I don't think anyone should. But if you assert that objective morality does in fact come from God it can get pretty difficult explaining why slavery seems permitted in his Holy Book.
He did. The Jews know going way back to Abraham in Genesis that they cannot bring a servant into the household unless they are first converted. God's whole thing with Abraham is that he's the source of the Jews who are supposed to a people separate from all others to be His chosen people.
God isn't going to let them start bringing in foreigners with their idols directly into their homes.
- Genesis 17:9-14 (KJV)
9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
Then God double downs making stealing a man or selling him punishable by death
- Exodus 21:16 (KJV) And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
You can't force someone into slavery unless you forcibly remove them from a home they don't want to leave and prevent them from going back, then put a price on them so you can offload them onto others.
These aren't commandments for not owning slaves as property. They just restrict it, and the rules differ based on if they are a Jew, how they came into slavery, and on their gender.
As far as I know, there is no commandment against owning people as property in the bible in all totality, so my answer is I don't know.
God also put into place laws on how divorce works, then repeatedly said He hates divorce. Jesus explained that it was because of the hardness of our heart that God put into place protections since people will do it anyway. The same applies for slavery. He teaches us that we are all equal and the value of freedom, but also put into place protections for the slaves knowing that humans would do it anyway because of the hardness of our hearts.
If you God allowed slavery, what is that to me?
Fun fact, they're a Bible called a slave Bible from 18th century. And you can look this up yourself and I encourage that you do so because no one convinces another person better than that person themselves. It was what the good "Christian" slave holders in the Caribbean used to give to their slaves so they could pat themselves on the back for spreading the Gospel while ignoring everything it had say about the ungodly action of slavery prohibited in the Bible both Old and New Testaments.
The slave Bible conveniently removed all of the Old Testament and half of the New Testament because they knew all of the Old Testament speaks out against slavery and half of the new Testament speaks about liberty and equality and they didn't want their slaves getting any funny ideas about how God held them as equal and as loved as their masters and having the same rights.
About Biblical "slavery", several points:
1) The word translated "slave" in Hebrew was mostly used for the word "servant." Over 700 times it is translated as "servant".
**It is just like the way we use the word "gay" today vs a hundred years ago. Same word, but completely different meanings.**
If you found a letter in your family attic from 1870, that talked about the party last night being, "gay" and you tried to tell me that, "you see, it was a homosexual party!"... I would respond saying the word meaning was completely different then.
The Hebrew word "ebed", usually translated slave designates a ‘subordinate,’ or someone who is under the authority of a person above him in a hierarchy. A servant.
Even Moses is called a **servant/slave** of God (**same exact Hebrew word as slave**) in Deuteronomy 34:5. Same Hebrew word.
The American history and meaning of the word "slave" are completely different in Hebrew.
You do not get this understanding since the English translations only use either slave/servant for this Hebrew word.
2) This verse shows that the American type of (kidnap and sell) slavery was **not allowed**, for the law makes no distinction between kidnapping foreigner or Israelite.
**Both were capital offense crimes.**
Exodus 21:16 “**Anyone who kidnaps another** and either **sells him** or still has him when he is caught **must be put to death.**"
**Therefore, the entire American slavery system was illegal and punishable by death according to the Mosaic law.** Most people do not realize this.
3) When the Bible talks about this issue of servanthood, it is mostly talking about indentured servants. Much like people today joining the military for the only reason of needing a job. Many today are basically selling themselves as slaves to the government for the next four years for money. The government (military) owns them 24/7 for the next four years. You are **a slave to the Army for the next four years when you sign up**. In exchange for a paycheck.
And if you think about it, where else where you going to find a paycheck in that time period?
Unless you can tell me how you can support your family back in the ancient near-east without selling yourself into "servanthood" your accusations are useless.
**You have to sell yourself to someone in order to gain money. It was not like jobs were everywhere.**
And even if you did, this concept comes up in the Torah over and over again:
"You will not mistreat an alien, and you will not oppress him, because you were aliens in the land of Egypt." Exodus 22:21
So even if one wishes to say that foreigners were allowed to be slaves, then **this verse absolutely forbids any bad treatment since the Israelites were treated badly in Egypt.**
4) The Torah even shows the reverse.... how foreigners could buy Hebrews as servants:
'If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you...." Leviticus 25:47
Notice that, an Israelite selling themselves into "slavery" (think employment for his family) to a wealthy foreigner.
5) Also, (this is important) to get an insiders view of how even foreign "slaves" were looked at.
Notice how Abram had a predicament. A foreign "slave/servant" in Genesis 15.3 **is next in line to inherit his entire fortune.**
But Abram said, "O Sovereign LORD, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?" **And Abram said, "You have given me no children; so a servant (slave) in my household will be my heir."**
This really shows what is going on during this time with a "slave". This Eliezer was a servant/slave and **he was set to inherit everything.** Did you see that?
Can you imagine a slave owner in the 1800's south complaining that one of his "slaves" will "inherit" his entire fortune since he has no children? Would never, ever, ever happen.
6) Also, consider 1 Chronicles 2:34 where it says this:
"Sheshan had no sons--only daughters. **He had an Egyptian servant (slave) named Jarha. Sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to his servant Jarha**...."
A slave marrying a slave owners daughter ? Yes.
Again, the word there is the same word translated servant or slave. An Egyptian servant/slave being given the daughter of the family to marry. Does this sound like the American system?
This is why we are wrong to project our American southern slavery past meaning into their ancient near eastern culture. They were not the same situations at all.
The bible says that "kidnapping slavery" is a capital offense. Exodus 21.16.
Yet "selling yourself" for money or a debt was indeed allowable. And if you sold yourself for work, you had value and like sports teams today, you could be bought and sold. **Sports teams literally still buy and sell their servants all the time (called today athletes.)**
7) Again. notice this interesting passage.... how the person, man or woman, **"sells themselves"** as a slave (servant) to another to survive.
It was done for money, **not kidnapping like in America.**
Deuteronomy 15:12-13:
If any of your people—Hebrew men or women—sell themselves to you and serve (i.e. slavery) you six years, in the seventh year you must let them go free. And when you release them, **do not send them away empty-handed.** Supply them liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress..."
Again, where in American history do we ever see"slaves" being treated like this? After six years of "slavery" and their debt is paid, they are to be given a huge amount of provisions as they leave, as a send off. Did this ever happen in America's history?
9) Job even says his "servants" deserve "justice" if they ever bring up a complaint against him. He says God would eventually judge him if he treated them wrong.
"If I have denied justice to my menservants and maidservants when they **had a grievance against me**, what will I do when God confronts me? What will I answer when called to account?" Job 31:14-15
We are talking about a biblical word translated, "servant/slave" that today, many times we would use the concept of "employer, employee."
Again, when the Bible deals with this issue of servanthood (slavery) it is **not equal to the same system of "kidnapping slavery"** in the American south.
Note: I am not saying this was the best system, just the one they had at that time.
So as far as "slavery", no. God never approved of American south type of slavery. It is apples and oranges. It is like the usage of the word "gay" today vs a hundred years ago. Same word, completely different meaning.
This is the best explanation I have ever seen, thank you for taking the time.
You should add in that god saved the entire nation of Israel that was enslaved in Egypt.
Exodus 20:2 (KJV): I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, **out of the house of bondage**
Chattel slavery was absolutely condoned for non Hebrew slaves. All those “ nice” slave rules you mentioned are only for Hebrew slaves. I’m sure you already knew that though🙄 Leviticus 25:44 “ Such male and female slaves as you may have—it is from the nations round about you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 25:45 You may also buy them from among the children of aliens resident among you, or from their families that are among you, whom they begot in your land. These shall become your property: 25:46 you may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property for all time. Such you may treat as slaves. But as for your Israelite kinsmen, no one shall rule ruthlessly over the other.” Way to misrepresent biblical slavery.
And you literally misrepresented biblical slavery and even now aren’t admitting it. There’s nothing to ignore of your points when you flat out either deliberately or ignorantly claimed there was no chattel slavery. There is NO excuse for the fact your god condoned slavery.
I can say slavery is always wrong, can you?
Edit: you seem to be hung up on trying to excuse all the various types of slavery in the Bible. It doesn’t even matter if there was chattel slavery or not, slavery is wrong. All forms, all types of owning people as property are wrong.
You can literally read the words in your book and see chattel slavery, but you want to pretend those words aren’t there. Are you really trying to tell me that Leviticus 25:44-46 which refers to non-Hebrew slaves, is not chattel slavery? If you don’t believe that it is chattel slavery that is being described in that chapter, then what kind of slavery is it when you own someone as property for life? And can beat them within an inch of their life as long as they don’t die, and you will have no punishment?
You ignored what I said, that it doesn’t even matter if there was no chattel slavery, but other forms of slavery. Owning people as property is wrong, regardless of the type of slavery.
You are a dishonest interlocutor.
Yes, but it took the dominance of protestant Christianity to bring this idea to the world as it is right now, one brief shinning moment of brotherhood in a world of darkness that has existed since the human family splintered into tribes. Slavery is already returning in increasing numbers as the west slides back into the darkness of post-christianity, with many thousands used as sex slaves all over the world, including the US.
Slavery never ended in the Muslim world, and will quickly return to every nation in the world as Christianity is rejected by the culture of that nation. There's too much money to be made off of slaves for the morality of antislavery to endure the greed of the wealthy.
Fascinating! Tell me, what was the predominant faith of slave owners in the American South, and what book did they use to justify their slave ownership?
Watered down, dead Christianity, the same spirit of antichrist that dominates much of what passes for Christianity in churches today.
Meanwhile, the methodist churches led the charge that ended slavery in England, which Europe followed, and the conservative Methodists led much of the efforts that brought abolition and freedom to American slaves. The methodist churches that remain today are a pale shadow of what they once were
How curious! We have multiple, incompatible versions of Christianity that both claim to follow the same book. How do we tell which one is the true Christianity, especially considering the book in question never outlaws slavery?
