God Condoned Chattel Slavery

"You shall not deliver to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you; (v.15)

He shall dwell with you, even in your midst, in the place which he chooses among your towns wherever he pleases;

you shall not oppress him." (v.16)

Someone will object that Deut. 23:15,16 only goes for Hebrew slaves and not for foreigners.

Possibly, I would have to do more study. Regardless, it seems very counter productive to the kind of kidnapping and slavery we know about in the Atlantic Slave Trade for hundreds of years in the West.

Originally posted by @sonship

"You shall not deliver to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you; (v.15)

He shall dwell with you, even in your midst, in the place which he chooses among your towns wherever he pleases;

you shall not oppress him." (v.16)

Someone will object that [b]Deut. 23:15,16 only goes for Hebrew slaves and not fo ...[text shortened]... napping and slavery we know about in the Atlantic Slave Trade for hundreds of years in the West.[/b]

That's all well and good sonship, but how about tackling the more troubling references to slavery?

'Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.' (Exodus 21:20)

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
That's all well and good sonship, but how about tackling the more troubling references to slavery?

'Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.' (Exodus 21:20)

Perhaps we'll get to that. But first you "tackle" this.
"That's all well and good" means to me that the two systems - Israel's and that of the Atlantic Slave Trade were not the same.

Do you think if notices like this were posted all over the Southern States in the US during the slavery centuries the slave trade would have flourished?

The point of the poster's thread is that "There was NO difference."

So, why did God make provision for slaves fleeing their masters, supposedly for over oppressive circumstances?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Leviticus 25
44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45You 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. 46You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them sla ...[text shortened]... doning chattel slavery by the Jews was wrong since it is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus?

Let's talk about the part you didn't include:

"Now if the means of a stranger [ger] or of a sojourner [toshab] with you becomes sufficient, and a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to him as to sell himself to a stronger who is sojourning with you, or to the descendants of a stranger's family, then he shall have redemption right after he has been sold. One of his brothers may redeem him, or his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or one of his blood relatives from his family may redeem him; or if he prospers, he may redeem himself." (See in Levititcus 25:42-49)

What would this look like in the American Slave system?

It would mean that a white man or woman becomes so poor that they have to sell themselves to a black African former slave. The black freeman now is the master over some poor white folks who must become indentured servants to that "sojourner" (less than a full American). Or the poor white person had to sell himself to some freed African slaves descendents.

But he can have a relative pay him out of the dept.
That could be a blood relative in his family. Or he could acquire enough funds to pay for his own freedom.

This provision was not for a Hebrew having other Hebrews as indentured servants. This provision was God's instructions about a foreigner who became wealthy in Israel and a Hebrew became poor enough to become that foreigner's slave.

Paul Copan remarks -

Here we come across a jarring text, a significant distinction between Israelite servants/employees and foreign workers in Israel. Does this text regard foreign workers as nothing more than property?
...
(1) these foreigners were still nowhere near the chattel slaves of the antebellum South; (2) a significant presence of apparently resentful foreigners requires stricter measures than those for cooperative aliens who were willing to follow Israel's laws; (3) since only Israelites were allowed to own land (which ultimately belonged to Yahweh), foreigners who weren't in Israel just for business purposes were typically incorporated into Israelite homes to serve there, unless they chose to live elsewhere; and (4) strangers in the land could, if they chose, not only be released but potentially become persons of means. For poor foreigners wanting to live in Israel, voluntary servitude was pretty much the only option.

[ Is God a Moral Monster? - Making Sense of the Old Testament God ] by Paul Copan, pgs 140,141, BakerBooks ] [my bolding]

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Indeed. And as the OT is the word of God (allegedly) it would be decidedly 'unchristian' to make peace with the idea of God endorsing slavery.

So where does that leave us? Surely we have to go with the only other option you tender, to deny the Old Testament completely. - Then, of course, we have to take in consideration that a lot of the New Tes ...[text shortened]... l step to the realization that there is no God at all, and the loving embrace of atheistic arms.

Lol, if you're an idiot and don't understand history in the least, that follows.

If you have any appreciation and realistic understanding of the human condition condition... You'll see through that.

I can't believe you and Marauder have like these advanced degrees and are professionals in American society but are like basically edgy teenagers when it comes to understanding history, lol.

I always have to repress a chortle in the office.

Originally posted by @philokalia
Lol, if you're an idiot and don't understand history in the least, that follows.

