Judaism and Slavery in the Biblical Era

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
but i have asked for reasoning, indeed what is the reasoning which states that because God at that particular epoch of history, did not outlaw slavery, it means that the scriptures are uninspired? You cannot kill an ideology which states that all men shall be brothers and live eternally in paradise, for it is spiritual in nature and all yearn for it ...[text shortened]... hing more, shall i therefore instruct now God? such a course is neither reasonable nor logical!

As i said Rob, it was another piece in the pie. The other pieces are that evolution kicks the creation myth to dust, the fairytale of Adam and Eve is nothing more than i stated, the ludicrous stroy of Noah and the Flood is an insult to my intelligence.

These three 'selections' added up on their own are reason enough for me to draw a conclusion that the Bible certainly isn't divinely inspired. Throw into the mix, the slavery debacle where we have a God who gives explicit instructions on how to carry out slavery, who also gives explicit instructions to kill homosexuals, the long list of commands to kill, burn, stone to death in Leviticus. The lovely gang rape story in Judges.

Added all up, this ain't no God of love. You might wish to go door-to-door knocking promoting this poor excuse for a God, i and the rest of civilised society wait for the day he's faded to dust.

What i feel is irrelevant, i am dust, carbon and water nothing more, shall i therefore instruct now God?

Really? So you would have no qualms if your son and daughter were taken into slavery? What you feel is everything, it is upon those feelings which we live our lives.

Dico Tibi Verum Libertas Optima rerum Nunquam servili Sub nexu vivito fili

Originally posted by Proper Knob
As i said Rob, it was another piece in the pie. The other pieces are that evolution kicks the creation myth to dust, the fairytale of Adam and Eve is nothing more than i stated, the ludicrous stroy of Noah and the Flood is an insult to my intelligence.

These three 'selections' added up on their own are reason enough for me to draw a conclusion that t ve our lives.

Dico Tibi Verum Libertas Optima rerum Nunquam servili Sub nexu vivito fili

i see, in the immortal words of Bugs bunny, this means war! na only kidding, you know me, joker, jester, clown chasing shadows, skipping like skippy the bush Kangeroo, these are all genuine concerns, but they prove very little, was it not the study of science which turned British philosopher Anthony Flew from being an ardent atheist to a theist, was it not science itself which convinced professor Frantisek Vyskocil, that it was both illogical and unreasonable to expect that life has arisen through chance? science is one thing, its interpretation quite another. As for a God of Love, he has permitted all manner of ill, yet he always provides a basis for guidance through those ills. I agree that the thoughts of perpetual servitude is like sour grapes to our pallet, but as Duecer pointed out, it was an entirely different epoch and a temporary one at that. The law was never intended to be a permanent feature, nor was slavery. God never intended that anyone of mankind be subject to it, this you cannot deny for it is incongruous with his revealed will and purpose. You may look at a blade of grass my friend and see the same details, the photosynthesis, the sugars, starches etc the amazing design of living things, i may indeed draw inferences that it shows signs of design, indeed, you may deny those claims, but the grass is as it is, to me holy blade of grass! to you a blade of grass😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i see, in the immortal words of Bugs bunny, this means war! na only kidding, you know me, joker, jester, clown chasing shadows, skipping like skippy the bush Kangeroo, these are all genuine concerns, but they prove very little, was it not the study of science which turned British philosopher Anthony Flew from being an ardent atheist to a theist, was ...[text shortened]... of design, indeed, you may deny those claims, but the grass is as it is, holy blade of grass! 😵

I'll get to the main thrust of your text later, but one small point, Flew changed to deism not theism. Big difference. And even then there is a hot debate as to his mental state at the time and who actually wrote the book in which he gave his reasonings for 'conversion'.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'll get to the main thrust of your text later, but one small point, Flew changed to deism not theism. Big difference. And even then there is a hot debate as to his mental state at the time and who actually wrote the book in which he gave his reasonings for 'conversion'.

sure it shall be an education 🙂

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]What use is it to have yet one more law that people will break with impunity?

Well why bother having any at all then? These laws were supposedly the word of God, the code by which to run a moral life in the eyes of God. I can hardly envisage God, wherever he is saying -

[i]'Well, i would give them more laws to follow, but there only going t ...[text shortened]... d a barbaric code of living from a distant past, the sooner it fades to dust the better.[/b]

spend a little more time hitting the books and a little less time hitting the bong dude. Your counter argument is week.