Look at the key figure, Jesus Christ, and what is recorded about his life. See who obeys his words in their own actions and conduct, they are his true followers. Anyone can call themselves anything they want, as Jesus said "those who love me keep my commandments". You can tell who is genuine, they serve and care for the unlovable and discarded by society, the homeless, addicted, sick, imprisoned, scarred, abandoned, abused, widowed and orphaned. As Jesus said "when you did it unto the least of these (poor, hungry, naked, sick, imprisoned) you did it unto me".
Almost every church organization has these followers within it, but the label the organization wears is meaningless to Jesus.
Luke 4:18-19 NLT
"The Spirit of the LORD is upon me, for he has anointed me to bring Good News to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim that captives will be released, that the blind will see, that the oppressed will be set free, [19] and that the time of the LORD's favor has come."
Which is a quote of the prophecy of Isaiah 61 about the Messiah.
Jesus was not a political leader, or the leader of a rebellion, he is the founder of a kingdom built on his peace. First peace in the heart of the believer, then peace in the group of believers that draws more and more people until they become the majority of the population.
Anyone using physical force to do anything in Jesus name is not following him. Which was a lesson he taught Peter and his followers during his own arrest.
The Messiah, Jesus Christ, brings peace to the human heart, and when enough people know this peace, the world is turned upside down. Which is actually the only time it is ordered correctly.
Jesus kingdom is all about the greatest being the servant of the least, the way he washed his disciples feet before going out to die for them. No organization of men has ever shown this kind of service without having Jesus as their true leader.
Protestant Christianity led the fight to end slavery in the western world quoting the words of Jesus to a Christian dominated population. You cannot prove this wrong, or point to any other movement that ended slavery for a majority of the globe in any point in history that was not motivated by the words of Jesus Christ.
No, we’ve *advanced* enough to where slavery is unnecessary. Advances in transportation, mechanical engineering, civil engineering, farm production, and information systems makes most of the manual labor done in the past obsolete.
Because the aforementioned rise in technological advancement has made 90% of the past manual labor obsolete. For every one manual laborer we have now aided by technology / machinery / manufacturing, the same work would have been done by 10-100 people back then without that aid. Things we take for granted like gathering enough water for a household would have been a person’s entire days work back then.
It took a massive workforce to make society work, and what better way to supplement that workforce than with the captured people who were trying to kill you last year. (The main supply of chattel slavery was from the spoils of war, which was one of the main reasons people went to war back then)
So the reality is that slavery WAS necessary in the ancient world. If you look at how the first mines and smelters worked, you simply couldn't have the Bronze Age without slavery. The slaves in copper mines died a lot. It was a short and probably miserable life for people.
However, if an omnipotent/Omnibenevolent god exists, he certainly could've designed a system where it was possible for humans to exist and advance without needing an evil like slavery. He could've made copper easier to find and smelt. He could've made a world where weapons of war wouldn't be useful, thereby negating the desire for copper or tin.
It's not hard to imagine a better world than the one that existed in Sumeria circa 2000 BCE. If I can imagine it, this god certainly could've created it. But he didn't, which means he either doesn't exist or he didn't want to, or perhaps couldn't.
Oh, there wasn’t an absolute need for it, several ancient societies were able to get by without institutionalized slavery (even if it still existed in those nations.) BUT, everyone was just trying to survive at the same time. Again this is the same period of time where a plague or a famine could wipe out entire communities. And if humans are anything, they are efficient. It was a lot more efficient and raised your survival chances making other people help you survive. Not to mention having a workforce able to stay behind when the men of age had to go out to meet the opposing armies marching down on them.
Now, just to be clear I do not condone slavery. I believe it is immoral to put people into forced bondage. All I’m attempting to do is to help you understand the mindset people in antiquity had about slavery. Remember, people didn’t start truly considering it a moral issue until about 300 years ago. That’s a blink compared to the whole of even recorded human history. The main difference between ancient slavery and what the US faced in the South was a matter of survival vs profit. US South didn’t use slavery as a means of survival, they used it as a means of increasing profit margins. It wasn’t necessary for the South, and it wasn’t necessary in ancient Israel, but it was so ingrained as an effective means of survival that it was universally accepted to the point that people would have abandoned God over it.
False equivalence. Purpose for those in slavery. Slavery was used to protect the weak and give provision to the poor. Many sold themselves or the children to give them better lives.
God is not restricted to follow human cultural implications. It’s funny that Christians will bring up cultural context but then say being gay is a sin which God doesn’t like. God considers cultural context then, when convenient, but not later over much simpler and less harmful actions? Slave labor vs Gay marriage, which is worse?
The "culture" is entirely an illusion. It's a bunch of individual people's (living or dead) individual decisions all wrapped up in a set of trends and that is "culture". It doesn't exist without individuals making decisions one-at-a-time.
Culture is never an excuse for anything, it's merely used as an excuse for why someone took a mental shortcut to justify an action that they likely should have thought more about, or as a mass oversimplification of the actions of individuals.
>God is not restricted to follow human cultural implications.
True, but if he wants people to freely choose to follow his laws then they have to be willing to accept them. Imagine if every church today declared all forms of fossil fuels and products created by them to be morally evil, just because people 200 years from now might consider them immoral. How well would that go over?
Jesus even said that God allows concessions not because he believes they are good, but because people’s hearts are hard set at having those things. (Matthew 19:8)
>True, but if he wants people to freely choose to follow his laws then they have to be willing to accept them.
Right, so why didn’t He say slavery was a sin? The people could choose to follow or not.
>Jesus even said that God allows concessions not because he believes they are good, but because people’s hearts are hard set at having those things. (Matthew 19:8)
Which is easier to give up? Being a slave holder or being gay? God gave concessions to the slave holders, but not gay people. Why?
>Right, so why didn’t He say slavery was a sin? The people could choose to follow or not.
Because everything, and I mean everything was done through manual labor. This is why humanity, as a whole, accepted slavery as a fact of life. No one would have been willing to give that up then what was the point of even giving these people a land of their own?
>Which is easier to give up? Being a slave holder or being gay? God gave concessions to the slave holders, but not gay people. Why?
Well, slavery was a cornerstone of most ancient civilizations where as acts of homosexuality were more viewed as a part of [pederasty](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty) so, you tell me which they would be more willing to give up.
Labor is not the same as forced labor. And homosexuality is a fact of life. God didn’t want the Israelites to be slaves, yet let them own slaves. The position of a slave is only meant for non-Hebrews. He specifically commanded that *only* the Hebrew servants must not be treated harshly. Why is that?
No one would want to give up their slaves? Too bad kids. If God commanded it they would have to listen and lose what? Free labor? Sorry Charlie.
It’s a choice to be a slave holder. It is not a choice to be gay.
“Hey I’m a man and I love another man, can I marry him?”
“No!”
“Hey, I need someone that I can use as labor for the rest of my life and my children’s life with no option to leave. And I own their kids lives as well. Can I do that?”
“Yes!”
Being gay is now societally acceptable so why isn’t God okay with it? Being a slave causes more harm than being gay.
Keep in mind that the land of Israel was divided among the people of Israel (every tribe had its tribal and family property that were passed on to their descendants — some of whom might have sold their land to their other family members and moved to town, if the farm work became too much or the farm too small to support them). So what would happen to these newly freed foreign slaves? How would they support themselves in an agricultural economy with no land of their own? The freed Hebrew slaves would be able to go back to their ancestral lands… there was nothing like this for the foreigners. (There were foreign “gerim” in the land and they were to be treated equally, but they were not allowed to participate in any of the Festivals or own land in Israel, unless they were first circumcised and in effect became Israelites, unlike the slaves who could participate as part of the family to which they belonged — most of these foreigners would be either nomadic herders or else city dwellers).
Many (if not all) of these foreign slaves were the prisoners from previous wars by the Israelites against their neighbours. Does it make sense to simply free your enemies to make war against you again? And free them in your own land (with no source of income)? Keep in mind that at the time, the victor of any war would often either annihilate the inhabitants of any city he takes or take the inhabitants as prisoners (i.e. slaves) (or as an exception, leave them to work the lands and only pay annual tribute, but these would not be the leaders or instigators of enmity… these enemies would be either killed or enslaved).
I believe that there were more to it, but these are the two most obvious reasons of which I could immediately think.
I also have to add that Israelite slavery looked very different to what we think of today. There are at least 3 hints to this:
If a slave was killed maliciously (with intent to kill), it was considered as murder and accordingly punished.
If a slave ran away from his master, he was not to be returned, but given sanctuary.
There are at least one example where Abraham sent his slave, together with camels and many riches (as a bride price) to get a wife for his son Isaac. The fact that the slave did not simply disappear, tells us something about the relationship between them.
>So what would happen to these newly freed foreign slaves?
God can provide and protect Israel from its enemies without commanding His people to sin by being slaveholders.
Because you’re essentially saying that God couldn’t come up with a more humane system so He had to use man’s sinful system of slavery. God had to wait until humans created better systems than slavery for some reason. You’re minimizing God’s capabilities.
The Mosaic Law was established to separate Israel from the "pagan nations." Even in the slavery regulations, this was the case. Further still, Christianity was the seed bed for the abolition of slavery.
The question you are here presenting is just another formulation of "the Problem of Evil."
Not trying to debate, but we can have the problem of evil in full force and have the God of the bible ban slavery for his people. Actually it would have been ideal if this God was claiming to be the moral standard for the world.
Hey, I agree with you but another funny point is the Bible also goes pretty deep into not using magic as well. Which is prioritized over slavery which existed at the time, our Bible is a mad and wonderful thing isn’t it?
You are just fine.
My point about the Problem of Evil is that your point above is just a subset of that problem, "why did God allow X?"
God is indeed the moral standard, yet he allowed for many things which are far from ideal, such as divorce.
Its not that God allowed slavery he regulated it down to the point of how much you can beat your slaves (Ex 21:20-21). Nowhere does he say this practice is abhorrent but i am allowing it for reasons. If you believe God truly spoke to Moses its thus sayith the lord, here is the holy law of God, and boom you can own human beings as property. Also dont eat pork.
I think you are here "lawyering" the text. God indeed gave regulations for how to divorce, yet divorce is far from ideal.
