Christians who reject the old testament and slavery

[joe1776]

Yeah those are difficult to defend. Remember, though, that we’re dealing with Bronze Age mentality, not post-modern mentality.

Yes, of course. But if these men were divinely-inspired -- writing God's words as they claimed -- why do we read of moral guidance that only reflected the moral level of their time?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I've never understood why Christians will reject the old testament and pretend to be reasonable, even though its essential for establishing the prophecies and origins surrounding Jesus. It sets up the entire context for Jesus, and Jesus references the old testament on numerous occasions.

Christians will say stuff like "Well that's the old testament" or "Maybe you're not aware of old testament abrogation" .

However, Jesus specifically told his followers to keep the commandments and that slaves should "obey their masters". Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 are totally consistent with this. There isn't abrogation regarding slavery at all.

Clearly the bible and Christian doctrine supports slavery. I'm not sure there's any apologetic that can defend this.

How do Christians justify their book and doctrine supporting slavery? And you can't just say "that's the old testament", as if that somehow solves the problem. Can a Christian explain this massive problem?

It's not a massive problem. There were OT laws regarding slavery/indentured servitude for citizens of Israel. There were commands to be a good worker and good Christian whether slave or free--but you will find that most American and British abolitionists were devout Christians with biblical reasons underpinning abolition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not a massive problem. There were OT laws regarding slavery/indentured servitude for citizens of Israel. There were commands to be a good worker and good Christian whether slave or free--but you will find that most American and British abolitionists were devout Christians with biblical reasons underpinning abolition.

And most pro-slavery people in those days were devout Christians with biblical reasons supporting slavery.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, of course. But if these men were divinely-inspired -- writing God's words as they claimed -- why do we read of moral guidance that only reflected the moral level of their time?

Because they were men of their time. The texts all have intended audiences who live in their time.

Additionally, I don’t believe that these men were taking dictation. “Inspiration” And “dictation” are two different things.

 

[sojourner]

No duh, I obviously have no magical powers to make you justify it. But coming here to post some links like you made a great contribution is kind of ridiculous.

Its also well documented how bad Christian apologetics are surrounding slavery, and that if you were to take your book to its logical and clear interpretation, then slavery is allowed and not immoral.

No, you’re mistaken. If you take the Bible to its logical and clear interpretation, the kind of slavery practiced by the Hebrews was allowed for them. That doesn’t conclude at all that all slavery, practiced by all people, in all times and places, is allowed and is moral.

 

[joe1776]

Because they were men of their time. The texts all have intended audiences who live in their time.

Additionally, I don’t believe that these men were taking dictation. “Inspiration” And “dictation” are two different things.

So, you don't understand that -- if the writers of those sacred texts were divinely inspired by God, that inspiration should have allowed them to give inspired moral guidance and not just guidance that reflected the morals of the societies they lived in?

You don't understand that the fact that the moral guidance was uninspired is evidence that those men were not inspired by God as they claimed?

 

[joe1776]

No, you’re mistaken. If you take the Bible to its logical and clear interpretation, the kind of slavery practiced by the Hebrews was allowed for them. That doesn’t conclude at all that all slavery, practiced by all people, in all times and places, is allowed and is moral.

You need to understand that we non-believers are going to form our opinions based on what we read. Your telling us that we don't understand what we read, and expecting us to take your word for it, is similar to what we hear from those people in politics we call "spin doctors."

 

[Hawkins]

I've never understood why Christians will reject the old testament and pretend to be reasonable, even though its essential for establishing the prophecies and origins surrounding Jesus. It sets up the entire context for Jesus, and Jesus references the old testament on numerous occasions.

Christians will say stuff like "Well that's the old testament" or "Maybe you're not aware of old testament abrogation" .

However, Jesus specifically told his followers to keep the commandments and that slaves should "obey their masters". Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 are totally consistent with this. There isn't abrogation regarding slavery at all.

Clearly the bible and Christian doctrine supports slavery. I'm not sure there's any apologetic that can defend this.