If you have any appreciation and realistic understanding of the human condition condition... You'll see through that.

I can't believe you and Marauder have like these advanced degrees and are professionals in American society but are like basically edgy teenagers when it comes to understanding history, lol.

I always have to repress a chortle in the office.

The human condition is replete with forms and eras of moral darkness and depravity. "Understanding history" simply gives us insights into the excuses humans had for being evil. Slavery is, always was, and always will be, an example of the human condition at its most morally dark and depraved. The fact that "understanding history" means that I can see that I might have been a slave owner and proud of it if I'd been alive 200 years ago does not change this.

Originally posted by @fmf
The human condition is replete with forms and eras of moral darkness and depravity. "Understanding history" simply gives us insights into the excuses humans had for being evil. Slavery is, always was, and always will be, an example of the human condition at its most morally dark and depraved. The fact that "understanding history" means that I can see that I might have been a slave owner and proud of it if I'd been alive 200 years ago does not change this.

I know you don't actually believe that.

If you lived in a neolithic tribe and you sat down and explained that maybe we shouldn't have a standing policy to kill the other tribes hunters on sight because there's definitely a better way to proceed... you'll get laughed at, and if you're tribe is stupid enough to listen to you, they'll eventually be wiped out of the gene pool.

Secondly... the initial slavery was actually a charitable act. Those without food who can't provide anything but raw labor in an era where liquid currency doesn't exist in regular economic interactions routinely sold themselves into slavery to avoid death.

Oh, of course, there was also such things as slave hunting, and that is a different ball of wax... but you see my point.

To universally denounce these institutions as evil without understanding the context is arrogant and disrespectful, but more importantly, it is stupid and ignorant.

It isn't the act of an enlightened person -- it is the act of an ideologue sharpening some stupid ax.

Even Karl Marx would have looked at that epoch with more charity than a retarded postmodernist.

Originally posted by @philokalia
I know you don't actually believe that.

I do believe it. Understanding history is all well and good and, sure enough, it provides the kind of excuses for slavery that you have been offering. But a discussion about the morality of human behaviour now is inevitably going to be about recognizing periods and instances of moral darkness and processes of enlightenment. Understanding history and identifying moral depravity are not mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by @philokalia
To universally denounce these institutions as evil without understanding the context is arrogant and disrespectful, but more importantly, it is stupid and ignorant.

I do understand the context. What on earth are you on about? When it comes to slavery, the context was moral darkness ~ a darkness that people had not yet come to recognize. I am exercising "historical understanding".

Originally posted by @fmf
I do believe it. Understanding history is all well and good and, sure enough, it provides the kind of excuses for slavery that you have been offering. But a discussion about the morality of human behaviour now is inevitably going to be about recognizing periods and instances of moral darkness and processes of enlightenment. Understanding history and identifying moral depravity are not mutually exclusive.

But it wasn't moral darkness because it was not immoral.

It was a negative reality, sure, but doing something morally acceptable in the context of a bad reality, while it is ugly, does not mean that it is immoral.

Cutting off a leg that has gangrene is ugly.

Who wants to cut off a leg? Who wants to see a leg being cut off?

But is this "moral darkness" to cut off a leg that has gangrene, or is it completely ethical, and just an ugly act?

Surely, you see the point.

Originally posted by @philokalia
But it wasn't moral darkness because it was not immoral.

I believe that it was.

Originally posted by @philokalia
Cutting off a leg that has gangrene is ugly.

Who wants to cut off a leg? Who wants to see a leg being cut off?

But is this "moral darkness" to cut off a leg that has gangrene, or is it completely ethical, and just an ugly act?

Crowbar slavery into this analogy if you will.

Originally posted by @philokalia
It isn't the act of an enlightened person -- it is the act of an ideologue sharpening some stupid ax.

There is no "axe" being wielded. I am no more wielding an "axe" than you are by firing off words like "idiot", and "retarded", and "stupid".

Originally posted by @philokalia
Surely, you see the point.

I may well have been a slave owner in the C18th and may well have believed - sincerely, as a Christian - that the economic benefits of being a slave owner made my behaviour morally sound and was, to boot, divinely endorsed. But that context, in terms of slavery, was one of moral darkness. Slavery persists to this day. There may be economic and financial excuses for it. It's morally depraved nevertheless.

Originally posted by @fmf
Crowbar slavery into this analogy if you will.

No, you already know how that is done, as I explained why it existed above. APPLY WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN WRITTEN.