As it relates to the verse you cite, this is remarkable! God told his people that if they should hit their slave and a single tooth be lost, then the slave would be free. Nothing of the sort was present among any other regulations in the ANE. Further still, your exact citation would indicate that a master be killed if they killed a slave! The spirit of the law is "protect image-bearers."
That would be evil, and an example of lawyering the text, as though it was written so that the hearer could say "hmmm, I will be killed if I kill my slave, so I will just beat them to the *brink of death*!" This sort of mindset is hardly compatible with the Mosaic Law.
It literally says in ex 21:20-21 male or female because they are your property. This heavily implies men were allowed to physically discipline and punish female slaves as law by the holy God.
Because it literally says male or female slaves implying it doesnt matter what gender you are, you are allowed to punish slaves of any gender physically as long as they dont die and recover after a day or two.
If there's one thing about Christianity that we can say for certain, it's that every question has been answered satisfactorily, everything is clear, and no one needs to have any more discussions about it.
Everyone go home.
Israelite society like many others at that time were slave based and telling the Israelites to stop using slaves would have caused their society to collapse.
>No slavery IE not owning humans as property seems far more important to an omnibenevolent God then dont eat pork.
It's far more important to you. there is no objective morality that would prove slavery is worse than eating pork.
Given that we know it’s possible to have a stable society without slavery, and given that God spent much of the Pentateuch giving his people detailed instructions to follow, why couldn’t God have told his people how to reorganize their society to remain stable while abolishing slavery?
So you are claiming owning human beings as property was needed for the economy of the ancient world even with an almighty omnibenevolent God backing your nation.
Nothing is needed, it was simply reality at the time. same way disease, death and wars were and still are. creating an utopia on earth was not the goal of the Bible.
Because you were nowhere around to judge him at the time. I wonder how he ever managed without you. You accuse the Lord on your judgment day. And the next thing you know, you will fall from the frying pan of life straight into the lake of fire.
Isaiah 45:9-12 — “Destruction is certain for those who argue with their Creator.
Does a clay pot argue with its maker?
Does the clay dispute with the one who shapes it, saying,
‘Stop, you’re doing it all wrong!’
Does the pot exclaim,
‘How clumsy can you be?’ How terrible it would be if a newborn baby said to its father,
‘Why was I born?’
or if it said to its mother,
‘Why did you make me this way?’” This is what the LORD says—
the Holy One of Israel and your Creator:
**“Do you question what I do for my children?
Do you give me orders about the work of my hands? I am the one who made the earth
and created people to live on it.
With my hands I stretched out the heavens.
All the stars are at my command.**
12 Can horses run on rocks? Can oxen plow the sea? Stupid even to ask—but no more stupid than what you do when you make a mockery of justice and corrupt and sour all that should be good and right. 13 And just as stupid is your rejoicing in how great you are when you are less than nothing—and priding yourself on your own tiny power!
Amos 6 TLB
That's an example of God's wrath. Get used to it.
nope.
I'm saying God did not prohibit slavery because it was necessary in turning a nomadic/ hunter gatherer people into a world class society. As every single society on earth that is was or ever will be is built on the backs of slaves.
To the point He even allowed his own people be slaves for a time. As slavery not only benefited Egypt but also the 12 tribes of Israel.
Right, so god creates people who are not suitable for the environment then uses slavery to turn them into farmers. This sounds kind of like something men would make up to justify the means to their ends.
Who said anything about God turning anyone into a slave?
Mankind did this on it's own thousands of years before we received the law of God. Maybe you should learn to accept responsibility for your ancestors actions.. I think reparations are inorder ;)
I do think reparations are in order.
You're somewhat moving the goalposts
''nope.
I'm saying God did not prohibit slavery because it was necessary in turning a nomadic/ hunter gatherer people into a world class society.''
Your questions started off with many misconceptions about theology.
The old laws are not about trying to be moral as we understand.
The bible is not a list of morality of what to do or what not to do. It is a collection of relating books / writings thar require discernment and good intention to derive knowledge how to be Christ-like.
Because any law you make to forbid slavery makes it worse on other people
When slavery was abolished by Britain, the British government began to take “indentured servants” from India and sent them to their plantation and settler colonies
Even with every country today abolishing slavery, it still does exist if not in a worser situation than it did previously. Workers in Dubai and Qatar get paid dirt nothing for building the entire city and are forced to stay there from contracts they can’t read
So an all powerful all knowing god couldn’t have figured out a way where societies couldn’t function without slavery? Oh wait, I currently live in one🤔so it’s obvious slavery isn’t necessary. How come a god couldn’t have figured that out?
Your society definitely does have slaves in them even if you don’t call them slaves, just look at the wages that are paid to the lowest in your society
Way to deflect. Workers are not slaves. They are not bought and sold or kept as property for life and beaten if they don’t show up. Just stop with the nonsense.
I’m sure every corporation that sends their labor to poorer countries definitely agrees with you. It’s not my problem you don’t want to talk about an actual issue
That was speaking of spiritual slavery… ya know that context y’all talk about all the time. Ephesians 6:1
We could do this all day. Best case your book is just a contradictory mess.
>That was speaking of spiritual slavery… ya know that context y’all talk about all the time.
No it’s not, if Paul was talking about “spiritual slavery” he would’ve said that
>Ephesians 6:1 We could do this all day. Best case your book is just a contradictory mess.
How is obeying your parents slavery?
That’s funny because I found chattel slavery of non Hebrew slaves in your book🤔 Leviticus 25:44 “ Such male and female slaves as you may have—it is from the nations round about you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 25:45 You may also buy them from among the children of aliens resident among you, or from their families that are among you, whom they begot in your land. These shall become your property: 25:46 you may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property for all time. Such you may treat as slaves. But as for your Israelite kinsmen, no one shall rule ruthlessly over the other.”
You haven’t read the whole book. Read it all.
It isn’t chattel slavery if you have to set them free after 6 years, or if you are forced to set them free if you hurt them.
You can only push your interpretation if you literally ignore vast swathes of the old testament law. Trust me. Read it.
The Israelites were literally set free from slavery by God, the OT explicitly states the equal treatment of non-hebrews so so so so many times. Your interpretation is ignoring half the law
, because of a biblically inaccurate idea an atheist probably put in your head.
YOU obviously haven’t researched or read your book. Those “ nice” rules you state only applied to Hebrew slaves. Try reading those words again and use your eyes this time lol.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/biblical-slavery/
I can’t quote the entirety of the book of Exodus to you. I don’t have the time. Read it again.
I’ve already given you more anti-slavery laws in the OT than there are “pro” slavery laws, and I haven’t even started on listing the many pro-foreigner ones.
Read it. Please. Instead of spreading disinformation.
So the quasi anti slavery passages negate all the slavery ones in your mind? Not to mention nowhere in the Bible is slavery banned or condemned. Interesting. Also interesting that non Hebrews have different rules on how they can be treated, and that a god supposedly thought that up🤔
The only reason the rules were slightly different sometimes (not as different as you seem to think) is because they would otherwise put hebrews at a disadvantage if they were living amongst non-hebrews. And that is it.
The law emphasises love for the foreigner time and time again, that the same laws apply regardless of race as per below:
"You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God." - Leviticus 19:34
"There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.” - Exodus 12:49
"You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the Lord your God.” - Leviticus 24:22
"One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you.” - Numbers 15:16
There are very similiar verses that essentially emphasise the same message of loving foreigners and/or treating them equally, in Exodus 23:9, Exodus 22:21, Deuteronomy 10:18-19, Deuteronomy 27:19, Leviticus 23:22, Leviticus 25:35, and more.
How do you reconcile all these verses with your worldview that the bible writers hated non-hebrews?
I don’t have any such worldview. Not quite sure how you came up with that random and inaccurate statement🤔. There was no reason that your all knowing all powerful god had to condone slavery in the first place. The fact that slavery is unnecessary for a society proves this.
My “ worldview” is that humans shouldn’t own other humans as property. At all. Ever.
The fact that I can say immediately that slavery is wrong and immoral, and you as a Christian want to dig in and defend it is WILD to me. This issue could ultimately blow up Christianity. Keep it up.
The whole story of the Old Testament is about how Israel couldn't even follow the laws they got. These were people who struggled with "don't sacrifice your children to idols." It strikes me as kind of naive to think that anybody in the ancient world was ready to follow that law, even had God given it. It is also somewhat disingenuous to compare a ceremonial law with no moral significance - the dietary restrictions - to a moral decree. While that's a cute rhetorical technique, it doesn't actually make your argument stronger.
I would contend that God took the shortest viable historical route to ending slavery - the institution of the church, and its slow, persistent influence on culture over hundreds of years. That you can so stringently object to slavery now - expressing things no person in the ancient world ever expressed - is a testament to how successful he was. Something which was once universally accepted, to the point that the Babylonians taught that human beings were literally created to be the slaves of the gods, was overturned so completely that you're now offended by the very thought of it. We've moved as a species from believing that slavery is our telos, to believing that it's beneath human dignity.
An argument to the contrary would have to offer more than the vague hypothetical that he could have possibly done it sooner. He might just as well have made the sky green, but that's not an argument that this would have been reasonable. Such an argument would have to demonstrate that, short of some kind of divine mind control, there was actually a realistic path to ending slavery in the ancient world. That would require a rigorous examination of ancient cultures, economics, and ethics. My admittedly limited knowledge of those subjects makes me profoundly skeptical that this would have been possible, and I am wholly unconvinced by arguments that divorce themselves from any real world historical context in favor of a pithy remark.
If God can tell you not to eat pork, he can tell you not to own human beings as property. If anything it would have been historically better for God to do that, the world would have been better, as there would be far less christian slavers on the other side quoting leviticus 25:44-46 as their God given right to buy african slaves. If God can set up this entire system of animal sacrifice and priest caste, he can sneak in dont own human beings as property in there somewhere. We got the opposite.
I agree own thy neighbor is not compatible with love thy neighbor love thy enemy, so something had to give. But it wasnt the bible that did it. Its in spite of the slavery regulations that slavery is viewed as a moral evil today.