How do Christians justify their book and doctrine supporting slavery? And you can't just say "that's the old testament", as if that somehow solves the problem. Can a Christian explain this massive problem?

There are two slavery system co-existed among the ancient Jews. One is a helping system with Jews as workers or labors though given the same name as slaves. The other is the secular slavery system we are familiar with.

The Jews are never allowed to truly enslave their fellow Jews. It is a labor system trying to help out the poor who may have to sell themselves into the secular slavery system if an alternative is not provided. God however tried to forbid Jews from being slaves of the non-Jews. Thus the Jewish slavery system remained as a necessity till at the point it is abused by the Jews themselves. God thus called off such a Jewish slavery system through Jeremiah.

The other problem for God is that for a period of time slavery as a human establishment is accepted as moral by the most conscientious humans in this world. God either deny even the most conscientious humans or still allow "faith in Jesus" to work on them for them to be saved.

To put this in another perspective, slavery as a human establishment is by Satan's work to give God a hard job to do. However in the end, this argument only earns the non-Christians but not the Christians. It by no means says that Christians buy into what slavery is. It only means that the faith of Christians makes it possible for them to trust God against all odds.

 

[sojourner]

So, you don't understand that -- if the writers of those sacred texts were divinely inspired by God, that inspiration should have allowed them to give inspired moral guidance and not just guidance that reflected the morals of the societies they lived in?

You don't understand that the fact that the moral guidance was uninspired is evidence that those men were not inspired by God as they claimed?

The “should” is troublesome. It’s an unrealistic expectation for what the texts are. That guidance didn’t simply reflect the preexisting morals. Do you not understand how much more lenient the Judaic Law is, as compared to other legal codes of that time? Just because the morals don’t specifically reflect our morals doesn’t mean that they weren’t inspired.

 

[sojourner]

You need to understand that we non-believers are going to form our opinions based on what we read. Your telling us that we don't understand what we read, and expecting us to take your word for it, is similar to what we hear from those people in politics we call "spin doctors."

Most atheists read biblical texts incorrectly, so of course you don’t understand. Plus, most atheists don’t read the texts through a theological lens, which further hinders the understanding. But I don’t see what’s so difficult about understanding the historic and cultural filters that one needs to read past in order to understand why the text is unique. Seems to me that most skeptics read just enough to enable them to bash the texts unfairly.

 

[Kenny]

I've never understood why Christians will reject the old testament and pretend to be reasonable, even though its essential for establishing the prophecies and origins surrounding Jesus. It sets up the entire context for Jesus, and Jesus references the old testament on numerous occasions.

Christians will say stuff like "Well that's the old testament" or "Maybe you're not aware of old testament abrogation" .

However, Jesus specifically told his followers to keep the commandments and that slaves should "obey their masters". Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 are totally consistent with this. There isn't abrogation regarding slavery at all.

Clearly the bible and Christian doctrine supports slavery. I'm not sure there's any apologetic that can defend this.

How do Christians justify their book and doctrine supporting slavery? And you can't just say "that's the old testament", as if that somehow solves the problem. Can a Christian explain this massive problem?

It would appear to me that your viewpoints are quite myopic.

 

[joe1776]

Most atheists read biblical texts incorrectly, so of course you don’t understand...

You Christians level the same charge against each other. Only your group understands what the text actually means. That's why you have thousands of sects quarreling over which truly understands God. In the past, you've even killed each other over it.

 

[sojourner]

You Christians level the same charge against each other. Only your group understands what the text actually means. That's why you have thousands of sects quarreling over which truly understands God. In the past, you've even killed each other over it.

