Judaism and Slavery in the Biblical Era

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
This refutes claims of how wells slaves were treated:

Exodus
20“If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21“If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

Clearly the beating of slaves was allowed. The master was punished if the slav ...[text shortened]... ss than 1 day. Otherwise there was no punishment because, after all, the slave was his PROPERTY.

That is what being a slave means, this supprise you? Again, unlike many places
and times you could do what ever you wanted because they were property.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
That is what being a slave means, this supprise you? Again, unlike many places
and times you could do what ever you wanted because they were property.
Kelly

Even though I've read your post a few times, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Can you rephrase it?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Not every jot and tittle of the Bible represents the Will of the Almighty.

I wish some of these fundamentalists would recognize this. It's remarkable how they feel compelled to defend the sanctioning of something as abominable as slavery rather than concede that.

Originally posted by duecer
[b]How can slavery be more humane than the total abolition of it?

so you would prefer executions and dismemberment?[/b]

I would prefer none, and i'm still to see a convincing argument as to why God didn't outlaw them.

Outlaw slavery, outlaw draconian punishments for crimes. But then this is the God who condemned people to death by burning and stoning.

You keep raising the point of debt slavery, i don't disagree with you on that point and have said so, in fact i think it's a good idea. A friend of mine was living in rural Bulgaria doing up a property when one of his neighbours stole his tools. He had a choice for his punishment, either prison or work for free for my friend. He chose the latter.

I don't see that as slavery, in fact i think it's a good idea. I'm arguing against the practce of buying people as commodities and treating them as inheritable. It is this form of slavery that is abhorrent and something that a supposed 'God of love' should've outlawed. Instead he went so far, as ToO has demonstrated, that a slave dying 24hrs after a beating was acceptable.

Do you think that's acceptable?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well, slavery as an institution has been around forever and you are addressing
God's rules on the matter. So I'm guessing all of those people who had other
views much worse in your opinion and mine are also below our standards too
right? God put rules and regulations on proper treatment and the way out of
being a slave, while in other places it was anyt ...[text shortened]... place for something they thought of as normal, unless I'm
missing something in this.
Kelly

I'll spell it out again as i'm not completely sure what you're getting at. My point is two-fold.

1. I appreciate that in Biblical times life was cheaper and slavery was deemed acceptable. Now if the Bible was writen by a human being of the day and not divinely inspired, as i believe it to be, then it would make sense. The writer is reflecting the cultural attitudes of the day. If as you and others believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God revealed through Moses, why is God lowering himself to the brutal barbaric nature of the day, ie premitting slavery and the beating to death of slaves and condemning people to death by stoning and burning? Surely God is better than this brutal behaviour?

2. Many people involved in the Atlantic slave trade used the non-condemnation of slavery in the Bible to justify their actions. Now if God is omniscient as people claim he is, he would've known this was going to happen? So why not outlaw slavery from the beginning and save the pain, misery and suffering of millions?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'll spell it out again as i'm not completely sure what you're getting at. My point is two-fold.

1. I appreciate that in Biblical times life was cheaper and slavery was deemed acceptable. Now if the Bible was writen by a human being of the day and not divinely inspired, as i believe it to be, then it would make sense. The writer is reflecting the cult ...[text shortened]... y not outlaw slavery from the beginning and save the pain, misery and suffering of millions?

I have to agree with duecer's points I thought he has spelled out the reasons
quite well. God was simply addressing us where we are, it isn't something He
wants for us, but it is a fact so it must be dealt with by restraints. If you accept
God is in control, and you accept God is leading His people even now, you have
to accept that slavery was dealt with by altering the hearts of people. Laws will
not stop things from happening, they set boundaries but they are not always
followed we will act correctly towards that which we love.

I accept slavery was not always thought of as wrong among us, I accept that
we believe slavery was always wrong, those are two different things! I
acknowledge that slavery or being bound is something God wants us freed from,
whom the Son sets free is free indeed. We are slaves to sin now, our past shows
us how bad being a slave is, and that we should be free. It is all a life lesson, as
far as slavers using the Bible, people do that all the time, people kill for the
pro-life movement, people use whatever they can to justify their desires!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm guessing that would be true too, but more than likely not everyone hated it,
or people would not have remained slaves if they had a way out.
Kelly

Slavery is, by definition, not a voluntary office on the part of the enslaved. I think it's rather disingenuous to argue that it was generally accepted in society back then, so god made allowances for it in scripture. If it's as morally unacceptable as we all seem to agree, then a righteous god would surely have proscribed it in the same way he did with, for example, theft. Personally I can imagine many more occasions where theft can be considered to be morally acceptable than I can with slavery. And what is this way out you refer to? Suicide?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Slavery is, by definition, not a voluntary office on the part of the enslaved. I think it's rather disingenuous to argue that it was generally accepted in society back then, so god made allowances for it in scripture. If it's as morally unacceptable as we all seem to agree, then a righteous god would surely have proscribed it in the same way he did ...[text shortened]... morally acceptable than I can with slavery. And what is this way out you refer to? Suicide?

Agree with the disingenuousness.

I'd guess that the "way out" is that Hebrew slaves were to be freed after six years. Of course, it was a very different story for non-Hebrew slaves who did not have this "way out", nor did their offspring. There were also rules where Hebrew slaves were afforded much greater protection from severe treatment than non-Hebrew slaves. So the argument was both misleading and again disingenuous. You can pretty much say the same thing for all the other arguments being made.

Thought I'd give you the scoop before you get more "spin".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Agree with the disingenuousness.

I'd guess that the "way out" is that Hebrew slaves were to be freed after six years. Of course, it was a very different story for non-Hebrew slaves who did not have this "way out", nor did their offspring. There were also rules where Hebrew slaves were afforded much greater protection from severe treatment than non-Hebr ...[text shortened]... her arguments being made.

Thought I'd give you the scoop before you get more "spin".

actually there is worse! an Israelite had the right to beat a slave, if they were lazy, with a rod.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Slavery is, by definition, not a voluntary office on the part of the enslaved. I think it's rather disingenuous to argue that it was generally accepted in society back then, so god made allowances for it in scripture. If it's as morally unacceptable as we all seem to agree, then a righteous god would surely have proscribed it in the same way he did ...[text shortened]... morally acceptable than I can with slavery. And what is this way out you refer to? Suicide?

I guess you have not been following the discussion.
Kelly

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Slavery is, by definition, not a voluntary office on the part of the enslaved. I think it's rather disingenuous to argue that it was generally accepted in society back then, so god made allowances for it in scripture. If it's as morally unacceptable as we all seem to agree, then a righteous god would surely have proscribed it in the same way he did ...[text shortened]... morally acceptable than I can with slavery. And what is this way out you refer to? Suicide?

I hate to say it but.... morality is culturally relevant, it is not an absolute

Originally posted by duecer
I hate to say it but.... morality is culturally relevant, it is not an absolute

Yes and no, it is if we are only discussing how we view things. No, if we take into
account God who is eternal, who is above us in everyway.
Kelly

Originally posted by duecer
I hate to say it but.... morality is culturally relevant, it is not an absolute

I disagree. If I lived in your country, would you allow me to have a slave - because it is acceptable in my culture?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. If I lived in your country, would you allow me to have a slave - because it is acceptable in my culture?

no, because if you were in my country you would be immersed in my culture, get it?

Originally posted by duecer
no, because if you were in my country you would be immersed in my culture, get it?

So your country does not allow diversity of culture? What a horrible country you live in.