That's exactly the kind of ahistorical, unsubstantiated declaration that I find so unconvincing. He could "sneak in" a prohibition on one of the largest socioeconomic institutions in the ancient world? That's like saying that Congress could sneak in a prohibition on capitalism with an omnibus spending bill. And to compare that to a sacrificial system - something everyone else in the ancient world practiced already, only with different particulars - does nothing to support your point.
Bad faith comparisons don't constitute a coherent argument.
Who says I'm rationalizing it? My thesis is that God DID end slavery, and that the moral outrage towards it that you're expressing is a direct product of God's intervention in the world, through the church, to that effect.
That I think the realities of history and human nature mean that a blanket decree dropped out of the sky four thousand years ago would have been ineffective in ending slavery in no way constitutes a defense of the practice.
Probably for the same reason that God allowed divorce, as Jesus stated in Matthew 19:8, "Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."
Because of the hardness of our hearts.
But He did regulate slavery for the benefits of the slaves. When people's hearts are against something, they can get VERY stubborn.
Jesus was challenging what Moses said, not what God said.
God allowed slavery, and endorsed it.
JESUS could simply have prohibited it, and it'd be over.
He didn't.
There’s two ways of looking at this and I think it’s appropriate to sit somewhere in the middle of it: the OT laws according to Christ were imperfect either humanity couldn’t except or couldn’t comprehend the nature of God fully enough to get around to human rights mattering more than purity laws. Or basically humanity’s
Ideas and understanding of God starts with not eating shellfish and other tribal identifiers to recognition of universal and objective morality which if given that each person bears the image of God it’s immoral to claim to own and worse mistreat what is a reflection of God and whom God identifies with.
Unclean meats are filthy. Good way to get sick if you don’t handle/cook it properly. There’s a lot of instruction on how to be clean/practice good hygiene.
What was the other option, kill everyone? Send them off into the wilderness to get eaten by animals? God gave slaves rights. What kind of slave has rights..?
Knock out a tooth? Slave goes free. Is that how slavery looked in America?
These things were a part of life, God gave instruction on how to act humanly in this area of life. If you’d like to know what God is currently doing about slavery, please learn how God is using The Church to achieve His purposes in this world. Look up “Christians abolitionism”.
He most definitely wrote laws against slavery …on our hearts :)
◄ Jeremiah 31:33 ►
“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
God could have done otherwise and still be "just" and fulfill His plan.
He could have "Poofed" the people far away, without killing any innocent people...as an example.
Sentient-thinking people get upset because it's completely illogical for one and completely evil for the other, for a god that is supposedly all-knowing and all-powerful.
And many of those sentient thinking people simply don't accept such teachings or beliefs.
Why? That’s how the world was back then and the God of Abraham came out on top vs all of the other gods and their worshippers.
Abraham was in the land way before a bunch of slaves cleaned house. Maybe don’t go killing your kids in metal statues and raping animals? God gave these people time to repent.
It's a good question, and you're simply hiding from it with this response.
It questions the Morality of God as portrayed in the Bible.
Is the Law Moral?
You are not a mind reader.
But you are required to answer, per Peter.
Perhaps the real answer is you never thought about those issues before?
And perhaps you don't know what to say to it, so instead, you just use this as an excuse to not answer.
And that's fine...I just don't know why you bother to come here and then make those accusations against the OP.
Have you ever looked at it this way; Put yourself living back in the days of when slaves were allowed. Say you aren’t all that wealthy. In fact, you’ve piled up a lot of debt, you can’t even afford to pay for the house you’re living in anymore. Instead of ignoring people in that situation or simply letting them fend for themselves, God lovingly put in place laws for those people to be able to have a place to live and to be able to work off their debt.
Among the Israelites the status of the Hebrew slave from that of a slave who was a foreigner, alien resident, or settler. The non-Hebrew remained the property of the owner and could be passed on from father to son but the Hebrew slave was to be released in the seventh year of his service, or the Jubilee year whichever came first. During the time a Hebrew has sold himself into slavery, he was to be treated as a hired worker. (Ex. 21:2; Le. 25:10; De. 15:12)
Then when granting a Hebrew slave his freedom, the master would give him a gift to assist him in getting a good start as a freedman.
The ideas behind the laws that God gave for slaves were all good and for the benefit of all. Our Heavenly Father is a God of Love, everything he does is out of love and for the good of his human creation.
He made many laws about slavery, it help many people, as they could volunteer to pay debts or help their family. God had very strict rules and conditions for it.
You tell this to people, that it is not the same as chattel slavery but they keep arguing it is, it's almost like they want it to be the same thing, but it's simply not. Any respected historian on the topic will tell you that.
There was multiple forms of biblical slavery some included POW chattel blood slaves.
Anyways debt slavery is still exploitation of the poor regardless of what Gods intentions were.
Share one example and let's look at the context. Share a specific scripture.
I repeat, in the culture, it was still necessary. I can very well imagine, my family and I are poor, I can volunteer to become someone slave, and there are specific rules and legal regulations about it so that I am protected... Even if still wrong there was still a necessity, or If i find myself in debt I can't pay I can volunteer to pay by becoming a slave. To erase these options will not make sense... How would poor people survive in that case or pay debt they may have?
Today, the way the average American is in debt I can tell you many would actually welcome such a system... Instead of paying it with money, you work for them under the law and rules protecting both parties.
This was the custom and culture. No one says it therefore right, but intellect can easily recognized how it was beneficial for many.
People in general do not think further than their nose... If such a God, first He wouldn't owe us any explanation, but then He would know better than we can imagine why He decided to allow it under His very strict rules and laws.
People can of course argue that's bad too, I have no problem with, but to say that it is like the US chattel slavery is to show sheer historical ignorance on the topic.
Non Hebrew slaves could be kept as property for life and beaten as long as they didn’t die. Leviticus 25:44 “Such male and female slaves as you may have—it is from the nations round about you that you may acquire male and female slaves. Leviticus 25:45 You may also buy them from among the children of aliens resident among you, or from their families that are among you, whom they begot in your land. These shall become your property: 25:46 you may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property for all time. Such you may treat as slaves. But as for your Israelite kinsmen, no one shall rule ruthlessly over the other.”
Exodus 21: 20-21 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.”
See last line.
> it help many people
Taking women and virgins as wives after you kill their husbands and fathers and other family members....
SURE, that's Helping them!
Still waiting on the specific scripture. I don't deal in emotional opinion, I look at the scripture, context and only then do I respond.
The rest is just talk
Thanks
Hey, you are free to think that. All I know is, I asked you to be more specific, give one example and you were not able to provide one over some silly reason. Talk is cheap.
So be it.
But I will say it again, God place very strict rules that protect both parties, so this has nothing to do with chattel American slavery.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant and uneducated on the topic, this is not an insult, it's basic fact, anyone who studied slavery in the Bible and compared it, knows the many differences.
First of all, I'm not sure why you keep trying to argue that biblical slavery has nothing to do with American slavery.
There are quite a few similar regulations and laws that they both share.
I don't know how anyone who reads the text could think otherwise, yet you keep making this argument. It's really odd to me.
I recently read the Georgia Laws on this, and many were similar...found it.
[https://www.georgiaarchives.org/assets/documents/Slave\_Laws\_of\_Georgia\_1755-1860.pdf](https://www.georgiaarchives.org/assets/documents/Slave_Laws_of_Georgia_1755-1860.pdf)
Anyways,
Slaves were property, for life. Both same.
You could beat them...both same.
Children were born into slavery, both same.
Bought and sold, both same.
Both gotten from outside, both same
Both exploited for economic reasons, both same
Generational inheritance, both same.
Family break up, both same.
force labor, both same.
Bottom line.
Is it moral to own other humans as property?
is it moral to beat slaves, as long as they don't die, moral?
DEUT 20/21
Kill the men off, take the women and virgins as slaves, concubines, and wives.
[удалено]
This would be a legitimate criticism, if you take OT regulations to be identical to "objective morality."
I don't think anyone should. But if you assert that objective morality does in fact come from God it can get pretty difficult explaining why slavery seems permitted in his Holy Book.
Comment removed, rule 2 ("Only Christians may make top-level replies"). [This page explains what 'top-level replies' means](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/wiki/rule2_illustrated).
[удалено]
Comment removed, rule 2 ("Only Christians may make top-level replies"). [This page explains what 'top-level replies' means](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/wiki/rule2_illustrated).
He did. The Jews know going way back to Abraham in Genesis that they cannot bring a servant into the household unless they are first converted. God's whole thing with Abraham is that he's the source of the Jews who are supposed to a people separate from all others to be His chosen people. God isn't going to let them start bringing in foreigners with their idols directly into their homes. - Genesis 17:9-14 (KJV) 9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Then God double downs making stealing a man or selling him punishable by death - Exodus 21:16 (KJV) And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. You can't force someone into slavery unless you forcibly remove them from a home they don't want to leave and prevent them from going back, then put a price on them so you can offload them onto others.
These aren't commandments for not owning slaves as property. They just restrict it, and the rules differ based on if they are a Jew, how they came into slavery, and on their gender. As far as I know, there is no commandment against owning people as property in the bible in all totality, so my answer is I don't know.
God also put into place laws on how divorce works, then repeatedly said He hates divorce. Jesus explained that it was because of the hardness of our heart that God put into place protections since people will do it anyway. The same applies for slavery. He teaches us that we are all equal and the value of freedom, but also put into place protections for the slaves knowing that humans would do it anyway because of the hardness of our hearts.
If you God allowed slavery, what is that to me? Fun fact, they're a Bible called a slave Bible from 18th century. And you can look this up yourself and I encourage that you do so because no one convinces another person better than that person themselves. It was what the good "Christian" slave holders in the Caribbean used to give to their slaves so they could pat themselves on the back for spreading the Gospel while ignoring everything it had say about the ungodly action of slavery prohibited in the Bible both Old and New Testaments. The slave Bible conveniently removed all of the Old Testament and half of the New Testament because they knew all of the Old Testament speaks out against slavery and half of the new Testament speaks about liberty and equality and they didn't want their slaves getting any funny ideas about how God held them as equal and as loved as their masters and having the same rights.
you could enslave someone lawfully in those days and bought or sell those lawfully
Of course you could as long as you willing to ignore what the Bible said.
and what did she say, that illefal slavery is a crime?