If I make a law that says no spitting on the side walk and everyone ignores it, is the law useful? If I see injustice and make laws to try and correct that injustice is that not merciful?

You still fail to understand the massive cultural gulf that stand between us and the ancient Isrealites. You are imposing your cultural bias in an innapropriate way; your sociology professors would hang thier heads in shame at your lack of imaginative insight.

Originally posted by duecer
spend a little more time hitting the books and a little less time hitting the bong dude. Your counter argument is week.

If I make a law that says no spitting on the side walk and everyone ignores it, is the law useful? If I see injustice and make laws to try and correct that injustice is that not merciful?

You still fail to understand the massive cultur ...[text shortened]... ; your sociology professors would hang thier heads in shame at your lack of imaginative insight.

spend a little more time hitting the books and a little less time hitting the bong dude.

I'm not sure what that has to with anything but the bong was thrown away a long time ago duecer.

If I make a law that says no spitting on the side walk and everyone ignores it, is the law useful?

But we're not talking about something as mundane as spitting on the sidewalk, we're talking about subjecting someone to slavery. Leviticus as you know, is filled with countless commands on how to live ones life, from what to eat and what cloth to wear, the notion that God didn't outlaw slavery because no one would do it is frankly ridiculous. A detailed instruction telling people not to wear two types of linen is included but telling people not to subject persons to slavery is excluded. In fact he goes a step further and gives instructions on how to carry out slavery.

You still fail to understand the massive cultural gulf that stand between us and the ancient Isrealites.

I understand it perfectly well, but these are Gods divinely inspired words are they not? They are not the writings of a Bronze Age desert tribesman, if they were then your point would stand as that person would've been a product of his time. That would be understandable. But they are the words of a suposedly omnipotent God himself, Gods standard is surely different from ours is it not?

What you appear to be saying is that God lowered his standard to the barbaric brutality of the day. Imagine what world we would live in if God had stated from the beginning, no slavery, no killing, no stoning to death, no burning to death. He chose not to and endorsed those very practises instead.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]spend a little more time hitting the books and a little less time hitting the bong dude.

I'm not sure what that has to with anything but the bong was thrown away a long time ago duecer.

If I make a law that says no spitting on the side walk and everyone ignores it, is the law useful?

But we're not talking about something as mundane g to death, no burning to death. He chose not to and endorsed those very practises instead.[/b]

But we're not talking about something as mundane as spitting on the sidewalk, we're talking about subjecting someone to slavery.

Mundane really is a matter of perspective now isn't it? One man's mundane can be another man's taboo. I think my illustration is fine, no need to get over dramtic with making a point.

the notion that God didn't outlaw slavery because no one would do it is frankly ridiculous

I believe I have already succesfully argued that slavery as an alternative to severe mutilation or death is preferable and more humane

In fact he goes a step further and gives instructions on how to carry out slavery.


I disagree, he doesn't tell one how to aquire, nor does he encourage slavery, instead directions are given to mitigate the harshness of it. In fact, please read the following scripture verses:

If I have despised the cause of my manservant or of my maidservant, when they contended with me; what then shall I do when God riseth up? And when he visiteth, what shall I answer him? Did not he that made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb (Job 31:13-15)?

or maybe this:

You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you. He may dwell with you in your midst, in the place which he chooses within one of your gates, where it seems best to him; you shall not oppress him. Deuteronomy 23:15-16



No, no! one can hardly say that God encouraged or endorsed slavery, the preponderance of evidence says that God disliked it, but sometimes hard decisions must be made. On the whole I think I would rather be a slave that was treated well than have my hands cut off for stealing

Originally posted by duecer
spend a little more time hitting the books and a little less time hitting the bong dude.

Because, of course, they are incompatible. 😉

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]spend a little more time hitting the books and a little less time hitting the bong dude.

I'm not sure what that has to with anything but the bong was thrown away a long time ago duecer.

If I make a law that says no spitting on the side walk and everyone ignores it, is the law useful?

But we're not talking about something as mundane ...[text shortened]... g to death, no burning to death. He chose not to and endorsed those very practises instead.[/b]

I imagine you are using a standard to judge slavery wrong, where are you getting
your standard? Is it something you thought up, something others thought up?
Kelly

Originally posted by duecer
[b]But we're not talking about something as mundane as spitting on the sidewalk, we're talking about subjecting someone to slavery.[/b]

Mundane really is a matter of perspective now isn't it? One man's mundane can be another man's taboo. I think my illustration is fine, no need to get over dramtic with making a point.

the notion that God didn't ...[text shortened]... k I would rather be a slave that was treated well than have my hands cut off for stealing

I think my illustration is fine, no need to get over dramtic with making a point

I'm not getting over dramatic, i just find it bizarre that you can equate spitting onto a pavement with slavery.

