Dealing with embarrassing passages in the Bible

[Etritonakin]

We DO know that she was a slave. That piece of information all by itself means she did not consent. Her opinion was irreleveant. It was Sarah's decision.

We aren't talking about just war. We are talking about God's command for them to kill every man, woman, and child. Do you think it is ethical to deliberately kill babies during a war? Are you really going to try to justify what is a grave evil?


First, I dont' know wht food issue you are talking about. We are biologically omnivores, which means we eat both meat and vegetation. There is nothing immoral about being an omnivore -- it's simply a fact of nature.

Do we care how animals are treated? For sure. Kosher slaughter is designed to be as painless and quick as possible. We have verses such as chsing away the mother bird before taking her eggs in order to save her from emotional distress, and not yoking a donkey and cow together, where one will go faster and thereby cause suffering. I think we can conclude that the animals we raise for food be treated well, and slaughtered as pain free as possible.

But none of that means that we have to be vegetarian.

Finally, Genesis 9:3 makes it very clear that meat is allowed to us, which holds as a principle, since the Flood story is a teaching legend.

So I'm not sure what your problem is here.

Thank you for your response, btw.

No. You can be a slave and consent to sex at the same time.

Clean and unclean foods -which changed over time.

According to scripture, even animals will soon be vegetarian or similar -as will man.

No flesh in Eden, all flesh after, only some flesh with Deuteronomy/Leviticus, etc. -and no flesh again later -even applying to animals...

"And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear. 25The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD."

 

[Rival]

Clean and unclean foods -which changed over time.

When?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No. You can be a slave and consent to sex at the same time.

No, you can't. The very definition of slavery excludes this as a possibility.

 

[dybmh]

There is a kind of wife known as a concubine. Hagar did not stop being a slave. No where in the text does it say they freed her.

surely you acknowledge that wives can be raped? No consent means no consent.

let me ask you a quesiton. if a marriage is forced, is it legitimate?

To answer your questions directly: Yes I acknowledge that wives can be raped. But as far as I know, it's not permitted to rape your wife. I posted a link earlier in the thread giving talmudic evidence of this. Here it is again:

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/2016/06/27/how-do-the-rabbis-in-the-talmud-address-rape/

I also don't think a forced marriage is legit.

However, I would like to respond to your comment that "nowhere in the text does it say ... ". When details are missing from the text I prefer to consider all the possible options and then restrain judgement without further information.

Now, we know that Hagar was free in some ways because she fled from Sarah. Gen 16:6-8. Do you have thoughts on this?

We also know that Sarah did not do wrong because not once, but twice the text describes Sarah as an authority. First in Gen 16, the angel of HaShem ( the ineffable name ) says: "Return to your mistress, and allow yourself to be afflicted under her hands." ( verse 9 ). If Sarah did wrong, why does God send an angel to Hagar saying go back and be afflicted? The second time I already mentioned, it's in Chapter 21. God here is speaking with Abraham and tells him to listen to all of Sarah's words.

So, we have:

• Sarah's intention was to give Hagar as a wife, not a slave, not a concubine, not a maidservant
• Hagar has freedom not afforded to a slave
• An angel of HaShem vouches for Sarah
• God, itself, vouches for Sarah

All this is from the text. This seems to me to be leading the reader towards Sarah being correct in her actions per God. It also shows that being a שִׁפְחָ֥ה does not restrict a person in the same way that is normal for a slave.

 

[Firelight]

It's not speculation at all. The Hebrew word means a female slave. Slaves by definition do not make choices -- they must do whatever their masters say to do. Thus, BY DEFINITION Hagar could not consent. The text makes it very clear taht the choice was Sarah's.

Slaves make choices when their masters and mistresses GIVE them the choice. Are you claiming to know how every single slave owner treated their slaves at every given moment?

 

[DNB]

Since you acknowledge that she was aslave, then you must see that she did not have the option of saying yes or no. Lack of consent is implicit in her job description.

You didn't read what he said? You even quoted him and didn't get it right? Are you not serious about this discussion, but are trying to coerce your position onto other's comments?

 

[DNB]

I just got off the phone with a good Jewish friend. We were talking about how there were simply stories in teh Bible that we wish would suddenly vanish from the text. For example, those verses which simply assume that slavery is an inevitable and this is how to deal with it, or verses that demonstrate the oppresion of women, and even genocide.

I said to my friend, well, you and I wish that those parts of the text weren't there, but there are those who don't feel that way. What they do instead is try to justify i.e. the slavery, the oppression of women, and the genocide.

So I hope that this thread will engender a dialogue between the two groups, those who are embarassed and those who justify.

You can choose any passage of scripture to discuss that you want, but for those who need a starting point, how about we discuss the fact that Sarah gave her slave to Abraham to wife. This means that Abraham was basically having sex with Hagar without Hagar's consent, since the very definition of a chattel slave is one whose life belongs to another and who has no choice but to do as he/she is commanded. And if there is no consent, that, by modern understanding, is rape.