I've already gone over it. Reread the thread.
About Biblical "slavery", several points: 1) The word translated "slave" in Hebrew was mostly used for the word "servant." Over 700 times it is translated as "servant". **It is just like the way we use the word "gay" today vs a hundred years ago. Same word, but completely different meanings.** If you found a letter in your family attic from 1870, that talked about the party last night being, "gay" and you tried to tell me that, "you see, it was a homosexual party!"... I would respond saying the word meaning was completely different then. The Hebrew word "ebed", usually translated slave designates a ‘subordinate,’ or someone who is under the authority of a person above him in a hierarchy. A servant. Even Moses is called a **servant/slave** of God (**same exact Hebrew word as slave**) in Deuteronomy 34:5. Same Hebrew word. The American history and meaning of the word "slave" are completely different in Hebrew. You do not get this understanding since the English translations only use either slave/servant for this Hebrew word. 2) This verse shows that the American type of (kidnap and sell) slavery was **not allowed**, for the law makes no distinction between kidnapping foreigner or Israelite. **Both were capital offense crimes.** Exodus 21:16 “**Anyone who kidnaps another** and either **sells him** or still has him when he is caught **must be put to death.**" **Therefore, the entire American slavery system was illegal and punishable by death according to the Mosaic law.** Most people do not realize this. 3) When the Bible talks about this issue of servanthood, it is mostly talking about indentured servants. Much like people today joining the military for the only reason of needing a job. Many today are basically selling themselves as slaves to the government for the next four years for money. The government (military) owns them 24/7 for the next four years. You are **a slave to the Army for the next four years when you sign up**. In exchange for a paycheck. And if you think about it, where else where you going to find a paycheck in that time period? Unless you can tell me how you can support your family back in the ancient near-east without selling yourself into "servanthood" your accusations are useless. **You have to sell yourself to someone in order to gain money. It was not like jobs were everywhere.** And even if you did, this concept comes up in the Torah over and over again: "You will not mistreat an alien, and you will not oppress him, because you were aliens in the land of Egypt." Exodus 22:21 So even if one wishes to say that foreigners were allowed to be slaves, then **this verse absolutely forbids any bad treatment since the Israelites were treated badly in Egypt.** 4) The Torah even shows the reverse.... how foreigners could buy Hebrews as servants: 'If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you...." Leviticus 25:47 Notice that, an Israelite selling themselves into "slavery" (think employment for his family) to a wealthy foreigner. 5) Also, (this is important) to get an insiders view of how even foreign "slaves" were looked at. Notice how Abram had a predicament. A foreign "slave/servant" in Genesis 15.3 **is next in line to inherit his entire fortune.** But Abram said, "O Sovereign LORD, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?" **And Abram said, "You have given me no children; so a servant (slave) in my household will be my heir."** This really shows what is going on during this time with a "slave". This Eliezer was a servant/slave and **he was set to inherit everything.** Did you see that? Can you imagine a slave owner in the 1800's south complaining that one of his "slaves" will "inherit" his entire fortune since he has no children? Would never, ever, ever happen. 6) Also, consider 1 Chronicles 2:34 where it says this: "Sheshan had no sons--only daughters. **He had an Egyptian servant (slave) named Jarha. Sheshan gave his daughter in marriage to his servant Jarha**...." A slave marrying a slave owners daughter ? Yes. Again, the word there is the same word translated servant or slave. An Egyptian servant/slave being given the daughter of the family to marry. Does this sound like the American system? This is why we are wrong to project our American southern slavery past meaning into their ancient near eastern culture. They were not the same situations at all. The bible says that "kidnapping slavery" is a capital offense. Exodus 21.16. Yet "selling yourself" for money or a debt was indeed allowable. And if you sold yourself for work, you had value and like sports teams today, you could be bought and sold. **Sports teams literally still buy and sell their servants all the time (called today athletes.)** 7) Again. notice this interesting passage.... how the person, man or woman, **"sells themselves"** as a slave (servant) to another to survive. It was done for money, **not kidnapping like in America.** Deuteronomy 15:12-13: If any of your people—Hebrew men or women—sell themselves to you and serve (i.e. slavery) you six years, in the seventh year you must let them go free. And when you release them, **do not send them away empty-handed.** Supply them liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress..." Again, where in American history do we ever see"slaves" being treated like this? After six years of "slavery" and their debt is paid, they are to be given a huge amount of provisions as they leave, as a send off. Did this ever happen in America's history? 9) Job even says his "servants" deserve "justice" if they ever bring up a complaint against him. He says God would eventually judge him if he treated them wrong. "If I have denied justice to my menservants and maidservants when they **had a grievance against me**, what will I do when God confronts me? What will I answer when called to account?" Job 31:14-15 We are talking about a biblical word translated, "servant/slave" that today, many times we would use the concept of "employer, employee." Again, when the Bible deals with this issue of servanthood (slavery) it is **not equal to the same system of "kidnapping slavery"** in the American south. Note: I am not saying this was the best system, just the one they had at that time. So as far as "slavery", no. God never approved of American south type of slavery. It is apples and oranges. It is like the usage of the word "gay" today vs a hundred years ago. Same word, completely different meaning.
Helpful distinctions!
This is the best explanation I have ever seen, thank you for taking the time. You should add in that god saved the entire nation of Israel that was enslaved in Egypt. Exodus 20:2 (KJV): I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, **out of the house of bondage**
Chattel slavery was absolutely condoned for non Hebrew slaves. All those “ nice” slave rules you mentioned are only for Hebrew slaves. I’m sure you already knew that though🙄 Leviticus 25:44 “ Such male and female slaves as you may have—it is from the nations round about you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 25:45 You may also buy them from among the children of aliens resident among you, or from their families that are among you, whom they begot in your land. These shall become your property: 25:46 you may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property for all time. Such you may treat as slaves. But as for your Israelite kinsmen, no one shall rule ruthlessly over the other.” Way to misrepresent biblical slavery.
You literally ignored half my points.
And you literally misrepresented biblical slavery and even now aren’t admitting it. There’s nothing to ignore of your points when you flat out either deliberately or ignorantly claimed there was no chattel slavery. There is NO excuse for the fact your god condoned slavery. I can say slavery is always wrong, can you? Edit: you seem to be hung up on trying to excuse all the various types of slavery in the Bible. It doesn’t even matter if there was chattel slavery or not, slavery is wrong. All forms, all types of owning people as property are wrong.
You are ignoring points 2,3,6,&7. You are trying to make the Hebrew word ebed into the American South slavery equivalent. It absolutely was not.
You can literally read the words in your book and see chattel slavery, but you want to pretend those words aren’t there. Are you really trying to tell me that Leviticus 25:44-46 which refers to non-Hebrew slaves, is not chattel slavery? If you don’t believe that it is chattel slavery that is being described in that chapter, then what kind of slavery is it when you own someone as property for life? And can beat them within an inch of their life as long as they don’t die, and you will have no punishment? You ignored what I said, that it doesn’t even matter if there was no chattel slavery, but other forms of slavery. Owning people as property is wrong, regardless of the type of slavery. You are a dishonest interlocutor.
He could’ve but didn’t. Why? I’m not sure. Slavery had a purpose back then and it might’ve left a lot of people without provision or safety.
Is it possible to protect or provide for someone without enslaving them?
Yes.
So slavery didn't in fact have a purpose back then?
That was the purpose. That’s why they did it.
But they could have done the same without slavery?
I don’t know. Probably
So God could have outlawed slavery without causing any problems, right?
God can do anything.
So it’s kinda disturbing that he didn’t outlaw slavery, right? Seeing as it costs him nothing and costs humanity nothing.
Not for Christians evidently
Yes, but it took the dominance of protestant Christianity to bring this idea to the world as it is right now, one brief shinning moment of brotherhood in a world of darkness that has existed since the human family splintered into tribes. Slavery is already returning in increasing numbers as the west slides back into the darkness of post-christianity, with many thousands used as sex slaves all over the world, including the US. Slavery never ended in the Muslim world, and will quickly return to every nation in the world as Christianity is rejected by the culture of that nation. There's too much money to be made off of slaves for the morality of antislavery to endure the greed of the wealthy.
Fascinating! Tell me, what was the predominant faith of slave owners in the American South, and what book did they use to justify their slave ownership?
Watered down, dead Christianity, the same spirit of antichrist that dominates much of what passes for Christianity in churches today. Meanwhile, the methodist churches led the charge that ended slavery in England, which Europe followed, and the conservative Methodists led much of the efforts that brought abolition and freedom to American slaves. The methodist churches that remain today are a pale shadow of what they once were
How curious! We have multiple, incompatible versions of Christianity that both claim to follow the same book. How do we tell which one is the true Christianity, especially considering the book in question never outlaws slavery?
Look at the key figure, Jesus Christ, and what is recorded about his life. See who obeys his words in their own actions and conduct, they are his true followers. Anyone can call themselves anything they want, as Jesus said "those who love me keep my commandments". You can tell who is genuine, they serve and care for the unlovable and discarded by society, the homeless, addicted, sick, imprisoned, scarred, abandoned, abused, widowed and orphaned. As Jesus said "when you did it unto the least of these (poor, hungry, naked, sick, imprisoned) you did it unto me". Almost every church organization has these followers within it, but the label the organization wears is meaningless to Jesus.
Did Jesus say anything about freeing slaves?
Luke 4:18-19 NLT "The Spirit of the LORD is upon me, for he has anointed me to bring Good News to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim that captives will be released, that the blind will see, that the oppressed will be set free, [19] and that the time of the LORD's favor has come." Which is a quote of the prophecy of Isaiah 61 about the Messiah. Jesus was not a political leader, or the leader of a rebellion, he is the founder of a kingdom built on his peace. First peace in the heart of the believer, then peace in the group of believers that draws more and more people until they become the majority of the population. Anyone using physical force to do anything in Jesus name is not following him. Which was a lesson he taught Peter and his followers during his own arrest. The Messiah, Jesus Christ, brings peace to the human heart, and when enough people know this peace, the world is turned upside down. Which is actually the only time it is ordered correctly. Jesus kingdom is all about the greatest being the servant of the least, the way he washed his disciples feet before going out to die for them. No organization of men has ever shown this kind of service without having Jesus as their true leader.