It has nothing to do with groups or sects, theology or not. It has to do with scholarship. There are legitimate differences in interpretation that arise from diligent exegesis, and then there’s whistling in the dark. What I’m gleaning here is a lot more like whistling in the dark. I’m pulling out the basics of exegesis for your consideration, and I’m getting back, “But, the text says... so clearly it means...” when you’ve not considered the various filters that have to be read through.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It has nothing to do with groups or sects, theology or not. It has to do with scholarship. There are legitimate differences in interpretation that arise from diligent exegesis, and then there’s whistling in the dark. What I’m gleaning here is a lot more like whistling in the dark. I’m pulling out the basics of exegesis for your consideration, and I’m getting back, “But, the text says... so clearly it means...” when you’ve not considered the various filters that have to be read through.

What are these filters? All too often I see Christians mistakenly use the filter of their God being real and just.

 

[MJFlores]

I've never understood why Christians will reject the old testament and pretend to be reasonable, even though its essential for establishing the prophecies and origins surrounding Jesus. It sets up the entire context for Jesus, and Jesus references the old testament on numerous occasions.

Christians will say stuff like "Well that's the old testament" or "Maybe you're not aware of old testament abrogation" .

However, Jesus specifically told his followers to keep the commandments and that slaves should "obey their masters". Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 are totally consistent with this. There isn't abrogation regarding slavery at all.

Clearly the bible and Christian doctrine supports slavery. I'm not sure there's any apologetic that can defend this.

How do Christians justify their book and doctrine supporting slavery? And you can't just say "that's the old testament", as if that somehow solves the problem. Can a Christian explain this massive problem?

Slavery was an invention of man and not of God. The bible mentions slavery but does not support slavery.

The history of slavery spans many cultures, nationalities, and religions from ancient times to the present day. However the social, economic, and legal positions of slaves were vastly different in different systems of slavery in different times and places.

Slavery can be traced back to the earliest records, such as the Mesopotamian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1860 BC), which refers to it as an established institution, and it was common among ancient people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property.[1] A slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally from such an arrangement and works without remuneration. Many scholars now use the term chattel slavery to refer to this specific sense of legalised, de jure slavery. In a broader sense, however, the word slavery may also refer to any situation in which an individual is de facto forced to work against their own will. Scholars also use the more generic terms such as unfree labour or forced labour to refer to such situations.[2] However, and especially under slavery in broader senses of the word, slaves may have some rights and protections according to laws or customs.

Slavery began to exist before written history, in many cultures.[3] A person could become enslaved from the time of their birth, capture, or purchase.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

Therefore - Slavery existed even before the Bible was written and existed in many cultures from Mesopotamia and other ancient civilization. It was a norm during their time probably because there were no human rights back then, Geneva Conventions weren't in place during those times and democratic processes were in its infancy - they were ruled by kings, pharaohs, emperors and the like whose minds were bent on conquests through ruthless barbarism. I'm sure during those times, a person won't last a minute after he shouts - "Power to the people!" and a nation that espouses present day ideals of human dignity and human life would have perished in the face of the earth - during those times. It was not its time yet and it is destined in the future.

What the Bible could set are guidelines to make life bearable for the slaves and become the basis for freedom of the slaves [in its proper time]:

Let us examine your verses, to prove my opinions:

Exodus 21 New International Version (NIV)
“These are the laws you are to set before them:

“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

“But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

“Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate. But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.

“Anyone who attacks their father or mother is to be put to death.

“Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.

“Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

“If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fist and the victim does not die but is confined to bed, the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed.

“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.

“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

“An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.

“If a bull gores a man or woman to death, the bull is to be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull is to be stoned and its owner also is to be put to death. However, if payment is demanded, the owner may redeem his life by the payment of whatever is demanded. This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter. If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull is to be stoned to death.

“If anyone uncovers a pit or digs one and fails to cover it and an ox or a donkey falls into it, the one who opened the pit must pay the owner for the loss and take the dead animal in exchange.

“If anyone’s bull injures someone else’s bull and it dies, the two parties are to sell the live one and divide both the money and the dead animal equally. However, if it was known that the bull had the habit of goring, yet the owner did not keep it penned up, the owner must pay, animal for animal, and take the dead animal in exchange.

