Slavery in the Bible: more than meets the eye?

[shunyadragon]

Hi
So, progressive revelation. .. Ok.
The previous revelations had nothing to say about abolishing the practise, It seems like the "take no Slaves" revelation was relegated to the 1800's ce. It makes me wonder what you get from banging away at the Bible for not banning the practise?

. . . because Jews, Christians, and Muslims claim their Revelation and scripture is the standard and guidance for today as it was over a thousand years ago.

Is there an actual list of bible verses that you lot accept as divine revelation or is it just a pick what you like when you like sort of deal. You quote scripture when it suits and reject any scripture quoted back at you as human corruption. That is a neat trick.

Your over the top sarcasm is noted. Considering an ancient religion relevant to the past and not today does not require any pick and choose scripture. The Jews, Muslims and Christians do that well enough to try an shoehorn selectively their scripture and make it relevant to the contemporary world.

The bahai absolute dishonesty in claiming to be a continuation of the Relevations of the past is very apparent when considered alongside what the previous religions taught. I see your posts all over the place saying the most ridiculice things and would rather it if you left me out of your cynical nastyness.
I do not want to ignore you, you make me laugh quite often. But i would rather if you did not engage with me and i will afford you the same courtesy.

Laugh?!?!? Your acrid degrading accusations above are far from laughter. Need to work on your spelling.

Your taking a dialogue and debate personal and over the top nastiness in the above My dialogue has been civil and specific as the topic of the thread concerning slavery specifically described and justified in the Bible There is no dishonesty on my part, nor your bogus stereotyping of Baha'is. I prefer an honest up front discussion of beliefs and perspectives of scripture. Your manner of dialogue has deteriorated considerable

Peace.

Really?!?!?! not based on your response above.

 

[tas8831]

Hi
It is obvious that you have no interest in discussing the bible within its own context.

Cool that you admit the bible is only really relevant in ancient times when the peoples of the day made up stories to help them get through their lives.

I also like your concession re: the weakness of your deity - His inability to proscribe slavery because, you know, golly - that is what his chosen folk were all about back then.

Your "if God allows evil then God is weak" argument is at the entry level of religious criticism so i hope you are proud to have fought your fight and won.
Peace.

Thanks for the concession - pretty sad that your deity can be beaten by entry-level criticism. Makes me wonder about the intellectual capabilities of modern day 'believers.'

 

[tas8831]

WHY WOULD I WANT TO EVEN TALK TO SOMEONE WHO SAYS MY HUNDREDS OF POSTS ARE BASELESS ASSERTIONS?

Come on man, you have to admit lots of them are - like your 'Darwin=Hitler' routine, your thing about the appendix.
You need to learn which hills you should stand on and which ones you just just let go. Unfortunately, you often seem to want to stand on the hills that have nothing to offer you but pain and humiliation.

 

[tas8831]

I have double standards?

Yes.

Is human slavery sometimes evil or always evil?

Always.

If always, do you accept absolute morals and their creator?

The creator of absolute morals that thought slavery was OK and slaughtering the unborn for the crime of being inside a mother that did not worship Him?
I prefer my own morality to that.

How could absolute morals exist, that haven’t evolved over time, without a moral creator rather than moral evolution? Or will you maintain this double standard?

I am not the one with the double standards.

Here is the simple basis for my morality re: slavery - I would not want to be a slave, therefore, I assume that other people would also not want people to be slaves. Thus, I am against slavery.

See? Simple - all it takes is a little empathy. If a person needs to be 'commanded' to be 'moral' (do as I say, not as I do), then that person, IMO, has no morals.

If we’re evolved animals without souls, why do you eat eggs from chickens treated “inhumanely”?

Well, I hope they are treated humanely. Animals that are scared or stressed release hormones and such that can negatively affect their health, and in turn, their 'products' nutrient content (e.g., eggs, milk, meat), which can negatively affect the nutritional status of that material for us..
While it is thus in part "selfish", I also do not want to cause needless suffering to any creature that is being used to feed me.

Why do you eat beef or pork from animals that are treated worse than human slaves? Or will you maintain this double standard?

See above.

Why do you worship a Deity that has no problem with keeping slaves as long as they are foreign?

Why do you worship a deity that has no problem slaughtering children and fetuses because He is mad at their parents? Double standards?