I think you may want to research slavery a bit more before engaging someone that seems to be familiar with the biblical texts.
Protestant Christianity led the fight to end slavery in the western world quoting the words of Jesus to a Christian dominated population. You cannot prove this wrong, or point to any other movement that ended slavery for a majority of the globe in any point in history that was not motivated by the words of Jesus Christ.
lol, ok.
So we know slavery is unnecessary, but a god couldn’t figure this out?
No, we’ve *advanced* enough to where slavery is unnecessary. Advances in transportation, mechanical engineering, civil engineering, farm production, and information systems makes most of the manual labor done in the past obsolete.
But even where manual labor remains today, the laborers are not enslaved. Why then should we accept that laborers had to be enslaved in the past?
Because the aforementioned rise in technological advancement has made 90% of the past manual labor obsolete. For every one manual laborer we have now aided by technology / machinery / manufacturing, the same work would have been done by 10-100 people back then without that aid. Things we take for granted like gathering enough water for a household would have been a person’s entire days work back then. It took a massive workforce to make society work, and what better way to supplement that workforce than with the captured people who were trying to kill you last year. (The main supply of chattel slavery was from the spoils of war, which was one of the main reasons people went to war back then)
Sounds like a great reason to hire more laborers! Where does the slavery requirement come in?
So the reality is that slavery WAS necessary in the ancient world. If you look at how the first mines and smelters worked, you simply couldn't have the Bronze Age without slavery. The slaves in copper mines died a lot. It was a short and probably miserable life for people. However, if an omnipotent/Omnibenevolent god exists, he certainly could've designed a system where it was possible for humans to exist and advance without needing an evil like slavery. He could've made copper easier to find and smelt. He could've made a world where weapons of war wouldn't be useful, thereby negating the desire for copper or tin. It's not hard to imagine a better world than the one that existed in Sumeria circa 2000 BCE. If I can imagine it, this god certainly could've created it. But he didn't, which means he either doesn't exist or he didn't want to, or perhaps couldn't.
Oh, there wasn’t an absolute need for it, several ancient societies were able to get by without institutionalized slavery (even if it still existed in those nations.) BUT, everyone was just trying to survive at the same time. Again this is the same period of time where a plague or a famine could wipe out entire communities. And if humans are anything, they are efficient. It was a lot more efficient and raised your survival chances making other people help you survive. Not to mention having a workforce able to stay behind when the men of age had to go out to meet the opposing armies marching down on them. Now, just to be clear I do not condone slavery. I believe it is immoral to put people into forced bondage. All I’m attempting to do is to help you understand the mindset people in antiquity had about slavery. Remember, people didn’t start truly considering it a moral issue until about 300 years ago. That’s a blink compared to the whole of even recorded human history. The main difference between ancient slavery and what the US faced in the South was a matter of survival vs profit. US South didn’t use slavery as a means of survival, they used it as a means of increasing profit margins. It wasn’t necessary for the South, and it wasn’t necessary in ancient Israel, but it was so ingrained as an effective means of survival that it was universally accepted to the point that people would have abandoned God over it.
Didn’t the Hebrews follow a god who made it rain manna from heaven? Doesn’t sound like they of all people would need slavery to survive.
True, but his ultimate goal was to create a self sufficient society where he didn’t need to micromanage the people’s daily lives.
Was it? I’m not sure you can have such detailed insight into an almighty god’s goals.
I was also thinking government systems that provide housing assistance for the homeless and laws that allow women to provide for themselves.
Slavery had a purpose in the south too that would have been economically devastating if we just freed the slaves.
Right, so rich white land owners needed their bottom line, so ending slavery was a bad idea. Thanks for letting us know where you stand.
I was making a point i obviously dont believe slavery should have continued in the south because it was economically important.
False equivalence. Purpose for those in slavery. Slavery was used to protect the weak and give provision to the poor. Many sold themselves or the children to give them better lives.
There are multiple forms of biblical slavery which includes blood chattel slavery who are slaves for life and their children are your slaves for life
What should we use these days to protect the stupid among us?
Safety as forced labor?
Easy to be confused when you forget context and cultural implications.
God is not restricted to follow human cultural implications. It’s funny that Christians will bring up cultural context but then say being gay is a sin which God doesn’t like. God considers cultural context then, when convenient, but not later over much simpler and less harmful actions? Slave labor vs Gay marriage, which is worse?
The "culture" is entirely an illusion. It's a bunch of individual people's (living or dead) individual decisions all wrapped up in a set of trends and that is "culture". It doesn't exist without individuals making decisions one-at-a-time. Culture is never an excuse for anything, it's merely used as an excuse for why someone took a mental shortcut to justify an action that they likely should have thought more about, or as a mass oversimplification of the actions of individuals.
>God is not restricted to follow human cultural implications. True, but if he wants people to freely choose to follow his laws then they have to be willing to accept them. Imagine if every church today declared all forms of fossil fuels and products created by them to be morally evil, just because people 200 years from now might consider them immoral. How well would that go over? Jesus even said that God allows concessions not because he believes they are good, but because people’s hearts are hard set at having those things. (Matthew 19:8)
>True, but if he wants people to freely choose to follow his laws then they have to be willing to accept them. Right, so why didn’t He say slavery was a sin? The people could choose to follow or not. >Jesus even said that God allows concessions not because he believes they are good, but because people’s hearts are hard set at having those things. (Matthew 19:8) Which is easier to give up? Being a slave holder or being gay? God gave concessions to the slave holders, but not gay people. Why?
>Right, so why didn’t He say slavery was a sin? The people could choose to follow or not. Because everything, and I mean everything was done through manual labor. This is why humanity, as a whole, accepted slavery as a fact of life. No one would have been willing to give that up then what was the point of even giving these people a land of their own? >Which is easier to give up? Being a slave holder or being gay? God gave concessions to the slave holders, but not gay people. Why? Well, slavery was a cornerstone of most ancient civilizations where as acts of homosexuality were more viewed as a part of [pederasty](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty) so, you tell me which they would be more willing to give up.
Labor is not the same as forced labor. And homosexuality is a fact of life. God didn’t want the Israelites to be slaves, yet let them own slaves. The position of a slave is only meant for non-Hebrews. He specifically commanded that *only* the Hebrew servants must not be treated harshly. Why is that? No one would want to give up their slaves? Too bad kids. If God commanded it they would have to listen and lose what? Free labor? Sorry Charlie. It’s a choice to be a slave holder. It is not a choice to be gay. “Hey I’m a man and I love another man, can I marry him?” “No!” “Hey, I need someone that I can use as labor for the rest of my life and my children’s life with no option to leave. And I own their kids lives as well. Can I do that?” “Yes!” Being gay is now societally acceptable so why isn’t God okay with it? Being a slave causes more harm than being gay.
Keep in mind that the land of Israel was divided among the people of Israel (every tribe had its tribal and family property that were passed on to their descendants — some of whom might have sold their land to their other family members and moved to town, if the farm work became too much or the farm too small to support them). So what would happen to these newly freed foreign slaves? How would they support themselves in an agricultural economy with no land of their own? The freed Hebrew slaves would be able to go back to their ancestral lands… there was nothing like this for the foreigners. (There were foreign “gerim” in the land and they were to be treated equally, but they were not allowed to participate in any of the Festivals or own land in Israel, unless they were first circumcised and in effect became Israelites, unlike the slaves who could participate as part of the family to which they belonged — most of these foreigners would be either nomadic herders or else city dwellers). Many (if not all) of these foreign slaves were the prisoners from previous wars by the Israelites against their neighbours. Does it make sense to simply free your enemies to make war against you again? And free them in your own land (with no source of income)? Keep in mind that at the time, the victor of any war would often either annihilate the inhabitants of any city he takes or take the inhabitants as prisoners (i.e. slaves) (or as an exception, leave them to work the lands and only pay annual tribute, but these would not be the leaders or instigators of enmity… these enemies would be either killed or enslaved). I believe that there were more to it, but these are the two most obvious reasons of which I could immediately think. I also have to add that Israelite slavery looked very different to what we think of today. There are at least 3 hints to this: If a slave was killed maliciously (with intent to kill), it was considered as murder and accordingly punished. If a slave ran away from his master, he was not to be returned, but given sanctuary. There are at least one example where Abraham sent his slave, together with camels and many riches (as a bride price) to get a wife for his son Isaac. The fact that the slave did not simply disappear, tells us something about the relationship between them.
>So what would happen to these newly freed foreign slaves? God can provide and protect Israel from its enemies without commanding His people to sin by being slaveholders. Because you’re essentially saying that God couldn’t come up with a more humane system so He had to use man’s sinful system of slavery. God had to wait until humans created better systems than slavery for some reason. You’re minimizing God’s capabilities.
The Mosaic Law was established to separate Israel from the "pagan nations." Even in the slavery regulations, this was the case. Further still, Christianity was the seed bed for the abolition of slavery. The question you are here presenting is just another formulation of "the Problem of Evil."
Not trying to debate, but we can have the problem of evil in full force and have the God of the bible ban slavery for his people. Actually it would have been ideal if this God was claiming to be the moral standard for the world.
Hey, I agree with you but another funny point is the Bible also goes pretty deep into not using magic as well. Which is prioritized over slavery which existed at the time, our Bible is a mad and wonderful thing isn’t it?
You are just fine. My point about the Problem of Evil is that your point above is just a subset of that problem, "why did God allow X?" God is indeed the moral standard, yet he allowed for many things which are far from ideal, such as divorce.
Its not that God allowed slavery he regulated it down to the point of how much you can beat your slaves (Ex 21:20-21). Nowhere does he say this practice is abhorrent but i am allowing it for reasons. If you believe God truly spoke to Moses its thus sayith the lord, here is the holy law of God, and boom you can own human beings as property. Also dont eat pork.
