|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 30, 2018 11:47:58 GMT
But when the text being used is as bendable in interpretation as the bible usually is, that certainly helps the person using it quite a lot. Moreover, his premise is faulty on a more basic level. Because something that can be interpreted to fit ANY worldview, and justify ANY action, is completely useless “as a moral teaching authority”, no matter how often it is used. Something that can justify any moral position is by definition NOT a moral teaching authority. It’s just a tool that people use to fit their agenda, which often involves taking advantage of people.Bingo. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Aug 30, 2018 12:25:49 GMT
Slavery like the kind that existed in the USA was not condoned in the Bible.
In fact the Bible's punishment for kidnapping a person and selling them/keeping a kidnapped slave was death.
The slavery spoken of in the Bible that was regulated with rules for how the slave was to be treated was an indentured servitude that someone sold himself (or family members) into to pay a debt.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 30, 2018 13:44:05 GMT
Well there were 3 groups of slaves in Israel’s time.
Prisoners of war - I always ask if it’s better to be a salve or dead.
Poverty - these actually got paid of course and would rarely leave empty handed or yay longer than 6 years unless they voluntarily decided to stay forever.
Crime - Criminals would routinely have to work off a debt.
Now I also count conscription as slavery so they had this too in relation to temple building and battle although they practiced leniency.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 30, 2018 13:47:24 GMT
There’s not a lot of info regarding slavery prior to the Mosaic Law.
Abraham had a large household of servants or slaves. It was big enough to form an army when needed.
There is no indication they were mistreated and were entrusted with the most important responsibilities.
When Abraham thought he would die childless his head shave was going to inherit it all.
That’s not to say that God mandated Abraham.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 30, 2018 14:35:56 GMT
There’s not a lot of info regarding slavery prior to the Mosaic Law. Abraham had a large household of servants or slaves. It was big enough to form an army when needed. There is no indication they were mistreated and were entrusted with the most important responsibilities. When Abraham thought he would die childless his head shave was going to inherit it all. That’s not to say that God mandated Abraham. You might be better off to save your posts for when you have something to actually contribute--if either of those last two were meant to be in any sense 'educational' re. biblical slavery, you've wasted your time and your readers'. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 30, 2018 15:04:56 GMT
There’s not a lot of info regarding slavery prior to the Mosaic Law. Abraham had a large household of servants or slaves. It was big enough to form an army when needed. There is no indication they were mistreated and were entrusted with the most important responsibilities. When Abraham thought he would die childless his head shave was going to inherit it all. That’s not to say that God mandated Abraham. You might be better off to save your posts for when you have something to actually contribute--if either of those last two were meant to be in any sense 'educational' re. biblical slavery, you've wasted your time and your readers'. im glad you already knew that. Did we talk before? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 30, 2018 15:10:02 GMT
The Christian view of slavery simply matched with the laws of the land and actually encouraged freedom if that were possible.
It’s interesting that a slave could actually be an overseer in the church even if his master was not. At a minimum they were equals in the religion if not by Roman law.