If slavery is a subjective evil (no creator) can I eat people if I’m on a desert island without other resources?

I think slavery is objectively wrong because it applies to all people, not just a particular subset that dresses and eats a certain way and like a particular book.
And yes, you can eat people if there is nothing else.

Why or why not? Or will you maintain this double standard regarding evolution and behavior?

You would need to demonstrate that you understand evolution and behavior before I address that.

Just kidding - I would rather rely on my own empathy-based morality than to merely accept what I am ordered to do by some deity that is OK with slavery and child-killing.

 

[tas8831]

So why did you ask? Because you have a double standard, misquoting the Bible where it suits you, calling the whole book a fraud where I show you to be baseless in your assertions.

Where was the misquote?

If one must rely on such accusations, then one must be able to prove them.

You mean where I do not interpret a subsequent passage the same way you do? That is not a misquote.

You must know that, right?

 

[tas8831]

In the ancient times, slavery was the lessor of two evils. When a large and more sophisticated culture expanded it borders for resources, there was war. In term of the conquered nations, there were two alternatives in terms of dealing with large numbers of conquered people. You could massacre everyone, or allow them to live, but as slaves.

So Jehovah had no say in any of that?

He could dictate what your clothing could be made of, what you can eat, what you should sacrifice, but well gee - slavery is totally a thing, so... No Comment...?

 

[tas8831]

With the Bible God CAN have absolute morality and exercise relative morality..

Wow, cool!

'Do as Jehovah says, not as He does... or orders!'

Boggles the mind. No wonder so many of these people voted for an ignorant, hypocritical, dishonest, twice-divorced serial philanderer and worshipper of wealth - its all relative.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes.

Always.

The creator of absolute morals that thought slavery was OK and slaughtering the unborn for the crime of being inside a mother that did not worship Him?
I prefer my own morality to that.

I am not the one with the double standards.

Here is the simple basis for my morality re: slavery - I would not want to be a slave, therefore, I assume that other people would also not want people to be slaves. Thus, I am against slavery.

See? Simple - all it takes is a little empathy. If a person needs to be 'commanded' to be 'moral' (do as I say, not as I do), then that person, IMO, has no morals.

Well, I hope they are treated humanely. Animals that are scared or stressed release hormones and such that can negatively affect their health, and in turn, their 'products' nutrient content (e.g., eggs, milk, meat), which can negatively affect the nutritional status of that material for us..
While it is thus in part "selfish", I also do not want to cause needless suffering to any creature that is being used to feed me.

See above.

Why do you worship a Deity that has no problem with keeping slaves as long as they are foreign?

Why do you worship a deity that has no problem slaughtering children and fetuses because He is mad at their parents? Double standards?

I think slavery is objectively wrong because it applies to all people, not just a particular subset that dresses and eats a certain way and like a particular book.
And yes, you can eat people if there is nothing else.

You would need to demonstrate that you understand evolution and behavior before I address that.

Just kidding - I would rather rely on my own empathy-based morality than to merely accept what I am ordered to do by some deity that is OK with slavery and child-killing.

No, I don't need to show complete mastery regarding evolution, before you deal with your double standard/subjective morals, and the fact that evolution does not command that we love our neighbor/avoid their subjugation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, I don't need to show complete mastery regarding evolution, before you deal with your double standard/subjective morals, and the fact that evolution does not command that we love our neighbor/avoid their subjugation.

The Bible says nothing about avoid subjugation either and instead, gives explicit instructions on just how to subjugate people.
So there's at least one good reason to reject what the Bible says about morality and to rely on reason, empathy and rational consideration of the consequences of our actions instead.

 

[viole]

Hi
If you wish to apply the christian command retroactively then by all means claim whatever prize you think that is worth.

What i know is that no christian engaged in warfare of any kind for centuries after Christ so they took it with more than a grain of salt.

I am sure that you are aware of the distinction made between the time when Gods people were gathered as a single nation and therefore had to engage in collective defense and warfare and the change with the christian message of a faith spread to all peoples. Things changed enemies became neighbors.

Anyway i have really enjoyed the exchange for the most part but to throw the 'love thy enemy" line in shows me that this is a waste of time, you are not interested in understanding or discussing these things within their context.