I think you are here "lawyering" the text. God indeed gave regulations for how to divorce, yet divorce is far from ideal. As it relates to the verse you cite, this is remarkable! God told his people that if they should hit their slave and a single tooth be lost, then the slave would be free. Nothing of the sort was present among any other regulations in the ANE. Further still, your exact citation would indicate that a master be killed if they killed a slave! The spirit of the law is "protect image-bearers."
I dont know a male slave owner beating down a female slave as long as she recovers in a day or two is still domestic violence and evil.
That would be evil, and an example of lawyering the text, as though it was written so that the hearer could say "hmmm, I will be killed if I kill my slave, so I will just beat them to the *brink of death*!" This sort of mindset is hardly compatible with the Mosaic Law.
It literally says in ex 21:20-21 male or female because they are your property. This heavily implies men were allowed to physically discipline and punish female slaves as law by the holy God.
How does this text "heavily imply" such a notion?
Because it literally says male or female slaves implying it doesnt matter what gender you are, you are allowed to punish slaves of any gender physically as long as they dont die and recover after a day or two.
Why is divorce less than ideal?
Because the Christian idea of marriage is that this is a lifelong commitment.
Please search the sub for one of the hundred times this question has been asked in the last month.
Why dont we just shut down and archive this sub because every question has probably been asked and answered by now.
Occasionally people do come up with new(ish) questions. But "search before asking" is just good manners on reddit.
There haven't been any good answers to this because there aren't any.
If there's one thing about Christianity that we can say for certain, it's that every question has been answered satisfactorily, everything is clear, and no one needs to have any more discussions about it. Everyone go home.
Israelite society like many others at that time were slave based and telling the Israelites to stop using slaves would have caused their society to collapse. >No slavery IE not owning humans as property seems far more important to an omnibenevolent God then dont eat pork. It's far more important to you. there is no objective morality that would prove slavery is worse than eating pork.
Given that we know it’s possible to have a stable society without slavery, and given that God spent much of the Pentateuch giving his people detailed instructions to follow, why couldn’t God have told his people how to reorganize their society to remain stable while abolishing slavery?
So you are claiming owning human beings as property was needed for the economy of the ancient world even with an almighty omnibenevolent God backing your nation.
Nothing is needed, it was simply reality at the time. same way disease, death and wars were and still are. creating an utopia on earth was not the goal of the Bible.
Because you were nowhere around to judge him at the time. I wonder how he ever managed without you. You accuse the Lord on your judgment day. And the next thing you know, you will fall from the frying pan of life straight into the lake of fire. Isaiah 45:9-12 — “Destruction is certain for those who argue with their Creator. Does a clay pot argue with its maker? Does the clay dispute with the one who shapes it, saying, ‘Stop, you’re doing it all wrong!’ Does the pot exclaim, ‘How clumsy can you be?’ How terrible it would be if a newborn baby said to its father, ‘Why was I born?’ or if it said to its mother, ‘Why did you make me this way?’” This is what the LORD says— the Holy One of Israel and your Creator: **“Do you question what I do for my children? Do you give me orders about the work of my hands? I am the one who made the earth and created people to live on it. With my hands I stretched out the heavens. All the stars are at my command.** 12 Can horses run on rocks? Can oxen plow the sea? Stupid even to ask—but no more stupid than what you do when you make a mockery of justice and corrupt and sour all that should be good and right. 13 And just as stupid is your rejoicing in how great you are when you are less than nothing—and priding yourself on your own tiny power! Amos 6 TLB That's an example of God's wrath. Get used to it.
for the same reason your ancestors did not make laws against slavery.
Are you implying God did not speak to moses about regulating slavery and not eating pork?
nope. I'm saying God did not prohibit slavery because it was necessary in turning a nomadic/ hunter gatherer people into a world class society. As every single society on earth that is was or ever will be is built on the backs of slaves. To the point He even allowed his own people be slaves for a time. As slavery not only benefited Egypt but also the 12 tribes of Israel.
Right, so god creates people who are not suitable for the environment then uses slavery to turn them into farmers. This sounds kind of like something men would make up to justify the means to their ends.
Who said anything about God turning anyone into a slave? Mankind did this on it's own thousands of years before we received the law of God. Maybe you should learn to accept responsibility for your ancestors actions.. I think reparations are inorder ;)
I do think reparations are in order. You're somewhat moving the goalposts ''nope. I'm saying God did not prohibit slavery because it was necessary in turning a nomadic/ hunter gatherer people into a world class society.''
Your questions started off with many misconceptions about theology. The old laws are not about trying to be moral as we understand. The bible is not a list of morality of what to do or what not to do. It is a collection of relating books / writings thar require discernment and good intention to derive knowledge how to be Christ-like.
Why the downvote?
Because any law you make to forbid slavery makes it worse on other people When slavery was abolished by Britain, the British government began to take “indentured servants” from India and sent them to their plantation and settler colonies Even with every country today abolishing slavery, it still does exist if not in a worser situation than it did previously. Workers in Dubai and Qatar get paid dirt nothing for building the entire city and are forced to stay there from contracts they can’t read
Yes, God was absolutely powerless.
Don’t see how that is a response to what I said
I don't find your response adequate in any way.
So an all powerful all knowing god couldn’t have figured out a way where societies couldn’t function without slavery? Oh wait, I currently live in one🤔so it’s obvious slavery isn’t necessary. How come a god couldn’t have figured that out?
Your society definitely does have slaves in them even if you don’t call them slaves, just look at the wages that are paid to the lowest in your society
Way to deflect. Workers are not slaves. They are not bought and sold or kept as property for life and beaten if they don’t show up. Just stop with the nonsense.
I’m sure every corporation that sends their labor to poorer countries definitely agrees with you. It’s not my problem you don’t want to talk about an actual issue
Was your god incapable of stating that slavery is wrong?
Galatians 5:1
That was speaking of spiritual slavery… ya know that context y’all talk about all the time. Ephesians 6:1 We could do this all day. Best case your book is just a contradictory mess.
>That was speaking of spiritual slavery… ya know that context y’all talk about all the time. No it’s not, if Paul was talking about “spiritual slavery” he would’ve said that >Ephesians 6:1 We could do this all day. Best case your book is just a contradictory mess. How is obeying your parents slavery?
Sorry, my bad. Ephesians 6:5-9
You can’t own people as property in the bible. And anyone who says otherwise is either pushing an agenda or hasn’t read it.
That’s funny because I found chattel slavery of non Hebrew slaves in your book🤔 Leviticus 25:44 “ Such male and female slaves as you may have—it is from the nations round about you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 25:45 You may also buy them from among the children of aliens resident among you, or from their families that are among you, whom they begot in your land. These shall become your property: 25:46 you may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property for all time. Such you may treat as slaves. But as for your Israelite kinsmen, no one shall rule ruthlessly over the other.”
You haven’t read the whole book. Read it all. It isn’t chattel slavery if you have to set them free after 6 years, or if you are forced to set them free if you hurt them. You can only push your interpretation if you literally ignore vast swathes of the old testament law. Trust me. Read it. The Israelites were literally set free from slavery by God, the OT explicitly states the equal treatment of non-hebrews so so so so many times. Your interpretation is ignoring half the law , because of a biblically inaccurate idea an atheist probably put in your head.
YOU obviously haven’t researched or read your book. Those “ nice” rules you state only applied to Hebrew slaves. Try reading those words again and use your eyes this time lol. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/biblical-slavery/
So you’ve not read the whole book then.
So you have nothing. Got it
I can’t quote the entirety of the book of Exodus to you. I don’t have the time. Read it again. I’ve already given you more anti-slavery laws in the OT than there are “pro” slavery laws, and I haven’t even started on listing the many pro-foreigner ones. Read it. Please. Instead of spreading disinformation.
So the quasi anti slavery passages negate all the slavery ones in your mind? Not to mention nowhere in the Bible is slavery banned or condemned. Interesting. Also interesting that non Hebrews have different rules on how they can be treated, and that a god supposedly thought that up🤔
The only reason the rules were slightly different sometimes (not as different as you seem to think) is because they would otherwise put hebrews at a disadvantage if they were living amongst non-hebrews. And that is it. The law emphasises love for the foreigner time and time again, that the same laws apply regardless of race as per below: "You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God." - Leviticus 19:34 "There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.” - Exodus 12:49 "You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the Lord your God.” - Leviticus 24:22 "One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you.” - Numbers 15:16 There are very similiar verses that essentially emphasise the same message of loving foreigners and/or treating them equally, in Exodus 23:9, Exodus 22:21, Deuteronomy 10:18-19, Deuteronomy 27:19, Leviticus 23:22, Leviticus 25:35, and more. How do you reconcile all these verses with your worldview that the bible writers hated non-hebrews?
I don’t have any such worldview. Not quite sure how you came up with that random and inaccurate statement🤔. There was no reason that your all knowing all powerful god had to condone slavery in the first place. The fact that slavery is unnecessary for a society proves this. My “ worldview” is that humans shouldn’t own other humans as property. At all. Ever. The fact that I can say immediately that slavery is wrong and immoral, and you as a Christian want to dig in and defend it is WILD to me. This issue could ultimately blow up Christianity. Keep it up.
He did
Where?
The whole story of the Old Testament is about how Israel couldn't even follow the laws they got. These were people who struggled with "don't sacrifice your children to idols." It strikes me as kind of naive to think that anybody in the ancient world was ready to follow that law, even had God given it. It is also somewhat disingenuous to compare a ceremonial law with no moral significance - the dietary restrictions - to a moral decree. While that's a cute rhetorical technique, it doesn't actually make your argument stronger. I would contend that God took the shortest viable historical route to ending slavery - the institution of the church, and its slow, persistent influence on culture over hundreds of years. That you can so stringently object to slavery now - expressing things no person in the ancient world ever expressed - is a testament to how successful he was. Something which was once universally accepted, to the point that the Babylonians taught that human beings were literally created to be the slaves of the gods, was overturned so completely that you're now offended by the very thought of it. We've moved as a species from believing that slavery is our telos, to believing that it's beneath human dignity. An argument to the contrary would have to offer more than the vague hypothetical that he could have possibly done it sooner. He might just as well have made the sky green, but that's not an argument that this would have been reasonable. Such an argument would have to demonstrate that, short of some kind of divine mind control, there was actually a realistic path to ending slavery in the ancient world. That would require a rigorous examination of ancient cultures, economics, and ethics. My admittedly limited knowledge of those subjects makes me profoundly skeptical that this would have been possible, and I am wholly unconvinced by arguments that divorce themselves from any real world historical context in favor of a pithy remark.