I find this story to be horrifying. I know, I know, I've been told by so many people that you can't expect people from history to be held to the same morals that we have today. BUT the Torah is supposed to be the word of God. It is supposed to be the book that we go to in order to learn to be better, more decent human beings.

Okay, folks, commence....

I'm sorry, but you made so many presuppositions, you failed to recognize other options in interpretation, and unduly offered only one interpretation for slavery and rape.
Rachel and Leah had handmaids, it does not necessitate a tyrannical rule over them, even though they were possibly obligated to comply with their mistress' request to sleep with Abraham. It was a glory for a woman to have children in those times. Thus, it may very well have been a pleasure for Hagar to bear a child, especially considering that her status may have never given her the opportunity to do so otherwise.
You impetuously and biasedly claim that Hagar was raped, simply because she was a slave with allegedly no consent to request other options to her master's demands. Abraham found favour with God for a reason, therefore we don't expect him to be accused of inhumane or unjust treatment towards his fellow man. That's a reliable predicate, not your rape theory. Plus, just because, as a slave, one must heed to their master's wishes, it does not imply their unbridled wishes. For in the Levitical Law there were restrictions upon the owner of a slave as to the degree of license that they had in dealing with their slaves. Slaves often loved their masters, and had much authority within their master's household.

“When you acquire a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years; in the seventh year he shall go free, without payment. If he came single, he shall leave single; if he had a wife, his wife shall leave with him. If his master gave him a wife, and she has borne him children, the wife and her children shall belong to the master, and he shall leave alone.
“But if the slave declares, ‘I love my master, and my wife and children: I do not wish to go free,’ his master shall take him before God. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall then remain his slave for life.
“If a fellow Hebrew, man or woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall set him free. When you set him free, do not let him go empty-handed: Furnish him out of the flock, threshing floor, and vat, with which the Lord your God has blessed you. Bear in mind that you were slaves in the land of Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I enjoin this commandment upon you today.
“But should he say to you, ‘I do not want to leave you’ for he loves you and your household and is happy with you–you shall take an awl and put it through his ear into the door, and he shall become your slave in perpetuity. When you do set him free, do not feel aggrieved; for in the six years he has given you double the service of a hired man. Moreover, the LORD and your God will bless you in all you do.” (Deuteronomy 15:12-18)

Some people, who lack faith and understanding, wish certain passages weren't in the Bible. Others, a bit more astute, try and justify the atrocities that we read about, namely Lot's offering of his daughters to be raped by the men of Sodom, or the similar account of the Levite and Benjamite in the Book of Judges. Meanwhile a third group, understands that these factual stories are included within the canon of Holy Writ for a divine reason. And this reason may transcend our understanding at the moment, but we trust that a Holy God is fully aware of what occurred, whether it be by His ordination or tacit permission, and that there is a righteous justification for such an allowance of certain behaviour.

 

[Etritonakin]

No, you can't. The very definition of slavery excludes this as a possibility.

So like if Martians made you a slave but then you had a crush on one of them you could not consent to Martian mookie??

 

[IndigoChild5559]

To answer your questions directly: Yes I acknowledge that wives can be raped. But as far as I know, it's not permitted to rape your wife. I posted a link earlier in the thread giving talmudic evidence of this. Here it is again:

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/2016/06/27/how-do-the-rabbis-in-the-talmud-address-rape/

Fabulous website, thanks. I hope everyone visits it. Yes, it was very ethically advanced.

The way I see it, the whole thing was Sarah's choice, including the marraige. I don't think a master really has the right to give a slave in marriage. Again, it involves force. You simply dont see anything like, "And Hagar willingly became Abram's wife" in the text.

The fact that women were treated like chattel in general is a related subject, but probably different enough not to make it a part of the discussion. But often in those days women were given in marriage by, i.e., their fathers. In terms of modern morality, that just doesn't fly.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Rachel and Leah had handmaids, it does not necessitate a tyrannical rule over them

It does. The word in hebrew means female slave. It's not like this was a hired maid. This was chattel slavery.

Nor did this happen after the Torah conditions placed upon how to treat a slave, So your quotes don't really apply.

Plus, just because, as a slave, one must heed to their master's wishes, it does not imply their unbridled wishes.

This just is naive -- you clearly have no idea what it meant to be a slave.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Slaves make choices when their masters and mistresses GIVE them the choice. Are you claiming to know how every single slave owner treated their slaves at every given moment?

Naivite. Slaves are not given choices. They are told what to do. You need to learn what slavery means.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So like if Martians made you a slave but then you had a crush on one of them you could not consent to Martian mookie??

Honestly, that's what you think happened?

 

[Etritonakin]

When?

Gen 1:29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Notice this applied also to animals in Eden.

It was not until Noah's time that flesh -all flesh -was allowed -even as plants were before....

Gen 9:1And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 2And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 3Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Then only some flesh was allowed later in the OT -and in the future both humans and animals will again not eat flesh.

 

[Rival]

Gen 1:29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Notice this applied also to animals in Eden.

It was not until Noah's time that flesh -all flesh -was allowed -even as plants were before....

