God Condoned Chattel Slavery

Originally posted by @thinkofone
[b]Namely, that God condones slavery, which cannot be logically inferred because that would make God unjust.

And yet the fact remains that in Leviticus 25;44-46 God is depicted as condoning slavery. The problem seems to be that you are of the mistaken belief that everything in the Bible is the "inerrant word of God". As I've shown, it isn't. You refuse to recognize this truth.[/b]

"...you are of the mistaken belief that everything in the Bible is the "inerrant word of God". As I've shown, it isn't."

The only thing you've shown is that you continue to add daily to the heresy you promote.

I'm convinced you're a fake and don't really believe anything the Bible says.

Originally posted by @secondson
[b]"...you are of the mistaken belief that everything in the Bible is the "inerrant word of God". As I've shown, it isn't."

The only thing you've shown is that you continue to add daily to the heresy you promote.

I'm convinced you're a fake and don't really believe anything the Bible says.[/b]

I see. So your irrational denial of what Leviticus 25:44-46 actually says constitutes "heresy" in your book. You've repeatedly demonstrated that you don't care what the Bible actually says despite all your claims to the contrary.

I'm convinced you're a fake and don't really believe anything the Bible says.

You're wrong about that too. Evidently you hate the truth and hate anyone who speaks it to you.

"The truth will make you free".

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Yes they are different. That's my point:
1) The reality is that In Leviticus 25:44-46 God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery.
2)The reality is that the depiction of God condoning chattel slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46 flies in the face of righteous God spoken of by Jesus during His ministry.

IIRC you've long been of ...[text shortened]... not you? If it was, how does your recognition that they are different square with that position?

The reality is that you lack contextual understanding of scripture. You are taking one verse out of context and ignoring everything else the Bible says about slavery.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The reality is that you lack contextual understanding of scripture. You are taking one verse out of context and ignoring everything else the Bible says about slavery.

The reality is that you lack contextual understanding of scripture. You are taking one verse out of context and ignoring everything else the Bible says about slavery.

Make your best case that your assertion is true. If you can't back it up, it's yet another vacuous assertion.

Of course you've avoided addressing the following:
<<IRC you've long been of the position that you believe in an absolute morality given by God as depicted in the Bible. Was that not you? If it was, how does your recognition that they are different square with that position?>>

You've cited the differences between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant as a way to reconcile the following conflict:
1) The reality is that In Leviticus 25:44-46 God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery.
2)The reality is that the depiction of God condoning chattel slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46 flies in the face of righteous God spoken of by Jesus during His ministry.

The issue is that the differences between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant with regards to chattel slavery doesn't square with the concept that the Bible depicts an absolute morality given by God. With regards to chattel slavery, the Old Covenant condones it and the New Covenant condemns it. This is a relative morality. What was considered moral is no longer moral.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
[b]The reality is that you lack contextual understanding of scripture. You are taking one verse out of context and ignoring everything else the Bible says about slavery.

Make your best case that your assertion is true. If you can't back it up, it's yet another vacuous assertion.

Of course you've avoided addressing the following:
<<IRC you've ...[text shortened]... Covenant condemns it. This is a relative morality. What was considered moral is no longer moral.[/b]

What you fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was based more on economics; it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible condemns race-based slavery in that it teaches that all men are created by God and made in His image (Genesis 1:27). At the same time, the Old Testament did allow for economic-based slavery and regulated it. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing,” which is what happened in Africa in the 16th to 19th centuries. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8– 10).

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

Originally posted by @dj2becker
What you fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was based more on ec ...[text shortened]... and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8– 10).

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you were unable to make a case yourself and so resorted to a cut-and-paste from gotquestions.

I posted the following earlier, but it should clear up much of the misinformation from gotquestions.

The fact of the matter is that there were two basic systems: 
1) Hebrews that were indentured servants 
2) Non-Hebrews that were chattel slaves. 

The first quote box applies solely to Hebrew indentured servitude (39-43, 47-55).
As such, "The year of Jubiliee" applies solely to Hebrew indentured servitude.

The second quote box applies solely to non-Hebrew chattel slavery (44-46)..
As such, "slaves for life" applies solely to non-Hebrew chattel slavery.

Please take the time to fully understand what is being said below.

The following describes the rules governing Hebrew indentured servitude:

Leviticus 25
39 “ ‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee.41Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
47“ ‘If a foreigner residing among you becomes rich and any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to the foreigner or to a member of the foreigner’s clan, 48they retain the right of redemption after they have sold themselves. One of their relatives may redeem them: 49An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in their clan may redeem them. Or if they prosper, they may redeem themselves. 50They and their buyer are to count the time from the year they sold themselves up to the Year of Jubilee. The price for their release is to be based on the rate paid to a hired worker for that number of years. 51If many years remain, they must pay for their redemption a larger share of the price paid for them. 52If only a few years remain until the Year of Jubilee, they are to compute that and pay for their redemption accordingly. 53They are to be treated as workers hired from year to year; you must see to it that those to whom they owe service do not rule over them ruthlessly.

54“ ‘Even if someone is not redeemed in any of these ways, they and their children are to be released in the Year of Jubilee, 55for the Israelites belong to me as servants. They are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

The following describes the rules governing non-Hebrew chattel slavery:

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 slaves for life...

Yes there were protections for Hebrew indentured servants. They were "not to be worked as SLAVES" or "sold as SLAVES" (Lev. 25:39,42). This is not true of non-Hebrew chattel slaves.

Similarly for the prohibition against "man-stealing". This applied to only Hebrews:

Deuteronomy 24
7“If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you.

Clearly there is much misinformation from gotquestions.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you were unable to make a case yourself and so resorted to a cut-and-paste from gotquestions.

I posted the following earlier, but it should clear up much of the misinformation from gotquestions.

The fact of the matter is that there were two basic systems: 
1) Hebrews that were indentured servants 
2) Non-Heb ...[text shortened]... shall purge the evil from among you.

Clearly there is much misinformation from gotquestions.

Are you implying that you believe it is always wrong in all circumstances for people to own slaves, i.e you believe in moral absolutes?

How is this compatible with your atheism?