Oh by the way, Exodus 21 isn't for the Egyptians [the Pharaoh and his minions won't follow these], it isn't for the Greeks [they belong to a different time period], it isn't for the Romans [they weren't yet around also] and it isn't for anyone else, let us check who these are for and the answer is in:

Exodus 19:1-6 New International Version (NIV)
On the first day of the third month after the Israelites left Egypt—on that very day—they came to the Desert of Sinai. After they set out from Rephidim, they entered the Desert of Sinai, and Israel camped there in the desert in front of the mountain.

Then Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain and said, “This is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”

Why would people worry about laws that do not belong to them? Americans are subject to US laws in their country unless they move to another country when they should observe another set of laws belonging to that country. Laws placed by the Lord God like Exodus 21 and Leviticus are to be observed the descendants of Jacob, the people of Israel - the Israelites.

 

[sojourner]

What are these filters? All too often I see Christians mistakenly use the filter of their God being real and just.

Filters of culture, history, language, society. Many people assume that there are no differences between the writers/intended audience and we moderns. They assume that cultural and language barriers are non-existent. So many fail to realize that a slave in Judaism was far different than a slave in 19th century America. It caused Christians to condone that slavery, and skeptics to judge God based on a misunderstanding of what the text is actually saying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Filters of culture, history, language, society. Many people assume that there are no differences between the writers/intended audience and we moderns. They assume that cultural and language barriers are non-existent. So many fail to realize that a slave in Judaism was far different than a slave in 19th century America. It caused Christians to condone that slavery, and skeptics to judge God based on a misunderstanding of what the text is actually saying.

It was about just as bad. One has to separate out non-Hebrews slaves. For those that were not Hebrew slavery was for life. And one would be punished in the old south for what was considered excessive abuse of slaves. I fail to see any significant differences between the slavery in the U.S. and in the Old Testament.

 

[joe1776]

It has nothing to do with groups or sects, theology or not. It has to do with scholarship. There are legitimate differences in interpretation that arise from diligent exegesis, and then there’s whistling in the dark. What I’m gleaning here is a lot more like whistling in the dark. I’m pulling out the basics of exegesis for your consideration, and I’m getting back, “But, the text says... so clearly it means...” when you’ve not considered the various filters that have to be read through.

No, this isn't about "scholarship." That word represents your own high opinion of your interpretation of biblical text.

This is about persuasion. You can't persuade a non-believer like me just as you can't persuade the thousands of other Christian sects that you ought to be recognized as the final authority on the text.

When I read one hundred quotes from the Bible about slavery and none condemn it, I conclude that the Bible doesn't condemn slavery. My conclusion is further confirmed by historical facts. Other Christians, like Pope Pius IX in 1866 found nothing in divine law against the buying, selling and trading of slaves. Morally, he was wrong, but according to scripture, he was right.

Then, in an Internet forum, I read your post telling me that I just don't understand because....

 

[serp777]

Slavery was an invention of man and not of God. The bible mentions slavery but does not support slavery.

View attachment 23271

The history of slavery spans many cultures, nationalities, and religions from ancient times to the present day. However the social, economic, and legal positions of slaves were vastly different in different systems of slavery in different times and places.

Slavery can be traced back to the earliest records, such as the Mesopotamian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1860 BC), which refers to it as an established institution, and it was common among ancient people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property.[1] A slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally from such an arrangement and works without remuneration. Many scholars now use the term chattel slavery to refer to this specific sense of legalised, de jure slavery. In a broader sense, however, the word slavery may also refer to any situation in which an individual is de facto forced to work against their own will. Scholars also use the more generic terms such as unfree labour or forced labour to refer to such situations.[2] However, and especially under slavery in broader senses of the word, slaves may have some rights and protections according to laws or customs.