Peace

Why waste of time? I am having fun. Please don’t let me down.

You seem to indicate that the “love thy enemy” commandment, if it is really prescriptive, is relative. Or depending on context. That means, it depends on times and situations.

Is that correct?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

No, I don't need to show complete mastery regarding evolution, before you deal with your double standard/subjective morals, and the fact that evolution does not command that we love our neighbor/avoid their subjugation.

Evolution does not ask us to enslave people, nor to slash kids against walls. Nor to rip pregnant women apart. Like your morality giver does, apparently.

Out of curiosity: don’t you feel a bit embarrassed to get your morality from such a divinity?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Moz]

Why waste of time? I am having fun. Please don’t let me down.

You seem to indicate that the “love thy enemy” commandment, if it is really prescriptive, is relative. Or depending on context. That means, it depends on times and situations.

Is that correct?

Ciao

- viole

Hi
My problem with the discussion is that every time i think that something has been established it gets ....backtracked....here is an earlier comment of yours........I already know that morality is relative. And that things valid today, might not have been valid back then, and the other way round.So?
Yet in your comment to Billiard ball you say..... ask us to enslave people, nor to slash kids against walls. Nor to rip pregnant women apart. Like your morality giver does, apparently.
It seems that the concession that the "morals of the time" allowed for slavery and slaughter is just not put into consideration consistently. All of a sudden Bronze age warfare is intrinsically immoral again and the peoples understanding at the time is disreguarded.
.........................................................................
Do you really believe that God as described in the Bible WANTS this stuff to happen?
Not allows it to happen but actually wants things to be like they are.
Please answer that question as it goes to the HEART of the morality issue.
.................................................
You seem to indicate that the “love thy enemy” commandment, if it is really prescriptive, is relative. Or depending on context. That means, it depends on times and situations.
Jesus gave the command to LOVE your enemies in the 30's ce. Moses gave the laws that you are critising in the 1500's bce. Do you not see the obvious problem with wanting a law applied 1400 years before it was given?

Matthew 5:43-48 ......"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.
You see don't you that it USED to be "hate your enemy" , that's the period in which we are playing, the hate your enemy time. While the Jews were organised as a nation things were handled as a nation. The christian message is different. There is NO nation or lands to protect and the warfare stuff is disguarded. New standards are given.
Do you understand this?
Do you accept this?
Do you see why the "Love thy Enemy" stuff can't be retroactively applied?
........................................................
I have explained how the God of the Bible has restrictions in how he can deal with mankind because of his decision in Eden to let Two Sides develop in opposition to each other. He CAN NOT make Universal decrees on the nations.
Do you understand this?
Do you accept this?
If you will not view Gods actions within the context of the narrative that outlines them then it is an untenable discussion.
..............................................

Peace

 

[Moz]

Cool that you admit the bible is only really relevant in ancient times when the peoples of the day made up stories to help them get through their lives.

I also like your concession re: the weakness of your deity - His inability to proscribe slavery because, you know, golly - that is what his chosen folk were all about back then.




Thanks for the concession - pretty sad that your deity can be beaten by entry-level criticism. Makes me wonder about the intellectual capabilities of modern day 'believers.'

Hi

Cool that you admit the bible is only really relevant in ancient times when the peoples of the day made up stories to help them get through their lives.

Me asking that the story be considered within its context is an admission of all these things is it.
.............................................................
You said in answer to billiard ball asking .........Is human slavery sometimes evil or always evil?
Your answer..............Always. That just seems to ignore both human history and human nature.
Is there NO grey. Is it really as black and white as you claim.

If two armies face of against each other and both sides are playing by the same rules of "Enslavement or Slaughter for the loser and his whole tribe" is this immoral?

If two tribes clash and both sides approach the conflict in a winner take all battle is this immoral?

If a person takes a loan using his body as collateral is this immoral?

If a soldier chooses enslavement over death is this immoral?

Jacob in the time of Joseph led his tribe into voluntary Egyptian slavery to stop them starving due to drought is that immoral?
.................................................
Don't you think that we should look at these issues through the eyes of those involved and not apply some retroactive 21st century view.

