objective reality of spirituality are what are gold. As always you have everything azz backwards. Would you like to go over some of the Theistic superstition that correlates with reality?
The Bible is a spiritual book, and where spirituality is concerned is where it makes more sense, this is where the Bible is applicable. 

--> @SkepticalOne
As I mentioned in another thread, noble sentiment and beauty can be found in the Bible.

Wow good catch, too bad you end there...

On the other hand, small-mindedness and barbarity can be found as well.

Yes sir, as I pointed out and those are the bits you can discard. We're not picking and choosing here as some would tend to think, we are just exercising and practicing what makes sense and what doesn't. 

This is not better or worse than the time periods from which the authors came. One needn't accept fantastical claims of spiritual beings to explain it. 

One needs to understand the nature of their being, period. Atheism will always short you on that deal unfortunately. 
--> @EtrnlVw
The Bible is a spiritual book, and where spirituality is concerned is where it makes more sense, this is where the Bible is applicable. 
I think there is very little that is actually very spiritual in it.  I think one of the most inspiring and beautiful passages is 1 Cor. 13,

13 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

But it's not specifically Christian or even theistic.  Love hope and charity are not owned by Christianity - they are univeral.  Another passage is
Jas 1:27
Religion ... pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
That could almost be the central creed of atheist humanism.


--> @EtrnlVw
As I mentioned in another thread, noble sentiment and beauty can be found in the Bible. 

Wow good catch, too bad you end there.

...but I don't end there and neither should anyone else. Making a tacit acknowledgement of the ugliness in the Bible without considering the impact this has on the claims it contains can only lead to dubious conclusions. 

We can agree on the sublime in the Bible. We can agree on the undignified. What we can't agree on is that the former outweighs the latter and, because of this, that the Bible should be considered a source of divine inspiration.
--> @RoderickSpode
Yes, I would be your indentured servant as defined by Leviticus 25:44-46
Well, I could never I'm good conscience take on a slave, Roderick.

I left a bit of verse 46 off. The full text reads:

"You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your [b]countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another."

The final sentence makes clear foreign slaves are subject to different (and worse) treatment.

All of the proof verses you've provide (with exception to the last) have been addressed in another thread (Link). As for Exodus 12:49, it refers to passover restriction. Including the passage before verse 49 provides all the context that could possibly be needed to understand it properly. I've bolded the law verse 49 references.

"48 A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it. 49 The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”




--> @SkepticalOne
Well, I could never I'm good conscience take on a slave, Roderick.
You probably couldn't afford it.


I left a bit of verse 46 off. The full text reads:

"You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your [b]countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another."

The final sentence makes clear foreign slaves are subject to different (and worse) treatment.

All of the proof verses you've provide (with exception to the last) have been addressed in another thread (Link). As for Exodus 12:49, it refers to passover restriction. Including the passage before verse 49 provides all the context that could possibly be needed to understand it properly. I've bolded the law verse 49 references."48 A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it. 49 The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”

I'm guessing you think the rest of that verse contradicts all the references I gave about the oppression against foreigners.

The first problem I see is with your statement

The final sentence makes clear foreign slaves are subject to different (and worse) treatment.

You're implying that there was bad treatment (justified by the law) against Hebrew servants. This is a bit puzzling since your current emphasis seems to be on the favoring of Hebrews in contrast to foreigners. What references can you provide for me suggesting the bad treatment (albeit less than what a foreigner experiences) of Israelite servants?

I'm glad you placed that link, because I was going to address this in that thread, but may as well move any discussion on slavery here. At least with you. However, I just don't see anything addressed that makes any challenge against the verses I've given.

Foreigners not being allowed to take part in some ceremonies is certainly not abuse. Each nation, even today have their own laws pertaining to who or how one can become a citizen, and what a non-citizen's rights they have, and rights they don't have. Even the Israelites themselves were not allowed the privilege to enter into places considered holy that was reserved strictly for priests. This wasn't discrimination, and wasn't even segregation.

And no, that part of verse 46 you originally left out does not suggest justification for the abuse of foreigners. That command applied to both Israelites and foreigners. That particular verse emphasizes the prohibiting of abuse against their Israelite brethren. The placement as translated into the English language may appear to contradict, but is not unusual. For instance, in the book of John there's a number of references to a man (John) beloved of God. You may understand that these don't imply that God only loves John, or even loves him more than others. But some people have read it that way. If John is the author, it could be easy to understand why that statement shows up in that Gospel.

I have to admit, some of the things you've stated probably need clarification for my sake.

From what I understand, you feel that since the word foreigner can potentially apply simply to a stranger or sojourner, not necessarily someone from a different nation, that the law stating if a slave runs away, that the law demanding his protection cannot be someone from a different nation?





--> @RoderickSpode
You're implying that there was bad treatment (justified by the law) against Hebrew servants.

I am having difficulty understanding your confusion. Do you believe foreign slaves and Israelite servants operated under the same rules? I mean, the passage alludes to different rules for each. The last line draws to mind the jubilee and the option for redemption - neither of which would be available to permanent slaves. This alone is different (and worse) treatment than native slaves. Having your liberty amputated is a fairly significant mistreatment!

Foreigners not being allowed to take part in some ceremonies is certainly not abuse. 

I'll just stop you there because you're lost already. As an attempted proof you provided (out of context) a verse [LINK] which seems to suggest (all) law applies equally to foreigner and Hebrew alike. When the context is added though, it is clear this verse is not talking about the law in general, but a specific law. 

From what I understand, you feel that since the word foreigner can potentially apply simply to a stranger or sojourner, not necessarily someone from a different nation, that the law stating if a slave runs away, that the law demanding his protection cannot be someone from a different nation?

I ask you to rephrase this paragraph/question. There are a lot of moving parts in there.
--> @Dr.Franklin
Old Testement, what a joke!
Your god's words are a joke?
Good for you.


--> @disgusted
Talking about the use of an OT argument
--> @disgusted


.
disgusted,

As we have seen ad infinitum, Dr. "C&P" Franklin slips on his Freudian all the time, therefore, he exposes himself as a minion of Satan.


.
--> @Dr.Franklin
Your god's words are a joke?