Question for Jews, Christians and Muslims

[MathewJames]

slavery by force on the other hand is wrong because you are compromising another free will. Whether you are a theist, Atheist, or Agnostic free will is a human right.

What if you knew that you are going to set them free, say in 7 years. So you get the slave when it is 10, you give it a good place to live and teach it about things of the world. Then after 7 years you let it go free out into the world on their own.
But the deal is they have a prepaid dowery, and they can leave anytime they want with their dowry. Would you consider that slavery by Force.

 

[Autodidact]

I am saying that man may say "God said" in order to make his own point or to get what he wants.

I am sorry my statement was unclear

So when the Bible says that God said, "You may buy slaves," it is innacurate? God didn't really say that?

 

[Autodidact]

So with my example what was wrong? I still have a slave. If I call a slave every name in the book they still agree to be my slave. So according to you, a slave is not a slave so long as they agree? Or in my scenario is the word 'slave' problematic?

I guess someone who agrees to be a slave is kind of a half-slave, in that they agreed to the situation, but have no way out. They are irrelevant to our discussion, as that is extremely rare, not a problem, and not what is contemplated in the Bible.

 

[Autodidact]

What if you knew that you are going to set them free, say in 7 years. So you get the slave when it is 10, you give it a good place to live and teach it about things of the world. Then after 7 years you let it go free out into the world on their own.
But the deal is they have a prepaid dowery, and they can leave anytime they want with their dowry. Would you consider that slavery by Force.

You get a ten-year old child as your slave? And you don't see a problem with that?!

 

[MathewJames]

You get a ten-year old child as your slave? And you don't see a problem with that?!

What if the child was homeless and starving, no one to help it. I would open my door, if we had an agreement that the child would obey me for 7 years. Then the child could go out into the world on its own with some money. I would teach the child/slave to be a good person and maybe even my trade. I do not see the problem with helping people that need help. I think the concept of what slavery has become is not what the Force/GOD intended it to be.

 

[AnonAmos]

As a Christian, I can admit that slavery did exist during scriptural times, but you have to compare scripture to scripture. All of the religious laws that took slavery into account were there to limit the evils of slavery. On the other hand, you can find abundant evidence in the Old and New Testements that slavery is wrong. God doesn't like it=bad.

 

[AnonAmos]

What if the child was homeless and starving, no one to help it. I would open my door, if we had an agreement that the child would obey me for 7 years. Then the child could go out into the world on its own with some money. I would teach the child/slave to be a good person and maybe even my trade. I do not see the problem with helping people that need help. I think the concept of what slavery has become is not what the Force/GOD intended it to be.

That is an important point to make. The definition of slave has changed from someone working off debt to being physically owned by another person.

 

[Autodidact]

What if the child was homeless and starving, no one to help it. I would open my door, if we had an agreement that the child would obey me for 7 years. Then the child could go out into the world on its own with some money. I would teach the child/slave to be a good person and maybe even my trade. I do not see the problem with helping people that need help. I think the concept of what slavery has become is not what the Force/GOD intended it to be.

If a ten year old child is homeless and starving, you can't think of any way to help her except to make her your slave? Really? You don't think that maybe somewhere there might be a family willing to adopt her?

So you think slavery is a good thing?

 

[Autodidact]

As a Christian, I can admit that slavery did exist during scriptural times, but you have to compare scripture to scripture. All of the religious laws that took slavery into account were there to limit the evils of slavery. On the other hand, you can find abundant evidence in the Old and New Testements that slavery is wrong. God doesn't like it=bad.

So when God says, "You may buy slaves," it doesn't mean that we may buy slaves? Isn't telling us that it's o.k. to do something a rather odd way to say that it's bad? Why not prohibit it, if it's bad?

 

[Autodidact]

That is an important point to make. The definition of slave has changed from someone working off debt to being physically owned by another person.

Only for Hebrew slaves, and even then not quite. The Bible authorizes us to buy and sell foreign slaves and their descendants, and leave them as property to our descendants. Do I need to quote the verse, since you're apparently not familiar with it?

 

[Nooj]

I guess so, but I don't think that's the situation contemplated in scripture, and is rare enough not to be a concern.

It's not rare. Most of the passages about slavery in the Hebrew Bible are about debt slaves, people who sell themselves or others (like fathers selling daughters) into slavery to cover costs. In the case of those who sell themselves, it's voluntary to the extent that someone agrees to sell themself into slavery. There is forcible enslavement also, but a lot of the Biblical and other Near Eastern law texts deal with debt slavery. See the Code of Hammurabi for examples.

slavery by force on the other hand is wrong because you are compromising another free will. Whether you are a theist, Atheist, or Agnostic free will is a human right.

I don't know what this 'free will' is. What is it?

 

[AnonAmos]

Only for Hebrew slaves, and even then not quite. The Bible authorizes us to buy and sell foreign slaves and their descendants, and leave them as property to our descendants. Do I need to quote the verse, since you're apparently not familiar with it?