Slavery began to exist before written history, in many cultures.[3] A person could become enslaved from the time of their birth, capture, or purchase.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

View attachment 23272

Therefore - Slavery existed even before the Bible was written and existed in many cultures from Mesopotamia and other ancient civilization. It was a norm during their time probably because there were no human rights back then, Geneva Conventions weren't in place during those times and democratic processes were in its infancy - they were ruled by kings, pharaohs, emperors and the like whose minds were bent on conquests through ruthless barbarism. I'm sure during those times, a person won't last a minute after he shouts - "Power to the people!" and a nation that espouses present day ideals of human dignity and human life would have perished in the face of the earth - during those times. It was not its time yet and it is destined in the future.

What the Bible could set are guidelines to make life bearable for the slaves and become the basis for freedom of the slaves [in its proper time]:

Let us examine your verses, to prove my opinions:

Exodus 21 New International Version (NIV)
“These are the laws you are to set before them:

“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

“But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

“Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate. But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.

“Anyone who attacks their father or mother is to be put to death.

“Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.

“Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

“If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fist and the victim does not die but is confined to bed, the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed.

“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.

“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

“An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.

“If a bull gores a man or woman to death, the bull is to be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull is to be stoned and its owner also is to be put to death. However, if payment is demanded, the owner may redeem his life by the payment of whatever is demanded. This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter. If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull is to be stoned to death.

“If anyone uncovers a pit or digs one and fails to cover it and an ox or a donkey falls into it, the one who opened the pit must pay the owner for the loss and take the dead animal in exchange.

“If anyone’s bull injures someone else’s bull and it dies, the two parties are to sell the live one and divide both the money and the dead animal equally. However, if it was known that the bull had the habit of goring, yet the owner did not keep it penned up, the owner must pay, animal for animal, and take the dead animal in exchange.

Oh by the way, Exodus 21 isn't for the Egyptians [the Pharaoh and his minions won't follow these], it isn't for the Greeks [they belong to a different time period], it isn't for the Romans [they weren't yet around also] and it isn't for anyone else, let us check who these are for and the answer is in:

Exodus 19:1-6 New International Version (NIV)
On the first day of the third month after the Israelites left Egypt—on that very day—they came to the Desert of Sinai. After they set out from Rephidim, they entered the Desert of Sinai, and Israel camped there in the desert in front of the mountain.

Then Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain and said, “This is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”

Why would people worry about laws that do not belong to them? Americans are subject to US laws in their country unless they move to another country when they should observe another set of laws belonging to that country. Laws placed by the Lord God like Exodus 21 and Leviticus are to be observed the descendants of Jacob, the people of Israel - the Israelites.

I never said the bible or God invested slavery. The law spelled out in exodus is quite clear. Furthermore Jesus clearly tells slaves to obey their masters.

"
“Now these are the he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him.4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. 5 But for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money."
Exodus 21

The bible explicitly, on a clear reading specifies the laws surrounding slavery.

Why would people worry about laws that do not belong to them? Americans are subject to US laws in their country unless they move to another country when they should observe another set of laws belonging to that country. Laws placed by the Lord God like Exodus 21 and Leviticus are to be observed the descendants of Jacob, the people of Israel - the Israelites.

You're simultaneously justifying moral relativism and also demonstrating that the bible is useless for morality and it should be rejected. Also, are you saying that the modern decendents of jacob, and those of israel today would be justified in owning slaves? This is too ad hoc and has too many problems.

How did you determine which parts of biblical morals to cherry pick? Which laws only apply to Jacob and his descendents. Why would God come up with a book that only has morals for specific cultures and people?

 

[serp777]

Slavery was an invention of man and not of God. The bible mentions slavery but does not support slavery.

View attachment 23271

The history of slavery spans many cultures, nationalities, and religions from ancient times to the present day. However the social, economic, and legal positions of slaves were vastly different in different systems of slavery in different times and places.