Of course none of these scenarios had anything to do with any type of moral mandate.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 30, 2018 15:26:27 GMT
You might be better off to save your posts for when you have something to actually contribute--if either of those last two were meant to be in any sense 'educational' re. biblical slavery, you've wasted your time and your readers'. im glad you already knew that. Did we talk before? Not memorably. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 30, 2018 15:27:58 GMT
im glad you already knew that. Did we talk before? Not memorably. cool beans I look forward to future eloquent posts from you!😊 |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 30, 2018 15:33:49 GMT
Slavery like the kind that existed in the USA was not condoned in the Bible. In fact the Bible's punishment for kidnapping a person and selling them/keeping a kidnapped slave was death. The slavery spoken of in the Bible that was regulated with rules for how the slave was to be treated was an indentured servitude that someone sold himself (or family members) into to pay a debt. However, this was for males only, and the rules for how the slave was to be treated still allowed for a level of brutality that would seem to be singularly incompatible with the Christian ethos. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 30, 2018 16:08:22 GMT
Slavery like the kind that existed in the USA was not condoned in the Bible. In fact the Bible's punishment for kidnapping a person and selling them/keeping a kidnapped slave was death. The slavery spoken of in the Bible that was regulated with rules for how the slave was to be treated was an indentured servitude that someone sold himself (or family members) into to pay a debt. However, this was for males only, and the rules for how the slave was to be treated still allowed for a level of brutality that would seem to be singularly incompatible with the Christian ethos. thats not really accurate. a non injurious beating was typical. If a soldier went to sleep on the job he wasn’t written up but beaten with a rod. Heck if a kid acted up, a parent could hit him. While gentile slaves could be salves for life, Injury almost always resulted in freedom while death could bring charges except for possible accidents. There was never a racial component since the majority of slave were not so based on a perception of superiority. After all most of them were Jews. |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 30, 2018 16:58:25 GMT
However, this was for males only, and the rules for how the slave was to be treated still allowed for a level of brutality that would seem to be singularly incompatible with the Christian ethos. thats not really accurate. a non injurious beating was typical. If a soldier went to sleep on the job he wasn’t written up but beaten with a rod. Heck if a kid acted up, a parent could hit him. While gentile slaves could be salves for life, Injury almost always resulted in freedom while death could bring charges except for possible accidents. There was never a racial component since the majority of slave were not so based on a perception of superiority. After all most of them were Jews. Children, as well as slaves, were considered chattel property at that time. Although actual sadism was likely socially frowned upon, there is no saying what percentage of non-injurious as opposed to injurious beatings was 'typical'. Slaves and children could be submitted to punishments ranging from chastisement to death at their owner's will or whim.
Neither Exodus, Deuteronomy or Leviticus (the three chief Hebraic texts that deal with the issue of Jewish slavery) mention anything regarding the freeing of an injured slave, except in cases of grave injury (implying that the slave was likely to die or be worthless in any case as useful goods, simply a non-productive mouth to feed; this is hardly indicative of a 'humane' view). 'Charges' where death was concerned only meant the restitution of property, not criminal charges in any modern legal or moral sense.
There most assuredly was a 'racial' component, as non-Hebrew slaves were permitted by the laws of the Hebrew bible to be accorded harsher treatment. Nor were nearly 'all' slaves Hebrew or 'Jewish'. In fact most slaves owned by the Israelites were not Hebrews:
Most slaves owned by Israelites were non-Hebrew, and scholars are not certain what percentage of slaves were Hebrew: Ephraim Urbach, a distinguished scholar of Judaism, maintains that Israelites rarely owned Hebrew slaves after the Maccabean era, although it is certain that Israelites owned Hebrew slaves during the time of the Babylonian exile.[17] Another scholar suggests that Israelites continued to own Hebrew slaves through the Middle Ages, but that the Biblical rules were ignored, and Hebrew slaves were treated the same as non-Hebrews.[31]
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 30, 2018 18:43:36 GMT
Slavery like the kind that existed in the USA was not condoned in the Bible. Sure it was. Because that was exactly the kind of slavery permitted in the Old Testament. There’s literally no difference other than who the owners were, and who were being made slaves. In fact the Bible's punishment for kidnapping a person and selling them/keeping a kidnapped slave was death. If it was a kidnapping then yes, but if they were legally sold into slavery by biblical law, then there was no such punishment. And the African slaves were sold legally (by Africans) to the Europeans. No difference! The slavery spoken of in the Bible that was regulated with rules for how the slave was to be treated was an indentured servitude that someone sold himself (or family members) into to pay a debt. You’re wrong, it wasn’t. You are talking about “indentured servitude” which the Bible also addresses in separate passages, and which many translations also render as “slavery”. But that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the other kind of slavery condoned in the bible that, where there was no debt to be paid and the slaves could be own for life as property. They are two different things and the bible addresses both separately. Slaves of pagan nations were not equal to slaves of Hebrews, just as female slavers were not worth the same as male slaves. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 30, 2018 18:49:52 GMT