I believe I have already succesfully argued that slavery as an alternative to severe mutilation or death is preferable and more humane

I agree with you, but that's only part of the slave trade active in Biblical times. But my point still stands that God could've easily outlawed the practise, he chose not to.

one can hardly say that God encouraged or endorsed slavery

Really?

'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' Leviticus 25:44-45

You may buy slaves? Surely that's an explicit a statement on how to acquire slaves as you can get?

On the whole I think I would rather be a slave that was treated well than have my hands cut off for stealing.

You appear to be cherry picking, all you mention are those slaves who have to repay a debt for comitting a crime. What about the foregin slaves who are forced into servitude for life and treated as inheritable property? You seem to be only focusing on one aspect of the slave trade.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I imagine you are using a standard to judge slavery wrong, where are you getting
your standard? Is it something you thought up, something others thought up?
Kelly

My standard for judging slavery wrong? Maybe it's my humanity, and my desire for people to live in freedom.

Do you think that's wrong?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]I think my illustration is fine, no need to get over dramtic with making a point

I'm not getting over dramatic, i just find it bizarre that you can equate spitting onto a pavement with slavery.

I believe I have already succesfully argued that slavery as an alternative to severe mutilation or death is preferable and more humane

I a ...[text shortened]... ed as inheritable property? You seem to be only focusing on one aspect of the slave trade.[/b]

You may buy slaves? Surely that's an explicit a statement on how to acquire slaves as you can get?

yes, may not must, not should, but may. Its far different than endorsing or encouraging. Just like one may get a divorce, but it is still not part of God's plan


You appear to be cherry picking, all you mention are those slaves who have to repay a debt for comitting a crime. What about the foregin slaves who are forced into servitude for life and treated as inheritable property? You seem to be only focusing on one aspect of the slave trade.

I believe I covered that with this reference:

You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you. He may dwell with you in your midst, in the place which he chooses within one of your gates, where it seems best to him; you shall not oppress him. Deuteronomy 23:15-16


they can run away and not be returned, and they must not be oppressed. seems like some pretty advanced thinking. But of course you will insist that God must think and act like you. Isaiah 55:8 God says: For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord.

You try and express, with your primitive brain, disdain for decisions made by an omniscient being; That's like saying if Einstein was such a genius he would have thought up relativity at 2 years old, and then destroyed it because he should have known what kind of damage it would create when people used it to make atomic bombs. It shows a lack of creativity in your thought process.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
My standard for judging slavery wrong? Maybe it's my humanity, and my desire for people to live in freedom.

Do you think that's wrong?

I'm saying if that is your standard than the standard of the days when slavery
was accepted had people doing to the samething, but they viewed it as something
worth doing. If you have any other reasons for saying it is bad I'd like to hear
them.
Kelly

Originally posted by duecer
[b]You may buy slaves? Surely that's an explicit a statement on how to acquire slaves as you can get?[/b]

yes, may not must, not should, but may. Its far different than endorsing or encouraging. Just like one may get a divorce, but it is still not part of God's plan


You appear to be cherry picking, all you mention are those slaves who ha ...[text shortened]... people used it to make atomic bombs. It shows a lack of creativity in your thought process.

yes, may not must, not should, but may. Its far different than endorsing or encouraging.

Yes, but he's still allowing the practice of slavery when he could have easily condemned it. You stated in an earlier post -

I disagree, he doesn't tell one how to aquire, nor does he encourage slavery.

But he does tell one how to acquire. The Bible explicitly states you can 'buy slaves from the nations around you' and from 'temporary residents living among you'. If that's not telling someone how to acquire something, what is it?

You try and express, with your primitive brain, disdain for decisions made by an omniscient being.

What it boils down to is that it looks like i have a higher opinion of what an omnisicient God is supposed to be. You worship a God who permitted slavery, who also condemned people to death by stoning and burning. Sounds like a charmer, i bet he's a delight at a dinner party.

It shows a lack of creativity in your thought process.

And it exposes a lack of humanity in yours.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm saying if that is your standard than the standard of the days when slavery
was accepted had people doing to the samething, but they viewed it as something
worth doing. If you have any other reasons for saying it is bad I'd like to hear
them.
Kelly

Sorry Kelly, i've read that three times and i still don't know what you're talking about.