Gen 9:1And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 2And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 3Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Then only some flesh was allowed later in the OT -and in the future both humans and animals will again not eat flesh.

There are multiple Jewish views on this. Some believe A&E were vegetarians whereas others believe they ate meat. It's late but I'll locate sources later, b"h.

 

[Etritonakin]

Honestly, that's what you think happened?

no -just that it can be a separate issue

 

[Firelight]

The Hebrew word means female slave.

It also means maid, as in having a mistress. Hagar was Sarah’s household maid for many years before becoming Abraham’s wife. Hagar would’ve become like family to Sarah and Abraham.

Look beyond your definition and consider simple human relationships that would’ve naturally developed in this story. They are all human beings, not just names on a page. Their story is much larger than the few details we have in Genesis. Open your view a little wider and see people for the goodness and the humanity they possess rather than just assuming it’s all wickedness.

 

[PruePhillip]

I just got off the phone with a good Jewish friend. We were talking about how there were simply stories in teh Bible that we wish would suddenly vanish from the text. For example, those verses which simply assume that slavery is an inevitable and this is how to deal with it, or verses that demonstrate the oppresion of women, and even genocide.

I said to my friend, well, you and I wish that those parts of the text weren't there, but there are those who don't feel that way. What they do instead is try to justify i.e. the slavery, the oppression of women, and the genocide.

So I hope that this thread will engender a dialogue between the two groups, those who are embarassed and those who justify.

You can choose any passage of scripture to discuss that you want, but for those who need a starting point, how about we discuss the fact that Sarah gave her slave to Abraham to wife. This means that Abraham was basically having sex with Hagar without Hagar's consent, since the very definition of a chattel slave is one whose life belongs to another and who has no choice but to do as he/she is commanded. And if there is no consent, that, by modern understanding, is rape.

I find this story to be horrifying. I know, I know, I've been told by so many people that you can't expect people from history to be held to the same morals that we have today. BUT the Torah is supposed to be the word of God. It is supposed to be the book that we go to in order to learn to be better, more decent human beings.

Okay, folks, commence....

Talking about slavery in biblical times, or the killing of Canaanites etc

I just got off the phone with a good Jewish friend. We were talking about how there were simply stories in teh Bible that we wish would suddenly vanish from the text. For example, those verses which simply assume that slavery is an inevitable and this is how to deal with it, or verses that demonstrate the oppresion of women, and even genocide.

I said to my friend, well, you and I wish that those parts of the text weren't there, but there are those who don't feel that way. What they do instead is try to justify i.e. the slavery, the oppression of women, and the genocide.

So I hope that this thread will engender a dialogue between the two groups, those who are embarassed and those who justify.

You can choose any passage of scripture to discuss that you want, but for those who need a starting point, how about we discuss the fact that Sarah gave her slave to Abraham to wife. This means that Abraham was basically having sex with Hagar without Hagar's consent, since the very definition of a chattel slave is one whose life belongs to another and who has no choice but to do as he/she is commanded. And if there is no consent, that, by modern understanding, is rape.

I find this story to be horrifying. I know, I know, I've been told by so many people that you can't expect people from history to be held to the same morals that we have today. BUT the Torah is supposed to be the word of God. It is supposed to be the book that we go to in order to learn to be better, more decent human beings.

Okay, folks, commence....

If you read the Paul's short letter to Philemon about his runaway slave Onesimus
in the New Testament you get an idea how Christianity felt about slavery. Philemon
was to treat his returned 'slave' not just as a brother, but as if the slave as Paul
himself.
And if you read Matthew 5,6 and 7 you get an idea of how people are to treat one
another, and their duties to God.

But some people dispense with these tracts when they judge the bible. For them
the bible is about talking snakes, slaughtering Canaanites and justifying slavery.
You are not asked to kill pagans or keep slaves - the injunctions are there in the
Gospels for what is considered good living. But... we get the world we want, as
my profile below shows.

 

[Firelight]

Naivite. Slaves are not given choices. They are told what to do. You need to learn what slavery means.

What is your source for slave laws at this point in time?

What brand of crystal ball are you using to look into events in the past to know how every person in this story behaved?

I’ve been in debate with you on other threads. You seem to be very literal and depend only on what is written and found in text. While possessing literary knowledge is great, it can very much limit one’s perspective if that’s all they use. Where does other resources like faith, spirituality, thinking, consideration, personal experiences, and the wisdom of God fit in? Truth isn’t found by using only that which is written.

 

[dybmh]

You simply dont see anything like, "And Hagar willingly became Abram's wife" in the text.

But it does say she was able to leave? She fled, on her own volition. Genesis 16:6-8

How is she considered a slave if she was free to leave?

Can we agree on this one point?

 

[DNB]

This just is naive -- you clearly have no idea what it meant to be a slave.

On the contrary, it is you who is unaware of the full spectrum of the capacity of a slave. Many slaves had gained wealth and prestige, within the functionality of a slave, and were able to elevate themselves out of their circumstances, if they so desired. You have an extremely narrow and biased understanding of both slavery, and the patriarch of God's chosen people - one designated as a 'friend of God'.