The Christian view of slavery simply matched with the laws of the land and actually encouraged freedom if that were possible. Eh, not really. Yes they matched the laws of the land (which were wrong and immoral), but while SOME Christians encouraged freedom, others encouraged slaves to submit to their masters. So that’s kind of a wash in my opinion. At the end of the day, the Christians God condoned something immoral. Slaves were not equals with their master if the master owned them, had authority over them, and could beat them. That’s not equality; it’s SLAVERY! Actually they do, because there was no moral mandate against owning another human being as property. If you believe that slavery is immoral, and God condoned, then that makes God immoral! |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 30, 2018 18:59:02 GMT
However, this was for males only, and the rules for how the slave was to be treated still allowed for a level of brutality that would seem to be singularly incompatible with the Christian ethos. While gentile slaves could be salves for life, Injury almost always resulted in freedom... Uh, no it didn’t. The Bible actually says the opposite! Exodus 21:20-21 If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.There was no mandate to free a slave who’d been beaten! Again, FALSE! There absolutely was a racial component to biblical slavery as pagan slaves were not equal to Hebrew slaves! Hebrew slaves had rights that other slaves did no (based on their nationality, which is equivalent to our concept of race). Leviticus 25:39-46 If a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave’s service. He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee. He shall then go out from you, he and his sons with him, and shall go back to his family, that he may return to the property of his forefathers. For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God. As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another. |
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
 
|
Post by islandmur on Aug 31, 2018 1:18:02 GMT
Slavery like the kind that existed in the USA was not condoned in the Bible. In fact the Bible's punishment for kidnapping a person and selling them/keeping a kidnapped slave was death. The slavery spoken of in the Bible that was regulated with rules for how the slave was to be treated was an indentured servitude that someone sold himself (or family members) into to pay a debt. No it wasn't. There were slaves from conquered enemies. Stop piling things under the rug. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Aug 31, 2018 1:25:52 GMT
Slavery like the kind that existed in the USA was not condoned in the Bible. In fact the Bible's punishment for kidnapping a person and selling them/keeping a kidnapped slave was death. The slavery spoken of in the Bible that was regulated with rules for how the slave was to be treated was an indentured servitude that someone sold himself (or family members) into to pay a debt. No it wasn't. There were slaves from conquered enemies. Stop piling things under the rug. I don't need to pile anything under the rug. It doesn't reflect on me. If they kidnapped people from conquered enemies than it is a contradiction of their actions and what the bible says (unless they had a different definition of kidnap than I do). |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 31, 2018 2:45:35 GMT
No it wasn't. There were slaves from conquered enemies. Stop piling things under the rug. I don't need to pile anything under the rug. It doesn't reflect on me. If they kidnapped people from conquered enemies than it is a contradiction of their actions and what the bible says (unless they had a different definition of kidnap than I do). Leviticus 25:42-46 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Aug 31, 2018 5:37:04 GMT
I don't need to pile anything under the rug. It doesn't reflect on me. If they kidnapped people from conquered enemies than it is a contradiction of their actions and what the bible says (unless they had a different definition of kidnap than I do). Leviticus 25:42-46 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. Okay? That still doesn't seem to mesh with Exodus 21:16. Or it wouldn't if they saw those people as kidnapped (which I would). |
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Aug 31, 2018 10:19:26 GMT
Leviticus 25:42-46 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. Okay? That still doesn't seem to mesh with Exodus 21:16. Or it wouldn't if they saw those people as kidnapped (which I would). You are the one that claimed that slavery in the bible was different than the slavery in the states. In the bible you claimed it was only indentured slavery. It was exactly the same. Slavery is slavery. God actually knew that slavery was wrong, that's why he brought his favorites out of egypt freeing them from slavery wasn't it? But it appears that he only viewed slavery as wrong for a certain kind of people, kinda of discriminatory if you ask me. |
|