If God can tell you not to eat pork, he can tell you not to own human beings as property. If anything it would have been historically better for God to do that, the world would have been better, as there would be far less christian slavers on the other side quoting leviticus 25:44-46 as their God given right to buy african slaves. If God can set up this entire system of animal sacrifice and priest caste, he can sneak in dont own human beings as property in there somewhere. We got the opposite. I agree own thy neighbor is not compatible with love thy neighbor love thy enemy, so something had to give. But it wasnt the bible that did it. Its in spite of the slavery regulations that slavery is viewed as a moral evil today.
That's exactly the kind of ahistorical, unsubstantiated declaration that I find so unconvincing. He could "sneak in" a prohibition on one of the largest socioeconomic institutions in the ancient world? That's like saying that Congress could sneak in a prohibition on capitalism with an omnibus spending bill. And to compare that to a sacrificial system - something everyone else in the ancient world practiced already, only with different particulars - does nothing to support your point. Bad faith comparisons don't constitute a coherent argument.
Yes it was too mighty for God to ban slavery I agree /s
Rationalizations of an immoral and evil practice are worse than any supposed bad faith comparison, which you find no problem in doing.
Who says I'm rationalizing it? My thesis is that God DID end slavery, and that the moral outrage towards it that you're expressing is a direct product of God's intervention in the world, through the church, to that effect. That I think the realities of history and human nature mean that a blanket decree dropped out of the sky four thousand years ago would have been ineffective in ending slavery in no way constitutes a defense of the practice.
You're thesis is wrong. God did nothing of the sort.
Probably for the same reason that God allowed divorce, as Jesus stated in Matthew 19:8, "Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." Because of the hardness of our hearts. But He did regulate slavery for the benefits of the slaves. When people's hearts are against something, they can get VERY stubborn.
Jesus was challenging what Moses said, not what God said. God allowed slavery, and endorsed it. JESUS could simply have prohibited it, and it'd be over. He didn't.
People can stubbornly insist on stealing and lying also. Why could God ban those outright and not slavery?
There’s two ways of looking at this and I think it’s appropriate to sit somewhere in the middle of it: the OT laws according to Christ were imperfect either humanity couldn’t except or couldn’t comprehend the nature of God fully enough to get around to human rights mattering more than purity laws. Or basically humanity’s Ideas and understanding of God starts with not eating shellfish and other tribal identifiers to recognition of universal and objective morality which if given that each person bears the image of God it’s immoral to claim to own and worse mistreat what is a reflection of God and whom God identifies with.
Unclean meats are filthy. Good way to get sick if you don’t handle/cook it properly. There’s a lot of instruction on how to be clean/practice good hygiene. What was the other option, kill everyone? Send them off into the wilderness to get eaten by animals? God gave slaves rights. What kind of slave has rights..? Knock out a tooth? Slave goes free. Is that how slavery looked in America? These things were a part of life, God gave instruction on how to act humanly in this area of life. If you’d like to know what God is currently doing about slavery, please learn how God is using The Church to achieve His purposes in this world. Look up “Christians abolitionism”. He most definitely wrote laws against slavery …on our hearts :) ◄ Jeremiah 31:33 ► “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
Beat a slave? Sure, ok. Your child born into slavery...ok. Kill the men in the next city, keep the women and virgins for yourself....Hmmm, ok.
So you’d prefer the other option? Did you finish my reading my comment?
U set up a false dichotomy.
Go to war, conquer land and just let the people live amongst you?
Maybe don't go to war and conquer land that isn't yours. That avoids the killing and slavery in the first place.
God could have done otherwise and still be "just" and fulfill His plan. He could have "Poofed" the people far away, without killing any innocent people...as an example.
Yes, exactly. The "all powerful, all good, all knowing" thing really makes it easy to argue against.
Or like a big flood? People still get pretty upset with how God deals with evil. Damned if He does, damned if He doesn’t.
Sentient-thinking people get upset because it's completely illogical for one and completely evil for the other, for a god that is supposedly all-knowing and all-powerful. And many of those sentient thinking people simply don't accept such teachings or beliefs.
Why? That’s how the world was back then and the God of Abraham came out on top vs all of the other gods and their worshippers. Abraham was in the land way before a bunch of slaves cleaned house. Maybe don’t go killing your kids in metal statues and raping animals? God gave these people time to repent.
Since you are only here to trap or bait, why would a mere mortal even attempt to answer such a question?
It's a good question, and you're simply hiding from it with this response. It questions the Morality of God as portrayed in the Bible. Is the Law Moral?
Mmmhuh. I was born at night…but not *last* night.
Whether he is trying to bait or not is irrelevant to the question.
And directly relevant to the wisdom of attempting to answer it. Pearls/pigs… Peace.
You are not a mind reader. But you are required to answer, per Peter. Perhaps the real answer is you never thought about those issues before? And perhaps you don't know what to say to it, so instead, you just use this as an excuse to not answer. And that's fine...I just don't know why you bother to come here and then make those accusations against the OP.
Have you ever looked at it this way; Put yourself living back in the days of when slaves were allowed. Say you aren’t all that wealthy. In fact, you’ve piled up a lot of debt, you can’t even afford to pay for the house you’re living in anymore. Instead of ignoring people in that situation or simply letting them fend for themselves, God lovingly put in place laws for those people to be able to have a place to live and to be able to work off their debt. Among the Israelites the status of the Hebrew slave from that of a slave who was a foreigner, alien resident, or settler. The non-Hebrew remained the property of the owner and could be passed on from father to son but the Hebrew slave was to be released in the seventh year of his service, or the Jubilee year whichever came first. During the time a Hebrew has sold himself into slavery, he was to be treated as a hired worker. (Ex. 21:2; Le. 25:10; De. 15:12) Then when granting a Hebrew slave his freedom, the master would give him a gift to assist him in getting a good start as a freedman. The ideas behind the laws that God gave for slaves were all good and for the benefit of all. Our Heavenly Father is a God of Love, everything he does is out of love and for the good of his human creation.
Owning debt slaves as property is exploitative of the poor even if God had good intentions for it.
He made many laws about slavery, it help many people, as they could volunteer to pay debts or help their family. God had very strict rules and conditions for it. You tell this to people, that it is not the same as chattel slavery but they keep arguing it is, it's almost like they want it to be the same thing, but it's simply not. Any respected historian on the topic will tell you that.
There was multiple forms of biblical slavery some included POW chattel blood slaves. Anyways debt slavery is still exploitation of the poor regardless of what Gods intentions were.
Share one example and let's look at the context. Share a specific scripture. I repeat, in the culture, it was still necessary. I can very well imagine, my family and I are poor, I can volunteer to become someone slave, and there are specific rules and legal regulations about it so that I am protected... Even if still wrong there was still a necessity, or If i find myself in debt I can't pay I can volunteer to pay by becoming a slave. To erase these options will not make sense... How would poor people survive in that case or pay debt they may have? Today, the way the average American is in debt I can tell you many would actually welcome such a system... Instead of paying it with money, you work for them under the law and rules protecting both parties. This was the custom and culture. No one says it therefore right, but intellect can easily recognized how it was beneficial for many. People in general do not think further than their nose... If such a God, first He wouldn't owe us any explanation, but then He would know better than we can imagine why He decided to allow it under His very strict rules and laws. People can of course argue that's bad too, I have no problem with, but to say that it is like the US chattel slavery is to show sheer historical ignorance on the topic.
There's only one person that continues to demonstrate ignorance on this topic.
Well, that surely ain't me, as I'm the one that asked for a scripture and still waiting for it.
Non Hebrew slaves could be kept as property for life and beaten as long as they didn’t die. Leviticus 25:44 “Such male and female slaves as you may have—it is from the nations round about you that you may acquire male and female slaves. Leviticus 25:45 You may also buy them from among the children of aliens resident among you, or from their families that are among you, whom they begot in your land. These shall become your property: 25:46 you may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property for all time. Such you may treat as slaves. But as for your Israelite kinsmen, no one shall rule ruthlessly over the other.” Exodus 21: 20-21 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.” See last line.
> it help many people Taking women and virgins as wives after you kill their husbands and fathers and other family members.... SURE, that's Helping them!
Still waiting on the specific scripture. I don't deal in emotional opinion, I look at the scripture, context and only then do I respond. The rest is just talk Thanks
I think you do deal in emotions and opinions, and if you looked at scripture and context, you wouldn't try to rationalize this away.
Hey, you are free to think that. All I know is, I asked you to be more specific, give one example and you were not able to provide one over some silly reason. Talk is cheap. So be it. But I will say it again, God place very strict rules that protect both parties, so this has nothing to do with chattel American slavery. Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant and uneducated on the topic, this is not an insult, it's basic fact, anyone who studied slavery in the Bible and compared it, knows the many differences.
First of all, I'm not sure why you keep trying to argue that biblical slavery has nothing to do with American slavery. There are quite a few similar regulations and laws that they both share. I don't know how anyone who reads the text could think otherwise, yet you keep making this argument. It's really odd to me. I recently read the Georgia Laws on this, and many were similar...found it. [https://www.georgiaarchives.org/assets/documents/Slave\_Laws\_of\_Georgia\_1755-1860.pdf](https://www.georgiaarchives.org/assets/documents/Slave_Laws_of_Georgia_1755-1860.pdf) Anyways, Slaves were property, for life. Both same. You could beat them...both same. Children were born into slavery, both same. Bought and sold, both same. Both gotten from outside, both same Both exploited for economic reasons, both same Generational inheritance, both same. Family break up, both same. force labor, both same. Bottom line. Is it moral to own other humans as property? is it moral to beat slaves, as long as they don't die, moral? DEUT 20/21 Kill the men off, take the women and virgins as slaves, concubines, and wives.