Slavery can be traced back to the earliest records, such as the Mesopotamian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1860 BC), which refers to it as an established institution, and it was common among ancient people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property.[1] A slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally from such an arrangement and works without remuneration. Many scholars now use the term chattel slavery to refer to this specific sense of legalised, de jure slavery. In a broader sense, however, the word slavery may also refer to any situation in which an individual is de facto forced to work against their own will. Scholars also use the more generic terms such as unfree labour or forced labour to refer to such situations.[2] However, and especially under slavery in broader senses of the word, slaves may have some rights and protections according to laws or customs.

Slavery began to exist before written history, in many cultures.[3] A person could become enslaved from the time of their birth, capture, or purchase.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

View attachment 23272

Therefore - Slavery existed even before the Bible was written and existed in many cultures from Mesopotamia and other ancient civilization. It was a norm during their time probably because there were no human rights back then, Geneva Conventions weren't in place during those times and democratic processes were in its infancy - they were ruled by kings, pharaohs, emperors and the like whose minds were bent on conquests through ruthless barbarism. I'm sure during those times, a person won't last a minute after he shouts - "Power to the people!" and a nation that espouses present day ideals of human dignity and human life would have perished in the face of the earth - during those times. It was not its time yet and it is destined in the future.

What the Bible could set are guidelines to make life bearable for the slaves and become the basis for freedom of the slaves [in its proper time]:

Let us examine your verses, to prove my opinions:

Exodus 21 New International Version (NIV)
“These are the laws you are to set before them:

“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

“But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

“Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate. But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.

“Anyone who attacks their father or mother is to be put to death.

“Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.

“Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

“If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fist and the victim does not die but is confined to bed, the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed.

“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.

“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

“An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.

“If a bull gores a man or woman to death, the bull is to be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull is to be stoned and its owner also is to be put to death. However, if payment is demanded, the owner may redeem his life by the payment of whatever is demanded. This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter. If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull is to be stoned to death.

“If anyone uncovers a pit or digs one and fails to cover it and an ox or a donkey falls into it, the one who opened the pit must pay the owner for the loss and take the dead animal in exchange.

“If anyone’s bull injures someone else’s bull and it dies, the two parties are to sell the live one and divide both the money and the dead animal equally. However, if it was known that the bull had the habit of goring, yet the owner did not keep it penned up, the owner must pay, animal for animal, and take the dead animal in exchange.

Oh by the way, Exodus 21 isn't for the Egyptians [the Pharaoh and his minions won't follow these], it isn't for the Greeks [they belong to a different time period], it isn't for the Romans [they weren't yet around also] and it isn't for anyone else, let us check who these are for and the answer is in:

Exodus 19:1-6 New International Version (NIV)
On the first day of the third month after the Israelites left Egypt—on that very day—they came to the Desert of Sinai. After they set out from Rephidim, they entered the Desert of Sinai, and Israel camped there in the desert in front of the mountain.

Then Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain and said, “This is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”

Why would people worry about laws that do not belong to them? Americans are subject to US laws in their country unless they move to another country when they should observe another set of laws belonging to that country. Laws placed by the Lord God like Exodus 21 and Leviticus are to be observed the descendants of Jacob, the people of Israel - the Israelites.

I never said the bible or God invested slavery. The law spelled out in exodus is quite clear. Furthermore Jesus clearly tells slaves to obey their masters.

"
“Now these are the he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him.4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. 5 But for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money."
Exodus 21

The bible explicitly, on a clear reading specifies the laws surrounding slavery.

Why would people worry about laws that do not belong to them? Americans are subject to US laws in their country unless they move to another country when they should observe another set of laws belonging to that country. Laws placed by the Lord God like Exodus 21 and Leviticus are to be observed the descendants of Jacob, the people of Israel - the Israelites.

You're simultaneously justifying moral relativism and also demonstrating that the bible is useless for morality and it should be rejected. Also, are you saying that the modern decendents of jacob, and those of israel today would be justified in owning slaves? This is too ad hoc and has too many problems.

How did you determine which parts of biblical morals to cherry pick? Which laws only apply to Jacob and his descendents. Why would God come up with a book that only has morals for specific cultures and people?