THE HISTORY OF SLAVERYhttps://restavekfreedom.org/2018/09/11/the-history-of-slavery/
The Life of a Slave in Ancient Times
Slavery in ancient times typically came about as a result of debt, birth into a slave family, child abandonment, war, or as a punishment for crime. At the outset, the slave trade wasn’t very popular and was certainly not a booming global business. Rather, slavers would often seek out a buyer who could use the specific skills of a slave, matching supply with demand on a local and personal level. According to historical texts, the lives of slaves in ancient times were typically better than that of peasants in the same era, as they had regular care, food, shelter and clothing. Slaves rarely attempted to run away unless their masters were atypically cruel.

Book: Beyond Civilization: Humanity's Next Great Adventure. Daniel Quinn.

6. Agricultural food production is a core cause of our population explosion and the ecological ruination of the planet. Civilization began not with the invention of gardening but with the ownership of stored food. Once food surpluses are stored, they must be guarded by their owners and policing forces. This brings into being a hierarchical order. On the top are the owners and their hired guards. Below are the producers who must work not only for their own living but to support the food storage system and its owners and protectors. This basic structure may seem innocent and practical at first glance, for it provides a solution for leveling out the times of plenty with the times of famine. But not all the consequences of this new structure are beneficial. The owners, who might wish everyone to think of them as useful servants of the social whole, actually become persons of privilege and of excesses that seem to have no limits. Meanwhile the actual producers of this seemingly unlimited wealth are turned into prisoners of a system that requires of them more and more work and less and less participation in deciding what work is worth doing. In addition, these workers become, for the owners, a part of their wealth. It is to the owners’ advantage for there to be more workers.

Civilization grows by having more food to feed more workers who produce more food to feed more workers who produce more food to feed more workers who produce more food to feed more workers. . . . This is the core dynamic beneath the population explosion. Tribal society did not produce more food than they could eat nor an exponentially expanding population of eaters.
..................................................

If it is true that slavery was a necessary step on the road to civilization, and that is an easy case to make historically, then how can a necessity of the times be immoral?

Peace

 

[Moz]

Hi
Evolution does not ask us to enslave people, nor to slash kids against walls. Nor to rip pregnant women apart. Like your morality giver does, apparently.
Out of curiosity: don’t you feel a bit embarrassed to get your morality from such a divinity?

If you acknowledge that morality is not a black and white issue but can be relative to times and situations then why the blanket accusations all over again.
Peace

 

[Moz]

Yes.

Always.

The creator of absolute morals that thought slavery was OK and slaughtering the unborn for the crime of being inside a mother that did not worship Him?
I prefer my own morality to that.

I am not the one with the double standards.

Here is the simple basis for my morality re: slavery - I would not want to be a slave, therefore, I assume that other people would also not want people to be slaves. Thus, I am against slavery.

See? Simple - all it takes is a little empathy. If a person needs to be 'commanded' to be 'moral' (do as I say, not as I do), then that person, IMO, has no morals.

Well, I hope they are treated humanely. Animals that are scared or stressed release hormones and such that can negatively affect their health, and in turn, their 'products' nutrient content (e.g., eggs, milk, meat), which can negatively affect the nutritional status of that material for us..
While it is thus in part "selfish", I also do not want to cause needless suffering to any creature that is being used to feed me.

See above.

Why do you worship a Deity that has no problem with keeping slaves as long as they are foreign?

Why do you worship a deity that has no problem slaughtering children and fetuses because He is mad at their parents? Double standards?

I think slavery is objectively wrong because it applies to all people, not just a particular subset that dresses and eats a certain way and like a particular book.
And yes, you can eat people if there is nothing else.

You would need to demonstrate that you understand evolution and behavior before I address that.

Just kidding - I would rather rely on my own empathy-based morality than to merely accept what I am ordered to do by some deity that is OK with slavery and child-killing.

Hi

Here is the simple basis for my morality re: slavery - I would not want to be a slave, therefore, I assume that other people would also not want people to be slaves. Thus, I am against slavery.

Well there is a house built on sand.

So all this is your assumption. The facts show that many have chosen bondage over the alternatives.

Peace

 

[tas8831]

No, I don't need to show complete mastery regarding evolution

basic understanding of biology would be a better place for you to start. As a biologist, your every post regarding the subject makes me cringe... with delight! For I know that it will be easy and fun to refute it. And to see you double-down rather than show some humility.