Perhaps you are right and I misspoke. My meaning is this:
To mistreat another person is wrong, but to make social and legal structures available through which someone could be bound to another is not necissarily wrong. We have to remember the possition of the destitute and of foreigners in society at that time. Since you brought it up I will re-read the laws governing slavery. Bottom line is that it is not your place in society or your title that matters, but how you are treated and how you treat others.

 

[Nooj]

To mistreat another person is wrong, but to make social and legal structures available through which someone could be bound to another is not necissarily wrong.

Was Southern slavery wrong?

 

[AnonAmos]

Was Southern slavery wrong?

Yes, but why was it wrong? Was it wrong because it was called slavery or because of how real human beings were being treated. That is the important thing to remember when we try to set broad-based titles of Right or Wrong on things. Good and evil come from individual actions, not institutions.

 

[PolyHedral]

Perhaps you are right and I misspoke. My meaning is this:
To mistreat another person is wrong, but to make social and legal structures available through which someone could be bound to another is not necissarily wrong. We have to remember the possition of the destitute and of foreigners in society at that time. Since you brought it up I will re-read the laws governing slavery. Bottom line is that it is not your place in society or your title that matters, but how you are treated and how you treat others.

I disagree. I think it is necessarily wrong, and there is always a better solution than legal slavery.

 

[MathewJames]

If a ten year old child is homeless and starving, you can't think of any way to help her except to make her your slave? Really? You don't think that maybe somewhere there might be a family willing to adopt her?

So you think slavery is a good thing?

I do not know how adoption worked when slavery was used. But it would not surprise me if the adoption method evolved from early slavery.

I am not trying to make a point that what slavery is and was is way wrong. But there were historically people who worked off debts with an agreements/covenant. And there were many people who helped the homeless with agreements/covenant. The abuse of a covenant or binding agreement we may have with another person does not make the covenant wrong.

 

[AnonAmos]

I disagree. I think it is necessarily wrong,

Hypothetical: You are passing by a southern slave auction and you see a young boy being sold for much less money than you had on you. You buy the boy to keep him from the mistreatment he would surely find in the hands of another. You keep the boy on your property to keep him from being captured as a runnaway and even allow him to help with the chores as long as you feel sure he realizes that he doesn't have to. You educate him and teach him all that you know until he was able to buy his own freedom as a known member of the community instead of setting him "free" as a boy only to be re-captured(which did happen). Conclusion: Yes, the fact that such measures had to be taken was wrong, but that does not mean that the choice to purchase the boy was wrong. Actions, and motives. Not lables

 

[Autodidact]

It's not rare. Most of the passages about slavery in the Hebrew Bible are about debt slaves, people who sell themselves or others (like fathers selling daughters) into slavery to cover costs. In the case of those who sell themselves, it's voluntary to the extent that someone agrees to sell themself into slavery. There is forcible enslavement also, but a lot of the Biblical and other Near Eastern law texts deal with debt slavery. See the Code of Hammurabi for examples.

Just to bring the problem into focus, I'm concentrating the question on the type of Biblical slavery that applies to foreigners: chattel slavery, lifetime, including descendants. I think I've said this a few times, and am starting to lose my patience with the waffling.

I'm talking about plain old, garden variety, people=property, slavery. That's what God allows us to do.

So far, everyone here says that's wrong.

How do you deal with the fact that your God says it's right?

 

[Autodidact]

Perhaps you are right and I misspoke. My meaning is this:
To mistreat another person is wrong, but to make social and legal structures available through which someone could be bound to another is not necissarily wrong. We have to remember the possition of the destitute and of foreigners in society at that time. Since you brought it up I will re-read the laws governing slavery. Bottom line is that it is not your place in society or your title that matters, but how you are treated and how you treat others.

Their position was that they were captured in war by Hebrew soldiers.

Oh, so slavery isn't necessarily wrong. Interesting. O.K. how about capturing girls in war and taking them home to spend their lives as your slaves, with their children and grandchildren also living their entire lives as slaves, including being bought and sold like cattle, and even left as inheritance. Is that right or wrong?

As far as how you treat people, is enslaving them good or bad treatment?

Again, we atheists find these questions trivially easy. It is only religionists that find them so challenging.

 

[Autodidact]

I do not know how adoption worked when slavery was used. But it would not surprise me if the adoption method evolved from early slavery.

I am not trying to make a point that what slavery is and was is way wrong. But there were historically people who worked off debts with an agreements/covenant. And there were many people who helped the homeless with agreements/covenant. The abuse of a covenant or binding agreement we may have with another person does not make the covenant wrong.

Uh, o.k. Now, back to the subject at hand: chattel slavery. You were telling us how it's not necessarily wrong. Tell us more about that. How is it that it's not necessarily wrong for a person to buy another person and use them as a slave for life? Explain it to us.