, before you deal with your double standard/subjective morals, and the fact that evolution does not command that we love our neighbor/avoid their subjugation.

And you answer exposure of your double standards with... double standards.

The thing is, nobody ever claimed that evolution provides/demands/teaches morals. While it is true that kin selection can explain it in part, evolution, as such, is just about the evolution of new (i.e., modified old) creatures.

On the other hand, you mention the 'good parts' of your deity's admonishments, even as you gleefully ignore the truth in what I wrote.

Love your neighbor - unless your neighbor is a foreigner, then you take him as a slave for ever. Or, in today's application of "Christian morality" - love your neighbor, as long as they are white, Christian, right-wing zealots and not some dirty furriner'


Leviticus 25:44
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Leviticus 25:45
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
Leviticus 25:46
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Exodus 21



2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.



Thanks for the concession, by the way.

 

[tas8831]

Hi

Cool that you admit the bible is only really relevant in ancient times when the peoples of the day made up stories to help them get through their lives.

Me asking that the story be considered within its context is an admission of all these things is it.

So the bible is just some stories.

Cool, I dig that.

Stories like 'The Jungle Book.'
Totally made up, reflecting the prejudices and norms of the day, but with no timelessness or foresight.

Yup.

Concession accepted.

.............................................................

You said in answer to billiard ball asking .........Is human slavery sometimes evil or always evil?
Your answer..............Always. That just seems to ignore both human history and human nature.

I don't understand your continued desire to inject Apologetics and equivocation to rescue your beliefs.
Never mind - I do.

You understand that your deity had no problem with slavery, because your deity was made-up a few millenia ago to explain/justify the 'way things are' back then.

Concession accepted.

 

[tas8831]

Hi
Evolution does not ask us to enslave people, nor to slash kids against walls. Nor to rip pregnant women apart. Like your morality giver does, apparently.
Out of curiosity: don’t you feel a bit embarrassed to get your morality from such a divinity?

If you acknowledge that morality is not a black and white issue but can be relative to times and situations then why the blanket accusations all over again.
Peace

And yet Christians - just like you - tell us all the time that God is all loving, all knowing, etc.

It is almost as if you folks just make things up, adopt double standards, etc. to rescue the embarrassing, sickening parts of your religious tales as you see fit.

 

[tas8831]

Hi

Here is the simple basis for my morality re: slavery - I would not want to be a slave, therefore, I assume that other people would also not want people to be slaves. Thus, I am against slavery.

Well there is a house built on sand.

So all this is your assumption. The facts show that many have chosen bondage over the alternatives.

Peace

Thanks for the concession.

Sad, really - the lengths you must go to to try to protect the vile, hateful antics of your chosen deity.

 

[BilliardsBall]

basic understanding of biology would be a better place for you to start. As a biologist, your every post regarding the subject makes me cringe... with delight! For I know that it will be easy and fun to refute it. And to see you double-down rather than show some humility.


And you answer exposure of your double standards with... double standards.

The thing is, nobody ever claimed that evolution provides/demands/teaches morals. While it is true that kin selection can explain it in part, evolution, as such, is just about the evolution of new (i.e., modified old) creatures.

On the other hand, you mention the 'good parts' of your deity's admonishments, even as you gleefully ignore the truth in what I wrote.

Love your neighbor - unless your neighbor is a foreigner, then you take him as a slave for ever. Or, in today's application of "Christian morality" - love your neighbor, as long as they are white, Christian, right-wing zealots and not some dirty furriner'


Leviticus 25:44
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Leviticus 25:45
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
Leviticus 25:46
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Exodus 21



2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.



Thanks for the concession, by the way.

I never said "evolution teaches morals". I said you have the burden of proof, for example, that slavery is wrong, or rape is wrong, or abortion is wrong, or "wrong" exists at all, since you are a materialist.

Is slavery objectively wrong? I would say slavery is wrong based on “Love your neighbor as yourself”. Why would you say it is wrong? Note that I’m not shifting the goalposts. Rather, I’m pointing out the illlogic of condemning the Bible for condoning slavery if all you have against slavery are emotion-filled arguments.

Repeating:

If we’re evolved animals without souls, why do you eat eggs from chickens treated “inhumanely”? Why do you eat beef or pork from animals that are treated worse than human slaves? DOUBLE STANDARD, isn't it?